Pro-Gay Prelate Tipped To Be Doctrinal Czar

Church Militant ^ | 1/12/22 | Jules Gomes

[marshmallow]

Pope may appoint 'land grab' Maltese archbishop as Vatican watchdog

VATICAN (ChurchMilitant.com) - As part of a continuing purge of conservatives from the Vatican stables, Pope Francis is expected to appoint a pro-LGBTQ+ archbishop — currently embroiled in a land-grab scandal — as head of the Church's doctrinal watchdog.

Archbishop of Malta Charles Scicluna is expected to replace 77-year-old Cdl. Luis Ladaria, a conservative who is currently prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Francis cleared the path for Scicluna's rise to the top when he banished the CDF's second-in-command Abp. Giacomo Morandi (age 56) to the bishopric of Italy's Reggio Emilia diocese on Friday.

Morandi was behind the CDF's ban on same-sex blessings last March. God "does not and cannot bless sin," the congregation's responsum ad dubium ("reply to a doubt") categorically stated — triggering a revolt wherein dozens of German clergymen defiantly blessed gay couples.

Pope Francis received both Ladaria and Scicluna in private recently at Santa Marta, the current papal residence, a clergy source reported.

[Secret Agent Man]

Oh yeah, but MY denomination has problems....

/s

[JJBookman]

Our departure for Eastern Orthodoxy was LONG overdue!

[Lurkinanloomin]

If you follow the ImPopester, he will lead you to hell.

[ebb tide]

Barf Alert Ping

[Tell It Right]

One of the problems with the Council of Trent saying that not all truth comes from the Holy Bible -- some truth comes from tradition -- is that it means the Catholic leaders get to define what the "traditions" are for "truth".

There's nothing to stop them from "uncovering" a new "tradition" about Pope Leo I seeing a holy vision of the virgin Mary while his butt was losing its virginity or some such or other while he was consolidating power and defining his bishop of Rome status as being some kind of papacy.

[Campion]

Wrong. Tradition doesn't become tradition because one person declares it to be. To be legitimate, it has to have a pedigree and a history, usually one going back centuries. It also has to be consistent with the rest of the faith.

On the other hand, sola scriptura Chistianity is all over the map on almost every topic, from Church governance (Lutherans have bishops, Presbyterians don't) to sacramental theology and practice (Presbyterians baptize babies, Baptists don't) to eschatology (has the "rapture" happened yet?) ... the list goes on and on.

[Campion]

Oh, and the notion that Trent invented the idea of the authority of Holy Tradition is complete nonsense. The Orthodox split from Rome 500 years before Trent, and they believe it. The Oriental Orthodox split from Rome and Constantinople 1100 years before Trent, and they believe it, too.

[A strike]

So you’re against ‘only scripture’.

[Tell It Right]

I believe that the things you point out that are "all over the map" in Protestant churches are things that aren't worth drawing a line in the sand and arguing over.

Think about the things Christians face today in America. Look at the Christians who are having to go to court, sometimes all the way to SCOTUS, to keep their city council or mayor from fining them out of business just for not participating in other peoples' sex lives. I bet not one of them have woken up in the morning lately thinking, "I sure hope my church is right about the correct age for baptism". No, what matters to them is what matters in the New Testament in numerous places to keep trusting the Lord even when it's tough, love others, live righteous lives and avoid sin, especially sexual sin that's all over the New Testament.

Believing Jesus died for our sins is all over the New Testament. However, Jesus' seder meal experience (the Last Supper) is mentioned just a few times, including His "my flesh" and "do this remembrance of me". Is it really worth arguing over details that are scarcely mentioned or not mentioned at all in Scripture; like if He meant the "my flesh" figuratively or literally, or if the "do this" meant do it annually like the Jewish Passover seder meal or every time you eat or weekly, or if it's a sacrament only if it's blessed by clergy, or if it literally becomes His flesh only if it's blessed by someone who is ordained by the hierarchy that Leo I introduced to us as "papal authority"?

Of course not. That's the power of sola scriptura. It helps us focus on what matters most by talking about the important stuff over and over, particularly in the New Testament. Protestant churches disagree on some of the fine details on the scarcely mentioned things. But you have to search hard to find even a few who say that those who don't believe the fine details the same way aren't fellow believers. By the way, the few Protestant churches who are promoting the gay thing are: 1) obviously not truly sola scriptura and 2) are losing membership left and left (pardon the pun). The evangelical churches are growing.

[Zionist Conspirator]

One of the problems with the Council of Trent saying that not all truth comes from the Holy Bible -- some truth comes from tradition -- is that it means the Catholic leaders get to define what the "traditions" are for "truth".

Unfortunately for you, the first century church (whatever it was really like) didn't have a "new testament," and their beliefs came 100% from tradition.

Not that pointing this out will do any good.

[Tell It Right]

The first century church had Jesus and the apostles. That's where the New Testament came from. Not only do I believe God inspired the New Testament writers, but 3 of the 4 gospel writers witnessed directly what Jesus said and did. Plus other "books" in the New Testament were written by them. That's not tradition. That's first-hand account.

The other New Testament writers were sanctioned by the original witnesses (original disciples plus a few other disciples who weren't the 11 of the main 12) and at least in some cases the new Christians' writings themselves were approved of by the original witnesses. I don't know how much more valid anybody could expect any group of writings to be than that.

I'd rather get my truth from them any day over someone who lets the Chicoms pick the church leaders.

[Montana_Sam]

Peace be to you.
The war-cry of denominationalism and evangelism is, “Each man (woman) a pope!” That type of self-justification helps a lot of people sleep at night, but it saves not a single soul, does it?
St. Paul did not believe in sola scriptura; he held to all that was taught by word of mouth as well as what was written. And he broke bread.
By the way, in John 6, Jesus declares (simple paraphrase), My body is food, indeed. My blood is drink, indeed. Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you. And most of His disciples left Him because they knew he was speaking literally and they said, This saying is too hard.

[Tell It Right]

Maybe I'm missing something. It seems to me in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 that Paul was making special emphasis of paying attention to his written teachings (particularly since he wrote a yuge portion of the New Testament). That's particularly enlightening since the chapter above it is mostly about making sure to avoid teachings of false prophets.

Even verse 15 there (2 Thessalonians 2:15) which says "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold [tightly] to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." (AMP) would seem to say that Paul himself equals oral teachings to written teachings -- but only if you take it out of context. His emphasis, however, is that they respect only the teachings "from us", meaning Paul and the other apostles. That, my brother in Christ, is the key. The context of chapter 2 is all about ignoring the teachings of the false prophets and obeying only the teachings of the apostles.

What we know to be New Testament Scripture is what we know to be written by the apostles. In the past 2,000 years teachings by word of mouth get distorted. But Scripture is Scripture.

I'd dare say that one thing that's brought Protestant churches closer is a higher rate of literacy over the decades. Yes there are ugly debates between the evangelical churches and the "high church" denominations, particularly regarding the high churches embracing different versions of sexual immorality. But I remember a time when the so-called evangelical churches would often give sermons about how wrong the other evangelical churches were. That changed now that most people in the congregation have read the Bible at least once. For example, do Baptist churches still have Calvinistic beliefs? Yes. But you rarely hear it front and center like you used to, it's only when you ask them point blank about it to they say they still believe it. It's been forever since I heard a Baptist say that the Armenian churches were way off base or non-believers, etc. They focus on other things. The same with the Pentecostal churches often still believing the initial sign of Spirit baptism being speaking in tongues (yes they still believe it, but you rarely hear it like that). That's because those tangent beliefs may be supported by a verse or two in Scripture, but often with little to no context and usually not the main point the verses in that area were trying to make anyway.

I'd dare say the evangelical Pentecostal churches are about as "divided" as the Catholic church was in Martin Luther's day. If there hadn't been bishops like Tetzel in that day saying things like "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory springs", Luther may have never started the Protestant reformation as we know it and his views would be nothing more than the views of others like him in the Augustinian order. It's not like they saw completely eye-to-eye with their brothers in other orders like the Benedictine order or the Carthusian order, etc. Just like it'd be misleading for a Protestant like me to point out their differences as "evidence" that the Catholic church was horribly fractured 500 years ago, I'd say the Protestant evangelical churches aren't so horribly against each other today.

And the #1 way we stay like that are the 5 solas, especially sola scriptura. Maybe basing our core beliefs in Scripture can sound like "self-justification" or "each man a pope" to someone not so grounded in Scripture, particularly the parts repeated over and over in the New Testament.