The Churchs stance on homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter latin_rite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Malleus_01 said:
St Paul said they did have an option. They could opt to be shorn. So unles you see a bunch of baldheaded women they are not serving GOD’s will. And Traditional Catholic women cover their heads. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt this the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC THREAD? Now protestants - they dont have to cover their heads. Lutherans or Baptists or Mormons. You know - false man made religions. So to each their own. But we as Catholics listen to everything St Paul teaches in Scripture and Holy Mother the Church has Taught for 1900 years prior to the Modernist we all want to be protestanized hoopla. Showm me a Catholic who says women dont have to cover their heads and I will show you someone who recieves “Communion in the Hand” - who holds hands for The Our Father - who offers their neighbor the “Sign of Peace” Who sings amazing grace to a strumming guitar and who dresses down for Mass.

And by the way - I can show you in Scripture where St Paul teaches this so if you disagree with what I wrote - Take it up with St Paul. I happen to believe him even if you dont.
Click to expand...
My goodness! You know better how to interpret the words of Scripture than the Church? Interesting. I will indeed take it up with St. Paul, who I’m certain would tell me to listen to the living, breathing authority of the Church, not your interpretation of his words.

From reading your post, you obviously think that the Vatican has sinned by allowing Catholics to receive Holy Communion in the hand or allowing women of any hairstyle to participate at Mass without a head covering. (I never said that I applaud these practices, but was merely questioning the absolutist tone or your post.)

And to cap it off, you say it’s wrong for us to be offering a sign of peace.

I should hope that Traditionalists on this thread – unless they are sedevacantists – would recognize the legitimacy of the Pontiff’s permitting of these options, even if they choose to attend the EF Mass.
 
latin_rite said:
Long story short. Talking to an atheist on a web site. And she was going on about how the Church is wrong to not let gays take communion.I told her gays could. Just not gays who are sexually active.
They then posted. Yeah but the pope could change this rule. And he should because it would bring more people to the church. Because society attitudes have changed.
I told her that it doesn;t matter what the society of today feels. Or even if the pope was the most pro gay rights activist to ever set foot on the earth. He still couldn;t change that law. And the only way the church could change its stance, would be if God himself came to earth and told us he has changed his mind. I took the risk of her not knowing better, So i claimed it was a dogmatic teaching. I was either right or she didn;t know that i was wrong:blush:.
Click to expand...
Odds are she also thinks that sexual activity outside of marriage is normal and permissible. those who think this way have an extremely hard time seeing why homosexual activity is wrong.

The issue about sexual activity outide of marriage is not a doctrinal issue; it is a moral issue. And for those whose moral concepts are relativistic, it is going to be a very long conversation to get them to see otherwise.

The issue is not homosexual activity; the issue is sexual activity. Once one understands that sexual activity must be within the confines of marriage and chaste, a whole lot of other issues fall into place. But in not accepting that, it is far hader to arrive at an understanding that homosexual activity is wrong.

It is easy to quote the Old and New Testament passages that relate to homosexual activity, but if not put ionto the larger concept, it is open (as they consder the issue) to attack for being “culturally related” or “historically related”. In other words, they do not see the issue as anything other than a prejudice.

The law about homosexual activity is not an isolated law, but one within a whole construct. Sadly, we end up debating the subset without setting it in its proper context.
 
<<< My goodness! You know better how to interpret the words of Scripture than the Church? Interesting. I will indeed take it up with St. Paul, who I’m certain would tell me to listen to the living, breathing authority of the Church, not your interpretation of his words>>>.

Malleus : Which of course is self interpretation in its own right isnt it. But the obvious difference being the actual PRACTISE today in the Tridentine Latin Masses and universally prior to Vatican II. So the “Living Breathing Authority of the Church” has spoken for 1942 years from the time of St Paul. And for the Last 35 - people like you have decided to reinterpret St Paul. Tell me - just when did the Church Triumphant cease breathing or living?

<<<< From reading your post, you obviously think that the Vatican has sinned by allowing Catholics to receive Holy Communion in the hand or allowing women of any hairstyle to participate at Mass without a head covering. (I never said that I applaud these practices, but was merely questioning the absolutist tone or your post.) >>>>>>

Malleus: And it would appear from the tone of your absolutionist post - that the ongoing practise in the TLM is not worthy of your approval. You arent saying you applaude these practises in the Post Vatican II Church and you arent saying you oppose these practises either are you. No - you only oppose what is written in Scripture (and provided )and what has been practised for centuries and anyone who adheres to same out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament. And if I said anything about ANYONE SINNING - well then feel free to point it out to the rest of us. I know what I have writtten and I dont recall ever writing that or saying that. And I certainly dont need you to speak for me. If you want to know what I think - then ask. So if you can come up with a thesis where a Doctor of the Church has condemned what Saint Paul has written or who supports your point of view - that Women shouldnt and why - then I would like to be enlightened. Failing that - I suggest you stop being so judgemental of Traditional Catholic women who do cover their heads out of respect both for the Blessed Sacrament and for St Paul.

<<<< And to cap it off, you say it’s wrong for us to be offering a sign of peace. >>>>>

Malleus: I did? Well then you should have no probelm pointing it out to the rest of us then. correct?

<<<< I should hope that Traditionalists on this thread – unless they are sedevacantists – would recognize the legitimacy of the Pontiff’s permitting of these options, even if they choose to attend the EF Mass. >>>>

Malleus: And I should hope that non traditionalists on this thread would know the practises of Traditionalists on this thread so as to respect these practises and so as not to coerce the Traditionalists on this thread to march in lock step in line with what the non Traditionalists percieve is correct in keeping with the precepts of Dignaitis Humanae which they claim to believe in in theory - but apparently not in practise… But I think Respect isnt what is in the offing , is it, And insofar as sedevacantism - apparent ignorance of what sedevacantism is once again rears its ugly head doesnt it. A Baptised Catholic can petition the Sacraments from any validly ordained Priest. Period. When that Catholic partakes of the valid Sacraments and lives his Catholic Faith and keeps himself free from Sin - he fulfills his obligations to GOD. So the obvious question to you would be - who are you to JUDGE laity? They dont take the theological stand. I am beginning to wonder if you even know your faith.

Pax
 
Mal, you keep saying that I am the one doing the interpreting. In fact, it is the Church that does the interpreting. I have merely repeated what our Church teaches. Since you rabidly disagree with what the Church teaches regarding these disciplines, why are you railing on me?

I’ll ask you again to read my post. Did I say that I am anti-EF?

Furthermore, the rules of this forum are clear in that the posts are not to be of the type that bash the OF. 'Nuff said.
 
surritter said:
Mal, you keep saying that I am the one doing the interpreting. In fact, it is the Church that does the interpreting. I have merely repeated what our Church teaches. Since you rabidly disagree with what the Church teaches regarding these disciplines, why are you railing on me?

I’ll ask you again to read my post. Did I say that I am anti-EF?

Furthermore, the rules of this forum are clear in that the posts are not to be of the type that bash the OF. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...
If Mal and you wish to take up side issues as to practices, disciplines, Canon law requirements or the lack thereof and other unrelated issues from the OP’ post, perhaps you could create another thread? The topic is about homosexuality, not the EF or the OF.
 
Malleus_01 said:
Surritter: And to cap it off, you say it’s wrong for us to be offering a sign of peace.

Malleus: I did? Well then you should have no probelm pointing it out to the rest of us then. correct?
Click to expand...
Happy to oblige. From post # 17(emphasis added):

“Show me a Catholic who says women dont have to cover their heads and I will show you someone who recieves “Communion in the Hand” - who holds hands for The Our Father - who offers their neighbor the “Sign of Peace” Who sings amazing grace to a strumming guitar and who dresses down for Mass.”

I think the implication is pretty clear, but I suspect you’ll argue the point…
Sorry otjm, I just noticed your post. I’ll bow out here.
 
Malleus_01 said:
Showm me a Catholic who says women dont have to cover their heads
Click to expand...
Well, this is not taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or by any recent Pope (or Vatican dicastery)…so where do you get the idea the Catholic Church DOES teach this? Or is this just your individual preferred interpretation of select Scripture passages taken apart from the whole of Catholic Tradition?
 
Surriter writes : Mal, you keep saying that I am the one doing the interpreting. In fact, it is the Church that does the interpreting. I have merely repeated what our Church teaches. Since you rabidly disagree with what the Church teaches regarding these disciplines, why are you railing on me?

Malleus: I am not. You are me. You are the one going out of your way to make up things regarding what I have written both about me personally and about what you percieve to be the truth. I support what I write with more than my opinion. I am likewise repeating what the Church not only teaches but practises in TRADITION upon which thread this post appears. I didnt seek you out on another thread regarding the modern church - you came here. Secondly - The exegesis comes from SEVERAL SOURCES - coming to mind Hermas , St Clement of Alexandria - St Jerome ( and I think he knows a little about Scripture) St Augustine and Tertullian - not to mention the fact that CANON LAW of 1917 specifically required it - so DONT assume I am merely quoting on my own. And if you want to have a Theological Debate - let me know. I know what our Church teaches. And if you want to back up your opinions with good apologetics then I suggest you do so if for no other reason than for charities sake for your neighbor which is the sole reason I am here…

I’ll ask you again to read my post. Did I say that I am anti-EF?

Malleus: Are you? You can express your opinion just Like I have . I have written what I have written. I see no condemnation of you in it.

Sumritter : Furthermore, the rules of this forum are clear in that the posts are not to be of the type that bash the OF. 'Nuff said.

Malleus: And I suggest you revisit those rules since you appear to be in violation of them.

Surrriter writes :

And to cap it off, you say it’s wrong for us to be offering a sign of peace.

To which I responded -

Malleus: I did? Well then you should have no probelm pointing it out to the rest of us then. correct?

Happy to oblige. From post # 17(emphasis added):

“Show me a Catholic who says women dont have to cover their heads and I will show you someone who recieves “Communion in the Hand” - who holds hands for The Our Father - who offers their neighbor the “Sign of Peace” Who sings amazing grace to a strumming guitar and who dresses down for Mass.”

Malleus: Ok - I have read what you have submitted - Please point out in what I have written where I SAY its wrong for you to be offering the Sign of Peace in YOUR Church service. I am not arguing - I simply want you to back up what you have alledged. I merely said to SHOW ME and left the judgement to good people like you who have no problem being that way. I believe simply - Lex orandi, lex credendi. You see - thats exactly what you do and then attempt to accuse me.

I think the implication is pretty clear, but I suspect you’ll argue the point…

Malleus: I dont argue. I merely point out the Truths of Our Faith for the benefit of those who want to benefit from it. I’ll leave the emotion and condemnations to good people like you who live for them. Here is my other cheek.

Oh and btw : Hermas : Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume Two, Book One, Part Four, Chapter Two
St Clement: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume Two, Book Five, The Instructor, Book 2, Chapter 11
St Jerome : Schaff, Philip (1994). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Hendrickson Publishers
St Augustine : On the Trinity, Book 12, Chapter 7
Tertullian : Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume Four, Book One, Part Three—On the Veiling of Virgins
You can read some of them on Fordhams Medieval Sourcebook Full texts link

God Bless

Pax
 
If Mal and you wish to take up side issues as to practices, disciplines, Canon law requirements or the lack thereof and other unrelated issues from the OP’ post, perhaps you could create another thread? The topic is about homosexuality, not the EF or the OF.

Malleus: Agreed. I have no problem debating her on another thread and for my part I apologize to you that I had to address her blatent indignancy in this thread at all. I’ll say nothing further in here - if she responds I’ll respond with another thread. Mea Culpa.

Pax
 
Yes, in an earlier post I agreed to drop out in the spirit of charity.

BTW, a he not a she. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, in an earlier post I agreed to drop out in the spirit of charity.

BTW, a he not a she

Mal: My apologies , perhaps it was the overemphasis on emotion rather than apologetics which caused me to mke an erroneous assumption 😉 And it was said tongue in cheek …

pax
 
Mal – per someone’s suggestion, I have started another thread here about the issues that we differed on where we can debate the theological points. I hope you will find my opening post to set the stage fairly – I wanted to give some background without bringing over the strong emotions (not by me) and have the tone start fresh.
 
I don’t know if it was mentioned by anyone, but I have this passage from the bible:

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
 
I don’t know if it was mentioned by anyone, but I have this passage from the bible:

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

No doubt St Paul made his position clear.

Romans Chapter 1

1:24. Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.

1:25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1:26. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.

God delivered them up… Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

1:27. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

1:28. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient.

1:29. Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers,

1:30. Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1:31. Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

1:32. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
 
Surriter writes : Mal – per someone’s suggestion, I have started another thread here about the issues that we differed on where we can debate the theological points. I hope you will find my opening post to set the stage fairly – I wanted to give some background without bringing over the strong emotions (not by me) and have the tone start fresh.

Malleus: I confine my posts to the Traditional Forum. I would be more than happy to debate you here. I wont debate there. You see , I wont disrespect the people who go to that forum to discuss their faith with like minded people. And it is for that reason I confine myself to this forum. Do I run into people here in this forum who want to tell me how I must worship and believe or who attempt to coerce me into seeing things their way - the modernist way? Unfortunately - yes. like now for example.

Pax
 
Can you all please take a moment and learn to use the quote feature? I can’t make any sense of this thread. :eek:
 
Can you all please take a moment and learn to use the quote feature? I can’t make any sense of this thread

Malleus: Sure we can. Since you obviously know already - any charitable advise?
 
Malleus: Regarding the “quote” feature, one option is to hit the “quote” button at the bottom right-hand corner of the user’s post that you want to quote. It will bring up a new reply window with that post in quote tags.

Otherwise, if you want to quote various parts of their post or more than one poster, just copy and paste the parts that you want to quote into your reply and then add a quote] at the beginning of the quote and a /quote] at the end. For example:

quote] This would be the text that I would want to quote /quote]

(Remove the spaces between the brackets and the “q” before posting - I just have those in there so you can see what the tag looks like). So it should read:
This would be the text that I would want to quote
Click to expand...
Hope this helps!
 
Onegin said:
Malleus: Regarding the “quote” feature, one option is to hit the “quote” button at the bottom right-hand corner of the user’s post that you want to quote. It will bring up a new reply window with that post in quote tags.

Otherwise, if you want to quote various parts of their post or more than one poster, just copy and paste the parts that you want to quote into your reply and then add a quote] at the beginning of the quote and a /quote] at the end. For example:

quote] This would be the text that I would want to quote /quote]

(Remove the spaces between the brackets and the “q” before posting - I just have those in there so you can see what the tag looks like). So it should read:

Hope this helps!
Click to expand...
Melleus: Thank you ever so much. Yes there is still hope for us over 50 old dogs to actually learn some new tricks.

May God bless you.

Pax
 
Mal, I tried. I really tried. Another thread was started, but I had no way of knowing that you refuse to budge from the Traditional forum.

The topic we are debating is no longer welcome on this thread (which is fine, since the original topic was homosexuality).

If you won’t go over to the other thread to at least chime in, would you please start a similar thread on the Traditional forum? I can’t, or I will be accused of starting duplicate threads, which is a no-no.

Once that is done, I will be happy to debate you on the theological points and what our Church teaches about these disciplinary matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top