Far from it…What? This post is a non sequitur if I ever saw one.
Thats only when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra.
You may see it, but I don’t see any relation between ISIS and the Synod. If you’re saying the Church is moving into apostasy while ISIS licks their chops for world domination, I find that hard to believe. God, in His goodness, would not let the pooch get THAT screwed!
God let Israel and the temple get wiped out by infidels time and again.
This would apply equally to polygamists. I’m assuming you were joking but it sounds like you and the above poster were comparing homosexuals to polygamists. That would be quite an insult to them; one which they definitely don’t deserve.The polygamy snyod?
Perhaps that synod with give us something like “polygamists have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” We will be welcoming.
You know, even the very thought of this being brought up in this manner, if it is not a translation error, gives the impression that God is contradicting Himself. On the one hand, He destroyed because of these practices, now they are giving the impression that God has now changed His mind about homosexuality in the 21st century. I am surprised at the bishops, etc. who have not thought that this statement, if correct, would put God in a whole new light. What is there to value in this orientation, if God, saw it abhorrent enough to destroy two cities because of it. I hope this is just a translation error and not something that will take shape for doctrine, etc.
This report troubles me greatly. We should be charitable to sinners, as we’re all sinners, but we should still condemn the sin. This document adds a lot of ambiguity and does not call homosexuality for what it is - a grave sin.
Keep in mind that we’ve yet to hear fully from all of the bishops. They haven’t voted on anything and they haven’t had a chance to speak out to the laity. Maybe there are some saints out there after all. There could more turns and twists ahead than you would ever imagine. I wonder what Thomas More is thinking right now? A LOT of the Church doctrine and tradition is soon to be obsolete, if not now, in the near future.
If that actually is an accurate transalation, my guess would be that it means we should value the whole person, even the flawed parts of them. Doesn’t seem like a very new teaching to me.
What about the heterosexual couple who are known to be in an invalid marriage? Should they refrain from coming together? How about, like, almost every couple in the pews? Polls show that most Catholics use artificial birth control. Should they not go to Mass?Gilliam, it’s not difficult to see. I knew a homosexual (not one myself BTW). He came to our parish, regularly. He discussed his problem with me (he had the grace to know it was a problem - ‘valuing’, tosh!).** It never crossed his mind to bring his current partner with him to church, just like an alcoholic doesn’t bring a bottle of plonk and swig it back during Mass.**
The parish is - or should be - a Catholic space. Where we believe the same things and agree on the same Commandments. If we are imperfect and fail to keep them, that’s OK. **But we do nothing that in any way adds up to an *endorsement ***of sin. My friend was not endorsing sin when he came to church. His homosexuality was not a public fact. **But two homosexuals who come to church together ***are *****endorsing sin. A single visit, in ignorance, OK. We show a little understanding. But regular attendance, no.
We do as Christ did. Deal with public sinners on neutral ground, and let them visit our churches in a manner which makes clear they are not shoving their lifestyle in our faces.
I do not see any proposed changes to Church doctrine in this paper.
We are just getting started.
These are more or less a group of baby boomers, largely of European extraction (directly or indirectly), liberal persuasion, appointed by Pope Francis who is the same. The same thinking you see influencing our Western culture in many, many other ways. Sorry, it’s many things, but new is not one of them.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=914698
When it includes words of “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation”, that is apostasy.
Ya but he can’t teach anything that goes against previous teaching. He can’t teach against existing Church doctrine. If he did then he would cease to be pope.
No chance, but as I follow the synod, I can’t help thinking about the Arian crisis. That particular episode started with a fairly harmonious council (Nicaea) and ended in a episcopal free-for-all that lasted over half a century. The trouble then, as now, was the secular world. The Church had come to terms with the political system in the person of Constantine and found herself inundated with a mass of converts who were following the wind’s new direction and had only a superficial understanding of what it meant to be Catholic. A pagan-Catholic doctrinal compromise - Arianism - found support in Constantine’s son, Constantius, and the game was on, led by pro-Arian bishops like Eusebius of Nicomedia (who baptized Constantine on his deathbed).
