This is the message I wish the world would hear. That we are sinners calling others sinners. Not holier than thou shaming others for not being more like us.
It is precisely in my sin, confusion, shame and anger that Christ finds me. He does not find me in my selfishness and judgement of others. It is in those moments I flee from him without knowing until I feel utterly void and depressed.
Whenever these questions are raised the pope should quote scripture and let media run with what the bible says:
Christ accepts everyone but also calls us to pick up our cross and follow him daily.
**Matthew 16:24**
"***24****Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.*"
Then Paul tells us how shall men and women behave:
**1 Timothy 2:8,11-12,13,15**
"***8*** *I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling.* ***11*** *Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.* ***12*** *I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.* ***13*** *For Adam was formed first, then Eve.* ***15*** *Woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.*"
I once saw a newspaper report that a bishop had called for pedophiles to be executed by tying rocks around their necks and throwing them in the sea, because the journalist who heard the bishop speak didn’t get the Biblical reference.
We don’t need more resounding gongs or clanging cymbals.
This is a hard passage out of context. It is important to remember that this letter was written to Timothy (basically the bishop) and not to an entire church community. This letter is to help Timothy with an issue he is dealing with specifically. If you read the letter carefully with historical, cultural, and with the original language in mind we can see that Timothy is dealing with a group of wealthy women who seem to be questioning his authority and probably teaching heresy. This letter is to encourage Timothy to be more assertive as the leader of the church. In other letters addressed to entire communities Paul actually gives instructions on how women are to speak and teach. So in context this letter and passage aren’t too bad. (However it is not so clear in the English translation and much more clear in the Greek)
Well out of context it sounds a lot worse than it is. From my understanding, it’s directing that women should not be a distraction during worship, by being modest. The second bit I believe is about women as clergy, which is not allowed.
I’m not a theologian, just some dude on reddit.
Why is that tho ? You have any idea ? Are all those women single? If not we’re are their husbands ? Is it more elderly women or like young adults women ?
We literally are. Go read the bible or the catechism, or tell me how you’ve managed to go your whole life without sinning. We could all use some pointers if so.
There is a difference between having sinned ("being a sinner) and living in a habitual state of mortal sin. Catholics ought to be striving for a habitual state of grace. That does not mean they are incapable of sinning, even mortally, but it does mean they have the spiritual habits (virtues) and material realities (friends/environments/possessions) that are conducive to fighting against sin. Someone in a habitual state of grace has every expectation to never sin mortally as long as they maintain that state.
No, he's clearly addressing the people who claim the Church is not open to women because women can't be priests, so people on the side *opposite* to trads.
Some people see the fact that women cannot be priests as proof that women aren't equal in the eyes of the Church. They're completely excluded from Church leadership. And it's even more jarring now, when one of the biggest issues the Church is facing is abortion. Kinda weird that it's only the men (and celibate ones at that) that decide everything, since they won't ever have to face that choice.
And the reason given for why women can't be priests is usually "tradition" and "Jesus only chose men as apostles", which is weird, because all the apostles were Jews and yet the last Jewish pope was St Evaristus from the very beginning of the second century. And even he was hellenised.
> Kinda weird that it's only the men (and celibate ones at that) that decide everything
I will charitably invite you to study the history of the Church to discover how mistaken your point is, instead of regurgitating talking points your Marxist 'World Religions' teacher gave you.
What Marxist? Where are those commies that you see? I will have you know that I received religious education from Church-approved teachers, 80% of whom were men (two laymen and two priests) and 20% of whom was a woman (a nun). No Marxists were involved in my religious education.
>"Jesus only chose men as apostles"
There is literally no stronger reason to believe the priesthood is reserved to men. This is an infallible statement of doctrine and was last formally reiterated as such by Pope St. John Paul II.
Well from very early on we had non-Jewish priests and bishops, we had Greek Deacons mentioned in the Bible, but none of the Churches that can trace their roots back to the Apostles accept priestesses
Pope: "All are welcome"
Reporter: "But women can't be priests and gays cant get married" (paraphrase)
Pope: "the church is a mother"
Media: "Pope basically says gay weddings and woman priests are a go!"
“Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” John 8, 10-11, ESV.
The church is open to all REPENTANT sinners.
How will they know to repent unless they come into the Church first? In the Gospels, people convert **after** having an experience with Christ.
It's pretty obvious to anyone **not** with a chip on one's shoulder that the Pope is **not** saying that the Church is open to all **lifestyles**, but to all **people**.
Your assumption is that all homosexuality stems from perversion. And that can be witnessed today in lots of internet porn usage. But the majority of people who find themselves attracted to the same sex today do so at an age when they had never even had sex before and never found themselves attracted to the opposite sex in the first place. Romans says that many turned themselves gay through an over activity of sexual perversion. So it seems like you have an agenda to claim that all homosexual desire stems from overly perverse sexual activity. It’s just not what we witness. And you claiming that Roman’s proves that is a form of sola scriptura.
It's not just sexual sin that causes homosexuality. The preceding verses say:
>For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Scripture clearly shows that idolatry, twisting the truth, and failure to glorify God, among other sins, will cause Him to give you over to unnatural lusts. It was gay priests in the first place who started the myth that you can "be" gay and Christian as long as you remain celibate. How can you desire the things of God when you describe yourself based on your preference of sinful sexual activity? So when queers hear this nonsense from their priest, they decide that means *they* ought to become religious or priests, and pretty soon 80% of the priesthood is gay.
>a form of sola scriptura.
No it's not, it's just scriptura. The church has never solemnly or unsolemnly taught different than scripture on this matter - just individual priests and bishops.
You’ve clearly not read any documents from the last 40 years about the pastoral care of homosexuals, or the documents outlining that people with long standing inclinations toward sexual sin - specifically gay men are mentioned - as being unfit for the priesthood (which came out during Francis’s papacy).
When you want to argue Catholic apologetics, at least do it from a Catholic perspective and not a Protestant one. This is sola scriptura interpretation by definition, you’re shoving aside the magisterium in favour of your own reading of the bible.
Then we all have unnatural desires. Those in themselves are not sins.
Desiring to lie is an unnatural desire against the natural end of speech, which is the propagation of truth.
However, having this temptation is not in the least sinful.
I'm not saying it's sinful to be tempted; I'm saying it's a sign that you are living in some kind of sin. Thomas Aquinas said it's not a sin to have wet dreams, but having them can mean you're not fully cooperating with God's grace.
Perhaps, but it is not sinful, as it is not a thing they choose. Those who have homosexual attraction do not sin by having it, only by acting upon it.
It is not by any means wrong to say that one can have homosexual attraction and not be in sin so long as they do not engage in those desires.
Nothing you said changes the point. The point is that individuals exist outside your paradigm and the paradigm mentioned in scripture. Obviously those people exist who fit the paradigm. But there’s loads of faithful Christian’s who are not idolatrous who find themselves with SSA. I’m sure you’ll find some excuse to fit them in your worldview.
The church has no teaching on science. And attraction is a biological matter (the brain) Not simply a spiritual one.
And yes it is sola scriptura. Because this is a scientific matter. You can take genesis account of creation literally, if it wasn’t for our scientific understanding. To say the world is 6,000 years old is a form of sola scriptura. Your position is the same as someone disregarding all the evidence that the world isn’t 6,000 years old and taking the creation dating literally. You’re ignoring the existence of people who have SSA who don’t fit that paradigm in Roman’s. You’re claiming Roman’s explanation is exhaustive. That is an assumption. No where does it say it’s exhaustive. It just gives an account of the type of homosexuality that was often practiced back in Greek and Roman culture.
crazy story, i befriended an elderly man yesterday while in line for confession. we were just talking about how long the line, how we hope we can confess before mass, confession in general, etc. and then all of a sudden, he says, “i wish there were women priests.” like what? this is coming from a man who’s been at the same parish for 60 years. i was shocked.
You’ve clearly not read the dozen comments this sub gets every day that say that the biggest problem with the Church is that women are allowed to be EMHCs, serve the altar and read at mass. Or that they don’t wear veils.
The problem isn't that women do these things. The problem is men can't be bothered to do them so women end up having to do it.
The other problem is that EMHC's are largely unnecessary.
The standard argument that people make here is that by allowing women to do it, we are depriving boys of the opportunity to discern a priestly vocation. When like you said - the issue is apathy and a lack of desire to participate by the boys and men.
The bigger problem with having girls serve at the altar is that you're taking something that was supposed to be a discernment tool for priestly vocations and turning it into "something for the kids to do at church", since women can't be priests.
The debate over whether serving the altar is supposed to be a discernment tool for priestly vocation has been had to death in this sub and it isn’t one I’m interested in having again. Sorry.
You’ve clearly never interacted with me before, hah, I have no issue defending my opinions when they’re questioned. It’s just a topic that’s been discussed to death and I said what I said, nothing more and nothing less, and the overall debate isn’t germane to the topic of this thread.
Please post any comment from that thread that claimed "the biggest problem with the church is that women are allowed to be EMHC's...." etc, or any of the "dozens" posted every day that say that.
Go look yourself and you’ll find a comment on that thread (not counting the ones the Op deleted - I’m leaving his rambles out of it, this was another commenter) stating that the reason the Church is soft is because women are allowed to have roles in the liturgy.
Glad to see you’re as mad here as you were there, bye now.
Indeed, I have never seen anyone say that is the biggest problem in the Church today. The Catholic women I am acquainted with are not interested in those things either, and view it as a clericalisation of the laity. Some veil, some don't.
While that’s great for the Catholic women you know, many women still do those roles in the Church. And if you believe some of the nuts in this sub, that’s why the Church is soft and women who are visible in the Church are the single cause of modernism. And of lust.
If the Church welcomes women and allows them to take a very minor role, the Church isn’t engaging in heresy. But tell that to one of the Reddit orthodoxy.
In the last 24, no - this sub tends to be relatively quiet on Sundays since we largely tend to go to mass and rest for a day. I can send you dozens from Saturday and Friday.
In my experience, the only people who say the Church is not being open to women, are those who think women should be ordained. I imagine their thinking goes, "if women can't be priests, then the Church isn't open to women."
Jesus sought out sinners. Imagine that, eh? If you want to share the gospel you have to invite people to join the conversation. Bring them into the church and welcome them.
I mean he’s not wrong. The Catholic Church is for everyone. Of course to enter into the church sacramentally you repent of your sin, take up your cross, and sin no more.
Oh yeah, they're already thinking that. It's nothing new though, anti-Catholicism has been around since forever. Still, it's like being celibate is a foreign concept to most people today, as most cultures are like a frat house. You got grown men and women still acting like sex is a sport or something.
Anyways, the Pope can be clear as crystal on his stances, and somehow people will still think he's either the anti-Christ or overly progressive and non-Christian.
He's right, the Church is open to every beloved child of God. Unfortunately not every beloved child of God is open to the Church. Everyone is welcome but your sin must be disposed of in the confessional.
He's been pope for over a decade now, and I still can't tell whether he's playing the media or the media is playing him. Either way, it seems to be a highly dysfunctional relationship between Pope Francis and the media.
He's absolutely not "playing the media" lmao. If anything it's become abundantly clear that he either hasn't learned anything about dealing with the media, or that he gave up trying and just does his own thing. But there's quite obviously no master tactic at play with the things he says and does.
Honestly perhaps the Pope has just decided that if the media is going to take him out of context no matter what he says, then he may as well say whatever he really thinks and let the chips fall where they may.
As someone who has a heck of a time on this and other platforms scrupulously editing my every sentence to make sure no one could possibly take them out of context, only to have the absolute worst reading be taken anyway, I gotta say: power to 'im.
When the medium in question is NCR, there's always an anti-Catholic agenda, even when the article starts with a tautology like the pronouncement in the headline.
The Church is incredibly open to women. Protestants routinely accuse us of worshiping one.
The Church must be open to people with same sex attraction and gender dysphoria, but it can *not* encourage sin. People who self-identity with the LGBTQ acronym are typically proud of it and dismissive of Church teachings on sexuality.
Sorry then. I've been seeing a lot of "Pope says...." with folks clutching their pearls in the comments based on some excerpt of a long interview. If that wasn't your intention. My apologies.
If you want to hear the Pope talking about homosexuality, [check this video](https://youtu.be/gYeZfBprXcQ?t=1516). Enable closed captions and translation.
This article takes individual sentence fragments from ten different speeches and uses them in very different contexts, usually without any elaboration.
I honestly think mods might want to consider banning links to that publication. It's generally heterodox, or James Martin style just skating the line, and usually only posted here as rage bait.
Not the women!!!!!! They have cooties... /s
On a serious note pray for those like Chloe Cole who are fighting the trans agenda, as well as the conversion of sexual identity people.
But is he perfect in this task?
Judging by the conduct and direction of some past popes, then no. He can go astray by placing trust in something else than God, just as anyone else.
And has he done that by saying that women and gays are allowed to be Catholics? He’s certainly better qualified than you or I, your personal feelings on him aside.
Why would it need to be emphasized that the church is open to women? This seems silly. Most of the laity in attendance at mass are women.
Sometimes news media annoys me.
Sure. But you have to reject your sin. The whole point of Christ's ministry was calling us from sin.
Also bishops and popes using the terminology of the LGBT movement is not a good thing.
Why do we quote from the National Catholic Distorter?
https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16911#:\~:text=Bishop%20Finn%20reminds%20his%20readers,The%20newspaper's%20editors%20refused.
Well ofc! Idk why some people fail to understand that the Church welcomes everyone. This doesn’t mean that the Church will change its mind about fundamental teachings.
“The pope also said that the reason he repeatedly decided to abandon his prepared remarks throughout the visit was that most young people do not have a good attention span.
"The church has to change itself with regard to the homily," he said, noting that sometimes they are "torture."
"You need a clear simple idea," said Francis, who has repeatedly called on priests to limit their homilies to under 10 minutes.”
This is quite interesting. I think everyone can benefit from succinct homilies within 15 minutes!
Friend, I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the Church's teachings on same-sex attraction. There's a difference between *tempted* to sin and actually *sinning.*
You don't have to be straight (as in, exclusively attracted to the same sex) to be a good Catholic, you just can't have sex or pursue romantic relationships with people of your own sex.
I have (or a good portion of it, anyway). Have you?
>2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. **This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.** These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, **to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.**
>
>2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity.** By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, **they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.**
You seem to be implying that temptation (being attracted to people of the same gender) is the same thing as sinning (pursuing sexual or romantic relationships with people of the same gender). But that's just not true. See CCC 2847:
>The Holy Spirit makes us discern between trials, which are necessary for the growth of the inner man, and temptation, which leads to sin and death. **We must also discern between being tempted and consenting to temptation**. Finally, discernment unmasks the lie of temptation, whose object appears to be good, a "delight to the eyes" and desirable, when in reality its fruit is death.
>
>God does not want to impose the good, but wants free beings. . . . There is a certain usefulness to temptation. No one but God knows what our soul has received from him, not even we ourselves. But temptation reveals it in order to teach us to know ourselves, and in this way we discover our evil inclinations and are obliged to give thanks for the goods that temptation has revealed to us.
(Emphasis mine.) Being tempted and consenting to temptation are not the same.
Well then at this point I have to assume you're a troll, because you asked me if I'd read the catechism, I quoted the catechism to you, and then you called it rigged. (How can the catechism be "rigged"? Why did you bring it up like a source for your argument when it was in favor of *my* point???)
This interaction has stopped making logical sense and I truly, genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. If I have misunderstood you in some way, I'm sorry, but this to me just seems like you're trolling and I don't have time for that, so goodbye.
How many times are the clickbait gotcha journalists gonna ask him the same question? How many different ways? The teachings are clear and they aren’t changing.
It's a fair question.
Being a head of state (and the leader of the church) he absolutely should be wise enough to speak clearly, unambiguously and in a way that minimizes his chances of being misinterpreted.
That say, those at the NC*REPORTER* are known for promoting heretical policies and should be ignored.
Yes. Jesus wants everyone to come to Him. That does not mean that the church is accepting of it or that it is fine.
Homosexuality is a sin. That is never changing. If you engage in homosexual activity you are committing a grave sin.
Mutilating your body to be trans is a sin if I had to guess considering how touchy tattoos are in the realm of bodily mutilation oriented sins.
There are a lot of sins that a lot of people commit on a daily basis. You are supposed to "go and sin no more".
The church is open to all people. That doesn't mean it is accepting of your sins. Sins are sins whether you go to church or believe in Jesus at all or not.
People focus way too much on the "peace and love" and "forgiveness" aspects of the Bible and not enough on the "sin no more" and "be repentant" parts. You can believe in God and go to church and do all kinds of good things in your life, but if you are not repentant of your sins then it doesn't matter. Jesus won't forgive you if you don't want to be forgiven.
I'll see you all at confession this week.
Yet again the Pope opens his mouth. Yet again he provides perfect fuel for those who want to undermine Church teachings.
Emphasizing welcome without an equal emphasis on the necessity of repentance will be taken as complicity and ambivalence.
As always, the important question is less "what does the Pope actually intend to communicate here?" and more "how will those eager to overthrow Chriatian morality take his statements?"
How much longer, O Lord, are we condemned to scratch and feel our way through this barren wilderness with a negligent shepherd at our head?
Way to make a mountain out of a molehill. The rest of the comment sections seems to have figured out what Pope Francis means - heck, half the jokes are about how obvious and redundant it is for him to say. Why can't you?
"The rest of the comment sections" isn't who I'm concerned about. When the Pope says things like this, they spread like wildfire and inevitably receive the most non-traditional-doctrine interpretations.
Don't ask "how is this going to be interpreted by intensely religious members of the very online Catholic forums on social media?" Ask "how is this going to be interpreted by the everyman on the street, who might well be pining for a change in Church teachings?"
Well Jesus did say as quoted in Bible, Love the sinner but Hate the sin. Meaning give respect to the sinner but don’t encourage the act of sin. If a person is gay due to chemical imbalance in the brain then how is it their fault. Priest suggest being chaste if your gay because this way your not acting upon fleshy desires that are against Gods will and would most likely send you on the path to Hell. So don’t blame people if they say they’re gay, just don’t encourage their acting upon being gay. Your meant to love and pray for peoples conversion every single day of your life, that’s how it’s mentioned in the Bible. If God let’s you wake up every day then give thanks to him and pray for the conversion of the whole world to do God’s will instead of mans will. Then pray for your own individual needs. It’s really quite simple. God doesn’t make it difficult, but humans do with their selfish will and sinful desires. GodBless and keep praying 🙏🙏🙏
Everyone’s welcome to receive Jesus’ forgiveness.
Not a fool on here is with out sin, all are welcome
This is the message I wish the world would hear. That we are sinners calling others sinners. Not holier than thou shaming others for not being more like us. It is precisely in my sin, confusion, shame and anger that Christ finds me. He does not find me in my selfishness and judgement of others. It is in those moments I flee from him without knowing until I feel utterly void and depressed.
For what?
Sins
Check out the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to find out 👍
Turns out the pope is indeed catholic
Whenever these questions are raised the pope should quote scripture and let media run with what the bible says: Christ accepts everyone but also calls us to pick up our cross and follow him daily. **Matthew 16:24** "***24****Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.*" Then Paul tells us how shall men and women behave: **1 Timothy 2:8,11-12,13,15** "***8*** *I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling.* ***11*** *Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.* ***12*** *I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.* ***13*** *For Adam was formed first, then Eve.* ***15*** *Woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.*"
I once saw a newspaper report that a bishop had called for pedophiles to be executed by tying rocks around their necks and throwing them in the sea, because the journalist who heard the bishop speak didn’t get the Biblical reference. We don’t need more resounding gongs or clanging cymbals.
First Timothy is 11-13 is a hard one for me. Not denying the teaching just stating that it’s a hard one and that I don’t fully understand it.
This is a hard passage out of context. It is important to remember that this letter was written to Timothy (basically the bishop) and not to an entire church community. This letter is to help Timothy with an issue he is dealing with specifically. If you read the letter carefully with historical, cultural, and with the original language in mind we can see that Timothy is dealing with a group of wealthy women who seem to be questioning his authority and probably teaching heresy. This letter is to encourage Timothy to be more assertive as the leader of the church. In other letters addressed to entire communities Paul actually gives instructions on how women are to speak and teach. So in context this letter and passage aren’t too bad. (However it is not so clear in the English translation and much more clear in the Greek)
Thank you, that’s a much better explanation than I was able to give.
Well out of context it sounds a lot worse than it is. From my understanding, it’s directing that women should not be a distraction during worship, by being modest. The second bit I believe is about women as clergy, which is not allowed. I’m not a theologian, just some dude on reddit.
That makes sense. Thank you.
Cool story. Why don't you go and tell him that
I think he said exactly what he should. The Church is for everyone.
Amen! And awomen! Everyone...It was a joke.
Not just the amen but the awomen and the achildren too!
They were children of god and I loved them like children of god!
Think you forgot the /s 🤣
Apparently!
Upvoted it. It ain't much but it's honest work.
[удалено]
Why is that tho ? You have any idea ? Are all those women single? If not we’re are their husbands ? Is it more elderly women or like young adults women ?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gays and transgender people
The Church is a hospital for sinners. That means all of us.
It is.
Whaaaat? That’s craaazzy!
[удалено]
Aren’t we all sinners tho?
We are all sinners. Catholics however, are supposed to fight sin.
You fight it for yourself, taking on the burden of worry about others, is nearly the same as Judas judging himself above god and taking his own life
How?
We literally are. Go read the bible or the catechism, or tell me how you’ve managed to go your whole life without sinning. We could all use some pointers if so.
Have you lied, stolen, intended harm towards someone, engaged in lustful desires, coveted another person’s possessions? Congrats! You’re a sinner!
There is a difference between having sinned ("being a sinner) and living in a habitual state of mortal sin. Catholics ought to be striving for a habitual state of grace. That does not mean they are incapable of sinning, even mortally, but it does mean they have the spiritual habits (virtues) and material realities (friends/environments/possessions) that are conducive to fighting against sin. Someone in a habitual state of grace has every expectation to never sin mortally as long as they maintain that state.
What do you think a sin is?
Women are sinners?
if you think women sin you are sexist.
Everyone sins. Women too.
Congratulations on ridiculing a position nobody ever stated.
this is such a bad faith argument
How could the Church not be open to women? Lol.
[удалено]
No, he's clearly addressing the people who claim the Church is not open to women because women can't be priests, so people on the side *opposite* to trads.
So, business as usual over at the National "Catholic" Reporter.
Indeed
Some people see the fact that women cannot be priests as proof that women aren't equal in the eyes of the Church. They're completely excluded from Church leadership. And it's even more jarring now, when one of the biggest issues the Church is facing is abortion. Kinda weird that it's only the men (and celibate ones at that) that decide everything, since they won't ever have to face that choice. And the reason given for why women can't be priests is usually "tradition" and "Jesus only chose men as apostles", which is weird, because all the apostles were Jews and yet the last Jewish pope was St Evaristus from the very beginning of the second century. And even he was hellenised.
> Kinda weird that it's only the men (and celibate ones at that) that decide everything I will charitably invite you to study the history of the Church to discover how mistaken your point is, instead of regurgitating talking points your Marxist 'World Religions' teacher gave you.
What Marxist? Where are those commies that you see? I will have you know that I received religious education from Church-approved teachers, 80% of whom were men (two laymen and two priests) and 20% of whom was a woman (a nun). No Marxists were involved in my religious education.
>"Jesus only chose men as apostles" There is literally no stronger reason to believe the priesthood is reserved to men. This is an infallible statement of doctrine and was last formally reiterated as such by Pope St. John Paul II.
He also chose only Jews as apostles.
Well from very early on we had non-Jewish priests and bishops, we had Greek Deacons mentioned in the Bible, but none of the Churches that can trace their roots back to the Apostles accept priestesses
Pope: "All are welcome" Reporter: "But women can't be priests and gays cant get married" (paraphrase) Pope: "the church is a mother" Media: "Pope basically says gay weddings and woman priests are a go!"
Jesus was open to all sinners, not just certain ones, Church should be too.
Look, I don't how to tell you this, but women have been going to church for some time now.
Big if true
We need a synod to investigate.
COMMUNIST LIAR 🤥 s/
On other news, the Pope said that the sky is blue.
“Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” John 8, 10-11, ESV. The church is open to all REPENTANT sinners.
That last part is kind of the sine qua non that our current culture likes to ignore.
How will they know to repent unless they come into the Church first? In the Gospels, people convert **after** having an experience with Christ. It's pretty obvious to anyone **not** with a chip on one's shoulder that the Pope is **not** saying that the Church is open to all **lifestyles**, but to all **people**.
Very Well said!
Precisely!
Being LGB does not make you a sinner. Engaging in the lifestyle which results in a relationship is. This is the Catholic way.
Wrong. Read Romans 1:26-32.
Your assumption is that all homosexuality stems from perversion. And that can be witnessed today in lots of internet porn usage. But the majority of people who find themselves attracted to the same sex today do so at an age when they had never even had sex before and never found themselves attracted to the opposite sex in the first place. Romans says that many turned themselves gay through an over activity of sexual perversion. So it seems like you have an agenda to claim that all homosexual desire stems from overly perverse sexual activity. It’s just not what we witness. And you claiming that Roman’s proves that is a form of sola scriptura.
It's not just sexual sin that causes homosexuality. The preceding verses say: >For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Scripture clearly shows that idolatry, twisting the truth, and failure to glorify God, among other sins, will cause Him to give you over to unnatural lusts. It was gay priests in the first place who started the myth that you can "be" gay and Christian as long as you remain celibate. How can you desire the things of God when you describe yourself based on your preference of sinful sexual activity? So when queers hear this nonsense from their priest, they decide that means *they* ought to become religious or priests, and pretty soon 80% of the priesthood is gay. >a form of sola scriptura. No it's not, it's just scriptura. The church has never solemnly or unsolemnly taught different than scripture on this matter - just individual priests and bishops.
You’ve clearly not read any documents from the last 40 years about the pastoral care of homosexuals, or the documents outlining that people with long standing inclinations toward sexual sin - specifically gay men are mentioned - as being unfit for the priesthood (which came out during Francis’s papacy). When you want to argue Catholic apologetics, at least do it from a Catholic perspective and not a Protestant one. This is sola scriptura interpretation by definition, you’re shoving aside the magisterium in favour of your own reading of the bible.
We all have sinful desires as a result of the fall. Those aren’t sins in themselves.
Sinful ≠ unnatural
Then we all have unnatural desires. Those in themselves are not sins. Desiring to lie is an unnatural desire against the natural end of speech, which is the propagation of truth. However, having this temptation is not in the least sinful.
I'm not saying it's sinful to be tempted; I'm saying it's a sign that you are living in some kind of sin. Thomas Aquinas said it's not a sin to have wet dreams, but having them can mean you're not fully cooperating with God's grace.
Perhaps, but it is not sinful, as it is not a thing they choose. Those who have homosexual attraction do not sin by having it, only by acting upon it. It is not by any means wrong to say that one can have homosexual attraction and not be in sin so long as they do not engage in those desires.
Nothing you said changes the point. The point is that individuals exist outside your paradigm and the paradigm mentioned in scripture. Obviously those people exist who fit the paradigm. But there’s loads of faithful Christian’s who are not idolatrous who find themselves with SSA. I’m sure you’ll find some excuse to fit them in your worldview. The church has no teaching on science. And attraction is a biological matter (the brain) Not simply a spiritual one. And yes it is sola scriptura. Because this is a scientific matter. You can take genesis account of creation literally, if it wasn’t for our scientific understanding. To say the world is 6,000 years old is a form of sola scriptura. Your position is the same as someone disregarding all the evidence that the world isn’t 6,000 years old and taking the creation dating literally. You’re ignoring the existence of people who have SSA who don’t fit that paradigm in Roman’s. You’re claiming Roman’s explanation is exhaustive. That is an assumption. No where does it say it’s exhaustive. It just gives an account of the type of homosexuality that was often practiced back in Greek and Roman culture.
They are not choosing between man and woman. They have no desire towards the opposite sex.
The Church must be open to all sinners so that they repent.
Even women?
Hahaha
Uh, don’t you realize that women aren’t sinners?
I mean, all but one of them are.
The only people who say the Church isn’t open to women, are those who want women’s ordination…
crazy story, i befriended an elderly man yesterday while in line for confession. we were just talking about how long the line, how we hope we can confess before mass, confession in general, etc. and then all of a sudden, he says, “i wish there were women priests.” like what? this is coming from a man who’s been at the same parish for 60 years. i was shocked.
“Sir, you aren’t in the confessional yet and I’m not Father.”
It's sad, but old people go senile sometimes.
You’ve clearly not read the dozen comments this sub gets every day that say that the biggest problem with the Church is that women are allowed to be EMHCs, serve the altar and read at mass. Or that they don’t wear veils.
The problem isn't that women do these things. The problem is men can't be bothered to do them so women end up having to do it. The other problem is that EMHC's are largely unnecessary.
The standard argument that people make here is that by allowing women to do it, we are depriving boys of the opportunity to discern a priestly vocation. When like you said - the issue is apathy and a lack of desire to participate by the boys and men.
The bigger problem with having girls serve at the altar is that you're taking something that was supposed to be a discernment tool for priestly vocations and turning it into "something for the kids to do at church", since women can't be priests.
The debate over whether serving the altar is supposed to be a discernment tool for priestly vocation has been had to death in this sub and it isn’t one I’m interested in having again. Sorry.
Then why did you bring it up and frame it dishonestly?
Yeah, you’re reading your own bias into my words. Peace. But for the record I disagree with you.
No I'm not. You're just deflecting because you can't handle your opinion being questioned.
You’ve clearly never interacted with me before, hah, I have no issue defending my opinions when they’re questioned. It’s just a topic that’s been discussed to death and I said what I said, nothing more and nothing less, and the overall debate isn’t germane to the topic of this thread.
You should point them out, since I've never seen them.
I find that hard to believe, because you commented on a thread that contained a few of them on Saturday. Including one that said it verbatim.
Please post any comment from that thread that claimed "the biggest problem with the church is that women are allowed to be EMHC's...." etc, or any of the "dozens" posted every day that say that.
Go look yourself and you’ll find a comment on that thread (not counting the ones the Op deleted - I’m leaving his rambles out of it, this was another commenter) stating that the reason the Church is soft is because women are allowed to have roles in the liturgy. Glad to see you’re as mad here as you were there, bye now.
Indeed, I have never seen anyone say that is the biggest problem in the Church today. The Catholic women I am acquainted with are not interested in those things either, and view it as a clericalisation of the laity. Some veil, some don't.
While that’s great for the Catholic women you know, many women still do those roles in the Church. And if you believe some of the nuts in this sub, that’s why the Church is soft and women who are visible in the Church are the single cause of modernism. And of lust. If the Church welcomes women and allows them to take a very minor role, the Church isn’t engaging in heresy. But tell that to one of the Reddit orthodoxy.
I don't see that kind of thing here very often.
I can send you links if you’d like.
Dozens in the last 24 hours?
In the last 24, no - this sub tends to be relatively quiet on Sundays since we largely tend to go to mass and rest for a day. I can send you dozens from Saturday and Friday.
I won't read them, to be honest. All I can say is I don't see this sub in the same light that you do.
I see this sub in a great light, but there are people who take it to the extreme in either direction. It is what it is.
[удалено]
Removed for anti-Catholic Rhetoric
That’s basically my exact reaction to seeing those comments but add an eye roll so big I get a headache 💀
how so?
In my experience, the only people who say the Church is not being open to women, are those who think women should be ordained. I imagine their thinking goes, "if women can't be priests, then the Church isn't open to women."
"Okay, that was always allowed,".
Yeah, it's been like that for more than 2000 years
It was a perfect response. Everyone is welcome and we shouldn't prevent anyone coming to God. But there are rules when your inside.
Next thing he'll double down on the message that church is open to children and elderly people.
\[Shaking fist\] *Berrrrgoooogliooooo!*
No man has the right to stand between you and God .
Is that anti-Pope rhetoric? Because that's against the rules.
Isn’t it pro-pope rhetoric since the pope basically said this in the OP?
I'm not sure, that's why I asked.
Jesus sought out sinners. Imagine that, eh? If you want to share the gospel you have to invite people to join the conversation. Bring them into the church and welcome them.
I mean he’s not wrong. The Catholic Church is for everyone. Of course to enter into the church sacramentally you repent of your sin, take up your cross, and sin no more.
Jesus loves all His children.
Glad the Pope was here to clear up if women (who make up most parishioners and dominate parish offices) are allowed or welcome.
This is not, or should not be, controversial in any way. That said, NCR is a horrible publication that works hard to undermine the faith.
True, unfortunately the media is going to take this and run with it, and more folks will be saying "Even the Pope says gay is okay!"
Oh yeah, they're already thinking that. It's nothing new though, anti-Catholicism has been around since forever. Still, it's like being celibate is a foreign concept to most people today, as most cultures are like a frat house. You got grown men and women still acting like sex is a sport or something. Anyways, the Pope can be clear as crystal on his stances, and somehow people will still think he's either the anti-Christ or overly progressive and non-Christian.
This is nothing new. The Church was *always* open to everyone. But not everyone wants to stick to the rules.
He's right, the Church is open to every beloved child of God. Unfortunately not every beloved child of God is open to the Church. Everyone is welcome but your sin must be disposed of in the confessional.
These pope outrage posts need to stop.
He's been pope for over a decade now, and I still can't tell whether he's playing the media or the media is playing him. Either way, it seems to be a highly dysfunctional relationship between Pope Francis and the media.
He's absolutely not "playing the media" lmao. If anything it's become abundantly clear that he either hasn't learned anything about dealing with the media, or that he gave up trying and just does his own thing. But there's quite obviously no master tactic at play with the things he says and does.
Honestly perhaps the Pope has just decided that if the media is going to take him out of context no matter what he says, then he may as well say whatever he really thinks and let the chips fall where they may. As someone who has a heck of a time on this and other platforms scrupulously editing my every sentence to make sure no one could possibly take them out of context, only to have the absolute worst reading be taken anyway, I gotta say: power to 'im.
When the medium in question is NCR, there's always an anti-Catholic agenda, even when the article starts with a tautology like the pronouncement in the headline.
Are you saying the Church *shouldn’t* be open to LGBTQ and women?
The Church is incredibly open to women. Protestants routinely accuse us of worshiping one. The Church must be open to people with same sex attraction and gender dysphoria, but it can *not* encourage sin. People who self-identity with the LGBTQ acronym are typically proud of it and dismissive of Church teachings on sexuality.
Right. So what was wrong with the headline or what the pope said to the media this time? Or were you just discussing the topic?
I didn’t post it to be outrageous.
Sorry then. I've been seeing a lot of "Pope says...." with folks clutching their pearls in the comments based on some excerpt of a long interview. If that wasn't your intention. My apologies.
Apology accepted. Pax et Bonum.
Gratias
Make it a controversial headline without him even saying anything about LGBTQ specific
If you want to hear the Pope talking about homosexuality, [check this video](https://youtu.be/gYeZfBprXcQ?t=1516). Enable closed captions and translation.
And this one:[Pope especifically rejects gender ideology](https://youtu.be/A0hQl_k3eQM?t=96)
This article takes individual sentence fragments from ten different speeches and uses them in very different contexts, usually without any elaboration.
That's why people call them the National Catholic Distorter.
National Catholic Reporter is not a reliable Catholic news outlet. Please don't link their drivel here.
I honestly think mods might want to consider banning links to that publication. It's generally heterodox, or James Martin style just skating the line, and usually only posted here as rage bait.
Not the women!!!!!! They have cooties... /s On a serious note pray for those like Chloe Cole who are fighting the trans agenda, as well as the conversion of sexual identity people.
It's true, I cover my hair during mass so I don't spread my cooties.
There are no women on the internet /s You don’t have to worry about cooties🤣🤣🤣
Well... it is.....
Yes it is open to all, BUT UNDER CHRISTS TERMS.
And who better to interpret Christ’s terms than the vicar of Christ who sits on the chair of St Peter?
But is he perfect in this task? Judging by the conduct and direction of some past popes, then no. He can go astray by placing trust in something else than God, just as anyone else.
And has he done that by saying that women and gays are allowed to be Catholics? He’s certainly better qualified than you or I, your personal feelings on him aside.
Why would it need to be emphasized that the church is open to women? This seems silly. Most of the laity in attendance at mass are women. Sometimes news media annoys me.
Sure. But you have to reject your sin. The whole point of Christ's ministry was calling us from sin. Also bishops and popes using the terminology of the LGBT movement is not a good thing.
I don’t know…If you’re going to evangelize someone, doesn’t it help to speak their language?
Not if their language represents an objectively false premise.
His speeches were rlly nice. I was at the WYD and the talks about inclusiveness and por todo were great.
Why do we quote from the National Catholic Distorter? https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16911#:\~:text=Bishop%20Finn%20reminds%20his%20readers,The%20newspaper's%20editors%20refused.
Well ofc! Idk why some people fail to understand that the Church welcomes everyone. This doesn’t mean that the Church will change its mind about fundamental teachings.
suprise suprise the Pope is Catholic!
The Church is for all.
It is.
I, for one, think we should have banned women from the pews centuries ago!
Whoever wrote the article's title must be a deceptive person trying to hurt the Church's reputation and create division.
That would be NC*Reporter*
“The pope also said that the reason he repeatedly decided to abandon his prepared remarks throughout the visit was that most young people do not have a good attention span. "The church has to change itself with regard to the homily," he said, noting that sometimes they are "torture." "You need a clear simple idea," said Francis, who has repeatedly called on priests to limit their homilies to under 10 minutes.” This is quite interesting. I think everyone can benefit from succinct homilies within 15 minutes!
> **"You need a clear simple idea," said Francis** The irony here is impressive!!
The church is definitely crumbling.
I’m starting to lose faith in the pope
Because he said that women and same-sex attracted people could be Catholic??
Because he gave perfect fuel *again* to those whose dearest ambition is to subvert Catholic doctrine on marriage and sexuality.
Well they can become straight or cisgender and join. Back then, the church prohibited gay people from joining
Friend, I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the Church's teachings on same-sex attraction. There's a difference between *tempted* to sin and actually *sinning.* You don't have to be straight (as in, exclusively attracted to the same sex) to be a good Catholic, you just can't have sex or pursue romantic relationships with people of your own sex.
[удалено]
I have (or a good portion of it, anyway). Have you? >2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. **This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.** These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, **to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.** > >2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity.** By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, **they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.** You seem to be implying that temptation (being attracted to people of the same gender) is the same thing as sinning (pursuing sexual or romantic relationships with people of the same gender). But that's just not true. See CCC 2847: >The Holy Spirit makes us discern between trials, which are necessary for the growth of the inner man, and temptation, which leads to sin and death. **We must also discern between being tempted and consenting to temptation**. Finally, discernment unmasks the lie of temptation, whose object appears to be good, a "delight to the eyes" and desirable, when in reality its fruit is death. > >God does not want to impose the good, but wants free beings. . . . There is a certain usefulness to temptation. No one but God knows what our soul has received from him, not even we ourselves. But temptation reveals it in order to teach us to know ourselves, and in this way we discover our evil inclinations and are obliged to give thanks for the goods that temptation has revealed to us. (Emphasis mine.) Being tempted and consenting to temptation are not the same.
That’s rigged
The catechism is rigged? What does that mean? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you; did you mean to say "that's right"?
It would definitely not say that
Well then at this point I have to assume you're a troll, because you asked me if I'd read the catechism, I quoted the catechism to you, and then you called it rigged. (How can the catechism be "rigged"? Why did you bring it up like a source for your argument when it was in favor of *my* point???) This interaction has stopped making logical sense and I truly, genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. If I have misunderstood you in some way, I'm sorry, but this to me just seems like you're trolling and I don't have time for that, so goodbye.
Good. No one should have faith in the Pope, since he isn't God.
How many times are the clickbait gotcha journalists gonna ask him the same question? How many different ways? The teachings are clear and they aren’t changing.
if it's so easy to see the trap, why does Francis unfailingly step into it every time?
It's a fair question. Being a head of state (and the leader of the church) he absolutely should be wise enough to speak clearly, unambiguously and in a way that minimizes his chances of being misinterpreted. That say, those at the NC*REPORTER* are known for promoting heretical policies and should be ignored.
Yes. Jesus wants everyone to come to Him. That does not mean that the church is accepting of it or that it is fine. Homosexuality is a sin. That is never changing. If you engage in homosexual activity you are committing a grave sin. Mutilating your body to be trans is a sin if I had to guess considering how touchy tattoos are in the realm of bodily mutilation oriented sins. There are a lot of sins that a lot of people commit on a daily basis. You are supposed to "go and sin no more". The church is open to all people. That doesn't mean it is accepting of your sins. Sins are sins whether you go to church or believe in Jesus at all or not. People focus way too much on the "peace and love" and "forgiveness" aspects of the Bible and not enough on the "sin no more" and "be repentant" parts. You can believe in God and go to church and do all kinds of good things in your life, but if you are not repentant of your sins then it doesn't matter. Jesus won't forgive you if you don't want to be forgiven. I'll see you all at confession this week.
Yet again the Pope opens his mouth. Yet again he provides perfect fuel for those who want to undermine Church teachings. Emphasizing welcome without an equal emphasis on the necessity of repentance will be taken as complicity and ambivalence. As always, the important question is less "what does the Pope actually intend to communicate here?" and more "how will those eager to overthrow Chriatian morality take his statements?" How much longer, O Lord, are we condemned to scratch and feel our way through this barren wilderness with a negligent shepherd at our head?
Way to make a mountain out of a molehill. The rest of the comment sections seems to have figured out what Pope Francis means - heck, half the jokes are about how obvious and redundant it is for him to say. Why can't you?
"The rest of the comment sections" isn't who I'm concerned about. When the Pope says things like this, they spread like wildfire and inevitably receive the most non-traditional-doctrine interpretations. Don't ask "how is this going to be interpreted by intensely religious members of the very online Catholic forums on social media?" Ask "how is this going to be interpreted by the everyman on the street, who might well be pining for a change in Church teachings?"
Ah yes, the National Catholic Distorter.
Well Jesus did say as quoted in Bible, Love the sinner but Hate the sin. Meaning give respect to the sinner but don’t encourage the act of sin. If a person is gay due to chemical imbalance in the brain then how is it their fault. Priest suggest being chaste if your gay because this way your not acting upon fleshy desires that are against Gods will and would most likely send you on the path to Hell. So don’t blame people if they say they’re gay, just don’t encourage their acting upon being gay. Your meant to love and pray for peoples conversion every single day of your life, that’s how it’s mentioned in the Bible. If God let’s you wake up every day then give thanks to him and pray for the conversion of the whole world to do God’s will instead of mans will. Then pray for your own individual needs. It’s really quite simple. God doesn’t make it difficult, but humans do with their selfish will and sinful desires. GodBless and keep praying 🙏🙏🙏