/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>No archive

I'll do a double take then

>>549129

Only in Brazil. Might as well come on over to our side.

Based Francis

At least something good came out of him

>>549129

It's been happening for years anon

>>549129

https://www.catholic.com/tract/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

They're going to bring up the topic at the 2019 Brazil Synod if ordaining married men in the Amazon region would be a possibility since there are 10,000 Catholic for every 1 priest there.=

This is just in the Amazon region.

Also, priestly celibacy is just a Church law and not a doctrine. It can be changed at any time. There used to be married priests, bishops and popes.

>>549142

>>549142

>Also, priestly celibacy is just a Church law and not a doctrine. It can be changed at any time. There used to be married priests, bishops and popes.

I wish they would honestly, might even encourage some who were hesitant to join the priesthood reconsider

I know about the ex-Anglicans and the widower priests, but those are edge cases. How is this not a slippery slope especially in Brazil where there's liberation theology? Brazil is a pretty normalfag nation in general. Honestly I can't say I'm comfortable with the idea that a priest I interact with has had sex before (yes I know they're not all virgins but still). Isn't it bad timing for this kind of thing?

>>549129

You realize that priestly celibacy is only a tradition, right? The Pope has the authority to nullify it at will.

Tbh it's a good idea because of the priest shortage in remote areas. Wider abolition of celibacy would probably solve the closet faggot priest problem too.

>>549160

>Wider abolition of celibacy would probably solve the closet faggot priest problem too.

I'm OK with marriage for priests but you must be crazy if you think the Church would allow sodomites to marry especially clergymen

>>549161

I don't mean that gay priests should marry dudes. But the present situation makes the priesthood only palatable to closeted homosexuals, hence the problem with so many gay priests.

In a more conservative society priestly celibacy made sense, because the culture would react against a church promoting faggotry. But the present situation risks these homosexual priests gaining too much power and changing doctrine, and the wider culture would embrace them.

Notice that I'm not saying that homosexuals should not become priests. They of all people are called to celibate priesthood. But we should allow heterosexual married men become priests too in order to balance them.

>>549162

>I don't mean that gay priests should marry dudes. But the present situation makes the priesthood only palatable to closeted homosexuals, hence the problem with so many gay priests.

Oh OK sorry I misunderstood. Yeah I (obviously) am for priests being allowed to marry I always liked the Orthodox mindset that a married priest is better equipped to help the families of the community as he himself has gone through what they have. But I also understand the Western tradition of the Priest being the communities "father" in a sense and ministering over the community as if they where his children.

>Notice that I'm not saying that homosexuals should not become priests. They of all people are called to celibate priesthood.

Hmmm, I feel like if you display same sex attraction then you maybe should be put in a situation where you will be less influential like maybe being a cloistered monk rather than a priest who has potential for gaining power within the church, that would probably be the most effective way of preventing modernist corruption.

>>549162

Homosexuals shouldn't become priests though; it's too much of a risk. A family friend who is a priest that teaches seminarians told me he has to deny homosexuals because of that. Homosexuals are more likely to be pedosexuals compared to heterosexuals.

>>549129

It's not heretical, but fugg am I worried if papa Francesco brings it up.

Something tells me it's not just about married priests.

>>549172

>Something tells me it's not just about married priests.

All we can do is pray that he doesn't go full blown modernist and declare

>le womyn clergy

>>549169

>Homosexuals shouldn't become priests though

Why? They are literally called to celibacy, they're the best candidates.

>it's too much of a risk

Risk of what? Any risk is addressed by allowing heterosexual married priests.

Homosexuality is not some special class of sin which disqualifies one for priesthood. All men, ALL MEN, are called to discern. And all men are capable of sanctification, including homos.

This attitude reeks of baptist reprobate heresy.

>>549175

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-confirms-finality-ban-ordaining-women

>>549178

You never know with this man.

>>549129

I don't count this as too likely. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 has to be fulfilled, after all.

>>549178

>The pope recently created a special 12-member commission to study the historic use of women as deacons in the church

Women can be Deacons?

Also remember Judas was outwardly a dedicated follower of our Lord. It's impossible for us to really know the heart of a person until they act. I don't think Francis would do it personally but the idea that he may is not so ridiculous as to completely disregard it.

>>549182

We warned you before and warn you another time. Quote the verse or gtfo

>>549185

I am not that guy, but I can start if you want.

>>549183

Any one of us may do anything at any time. You could rent a truck and use it to mow down pedestrians in a park and there is no way for you to prove to me that you wouldn't.

Pope Francis has said, with no ambiguity, that there can be no women priests. If you don't believe him, that's on you; not him.

Are catholics actually going to start following the Bible now?

1 Timothy 3:2-12King James Version (KJV)

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

>>549177

Your attitude reeks of modernism. Most of the pedophile scandals usually involve a priest and a young teenage male. Homos are quite often leverages.

>>549192

fair enough

>>549177

Screencapped.

>>549207

>>549204

So God cannot clean a sodomite? Are you saying He's unable to save someone?

>>549211

Romans 1

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

>>549215

Obviously there needs to be a moratorium on homosexuals in the clergy, but theologically (as a Christian) you cannot claim it is impossible that God can save a sodomite.

>>549218

Are you God? How do you know when someone cannot be saved? Presumption of that sort is a sin.

>>549218

Muh Romans Chapter 1

As much as I hate faggotry your Reprobate "theology" reeks of fast food.

Reprobacy, mainly for a sexuality related issue, could be arrived of someone reading Romans with a Neurotic Mind from a Freudian-Influenced society, which was not the case when Romans 1 was written.

>>549194

but you can't serve two Lords. That quote can apply to the priests.

No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. Can anyone explain?

>>549218

Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

>>549177

>Why? They are literally called to celibacy, they're the best candidates.

But there's no reason clergy should be celibate in the first place so you're putting the cart before the horse.

>>549215

Today I learned baptists invented the word reprobate and are the sole users of it.

>>549308

Ever since the 1960s yeah.

>>549305

>But there's no reason clergy should be celibate

Should I start quoting 1 Corinthians 7 or are you good?

>>549177

> They are literally called to celibacy, they're the best candidates.

>HA!they're gay,that makes it 100% sure they won't try to breack celibacy but with men cause…you know.

>>549159

>ywn grow up in a household with a priest as a your Father

this looks comfy

>>549162

>But the present situation makes the priesthood only palatable to closeted homosexuals

take off your catholic flag, you disgust me

>>549129

Probably the first good thing the Pope did in hundreds of years. Now just stop Pope worship and you can become Orthodox.

>>549162

>In a more conservative society priestly celibacy made sense, because the culture would react against a church promoting faggotry. But the present situation risks these homosexual priests gaining too much power and changing doctrine, and the wider culture would embrace them.

you reason like someone who has no faith

>>549418

You reason like a homo desperate to gain access to young anuses

>>549315

>Should I start quoting 1 Corinthians 7 or are you good?

I meant clergy in particular. It's good for anyone to be celibate if they are called to it and can do it without burning with lust. There's no reason to make it a special requirement for clergy.

>>549314

'Reprobate' is in the Douay-Rheims. Are you implying Catholics don't read their Bibles or something?

>>549453

Yeah the 1960s was a game changer for most denominations.

>there will be another schism in our lifetime

>>549454

Isn’t that razorfist?

>>549308

Nah, just the ones who uses it fraudulently and without any sort of understanding.