Thy Word Our Law?

The Pope has endorsed same-sex civil unions.
Okay, now, on one level, at least he didn’t endorse same-sex “weddings”.  But you Papists:  show me any support, or even tolerance,  in the Bible—any at all—for homosexuality.
Take your time.

5+
avataravataravataravataravatar

81 thoughts on “Thy Word Our Law?”

  1. Hypatia:

    Raymond Solar:

    There’s your helper.  The rest is up to you.

     

     

    —okay, thanks.  Maybe he didn’t mean civil unions by “right to be legally covered”. Maybe he meant weddings?

    Be sure to leave links to the equivalent vitriol posting for the Baptists’ recent adoption Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality as a tool within the church, and the ones that flambe the various Protestant denominations that now allow both women and homosexuals as clergy.  Include the posts that lash the denominations that poo-poo or outright accept abortions and unwed motherhood and serial marriages via divorce.  Do proclaim how the headless Reformation churches are so superior to whatever you choose to target.

    no I agree, mainline Protestantism has also gone round the bend.  The Christian Left is insane.  I’m not even religious.  I’m talkin’ ‘bout the Bible. He may read it who runs.

     

    Oh but hey, you are not allowed to interpret the Bible on your own. Have to have a Priest for that.

    0

  2. The Pope has opened a Pandora’s Box of confusion, as a usual. But he didn’t endorse same sex civil unions, He’s careful with his words. But I’m not a sedevecantist, SSPX or what now seems to be popular Benevecantist. I know there are questions regarding the authenticity of The current pontiff’s legitimacy but until something official is released I remain a daughter of the Holy, Catholic and apostolic church. Christ gave us a church and promised the gates of hell would not prevail. He knew he was handing the keys over to fallible men but the Holy Spirit has kept the teachings of the church unchanged. Even after millennia of heresies that have tried to confuse church teaching, including now. The church’s teaching on marriage remains, no matter what the Pope says. The Pope is the head of the church but there are many limits to his power. The Pope is not a totalitarian dictator, he can’t go against sacred scripture, the magisterium or sacred tradition. No matter how hard the German Bishops want him to, it won’t change. You don’t have to agree however people should research the limits to papal infallibility. It’s rather frustrating to have to fend off some of the misconceptions about what we actually believe when it’s very easy to look up, as fellow conservatives I’m sure you can relate

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  3. Bryan G. Stephens:

    Hypatia:

    Raymond Solar:

    There’s your helper.  The rest is up to you.

     

     

    —okay, thanks.  Maybe he didn’t mean civil unions by “right to be legally covered”. Maybe he meant weddings?

    Be sure to leave links to the equivalent vitriol posting for the Baptists’ recent adoption Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality as a tool within the church, and the ones that flambe the various Protestant denominations that now allow both women and homosexuals as clergy.  Include the posts that lash the denominations that poo-poo or outright accept abortions and unwed motherhood and serial marriages via divorce.  Do proclaim how the headless Reformation churches are so superior to whatever you choose to target.

    no I agree, mainline Protestantism has also gone round the bend.  The Christian Left is insane.  I’m not even religious.  I’m talkin’ ‘bout the Bible. He may read it who runs.

     

    Oh but hey, you are not allowed to interpret the Bible on your own. Have to have a Priest for that.

    Acts 8:27-31

    27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

    28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

    29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

    30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

    31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

    2+
    avataravatar
  4. Mate De:
    The church’s teaching on marriage remains, no matter what the Pope says. The Pope is the head of the church but there are many limits to his power. The Pope is not a totalitarian dictator, he can’t go against sacred scripture, the magisterium or sacred tradition.

    Mate, as I noted above, I’m an Orthodox Christian. What role do the laity play in the Roman Catholic Church in preserving the faith? In the Orthodox Church:

    the laity are the people of God and are responsible for preserving the integrity of the faith as much as the bishops. The example for this that is often given is that of bishops being refused entrance to their cities after the Council of Florence until they recanted of their signatures. The laity refused to accept that the Council’s decisions were in accord with the Orthodox faith. (Orthodox Wiki)

    In other words, if the bishops/patriarchs stray in their teachings, the laity can reject said teachings. Is there something similar in the Roman Church?

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  5. danok1:

    Mate De:
    The church’s teaching on marriage remains, no matter what the Pope says. The Pope is the head of the church but there are many limits to his power. The Pope is not a totalitarian dictator, he can’t go against sacred scripture, the magisterium or sacred tradition.

    Mate, as I noted above, I’m an Orthodox Christian. What role do the laity play in the Roman Catholic Church in preserving the faith? In the Orthodox Church:

    the laity are the people of God and are responsible for preserving the integrity of the faith as much as the bishops. The example for this that is often given is that of bishops being refused entrance to their cities after the Council of Florence until they recanted of their signatures. The laity refused to accept that the Council’s decisions were in accord with the Orthodox faith. (Orthodox Wiki)

    In other words, if the bishops/patriarchs stray in their teachings, the laity can reject said teachings. Is there something similar in the Roman Church?

    Yes there is. But you have to remember the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, which has only happened once in regard to the Assumption of Mary.
    Pope Francis is actually a good example of a Pope shooting his mouth off about stuff that seem to go against church teaching But never changes church teaching because he isn’t speaking ex cathedra.

    2+
    avataravatar
  6. What I know is that God gave me the capacity to read, to study, to understand. If Jacob can wrestle with God, so can I.

    I dont need a flawed human telling me what I can believe.

    1+
    avatar
  7. Bryan G. Stephens:
    What I know is that God gave me the capacity to read, to study, to understand. If Jacob can wrestle with God, so can I.

    I dont need a flawed human telling me what I can believe.

    Same here. God gave us all free will. I can read and interpret how I wish. I can also seek help and understanding from those who may possess greater knowledge than me. It’s what reasonable people do.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  8. Bryan G. Stephens:

    The Catholic Church did not want the laity to read th Bible. They kept it in a language they could not read. It was protestants who translated.

    That isn’t necessarily true. In the Middle Ages there were those in the laity who had psalters in Latin, and they would use them to do the Divine office.

    However, the biggest problem back then was that books were incredibly expensive due to the fact that bibles had to be hand written, also there was an issue with literacy. But Psalters were more abundant than full scripture because they were much cheaper.

    but the issue with translation is context. Some words in the Bible don’t translate well into the common vernacular, and can cause confusion. There was a reason they kept things in an ecclesiastical language. But this is the issue when you tear down the old order it’s like what Chesterton wrote about reformers

    In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

    2+
    avataravatar
  9. Mate De:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    The Catholic Church did not want the laity to read th Bible. They kept it in a language they could not read. It was protestants who translated.

    That isn’t necessarily true. In the Middle Ages there were those in the laity who had psalters in Latin, and they would use them to do the Divine office.

    However, the biggest problem back then was that books were incredibly expensive due to the fact that bibles had to be hand written, also there was an issue with literacy. But Psalters were more abundant than full scripture because they were much cheaper.

    but the issue with translation is context. Some words in the Bible don’t translate well into the common vernacular, and can cause confusion. There was a reason they kept things in an ecclesiastical language. But this is the issue when you tear down the old order it’s like what Chesterton wrote about reformers

    In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

    Even if you don’t accept Mate De’s explanation, the fact of the matter is that was 1000 years ago. It is certainly not the case now. There are numerous podcasts of lay Catholics interpreting the Bible and teaching from the Bible. Taylor Marshall is a great example.
    The problem the Church has is not the falsities which you claim to exist. The problem is an infiltration into the Preisthood of people more inclined to destroying the Holy order because they are agents of Satan. I count our current Pope among those.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  10. Sorry, Gang,  but I have had Catholics tell me my marriage is invalid because it was not done by a Catholic priest in front of an alter with a piece of a dead body in it. Please don’t try to tell me the ways of a 1000 years ago are over when the magic of a Saint’s body is being invoked to tell me God does not believe in my Marriage.

    I was pretty mellow on Catholics until several of them spent pages telling me how I am not really a Christian and that the Reformation was all bad, oh, and gaslighting me on indulgences which were real.

    If I sound antiCatholic, you have your fellow Catholics to think for it. THEY attacked me and my faith, when I came with the idea that we are all brothers and sisters in Him. They rejected that, and rejected me.

    1+
    avatar
  11. Bryan G. Stephens:
    Sorry, Gang,  but I have had Catholics tell me my marriage is invalid because it was not done by a Catholic priest in front of an alter with a piece of a dead body in it. Please don’t try to tell me the ways of a 1000 years ago are over when the magic of a Saint’s body is being invoked to tell me God does not believe in my Marriage.

    I was pretty mellow on Catholics until several of them spent pages telling me how I am not really a Christian and that the Reformation was all bad, oh, and gaslighting me on indulgences which were real.

    If I sound antiCatholic, you have your fellow Catholics to think for it. THEY attacked me and my faith, when I came with the idea that we are all brothers and sisters in Him. They rejected that, and rejected me.

    Well how about you take that up with them. I have never commented on your marriage. Mate De to my knowledge has not either. My marriage too is not a Catholic marriage but it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. I still take Communion and I don’t let the supposed knowledge of others dictate my understanding of being a Christian. Find in the Bible where it says how marriage is supposed to be conducted. Catholicism has plenty going for it. Primarily I like the fact that I get to partake in the Host every Mass unlike Protestants who only break it out on special occasions. To the best of my estimation, so long as your marriage is Trinitarian, then who cares what a bunch of ignorant people say in the name of this or that denomination.
    Another area where I completely diverge from Catholic Orthodoxy is predestination. It makes zero sense for an omnipresent and omnipotent God to not know how His own story ends. But that is God’s to know not man’s. Catholics lean heavily on free will, which is true from the human perspective, but God cannot be the Alpha and Omega and not know where our free will takes us.

    No one here wants to convert you. No one here that I am aware of is denigrating you as a non-Catholic Christian. Are you Baptized to forgive your sins? Good, then you too should look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life in the world to come.

    2+
    avataravatar
  12. And the only Protestants I am against are those Left Protestants who try to tell me that all that matters is love and the rest of Christ’s teachings are either fake or outdated. Well they are going to burn because He is pretty clear that He is the only way to reach the Kingdom. They are false prophets leading their flock to the wolf called Satan.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  13. Robert A. McReynolds:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    Sorry, Gang,  but I have had Catholics tell me my marriage is invalid because it was not done by a Catholic priest in front of an alter with a piece of a dead body in it. Please don’t try to tell me the ways of a 1000 years ago are over when the magic of a Saint’s body is being invoked to tell me God does not believe in my Marriage.

    I was pretty mellow on Catholics until several of them spent pages telling me how I am not really a Christian and that the Reformation was all bad, oh, and gaslighting me on indulgences which were real.

    If I sound antiCatholic, you have your fellow Catholics to think for it. THEY attacked me and my faith, when I came with the idea that we are all brothers and sisters in Him. They rejected that, and rejected me.

    Well how about you take that up with them. I have never commented on your marriage. Mate De to my knowledge has not either. My marriage too is not a Catholic marriage but it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. I still take Communion and I don’t let the supposed knowledge of others dictate my understanding of being a Christian. Find in the Bible where it says how marriage is supposed to be conducted. Catholicism has plenty going for it. Primarily I like the fact that I get to partake in the Host every Mass unlike Protestants who only break it out on special occasions. To the best of my estimation, so long as your marriage is Trinitarian, then who cares what a bunch of ignorant people say in the name of this or that denomination.
    Another area where I completely diverge from Catholic Orthodoxy is predestination. It makes zero sense for an omnipresent and omnipotent God to not know how His own story ends. But that is God’s to know not man’s. Catholics lean heavily on free will, which is true from the human perspective, but God cannot be the Alpha and Omega and not know where our free will takes us.

    yes, I’ve always had trouble with that, too, went to a Presbyterian school and I believe predestination is  the Calvinist orthodoxy.  So this goes  all The way back to Eden.  God has to have known the Fall was gonna happen.  If He didn’t, then He’s not  omniscient. What sense does it all make? He’s lonely in the Universe, so He creates a sentient being, but He doesn’t give them the one attribute which makes a God: knowing good from evil.    At the same time He plants the  means to achieve that knowledge right within our reach! Talk about your low-hanging fruit! ( Query how we coulda “sinned” at that point since we didn’t know right from wrong till after  we noshed  the forbidden fruit.) As you say, He knew we’d eat it, has to have known.  So why not just imbue His creation with that knowledge ab initio?  Then He panics when we eat it:”The man is become as one of us!” And reviles, exiles,  and punishes us.   And of course the serpent “more subtil than all the beasts of the field “, is His creation, too.   Oh, I know: this tale is just one of the type you find in every cosmology and it’s actually about how Death came into the world, not  how Sin came into the world.

    No one here wants to convert you. No one here that I am aware of is denigrating you as a non-Catholic Christian. Are you Baptized to forgive your sins? Good, then you too should look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life in the world to come.

    That’s youR  personal view and it does you credit.  But is that the  Catholic orthodoxy?

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  14. On some level I don’t rightly care about Catholic Orthodoxy. The Nicean creed says what it says. One baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This is where I think Catholicism breaks down: there is no denominational aspect to the Bible. He did not say “none get to heaven except through Me…and adherence to Catholic Orthodoxy.” If you are baptized in the Trinity and have confessed your sins and repented, you’re saved, full stop. Any addition to that from any denominational orthodoxy is just man made pap and deserving of being disregarded.

    2+
    avataravatar
  15. Robert A. McReynolds:
    On some level I don’t rightly care about Catholic Orthodoxy. The Nicean creed says what it says. One baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This is where I think Catholicism breaks down: there is no denominational aspect to the Bible. He did not say “none get to heaven except through Me…and adherence to Catholic Orthodoxy.” If you are baptized in the Trinity and have confessed your sins and repented, you’re saved, full stop. Any addition to that from any denominational orthodoxy is just man made pap and deserving of being disregarded.

    Isn’t what you just wrote the heresy of “Americanism”? What I don’t understand, and this isn’t a criticism ,it’s just, well, something I don’t understand:  Why call yourself a member of ANY church if you do not accept its dogma?

    1+
    avatar
  16. Robert A. McReynolds:
    On some level I don’t rightly care about Catholic Orthodoxy. The Nicean creed says what it says. One baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This is where I think Catholicism breaks down: there is no denominational aspect to the Bible. He did not say “none get to heaven except through Me…and adherence to Catholic Orthodoxy.” If you are baptized in the Trinity and have confessed your sins and repented, you’re saved, full stop. Any addition to that from any denominational orthodoxy is just man made pap and deserving of being disregarded.

    That is pretty much heresy for the Catholic church, at least as I have been told. I tried to make my Pauline arguments to Catholics and was shot down.

    2+
    avataravatar
  17. Mate De:
    The Pope has opened a Pandora’s Box of confusion, as a usual. But he didn’t endorse same sex civil unions, He’s careful with his words.

    Yes; he is extraordinarily careful with words.  He is a master of brinkmanship, getting as close as possible to heresy without crossing the most expansive possible reading of Catholic Dogma.

    I really appreciate seeing the Spanish original:  “una ley de convivencia civil.”

    That is interpretable in a couple of ways.  But it is entirely within reason to interpret it as “a civil unions law.”  Spanish homosexual activists have used that phrase.  Which leaves it up to “His Holiness” to clarify what he really did mean, but sounds a lot like what is being reported.

    But I’m not a sedevecantist, SSPX or what now seems to be popular Benevecantist. I know there are questions regarding the authenticity of The current pontiff’s legitimacy but until something official is released I remain a daughter of the Holy, Catholic and apostolic church. Christ gave us a church and promised the gates of hell would not prevail. He knew he was handing the keys over to fallible men but the Holy Spirit has kept the teachings of the church unchanged.

    Unchanged since when?

    Rather, “mostly unchanged.”  The Magisterium has adopted doctrines that were later innovations.

    Even after millennia of heresies that have tried to confuse church teaching, including now. The church’s teaching on marriage remains, no matter what the Pope says.

    Unless he can persuade the Magisterium to agree.

    The Pope is the head of the church but there are many limits to his power. The Pope is not a totalitarian dictator, he can’t go against sacred scripture, the magisterium or sacred tradition.

    This makes the presumption that the Magisterium and Tradition are in accord with Scripture, which is mostly, but not always, the case.

    No matter how hard the German Bishops want him to, it won’t change. You don’t have to agree however people should research the limits to papal infallibility. It’s rather frustrating to have to fend off some of the misconceptions about what we actually believe when it’s very easy to look up, as fellow conservatives I’m sure you can relate

    It can be difficult in some cases to find out what the Church of Rome actually teaches as Dogma.  I have had to go beyond the Catechism and into Canon Law on more than one occasion.

    And I do relate very much to the use of authoritative works, and completely agree that our doctrinal disputes are ultimately appeals to authority, which is similar to American political conservatives’ appeal to the Constitution.

    1+
    avatar
  18. I think all the participants here can remember a handful of memorable posts at R>, which led to the Management telling us to knock it off with the Reformation.

    One of the difficulties there, and since then in my broader internet experience, is the problem of conflation.  Catholics tend to want to tar all Protestants with one brush, in which the Errors of Liberal Baptists are attributed to all Protestants.  Likewise, I have learned that Catholics do not speak with one voice, and that there are many orthodox Catholics who dissent from this or that teaching of the Church of Rome.

    And I have seen ill will expressed from both sides, or all the various sides.  I have experienced the same hostility that Bryan G.S. describes.  From both Catholics and Baptists, since, as a Lutheran, I have doctrinal differences on both fronts.

    On the whole it helps to have friends in multiple Christian communities who are willing to dive into doctrinal weeds.  ‘Iron sharpens iron’ and all that.

    2+
    avataravatar
  19. Hypatia:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    On some level I don’t rightly care about Catholic Orthodoxy. The Nicean creed says what it says. One baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This is where I think Catholicism breaks down: there is no denominational aspect to the Bible. He did not say “none get to heaven except through Me…and adherence to Catholic Orthodoxy.” If you are baptized in the Trinity and have confessed your sins and repented, you’re saved, full stop. Any addition to that from any denominational orthodoxy is just man made pap and deserving of being disregarded.

    Isn’t what you just wrote the heresy of “Americanism”? What I don’t understand, and this isn’t a criticism ,it’s just, well, something I don’t understand:  Why call yourself a member of ANY church if you do not accept its dogma?

    There are lots of reasons why Christians continue to belong to churches after they have discarded elements of the Church’s teaching.  This seems more commonplace among Catholics, because Catholic teaching provides a large barrier to continued family life for those who have left the church.

    0

  20. Hypatia:
    the heresy of “Americanism”?

    The quintessentially American quality of individualism brought into religion, in which every person is expected to “roll their own” religion, adopting or discarding elements of doctrine as if selecting a wardrobe.

    Yes; this way of thinking fueled a multiplicity of Protestant churches, heretical churches, and launched a number of “movements” within Catholicism.

    In a way it is bad, because it Balkanizes Christians.  In a way it is good, because it encourages everyone to examine what they believe.

    We see America as a spiritual marketplace.

    If you want the spiritual marketplace of America to continue to be “free market” you have to vote for Donald Trump.  The Anti-America party opposes religious liberty and would soon empower the thought police to start putting priests and pastors in jail.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  21. MJBubba:

    Hypatia:
    the heresy of “Americanism”?

    The quintessentially American quality of individualism brought into religion, in which every person is expected to “roll their own” religion, adopting or discarding elements of doctrine as if selecting a wardrobe.

    Yes; this way of thinking fueled a multiplicity of Protestant churches, heretical churches, and launched a number of “movements” within Catholicism.

    In a way it is bad, because it Balkanizes Christians.  In a way it is good, because it encourages everyone to examine what they believe.

    We see America as a spiritual marketplace.

    If you want the spiritual marketplace of America to continue to be “free market” you have to vote for Donald Trump.  The Anti-America party opposes religious liberty and would soon empower the thought police to start putting priests and pastors in jail.

    Pretty sure it is Catholic to say I am headed to Hell for this, because I DARE to think I might have a direct relationship with Him and figure things out for myself.

    1+
    avatar
  22. Hypatia:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    On some level I don’t rightly care about Catholic Orthodoxy. The Nicean creed says what it says. One baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This is where I think Catholicism breaks down: there is no denominational aspect to the Bible. He did not say “none get to heaven except through Me…and adherence to Catholic Orthodoxy.” If you are baptized in the Trinity and have confessed your sins and repented, you’re saved, full stop. Any addition to that from any denominational orthodoxy is just man made pap and deserving of being disregarded.

    Isn’t what you just wrote the heresy of “Americanism”? What I don’t understand, and this isn’t a criticism ,it’s just, well, something I don’t understand:  Why call yourself a member of ANY church if you do not accept its dogma?

    I think the point is to surround yourself with others who possess more knowledge.  One cannot be fully a hermit and claim to have all the answers.
    Look I like Catholicism because of the tradition, the Communion, and the historical connection to Christ the other denominations lack. There is a lot of evil that has penetrated the Church but there is much more righteousness.

    2+
    avataravatar

Leave a Reply