Devils.
“The sɛҳuąƖ preference of man expresses itself in puberty and assumes a hetero- or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ orientation,” Berlin’s Archbishop Heiner Koch asserted in a statement released by the bishops’ conference.
“Both belong to the normal forms of sɛҳuąƖ predisposition, which cannot or should not be changed with the help of a specific socialization”.
Koch went on to say that “developments” made possible by Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis’ exhortation of marriage and the family, the Church must consider the latest scientific and theological insights on human sɛҳuąƖity.
Slouching towards sedevacantism yet? ;)
Serious question since I tried to find other sources for this story and didn't find any: Are we sure infovaticana.com isn't a Spanish parody website?
Translated From https://infovaticana.com/My first reaction to the OP is that it is most likely not accurate. i would caution the forum to be skeptical . :popcorn:
https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://infovaticana.com/2019/12/18/comision-biblica-no-se-deben-condenar-las-uniones-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖes/&xid=17259,1500004,15700022,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700271,15700283
[font=",serif]by Carlos Esteban [/font][font=",serif]|[/font] [font=",serif]December 18, 2019[/font]
At the request of the Pope, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the highest technical ecclesial organism in interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, has issued a report on the anthropological vision in the Bible in which the subject of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is addressed.
[font=",serif]“A new and more adequate understanding of the human person imposes a radical reservation on the exclusive valuation of the heterosɛҳuąƖ union in favor of an analogous reception of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions,” can be read in the study commissioned by His Holiness to Pontifical Biblical Commission on the anthropological vision of the Bible, which includes extensive attention to the issue of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, whose expression conceives as "a legitimate and dignified expression of the human being."[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]Will 2020 be the year of the great revision of the Catholic conception of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships? In principle, it does not seem necessary to be especially suspicious to see it probable. Although this report does not cease to be that, a report, without any doctrinal or pastoral value until the Pope makes any decision in this regard, the fact adds up to dozens of indications throughout the last year that persistently point in that direction.[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]The issue is twofold: on the one hand, the very concept of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity that, although in no case would it have a moral assessment in itself, does determine the doctrinal response to its specific expressions. Until now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church considers ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ orientation as “objectively disorderly,” within the framework of a conception of sex aimed at both reproduction - co-creative cooperation with God by man - and a complementarity that will be image and figure of the relationship of Christ with his Church. If, on the other hand, a “new and more adequate understanding of the human person” is imposed, to cite the words of the report, and it is concluded, in the manner of some German bishops, that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a condition as 'adequate' as heterosɛҳuąƖity , the conclusions for moral doctrine are potentially seismic.[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]Because that's the other 'leg': ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships. In the traditional doctrine, which dates back to before the Incarnation itself, the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship was not only categorically condemned, but also included the four types of sin that “claim Yahweh's revenge”. And to ask, as the Pontifical Commission seems to do, to "welcome" analogously to heterosɛҳuąƖ unions, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs seem to us absolutely incompatible with this vision.[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]The 'brake' to a change in this regard, even from favorable and progressive positions, was the repeated and unequivocal condemnation of this type of relationship in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the Letters of St. Paul.[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]Apparently, the Pontifical Commission hints at some kind of misunderstanding in this conception when it argues that "according to some", "the Bible says little or nothing about this type of erotic relationship, which therefore should not be condemned, also because often unduly It is confused with other aberrant sɛҳuąƖ behaviors. ”[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]And it concludes with a language that already sounds to us: “The exegetical examination conducted on texts of the Old and New Testaments has made appear elements that are considered by an assessment of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, in its ethical implications. Certain formulations of the biblical authors, such as the Levitical disciplinary directives, require an intelligent interpretation that safeguards the values that the sacred text tries to promote, therefore, literally repeating what also brings cultural traits of that time. Pastoral attention will be required, particularly with regard to individual persons, to carry out that service of good that the Church must assume in its mission for men. ”[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]It was all a matter of the "cultural features of that time", probably, and we have been in a tragic mistake for two thousand years.[/font][/color]
Translated From https://infovaticana.com/What part of the word 'abomination" did they not understand?
https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://infovaticana.com/2019/12/18/comision-biblica-no-se-deben-condenar-las-uniones-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖes/&xid=17259,1500004,15700022,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700271,15700283
[font=",serif]by Carlos Esteban [/font][font=",serif]|[/font] [font=",serif]December 18, 2019[/font]
At the request of the Pope, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the highest technical ecclesial organism in interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, has issued a report on the anthropological vision in the Bible in which the subject of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is addressed.
[font=",serif]“A new and more adequate understanding of the human person imposes a radical reservation on the exclusive valuation of the heterosɛҳuąƖ union in favor of an analogous reception of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions,” can be read in the study commissioned by His Holiness to Pontifical Biblical Commission on the anthropological vision of the Bible, which includes extensive attention to the issue of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, whose expression conceives as "a legitimate and dignified expression of the human being."[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]Will 2020 be the year of the great revision of the Catholic conception of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships? In principle, it does not seem necessary to be especially suspicious to see it probable. Although this report does not cease to be that, a report, without any doctrinal or pastoral value until the Pope makes any decision in this regard, the fact adds up to dozens of indications throughout the last year that persistently point in that direction.[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]The issue is twofold: on the one hand, the very concept of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity that, although in no case would it have a moral assessment in itself, does determine the doctrinal response to its specific expressions. Until now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church considers ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ orientation as “objectively disorderly,” within the framework of a conception of sex aimed at both reproduction - co-creative cooperation with God by man - and a complementarity that will be image and figure of the relationship of Christ with his Church. If, on the other hand, a “new and more adequate understanding of the human person” is imposed, to cite the words of the report, and it is concluded, in the manner of some German bishops, that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a condition as 'adequate' as heterosɛҳuąƖity , the conclusions for moral doctrine are potentially seismic.[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]Because that's the other 'leg': ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships. In the traditional doctrine, which dates back to before the Incarnation itself, the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship was not only categorically condemned, but also included the four types of sin that “claim Yahweh's revenge”. And to ask, as the Pontifical Commission seems to do, to "welcome" analogously to heterosɛҳuąƖ unions, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs seem to us absolutely incompatible with this vision.[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]The 'brake' to a change in this regard, even from favorable and progressive positions, was the repeated and unequivocal condemnation of this type of relationship in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the Letters of St. Paul.[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]Apparently, the Pontifical Commission hints at some kind of misunderstanding in this conception when it argues that "according to some", "the Bible says little or nothing about this type of erotic relationship, which therefore should not be condemned, also because often unduly It is confused with other aberrant sɛҳuąƖ behaviors. ”[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]And it concludes with a language that already sounds to us: “The exegetical examination conducted on texts of the Old and New Testaments has made appear elements that are considered by an assessment of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, in its ethical implications. Certain formulations of the biblical authors, such as the Levitical disciplinary directives, require an intelligent interpretation that safeguards the values that the sacred text tries to promote, therefore, literally repeating what also brings cultural traits of that time. Pastoral attention will be required, particularly with regard to individual persons, to carry out that service of good that the Church must assume in its mission for men. ”[/font][/color]
[font=",serif]It was all a matter of the "cultural features of that time", probably, and we have been in a tragic mistake for two thousand years.[/font][/color]
Sodomy will soon be enshrined as normal in the "Catholic" church. Recognize and Resist is getting harder and harder to support.Among the many warnings He gave us, Our Lord said in Mat 18:7; "Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come, but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh."
God will respond soon.
Admittedly, when I read things like this, sedevacantism is the first thing that crosses my mind.👍
Reminds me a bit of the Seven Steps to Killing One's Conscience laid out by the bishop martyr St. John Fisher for which I will make an OP now in Catholic Living in the Modern World (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/)"First we overlook evil.Then we permit evil.Then we legalize evil.Then we promote evil.Then we celebrate evil.Then we persecute those who still call it evil."https://twitter.com/dlongenecker1/status/1190075527840833536?lang=en (https://twitter.com/dlongenecker1/status/1190075527840833536?lang=en)
Do you think that there are enough of us that if we pray we can prevent another rainfall of fire and brimstone?"Us"???
"Us"???The Book of Genesis was quite clear. God told Abraham that if he could find just 10 just men he would spare the city. I ask you to join me in prayer that God will spare us.
We are not LIARS. You are a LIAR.
Slouching towards sedevacantism yet? ;)I know you were asking Sean, but my baseline attitude kind of stays the same. And that is that I don't see what is to be gained by definitively making that declaration. I don't say its impossible but I also don't see how it helps my soul, or how it hurts to pray for him and accept him as my hierarchical leader without compromise on principle.
If these guys are Catholic, then I am a monkey's uncle. Heck, very few Prots would recognize them as Christian.
German "Bishops" Conference declared ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relations to be "normal":
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/german-bishops-commit-to-newly-assessing-catholic-doctrine-on-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-and-sɛҳuąƖ-morality-82866 (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/german-bishops-commit-to-newly-assessing-catholic-doctrine-on-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-and-sɛҳuąƖ-morality-82866)
I know you were asking Sean, but my baseline attitude kind of stays the same. And that is that I don't see what is to be gained by definitively making that declaration. I don't say its impossible but I also don't see how it helps my soul, or how it hurts to pray for him and accept him as my hierarchical leader without compromise on principle.:popcorn:
I know you were asking Sean, but my baseline attitude kind of stays the same. And that is that I don't see what is to be gained by definitively making that declaration. I don't say its impossible but I also don't see how it helps my soul, or how it hurts to pray for him and accept him as my hierarchical leader without compromise on principle.This is nothing but cognitive dissonance to me. Square peg into round hole. Mental gymnastics.
“We must therefore say that the story about the city of Sodom (as well as that of Gabaa) illustrates a sin that consists in the lack of hospitality, with hostility and violence towards the stranger, a behavior judged very serious and therefore deserving to be sanctioned with the utmost severity, because the rejection of the different, of the needy and defenseless stranger, is a principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment.”So according to Francis’ “reformed” Vatican, patriots who courageously guard their borders against Communists and Jihad invaders are now “sodomite offenders” who deserve punishment while those who offend God by engaging in a terrible sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity) can now be acceptable persons whose lifestyle is “legitimate” and “dignified.”
“A new and more adequate understanding of the human person imposes a radical reservation on the exclusive value of heterosɛҳuąƖ unions, in favor of a similar acceptance of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions as a legitimate and worthy expression of the human being. What is more — it is sometimes argued — the Bible says little or nothing about this type of erotic relationship, which should therefore not be condemned.”Had the authors ever read St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans wherein he criminalizes those men who “have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error?” According to the Apostle, “They who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” (Romans 1: 27, 32)
All this is judged to be a reflection of an archaic, historically conditioned mentality. We know that various biblical affirmations, in the cosmological, biological and sociological spheres, have been gradually considered outdated with the progressive affirmation of the natural and human sciences; similarly — it is deduced by some — a new and more adequate understanding of the human person imposes a radical reservation on the exclusive value of heterosɛҳuąƖ unions, in favor of a similar acceptance of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions as a legitimate and worthy expression of the human being. What is more — it is sometimes argued — the Bible says little or nothing about this type of erotic relationship, which should therefore not be condemned, also because it is often unduly confused with other aberrant sɛҳuąƖ behavior. It therefore seems necessary to examine the passages of Sacred Scripture in which the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ problem is the subject of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, in particular those in which it is denounced and criticized.NOTE: In other words, since they believe that "science" was right and the Church was wrong about heliocentrism, long ages, no global flood and evolution; then anything goes!
My first reaction to the OP is that it is most likely not accurate. i would caution the forum to be skeptical . :popcorn:My apologies to the forum for not reading the OP as carefully as I should. Pls disregard above post... :facepalm:
This topic has about as much credibility as the alleged PP Dossier-- just another attempt to smear Pope St Pius X & Card Rampolla. :sleep:My apologies to the Forum again for a misinterpretation of the OP... :pray:
https://fatima.org/news-views/new-vatican-book-reinterprets-sin-of-sodom/
New Vatican Book Reinterprets Sin of Sodom
by David Martin (https://fatima.org/author/dmartin/)
New Vatican Book Claims that Sodom and Gomorrah were Punished for Inhospitality, not ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
The news broke this week that the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Commission has just published a new book, titled What Is Man? An Itinerary of Biblical Anthropology, which now reduces the ‘sin of Sodom’ to ‘lack of hospitality.’
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-publishes-new-book-reducing-sin-of-sodom-to-lack-of-hospitality (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-publishes-new-book-reducing-sin-of-sodom-to-lack-of-hospitality)
According to Vatican experts who oversaw its publication, Sodom and Gomorrah were not punished for engaging in lewd acts with the same sex but were punished for closing their borders and failing to “welcome the foreigner.” The claim is brazenly made that Scripture does not indict ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts but rather indicts those who are “inhospitable” to foreigners.
Concerning the destruction of Sodom, the Biblical Commission asks: “But what was Sodom’s sin, that deserved such an exemplary punishment?” The authors observe that “in other passages of the Hebrew Bible which refer to Sodom’s guilt, there is no allusion to a sɛҳuąƖ transgression practiced against people of the same sex.”
The Pontifical Biblical Commission goes on to say that the Biblical account of Sodom “is not intended to present the image of an entire city dominated by irrepressible ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ cravings; rather, it denounces the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner with respect, and therefore claims to humiliate him, forcing him to undergo an infamous treatment of submission.”
The authors make clear their view that the punishment of the Sodomites was “motivated by the fact that they had shown a deep hatred towards the foreigner.”
The Biblical Commission concludes:
So according to Francis’ “reformed” Vatican, patriots who courageously guard their borders against Communists and Jihad invaders are now “sodomite offenders” who deserve punishment while those who offend God by engaging in a terrible sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity) can now be acceptable persons whose lifestyle is “legitimate” and “dignified.”
Consider the following from the authors:
Had the authors ever read St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans wherein he criminalizes those men who “have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error?” According to the Apostle, “They who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” (Romans 1: 27, 32)
Hence we see how Vatican progressives are skillfully using this new book to not only normalize ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the Catholic Church but to help advance the globalist plan for a borderless one-world government.
The problem with the book is that there is nothing in the Bible that suggests that lack of hospitality had anything to do with God’s verdict against the Sodomites or that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity may be hospitably welcomed by the Christian. It rather is condemned from the beginning. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22) It was the sin of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity that brought the fierce punishment of God upon Sodom and Gomorrah, but it appears that Rome is in denial of this Biblical fact.
And why? Because Rome today is infested with gαy sympathizers like Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga who heads the pope’s “Council of Nine” or Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia who heads the new Pontifical Academy for Life. Not to mention the many others that are part of this Vatican “gαy lobby” that Pope Francis works closely with. Unfortunately, this latest Vatican publication is among the key “fruits” of their labors.
It was reported recently that Pope Francis had requested the Pontifical Biblical Commission to reevaluate the Biblical teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, apparently in preparation for the new book. We pray that the book quickly be condemned, lest souls be sent down the path to perdition because of it.
(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/img/logo-vatican.png) (http://www.vatican.va/index.htm) | (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_pcbible_en.html#) | ||||
|
Slouching towards sedevacantism yet? ;)Actually you mean "German" bishops........ ::)
If these guys are Catholic, then I am a monkey's uncle. Heck, very few Prots would recognize them as Christian.
German "Bishops" Conference declared ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relations to be "normal":
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/german-bishops-commit-to-newly-assessing-catholic-doctrine-on-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-and-sɛҳuąƖ-morality-82866 (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/german-bishops-commit-to-newly-assessing-catholic-doctrine-on-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-and-sɛҳuąƖ-morality-82866)
This is nothing but cognitive dissonance to me. Square peg into round hole. Mental gymnastics.I guess I don't see why I even have to reason it out that far. Or why we're guaranteed not to have shepherds that won't deceive us in their non infallible teachings. (And the only citations for this are themselves fallible, you can't prove it from Trent or Vatican I or anything of similar weight)
If he is a true shepherd, then there is no need to "compromise on (Catholic) principle".