Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
What would you call these?:

1. The hours I must refrain from eating before receiving communion (for a healthy person).
Disciplinary rules, not a doctrine.
2. Communion being received with an ongoing mortal sin.
Sacrilege, and/or stupidity, and/or ignorance. They will not burst into flames, they just won't receive any grace. But I know what you are getting at.

243. It is important that the divorced who have entered a new union should be made to feel part of the Church. “They are not excommunicated” and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community.261 These situations “require careful discernment and respectful accompaniment. Language or conduct that might lead them to feel discriminated against should be avoided, and they should be encouraged to participate in the life of the community. The Christian community’s care of such persons is not to be considered a weakening of its faith and testimony to the indissolubility of marriage; rather, such care is a particular expression of its charity”.262

246. The Church, while appreciating the situations of conflict that are part of marriage, cannot fail to speak out on behalf of those who are most vulnerable: the children who often suffer in silence. Today, “despite our seemingly evolved sensibilities and all our refined psychological analyses, I ask myself if we are not becoming numb to the hurt in children’s souls... Do we feel the immense psychological burden borne by children in families where the members mistreat and hurt one another, to the point of breaking the bonds of marital fidelity?”269 Such harmful experiences do not help children to grow in the maturity needed to make definitive commitments. For this reason, Christian communities must not
abandon divorced parents who have entered a new union, but should include and support them in their efforts to bring up their children. “How can we encourage those parents to do everything possible to raise their children in the Christian life, to give them an example of committed and practical faith, if we keep them at arm’s length from the life of the community, as if they were somehow excommunicated?


298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329 There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.330 Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family. The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing”,331 with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”.332 We know that no “easy recipes” exist.333

https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/f...sortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
No...not at all. I stated that I knew that they were investigating. My point is it not just the non-Catholics that are watching it is the Catholics. It needs to be visible because as the accusations continue to pour in and nothing is seen publicly it will look bad and I do not want the Catholic Church to look bad. Sticking your head in the sand does not help. Now please this enough of this
You mean 40 year old scandals continue to pour in. Unfortunately. some are trickling in. You seem convinced they are invisible, nothing is seen publicly because the Church conspires to save her reputation. How you know they exist is anybody's guess. I will remind you again it is both a civil crime and an ecclesiastical crime to fail to report them to law enforcement. 40 years ago the Church acted the same as everybody else. That was a mistake because the psychologists of the time over-sold their "therapy". It's 2019, not 1965. Not once have I so much as inferred "sticking my head in the sand" and your unjustified remark is insulting. I will stop when you stop promoting the media agenda, which I explained in detail, in post #1144 and 1151, which you refuse to accept.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What would you call these?:

1. The hours I must refrain from eating before receiving communion (for a healthy person).
2. Communion being received with an ongoing mortal sin.
Canon law which is a body of laws made within certain Christian churches by ecclesiastical authority that give rules for the behavior and actions of individuals.
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You explain "things to come," since you brought it up first, and twice more after that, and not once have you explained it. The onus is yours.
Actually, you brought it up when you brought up the "all truth" verse. You want to use half of that verse to bolster support for the Catholic Church while ignoring the other half.
I never said that.
Pay attention. That was a question, which you didn't answer. I did not say you said that. Will you or won't you answer the question, "So the Apostles were not led into all truth?"

I never said that either.
I'll repeat the question, "Future generations of more spiritually gifted men would be guided into all truth?

Where have I said that? Of course they knew.
I'm having difficulty dealing with your paranoia. If the Apostles knew about the Trinity, why didn't they mention it? I will discuss "things to come" now. If the Apostle knew about the Trinity but failed to mention it, then they could not foresee the time a few centuries later where this subject would divide the Church. They failed to be clear!

You should quote me instead of making things up, which you just did FOUR TIMES.
Asking you questions which you refuse to answer is not making things up. You are falling into sin here, something I do not wish to see happen. This conversation is not worth it.

The insistence that all bishops must have the gift of prophecy is an opinion, not a biblical truth. The authority to teach is conferred by the laying on of hands by an Apostle or another bishop, who ordains more bishops, ad infinitum. Again, there is nothing in scripture that says all bishops must have the gift of prophecy. It appears you have just invented a new doctrine.
I would expect if, as you say, bishops inherited the ability to be led into all truth, then they should also have inherited the ability to have the Holy Spirit reveal "things to come" to them. Look at current events in the diocese of Buffalo.

Exposing the Culture of Sexual Immorality at Buffalo’s Christ the King Seminary

Many Catholic voices in Buffalo say that reform can only begin when beleaguered Bishop Richard Malone resigns. It may also be the case that reform will only begin when Christ the King Seminary is closed.

As Buffalo Catholics endure a seemingly endless number of revelations from the weird to the lurid, the question repeatedly being asked is: How can the seminary be producing such men? Or more to the point: Given all that was known about Christ the King, why is the seminary still open?

Bishop Malone was secretly recorded discussing Father Jeffrey Nowak, ordained in 2012 and subject to serious allegations, including violating the seal of the confessional.

“How did we get to this point of this person getting through evaluations to be ordained?’” the bishop was asked. Bishop Malone had similar feelings: “How’d he get through?”


Bishop Malone had no clue how things came about. Either he was clueless or he was complicit.

The Buffalo case establishes the link between patterns of sexual corruption in seminaries — which would involve adults — and the subsequent sexual abuse of minors. Priests who use their positions in the seminary for sinful sexual conduct and exploitation of seminarians are guilty of a twofold offense — grave sin in the present and the seeds of further sinful behavior being planted in the priests of the future. In some cases, those grave sins are both canonical and civil crimes.

Buffalo has three bishops who are still living, two retired and the incumbent: Henry Mansell (1995-2003), Edward Kmiec (2004-2012) and now Richard Malone (2012-). They are in a position to explain why the grave problems at Christ the King endured for so long and what was done about it. How, in fact, did men like Father Nowak get ordained, as Bishop Malone now asks?

Surely there were some efforts at reform over the years. What were they, and why did they fail? Christ the King has not been vibrant in terms of numbers for decades. Why was it not thought, “Better to shut the whole thing down”? There may indeed be good answers to those questions; they are the ones that need to be asked. Discussing the complex details of this or that individual case is necessary, but that cannot distract from the larger question: Was it in fact the case that Christ the King, instead of producing future shepherds, was a training ground for wolves?

How did it happen? No one could see scandal brewing down the road? I think common sense should have been enough to tell the people involved that there was trouble in the future if action wasn't taken; but we see three bishops unable or unwilling to prevent scandal by correcting the situation quickly. I say they lacked the Holy Spirit's guidance.
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

Yea, like the twin evils of contraception and abortion, that has ruined countless marriages. There are enough dead babies to fill the Rose Bowl Stadium. PopeJP2 called it "a cemetery of human cruelty". When Humanae Vitae came out in 1968, the world mocked us. Barriers between the unitive and the procreative elements between a man and a women harms true love, and often destroys whatever is there.
Not sure how this is a response to anything I wrote.

Mit brennender Sorge
("With burning concern") On the Church and the German Reich is an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, issued during the Nazi era on 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March).[1] Written in German, not the usual Latin, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (21 March that year).[2][3] Mit brennender Sorge - Wikipedia
5 years AFTER the German encyclical was proclaimed, the Germans operated industrial-scale labor and death camps in Eastern Europe between 1941-1945, when the great bulk of Holocaust deaths occurred. If that is not prophetic, you tell me what is.

It is a ringing indictment of the corruption of the Catholic Church at that time for singing the damnable Concordat. Hitler promised the Lutherans and Catholics money for their support, and he got it. Both Protestants and Catholics laid down like women of disrepute and spread their legs for him like prostitutes. Then the Catholic Church appeared surprised when Hitler betrayed them.

The encyclical condemned breaches of the 1933 Reichskonkordat agreement signed between the German Reich and the Holy See.

Why did they sign the Concordat in the first place?

3. ...Hence, despite many and grave misgivings, We then decided not to withhold Our consent [to the Concordat] for We wished to spare the Faithful of Germany, as far as it was humanly possible, the trials and difficulties they would have had to face, given the circumstances, had the negotiations fallen through"

If they had "many and grave misgivings," why did they sign? I could read that phrase "despite many and grave misgivings" as the Holy Spirit telling them, "No, no, no, don't sign this; it won't turn out well."

In 1917, Our Blessed Mom PROPHECIED of two coming great wars if people didn't repent and turn to her Son. Fatima. The only reason she did that is because God told her to. I could go on.
So far as I know, no Pope ever ever consecrated Russia to Mother Mary as directed. The directive was to consecrate the whole world and Russia. A Pope did consecrate "the whole world and Russia" together, at the same time, but never consecrated Russia separately. No one obeyed the message of Fatima, and Sister Lucia was put under a vow of silence.

Silencing of Sister Lucia - Fatima Center

First, she has been urging, ever since the early 1930s, that Russia be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope in union with all the bishops of the world, as Our Lady of Fatima requested.

Second, she has repeatedly explained that various consecrations over the past half-century have all failed to meet the specific requirements of Our Lady’s request. She has never openly and unambiguously said otherwise.

Third, she fully expected the single-page text of the Third Secret to be revealed in 1960, and still wants it revealed. This is not the four-page document made public by the Vatican in 2000, at an event from which Sr. Lucia was notably excluded. Despite claims of Archbishop Bertone in November of 2001, Sr. Lucia herself has given no direct indication of any kind that she agrees with the claims made by the Vatican in its “Third Secret” announcement.

Fourth, and finally, she is in her late 90’s, and will not be with us for much longer. Hence, if she is not allowed to speak freely soon, she will take the rest of what she knows about the Message of Fatima to her grave. The world’s last direct link with a message from Heaven will be gone, perhaps leaving some questions forever unanswerable. This would appear to be what Fatima revisionists in the Vatican intend.


The focal point for the aspects to the Fatima story is, of course, Sr. Lucia. She saw the visions, she received the Message, and she wrote down the words spoken by the Blessed Virgin. She knows the whole truth about the Message of Fatima. And yet, Church officials have treated her in a manner that seems more appropriate to someone spreading heresy than someone bearing a message from the Mother of God.

Go ahead, say it's not from a "good" Catholic site. I tell you what you and I think and say about it aren't what matters. This is a very sore point with me, however, since I think the Popes went too far in failing to obey the message of Fatima. There may be a very high price to pay too.

Truth comes from God, given to Jesus and the Apostles and their successors, and given to those who hear them. In that order. Nobody "owns" the truth. Not the Pope, and not you. It is RECIEVED, and can't be passed on by someone who doesn't have it in the first place.

The GIFT of prophecy is intended to edify the individual or the community. The OFFICE of prophecy is intended for humanity. With that in mind, how many encyclicals are prophetic? I say quite a few.
I never said it did.
Should not bishops be able to receive hints about the future so they can act to protect their congregations? I don't see that. What I see is bishops and even Cardinals trusting other things more. I happen to think Cardinal Law meant well. I won't attack him for being a villain as some have; but he listened to the wrong people, and it led to tragedy and scandal. People who pretended to be able to "cure" homosexuality made false promises to him. I think he was sincere when he thought offending priests could be "cured" by science. We could argue over whether it was right to conceal evidence; but I'll admit myself that if I thought a priest who had molested one child could be cured, I'd be tempted to try to gloss it over, try to talk to the parents to reassure them (maybe Cardinal Law didn't do that) and perhaps even pay for psychological counselling for their child if that was needed, and try to get the priest "cured." I think I understand his motives; and I also think some reporters took cheap shots at him, portraying him as a monster. The real tragedy, in my opinion, was how his trust was placed in "fake science" that promised a cure for homosexuality. He seemed to trust science more than God. "If prayers aren't changing gay priests, why not try science?" Of course, that kind of fake "science" didn't work. Many Catholics were misled by that fake science with "camps" being set up to "help" gay Catholics get cured. Somebody got rich out of it -- the fake scientists are the people who benefited while Cardinal Law got led into disgrace.

I continue to take a "minority view" of Cardinal Law. Others may portray him as a villain. I think he was basically a good man -- but one who lacked the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and one who trusted the false promises of fake science over canon law and the need to protect his flock. He was a good man who got seduced. The Pope at the time was also naive. When Law went to Rome, the Pope asked him if his conscience was clear. Law said it was, and that was all that ever got said about the past. Yes, I think Law's conscience probably was clear; but we must ask what happened to the concept of the "informed conscience"?
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You mean 40 year old scandals continue to pour in. Unfortunately. some are trickling in. You seem convinced they are invisible, nothing is seen publicly because the Church conspires to save her reputation. How you know they exist is anybody's guess. I will remind you again it is both a civil crime and an ecclesiastical crime to fail to report them to law enforcement. 40 years ago the Church acted the same as everybody else. That was a mistake because the psychologists of the time over-sold their "therapy". It's 2019, not 1965. Not once have I so much as inferred "sticking my head in the sand" and your unjustified remark is insulting. I will stop when you stop promoting the media agenda, which I explained in detail, in post #1144 and 1151, which you refuse to accept.
The problems in Australia continue to threaten the secrecy of the confessional; and no one seems able to come up with a sensible answer.

I think it should be quite easy. If I stole a car and asked for forgiveness, I would hope a priest told me I had to return the car to its proper owner as part of my penance. If I wanted to keep it, that would mean I hadn't really repented. I read a novel once with a character who had committed murder, and his priest told him (wisely and properly) that he could not be absolved of that sin unless he was willing to turn himself in to the secular authorities. The murderer did that and took his medicine. The priest was able to grant his absolution. It was a great novel, I thought, with a wonderful spiritual message.

What should a priest do if someone confesses to an act of child abuse? The priest should tell him he has to take responsibility for it in secular terms. Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God those that are God's. I can see not going to the police on first offense of child molestation in some cases. Subjecting the child to more trauma by lots of questions from the police and lawyers may not be that wise. If I was the priest, I'd want to have a meeting with the offender, the child and the parents. The child should be told he had done nothing wrong, and to tell his parents if it happened again. The parents would also know not to let their child alone with the offender. In some cases, the police wouldn't be necessary if the everyone knew it wasn't going to happen again.

If the offender refused to have such a meeting, I'd refuse to absolve him. Should I go to the police? Some might say yes, but really do I know for sure he actually molested a child? If I knew he was around that child a lot, I might suspect it, that's for sure'and I might talk to the parents in a way that didn't reveal secrets of the confessional; but I doubt priests who took a firm position on first offenses would get prosecuted under any law requiring them to notify the police about crimes confessed to them.

The real problem with confession is when offenders can be absolved over and over again without real repentance and without any fear of being exposed. The Catholic Church, by doing this, shows its contempt for the laws of governments, as if priests and bishops are above the law. They are saying, "If we say you're forgiven, you are -- and you don't need to answer to the government for crimes that you confessed to us."

It's as if they're saying, "So you stole that car? Okay, you're forgiven, and you can keep the car too." Priests have been too lenient by not handing out appropriate penance, requiring people to report themselves to the police if they've committed crimes.

I have a friend, by the way, who had molested a young girl. He turned himself in to the authorities, and he hasn't done anything like that again.
While it was doubtlessly a sin, I think he did the right thing and I admire him for that. I also think young girls would probably be safe around him since he has a conscience and was truly sorry for what he'd done. He has other problems now, that's for sure, but molesting young girls is no longer among them.
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The fact remains that without the papacy (as we conceive it), the East (by Newman’s reasoning) would have likely gone into complete heresy in the first Millennium. As it was, the East was rife with Monophysitism and Monothelitism (and also to a lesser extent, Nestorianism) for many centuries: infiltrating the patriarchates in alarming proportion (and we see a clear example of that in 449).

Some argue that the proliferation of those heresies and also rampant iconoclasm, led directly to so many large regions falling rapidly to Islam. The road was paved with these heresies.

The East was in schism five times before 1054, as I have noted, and in all five instances (in the judgment of both sides) they were on the wrong side. Rome was right every time, with regard to these five schisms. I think that speaks volumes. Rome determines orthodoxy. History plainly reveals this. The five schisms are:

The Arian schisms (343-98)
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
The Acacian schism (484-519)
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism: out of communion with Rome (46% of the time). Orthodox agree that all five of these schisms were in error, according to present Orthodox teaching. The Orthodox eventually rejected Arianism and Monothelitism and Iconoclasm. They think St. John Chrysostom is a good guy (Rome defended him then, just as with St. Athanasius). The Acacian schism had to do with Monophysitism.

Orthodoxy is not under the pope now. That changed in the eleventh century. The very fact that the more ecumenical Orthodox see it as preferable to somehow be back in communion with the pope, itself proves that Orthodoxy has lost a key proponent of historic Catholic Christianity. Otherwise, Orthodoxy would be complete in itself, and in need of no component from another Christian communion, as we view ourselves to be. Orthodoxy wouldn’t need “our” pope; it would already have one of its own, or deny that it needs one at all (even in the lesser Orthodox sense). But that is not possible in Orthodoxy because of competing jurisdictions.
Orthodox & Catholic Ecclesiology: Possible Synthesis?



Pope Francis has met the head of the Russian Orthodox church, Patriarch Kirill, in Cuba. The meeting marks the first encounter in history between a Roman Catholic pope and a Russian Orthodox patriarch in the nearly 1,000 years since Eastern Orthodoxy split with Rome.​
What you wrote here is not a real response to what I wrote. I said:

The Catholic Church has created big barriers for others to reconcile with them. When the schism with the Orthodox looked permanent, Catholics gave up on reconciliation and made decisions about this and that doctrine, saying they were necessary for salvation. How can the Orthodox reconcile when the Catholics made some doctrines official that the Orthodox could never accept? The more doctrines they deemed necessary for salvation, the more difficult they made it for others to reconcile. Claiming to be inerrant in such things meant they couldn't change their minds, not even if they wanted to since that would undermine the claim of being inerrant. They boxed themselves in, if you ask me.

Instead of discussing the doctrines made officially part of Catholic teaching after the Great Schism, you chose to discuss prior history. You also do not seem to understand how deep the resentment runs against the Popes in some Orthodox circles. When Pope John Paul II visited Greece, some people almost went crazy.

Pope's visit to Greece infuriates Orthodox Church

FATHER CHRYSOSTOMOS has little doubt why blood-red stains have appeared on the neck of a Virgin Mary icon in his church in Athens.

It is, he believes, a clear sign of her distress at the Pope's visit this week.

The Orthodox priest declared: "He will infect our country. The Virgin Mary shares our sorrow. The fact that this is a miracle is undeniable. We have had 100,000 visitors to witness it."

Fake miracle? My guess is yes.

A poster outside Fr Chrysostomos's church spells out Orthodox opposition to the visit. Denouncing the Pope as a "false prophet and the anti-Christ" who adorns his mitre with "666", it announces a demonstration to be held tomorrow against the visit and lists the historical crimes for which successive popes were allegedly responsible.

Highlights include the sacking of Constantinople, the home of Orthodoxy, during the Fourth Crusade; the fall of Byzantium to the Turks; the Spanish Inquisition; the Bolshevik Revolution; the Third Reich; and the Western bombing campaign against (Orthodox) Serb forces in Kosovo. The influential monks of Mount Athos, the semi-autonomous monks' republic, have called for the Pope to be banned and the Union of Hellenic Clerics, which represents rank-and-file clergy, has urged a boycott.

You seem unaware of this kind of hostility; and I doubt Orthodox leaders are going to go too far with reconciliation, risking a rebellion within their own ranks.

Fr Nektarios, abbot of a monastery on the Corinthian Gulf, said: "It is a fairytale to say that the Pope is just coming on a personal pilgrimage. He is doing this because he wants the Orthodox Church to recognise him. He wants recognition as a global religious leader.

"Popes have fooled the Orthodox Church in the past. This pontiff will not be allowed to repeat the trick. He has the burden of history on his back. He cannot be trusted. You don't honour a criminal, you put him in jail."


Then there is the matter of the doctrines adopted officially by the Catholic Church after the Great Schism. Those look like obstacles to me that cannot be resolved.
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No birth control problems here.
No one has children...maybe one...and the church has nothing to say.

A lot said re the whole gender thing.
At least the CC is not giving in to that.

(except for the priests that are homosxl)
I realize Church Militant is considered a "radical" site by some; but they had an interesting article about someone just made a Cardinal.

Francis Packs the Court

Pope Francis is packing the court ahead of the next papal conclave.

In a surprise move, Francis announced last week that 13 clerics will be added to the College of Cardinals next month — among them, several of the pontiff's key leftist allies.

Gung-ho globalist Abp. Jean-Claude Höllerich has blasted the rise of populism in Europe, calling it a catalyst for "totalitarianisms" that will "eventually devour Christianity."

Pro-migration activist Fr. Michael Czerny has slammed conservatives for backing border security, accusing them of "xenophobia and isolationism."

Homosexualist Abp. Matteo Zuppi has penned a preface for Building a Bridge, the pro-gay book by LGBT champion Fr. James Martin.

Martin hailed Zuppi's appointment, calling him "a great supporter of LGBT Catholics."

Reflecting on the appointments, Catholic World News editor Philip Lawler called them a turn to the left: "You have leading representatives of what you might call the liberal bloc in the European bishops' world, and that's the way these appointments are trending."

Once these men don their red hats on Oct. 5, the College of Cardinals will be dominated by liberals, with 67 Francis picks eligible to vote for the next pontiff versus 61 from the conservative camp.


Analysts say Pope Francis is setting the stage for the next papal conclave, maneuvering to ensure that his vision for the Church endures for generations to come.

Then this which shows how attitudes are evolving: Maltese Catholics Criticize Archbishop Scicluna’s Leadership on ‘LGBT’ Issues - CatholicCitizens.org

By Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, March 17, 2019

VALETTA, Malta — A priest representing Pope Francis’ point man on sexual abuse in the Church, Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna, spoke approvingly of homosexuality as created by God and “part of his plan” to a talk show audience last week.

Appearing March 8 on the show, called Xarabank, Father Kevin Schembri, who teaches canon law at the University of Malta, also told the show’s host, Peppi Azzopardi, that God created people with “difference sexual orientations,” and that being homosexual “cannot be something bad, because he created it.”

According to an English translation of his interview transcript provided to the Register, Father Schembri, who is the archdiocesan defender of the bond, went on to say that if a person recognizes he is “a gay person as created by God, he does not need to change,” and he would actually be “harming himself” if he did not accept himself “as a gay person.”

He also said a sincere “relationship of love” between homosexuals is as “good” as a relationship of “love between heterosexual couples.”

Perhaps so, for all I know; but do they know what they stand for? What I do know is that things are clearly evolving. Sclcluna heads up the anti-abuse effort in Malta?

A week later, Archbishop Scicluna — the head of the bishops’ conference of Malta and handpicked by Pope Francis to investigate sexual abuse by clergy in Chile and elsewhere — has not responded to the public concern generated by Father Schembri’s comments.

I have to think the "gay Mafia" is still thriving inside the Catholic Church. Why can't the Catholic Church hierarchy make up their minds what they stand for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not sure what your point is.
You were arguing that the church doesn’t “change” for anybody – then you posted this.

What gives?
Aren't you confused? You wrote:

Why should the Body of Christ “change” for anybody??
The change must come from the individual – not the Church.


What I posted was evidence that the Church did change for people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Disciplinary rules, not a doctrine.

Sacrilege, and/or stupidity, and/or ignorance. They will not burst into flames, they just won't receive any grace. But I know what you are getting at.

243. It is important that the divorced who have entered a new union should be made to feel part of the Church. “They are not excommunicated” and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community.261 These situations “require careful discernment and respectful accompaniment. Language or conduct that might lead them to feel discriminated against should be avoided, and they should be encouraged to participate in the life of the community. The Christian community’s care of such persons is not to be considered a weakening of its faith and testimony to the indissolubility of marriage; rather, such care is a particular expression of its charity”.262

246. The Church, while appreciating the situations of conflict that are part of marriage, cannot fail to speak out on behalf of those who are most vulnerable: the children who often suffer in silence. Today, “despite our seemingly evolved sensibilities and all our refined psychological analyses, I ask myself if we are not becoming numb to the hurt in children’s souls... Do we feel the immense psychological burden borne by children in families where the members mistreat and hurt one another, to the point of breaking the bonds of marital fidelity?”269 Such harmful experiences do not help children to grow in the maturity needed to make definitive commitments. For this reason, Christian communities must not
abandon divorced parents who have entered a new union, but should include and support them in their efforts to bring up their children. “How can we encourage those parents to do everything possible to raise their children in the Christian life, to give them an example of committed and practical faith, if we keep them at arm’s length from the life of the community, as if they were somehow excommunicated?


298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329 There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.330 Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family. The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing”,331 with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”.332 We know that no “easy recipes” exist.333

https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/f...sortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf
If you know what I'm getting at, I'm done with this debate.
Did you post the asterisked remark in Chapter 8?
It doesn't look like it.

I'm saying there is a change in doctrine.
You could believe what you will.
In fact, I'm not sure what you believe since you didn't state it clearly and I'm done reading Amoris Laetitia -- happily for me, no more papal bulls.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Canon law which is a body of laws made within certain Christian churches by ecclesiastical authority that give rules for the behavior and actions of individuals.
Receiving communion in the state of on-going mortal sin is a canon law?

OR,,,is it a matter or morals and faith?

If I cannot receive communion in a state of mortal sin one day....

And the next day I can....
This is not a change in doctrine?

I don't plan on debating this.
If you write back, I'll post one link and then I'm done.
(you shouldn't need a link. this is obviously a change in doctrine).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
I realize Church Militant is considered a "radical" site by some; but they had an interesting article about someone just made a Cardinal.

Francis Packs the Court

Pope Francis is packing the court ahead of the next papal conclave.

In a surprise move, Francis announced last week that 13 clerics will be added to the College of Cardinals next month — among them, several of the pontiff's key leftist allies.

Gung-ho globalist Abp. Jean-Claude Höllerich has blasted the rise of populism in Europe, calling it a catalyst for "totalitarianisms" that will "eventually devour Christianity."

Pro-migration activist Fr. Michael Czerny has slammed conservatives for backing border security, accusing them of "xenophobia and isolationism."

Homosexualist Abp. Matteo Zuppi has penned a preface for Building a Bridge, the pro-gay book by LGBT champion Fr. James Martin.

Martin hailed Zuppi's appointment, calling him "a great supporter of LGBT Catholics."

Reflecting on the appointments, Catholic World News editor Philip Lawler called them a turn to the left: "You have leading representatives of what you might call the liberal bloc in the European bishops' world, and that's the way these appointments are trending."

Once these men don their red hats on Oct. 5, the College of Cardinals will be dominated by liberals, with 67 Francis picks eligible to vote for the next pontiff versus 61 from the conservative camp.


Analysts say Pope Francis is setting the stage for the next papal conclave, maneuvering to ensure that his vision for the Church endures for generations to come.

Then this which shows how attitudes are evolving: Maltese Catholics Criticize Archbishop Scicluna’s Leadership on ‘LGBT’ Issues - CatholicCitizens.org

By Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, March 17, 2019

VALETTA, Malta — A priest representing Pope Francis’ point man on sexual abuse in the Church, Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna, spoke approvingly of homosexuality as created by God and “part of his plan” to a talk show audience last week.

Appearing March 8 on the show, called Xarabank, Father Kevin Schembri, who teaches canon law at the University of Malta, also told the show’s host, Peppi Azzopardi, that God created people with “difference sexual orientations,” and that being homosexual “cannot be something bad, because he created it.”

According to an English translation of his interview transcript provided to the Register, Father Schembri, who is the archdiocesan defender of the bond, went on to say that if a person recognizes he is “a gay person as created by God, he does not need to change,” and he would actually be “harming himself” if he did not accept himself “as a gay person.”

He also said a sincere “relationship of love” between homosexuals is as “good” as a relationship of “love between heterosexual couples.”

Perhaps so, for all I know; but do they know what they stand for? What I do know is that things are clearly evolving. Sclcluna heads up the anti-abuse effort in Malta?

A week later, Archbishop Scicluna — the head of the bishops’ conference of Malta and handpicked by Pope Francis to investigate sexual abuse by clergy in Chile and elsewhere — has not responded to the public concern generated by Father Schembri’s comments.

I have to think the "gay Mafia" is still thriving inside the Catholic Church. Why can't the Catholic Church hierarchy make up their minds what they stand for?
Church Militant.
Yeah. I had a nice debate with him once. He writes on catholic forums every now and then...maybe not so much anymore.
Got banned because they loved him so much,,,but we were having a nice discussion.

Too much, will get back to you later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Aren't you confused? You wrote:

Why should the Body of Christ “change” for anybody??
The change must come from the individual – not the Church.


What I posted was evidence that the Church did change for people.
How so?
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
I realize Church Militant is considered a "radical" site by some; but they had an interesting article about someone just made a Cardinal.

Francis Packs the Court

Pope Francis is packing the court ahead of the next papal conclave.

In a surprise move, Francis announced last week that 13 clerics will be added to the College of Cardinals next month — among them, several of the pontiff's key leftist allies.

Gung-ho globalist Abp. Jean-Claude Höllerich has blasted the rise of populism in Europe, calling it a catalyst for "totalitarianisms" that will "eventually devour Christianity."

Pro-migration activist Fr. Michael Czerny has slammed conservatives for backing border security, accusing them of "xenophobia and isolationism."

Homosexualist Abp. Matteo Zuppi has penned a preface for Building a Bridge, the pro-gay book by LGBT champion Fr. James Martin.

Martin hailed Zuppi's appointment, calling him "a great supporter of LGBT Catholics."

Reflecting on the appointments, Catholic World News editor Philip Lawler called them a turn to the left: "You have leading representatives of what you might call the liberal bloc in the European bishops' world, and that's the way these appointments are trending."

Once these men don their red hats on Oct. 5, the College of Cardinals will be dominated by liberals, with 67 Francis picks eligible to vote for the next pontiff versus 61 from the conservative camp.


Analysts say Pope Francis is setting the stage for the next papal conclave, maneuvering to ensure that his vision for the Church endures for generations to come.

Then this which shows how attitudes are evolving: Maltese Catholics Criticize Archbishop Scicluna’s Leadership on ‘LGBT’ Issues - CatholicCitizens.org

By Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, March 17, 2019

VALETTA, Malta — A priest representing Pope Francis’ point man on sexual abuse in the Church, Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna, spoke approvingly of homosexuality as created by God and “part of his plan” to a talk show audience last week.

Appearing March 8 on the show, called Xarabank, Father Kevin Schembri, who teaches canon law at the University of Malta, also told the show’s host, Peppi Azzopardi, that God created people with “difference sexual orientations,” and that being homosexual “cannot be something bad, because he created it.”

According to an English translation of his interview transcript provided to the Register, Father Schembri, who is the archdiocesan defender of the bond, went on to say that if a person recognizes he is “a gay person as created by God, he does not need to change,” and he would actually be “harming himself” if he did not accept himself “as a gay person.”

He also said a sincere “relationship of love” between homosexuals is as “good” as a relationship of “love between heterosexual couples.”

Perhaps so, for all I know; but do they know what they stand for? What I do know is that things are clearly evolving. Sclcluna heads up the anti-abuse effort in Malta?

A week later, Archbishop Scicluna — the head of the bishops’ conference of Malta and handpicked by Pope Francis to investigate sexual abuse by clergy in Chile and elsewhere — has not responded to the public concern generated by Father Schembri’s comments.

I have to think the "gay Mafia" is still thriving inside the Catholic Church. Why can't the Catholic Church hierarchy make up their minds what they stand for?

What can I say?
All the above is true.
I posted just a couple of days ago that this Pope is going to set up a man-made synod -- meaning made up by HIM and not following church rules...that is going to be PERMANENT and is going to be filled up with those that agree with his vision of the church,,,which is liberal, as you've duly noted. I said that basically this means that HE will get everything he wants and all votes will always go his way.

You're also right about the leftist movement in Italy.
Actually the right won the last election, but for reasons which are too difficult and complicated to explain...let's say that Salvini, the right, was forced to step down and I believe, as do many, by the EU because all countries have lost their sovereignty and now the EU rules and they are leftist. When the right won last year we heard that those in the EU said not to worry, that THEY would take care of this election. And, in fact, they have. Basically we had a coup..not military, but a coup nonetheless.

I think this pope will get his way in everything....
I think the magesterum will disappear....
I think a lot will change; some for the better; some for the worse...we'll see.
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Church Militant.
Yeah. I had a nice debate with him once. He writes on catholic forums every now and then...maybe not so much anymore.
Got banned because they loved him so much,,,but we were having a nice discussion.

Too much, will get back to you later.
Interesting. I did not know he posted on Catholic forums; but then I never was on one.
 
Last edited:

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What can I say?
All the above is true.
I posted just a couple of days ago that this Pope is going to set up a man-made synod -- meaning made up by HIM and not following church rules...that is going to be PERMANENT and is going to be filled up with those that agree with his vision of the church,,,which is liberal, as you've duly noted. I said that basically this means that HE will get everything he wants and all votes will always go his way.
The news about the "synod" left me confused. I didn't know what he was talking about. He was also talking a possible schism. Again I was confused. I haven't been following current affairs in the Vatican too closely; but then is that really possible when what we often get are rumors? I knew some bishops who call themselves "conservative" have made remarks about him. There was even a story about something Benedict said; and I didn't know if it was true, or how closely I should pay attention to it.

The question I have now is if he knows creating this new synod could create a schism and is going to go ahead with it anyway.

You're also right about the leftist movement in Italy.
Actually the right won the last election, but for reasons which are too difficult and complicated to explain...let's say that Salvini, the right, was forced to step down and I believe, as do many, by the EU because all countries have lost their sovereignty and now the EU rules and they are leftist. When the right won last year we heard that those in the EU said not to worry, that THEY would take care of this election. And, in fact, they have. Basically we had a coup..not military, but a coup nonetheless.
Salvini pushed his luck too hard. It looks as if Boris Johnson is pushing his too hard too.
I think this pope will get his way in everything....
I think the magesterum will disappear....
I think a lot will change; some for the better; some for the worse...we'll see.
For some time now, I've wondered how things could continue in Rome with so much centralized power. Every little thing seems to go through Rome now; and then if something goes wrong, Rome gets the blame. It's an unworkable system if you ask me. My guess is things might get made more local. We've already seen evidence of that in how divorced and remarried people are treated and how reluctant Rome is to put out rules and regulations for worldwide use.