Since you are claiming that he said it, it is on your shoulders to provide the source.It was a general phase that I remembe , but I am sure you can look it up if you are interested.
You make the mistake of confusing what Catholics do with what the Catholic Church professes.Not all Catholics. I’m referring to Catholics who support SSM and affirm homosexuality against the teachings of their church.
I am sorry that Protestants might be offended at the tone of some of these posts.Please refer to the actual train of comments and see if you can’t see why Protestants might be offended at the tone of some of these posts:
Religions schism and merge and schism again. Even today, people break from the Catholic Church and call themselves Catholic. We cannot help what people call themselves or what names and identities they appropriate and what doctrines they twist, distort or ignore for their own purposes.From my perspective it is not “more noble” to ignore the Church’s clear teaching on the matter; however, a Catholic cannot then find or found another Catholic Church that will actually do what they like. You must admit that the Evangelical ecclesial buffet has a bit more variety than any Catholic diner, even including the fast-food Catholic variety.
There you go again. I provided the source it was my memory. If I had quoted Pope Francis I would have supplied the source of the quote.Since you are claiming that he said it, it is on your shoulders to provide the source.
I think, personally, that you have no idea what he really said. And the context in which it was said. And what it meant when he said it.
I’m not confusing anything. A poster said that many Catholics are too nice to call sin what it is. That same poster said that the only reason many evangelicals are faithful to Scriptures which condemn homosexual relationships is because they hated gays.You make the mistake of confusing what Catholics do with what the Catholic Church professes.
Yes, that does make me sad. There is no need to offend people on purpose. If we speak the truth in love and someone is offended, we cannot help that. Truth must be spoken. However, some of the things that have been said on this thread have not been truth (only insults and accusations and moral equivocation). No doubt, I more sensitive to this when done to evangelicals because I am an evangelical myself. But it shouldn’t happen to anyone.Does it cause you any sorrow that I might be offended by the tone of some of the Protestants posts? Especially those who initially started out with great charity and have, of late, devolved into some rather offensive tones?
unfortunately, our Catholic-in-name-only fellow Catholics and protestants have the same mindset - that there is no central authority, the finger wags at both of you!That being said, I wonder when Catholics will stop wagging their fingers at Protestants for not having a central ecclesiastical authority and instead start trying to help their fellow Catholics actually submit to their own church’s authority?
Egg-zactly.unfortunately, our Catholic-in-name-only fellow Catholics and protestants have the same mindset - that there is no central authority, the finger wags at both of you!
A mistake not unique to non-Roman Catholics.You make the mistake of confusing what Catholics do with what the Catholic Church professes.
Once again, source? This is a HUGE claim to make, PR. HUGE. Do you have any “Protestant” sources, as I previously asked?The Church has her paradosis, given to us once and for all, by the saints. Catholics diverging from this is something not countenanced by the Church.
Protestants, however, deviated from this Church, and as such, any deviation is sanctioned.
Your logical fallacy is:At least, it should be if the Protestant elders are being consistent, logical and not hypocritical saying, “We reserve the right for our ancestors to deviate from a church, but we don’t believe that you can deviate from us.”
The False Dilemma
(also known as: false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)
Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.
Then take solace that you aren’t alone; I am also sorry you feel bad. And that you no longer respond to legitimate posts.I am sorry that Protestants might be offended at the tone of some of these posts.
Does it cause you any sorrow that I might be offended by the tone of some of the Protestants posts? Especially those who initially started out with great charity and have, of late, devolved into some rather offensive tones?
I second that. If you were the other person PR ignores I know I am in good company.A mistake not unique to non-Roman Catholics.
Once again, source? This is a HUGE claim to make, PR. HUGE. Do you have any “Protestant” sources, as I previously asked?
Your logical fallacy is:
Then take solace that you aren’t alone; I am also sorry you feel bad. And that you no longer respond to legitimate posts.
This claim is ludicrous beyond satire.Protestants, however, deviated from this Church, and as such, any deviation is sanctioned.
That is indeed a sweeping statement. Lol…my family must have not gotten the memo, because we neglected to set up the requisite “JFK-like” shrine in 2008.In many Black homes a JFK like shrine went up for Barack Obama on that Wednesday in November 2008. Politics trumps religious leaders and doctrine for most, Catholic or African American.
President Obama de-evolved to be for same sex marriage again. You can’t claim that almost all opposition to Obama is because of his race, otherwise we would be adding a head to Mount Rushmore as soon as he leaves office and then be against one of his major political wins, as the President sees it. It is more shameful that his abortion record was dismissed in 2008, but the record along with those other Democrats with similar abortion records have had their positions dismissed since Roe versus Wade.
Which part?This claim is ludicrous beyond satire.
I addressed this fallacy in the past few previous posts. My objection to your line of questioning is legitimate; it deserves a response, if you intend to continue offering your view without sources. I do not understand why you are ignoring me.If it’s the second, then you are correct in that it is ludicrous–one cannot say, “We have the right to deviate from the Church” while also saying, “You don’t have the right to deviate from our church!”
Ludicrous? Absolutely.
Not if you see them as qualitatively different scenarios. Presumably you do.Which part?
This? “Protestants, however, deviated from this Church”
Or this? “and as such, any deviation is sanctioned.”
If it’s the former, then you need to have a review of History 101.
If it’s the second, then you are correct in that it is ludicrous–one cannot say, “We have the right to deviate from the Church” while also saying, “You don’t have the right to deviate from our church!”
Ludicrous? Absolutely.
I don’t see the difference.Not if you see them as qualitatively different scenarios. Presumably you do.
I don’t see how this addresses the hypocrisy of Protestantism saying, “We reserve the right to deviate from the Church” but telling its members “You can’t deviate from the church”.Presumably you, as a Roman Catholic, believe that nobody has the right to deviate from the Roman Church’s doctrine; a corollary of this is that you also presumably believe that - in the interests of orthodoxy and truth - everyone has the right, nay, the obligation, to deviate from the doctrine of every other church, ecclesial community, religion, belief-system, etc.
They’re different churches. Teaching different things. Surely you can see that it’s logically possible that it would be right to deviate from one and not from the other?I don’t see how this addresses the hypocrisy of Protestantism saying, “We reserve the right to deviate from the Church” but telling its members “You can’t deviate from the church”.
The statement is ludicrous because it is much too broad and vague, we do not know what the poster believes is being sanctioned or by who is doing the sanctioning.Which part?
This? “Protestants, however, deviated from this Church”
Or this? “and as such, any deviation is sanctioned.”
If it’s the former, then you need to have a review of History 101.
If it’s the second, then you are correct in that it is ludicrous–one cannot say, “We have the right to deviate from the Church” while also saying, “You don’t have the right to deviate from our church!”
Ludicrous? Absolutely.
Yep.They’re different churches. Teaching different things.
My objection isn’t to the deviation. It’s to the leaders of your churches saying, “You can’t deviate”.Surely you can see that it’s logically possible that it would be right to deviate from one and not from the other?
Well that would depend on the reason they give.My objection isn’t to the deviation. It’s to the leaders of your churches saying, “You can’t deviate”.
They cannot rejoice in the Reformers’ deviation while also objecting to their members deviating.
So they think that the Reformers should not have deviated, then?If they’re saying: “we’re right, and on that basis you shouldn’t deviate from what we say,” then they’re being in no way inconsistent.