re: Pope tells bishops not to accept gays into seminary; too much “frociaggine” already

quote:

---

You could've just said "like they have been in every single Protestant denomination". Over-generalizations are acceptable when true.

---

Except it isn’t true. The Presbyterian denomination I’m a member of doesn’t do that because homosexuality is sinful and those men who are in open, unrepentant sin will not pass an ordination personal godliness exam to be a teaching elder.

This is true for most Presbyterian denominations and most other Protestant denominations, actually. Perhaps you shouldn’t over generalize at all.

quote:

---

The Presbyterian denomination I’m a member of

---

This is my point. At one moment in time, there were no denominations within denominations. One was either (as far as Protestants go) Lutheran, Anglican, or Presbyterian. Then, as each man became his own arbiter of truth and came up with doctrines which conflict with the teachings of the denomination, there was a schism. Every single Protestant denomination without exception has schismed over the issue of homosexuality.

quote:

---

Why the change of heart?

---

It’s not one.

quote:

---

I thought the Pope was an advocate of frociaggine.

---

Advocate? More of a “hate the sin, love the sinner” guy who got misquoted (and subsequently poorly retracted/explained) a few times.

quote:

---

Didn't he give his blessings to same-sex couples?

---

No. He said homosexuals can be blessed just like crooked businessmen and the rest of us sinners. Specifically, he said you cannot bless the couple but can bless each person (or in other words, you don’t need to be in a state of grace to receive a blessing. This has more or less been a position for a while. It’s one reason you see a lot of adults walk forward and not receive Communion. He just more or less confirmed that those living in sinful union are still worthy/able to be blessed).

quote:

---

This the problem with Francis. He is not a theologian and is very sloppy with his words. He creates these problems with ambiguous statements.

---

Every time he talks. Even this one I would take with a grain of salt.

quote:

---

every single protestant denomination

---

. there goes another Roman Catholic dividing the church again with another generalized lie

This is as clear as it can get - men of homosexual or bisexual persuasion, even if celibate, are not called to or allowed to join the Catholic Clergy.

quote:

---

This is my point.

---

Great point.

quote:

---

This is my point. At one moment in time, there were no denominations within denominations. One was either (as far as Protestants go) Lutheran, Anglican, or Presbyterian. Then, as each man became his own arbiter of truth and came up with doctrines which conflict with the teachings of the denomination, there was a schism.

---

The Great Schism occurred over 500 years before Martin Luther came on the scene and the Hussites were rebelling 100 years before him, too.

The reason more people didn't leave Catholicism was because of politics and the use of force. There weren't any real options after Christianity became the religion of the Western world. Kings had to be blessed by the Pope. Wars were fought with the permission of the Roman Catholic church. Rome had a strangle hold on politics that kept the people in check. Even the Reformation in Germany almost didn't take off because the Emperor was no friend to Luther and was being persuaded by Rome to condemn him.

Due to the political power of the church, there weren't any real options to defect from Catholicism. There weren't any other churches (denominations) that had formed that anyone could join, so to leave Catholicism was to go absolutely solo. But not only that, defecting meant you were a heretic and it often led to death as a capital crime. In addition, Catholicism for many centuries didn't allow the common man, woman, or child to have a Bible of their own, and the Bibles that existed were very expensive and were written in Latin, which only the educated understood. The only ones were access to the Bible were already loyal to the Pope.

The reason why the Reformation took off was because examination of Catholicism was possible at that time. The printing press had been invented a century before and criticisms of Rome as well as actual Bibles were able to be printed and disseminated relatively quickly and inexpensively in the common languages of the people. They no longer had Rome giving them all the information that they had to implicitly trust, but could read for themselves what the Bible said. This led to hundreds of thousands of people defecting from Rome within a few decades, and other state churches formed for people to join.

The problem Catholics seem to be bringing up when they talk about different denominations is that of force. You take exception with Protestants interpreting the Bible and declaring what doctrines are true, but that's exactly what Rome does. The difference now is that Rome doesn't have a functional monopoly on the Scriptures. When Catholics defect from Rome now, they aren't worried about being burned alive but they have options. The Reformation eventually led to Rome giving in and letting even lay Catholics have access to the Bible, and those that wind up reading it for themselves and seeing the inconsistencies that Rome teaches can leave and go elsewhere.

The price you pay for liberty of interpretation is disunity. Rome brags about unity (though there is still a lot of disunity over issues, just not essentials), but it has historically been unity by force. Again, Catholicism does the same thing Presbyterians do, for example, in having a polity that makes rules and enforces them, but the difference is that Catholics believe their government is infallible. As a Presbyterian, I believe the Biblical model for government is a plurality of elders governing and ruling according to the Scriptures, however I believe only the Bible is infallible. What Rome does when faced with people defecting is that they say they are "the ancient church", rather than accepting that they are just like every denomination that exists today, except that they believe they have an infallible government.

quote:

---

Every single Protestant denomination without exception has schismed over the issue of homosexuality.

---

Speaking as a Presbyterian, the PCUSA (the liberal one who supports LGBTQ+ things) had be going liberal for a long time before they adopted positive positions on homosexuality. The OPC and PCA (two of the most prominent conservative Presbyterian denominations in America) broke away from the PCUS and PCUSA decades ago before homosexuality was a thing. There wasn't a schism over homosexuality in the Presbyterian denominations because no denominations broke away from any others over that issue. My denomination does not have fraternal relations with the PCUSA for many reasons that go beyond homosexuality; they are liberal and have essentially abandoned the Bible as their sole infallible rule for faith and life due to how they have adopted the "social gospel" as the most compelling standard for interpreting truth.

quote:

---

his is as clear as it can get - men of homosexual or bisexual persuasion, even if celibate, are not called to or allowed to join the Catholic Clergy.

---

This is true but it is not enforced.

quote:

---

There weren't any other churches (denominations) that had formed that anyone could join,

---

An admission that Catholicism was first, and therefore, the church that Jesus established and granted infallibility and indefectability.

quote:

---

In addition, Catholicism for many centuries didn't allow the common man, woman, or child to have a Bible of their own

---

One of the most ignorant lies ever told. It simply isn't true. Until VERY recently in history (like, the 1800s and later), the common man, woman, and child couldn't read. If they could read, they read Latin. Then there's the issue of being able to afford a Bible, which in today's dollars would cost the common man, woman, or child thousands of dollars. This is why the Church had to chain the Bibles up inside the churches, not to prevent people from reading it, but to prevent people from stealing something that took years to hand write, and was a prime target for theft due to the monetary value.

The Catholic church did have vernacular translations. It just didn't allow poorly or heretically (is that even a word?) translated Bibles. In such a case, it would burn those Bibles (the proper way to dispose of something considered Holy), and replace with an approved translation in the vernacular. If one such translation didn't exist, the Vatican would create one, but as you admitted, this was often a very long and expensive process prior to the printing press.

quote:

---

The price you pay for liberty of interpretation is disunity. Rome brags about unity (though there is still a lot of disunity over issues, just not essentials)

---

Christ specifically prayed that His church have unity. Sounds like the Catholics are doing it right.