POPE FRANCIS: A HOMOSEXUAL CANNOT BE A PRIEST OR CONSECRATED

Pope Francis is right, though. People struggling with SSA, even if in good faith, shouldn't be accepted in the clergy.

Catholics are smart enough to see what happened to the Lutherans and the Anglicans.

Why modernise? why bend to the modern world? those who want that are not even the church going type.

Attached: h.png (938x788, 323.56K)

based

Hurr why are Catholic priests pedophiles guyz?
That's the same logic the church had back in the 60s. Better late than ever to recognise faggots are the problem.
It took Pope Francis balls to say it.

B-B-B-BUT MUH FAVORITE BASED AND REDPILLED ANTI-CATHOLIC MEDIA OUTLET SAID HE WAS A GAY NWO COMMIE

Seems like your actions aren't exactly lining up with your words. We need another inquisition.

then what should their vocation be?

Wait and see if his words lead to a single action. Know them by their fruits.

Ok,now do something about the faggots paps

I thought works didn't matter.

This man is all over the place with his opinions

Not really. You're probably just reading what the media sensationalizes.

Well its a step in the right direction I suppose, maybe next he will stop idolatry that is in the church

Attached: 1505665193625.png (546x704, 433.22K)

Exactly. How many of you would have known he even said this if I hadn't translated it?

...

Wrong.
What the Catholic church NEEDS to do is:
(i) recognise, for once, that while the Church™ may be infallible, the clergy are still the same weak human beings of yore, they are not demi-gods of superhuman abilities, they are not the all-seeing-eye of God, they are just humans;
(ii) establish, once and for all, Church winnie-the-pooh-ing discipline – time for some serious excommunicatin', y'all!!
(iii) purge the limp-wristed (and I don't mean explicitly gay) episcopal leadership that won't discipline properly,
(iv) welcome genuine, serious, spiritual acolytes into the clergy who are dedicated to the notion of Christ alone for the rest of their lives,
(v) be willing to accept that half the clergy are expelled, half the congregations shrink, and seeing a priest is a rare thing
(vi) Train-up more deacons and lay-folk to pastor the flock and make-up the shortfall
(vii) ???
(viii) Profit!

This isn't just an issue about faggots invading the church because it is a safe space to fiddle kids, this is about power, unlimited, unfettered, unquestioned power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Funny that it was a catholic who said that. Maybe keeping ALL gays out of the clergy will work – if you can FIND them all; remember, these ones slipped through the lines of defense – but the church™ will still have the same issues with abuses of power, lack of discipline, ungodliness amongst clergy, and episcopal leaders brushing it all under the carpet. It took the fedora-world to expose this lot only because it was so egregious and easily outrage-worthy. The next scandal will still come. And the next. Discipline is what's needed, serious consequences for serious failures of leadership.

They don't have one. God does not call anyone who has even an inkling of sodomite perversion to the priesthood. He does not even call non sodomites who indulge in lustful thoughts to the clergy. Sodomites must do much penance to rid themselves of their perversion.

Agreed. Excommunications need to drop like rain again.

What about after penance

Sodomite implies that the person in question will never seek to repent twords God.

That's not really implied. But I agree there's a strong distinction.

Reddit "Christians" are furious.

reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/a2e6sk/gay_people_should_not_join_catholic_clergy_pope/

If this statement were true, God would be corrupt. A catholic whig coined that adage, and whigs were the original progressives.

Begone HERETIC!

...

I wasn't implying God has faults.
If power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely
and if God has absolute power
Then God is absolutely corrupt.
Obviously, God is not absolutely corrupt.
Therefore, power does not corrupt.

Of Course they are. Don't all they do there, is appease sodomites?, Appease atheists?, And i'm pretty sure, but if i were to bring up the warrior saints/class of Christianity. Crusades. Orthodox warriors defending against the, Ottomans. That would probably be struck down? Isn't reddit the place, where the whole Flying Spaghetti monster meme started? Along with the onslaught of angry atheist of 2008? That's still lingering around this to this day? So, if that's the case no surprise lol.

Attached: mr skeptic.png (700x935, 2.5M)

Na flying spaghetti monster was made in the 90s well before reddit

Yes you are. God has absolute power over us all, yet he is not corrupt. Corruption is due to our human faults (hence why the Vatican is so corrupt).

REPENT HERETIC

Attached: 1367008043902.jpg (800x600, 186.29K)

Monarchy is the Christian form of government, too bad Prots hate authority more than they hate sin.

1 Samuel and 2 Samuel were all about monarchy corrupting israel and human monarchs being corrupt, God is the only true monarch THEE POINT OF SAMUEL, God again and again tells them they do not want a monarchy. Read your freaking bible before you talk Zig Forums out of your ass.

How are you this dense? I will spell it out for you one last time. Power does not corrupt. If power corrupted, God would be corrupt. God is not corrupt, therefore power does not corrupt.

Humans arent God, how dense are you.

Ah, ok thanks didn't know that. Plus being born in the 90s, i only came into a childhood during the early 2000s. I always thought it came out of the 2008 atheist assault wave, and my bias showing but rightfully so against, a lot of the protestant denominations. That have really bad theology/Explanations. But still pretty cringey, now going into the Church fathers, G,k Chesterton, C.S Lewis, and so more. A lot of these arguments we're just as cringey as the protestants saying, *Oh well god works in mysterious ways*.

Israel was corrupt before Saul became king, and God gave them the good king David.
God is the only perfect monarch, not the only true one. There have been many true monarchs.

David disobeys god constantly in 2 Samuel and does things that hurts his country as a monarch.

So?

You dropped this. Here you go. Now please be a heretic somewhere else.

Attached: jacksonhat1.jpg (800x532, 37.29K)

...

Do you see your cognitive dissonance?

If man weren't fallen, kings wouldn't be necessary. Governments wouldn't be necessary. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to get rid of all governments. Is your interpretation of Samuel 1 and 2 that God intends democracy?

Traditional Christian government is monarchy. That is the government of Christendom. I have more trust in the Church than I do in keyboard warriors on the internet.

No god wants councils of judges and elders like israel had before they begged god for a king and god RELUCTANTLY provided one. 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel clearly define that Monarchy is not the government of Christendom.

Also Church isnt Government

Polite Sage

Monarchy has been the government of Christendom since Constantine. Are you saying that Constantine was a heretic?

Constantine hardly had an absolute monarchy, they had councils of priest, councils of governors and councils of republics who had their own smaller councils.

Perhaps you misunderstood: I'm not discussing Church organization. I'm saying that the secular form of government ideal for Christianity is an enlightened Christian monarchy. I'm not arguing for Papism or for the Pope to rule a secular empire.

Im not talking church organization either, I mean I dont understand why you need any more proof than god telling the israelites not to have a monarch and only buckling after 10 years of begging and GOD CHOOSES THEM unlike real life monarchies and even the ones god chooses are corrupt. Just cause the church came about in a monarchy doesnt mean monarchy is the answer, the only real monarch is god and absolute power doesnt absolutely corrupt him CAUSE HE IS GOD NOT HUMAN.

Because wiser men than me read Samuel 1 and 2 and still chose to support monarchy. I'm an inheritor of the Christian tradition, not a lone wolf reconstructing the faith off of my ability to correctly interpret Scripture.

you just ridiculous man

...

St Thomas Aquinas was against absolute Monarchy and believed all men were equal in God. The divine right concept came from the church of England twisting statements made by st Robert in his claim that no matter the government system power is appointed by god. In short church fathers dont actually agree with you.

What about becoming a monk or hermit (if that counts)?

Being a hermit would be better. Surrounding yourself with temptation in a monestary won't help you at all.

Attached: 1a.jpg (462x800, 77.91K)

But he said nothing of the sort. In fact he uses argumentation that is known even in the bible, even if he's wrong anyways

This was posted. You may look into the predilections of the person that posted it.

old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/a1v0ar/pope_francis_a_homosexual_can_not_be_a_priest_or/

Attached: 1376189E-5C4B-4C06-8BF3-2C4F7AA549C3.jpeg (399x984, 97.56K)

reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/a2d5un/gay_people_should_not_join_catholic_clergy_pope/

Have some cancer

Convenient to ignore the fact that for most of Christian history most Christian nations have had monarchical governments. I don't think this is a coincidence, and frankly I don't care that much what Thomas Aquinas thought. He wasn't Orthodox.

Site the church fathers then cause two sited church fathers disagree with you. Your original argument was that it was defined by the church fathers. So come on or is this thread right

“Monarchy is superior to every other constitution and form of government. For polyarchy, where everyone competes on equal terms, is really anarchy and discord.” —Eusebius of Caesaria (4th Century)

“The three most ancient opinions about God are atheism (or anarchy), polytheism (or polyarchy), and monotheism (or monarchy). The children of Greece played with the first two; let us leave them to their games. For anarchy is disorder: and polyarchy implies factious division, and therefore anarchy and disorder. Both these lead in the same direction – to disorder; and disorder leads to disintegration; for disorder is the prelude to disintegration. What we honour is monarchy”—St. Gregory the Theologian (4th Century)

“God has counted the Emperors worthy to rule over His inheritance, over His earthly Church.” - St. Gregory of Palamas

So we done here or nah?

Attached: 1523404027338.jpg (2244x2859, 562.95K)

yes for once you googled and actually read what church fathers wrote im pleased… you are on your way to becoming a real christian rather than a larper that wants to play olden days.

...

Lel I could say the same thing based off church fathers I sited so not sure your point. Im about 100% sure you didnt actually check what church fathers said till i pointed out two church fathers that disagreed with you.

St. Robert didn't actually disagree with my point, really anyone who has read Romans already knows what he was saying there. As for Thomas Aquinas; I'm not Catholic, and I think he was wrong.

...

ehh robert did robert said the only working form of monarchy was a mix of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, pure monarchies dont work in his view point.

"pure monarchy"
Does this imply a single person micromanaging everyone's lives in the entire state? Obviously the sovereign can delegate…

pure monarchy implies absolute power rest with the monarch rather than with the his appointed councils and peoples constitution, in the mixed monarchy he suggest the monarch is more just a figurehead, see britian.

Constitutional monarchy is a joke; every constitutional monarchy is indistinguishable from a democracy. The king is sovereign or he isn't; no benefit to pretending he answers to a piece of paper.

then you dont agree with St Robert cut and dry… moving on

Of all the shit I have read on this board, THIS would have to be the dumbest winnie the pooh shit …

The statement implicitly limits itself to humans alone, doofus. Anyone who knows God knows God is without corruption.
Stop being a fedora, moron.

Attached: fedora-kitty.gif (335x258, 1.98M)

Attached: dont-assume_v02.jpg (570x375, 32.5K)

Are you dyslexic?

No im a Christian

"Power corrupts" is not a Christian teaching. It is a Whig teaching. Whigs believed that "the arc of history bends toward justice". In essence, they were progressives. Christians traditionally did not believe that the arc of history bends toward justice, Christians believe that the world is fallen and will be until the return of Christ our king, that the best possible world is merely one in which we submit to God's eternal will. God does not change, so our submission to God should not change.

The theory of relativity isn't a Christian teaching either, does that mean we should discard that as well? Just because some Whigs coined the phrase doesn't make it any less true.

...

The theory of relativity doesn't obligate me to refer to men who have mutilated their genitalia as women, nor to pretend that women are exactly the same as men, nor to pretend that Jamaicans are the same as Belgians.
21st century Whiggery, however, does.

The Whigs were hardly modern progressives they believed in absolute power of the federal government, that is their only similar quality to modern progressives who say they want a "stronger federal government". This would be sorta like saying whigs caused the Civil war, but we all know it was the republican party in power doing whig like things.

They aren't just "similar" they have many identical beliefs, chiefly, that the world is slowly becoming better, that society is evolving, and that authority is evil. These beliefs are identical whether we are talking about an 18th century Whig or a 21st century blue-haired sodomite.

yet the whigs were known as the party of the aristocracy, many were slave owners and believed in centralizing power and strong authority the complete opposite of what you describe.

You're thinking of the American whig party, not the original Whigs. We're all either Whigs or Tory's, but the American political parties were all Whigs fundamentally, the American revolution was a Whig revolution.

When a heterosexual has a lapse in celibacy, he has an affair with a grown woman. When a homosexual has a lapse in celibacy, he rapes little boys. This is a lesson the Church has learned over and over and over again. It's just not worth the overwhelming risk.

Nah. He only said there's no place in the church for this…they'll just send the boys to the rape shack next door.

Do you get any Graces or brownie points for going into hermit? Or is it seen as the Nursing to the Priest's MD/PHD?

Seminary "education" these days mostly consists of learning how to cover up illicit homosexual love affairs with other seminarians and teachers, getting inducted into homosexual networks, and some vanilla liberal arts classes which differ very little from the ones offered at any generic college.

I heard this somewhere, but I heard seminary is where a person goes to become an atheist or a non-believer?

It has nothing to do with brownie points and had everything to do with fully devoting one's time to God. No distractions = all time goes to God.

I can't believe he said that tbh. Will bring a shitstorm from every angle

How can one be a Christian and support faggotry. Am I too dumb to understand their mental gymnastics?
How do they justify sodomy is the Bible and the Tradition say the opposite with no other interpretation possible?