Evangelicals treading toward gay marriage?

[guanophore]

The logic is faulty also. One can not reason logically that because there was a deviation that any other deviation will be sanctioned.

There is some truth to that. On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI issued a papal encyclical, Casti Connubii (Latin for “Of Chaste Wedlock”), which reflected the theology of the Body later enumerated by JP2 that “sterile” sex, or sex not open to fruitful life was contrary to God’s plan for humankind. He prophetically stated at that time that when modern culture removed the open and fruitful element of sexual intimacy, that promiscuity and a general deterioration would result. I think it is clear that this has indeed happened, and has been sanctioned by society.

It is not much of a jump to go from a sterile heterosexual marriage into a sterile union between persons of the same sex. Sanctioning will continue.

 

[Novocastrian]

So they think that the Reformers should not have deviated, then?

Only if they also think that the unreformed Church was right in everything it taught. But they don’t, so they’re not being inconsistent.

 

[frobert]

There is some truth to that. On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI issued a papal encyclical, Casti Connubii (Latin for “Of Chaste Wedlock”), which reflected the theology of the Body later enumerated by JP2 that “sterile” sex, or sex not open to fruitful life was contrary to God’s plan for humankind. He prophetically stated at that time that when modern culture removed the open and fruitful element of sexual intimacy, that promiscuity and a general deterioration would result. I think it is clear that this has indeed happened, and has been sanctioned by society.

It is not much of a jump to go from a sterile heterosexual marriage into a sterile union between persons of the same sex. Sanctioning will continue.

It was more an observation of reality than a prediction. Promiscuity in the roaring 20s was already firmly established.

The Decade that Gave Birth to Sexual Promiscuity: The 1920s

Promiscuity, gay or straight often leads to sexual addiction which is a living hell.

 

[PRmerger]

Only if they also think that the unreformed Church was right in everything it taught. But they don’t, so they’re not being inconsistent.

Let me see if I understand what you’re presenting as the Protestant paradigm:

It was perfectly acceptable for Christians to deviate from the Catholic Church because they were teaching some incorrect doctrine. But it is NOT acceptable for Christians to deviate from our churches today.

Is that a correct synopsis?

 

[frobert]

Let me see if I understand what you’re presenting as the Protestant paradigm:

It was perfectly acceptable for Christians to deviate from the Catholic Church because they were teaching some incorrect doctrine. But it is NOT acceptable for Christians to deviate from our churches today.

Is that a correct synopsis?

The poster is confusing the marco Protestant Reformation with the micro individual matters of conscience and motives.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Everyone has a God given right to deviate. God created humankind with free will, and the ability to choose to deviate from His plan for our lives. From that perspective any can, and many do, deviate from the rule of faith that has been delivered to us from the Apostles.

Actually, there are parts of every ecclesial community, religion, and belief system that contain the One Faith that was revealed to us through the Aposltes. We share much more with our Protestant brethren than we do most other belief systems. All Protestants, for example, would agree with us about the Trinity, the contents (canon) of the New Testament, the Apostles’ creed, the hypostatic union and most other elements of the faith.

I will agree, though, that in order for one to come into unity with the One Faith, there are doctrines which have deviated that must be disavowed. I had to struggle with these after many decades of sojourning among my separated brethren. Sola Scriptura is one of those doctrines.

I think that the succesor of Peter is the visible sign of unity for the church sojourning on earth, and when ecclesial communities depart from that sign of unity, other essential parts of the faith begin to erode.

The faith is One, and if individuals begin to pull strands strands from the seamless garmet, it begins to unravel. One departure leads to another, and another, until the “reformed” faith is no longer recognizable.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/evangelicals-gay-marriage-108608.html

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/07/07/pew-chart1.png

Since they do not have an official doctrinal body, nor any objective standard on orthodoxy, it seems the battle is already lost. Only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will remain in the next 10-15 yrs.

Its true gay marriage is gaining supporting amongst ALL groups. But evangelicals are still amongst the lowest. Catholics and mainline Protestants aren’t not fairing to well in this area. We should be thanking the evangelicals for their support of traditional marriage, not condemning them.

 

[PRmerger]

We should be thanking the evangelicals for their support of traditional marriage, not condemning them.

No Catholic on this thread has condemned any Evangelical.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

No Catholic on this thread has condemned any Evangelical.

Well I am not sure claiming that they won’t exist in 10 years is a fair assessment, or an honest one considering the evangelical numbers are frankly putting Catholic and Mainline numbers to shame.

 

[PRmerger]

Well I am not sure claiming that they won’t exist in 10 years is a fair assessment, or an honest one considering the evangelical numbers are frankly putting Catholic and Mainline numbers to shame.

Well, ok. But that’s not even close to anyone here “condemning” Evangelicals.

 

[manualman]

That’s a silly argument.

Regardless, apparently you must admit that Evangelicals are doing a better job of teaching in regards to homosexual marriage than the Catholic teachers. Even the article says that the Evangelicals who teach homosexual marriage is okay should “ignore what the Bible says” about it.

This article does not help the Catholic case.

This comes up in polling a lot. And actually the gospel this last Sunday explains it well. Catholicism is 2,000 years old and like all religions that old has spawned its own distinct subculture. American evangelicalism is something pretty different about every 20 years. In Catholicism, the weeds grow among the wheat, meaning that an awful lot of the people who say “catholic” when asked their religion have really either long abandoned the faith or never really entered into it at all. Very few people from Saddleback or Willow Creek are there because their parents and grandparents were. Those there and who identify that way in polls choose it and when/if they do lose their faith, they stop calling themselves evangelicals quite quickly.

In poll after poll, catholics look no different than the general public on any number of issues. But when you focus in on catholics who actually BELIEVE in their faith (evidenced by weekly mass attendance, at least twice a year confession, daily prayer, regular Scripture reading, etc), believing catholics look pretty good. To a lesser extent, the same is true of evangelicals (slightly different metrics, of course!). Only a lesser extent because they already tend not to identify that way in polls anymore if they lose their faith.

One can debate about whether this “cultural glue” thing is good or not as compared to the drop-out altogether effect common in the evangelical world, but since Jesus himself predicted that the weeds and wheat would grow up together, I guess we shouldn’t exactly be surprised if it turns out to be true…

 

[dronald]

This comes up in polling a lot. And actually the gospel this last Sunday explains it well. Catholicism is 2,000 years old and like all religions that old has spawned its own distinct subculture. American evangelicalism is something pretty different about every 20 years. In Catholicism, the weeds grow among the wheat, meaning that an awful lot of the people who say “catholic” when asked their religion have really either long abandoned the faith or never really entered into it at all. Very few people from Saddleback or Willow Creek are there because their parents and grandparents were. Those there and who identify that way in polls choose it and when/if they do lose their faith, they stop calling themselves evangelicals quite quickly.

In poll after poll, catholics look no different than the general public on any number of issues. But when you focus in on catholics who actually BELIEVE in their faith (evidenced by weekly mass attendance, at least twice a year confession, daily prayer, regular Scripture reading, etc), believing catholics look pretty good. To a lesser extent, the same is true of evangelicals (slightly different metrics, of course!). Only a lesser extent because they already tend not to identify that way in polls anymore if they lose their faith.

One can debate about whether this “cultural glue” thing is good or not as compared to the drop-out altogether effect common in the evangelical world, but since Jesus himself predicted that the weeds and wheat would grow up together, I guess we shouldn’t exactly be surprised if it turns out to be true…

So you and I are the wheat and the fake Catholics and false teachers are the weeds.

Both our Church’s bear fruit.

 

[PRmerger]

So you and I are the wheat and the fake Catholics and false teachers are the weeds.

Both our Church’s bear fruit.

What do you mean? Who are the “fake Catholics”?

 

[dronald]

What do you mean? Who are the “fake Catholics”?

I was referring to the person whom I quoted who said, “In Catholicism, the weeds grow among the wheat, meaning that an awful lot of the people who say “catholic” when asked their religion have really either long abandoned the faith or never really entered into it at all.”

 

[PRmerger]

I was referring to the person whom I quoted who said, “In Catholicism, the weeds grow among the wheat, meaning that an awful lot of the people who say “catholic” when asked their religion have really either long abandoned the faith or never really entered into it at all.”

That’s a little harsh.

I don’t know how to identify a fake Catholic from a real Catholic.

Even the Catholics who are just “lump in the pews” Catholics, who may not even know that Isaiah is in the OT and Hebrews is in the NT–how do we know they’re “fake Catholics”?

 

[frobert]

I don’t know how to identify a fake Catholic from a real Catholic.

Are you hijacking the thread which is about Evangelicals and not fake Catholics?

 

[Adamski]

I was referring to the person whom I quoted who said, “In Catholicism, the weeds grow among the wheat, meaning that an awful lot of the people who say “catholic” when asked their religion have really either long abandoned the faith or never really entered into it at all.”

That is what our liturgy was about this week, it is sad there are many people that would say I’m catholic and be far from the faith but at least we know what the faith is in my town there are 10 different evangelical churches that all believe slightly different things

 

[stewstew03]

Are you hijacking the thread which is about Evangelicals and not fake Catholics?

No, pay attention. PR was responding to a post by dronald, who alluded to the idea of “fake” catholics (i.e., “people who say [they’re] ‘catholic’… [but have] long abandoned the faith or never really entered into it”).

 

[dronald]

No, pay attention. PR was responding to a post by dronald, who alluded to the idea of “fake” catholics (i.e., “people who say [they’re] ‘catholic’… [but have] long abandoned the faith or never really entered into it”).

Keep in mind I wasn’t necessarily promoting being able to judge the hearts or thoughts of others, but rather responding to a post.

 

[PRmerger]

Keep in mind I wasn’t necessarily promoting being able to judge the hearts or thoughts of others, but rather responding to a post.

Fair enough.

But since you used the term, can you identify how you think we can know who these “fake Catholics” are?