Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?  (Read 2612 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12908
  • Reputation: +8518/-1611
  • Gender: Male
Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2019, 06:15:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What part of LIAR don't you understand, Poche?

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7679
    • Reputation: +646/-418
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #16 on: December 20, 2019, 11:34:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This topic has about as much credibility as the alleged PP Dossier--   just another  attempt to smear Pope St Pius X & Card Rampolla.  :sleep:




    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline King Wenceslas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 344
    • Reputation: +100/-136
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #17 on: December 20, 2019, 12:23:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Sodomy will soon be enshrined as normal in the "Catholic" church. Recognize and Resist is getting harder and harder to support.

    God will respond soon.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14836
    • Reputation: +6129/-914
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #18 on: December 20, 2019, 12:46:53 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sodomy will soon be enshrined as normal in the "Catholic" church. Recognize and Resist is getting harder and harder to support.

    God will respond soon.
    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 allows scandals like this to cometh in order to test our faith. God must surely love to test our faith because he does it quite often.

    Remember the miracle where Christ, while asleep in the boat, made the sea become so rough that the Apostles, veteran fishermen, all feared for their lives. Christ made the sea so rough that the Apostles thought the ship was about to break up and sink into the raging sea at any moment. Our Lord did that for one reason - to test their faith.

    We are supposed to understand that boat to be the Church, and among her preachers are mostly those by whom the scandals cometh, and we are supposed to have enough faith in Our Lord to know that, like the miracle of the calming of the sea, He is fully in charge and has all power over this storm.

    It is only through our faith that we know where we will be safe and are to remain where it is always safe - namely, within the boat, which is the Church, with Him, as this terrible storm rages more ferociously all the time! It is with faith that we know we are safe within the boat, the Church, and that He will calm this storm in His own good time and not beofre. Nothing of this storm will harm us, if we have enough faith.

    For our part, we must maintain the faith and not jump ship into the raging sea just because nearly everyone else has - and have perished miserably.

    Keep the faith sir!
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #19 on: December 20, 2019, 07:25:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Admittedly, when I read things like this, sedevacantism is the first thing that crosses my mind.
    👍
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7679
    • Reputation: +646/-418
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #20 on: December 20, 2019, 09:34:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is why there is NO SUCH THING as 'sede vacantism'. There is already a cult in the forum who thinks that Card Rampolla( Chmn of the above mentioned Biblical Commission at the behest of St Pius X) is a 'secret occult mason in the OTO' :laugh1:. Next we will be hearing that Pius X is an anti-pope. :laugh2:

    The docuмent cited here is probably just as phony as the alleged OTO Manifesto or the summons to Rome of Fr Feeney as well as his alleged ex-communication... :popcorn:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #21 on: December 20, 2019, 09:54:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "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."
    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

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16729
    • Reputation: +1224/-4693
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #22 on: December 20, 2019, 11:10:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you think that there are enough of us that if we pray we can prevent another rainfall of fire and brimstone?


    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12908
    • Reputation: +8518/-1611
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #23 on: December 20, 2019, 11:23:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you think that there are enough of us that if we pray we can prevent another rainfall of fire and brimstone?
    "Us"???
    We are not LIARS. You are a LIAR.

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16729
    • Reputation: +1224/-4693
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #24 on: December 20, 2019, 11:41:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Us"???
    We are not LIARS. You are a LIAR.
    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.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #25 on: December 21, 2019, 01:39:51 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Slouching towards sedevacantism yet?   ;)

    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
    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.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14836
    • Reputation: +6129/-914
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #26 on: December 21, 2019, 04:17:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6477/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #27 on: December 21, 2019, 08:18:17 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.
    If he is a true shepherd, then there is no need to "compromise on (Catholic) principle". 

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2419
    • Reputation: +1584/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #28 on: December 21, 2019, 10:55:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://fatima.org/news-views/new-vatican-book-reinterprets-sin-of-sodom/

    New Vatican Book Reinterprets Sin of Sodom
    by David Martin
    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

    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:

    Quote
    “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.” 
    Consider the following from the authors:

    Quote
    “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)

    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. 

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2419
    • Reputation: +1584/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Biblical Commission: Are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions no longer condemnable?
    « Reply #29 on: December 21, 2019, 11:04:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-publishes-new-book-reducing-sin-of-sodom-to-lack-of-hospitality

    The commission then notes the emergence, particularly in the West, of “voices of dissent” with respect to the “anthropological approach of scripture, as understood and conveyed by the church in its normative aspects.”
    The authors continue:

    Quote
    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!