Jump to content

Pope Francis advocates for civil union laws


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I would rate legal but unauthorized by the Church polygamy as the same as gay marriage. Both are approved by the state, but not by God in our doctrine. 
 

Now I do feel that if the husband gets married without the approval of his current wives that is a different level than gay marriage, though it is not adultery if his culture is saying that is moral.  I think someone needs to choose to consciously violate the contract of marriage to commit adultery. It is a weird grey area where cultures allow not only legal polygamy, but the husband can just get married when he wants without agreement from his wife. There may be no legal requirement in any polygamous culture, I haven’t heard of any, but there have been cultures that frown on that kind of stuff, put limits on how many wives, etc. 

Fair enough. I wasn’t even thinking about other countries where polygamy has always been legal like Saudi Arabia. I was thinking of it in the context of the US where it is illegal. However, putting aside the legality, I think it is unfair to compare gay marriage to polygamy or adultery because a person chooses to be polygamous or adulterous. They aren’t born that way. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Untrue. There are the Ten Commandments that are common to many faiths and there are other gospel truths that are taught by faiths and even by secular organizations, like versions of the Golden Rule. 

And there is the light of Christ helping folks to discern between right and wrong. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 10/23/2020 at 9:05 PM, pogi said:

Hi 3DOP, 

Just curious, what do you mean by “material heretic”?  What specifically makes him one in your opinion?

I am also curious, how can someone insist that he is not the pope?  Do they think he was not validly elected by the papal conclave, or is it more that they think he lost his papal authority through heresy, or something of that nature - like a fallen prophet?  Has anything like that ever happened in history?  Are there procedures set in place in anticipation of such an event?  What would happen if it is decided that he is not pope, and who has the authority to decide that?

Is the Pope subject to church courts like our prophet is?

To the second paragraph: How can someone insist that he (Francis) is not the pope? You gave two answers yourself. Those are pretty much the reasons that Francis could be what is called historically, an antipope. Antipopes appear to the world and even to the church to be the pope. But what if it was discovered that there is a canonical impediment to his "papacy". In the instance of Francis, if Pope Benedict resigned under duress, Francis could not be pope. The papacy is a monarchy. There cannot be two vicars of Christ at the same time. There has been a lot of evidence gathered to suggest that Benedict did not resign freely. Another difficulty would arise even if Benedict did freely step down. This would relate to another doubt cast on to his papacy if he and other cardinals colluded in some way at the papal conclave to arrive at a particular result. A papal conclave is an election, certainly. But it is not one that permits campaigning and strategizing. There are accusations that a certain group of mostly Northern European Cardinals self-identified as the St. Gallen Mafia did just this, conspiring to install one of their ideological comrades. It is pretty certain that these same cardinals were bitterly disappointed when Jorge Bergoglio was not chosen after the death of John Paul II. They were dismayed that probably their least favorite among the viable papal candidates, Josef Ratzinger was selected. Some of Pope Ratzinger's first words after his elevation to succeed St. Peter, was a morose and reluctant request for the prayers of the faithful, that he would not "flee for fear of the wolves". Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) continues to insist that there was no pressure on him to resign. 

Another interesting twist involves the notorious Mr. Ted McCarrick, the former Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, cardinal-archbishop of Washington D.C., who was finally defrocked and reduced to the lay state when there was decades of undeniable evidence accumulated against him by former victims of how he he used his position to sexually abuse boys and seminarians. It seems that it was a reluctant Pope Francis who was forced to admit McCarrick's guilt. McCarrick was a prominent American member of this St. Gallen Mafia, and also  had contacts in Red China at a time when Pope Francis was eagerly pursuing an accord with the Red Chinese which had not been possible since the days of Pius XII and Mao Tse Tung in the 50's, when Chairman Mao suppressed the Chinese Catholic Church. He or one of his successors set up a false Catholic Church during this era which allowed only bishops approved by the Communist Party. The true church, loyal to Rome, went underground while the "Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association" (CPCA) was created to allow Chinese Catholics to practise a kind of Catholic faith that also believes in communism. This is why orthodox Catholics in China were allowed since the 50's to choose their own bishops, loyal to Rome. Rome never recognized the CPCA until 2018, when a deal was struck. Here is how Wikipedia describes the facts:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_China

 "In 1957, the Chinese government established the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association,[2] which rejects the authority of the Holy See and appoints its own bishops. Since September 2018, however, the Papacy has the power to veto any Bishop which the Chinese government recommends."[3][4]

The above is true, Rome has betrayed her persecuted children in China who do not accept that communism is compatible with the Catholic faith. Why? The pope or antipope seated in the Vatican was in every way inclined to make an accord with Red China because Francis is himself a communist or at least a sympathizer. The Chinese government is very happy to give Rome "veto power" knowing full well that Rome, with its current ministers, will never object to the episcopal choice of the government, while helping rid the government of those who once claimed to be Roman Catholic Chinese. If Francis is pope, and has made such a deal with the Chinese government, these heroes of the faith, persecuted in obscurity, with priests and bishops imprisoned, that hardly anyone cares about, have no choice but to submit to this evil Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. If Francis is pope, he does everything in his power to demoralize those who would be the most devoted of the pope's servants, to break the hearts and wills of the truest sheep of his flock. This China stuff is another obscure, but well-documented reason for why I cannot fault those who question whether Francis is pope. 

It also appears that there is evidence that China has agreed to bankroll the Vatican to an extent which is well within Chinese abilities when one considers that the Vatican itself is a "town" not much bigger in population than the little place I live at here in Kansas. Geographically, it is measured in acres. There is a reason why most of the bishops of the world seem uninclined to pressure the governments for reopening of the churches. If for no other reason, one would think they need the contributions of parishioners to stay financially viable? But many archdioceses, like the archdiocese of Rome, appear to have struck similar deals with governments in exchange for support of political policies that are incompatible with the Catholic faith. It seems like in America for instance, more tax dollars might be gained by denying the Catholic faith than by opening churches and teaching the truth to ever dwindling groups of hearty, but not fantastically wealthy parishioners. I cannot for sake of time and space provide documentation for all of what I believe is the most reasonable explanation for why Francis and many of his bishops fail to act like they are Catholics.  

-------------------------------

It's a dirty business. The faith of Traditional Catholics should be unshaken. In some respects, it seems like we observe before our eyes all of the powers of hell and earth at work to destroy the one true church. Hell has partners within the corridors of the Catholic Church. Catholics have taken a just pride and reverence for the churches, shrines, and monuments that faithful Catholics have raised over the centuries to glorify the God to whom we offer all thanks and praise. It is painful to realize that the enemy has those now, and we may never get them back in this life. But neither St. Peter's Basilica, nor the Lateran Basilica were ever going to follow us to the next life anyway! We should not be surprised at this perhaps last, furious attempt to destroy the Catholic faith completely. A happy few will continue to joyfully assist at the Holy Sacrifice, which is not yet extinguished, remembering with St. Paul that if the time ever comes that we lose even the Mass, "that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:38, 39)

Joyfully and triumphantly written for y'all in some ways, and especially for you pogi, on the Feast of Christ the King (!), most thankful for the privilege of being allowed to gain my reward in these our times. May all creatures hail our illustrious Saviour and King, our just and merciful Lord Jesus Christ. 

3DOP   

PS: There is precedent in 1322. Pope John XXII was threatened to be burned by the King of France, with at least the tacit support of the cardinals as well as the University of Paris. (This was when the papal court was located in Avignon, in France.) Pope John had apparently got some of the professors worked up about what seems trifling compared to the things Francis has said. John XXII recanted his error. He got mixed up about when folks get the beatific vision. He had the "rank audacity" to say that it was not until after the general judgment! If in 1322, John XXII could be so threatened about something as minor as that, what would they have done with Francis? Anyway, there is whole body of ideas on deposing popes that seem inconclusive at this time to me. 

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

 

On 10/21/2020 at 8:36 PM, bluebell said:

Church doctrine allows for hope for heterosexual members and opportunities to gain that kind of fulfillment while there is no hope for or fulfillment of that basic human desire for lgbtq members.  Church rules allow heterosexual members to act on their desire for romantic physical touch (even before marriage as long as you keep it in the bounds the Lord has set) while denying lgbtq members the ability to act on any desire for romantic physical touch, not even holding hands. 

 

On 10/22/2020 at 2:44 PM, Duncan said:

for them though in the church "falling" is different. You can't do anything, even non sexual with another gay person, i.e. hold hands, hug, kiss, straight people can do that without thinking they need to run to their bishops. It's all or nothing for gay people in the church, you are ither non sexual and active or you aren't and you are out. Straight people don't have that, it's the middle road, sexual wise

What action will the church take against gay members who hug or hold hands but otherwise keep the Law of Chastity and even follow the counsel in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet regarding romantic physical touching?  Withhold a temple recommend?  Release from callings?  Formal membership restrictions?  Withdrawal of membership?  (I used the new terminology!)

Link to post
7 minutes ago, gopher said:

 

 

What action will the church take against gay members who hug or hold hands but otherwise keep the Law of Chastity and even follow the counsel in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet regarding romantic physical touching?  Withhold a temple recommend?  Release from callings?  Formal membership restrictions?  Withdrawal of membership?  (I used the new terminology!)

that depends on the Bishop I guess. Probably get different reactions

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, gopher said:

 

 

What action will the church take against gay members who hug or hold hands but otherwise keep the Law of Chastity and even follow the counsel in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet regarding romantic physical touching?  Withhold a temple recommend?  Release from callings?  Formal membership restrictions?  Withdrawal of membership?  (I used the new terminology!)

It would likely depend on the bishop.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Duncan said:

that depends on the Bishop I guess. Probably get different reactions

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It would likely depend on the bishop.  

Do you know of any recent action taken by a bishop in a case like this?  I can't find anything in the current handbook about gays holding hands or hugging so I'm not sure what action a bishop would take.  That's why I wondered if you knew.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, gopher said:

 

Do you know of any recent action taken by a bishop in a case like this?  I can't find anything in the current handbook about gays holding hands or hugging so I'm not sure what action a bishop would take.  That's why I wondered if you knew.

In our ward we have a couple living together, they are engaged. Not sure when they are getting married though. He was or is trans and was for a long time, I think he had his name removed from the church or was exed. In any event he isn't an official member but attends everything, even when he, she was how they used to be. I couldn't even comment on their "life" together but I know we took the lady to the temple a few years ago and he wants to join the church. Not my call, I am not involved in any of it. I hope they get married first, then baptized or however all that works and then attend the temple and they ride off into the sunset together. This is probably her 5th marriage so I hope he's the one!

Link to post
27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

In our ward we have a couple living together, they are engaged. Not sure when they are getting married though. He was or is trans and was for a long time, I think he had his name removed from the church or was exed. In any event he isn't an official member but attends everything, even when he, she was how they used to be. I couldn't even comment on their "life" together but I know we took the lady to the temple a few years ago and he wants to join the church. Not my call, I am not involved in any of it. I hope they get married first, then baptized or however all that works and then attend the temple and they ride off into the sunset together. This is probably her 5th marriage so I hope he's the one!

Being trans is a big problem

Link to post
8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Being trans is a big problem

not my monkey not my circus!

Link to post
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

not my monkey not my circus!

This is not a church website but I think the information is is reliable and current.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/lds-church-defines-what-transgender-members-can-and-cannot-do-in-new-handbook-policy

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Being trans is a big problem

Priesthood issues would be a big problem.  A person born female but transitions can't expect to be ordained to the priesthood because they now consider themselves a male.    Plus I don't understand the point of all of it in the long run is a gospel sense.  A person who has gone through a surgical procedure to make them the opposite sex is no more going to be retained those changes in the resurrection than a woman who gets breast implants will be retain those implants in the  resurrection.

Link to post
Quote

However, when it comes to priesthood ordination or temple ordinances, the church said it will be based on the gender assigned at birth.

 

So, if I am getting this right, someone like this would be confirming and performing other priesthood duties to a member of the church

310751638_ScreenShot2020-10-25at10_11_14PM.png.a454032757d29edf2f78f375bc474f69.png

I kinda want to be at that meeting.

Edited by california boy
Link to post
10 hours ago, california boy said:

 

So, if I am getting this right, someone like this would be confirming and performing other priesthood duties to a member of the church

310751638_ScreenShot2020-10-25at10_11_14PM.png.a454032757d29edf2f78f375bc474f69.png

I kinda want to be at that meeting.

Technically yes because having long hair, wearing women clothes, chopping body parts off, taking hormones, even changing your name does not make you the opposite sex.   Though such a person would have to come to church with their hair cut, wearing the appropriate cloths and no makeup.   They would have to make some big changes.    I am sure this guy who identifies himself as a parrot would have to make changes also. 

PAY-Ted-Richards-Parrotman-plastic-surge

 

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to post
2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Technically yes because having long hair, wearing women clothes, chopping body parts off, taking hormones, even changing your name does not make you the opposite sex.   Though such a person would have to come to church with their hair cut, wearing the appropriate cloths and no makeup.   They would have to make some big changes.    I am sure this guy who identifies himself as a parrot would have to make changes also. 

PAY-Ted-Richards-Parrotman-plastic-surge

Poly want an ordinance?

 

Link to post
On 10/25/2020 at 8:06 AM, Peacefully said:

I think it is unfair to compare gay marriage to polygamy or adultery because a person chooses to be polygamous or adulterous. They aren’t born that way. 

What makes you think that people are not born to cheat?  Monogamy is not really a natural state.  Animals often have multiple mates.  Many men like say Hugh Hefner had trouble staying with one woman.  It may be true that one chooses to be a polygamist as marriage is choice that is done over time and requires planning.  However cheating, swinging, and just going from one person to the next might be something they were born as.  There was a male dog around our neighborhood who walked the streets and had much offspring.  Very natural for the dog and some women say men are dogs. 

Also gay marriage like polygamy and adultery are choices.  A gay person chooses to be in a gay marriage.  Sexual orientation perhaps is not a choice (hetero or homo) but what one does with that orientation is a choice.

 

Edited by carbon dioxide
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

What makes you think that people are not born to cheat?  Monogamy is not really a natural state.  Animals often have multiple mates.  Many men like say Hugh Hefner had trouble staying with one woman.  It may be true that one chooses to be a polygamist as marriage is choice that is done over time and requires planning.  However cheating, swinging, and just going from one person to the next might be something they were born as.  There was a male dog around our neighborhood who walked the streets and had much offspring.  Very natural for the dog and some women say men are dogs. 

Also gay marriage like polygamy and adultery are choices.  A gay person chooses to be in a gay marriage.  Sexual orientation perhaps is not a choice (hetero or homo) but what one does with that orientation is a choice.

 

Some might say it’s a Hobson’s Choice within the church. 

Link to post
On 10/23/2020 at 10:20 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Hi Rory,

Thanks for your responses, as always. I think in these difficult times the Lord will forgive us, as you say, for agnosticism. I think the key is what you say -- to behave as if he were pope, and I'll add to revere the office. I visited the Fisheaters forum to see what was going on there with this latest twist and was deeply saddened to see many ostensibly faithful and traditional Catholics wishing for the death of Francis, and others saying they no longer pray for him. It was surreal, honestly, and shows the problematic relationship that traditional Catholicism has with the papacy, when the papacy is so foundational to Catholicism. Without the papacy what are we? High church Anglicans? I also find it problematic that Catholics are using private judgement to determine questions involving the papacy. That is so... protestant.

I want to be clear that I am speaking in general principles here. I am not judging you or anyone personally for agnosticism on the issue. You may well be right and I may well be wrong. I just have a hard time feeling like God will pass judgement on those who stay with the papacy.

I bet this whole discussion is surprising to our LDS friends here. Catholics questioning the papacy?? Well, that's one of the things that makes this board unique -- two traditional Catholics on an LDS forum, ha.

Speaking of Fisheaters, I have a lovely grilled salmon dinner planned for today :)

+ PAX +

Jesse

"I just have a hard time feeling like God will pass judgement on those who stay with the papacy."

I find that to be a reasonable position with which I would not argue. Sorry to have missed that comment. It didn't take these several days to decide I agreed. I agreed as soon as I thought about it yesterday, I think. I do not think it is either of us right or wrong. I think I lean toward a less narrow road being permissible; correct me if I am wrong. Sadly, many still go to hell even in my more liberal view. Heh. (far from hilarious irony). (On good authority, I still think the broad road leads to destruction).

Pax,

Rory

 

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

"I just have a hard time feeling like God will pass judgement on those who stay with the papacy."

I find that to be a reasonable position with which I would not argue. Sorry to have missed that comment. It didn't take these several days to decide I agreed. I agreed as soon as I thought about it yesterday, I think. I do not think it is either of us right or wrong. I think I lean toward a less narrow road being permissible; correct me if I am wrong. Sadly, many still go to hell even in my more liberal view. Heh. (far from hilarious irony). (On good authority, I still think the broad road leads to destruction).

Pax,

Rory

Allowing the idol, Pachamama, onto Vatican grounds and then have Pope Francis uniting in worship of that idol was shocking to me. I would have never expected such a thing at any time from the Catholic Church. Then moving it from the gardens to a church alter at the Carmelite Church Santa Maria in Traspontina seemed to be throwing salt in the wound. For the life of me, I cannot understand this pope. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On 10/25/2020 at 10:06 AM, 3DOP said:

To the second paragraph: How can someone insist that he (Francis) is not the pope? You gave two answers yourself. Those are pretty much the reasons that Francis could be what is called historically, an antipope. Antipopes appear to the world and even to the church to be the pope. But what if it was discovered that there is a canonical impediment to his "papacy". In the instance of Francis, if Pope Benedict resigned under duress, Francis could not be pope. The papacy is a monarchy. There cannot be two vicars of Christ at the same time. There has been a lot of evidence gathered to suggest that Benedict did not resign freely. Another difficulty would arise even if Benedict did freely step down. This would relate to another doubt cast on to his papacy if he and other cardinals colluded in some way at the papal conclave to arrive at a particular result. A papal conclave is an election, certainly. But it is not one that permits campaigning and strategizing. There are accusations that a certain group of mostly Northern European Cardinals self-identified as the St. Gallen Mafia did just this, conspiring to install one of their ideological comrades. It is pretty certain that these same cardinals were bitterly disappointed when Jorge Bergoglio was not chosen after the death of John Paul II. They were dismayed that probably their least favorite among the viable papal candidates, Josef Ratzinger was selected. Some of Pope Ratzinger's first words after his elevation to succeed St. Peter, was a morose and reluctant request for the prayers of the faithful, that he would not "flee for fear of the wolves". Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) continues to insist that there was no pressure on him to resign. 

Another interesting twist involves the notorious Mr. Ted McCarrick, the former Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, cardinal-archbishop of Washington D.C., who was finally defrocked and reduced to the lay state when there was decades of undeniable evidence accumulated against him by former victims of how he he used his position to sexually abuse boys and seminarians. It seems that it was a reluctant Pope Francis who was forced to admit McCarrick's guilt. McCarrick was a prominent American member of this St. Gallen Mafia, and also  had contacts in Red China at a time when Pope Francis was eagerly pursuing an accord with the Red Chinese which had not been possible since the days of Pius XII and Mao Tse Tung in the 50's, when Chairman Mao suppressed the Chinese Catholic Church. He or one of his successors set up a false Catholic Church during this era which allowed only bishops approved by the Communist Party. The true church, loyal to Rome, went underground while the "Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association" (CPCA) was created to allow Chinese Catholics to practise a kind of Catholic faith that also believes in communism. This is why orthodox Catholics in China were allowed since the 50's to choose their own bishops, loyal to Rome. Rome never recognized the CPCA until 2018, when a deal was struck. Here is how Wikipedia describes the facts:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_China

 "In 1957, the Chinese government established the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association,[2] which rejects the authority of the Holy See and appoints its own bishops. Since September 2018, however, the Papacy has the power to veto any Bishop which the Chinese government recommends."[3][4]

The above is true, Rome has betrayed her persecuted children in China who do not accept that communism is compatible with the Catholic faith. Why? The pope or antipope seated in the Vatican was in every way inclined to make an accord with Red China because Francis is himself a communist or at least a sympathizer. The Chinese government is very happy to give Rome "veto power" knowing full well that Rome, with its current ministers, will never object to the episcopal choice of the government, while helping rid the government of those who once claimed to be Roman Catholic Chinese. If Francis is pope, and has made such a deal with the Chinese government, these heroes of the faith, persecuted in obscurity, with priests and bishops imprisoned, that hardly anyone cares about, have no choice but to submit to this evil Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. If Francis is pope, he does everything in his power to demoralize those who would be the most devoted of the pope's servants, to break the hearts and wills of the truest sheep of his flock. This China stuff is another obscure, but well-documented reason for why I cannot fault those who question whether Francis is pope. 

It also appears that there is evidence that China has agreed to bankroll the Vatican to an extent which is well within Chinese abilities when one considers that the Vatican itself is a "town" not much bigger in population than the little place I live at here in Kansas. Geographically, it is measured in acres. There is a reason why most of the bishops of the world seem uninclined to pressure the governments for reopening of the churches. If for no other reason, one would think they need the contributions of parishioners to stay financially viable? But many archdioceses, like the archdiocese of Rome, appear to have struck similar deals with governments in exchange for support of political policies that are incompatible with the Catholic faith. It seems like in America for instance, more tax dollars might be gained by denying the Catholic faith than by opening churches and teaching the truth to ever dwindling groups of hearty, but not fantastically wealthy parishioners. I cannot for sake of time and space provide documentation for all of what I believe is the most reasonable explanation for why Francis and many of his bishops fail to act like they are Catholics.  

-------------------------------

It's a dirty business. The faith of Traditional Catholics should be unshaken. In some respects, it seems like we observe before our eyes all of the powers of hell and earth at work to destroy the one true church. Hell has partners within the corridors of the Catholic Church. Catholics have taken a just pride and reverence for the churches, shrines, and monuments that faithful Catholics have raised over the centuries to glorify the God to whom we offer all thanks and praise. It is painful to realize that the enemy has those now, and we may never get them back in this life. But neither St. Peter's Basilica, nor the Lateran Basilica were ever going to follow us to the next life anyway! We should not be surprised at this perhaps last, furious attempt to destroy the Catholic faith completely. A happy few will continue to joyfully assist at the Holy Sacrifice, which is not yet extinguished, remembering with St. Paul that if the time ever comes that we lose even the Mass, "that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:38, 39)

Joyfully and triumphantly written for y'all in some ways, and especially for you pogi, on the Feast of Christ the King (!), most thankful for the privilege of being allowed to gain my reward in these our times. May all creatures hail our illustrious Saviour and King, our just and merciful Lord Jesus Christ. 

3DOP   

PS: There is precedent in 1322. Pope John XXII was threatened to be burned by the King of France, with at least the tacit support of the cardinals as well as the University of Paris. (This was when the papal court was located in Avignon, in France.) Pope John had apparently got some of the professors worked up about what seems trifling compared to the things Francis has said. John XXII recanted his error. He got mixed up about when folks get the beatific vision. He had the "rank audacity" to say that it was not until after the general judgment! If in 1322, John XXII could be so threatened about something as minor as that, what would they have done with Francis? Anyway, there is whole body of ideas on deposing popes that seem inconclusive at this time to me. 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful replies.  Your love for the church is evident in your passionate repudiation of the pope.  I knew that more traditional Catholics were not terribly happy with Pope Francis, but I was unaware of just how visceral the divide is. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful replies.  Your love for the church is evident in your passionate repudiation of the pope.  I knew that more traditional Catholics were not terribly happy with Pope Francis, but I was unaware of just how visceral the divide is. 

It's tough times for sure. I wonder if there is something similar in LDS times? Maybe when polygamy was abrogated? Did more "traditional" LDS have a hard time accepting the end of polygamy since it seemed so foundational during Brigham Young's time?

  • Like 1
Link to post
43 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's tough times for sure. I wonder if there is something similar in LDS times? Maybe when polygamy was abrogated? Did more "traditional" LDS have a hard time accepting the end of polygamy since it seemed so foundational during Brigham Young's time?

I think all the LDS splinter groups is evidence of that.  Do you foresee any further splintering in the Catholic church over these issues?  Has it come to that?

Link to post
13 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Allowing the idol, Pachamama, onto Vatican grounds and then have Pope Francis uniting in worship of that idol was shocking to me. I would have never expected such a thing at any time from the Catholic Church. Then moving it from the gardens to a church alter at the Carmelite Church Santa Maria in Traspontina seemed to be throwing salt in the wound. For the life of me, I cannot understand this pope. 

Well I get what you are saying, but then I have this strange thing inside of me that questions where we got the virgin Mary stories, links to fertility goddesses, and whether or not the Book of Mormon is historical, and the story of Eden which we KNOW was allegorical because it used to be mentioned in the temple itself before 1990.....   and the influences from Egypt and all the other middle-east religions on Christianity, and....   the "ands" keep coming.

If it's a new way of telling an old story that brings some folks closer to God do I really care?   Is there anything new in that idea at all?

So I get what he is doing but he's not going to make any friends in doing it the way he is doing it- and then I wonder what harm it is leaving it all as it is instead of making the changes.   I have been in the pragmatism business for enough time now to know that folks are just not ready to think about these things allegorically.

And then I decide it's time for a nap.    ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's tough times for sure. I wonder if there is something similar in LDS times? Maybe when polygamy was abrogated? Did more "traditional" LDS have a hard time accepting the end of polygamy since it seemed so foundational during Brigham Young's time?

Oh heck yeah.

How would you like the religion you have known and trusted now come in and tell you you cannot have your family operate the way it always had, and you have to divorce yourself from half or more of your family because your church has decided to change doctrines due to government oppression?

Not a way to win friends and influence people.  ;)

And it is not that long ago.  I knew my wife's grandmother well and she lived into the 1980's and she was the daughter of a legitimate LDS polygamist of BY's time, and she would tell tales of going down the street to her "aunt's house" - (a former wife of her father) to get a cup of sugar etc.

 

Link to post
On 10/27/2020 at 11:22 PM, Storm Rider said:

Allowing the idol, Pachamama, onto Vatican grounds and then have Pope Francis uniting in worship of that idol was shocking to me. I would have never expected such a thing at any time from the Catholic Church. Then moving it from the gardens to a church alter at the Carmelite Church Santa Maria in Traspontina seemed to be throwing salt in the wound. For the life of me, I cannot understand this pope. 

Storm,

God bless you and love you. Thank you for your prayers and your good will. 

I think Francis needs to be understood in the light of "Latter-day Catholic Revelation". It is neither apostolic, nor infallible. But neither is anybody's. Fatima. Leo XIII. La Salette, etc. The Catholic Church has listened to heaven...not today, no. But the Catholic Church, not so long ago, approved private revelations that foretold horrendous things...about the Catholic Church...in what is now. Will Catholics who have believed in these times be fearful or doubtful? Please God, no!

I wish we were brothers now. Fully. You know what I mean. 

3DOP 

  • Like 3
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...