Posted on 07/29/2013 7:07:04 AM PDT by IbJensen
Pope Francis on Monday said “who am I to judge?” gay people as he discussed one of the most divisive issues affecting the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis, who gave a press conference on his flight back from Brazil, said he had stayed away from the gay marriage debate on his trip because he wanted to stay positive.
“I have yet to find anyone who has a business card that says he is gay,” the pontiff said at a press conference in which he addressed the reports of a "gay lobby" within the Vatican.
“They say they exist. If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” he added. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says they should not be marginalized because of this (orientation) but that they must be integrated into society."
Francis added that he thought lobbies of any kind -- including political ones -- were bad.
"The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem," he said.
The press conference, which lasted for an hour and 20 minutes, was held during the flight back from his week-long trip to Brazil.
The official position of the Catholic Church on the issue is that while homosexual desires or attractions are not in themselves sinful, the physical acts are.
All priests take a vow of celibacy when they become members of the clergy.
The pontiff went to Brazil on his first visit overseas since he was elected in March.
The Pope said he had stayed away from the issue of gay marriage and also abortion on his week-long trip to Brazil because he wanted to stay positive.
Francis discussed a range of issues during the press conference, admitting that the church had not done enough to develop “the theology of women in the church.”
He said that the church had spoken on the issue of women priests and expressed itself clearly on the issue of abortion, but he added that important female biblical figures had been overlooked.
"Mary is more important than the apostles," he said. "One must think about women in the church. We have not done enough theology on this."
History's first Latin American pope said he was "pretty tired" but with a happy heart after his first overseas trip.
He said he was amazed at the number of people who turned out to see him in Brazil, especially the three million who jammed Copacabana Beach for Sunday's Mass.
He added that he was unconcerned by the tumultuous start to the trip that included the discovery of a bomb at a shrine he visited and the mob scene that took place when his driver inadvertently made wrong turn.
"There's always the danger of a crazy person, but there is also the Lord," he said. "This being close is good for everyone."
There is no where in the Scriptures Mary is called anything but Mary (well, maybe “mother”). Jesus claims titles He deserved. Your organization, however, has manufactured a devotion/adoration/veneration of a simple human into a cult-like heresy. The word Mariolatry is fitting.
Better than your organization which doesn’t even claim to be Christian,right?
Well, I don't belong to an organization. I belong to the Body of Christ, the universal gathering of those chosen before the foundation of the world, citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, the elect of Jesus. We have been saved by the blood of the Lamb provided by God, the Messiah of Israel, the Creator of Heaven and earth. We have been rescued by grace, through faith, a gift not of ourselves lest any of us turn out like Rome. We extend to you an offer to come out of the chains of that dark place and into the marvelous light of Christ, alone...if you are among the chosen.
Well, that is what is on my heart. I want truth to be told. I know enough PERSONALLY about falling for idols — been there, done that, and the results really stink, they block the love of the Lord from fully operating — that the pattern I am seeing looks like another danger trap. Are we at least trying to thank the loving Lord for all graces no matter the conduit? If we aren’t, then we risk putting something else in the place that deity should hold.
Dutch, I do not believe it helpful to “demonize” an entire communion, even if not everything they do is right. At least out of humility since the one where you are undoubtedly has other problems you can’t see, yet. (And the Lord knows this and is willing to tolerate some guff rather than destroy the yet-imperfect but still-useful organization.) I ask specific questions about specific issues and try not to just slap broad labels. That’s almost always a big discussion stopper.
I appreciate your concern, Red. This is not a matter of a legitimate communion having a few bumps and bruises. The underpinnings of the Roman Catholic Church are as far from the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the Judaizers were during the 1st century. Paul had harsher words for them than I have used and he wanted it clearly understood that a little bit of heresy was no small matter.
"That’s almost always a big discussion stopper."
I find no admonition to grant honor to "another gospel, which is really not another gospel." You may find a "discussion" useful, but discussions about venerating humans is not something I am interested in.
You might consider whether the inference gathered by a "discussion" is that you find the other view within the pale, but just needs tweaking. This is especially true when you may really believe the other view is entirely off the rails. I wish to leave no possible misunderstanding about where I believe the Scriptures stand.
If we had the privilege of being one of those original apostles we could tear a lot of communions a big one. We don’t have that privilege.
I totally agree, there are some fundamental problems with doctrines here, for example it looks like people are potentially letting saints get between themselves and the Lord, but there’s undeniably also actual Christian practice going on in that communion. Christian practice is not at root a heap of doctrines, it is a personal salvific relationship between the human and the Savior. The bath water may be terrible, but don’t throw the baby out.
LOL. No, the babies should not be thrown out. There are many believers chosen by God who have been attending the RCC. I visit with some of them regularly. I certainly do not want to imply that they cannot be part of the elect. At the same time, the reformation roundly condemned Rome for its papal errors, its indulgences, its priesthood, its Mariolatry, its sacraments, its traditions over Scripture. The recent trend to make nicey with that organization by otherwise reformed thinking believers has muddied the bath water more.
If a person is told, well, unmerited grace granting you faith in Jesus is of course the only thing which will rescue you, BUT if instead you really need to add the Law and circumcision and sacrifices and candles and absolution and confession and a statue of Mary and a pope and a priest to administer a wafer that has magically become the body of Jesus and some wine that has magically become the blood of Jesus (to re-crucify Him) and you need...well, it is no big deal. God will just wink at it?
It appears as though the attempt to not "hurt any feelings" has replaced the clear statements of truth the way Paul delivered them. He wanted the Judaizers to cut off certain important appendages while they were adding circumcision to the mix (Gal). I don't believe he thought this misunderstanding was innocuous. Are you certain that Rome has "Christian practice" going on? Or is it more of obfuscation of the message of grace, a replacement message? I am not persuaded the org is within the pale, my FRiend.
Well, Dutch, I’m looking at it this way, and history sometimes presents inconvenient truths that we have to stretch our understanding to grasp. The Roman Catholic/Orthodox complex of communions was the only game in town until Luther, pretty much. And the bible (yeah we both believe it very much) says that the church isn’t going to get wiped out (paraphrasing). I do believe that if Paul and Peter saw what’s going on now in the Roman and (perhaps a bit less) Orthodox communions, they’d be grief stricken, but they’d also marvel that God managed to keep at least a flicker alive, that He did not fail His promise. Anyhow, I believe in lighting candles (actually big ole floodlights of spirit) rather than cursing darkness... that’s the way God redeems. And so sometimes this here Protestomcat has to face off with Roamin’ Catolics that way. I just am suggesting, emphasize the blessing of the light... not the curse of the darkness. The light will itself show that it is superior to the darkness. God bless you Dutch to be a conduit of the light. I’m trying to be one on my part too.
Basically... let the evangelical model’s own successes make their point. It was easy enough to pummel on Luther at the start; he was a hot tempered man who among other things used such extreme language as wishing those who did not appreciate church music to be imprisoned in a silent wilderness (and there there are the curses at the Jews which are to cringe to see). But when the movement grew, other reformers joined, the clashes resulted in clarification (at least of where the disagreements are), and the imprint of the original reformers was mellowed out into an evangelical blend. And the gospel sees spectacular success in transforming lives. There’s generally no “mother, may I” games going on in these churches, is why, no pedantic penance auditors (and the often sad loss of counseling has its own pitfalls but at least it does not block the Lord as much, an absent doctrine is better than a twisted one).
This has the aroma of a capitulation to Rome, my FRiend. What exactly would you have said for all the years prior to Moses? The truth was embedded in the smallest gathering of the world's population that ever existed (Abraham, just one?). Just a few people (not even all of Israel) were granted faith according to the Book.
Numbers have absolutely nothing to do with anything. A claim is either true or false and it sounds like you are buying into their lie that "We're number one, we're number one". What happens when the Muslims start this chant? Are we to say, "Well, Muhammad meant well and there are an awful lot of them."?
Further, even Augustine fought the false claim of Rome's preemninence...until he caved in, also. It took hundreds of years before Rome became its own self-appointed big stick. And, you are forgetting Wycliffe, Gutenberg, Tyndale and others who gave enormous evidence that the cult of Rome was not welcome, nor recognized, by hundreds of small independent gatherings around long before Luther. Rome has rewritten its own history to convince their parishoners.
I am happy you believe in "lighting candles", but that is a personal decision. This travesty of doctrinal error needs a blow torch set onto its keister. There is almost nothing left in Rome which sounds like the Gospel of Grace in Jesus Christ and I am not going to pat it on the head and imply there is. It is, as Paul wrote, born of a doctrine of demons, words much harsher than I have used but far more precise.
Not sure where you are going with this. But, Luther had more than 17 years of marinating in Roman error...until God rescued him from their heresies. It took a long time to work out the errors still stuck in his thinking. Many never did get worked out. His view of baptism, the wine/bread/, even some politics came and went. I am not advocating Luther, Calvin, Hus, Zwingli, or even Sproul. They all have contributions and they all have limitations. But, at least they point at the Book as the proof text for truth.
The Book is our source doc for truth and Rome does not comport with the Book they wrongly claim to have delivered to the world. They are driven by tradition and they point at themselves as the source of truth. Therein lies the problem.
What I am saying is to be aware of what the evangelical pitch (which I accept as true and have proven out in practice, which by the way is what the bible tells us to do) will look like on the Roman end. They’re going to view it through a heavy cloud of presuppositions which is why we get objections like “oh, you’re being your own pope.” That’s where “patient instruction” means more than what might look like a temper tantrum to them.
I hope I’m not talking past you. I’m just saying the evangelical model has nothing to be ashamed of if the bible is not only preached but obeyed in presenting it. The two (doctrine and obedience) really are integrated wonderfully by the Holy Spirit.
Basically... present the bible with your life. Not just your talk. That’s all I’m getting at. It’s a love affair with God that you want to spread.
No capitulation, Dutch. Only “bearing with.” The evangelical model when lived in a Christian life is very powerful witness. Maybe the Roman Catholic says he saw Mary weeping from a statue, but have you grieved when your Roman Catholic friend has grieved?
Spiritual leverage is built. Not presumed. And God takes care of His own. Your choice is whether to be an effectual part of that.
Kind words, my FRiend. But, let me be clear. You speak as though this were a visit around a campfire with some friends talking about which beans taste best. I see it as a crowd of people standing in front of bullet train...but even that is being managed.
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.