Posted on 07/01/2017 5:31:11 PM PDT by marshmallow
God will not be mocked, Francis. Your fantasy version, of Our Father, doesn’t fly.
I get the sense that Pope Francis likes surprises. That’s good, because he’s in for a big one.
This priest apparently doesn’t read the Bible. Doesn’t read the Catechism, either. And is in contradiction against 20 centuries of clear, consistent Catholic moral doctrine.
If he were a student in my RCIA class (adult wannabe converts) I would not be able to approve his being received into the Catholic Church.
And if his bishop allows him to get away with this? I’d turn thumbs down on the bishop as well.
Why? Because they reject the authority of God as expressed in Catholic faith and morals.
It's opposed to Divine and Natural Law, which is objective and eternal.
What a filthy, scandalous priest.
No, it's wrong for churches NOT to fight against it.
This Judas priest is a tool of evil. What he’s trying to package as a new “evolution in Catholic thought” is age-old diabolical deception.
He need to be laicized, excommunicated, and probably exorcised. He stinks of perdition.
The Left, under the lie of social justice, has infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church. That moral bastion of Christ’s truth has slouched towards Gomorrah. They are waving the white flag to the assault of Communism. Shameful.
Wow, it's a little weird giving advice to the Holy Spirit IMO.
Agreed. That Bible Verse is often overlooked. God does not create humans with homosexual “orientations”.
It certainly doesn't seem so does it?
I thought this was interesting. Although the author misses the fact that these verses prove that there is no such thing as a “homosexual orientation”, he at least recognizes that something’s amiss with the obvious excision of this portion of Romans from the liturgical readings:
The post Vatican II Lectionary doesn’t include these verses.
Not only Romans but 1 Corinthians 6 and 1Tomothy 1. Further, I would say in both Matthew and Mark Jesus condemns it when he condemns “pornea” - a Greek word which means any wrongful sexual conduct. In the Jewish culture Jesus lived in this would certainly include sex outside marriage, homosexual conduct and beastiality. Finally, with regard to marriage, Jesus definitively pronounces it as between a man and a woman in Matthew 19.
Your comment is perfect.
Although those verses are also very good support against homosexual acts, I think the Romans 1 verses show that these folks weren’t created this way by God...that they were born this way....that they were born with a “homosexual orientation” or that they were born with some psychological tendency towards homosexuality.
For clarification, anywhere where I wrote “were” in my previous post change it to say “weren’t”. I think I worded things in a confusing way.
Beg to differ.
Follow the progression of these verses.
They knew God but did not worship Him.
They chose to worship the world instead.
v24 notes: "therefore". This is the transition from vv 18-22 to the remainder of the vv we're discussing.
God gave them over to the lusts in their hearts in v24 based on their rejection of Him in vv 18-22.
Again notice the worshiping and serving of the creature in v25 v worshiping and serving the Creator.
As a result God gives them over to their "degrading passions" which now moves to homosexuality.
This is not an orientation they were born with. This is a progression of their rejection of God.
v28 notes God again gives them over to a depraved mind which resulted in further evil.
v32 removes any possibility of people being born homosexual.
32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
This certainly seems to be where we are in the United States today.
http://taylormarshall.com/2015/10/catholic-mass-lectionary-omits-anti-homosexual-verses-from-romans-1.html
The post Vatican II Lectionary doesn’t include these verses.
I believe that's why it's key to confirm everything against the New Testament. The verses were left out for a reason.
If he were a student in my RCIA class (adult wannabe converts) I would not be able to approve his being received into the Catholic Church.
And if his bishop allows him to get away with this? I’d turn thumbs down on the bishop as well.
Why? Because they reject the authority of God as expressed in Catholic faith and morals.
If this is not changed but becomes accepted....what's to stop a Roman Catholic 100 or 200 years from now to claim this was part of "Sacred Tradition" that has been handed down from the Apostles?
There are many things in the RCC today that contradict the New Testament but are accepted as "Sacred Tradition".
Thank You! Was just looking for that reference and was going to quote it, specifically Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
In that time, the due penalty was DEATH. Yes, that was the Old Testament for those who don't know better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.