e5a422 No.12525
So, please forgive me if this is a stupid question, it's been a very long time since I looked at anything about Catholicism and I'm only starting to get back into religion myself.
Anyway, if Pope Francis decided to blatantly say that Jesus was homosexual, would that have to be counted as fact by the Church? I think I remember that what the pope says has equal standing to Scripture, and since the Bible never explicitly states Jesus to not be homosexual(I think), wouldn't that statement be considered fact? If this specific example can be refuted through Scripture, forgive me, but the principle of the question remains the same.
Is a Papal Decree still equal to Scripture even if it is utterly ridiculous?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a74be7 No.12526
>>12525
Not a Catholic myself, but as far as I am aware, that sort of thing only refers to ex cathedra dogmatic definitions. Since the First Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX, there have only been three of these:
>Papal infallibility
>Immaculate Conception
>Assumption of the Blessed Virgin
Also, an ex cathedra dogmatic definition can only be made regarding a belief already held by the majority of the faithful.
So, to reply more directly to your example, not unless most Catholics believe Jesus was as your example states. Which would be blasphemy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2ab1b2 No.12527
> explicitly states Jesus to not be homosexual(I think)
It implicitly states that he was not, since homosexuality is named a sin and Jesus was sinless
>>12526
I've never heard that it has anything to do with majority opinion
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e5a422 No.12529
>>12527
>It implicitly states that he was not, since homosexuality is named a sin and Jesus was sinless
That makes sense. So how about we change the assertion to, say, Peter being homosexual. He was not without sin, and I don't think that his sexuality was ever mentioned.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
10784e No.12530
>>12529
The onus is on the one asserting.
We have Romans 1 which seems to say that fags will never be saved, so Peter as a saved Christian (even leader) could not have at any time been a fag.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d2b06a No.12537
>>12530
You're missing the point mate, he's just using those as an example of something ludicrous that the pope could declare and become accepted as fact by the church
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
