The Pope Francis Thread

[DanielH]

@AnonymousBosch Saying Orthodox are in disagreement in their Christology is a flat out lie. Because us Eastern Orthodox don't have the same opinions as the Oriental Orthodox doesn't mean Orthodoxy is in disagreement. We're two completely different Churches, and I'm pretty sure someone as informed as you knows that. That's worse than me saying the West is in disagreement on the Trinity because Protestants and Catholics disagree. Also saying we're planning an ecumenical council with Muslims is a flat out lie - your source even just says that the Russian Church is calling for cooperation with other peoples regarding the environment. If we're pointing fingers it's actually amazing that you accuse us of not having consistent theology when many Eastern Rite Catholics don't even include the filioque in their Creed and venerate some Eastern Orthodox post-schism saints.

 

[NoMoreTO]

...
Find out what was actually said.
Huh, he's protecting the Sacred Union of Marriage by suggesting legally-equivalent rights under the law, which is the excuse the Left claim as the excuse for wanting marriage to begin with, when they really just want to mock the sacrament.
Suggests protection of the children by raising them in the church.
The gay man in question said the Pope didn't offer his opinion on the family and was most likely 'following doctrine on this point'.
Simple facts don't matter when there's clicks to be generated.
,,,

Question: Why should someone who is living in sin (common law, sodomite couple, lesbian couple) be given the same rights as someone who is married by the Church?

Suggesting that society apply rights/roles to people which are inapplicable to their state in life is wrong.

For instance, if you are going to provide for adoption rights, should you provide them to teenagers, single men, or elderly people? No. In days past, orphans would go with the Nuns (Church) until a proper family was found for them. In a similar way a Catholic should not encourage these family rights to go to sodomites.

It seems to me that this would for lack of a better term go against nature or God's plan for these people. The baby should go to a married couple at or near child rearing age, to create a natural family. This would be the Catholic Approach, to respect God's plan for the family and to follow it.

I don't see Pope Francis as protecting the sacred union of marriage today by giving identical powers to sodomites who have a "civil contract". It is functionally like saying Children should be placed into sodomite families.

Any right that is given to gays should be given to them as a person. Giving them any right on the basis of "well marriage get this right", is exactly the opposite of how we should be thinking. They are not married, and are the exact opposite of it perhaps. It could be said, they are further from marriage than your typical single person.

 

[NoMoreTO]

 

[Punchitchewie]

The church as we know it is dead. Vatican 2.0 is an abomination and the pope is an impostor.

There’s 2 things the church can do to revive itself and become relevant again. Allow priests to marry and have a family which will attract younger and more normal people to service. While doing that root out all the pedos and traitors.

 

[Augustus_Principe]

The church as we know it is dead. Vatican 2.0 is an abomination and the pope is an impostor.

There’s 2 things the church can do to revive itself and become relevant again. Allow priests to marry and have a family which will attract younger and more normal people to service. While doing that root out all the pedos and traitors.

Allowing priest to marry wont solve anything. Taking a vow of celibacy, or being chaste for a long period of time doesn't make a person a Homosexual...

The Child abuse scandal was done by SODOMITES who infiltrated the church. If you know a thing or two about sodomites, you would know that their Gay Disco lifestyle promotes grooming young innocent boys to be Sodomites, just like themselves. This is their sick, diabolical way of "re-producing". Statistically, there is a high case of child abuse within the Degenerate Sodomite "culture". Of course you never hear about this since it doesn't serve the elites agenda.

Allowing priest to marry was one of the cases being argued for during the Idolatry scancal of the demonic "Pachamama" that unfortunately was in St Peter's Basilica. Thankfully Pope Francis ultimately rejected the idea.

There are many young people becoming priest within the SSPX. Allowing a man to live out sexual desires in marriage should not be a requirement for the vocation of priest. Although I do understand that the Greek-Catholic church allows this and I am not necessarily against it on a small scale as it is their tradition. It is because Priest were NOT able to marry, that the Catholic Church was able to proselytize and spread the Gospel all over the world. Having a family would make this much more difficult, not to mention that it would get in the way of martyrdom. Not only do you have to worry about God, but you also have to worry about your family back home that depends on you. I am not saying Orthodox would take the route of least-resistance because of this, but I would imagine that it would cross a married-priest mind, rather than an Unmarried priest, who has nothing to live for BUT GOD only.

Finally, what young people want is TRADITION. Go to any traditional Catholic Church parish and you will see young people. Young people want adherence to orthodoxy, tradition, adherence to ecclesiastical tradition and most importantly, a Priest who cares about their salvation and not worldly. Like I mentioned before, many young people are taking the SSPX route to become priest. I believe this trend will continue and it will make SSPX expand, forcing liberal catholics and others to take notice and see that while the #s of new priest joining are low on their end, it will be at an all-time high for SSPX.

To reiterate, Sodomites are what have caused the child-abuse scandal. The infiltrators knew this would kill the faith among Catholics, so many Sodomites joined. If you want to end the child-abuse scandal, suggest for their to be a moratorium on allowing sodomites to become priest, and to stop the protection racket for figures such as McCarick and others and let them stand accountable for their despicable actions via the church and civil authorities.

 

[Punchitchewie]

Allowing priest to marry wont solve anything. Taking a vow of celibacy, or being chaste for a long period of time doesn't make a person a Homosexual...

The Child abuse scandal was done by SODOMITES who infiltrated the church. If you know a thing or two about sodomites, you would know that their Gay Disco lifestyle promotes grooming young innocent boys to be Sodomites, just like themselves. This is their sick, diabolical way of "re-producing". Statistically, there is a high case of child abuse within the Degenerate Sodomite "culture". Of course you never hear about this since it doesn't serve the elites agenda.

Allowing priest to marry was one of the cases being argued for during the Idolatry scancal of the demonic "Pachamama" that unfortunately was in St Peter's Basilica. Thankfully Pope Francis ultimately rejected the idea.

There are many young people becoming priest within the SSPX. Allowing a man to live out sexual desires in marriage should not be a requirement for the vocation of priest. Although I do understand that the Greek-Catholic church allows this and I am not necessarily against it on a small scale as it is their tradition. It is because Priest were NOT able to marry, that the Catholic Church was able to proselytize and spread the Gospel all over the world. Having a family would make this much more difficult, not to mention that it would get in the way of martyrdom. Not only do you have to worry about God, but you also have to worry about your family back home that depends on you. I am not saying Orthodox would take the route of least-resistance because of this, but I would imagine that it would cross a married-priest mind, rather than an Unmarried priest, who has nothing to live for BUT GOD only.

Finally, what young people want is TRADITION. Go to any traditional Catholic Church parish and you will see young people. Young people want adherence to orthodoxy, tradition, adherence to ecclesiastical tradition and most importantly, a Priest who cares about their salvation and not worldly. Like I mentioned before, many young people are taking the SSPX route to become priest. I believe this trend will continue and it will make SSPX expand, forcing liberal catholics and others to take notice and see that while the #s of new priest joining are low on their end, it will be at an all-time high for SSPX.

To reiterate, Sodomites are what have caused the child-abuse scandal. The infiltrators knew this would kill the faith among Catholics, so many Sodomites joined. If you want to end the child-abuse scandal, suggest for their to be a moratorium on allowing sodomites to become priest, and to stop the protection racket for figures such as McCarick and others and let them stand accountable for their despicable actions via the church and civil authorities.

I’m well aware. It’s well documented that child abuse creates homosexuals.
Hence the saying homosexuals reproduce through child abuse.
Can’t remember which Marxist said it but it went along the lines of to destroy facism we must sexualise the children.

Anyway. Marriage for priests was allowed until about 800 years ago in the western Catholic Church and was still allowed in the east. It’s not a new precedent and it would attract a lot more younger clergy.

 

[jarlo]

Allowing priest to marry wont solve anything. Taking a vow of celibacy, or being chaste for a long period of time doesn't make a person a Homosexual...

The idea is that if you're Catholic and a homosexual, the priesthood is likely to be a relatively more appealing vocation compared to marriage than for a heterosexual, since if you're homosexual and were married to a woman, you'd be married to someone to whom you're not sexually attracted. So, there will be disproportionately many homosexual priests. If you allow married men to become priests, you'll get more heterosexual priests who are also likely more traditional.

There's not really great statistical evidence that I know of on the sexual preferences of priests, but some Catholics I've spoken to have said it's not unreasonable that half of priests are homosexual, at least by their guesses in their diocese. One piece of statistical evidence I found interesting (can't remember the citation) was that from one American diocese where a list of all abuse cases were tabulated, almost all of the abuse was between priests and boys, and 80% of the cases were between priests and boys over the age of 14, which suggests that the underlying problem in that diocese may be active homosexuality to the same or greater extent than child abuse.

In some sense, this proclamation by the Pope in favor of civil unions might backfire. Homosexual priests may leave the priesthood in favor of now Church-approved civil unions, and homosexual men discerning the priesthood may opt for the more appealing civil union.

To be honest, I agree with the Pope's general point that Catholics ought to think carefully about how best to include homosexuals into Christian/family life. It would be a difficult cross to bear to be a gay man who wants to live chastely. I just think that homosexual civil unions are probably inappropriate in the same way that pre-marital heterosexual cohabitation is inappropriate - they both are highly likely to lead to sin.

 

[NoMoreTO]

At one point I thought that it was unnatural for the Priests to be celibate.

Have you ever noticed that the media repeats this mantra?

It is because there is a narrative which is it's foundation that says that men are not able to control themselves sexually. That men are slaves to their sex impulse - I reject this. Celibate Priests, of which there were many in the middle ages and early modern period, evangalized South America and Much of Africa. They couldn't have done this with a family in tow.

Men can if they choose be chaste. Bishops in the Orthodox Church are chaste, monks and nuns are Chaste. There are many single lay people who are chaste during their years with highest sex drives.

Catholic Priests being Chaste is a "discipline", not a "dogma" or belief.

 

[Nemausus]

Spanish speaking Priest plays the clip of Francis' comments and does a line-by-line translation.


Priest says that the Pope has been misinterpreted and has had his words twisted by the media.

"Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or made miserable over it. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered."

The Priest says that the Pope was saying this in the context of a person being disowned by their family, not in the sense of two adult homosexuals starting a family of their own.

The Priest continues on that even if the Pope was saying what has been claimed by the media, an interview with a media personality or filmmaker does not make this an official Church teaching or signal a new direction. There are levels of Catholic teaching, from the Ecumenical Council, down to Magisterium. It is not even an Encyclical. The Pope speaking to media and offering up some vague opinions does not indicate any official changes in the Church's stance on this matter.

This Priest does concede that Francis needs to be a bit more media savvy. He's been on the job long enough to know that these kinds of comments will be taken out of context or misinterpreted.

I've never heard of anyone use the term being "thrown out" of a marriage, so I think this Priest's analysis has merit.

 

[NoMoreTO]

Very good post ^^^

Just from my listening the Spanish checks out.

This along with AnonymousBoschs' analysis has me thinking about how it's easy to get Catholics up in arms about the Pope. So much of the Catholic Youtubers who provide good content also tend to be grifters and sensationalists (Taylor Marshall, Church Militant, Timothy Gordon).

I still hold that the Pope might be a heretic and that the Church would be strenghtened by a return to pre Vatican 2 Tradition / Liturgy. But I am also realizing that the media is playing this up, We ourselves are being manipulated, and we know (((who))) runs the media. EMJ will point to this in the aftermath of Vatican 2; the media changing the actual message and how this filtered down on a societal level.

 

[DanielH]

Has the Vatican clarified yet? It sounds like he was saying two entirely different things in English and we're left to interpret what he *really* meant by it.

 

[Sitting Bull]

I still hold that the Pope might be a heretic and that the Church would be strenghtened by a return to pre Vatican 2 Tradition / Liturgy. But I am also realizing that the media is playing this up, We ourselves are being manipulated, and we know (((who))) runs the media. EMJ will point to this in the aftermath of Vatican 2; the media changing the actual message and how this filtered down on a societal level.

I respectfully disagree with you (and EMJ and many other "Novus Ordo conservatives") here. I think the media is mostly benefiting from the situation created by Vatican 2, and the manipulation it is doing is minimal compared to what is usually does.
You might even say that if you leave aside the moral judgement on what is happening, it is the media that have been shown correct by history and the developments after Vatican II, not the NO conservatives whose position is a variety of denial.

Has the Vatican clarified yet? It sounds like he was saying two entirely different things in English and we're left to interpret what he *really* meant by it.

I couldn't have put it better. Those arrogant NO Church leaders invite us to believe that they did not really mean what they meant at Vatican II (not that they are going to retract anything, of course).

Sure, Revolution has always advanced by a "two steps forward, one step backwards" process, but in the case of the Catholic Church, the faithful are so apathetic that it's "a hundred steps forward, one step backwards". Just append "to be interpreted in the light of tradition" to any blatantly revolutionary proposal and you can proceed with it undisturbed.

 

[NoMoreTO]

I respectfully disagree with you (and EMJ and many other "Novus Ordo conservatives") here. I think the media is mostly benefiting from the situation created by Vatican 2, and the manipulation it is doing is minimal compared to what is usually does.
You might even say that if you leave aside the moral judgement on what is happening, it is the media that have been shown correct by history and the developments after Vatican II, not the NO conservatives whose position is a variety of denial.

I think it is a valid question whether People are struggling more because of Vatican 2 teaching, documents, and the New Mass than or due to pop culture, Movies, TV, pornography, feminism and societal changes over the last 60 years.

It's a very difficult thing to pull apart. Yes we can all point to the 60s and Vatican 2, but we can also point to the 60s, Free Love, Consumerism etc.

I feel there is a tendency on the part of trads to oversimplify things just down to the New Mass.

 

[Nemausus]

EMJ weighs in; agrees the Spanish speaking Father whose clip shared earlier in this thread.


RVF has an excellent track record of sniffing out media BS going back years (Media treatment of Trump being the most obvious example, but there are other classics such as mattress girl, Virginia Rolling Stone Mag rape hoax, COVID skeptics thread, etc), but for whatever reason, many here seem to have a blind spot for this when it comes to media coverage of the Pope and perhaps even Catholicism.

All of the MSM outlets that we have spent years calling liars, the "enemy of the people" and triple bracketing come out in unison with a "Wow! Pope approves gay marriage!" narrative and nobody here even double checks! Instead we get multiple pages and necro-bumped threads of dog-piling. Really makes you think.

 

[Coja Petrus Uscan]

I am probably the most ignorant member in this thread, but will add what I was told + some historical knowledge.

I was told that The Catholic Church has been subverted many times, and when this happens the course of action is to hold your ground and lend effort to the restoration.

This makes sense, as it is clear that religions need to be enforced. Without enforcement they dwindle and lead to today's debased times.

Much is said of bad things that have happened in the church. However, it should be looked at from the historical perspective of what it was like before the church. In pre-Christian Britain there was slavery (from domestic stock), widespread violence, polygamy, human sacrifice and probably cannibalism. This was eroded over centuries by the presence of the church hierarchy, enforced by monarchy. What ills the left, liberals and pagan fascists point to at the hands of the church are simply a much lesser level of evils than they conquered. They also fail to recognised that their current, comfortable atheism/agnosticism is a direct descendant of this process; and also a stage of moral decline at their own hands.

Without force, religions will dwindle and die. You can see this in Britain. In the 1800s there was a large growth of independent churches and Methodists. The extent to which they enforced religion was weak, though both could be conservative. The country was once full of Methodist churches, but by 2050 there will only be a few left. The Church of England remains the largest church, primarily because many British schools still require (largely unwelcome) Church of England instruction. Most British schools were started by churches, but only The Church of England retained this input. So Methodism and others declined. By and large parents won't enforce the church, schools won't enforce the church. The only two bodies that have a track record of enforcing the church are the church and monarchy.

This reinforces the original argument (2nd paragraph above). Splitting off from the church weakens its ability to perpetuate and thus do its job of lessening debauchery on this planet. For this reason, schisms should be avoided.

Further, in Britain the churches no longer have the will enforce what they are meant to; and thus they are declining. There is a felling that original church teaching is oppressive or they are afraid of the backlash of those who think it is. So they are falling back on teaching left-wing talking points. Quaker churches are atheists, full of soy weirdos who pray for feminism and the environment.

 

[Elipe]

At one point I thought that it was unnatural for the Priests to be celibate.

The Bible literally says that elders should be selected on the basis of their ability to lead their family, so they had to be married and have well-behaved, disciplined children. That's a man that's put in time and energy for the sake of others, not himself. If the Catholic Church had maintained that requirement for priests and other high-level clergy members, you wouldn't be seeing this much of a problem with homosexuality and pedophilia.

I don't think satan's servants have a good record of raising well-behaved, disciplined children or being married to a loving, feminine woman. You will know them by their fruits.

It is indeed unnatural for priests to be celibate, because priesthood is a shepherding responsibility. Why would you want men who are the male equivalent of a spinster in a spiritual leadership position?

Celibate Priests, of which there were many in the middle ages and early modern period, evangalized South America and Much of Africa. They couldn't have done this with a family in tow.Catholic Priests being Chaste is a "discipline", not a "dogma" or belief.

Missionaries are a different story, but even then, a missionary should still assign elders of the churches he plants from among the people he Christianizes, according to biblical requirements. Missionaries should be itinerants, which prevents them from getting too rooted or entrenched in one place or hierarchy.

 

[Benedictus]

The Bible literally says that elders should be selected on the basis of their ability to lead their family, so they had to be married and have well-behaved, disciplined children. That's a man that's put in time and energy for the sake of others, not himself. If the Catholic Church had maintained that requirement for priests and other high-level clergy members, you wouldn't be seeing this much of a problem with homosexuality and pedophilia.

I don't think satan's servants have a good record of raising well-behaved, disciplined children or being married to a loving, feminine woman. You will know them by their fruits.

It is indeed unnatural for priests to be celibate, because priesthood is a shepherding responsibility. Why would you want men who are the male equivalent of a spinster in a spiritual leadership position?


Missionaries are a different story, but even then, a missionary should still assign elders of the churches he plants from among the people he Christianizes, according to biblical requirements. Missionaries should be itinerants, which prevents them from getting too rooted or entrenched in one place or hierarchy.

10[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word,* but only those to whom that is granted.
12Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Matthew Ch. 19


32I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. [...]
38So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better. 1 Corinthians Ch. 7

The tradition of celibate priests is very important to allow for the utmost importance of shepherding his spiritual family. If he has a biological family, his time and attention is divided (priests must be available all the time for things like giving Last Rites). With a wife and children he must choose between fulfilling his duty as priest, and being a present and supporting father (does he choose to spend more time preparing his homily for Sunday or go catch his son's baseball game?). Also, when Christian persecution happens, priests are to lead by example by giving their lives and continuing their faith without fear. That is infinitely easier to do without familial bonds. Homosexuality occurs due to sexual abuse, lack of a father, or a decedent culture that facilitates unrestrained lust. Jesus, the Saints, Tesla, etc. were all made stronger by choosing to be celibate. Choosing that path does not give rise to homosexual feelings unless you never mastered your lust in the first place, in which case you have no business thinking about the priesthood anyways.

 

[FactusIRX]

10[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word,* but only those to whom that is granted.
12Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Matthew Ch. 19


32I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. [...]
38So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better. 1 Corinthians Ch. 7

The tradition of celibate priests is very important to allow for the utmost importance of shepherding his spiritual family. If he has a biological family, his time and attention is divided (priests must be available all the time for things like giving Last Rites). With a wife and children he must choose between fulfilling his duty as priest, and being a present and supporting father (does he choose to spend more time preparing his homily for Sunday or go catch his son's baseball game?). Also, when Christian persecution happens, priests are to lead by example by giving their lives and continuing their faith without fear. That is infinitely easier to do without familial bonds. Homosexuality occurs due to sexual abuse, lack of a father, or a decedent culture that facilitates unrestrained lust. Jesus, the Saints, Tesla, etc. were all made stronger by choosing to be celibate. Choosing that path does not give rise to homosexual feelings unless you never mastered your lust in the first place, in which case you have no business thinking about the priesthood anyways.

When I was looking into the Orthodox faith, I talked with a priest who was married. He was a complete beta, and only after a few conversations, I understood that his wife ran the household (it was also the typical white beta male / domineering Asian female relationship). He actually cancelled a meeting with me because his wife had planned something that day. A woman and children are a distraction from God and from holiness and from tending the flock. A priest must be willing to die for God, and it's significantly more difficult to do if you have a wife and kid to worry about. Furthermore, the idea that all priests that are married are somehow strong and masculine is laughable. On Jay Dyer's discord server, there is an Orthodox priest that was divorced by, yup, a hypergamous woman. In fact, my impression is the the most masculine Orthodox priests are the monks who are celibate.

My SSPX priest is completely and totally masculine. He's retained his masculinity because he has lived a hard life of resisting lust.

 

[DanielH]

Strange to me that everyone is ganging up on Orthodoxy now and married priests. I'm sorry you had one bad Orthodox priest but it's ridiculous to attack Orthodoxy based on the supposed masculinity of one particular priest. I'd also like to point out there's plenty of married Catholic priests in the Eastern Rite, and these assessments of married clergy are completely unfair. In Orthodoxy we have both married and unmarried priests. I go to two parishes regularly. One is a large parish with hundreds of Sunday attendees. The other is much smaller, with dozens. The smaller parish has a married priest, and the larger has an unmarried one. This is what these parishes asked for. The unmarried priest has more time to tend to his excessively large church, and the married priest is able to give better advice to married individuals regarding their relationships and their children. Orthodoxy also has a much larger ratio of monastics and priests to laity in the US compared to Catholicism, and that obviously helps the laity.

@FactusIRX why are you bringing up Jay Dyer and a priest on his server? Who cares what that priest's wife did? Stuff happens. I'm glad that priest is evangelizing to younger people and inquirers, especially since Jay's discord channel has gotten hundreds of new inquirers and catechumens in the past three weeks.

 

[FactusIRX]

Strange to me that everyone is ganging up on Orthodoxy now and married priests. I'm sorry you had one bad Orthodox priest but it's ridiculous to attack Orthodoxy based on the supposed masculinity of one particular priest. I'd also like to point out there's plenty of married Catholic priests in the Eastern Rite, and these assessments of married clergy are completely unfair. In Orthodoxy we have both married and unmarried priests. I go to two parishes regularly. One is a large parish with hundreds of Sunday attendees. The other is much smaller, with dozens. The smaller parish has a married priest, and the larger has an unmarried one. This is what these parishes asked for. The unmarried priest has more time to tend to his excessively large church, and the married priest is able to give better advice to married individuals regarding their relationships and their children. Orthodoxy also has a much larger ratio of monastics and priests to laity in the US compared to Catholicism, and that obviously helps the laity.

@FactusIRX why are you bringing up Jay Dyer and a priest on his server? Who cares what that priest's wife did? Stuff happens. I'm glad that priest is evangelizing to younger people and inquirers, especially since Jay's discord channel has gotten hundreds of new inquirers and catechumens in the past three weeks.

I'm responding the user who was arguing that unmarried clergy are somehow male spinsters, or having married clergy are the panacea for all problems with the Catholic Church. I'm arguing that married clergy have their own host of problems.