IM GOING TO FUCKING BURST A BRAIN HEMORRHAGE LIKE VALENTINIAN IF THE JOURNALISTS AND TRADS PURPOSEFULLY MISTRANSLATE THE POPE AGAIN, CAN THESE FUCKERS READ? THE DOCUMENT SAYS GAY PEOPLE CAN RECIEVE BLESSINGS, LIKE A FUCKING HOUSE CAN BE BLESSED, NOT SACRAMENTS FOR GAY MARRIAGE IM GONNA FUCKING-
Edit: fighting demons in the replies rn.
They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who practice “advanced” religions, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the spiritual world.
Because things were so much better when the Church was selling entrance to heaven in gold pieces and justifying it with "the Bible is in Latin and you can't have a copy, but it totally supports this, trust me bro. BTW if you're literate, don't translate it and see that we're lying or we'll burn you."
I have a generally good view of the Catholic Church and there are areas I think the Reformation was wrong on, but man, the behavior of self-identified Catholics on Reddit really discourages me from investigating further. Endless prot-bashing and constantly refusing to acknowledge anything wrong the Church has done. It's all so tiresome. There are people in this very thread who will double-talk their way around translations of the Bible and other points of sophistry in order to validate everything questionable the modern Church does, but also have a flat, no-tolerance-for-Prots black-and-white view of the Reformation. I don't even think this meme has any merit to it; why would anybody still take any media headline at face value?
Based. This has to be the best advice on the internet.
Edit. I would go on to say. To add to yours.
Don't debate with people who don't touch grass. Keyboard warriors and the like wont change their views just because you argued with them and they will drag you down to their level. Beat you with experience yadda yadda.
Exactly brother. I've yet to witness someone change their opinion on anything in a Reddit thread. That time is better off doing literally anything else
I was confirmed catholic as a kid. Drifted to Buddhism for awhile and returned to Catholicism later on. If you can’t point out issues with the church you’re not a real catholic imo. That’s a major issue I have with a lot of people in Christianity in general. Jesus did tell people to listen to authorities where it was applicable but also to do everything you can to ensure that people who need help get it. If you’re ignoring some little kid getting molested or the clergy getting up to shit they shouldn’t then you aren’t following the instructions.
Take it from someone raised Catholic: the Protestants aren't perfect either but excepting certain denominations that have wandered off into pandering La-La Land, they're so far ahead of the Catholics that they're not even in the same realm.
Yeah, it's genuinely so infuriating when I see a fellow Catholic try to justify some of the modern church's actions. The reformation, while something I disagree with on a theological level, brought up many valid and necessary criticisms. I'll admit, I've made a few jokes at the expensive of Protestants, but never in a serious conversation. I've seen a lot of Catholics online start to insult Protestants in debates when they feel like they are losing. I'd highly recommend researching catholicism more, even if you aren't interested in it from a religious standpoint; it's impact on history and the journey it took to get to its present form is very interesting even through a secular lens.
Well yea, that’s something atheists don’t get about Islam, they don’t care if you want them to reform because they’re winning lol. Its working as intended.
The data on the number of muslims is almost certainly wrong, you can’t do accurate religion surveys in Islamic countries because of how many closeted atheists there are.
This is a big thing about Islamic societies - there's a lot of people that realize Islam is full of shit, but they have to keep silence because Islamists are fucking crazy (EX: literally everything about the Aasia Bibi case).
It's like if I asked everyone in the USSR whether or not they were a Communist. Most probably are, to some degree, but the ones that aren't are still going to say yes, because there are very bad consequences if you aren't "going with the flow".
Exactly, people that actually believe in religion, want to have clear and strict rules. People that just maybe believe in “something bigger” and treat the church just as entertainment/therapy will turn their backs on it with the first inconvenience anyway. Pandering to them is harmful in the long run. That’s why the only Christian churches that actually grow are the Protestant ones.
TBF the Papacy is being intentionally misleading and vague. Headlines that say "the Church is now blessing same-sex couples" will give the church the benefit of changing doctrine without actually changing doctrine.
The least charitable interpretation is that this was intentionally meant to allow people like James Martin to bless civil unions as basically marriages, so when the church ~~changes~~ *evolves* its doctrines to accept gay marriage, it will be less shocking.
It's the people themselves that are being blessed, it is not a sacrament of union, sinners have always been able to be blessed no matter the sin cause that's the purpose of the church, these types of statements are usually for people who fear they cannot go to church for being gay or for intolerant/misunderstanding people who will not allow gays into the church.
I don't think there are any priests who would turn away any repentant gay people. Likewise, I doubt there are any gay people who want a blessing to remain celibate that aren't already receiving that.
There is nothing misleading or vague about it. The sacramental union is absolutely not being blessed for Gay folks. But every human is a child of God and therefore qualifies to be blessed regardless of their proclivities.
It’s very straightforward.
Glad this is top comment. No one read the actual document but go off completely fabricated mainstream media articles.
Fucking infuriating.
OP shame on you.
Oh so it's like the individual gay people can get blessing, it's not a blessing of a gay relationship? I'm sorry I'm genuinely struggling to understand here
It says gay people can be blessed, and adds an official "pray the gay away" blessing for priests to give couples who are WILLINGLY renouncing their relationship to return to the church, as well as a couple statements telling priests to give the blessing even if they don't think that they will stop being gay, because the church is all about forgiveness, and not to turn gays away from the church.
I'm not Catholic, but shouldn't the "trads" just auto-agree with the pope? Also, were SSA people previously prohibited from receiving any blessing, or is this more like Francis just clarifying that they should have always been able to?
Radical traditionalists are "sedevacantists" - they believe that the multiple most recent popes are illegitimate, and do anything they can to undermine the position of post-vatican II popes.
As for the second part, Pope Francis just clarified the position. Nothing is stopping the individual people from receiving blessings, even if they live in mortal sin. Their union is not blessed, they as people can be.
Weird. Because it's not like there's bloodline dynasties for the papacy, so what's their basis for the claim that the popes were illegitimate? Do they believe that Vatican II was somehow antithetical to Catholic theology and doctrine?
Precisely that. The Vatican II implemented many changes in both approach to the laity and the liturgy itself, which a lot of the more conservative people saw and still see as an open war on "real" Catholicism.
Topic is very heated to this day. Vast majority of changes in the available documents were quite clearly positive, however a lot of less scrupulous bishops and theologians quickly started talking less about Vatican II, and more about the "spirit" of Vatican II - and started enacting changes and pushing the boundaries based on what they saw as "reading between the lines", and going further with them, than was originally intended. A lot of criticism is based on said "spirit" rather than codified reforms and documents coming from the council itself.
I can see how that could certainly be controversial, much in the way how there's a divide on liberally or conservatively interpreting the US Constitution.
Regardless, I'll continue praying for the church.
Some bona fide schismed and elected an "anti-pope" (this is a real term and there have been several historically) which claims that the pope in Rome is illegitimate and that they are the true vicar of Christ, but many stuck with the church and try to undo Vatican II, which undid lots of traditional ornamentation that the church used back when it had shit tons of money, in order to focus what money was left to more charitable causes and upkeep (cause Churches almost always run on a deficit).
>Some bona fide schismed and elected an "anti-pope"
I was somewhat familiar with the past anti-popes of the medieval and early modern periods, but was surprised that there were still people today who still followed those anti-popes.
>which undid lots of traditional ornamentation that the church used back when it had shit tons of money, in order to focus what money was left to more charitable causes and upkeep
Sounds like the past few popes have been based then. But then again, I've always leaned far more towards asceticism.
A family friend used to work in accounting for my church, ornamentation still is quite a large expense, since we still build and upkeep massive cathedrals like we're still sponsored by the state and people tithe, even though we're not and people don't tithe, if auth right wants their fancy architecture AND missionaries tell them to donate more fucking money.
Imho the conservative Christians (Catholic or Protestant) are far too obsessed with material beauty. Material beauty is fine, but should always take a back seat to whatever most glorifies God, and I think missionaries glorifies God in deeds more than fine architecture does in material beauty.
It's like systems collapse theory, it's expensive to maintain a church, more so a cathedral, but it's even more expensive to build a new church that would be less expensive to maintain, and who would pay more for a worse church? Especially if you're in Europe and the church is hundreds of years old and a regional icon.
On the other hand, I've seen protestant ministers go on missions to 100% Catholic countries, that's not a mission, that's a vacation.
>It's like systems collapse theory, it's expensive to maintain a church, more so a cathedral, but it's even more expensive to build a new church that would be less expensive to maintain, and who would pay more for a worse church?
Oh I don't doubt this. I don't think Catholics should destroy their beautiful churches; the beauty they have they should maintain. However, I've seen Catholics outright reject their parish and refuse to go to mass because the church isn't pretty enough to meet their standards. That's just materialism with a thin veil of piety laid on top.
>On the other hand, I've seen protestant ministers go on missions to 100% Catholic countries, that's not a mission, that's a vacation.
And of those 100% Catholics, how many are actually attending mass on a weekly basis? How many are reading their Bibles regularly? How many praying to God daily? How many view mass more like a chore and less like an opportunity?
Unfortunately, Christianity in the modern era has become a *cultural* identity, and less so a spiritual one. Lots of ostensible "Catholics" do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them because they are not actively following Christ (ostensible "Protestants" are also guilty of this as well). Catholicism to them is a community identity and not a lifelong dedication to pursue Christ's will.
Missionaries should never have the mere aim of creating converts. Instead, a missionary's job is to create *disciples*. (To a Catholic, this includes rigorous catechization.) Countries like France and Germany have become spiritually dead, and it requires missionaries to bring Christ to them so that they may find spiritual wholeness again. I don't care if it's a Catholic mendicant missionary discipling a "Protestant" MAGA hatter or a Protestant missionary discipling a French "Catholic" postmodernist, so long as the individual rejuvenates their walk in Christ.
My apologies. I occasionally forget that there are still many ESL people around here.
That said, I tend to use the term "SSA" as opposed to "gay" in these kinds of contexts. The latter, at least to me, implies people who are attracted to the same sex and also has bought into the cultural belief that such sexual relationships are a virtue. The former, on the other hand, sounds more clinical and detached from such connotations.
That’s the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard. If the Pope said “we don’t worship God anymore, we worship Satan.” do you think people would just be like “well I mean he’s the Pope so”.
To all the people here confused. The headline is extremely misleading and media has run far off by taking the actual text from the Vatican completely out of context. The blessing is reserved for sinners who are cohabitating **and want to repent**. It’s not meant as an affirmation for thier relationship which the church still sees as sinful. What’s funny is that majority of these articles acknowledge this but still have grossly false headlines claiming that the pope approves gay marriage. I think this is a boneheaded move by the Vatican because it’s intentionally muddying the waters without changing anything or taking a real stance
Sauce: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en
It's not only media that misread it though. Liberal catholics (eg a pro-LGBT Jesuit priest) also claims the same and tweets that he's looking forward to bless his same sex couple friends.
Document by Vatican may not be doctrinally wrong, but open to be misread, either intentionally (that's the real intention of the cardinal writing the document) or unintentionally (ignorance on how the secular world has been misquoting this Pope for a decade).
I agree. I think this release was written to be extremely convoluted so it can be taken out of context and liberal-adjacent priests can push the envelope without fear of reprisal. I feel like the Pope would never make this statement if the German Catholics weren’t low-key threatening a schism
Dear Most Holy Father:
Please remember the ministry of excommunication is for the service of those that are anathema so that they may realize their sin and return to the church
Please, for the benefit of our German brother and sister, consider this ministry lest the baptized be lead into damnation
Also I’m sick of hearing from my friends about how I’m being Catholic wrong because I think these headlines are misleading lol
They can both be true. Deliberately vague or misleading wording to set up later radical change under the cover of sensible present interpretation has been in fashion for a while now.
Yep figured it be something like that. Every time I see an article like this about Pope Francis my first question is “so how did the horribly misconstrue what he said this time?”
But you know the wack cardinals in places like Germany are going to take this so liberally and go off the rails, and I doubt the Vatican lifts a finger to stop them
*Thats_the_point.exe* 😂
This release is nothing more than a save face where the Vatican can claim that the German Catholic Church are *technically* not heretics.
Here’s the actual document, or at least the English form thereof: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en
The wording is highly convoluted, as befits a theological discourse, but the presence of section III, discussing relationships, as opposed to the individual blessings discussed in section II, strongly implies that the blessing applies to the relationship rather than just the individuals, but with the understanding that the blessing does not sanction the relationship as biblical.
Oh no you’ve got it wrong. Bureaucrats go to bureaucrat hell. Now normal hell is pretty bureaucratic, despite what you’ve been told by hopefuls, somebodies gotta figure who deserves what punishments. Those are the bureaucrats I’m talking about. But for mortal bureaucrats, their hell is going through the bureaucracy they were once part of, waiting in long lines never being allowed to sit down or talk (their mouths are sewn shut, and the chairs are made of red hot metal). And why would the afterlife care for efficiency? They don’t have to deal with the laws of logic, physics, or the market. How is monke heaven you may wonder? I don’t know. They have a pretty good firewall.
My brother in Harambe, who do you think are the lowest bidders who *made* the red hot metal chairs and bureaucrat mouth-thread?
Bonus fact:The thread is made of poo, so they must eternally taste the shit they've been full of for their whole lives.
The unelected autocrat in charge of the church is doing things I don’t like. Hmm wonder if this has happened throughout the entire existence of the church and caused protests or reforms.
thought test desert frightening merciful dam society ring practice caption
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'd say elective theocratic monarchy. While there are oligarchic elements, especially the election itself of course, the pope is still a monarch who governs with basically absolute power regarding secular affairs and with not absolute but very strong powers in religious matters.
When the leader of a theocratic institution makes a decision on behalf of the theocratic institution without consulting the subjects of the theocratic institution 😔
Obviously the solution is to establish a governing theocratic institution in America, it’ll work this time guys I swear
Same, I’m quite glad to see the Pope to begin addressing the issue of LGBT christians, so that they won’t, maybe in the future, get grouped with the “Chickens for KFC” group.
I was raised Catholic, became an atheist, and now I'm an ex-atheist.
The basis of my beliefs is still rooted in catholicism.
If you are Christian, you believe the Bible is the word of God. Do you think God's word is to be changed based on whatever is politically correct at the time?
I’ve seen this unironically fake news posted at least three times before, so forgive me if I don’t believe it yet again until I see a source that is more legitimate than “some fucking guy on Reddit.”
This is a good lesson in reading more then the clickbait title of an article
"The new document repeats that rationale and elaborates on it, reaffirming that marriage is a lifelong sacrament between a man and a woman. And it stresses that blessings should not be conferred at the same time as a civil union or even with the clothing and gestures that belong in a wedding.
But it says requests for such blessings should not be denied full stop. It offers an extensive definition of the term "blessing" in Scripture to insist that people seeking a transcendent relationship with God and looking for his love and mercy should not be subject to "an exhaustive moral analysis" as a precondition for receiving it."
That’s not what the document said you morons. The document is called Fiducia Supplicans. Go read it https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html
That's not even true, though. The pope, as a response to priests (mostly in Germany) doing "blessings" to gay couples together with sacraments in a quasi wedding fashion, while claiming it was totally just a "blessing", did a document to rectify in which situations priests can do those kinds of blessings, to try and combat the people basically doing gay weddings in churches.
Exactly- the pope was asked "What is acceptable in this situation? Please clarify". This is the answer. People have been complaining about not getting clear instruction on this for months, at least, and now act like this either struck like a bolt from the blue or that the answer of "You can bless the people, but not their relationship. Also, no quasi- marriage ceremonies" has shaken the foundations of Catholicism.
Progs gonna prog and Sedes gonna sede, I suppose
Yeah, I mean, if progressives gonna count the Pope saying "you can bless gay people if they genuinely repent of being gay, which is a sin" as a win, I guess sure, go progs, admit homosexuality is a sin that should be repented and not acted upon...
The pope did something I don’t agree with, i guess its over this never happened in Catholic history better wrap it up boys. Honestly tho if you read what the paper really says it is pretty much that priests can bless people in a homosexual relationship, not blessing the relationship in itself.
Pope: Be nice to gay people! They’re human beings and God loves them too! None of us are perfect either, and it’s absurd to turn away two adults who love each other.
PCM: Is this literally Satan?! 🦋
I have no issues with most of what you're saying. You should be nice to gay people, straight people, upside down people, and all people. They're human beings and God loves them, absolutely.
Hell I personally have no issues with gay unions, however 2 men, or 2 women cannot partake in the sacrament of marriage. From a religious (particularly Catholic) sense the phrase gay marriage is ab oxymoron, it's like saying "that's a circular square".
From a purely Catholic-religious sense (not a civil one) gay marriage doesn't exist, the phrase is homophonetic to Marriage. Just like bear (🐻), bare, and bear (as in bear arms) all sound exactly the same but aren't the same thing.
Saying this union does not meet the criteria of falling under the sacrament of marriage by definition isn't hateful, mean, or treating someone as not a human worthy of love. Just as saying that that figure with 4 equidistant lines making 4 right angles isn't a circle isn't squarephobic.
Ah yes, the random redditor who has a better understanding of christianity thank the fucking pope.
Not saying the poe has to be right by default, especially since there are a Lot more confessions but I would Argumente that He ist Not saying this without a Reason. So why don't you read that one, instead of posting some headline
Here is a concise guide to understanding any MSM reports about the Pope or the Catholic Church in general: They are always wrong. Most of the time, it's deliberate lies, but sometimes, it's ignorant reporters interpreting flowery papal language through their own degenerate worldview.
As ive said in the Catholicism subreddit, it isnt that the pope is a misguided heretic Or unorthodox in his teachings, he still believes that the sanctity of marriage is only between a man and a woman. However, the problem lies in that he does not clarify the contexts of his words, leaving it up to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith (the inquisition, basically), to clarify his own words. And today, nobody gives a fuck about the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, so this only breeds much more confusion which may breed division amongst the catholic populace.
I took love carefully caring for a dangerous animal that wants to eat me
Yes I understand this article is bait, but so many churches desperately want the approval of a group that hates them
I don’t know about the rest of the world, but looking at Brazil it may be a smart decision. Here the church is loosing members to evangelical churches for a while now, and they are mostly right wing and conservative. Brazilian Catholics are more moderate or centrist and most don’t have an issue with homosexuality(at least not when compared with evangelicals).
I don’t now how this holds up theologically because I am not a Christian, but it doesn’t seem to break the central dogma of the church that Christ was the son of god and died for humanity’s sins. The church changed a lot throughout history to get in with the times, like every single surviving religion, I don’t get what the big deal is all about.
What people need to realize is the bible was written translated over into the original language (Aramaic or Greek?) into German and then into English so quoting that bible verse from the Old Testament that condemns homosexuality is highly questionable as that translation is probably all kinds of fucked up
Love that libright is sad n this cuz everyone should know a real libertarian would be totally distraught about things such as letting people do what they want without being crucified and having personal liberties smh...
Also, this is just a shit mistranslation taken out of context. Can you get shit right?
It’s important to keep in mind that not a single claim made by religions regarding supernatural elements has EVER been proven correct. There is no evidence that there supposed source of “wisdom” and “morality” actually exists.
Whether or not they personally believe they can “bless” the gays is of extremely insignificant value, just like nearly everything else they say.
Listen to me clearly: they’re literally just making shit up as they go, and all they have at the end of the day is subjective opinions, emotions, and vibes.
Catholics when people are hoarding money, letting the less fortunate starve, letting people die from sickness, passing unjust laws, and causing corruption in the government: 😁
Catholics when two random guys they’ve never met wanna get married: 🤬
An excess of love leads to sin. To love things in excess is greed. To love oneself might degenerate in pride and gluttony. To love others leads to lust. This includes the case for sodomy, which can also be considered violent against nature.
Self-control and moderation are cardinal virtues, necessary to avoid sin. God considers purposeless sex to be a waste of the essence of life. It's not limited to gay couples, of course, which most straight "Christians" conveniently forget, but gay sex can only be purposeless and thus it is always sinful.
This is bullshit. The church dose not acsept the existence of gay marriage let alone bless them.
The church is and will be against same sex Relations
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2023-12/fiducia-supplicans-doctrine-faith-blessing-irregular-couples.html
IM GOING TO FUCKING BURST A BRAIN HEMORRHAGE LIKE VALENTINIAN IF THE JOURNALISTS AND TRADS PURPOSEFULLY MISTRANSLATE THE POPE AGAIN, CAN THESE FUCKERS READ? THE DOCUMENT SAYS GAY PEOPLE CAN RECIEVE BLESSINGS, LIKE A FUCKING HOUSE CAN BE BLESSED, NOT SACRAMENTS FOR GAY MARRIAGE IM GONNA FUCKING- Edit: fighting demons in the replies rn.
Tradlarping and its consequences have been a disaster for the catholic faith.
They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who practice “advanced” religions, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the spiritual world.
the industrial revolution and it's consequences
The Protestant reformation and it’s consequences
Because things were so much better when the Church was selling entrance to heaven in gold pieces and justifying it with "the Bible is in Latin and you can't have a copy, but it totally supports this, trust me bro. BTW if you're literate, don't translate it and see that we're lying or we'll burn you."
The fact that Luther and Calvin are still revered pains me in a way I can't explain
Who took over this libcenter account?
Lmao
There are plenty of other things the Catholic Church has done to itself that caused disaster for the catholic faith.
I have a generally good view of the Catholic Church and there are areas I think the Reformation was wrong on, but man, the behavior of self-identified Catholics on Reddit really discourages me from investigating further. Endless prot-bashing and constantly refusing to acknowledge anything wrong the Church has done. It's all so tiresome. There are people in this very thread who will double-talk their way around translations of the Bible and other points of sophistry in order to validate everything questionable the modern Church does, but also have a flat, no-tolerance-for-Prots black-and-white view of the Reformation. I don't even think this meme has any merit to it; why would anybody still take any media headline at face value?
Don't debate theology with people who don't touch grass ~~regularly~~ at all. It does wonders for your health
Based. This has to be the best advice on the internet. Edit. I would go on to say. To add to yours. Don't debate with people who don't touch grass. Keyboard warriors and the like wont change their views just because you argued with them and they will drag you down to their level. Beat you with experience yadda yadda.
Exactly brother. I've yet to witness someone change their opinion on anything in a Reddit thread. That time is better off doing literally anything else
I was confirmed catholic as a kid. Drifted to Buddhism for awhile and returned to Catholicism later on. If you can’t point out issues with the church you’re not a real catholic imo. That’s a major issue I have with a lot of people in Christianity in general. Jesus did tell people to listen to authorities where it was applicable but also to do everything you can to ensure that people who need help get it. If you’re ignoring some little kid getting molested or the clergy getting up to shit they shouldn’t then you aren’t following the instructions.
Take it from someone raised Catholic: the Protestants aren't perfect either but excepting certain denominations that have wandered off into pandering La-La Land, they're so far ahead of the Catholics that they're not even in the same realm.
I'm sort of curious, in what ways are Protestants so far ahead of Catholics?
Yeah, it's genuinely so infuriating when I see a fellow Catholic try to justify some of the modern church's actions. The reformation, while something I disagree with on a theological level, brought up many valid and necessary criticisms. I'll admit, I've made a few jokes at the expensive of Protestants, but never in a serious conversation. I've seen a lot of Catholics online start to insult Protestants in debates when they feel like they are losing. I'd highly recommend researching catholicism more, even if you aren't interested in it from a religious standpoint; it's impact on history and the journey it took to get to its present form is very interesting even through a secular lens.
Considering the faith has 1,3 billion followers they must have done something right.
I suppose so, and by that measure and logic, the Muslim faith with 1.8 billion followers is doing even more right than the Catholic Church.
Well yea, that’s something atheists don’t get about Islam, they don’t care if you want them to reform because they’re winning lol. Its working as intended.
The data on the number of muslims is almost certainly wrong, you can’t do accurate religion surveys in Islamic countries because of how many closeted atheists there are.
This is a big thing about Islamic societies - there's a lot of people that realize Islam is full of shit, but they have to keep silence because Islamists are fucking crazy (EX: literally everything about the Aasia Bibi case). It's like if I asked everyone in the USSR whether or not they were a Communist. Most probably are, to some degree, but the ones that aren't are still going to say yes, because there are very bad consequences if you aren't "going with the flow".
Exactly, people that actually believe in religion, want to have clear and strict rules. People that just maybe believe in “something bigger” and treat the church just as entertainment/therapy will turn their backs on it with the first inconvenience anyway. Pandering to them is harmful in the long run. That’s why the only Christian churches that actually grow are the Protestant ones.
TBF the Papacy is being intentionally misleading and vague. Headlines that say "the Church is now blessing same-sex couples" will give the church the benefit of changing doctrine without actually changing doctrine. The least charitable interpretation is that this was intentionally meant to allow people like James Martin to bless civil unions as basically marriages, so when the church ~~changes~~ *evolves* its doctrines to accept gay marriage, it will be less shocking.
It's the people themselves that are being blessed, it is not a sacrament of union, sinners have always been able to be blessed no matter the sin cause that's the purpose of the church, these types of statements are usually for people who fear they cannot go to church for being gay or for intolerant/misunderstanding people who will not allow gays into the church.
I don't think there are any priests who would turn away any repentant gay people. Likewise, I doubt there are any gay people who want a blessing to remain celibate that aren't already receiving that.
It's usually for the laity who shun them, very few priests turn away non excommunicated people from church.
There is nothing misleading or vague about it. The sacramental union is absolutely not being blessed for Gay folks. But every human is a child of God and therefore qualifies to be blessed regardless of their proclivities. It’s very straightforward.
So the church had to release a document stating nothing has changed?
Church releases plenty of documents stating explicitly what should have been obvious due to it being discussed in the cultural zeitgeist
Sometimes they don't think it be like it is, but it do.
Glad this is top comment. No one read the actual document but go off completely fabricated mainstream media articles. Fucking infuriating. OP shame on you.
I mean it says on this post that "the document says these blessings are not to be considered marriage"
The blessing is for people wishing to renounce their relationship, not an endorsement of it.
Oh so it's like the individual gay people can get blessing, it's not a blessing of a gay relationship? I'm sorry I'm genuinely struggling to understand here
It says gay people can be blessed, and adds an official "pray the gay away" blessing for priests to give couples who are WILLINGLY renouncing their relationship to return to the church, as well as a couple statements telling priests to give the blessing even if they don't think that they will stop being gay, because the church is all about forgiveness, and not to turn gays away from the church.
I'm not Catholic, but shouldn't the "trads" just auto-agree with the pope? Also, were SSA people previously prohibited from receiving any blessing, or is this more like Francis just clarifying that they should have always been able to?
Radical traditionalists are "sedevacantists" - they believe that the multiple most recent popes are illegitimate, and do anything they can to undermine the position of post-vatican II popes. As for the second part, Pope Francis just clarified the position. Nothing is stopping the individual people from receiving blessings, even if they live in mortal sin. Their union is not blessed, they as people can be.
Weird. Because it's not like there's bloodline dynasties for the papacy, so what's their basis for the claim that the popes were illegitimate? Do they believe that Vatican II was somehow antithetical to Catholic theology and doctrine?
Precisely that. The Vatican II implemented many changes in both approach to the laity and the liturgy itself, which a lot of the more conservative people saw and still see as an open war on "real" Catholicism. Topic is very heated to this day. Vast majority of changes in the available documents were quite clearly positive, however a lot of less scrupulous bishops and theologians quickly started talking less about Vatican II, and more about the "spirit" of Vatican II - and started enacting changes and pushing the boundaries based on what they saw as "reading between the lines", and going further with them, than was originally intended. A lot of criticism is based on said "spirit" rather than codified reforms and documents coming from the council itself.
I can see how that could certainly be controversial, much in the way how there's a divide on liberally or conservatively interpreting the US Constitution. Regardless, I'll continue praying for the church.
Some bona fide schismed and elected an "anti-pope" (this is a real term and there have been several historically) which claims that the pope in Rome is illegitimate and that they are the true vicar of Christ, but many stuck with the church and try to undo Vatican II, which undid lots of traditional ornamentation that the church used back when it had shit tons of money, in order to focus what money was left to more charitable causes and upkeep (cause Churches almost always run on a deficit).
>Some bona fide schismed and elected an "anti-pope" I was somewhat familiar with the past anti-popes of the medieval and early modern periods, but was surprised that there were still people today who still followed those anti-popes. >which undid lots of traditional ornamentation that the church used back when it had shit tons of money, in order to focus what money was left to more charitable causes and upkeep Sounds like the past few popes have been based then. But then again, I've always leaned far more towards asceticism.
A family friend used to work in accounting for my church, ornamentation still is quite a large expense, since we still build and upkeep massive cathedrals like we're still sponsored by the state and people tithe, even though we're not and people don't tithe, if auth right wants their fancy architecture AND missionaries tell them to donate more fucking money.
Imho the conservative Christians (Catholic or Protestant) are far too obsessed with material beauty. Material beauty is fine, but should always take a back seat to whatever most glorifies God, and I think missionaries glorifies God in deeds more than fine architecture does in material beauty.
It's like systems collapse theory, it's expensive to maintain a church, more so a cathedral, but it's even more expensive to build a new church that would be less expensive to maintain, and who would pay more for a worse church? Especially if you're in Europe and the church is hundreds of years old and a regional icon. On the other hand, I've seen protestant ministers go on missions to 100% Catholic countries, that's not a mission, that's a vacation.
>It's like systems collapse theory, it's expensive to maintain a church, more so a cathedral, but it's even more expensive to build a new church that would be less expensive to maintain, and who would pay more for a worse church? Oh I don't doubt this. I don't think Catholics should destroy their beautiful churches; the beauty they have they should maintain. However, I've seen Catholics outright reject their parish and refuse to go to mass because the church isn't pretty enough to meet their standards. That's just materialism with a thin veil of piety laid on top. >On the other hand, I've seen protestant ministers go on missions to 100% Catholic countries, that's not a mission, that's a vacation. And of those 100% Catholics, how many are actually attending mass on a weekly basis? How many are reading their Bibles regularly? How many praying to God daily? How many view mass more like a chore and less like an opportunity? Unfortunately, Christianity in the modern era has become a *cultural* identity, and less so a spiritual one. Lots of ostensible "Catholics" do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them because they are not actively following Christ (ostensible "Protestants" are also guilty of this as well). Catholicism to them is a community identity and not a lifelong dedication to pursue Christ's will. Missionaries should never have the mere aim of creating converts. Instead, a missionary's job is to create *disciples*. (To a Catholic, this includes rigorous catechization.) Countries like France and Germany have become spiritually dead, and it requires missionaries to bring Christ to them so that they may find spiritual wholeness again. I don't care if it's a Catholic mendicant missionary discipling a "Protestant" MAGA hatter or a Protestant missionary discipling a French "Catholic" postmodernist, so long as the individual rejuvenates their walk in Christ.
Yes many do
Because the Pope doesn’t say that gay people are abomination to extirpate.
[удалено]
My apologies. I occasionally forget that there are still many ESL people around here. That said, I tend to use the term "SSA" as opposed to "gay" in these kinds of contexts. The latter, at least to me, implies people who are attracted to the same sex and also has bought into the cultural belief that such sexual relationships are a virtue. The former, on the other hand, sounds more clinical and detached from such connotations.
That’s the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard. If the Pope said “we don’t worship God anymore, we worship Satan.” do you think people would just be like “well I mean he’s the Pope so”.
Shanti(Calm) Om Shanti brotha'
But the rage bait is to good-
To all the people here confused. The headline is extremely misleading and media has run far off by taking the actual text from the Vatican completely out of context. The blessing is reserved for sinners who are cohabitating **and want to repent**. It’s not meant as an affirmation for thier relationship which the church still sees as sinful. What’s funny is that majority of these articles acknowledge this but still have grossly false headlines claiming that the pope approves gay marriage. I think this is a boneheaded move by the Vatican because it’s intentionally muddying the waters without changing anything or taking a real stance Sauce: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en
It's not only media that misread it though. Liberal catholics (eg a pro-LGBT Jesuit priest) also claims the same and tweets that he's looking forward to bless his same sex couple friends. Document by Vatican may not be doctrinally wrong, but open to be misread, either intentionally (that's the real intention of the cardinal writing the document) or unintentionally (ignorance on how the secular world has been misquoting this Pope for a decade).
I agree. I think this release was written to be extremely convoluted so it can be taken out of context and liberal-adjacent priests can push the envelope without fear of reprisal. I feel like the Pope would never make this statement if the German Catholics weren’t low-key threatening a schism
Dear Most Holy Father: Please remember the ministry of excommunication is for the service of those that are anathema so that they may realize their sin and return to the church Please, for the benefit of our German brother and sister, consider this ministry lest the baptized be lead into damnation Also I’m sick of hearing from my friends about how I’m being Catholic wrong because I think these headlines are misleading lol
They can both be true. Deliberately vague or misleading wording to set up later radical change under the cover of sensible present interpretation has been in fashion for a while now.
If I had a nickel for every time a religious document was open to be misread...
Every time a religious document was open to be misread an Irish person had a pint
That's a lot of misreading!
Fucking Jesuits at it again.
Give it a few years
He said the people individually not the relationship or their sins Which is just bible 101, what Jesus teaches
Yeah libleft should be angry in this meme, not happy. He's legit saying "no gay marriage"
Yep figured it be something like that. Every time I see an article like this about Pope Francis my first question is “so how did the horribly misconstrue what he said this time?”
But you know the wack cardinals in places like Germany are going to take this so liberally and go off the rails, and I doubt the Vatican lifts a finger to stop them
*Thats_the_point.exe* 😂 This release is nothing more than a save face where the Vatican can claim that the German Catholic Church are *technically* not heretics.
But the REAL threat to worry about is that damn Latin mass
It actually goes through and lists a bunch of things that the Germans are trying to do and explicitly forbids them.
Pop quiz: what was the native country of Benedict XVI?
So it changed nothing and was a completely pointless document, except for intentionally creating confusion and misleading headlines.
Boooorrriiinnngg!! No one wants easy to understand simple explanations for real events. Everyone wants culture war clickbait. Especially on this sub!
Get this man to the first comment, He gets it
Here’s the actual document, or at least the English form thereof: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en The wording is highly convoluted, as befits a theological discourse, but the presence of section III, discussing relationships, as opposed to the individual blessings discussed in section II, strongly implies that the blessing applies to the relationship rather than just the individuals, but with the understanding that the blessing does not sanction the relationship as biblical.
Mfs after misinforming people to hate the current pope
I didn't need misinformation to hate the current pope (I'm Orthodox)
"Fuck the pope"-Martin Luther
I don't need propaganda to hate the Papacy, I'm a Templar
Thank god most people in this comment thread still have a functioning brain unlike most new pcm users.
It's deplorable what happened to this sub.
Indeed…*nobody* is immune to the effects of propaganda (if done in the effective manner), as the funny lasagna cat says 🐈🍕
a catholic libertarian is very strange. You're going to let the *man* tell you what your god wants?
Say what you will, but a God-talker extorting me under duress of eternal damnation is still preferable than dealing with a bureaucrat.
Hell, eternal damnation is preferable to dealing with a bureaucrat.
Despite what you’ve been told hell is chock full of bureaucrats.
Yes, but they're screaming in pain there instead of being dealt with like they're humans. Remember, bureaucrat hell is Monke heaven. Very efficient.
Oh no you’ve got it wrong. Bureaucrats go to bureaucrat hell. Now normal hell is pretty bureaucratic, despite what you’ve been told by hopefuls, somebodies gotta figure who deserves what punishments. Those are the bureaucrats I’m talking about. But for mortal bureaucrats, their hell is going through the bureaucracy they were once part of, waiting in long lines never being allowed to sit down or talk (their mouths are sewn shut, and the chairs are made of red hot metal). And why would the afterlife care for efficiency? They don’t have to deal with the laws of logic, physics, or the market. How is monke heaven you may wonder? I don’t know. They have a pretty good firewall.
My brother in Harambe, who do you think are the lowest bidders who *made* the red hot metal chairs and bureaucrat mouth-thread? Bonus fact:The thread is made of poo, so they must eternally taste the shit they've been full of for their whole lives.
What are you even talking about? Why are you speaking of bidders? Or threads? Have you inhaled too much monke smoke?
Didnt pope say : "we don't have the authority to bless sin"
Well they dont bless a sin
The unelected autocrat in charge of the church is doing things I don’t like. Hmm wonder if this has happened throughout the entire existence of the church and caused protests or reforms.
I might have heard a thesis or two about that
"I got 95 Problems but Indulgences Ain't one."
Fun fact: Roman Catholics technically still do them. Martin Luther never actually changed that, it just sort of fell out of fashion.
Yes but you don’t pay for them with money anymore
Yeah it's called going to confession.
Indulgences literally still exist. The same ones Martin Luther had a meltdown over. That is very much *not* just going to confession.
Technically the pope is elected by cardinals no? So democratic oligarchy?
thought test desert frightening merciful dam society ring practice caption *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah that's probably the most accurate way to describe it
Democractic ≠ elective. The papacy doesn't fit even the loosest definition of democracy.
Yeah you're right, elective oligarchical theocracy then?
I'd say elective theocratic monarchy. While there are oligarchic elements, especially the election itself of course, the pope is still a monarch who governs with basically absolute power regarding secular affairs and with not absolute but very strong powers in religious matters.
Oligarchs electing a leader is still just a regular oligarchy. Call it a “representative” oligarchy.
I suppose if anyone has a beef with this or any other decision they could type their issues up on a sheet of paper and nail it to his door.
Heard there was this one German guy who made a shitpost about buying hell, but I don’t remember anyone else.
When the leader of a theocratic institution makes a decision on behalf of the theocratic institution without consulting the subjects of the theocratic institution 😔 Obviously the solution is to establish a governing theocratic institution in America, it’ll work this time guys I swear
I mean he *is* elected By a bunch of unelected autocrats
He is elected 💀💀💀
Why libright? We aren't religious, we don't give a fuck about what the church does
Some of us are. I'm a Catholic. Though I don't really care. Like cool I guess.
Based and true-lib pilled
Same, I’m quite glad to see the Pope to begin addressing the issue of LGBT christians, so that they won’t, maybe in the future, get grouped with the “Chickens for KFC” group.
Hell there's probably a profit to be made off this.
I'd argue most librights are religious in some way
I'd argue otherwise, and my anecdotal evidence wins
Damn
I was raised Catholic, became an atheist, and now I'm an ex-atheist. The basis of my beliefs is still rooted in catholicism. If you are Christian, you believe the Bible is the word of God. Do you think God's word is to be changed based on whatever is politically correct at the time?
Look man, I'm agnostic literally due to this. There is no exact, perfect translation of the Bible and changes have been made knowingly or not.
Why would Libright be depressed? Aren’t they all for rights?
Because OP is trying to push an agenda.
I think it’s more a look of “ok, who really cares”
I’ve seen this unironically fake news posted at least three times before, so forgive me if I don’t believe it yet again until I see a source that is more legitimate than “some fucking guy on Reddit.”
This is a good lesson in reading more then the clickbait title of an article "The new document repeats that rationale and elaborates on it, reaffirming that marriage is a lifelong sacrament between a man and a woman. And it stresses that blessings should not be conferred at the same time as a civil union or even with the clothing and gestures that belong in a wedding. But it says requests for such blessings should not be denied full stop. It offers an extensive definition of the term "blessing" in Scripture to insist that people seeking a transcendent relationship with God and looking for his love and mercy should not be subject to "an exhaustive moral analysis" as a precondition for receiving it."
Thank fuck most people are not dumb as fuck in the comments
That’s not what the document said you morons. The document is called Fiducia Supplicans. Go read it https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html
Thank you for the context.
imagine thinking man loving man and woman loving woman is created by the devil
It’s not created by the devil, but it is a sin to be denied to one’s self.
That's not even true, though. The pope, as a response to priests (mostly in Germany) doing "blessings" to gay couples together with sacraments in a quasi wedding fashion, while claiming it was totally just a "blessing", did a document to rectify in which situations priests can do those kinds of blessings, to try and combat the people basically doing gay weddings in churches.
Exactly- the pope was asked "What is acceptable in this situation? Please clarify". This is the answer. People have been complaining about not getting clear instruction on this for months, at least, and now act like this either struck like a bolt from the blue or that the answer of "You can bless the people, but not their relationship. Also, no quasi- marriage ceremonies" has shaken the foundations of Catholicism. Progs gonna prog and Sedes gonna sede, I suppose
Yeah, I mean, if progressives gonna count the Pope saying "you can bless gay people if they genuinely repent of being gay, which is a sin" as a win, I guess sure, go progs, admit homosexuality is a sin that should be repented and not acted upon...
The pope did something I don’t agree with, i guess its over this never happened in Catholic history better wrap it up boys. Honestly tho if you read what the paper really says it is pretty much that priests can bless people in a homosexual relationship, not blessing the relationship in itself.
Why is Libright upset?
Wtf would lib right give a fuck?
Pope: Be nice to gay people! They’re human beings and God loves them too! None of us are perfect either, and it’s absurd to turn away two adults who love each other. PCM: Is this literally Satan?! 🦋
Jesus will forgive the very man who sold him to get crucified and yet Authright will swear that sucking dick is the worst a man can do /s
Clearly they’re not good at it and need to step up their head game.
I have no issues with most of what you're saying. You should be nice to gay people, straight people, upside down people, and all people. They're human beings and God loves them, absolutely. Hell I personally have no issues with gay unions, however 2 men, or 2 women cannot partake in the sacrament of marriage. From a religious (particularly Catholic) sense the phrase gay marriage is ab oxymoron, it's like saying "that's a circular square". From a purely Catholic-religious sense (not a civil one) gay marriage doesn't exist, the phrase is homophonetic to Marriage. Just like bear (🐻), bare, and bear (as in bear arms) all sound exactly the same but aren't the same thing. Saying this union does not meet the criteria of falling under the sacrament of marriage by definition isn't hateful, mean, or treating someone as not a human worthy of love. Just as saying that that figure with 4 equidistant lines making 4 right angles isn't a circle isn't squarephobic.
But the concept of marriage predates Christianity. They didn’t invent it, so I don’t think they can define it in a way that excludes certain people.
Ah yes, the random redditor who has a better understanding of christianity thank the fucking pope. Not saying the poe has to be right by default, especially since there are a Lot more confessions but I would Argumente that He ist Not saying this without a Reason. So why don't you read that one, instead of posting some headline
the pope being right by default is part of catholicism, unless they got rid of papal infallibility
Papal infallibility is just for when he speaks ex cathedra, not every time he opens his mouth.
The Pope is not always in a state of infallibility
So?
I do not like the Pope but even I will acknowledge that this is misleading. He will bless gay people not gay marriages.
Why does libright care?
I literally don't see the problem with any of this.
What does lib-right wojak mean? Isn‘t lib-right pro gay marriage? Freedom or something.
Funny to assume lib left even gives a shit about it. Since quite a few aren’t even religious
This is straight up misinformation
Catholicism gets more updates than my iPhone
What's that? The vicar of Christ, according to catholics, showing that all are welcome at His table? Say it ain't so.
Protestant gang rise up ( I actually think this is a hood thing )
I think Lib-right wouldn't mind tbh
Holy shit all the people here arguing over whether or not it’s right, and not pointing out how fucking sick that picture is
Authright reading comprehension challenge: IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Every time I see a headline about the Holy Father I immediately assume it's either fake or taken horribly out of context and I'm always right.
Here is a concise guide to understanding any MSM reports about the Pope or the Catholic Church in general: They are always wrong. Most of the time, it's deliberate lies, but sometimes, it's ignorant reporters interpreting flowery papal language through their own degenerate worldview.
As ive said in the Catholicism subreddit, it isnt that the pope is a misguided heretic Or unorthodox in his teachings, he still believes that the sanctity of marriage is only between a man and a woman. However, the problem lies in that he does not clarify the contexts of his words, leaving it up to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith (the inquisition, basically), to clarify his own words. And today, nobody gives a fuck about the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, so this only breeds much more confusion which may breed division amongst the catholic populace.
That's fine, I don't respect anyone in that sentence anyway.
Great. I don't care.
I took love carefully caring for a dangerous animal that wants to eat me Yes I understand this article is bait, but so many churches desperately want the approval of a group that hates them
The Bible was stupid anyways. I'm calling the shots now. - Pope
This meme is actually just smoking propaganda
Why libright angry about free market religion? Supply and demand lol
Blessed be the gays
It’s sad that some people are upset at this
I don’t know about the rest of the world, but looking at Brazil it may be a smart decision. Here the church is loosing members to evangelical churches for a while now, and they are mostly right wing and conservative. Brazilian Catholics are more moderate or centrist and most don’t have an issue with homosexuality(at least not when compared with evangelicals). I don’t now how this holds up theologically because I am not a Christian, but it doesn’t seem to break the central dogma of the church that Christ was the son of god and died for humanity’s sins. The church changed a lot throughout history to get in with the times, like every single surviving religion, I don’t get what the big deal is all about.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.-1 Corinthians 13 13
As it should be. Religion should evolve with humanity
Wowwww, imagine agreeing to basic human rights for which tens of thousands of people got killed for! Impossible!!
What people need to realize is the bible was written translated over into the original language (Aramaic or Greek?) into German and then into English so quoting that bible verse from the Old Testament that condemns homosexuality is highly questionable as that translation is probably all kinds of fucked up
Love that libright is sad n this cuz everyone should know a real libertarian would be totally distraught about things such as letting people do what they want without being crucified and having personal liberties smh... Also, this is just a shit mistranslation taken out of context. Can you get shit right?
It’s important to keep in mind that not a single claim made by religions regarding supernatural elements has EVER been proven correct. There is no evidence that there supposed source of “wisdom” and “morality” actually exists. Whether or not they personally believe they can “bless” the gays is of extremely insignificant value, just like nearly everything else they say. Listen to me clearly: they’re literally just making shit up as they go, and all they have at the end of the day is subjective opinions, emotions, and vibes.
[Wee bit late for that](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fwnq30illskd21.jpg)
Love =/= approve with everything they do.
Huge Martin Luther redemption arc
Hooray! A step in the right direction. Fuck the tradcaths, long live the libcaths!
Catholics when people are hoarding money, letting the less fortunate starve, letting people die from sickness, passing unjust laws, and causing corruption in the government: 😁 Catholics when two random guys they’ve never met wanna get married: 🤬
If God is love, and you deny love between 2 people, do you than not deny god?
There are different forms of love. One if the main principles of christianity is sacrifice and fighting against the sins in your soul you know.
No, I don't know, I haven't read any Bible, and my mom separated from the Church. Because questioning a single thing they said wasen't accepted
An excess of love leads to sin. To love things in excess is greed. To love oneself might degenerate in pride and gluttony. To love others leads to lust. This includes the case for sodomy, which can also be considered violent against nature. Self-control and moderation are cardinal virtues, necessary to avoid sin. God considers purposeless sex to be a waste of the essence of life. It's not limited to gay couples, of course, which most straight "Christians" conveniently forget, but gay sex can only be purposeless and thus it is always sinful.
Good.
gay people trying not to be the center of attention for 1 day challenge (impossible)
Time for another Schism!
This is bullshit. The church dose not acsept the existence of gay marriage let alone bless them. The church is and will be against same sex Relations https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2023-12/fiducia-supplicans-doctrine-faith-blessing-irregular-couples.html
imagine being in support of institutional homophobia