Cardinal Burke: ‘Very Grave Problem of Homosexual Culture in the Church

Breitbart ^ | Nolte

[wardaddy]

Cardinal Raymond Burke has called for “open recognition” of the Catholic church’s homosexual culture in light of recent revelations of sexual abuse. “I believe that there needs to be an open recognition that we have a very grave problem of a homosexual culture in the Church,” Burke said in an interview Thursday, “especially among the clergy and the hierarchy, that needs to be addressed honestly and efficaciously.”

he former head of the church’s equivalent of the Supreme Court said it was already “clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men.”

“There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this,” he said, referring to the mainstream media cover-up of the homosexual nature of the abuse as well as such denial within the church itself.

[ealgeone]

"Roman Catholic" is a Protestant slur invented to make Catholics foreigners in their English-speaking countries.

The term "Roman", as in the "Roman Church", has been used since the Middle Ages – often connoting the local particular church of the Diocese of Rome – the first known occurrence of "Roman Catholic" as a synonym for "Catholic Church" was in communication with the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1208, after the East–West Schism.[3][4]

[I don't think the Armenians were big on English as a language!]

Like the term "Anglican", the term "Roman Catholic" only came into widespread use in the English language in the 17th century.[24] The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" were both in use in the 17th century and "Roman Catholic" was used in some official documents, such as those relating to the Spanish Match in the 1620s. There was, however, significant tension between Anglicans and Roman Catholics at the time (as reflected in the Test Act for public office). Even today, the Act of Settlement 1701 still prohibits Roman Catholics from becoming English monarchs.

he Baltimore Catechism, the official catechism authorized by the Catholic bishops of the United States between 1885 and 1965, statet: "That is why we are called Roman Catholics; to show that we are united to the real successor of St. Peter" (Question 118), and refers to the Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" under Questions 114 and 131.[113] There are efforts of conservative Catholics to keep alive teachings of this catechism that were not retained in the Post-Vatican II catechism published in 1992,[63] like "Roman Catholic Church" that has not appeared in the Catechism of the Catholic Church since 1992.[114]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)

Guess those mean ol' Protestants are forcing these Roman Catholic churches to identify in this manner!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I will continue to call the Roman religion “Roman”

And I will not use their preferred personal pronouns.

[boatbums]

No, "Rome" doesn't. We are saved by Grace alone, just as St. Paul teaches.

Being Catholic helps, indeed, but salvation occurs when we are judged (not saved but judged) by Christ according to our works of mercy (Mattheew 25, second half).

I don't think I'm the only one to spot that blaring contradiction.

Roman Catholic double-speak that says we are "saved by grace" but then "judged according to our works". Being Catholic doesn't help, in fact, it hinders a person from knowing and responding to the truth of the gospel. I thank Almighty God for revealing the gospel to my heart fifty years ago that salvation is not based on my works but by the grace of God through FAITH and I believed on him and still follow him to this day. Catholicism has perverted the gospel and preaches an accursed version.

[daniel1212]

you haven’t offered any proof that Rome obeys ANYTHING from the Apostles and Jesus; all you’ve offered is empty assertions and insults.

Aside from the reproof of the recourse to spitballs, it is going too far to say Rome does not obey anything from the Apostles and Jesus. Fund./ evangelicals actually contend for the many basic Truth that Catholicism at least professes, such as expressed in the so-called "apostles creed."

Whereas Rome claims that you have to earn your salvation by works, oh, excuse me, ‘merits.’

More specifically, RC teaching is that by the grace of God you actually become good enough in character to enter Heaven/be with God, either in this life or thru RC (EOs differ) of RC purgatory.

As regards merit, Man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)

Thus man owes to God all things, ( (1 Chronicles 29:14; 1 Corinthians 4:7) and in conversion enables and motivates man to do what he otherwise would not and would not do, and while man is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) - which disobedience is the only thing man can take credit — under grace (which denotes unmerited favor) God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects, which obedience (again) God both enabled and motivated.

And which means that God justifies man without the merit of any works, which is what Romans 4:1-7ff teaches, with “works of the law” including all systems of justification by actually properly meriting it by works, “for, if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Galatians 3:21)

Thus the penitent publican and the contrite criminal, both of whom abased themselves as damned and destitute sinners and cast all their faith upon the mercy of God (which ultimately is Christ), were justified, and as such could go directly to be with the Lord at death, even before they did any manifest works of faith. However, saving faith effects obedience by the Spirit, (Romans 8:12-14) and justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace for such, (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) though only because God has decided to reward man for what He Himself is to be actually properly credited for.

Thus while eternal life is a gift, under grace and by grace God rewards believers for what they did by faith (which works justify one as being a believer, though it is the faith behind works which justified him), which can be called a type of merit, though only God is actually worthy of reward due to his merit.

But tell me how the average Catholic would understand the teaching of Trent that, :

"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32. Also see The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed., Decree on Justification, Chapters V, VI, VII, X, XIV, XV, XVI) (emphasis mine)

Shortened, this teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema."

Such is most naturally understood as meaning that a believer's works actually obtain eternal life, and thus one presumes they will enter glory because they are good enough, albeit "by grace," as in "salvation by grace thru works," rather than salvation by grace thru faith which produces works.

[daniel1212]

Like THIS?? Call no man father -- Jesus

Although it does not belong those of Rome unscriptural priests to all be called spiritual "father," yet one can be called a spiritual father, as Paul referred to himself.

Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Timothy 1:2)

I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Corinthians 4:14-15)

To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. (Titus 1:4)

Taken at face value, the admonition of the Lord, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven," (Matthew 23:9) would absolutely exclude even calling one's own earthly dad "Father," as well as claiming to be a spiritual father. Instead, it is to be understood as hyperbole, designed to make a point, which contextually not elevating oneself or others like as was the case with the scribes and Pharisees, "above that which is written, " as the Corinthians (1Co,. 4:6) were, and as is the case in Catholicism.

[daniel1212]

Whoa....you're moving the goal posts. We've been told it's the "unanimous" consent numerous times.

But it depends on whose is defining "unanimous."

[daniel1212]

But dan was one of the hard core ones.

While being raised devout, and a new-miss-a-Sunday/holy-day mass when I prayerfully left Rome, I have learned far more of it since that time.

And while i can appreciate aspects such as the piety of men such as Scripture-devotee Basil of Caesarea, overall what I have found is that the more you get deeper in Scripture as well as history, but with the former being determinative of doctrine, then the more Rome is manifest as the largest deformation of the NT church, with her accretion of mere traditions of men.

[Luircin]

Aside from the reproof of the recourse to spitballs, it is going too far to say Rome does not obey anything from the Apostles and Jesus. Fund./ evangelicals actually contend for the many basic Truth that Catholicism at least professes, such as expressed in the so-called “apostles creed.”

***

True. I’m not saying that Rome is wrong on everything. I am saying that the poster didn’t provide any proofs at all.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“I am saying that the poster didn’t provide any proofs at all.”

I know! And yet he “demolished” your prot beliefs!

No, wait. That doesn’t make sense.

Never mind.

[metmom]

I will continue to call the Roman religion “Roman”

And I will continue to not call it a church.

[boatbums]

Since all four of us were raised in the Catholic Church, we believed it too.

I can't speak for the rest of y'all, but there was always something nagging my heart - that I remember even as a little kid - that I was not hearing the whole truth. I thank God that He allowed me to find Him and the gospel of grace.

[metmom]

Taken at face value, the admonition of the Lord, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven," (Matthew 23:9) would absolutely exclude even calling one's own earthly dad "Father," as well as claiming to be a spiritual father. Instead, it is to be understood as hyperbole, designed to make a point, which contextually not elevating oneself or others like as was the case with the scribes and Pharisees, "above that which is written, " as the Corinthians (1Co,. 4:6) were, and as is the case in Catholicism.

Not even taken at face value.

The whole context of the discussion was religious titles and therefore even at face value, it could not possibly mean one's earthly father. The only way that could even be a consideration is to take the verse completely out of context and ignore the rest of what Jesus was saying in that conversation.

[daniel1212]

Not even taken at face value. The whole context of the discussion was religious titles and therefore even at face value, it could not possibly mean one's earthly father. The only way that could even be a consideration is to take the verse completely out of context and ignore the rest of what Jesus was saying in that conversation.

True, except as in Catholic face value when it means isolationist eisegesis.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

And I will continue to not call it a church.

Note I used the word "religion" by choice.

[Mark17]

I don't think I'm the only one to spot that blaring contradiction.

No, you were not the only one. That post was so full of inaccuracies, I lost count, after about 10. Where on earth do these false doctrines come from? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way. If they don’t come from the Holy Spirit......Well, you can make your own mind, where they come from. 😊

I can't speak for the rest of y'all, but there was always something nagging my heart - that I remember even as a little kid - that I was not hearing the whole truth. I thank God that He allowed me to find Him and the gospel of grace.

For us ex Catholics, and other friends as well. Yes, BB. I can relate. Perhaps what we are referring to here, is almost the same. It’s sometimes difficult to put into words, exactly what we feel in our hearts.
With me, it was maybe partly that I didn’t think I was hearing the whole truth. I think it was also an inner frustration, an inner emptiness, that I knew was there, but I just couldn’t quite put my finger on it. I felt like, OK, here I was, in the one true church, outside of which, no one can be saved, and yet why did I feel like “something” was still missing from my life? Later, I found out it wasn’t “something” missing from my life. It was “someone” who was missing from my life.
Thank God, His grace, got me, forever off the Roman Catholic hamster wheel of guilt. At that time, 2 Tim 3:7 applied to me. I was “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” From my experience as a Roman Catholic, you can probably figure out, that I am not real sympathetic to false religions. 👍😇

[Elsie]

"That is why we are called Roman Catholics; to show that we are united to the real successor of St. Peter"

What ELSE could True Scotsmen do?

[Elsie]

And by me; homos will get called out for what THEY really are; too!

[metmom]

That works.

It’s less cumbersome than organization.

[annalex]

I don’t rebut clowns.

[annalex]

the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic split in 1,000 AD. So who was wrong in their teachings "according to the Sacred Tradition of the Church?

Nothing. The insertion of the Filioque was not done properly, so the East had a good reason to complain; then the issues of church administration took over and the split solidified. There are several theological explanations of Filioque that are acceptable to both sides. It is not a theological dispute, although the Russians especially like to make it one, for reasons known to them.

Amusing that the Protestants in their ignorance of the Holy Scripture don't notice that the Eastern position is more scriptural and repeat the Latin creed.