[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Vatican appointee says gay sex can express Christ’s ‘self-gift’
Source: Life Site News
URL Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v ... 143221886185206838242298360572
Published: May 21, 2015
Author: Lisa Bourne
Post Date: 2015-05-21 11:37:06 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Religious History and Issues*     Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Keywords: None
Views: 22600
Comments: 86

ROME, May 19, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Pope Francis has appointed radically liberal, pro-homosexual Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe as a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The Holy Father made the appointment on Saturday, according to Vatican Radio.

Father Radcliffe, an Englishman, author and speaker, was Master of the Dominican order from 1992 to 2001, and is an outspoken proponent of homosexuality.

"We must accompany [gay people] as they discern what this means, letting our images be stretched open,” he said in a 2006 religious education lecture in Los Angeles. “This means watching 'Brokeback Mountain,' reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord."

In 2005, as the Vatican deliberated the admission of men with homosexual tendencies to study for the priesthood in the wake of the Church sex abuse scandal, Father Radcliffe said that homosexuality should not bar men from the priesthood, and rather, those who oppose it should be banned.

As a contributor to the 2013 Anglican Pilling Report on human sexual ethics Father Radcliffe said of homosexuality:

How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift. We can also see how it can be expressive of mutual fidelity, a covenantal relationship in which two people bind themselves to each other for ever.

Father Radcliffe often celebrated Mass for the U.K. dissident group Soho Masses Pastoral Council (now renamed the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council).

The priest is also a supporter of the proposal of to allow communion for divorced and remarried Catholics.

He currently works as director of the Las Casas Institute of Blackfriars at Oxford University, a social justice center.

Social justice is the focus of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, established in 1967 by Pope Paul VI in response to the Vatican II proposal for establishment of a body of the universal Church that would “stimulate the Catholic Community to foster progress in needy regions and social justice on the international scene.”

The pope appoints roughly 40 members and consultors to the pontifical body, according to their background and experience, who serve for five years, giving input to the planning for the Council.

When the Council gathers for assemblies, it’s for discernment of the "signs of the times," Vatican.va states.

London, Ontario's Father Paul Nicholson suggested in his blog that observers can wonder how much Pope Francis knows about Father Radcliffe.

“The Holy Father is only a man, and is limited in how much he can know about any and every appointment,” Father Nicholson wrote. “His primary language is Spanish and perhaps he has not been sufficiently briefed. And that may be done intentionally by those around him.”

The Boston Globe’s Catholic website CRUX called the appointment “a move sure to raise eyebrows among the Church’s traditional guard,” and termed Father Radcliffe “a strong ally of Pope Francis,” before listing various controversies surrounding the Dominican over the years.

The selection of Father Radcliffe by the Holy Father drew criticism from many Catholics.

The Scottish blog Catholic Truth blog called it an “absolutely shocking papal appointment.”

“It’s very clear indeed now, that to be 'a priest in good standing' means to be opposed to all that is truly Catholic – and that includes true morals,” the post read, and called for prayers for the Holy Father.

“Interesting that these appointments are going out over the weekend so people can't comment as readily,” The Eponymous Flower blogged in a post titled, “Evil Dominican Tapped For Important Post.

“Good times for dissident Dominicans” was the headline of the Rorate Caeli post on the papal appointment, which called Father Radcliffe “Uber-liberal.”

“It is true that Radcliffe has ‘opposed’ ‘gay marriage,’” the post said, “but his farcical ‘opposition’ rests on grounds entirely contrary to those of the Church: Radcliffe opposes it because, in his words: ‘gay marriage’ ultimately, we believe, demeans gay people by forcing them to conform to the straight world."

“Radcliffe's acceptability has just received a major upgrade with this latest appointment,” Rorate Caeli stated. “A tremendous slap to the face of so many good Catholics who had opposed him out of fidelity to the faith.”


Poster Comment:

Also a related article on Vatican appointments/dismissals: Pro-Life Cardinal Burke dismissed Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 51.

#2. To: redleghunter, Pericles (#0)

"How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift."

Ok there Father, well, the same thing can be said of divorce and remarriage, unmarried sex between boyfriend and girlfriend, polygamy and polyamory.

Men are certainly capable of loving two or more women at the same time, and raising all of their children as their own. Israel did it. Solomon did it. And David, and Abraham.

And of course since sex can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non- violent, birth control between consenting boyfriend and girlfriend makes eminent sense, right Father?

So tell me, Father, is simple MASTURBATION still a mortal sin?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   13:04:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

I've tried to warn you guys about this pope. He's way too eager to be a world-pleaser.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-05-21   13:13:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13, redleghunter, All (#3)

I've tried to warn you guys about this pope. He's way too eager to be a world-pleaser.

Hey, follow the Pope's lead when he said "who am I to judge?" What a Vicar of Christ, no? So if it's not for the Vicar of Christ to judge I guess it's not for Christ to judge either.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-21   15:51:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: SOSO (#14) (Edited)

What a Vicar of Christ, no?

According to tradition, yes.

In reality, maybe yes, maybe no.

The Borgias were Popes too. Were they Vicars of Christ?

The Church doesn't survive its own evils unscathed. It, too, has failed, just as all men do, because it is made of men.

There's a tradition that says that the Church cannot sin. That tradition is obviously wrong. It can. It has. Maybe it is now, maybe it isn't. I guess if the Church really had POWER over us, I'd care more. But as it is, the real truth is that I have something IT wants from me: my money and my time. So, if it doesn't give me what I want, it doesn't get what it wants from me. Just like the Republican Party. My loyalty to ANY human being or organization is NEVER absolute. It's ALWAYS contingent: you please me and I'll please you. You do what you're supposed to do and I'll do my part. But if you don't do what I think you're supposed to do, then I'm not really going to go out of my way to do anything for you either. That's the way it is.

The Protestants have played the game the Pope and the liberal Catholics seem to be playing now. They made priestesses and bless gay marriages and support abortion and all that. And they emptied out. The liberals for the most part stopped coming - waste of time and money. The conservatives went and found evangelical Churches. Many Catholics buy their own propaganda that "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church". The error they make is in thinking that the government organization and political structure they call "The Church" is what Jesus meant by "Ecclesia". It isn't. The Catholic Church can dry up and blow away like any other human government. God is present among the faithful there, in supernatural power, for it's that assembly of the faithful that is the Ekklesia. If they leave the physical and political structures that are called "The Catholic Church", then the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Ekklesia - God is still with the Ekklesia. All that has happened is that a bunch of men in a political organization have overplayed their hand, lost their contributors, and destroyed their organization, which they CALL "The Church", but which is not REALLY "THE" Church, and which never, ever was. Catholics do not currently believe this. One need only see the empty and dead churches all over Europe to see that Satan - or just plain human indifference, can indeed prevail against the political governmental structure that CALLS ITSELF "THE" "Catholic Church". God's still there, in the Ekklesia, but the Ekklesia - those called out - is wherever two or more people loyal to God assemble to call upon Jesus and pray to the Father. THAT is THE CHURCH, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against THAT. The Roman Catholic Church can fail and fall into a ruin just as the Mainline Protestant Churches are, for the same reasons. If the inner political controllers walk away from the constituency, the constituency will stop giving money and stop attending, and the Catholic Church, like any other human organization, will cease to exist and disappear from the face of the earth. The Ekklesia will always be there. Whether the Catholic Church houses it or not depends on whether the people who are the Ekklesia choose to make church within the buildings of the Catholic "Church", and whether or not they choose to tolerate Catholic "priests" as their spiritual shepherds. If the priests become odious by molesting children, running away with money, and then preaching absurdities, the Ekklesia will leave and reassemble somewhere else, and the "Churches" will turn into museums. To traditional Catholics, what I have said is "apostasy". It is not. It's the Truth. The belief that the Catholic Church - the political structure that calls itself that, is the thing that is holy and cannot err - even when it visible DOES err, sometimes quite monstrously - well, THAT is idolatry. And it's an error. But there's no point in tearing open these wounds. The better answer is for Catholics and all other Christians to huddle together in Ekklesia, follow the (few, direct, clear) precepts of Christ, and rely on God directly and on each other. Any particular Pope may or may not be the Vicar of Christ - that depends on Christ. Men were never given the power to decide such things. Just following Christ and sticking with each other is hard enough. When the shepherds start acting like perverts and sticking up for perverts, it's time to stop calling those men shepherds.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   16:37:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#18)

The Ekklesia will always be there. Whether the Catholic Church houses it or not depends on whether the people who are the Ekklesia choose to make church within the buildings of the Catholic "Church", and whether or not they choose to tolerate Catholic "priests" as their spiritual shepherds. If the priests become odious by molesting children, running away with money, and then preaching absurdities, the Ekklesia will leave and reassemble somewhere else, and the "Churches" will turn into museums.

Excellent commentary. I agree.

This is exactly what is happening with PCUSA.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   17:35:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#22)

Off topic but I didn't want to start another thread on this.

Matthew 19:28

"28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Twelve? That would include Judas, no?

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   0:10:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: SOSO, ALL (#37)

Acts 1:12 (NIV)

Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas [12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city. [13] When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. [14] They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. [15] In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) [16] and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— [17] he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” [18] (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. [19] Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) [20] “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.' [21] Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, [22] beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” [23] So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. [24] Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen [25] to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.”

The Lord chose Matthias to take Juda's place. Acts 1 Shared from PocketBible for Windows Store (http://www.laridian.com)

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-22   1:59:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: GarySpFC, Don, All (#41)

This was AFTER the event recorded in Matthew 19. Judas was in the twelve at the time Jesus said that to the twelve that were there.

"Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

He said you not they or those but you. Was or was not Judas part of the twelve at the time Jesus spoke those words?

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   15:09:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: SOSO (#46)

I'll tell you what I think Jesus meant by "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

I think that there are two possible understandings.

One is that, as of that moment, Jesus intended for all twelve of them to sit on thrones. Judas was an apostle at that point, and Jesus intended a throne for him. Judas' later apostasy cost him that throne.

This change of future course doesn't perturb me, for two reasons. First, Jesus - especially in Mark - admits that there are things that he does not know about the future, things that only the Father knows. This is why that word "God" in English, when applied to Jesus, is so treacherous. In ENGLISH, "God" means omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal. But in GREEK and HEBREW, "theos" and "elohiym" mean "Mighty Ones" and "Divine Powers".

Thus, to be "theos" in Greek is to be divine - which Jesus certainly was because he was the Son of God, and just as the prince is every bit as royal as the king but isn't king, so too Jesus is every bit as divine as the Father, and yet is not the Father. Jesus is divine - and a Power - theos - but JESUS has a God, and HIS God is the Father. Both are divine, the Father is greater, at least at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. So, the divine Jesus is truly divine - truly god - but he is NOT omniscient, for he himself says that there are things that only the Father knows. Nor is he omnipotent, for all of his power comes from the Father. He says that too. In Greek and Hebrew this works splendidly, for "Theos" is divine. But in English, it only works if we stop defining "God" as perforce meaning omniscient. Jesus is certainly divine, he is indeed God, but he is NOT omniscient, at least not when he walks the earth. He says so.

The problem here is not with Scripture, it's that our English word "God" runs PAST the God of Scripture and insists upon ascribing all of the attributes of God Most High, of the Father and Son and Spirit all together, to the Son in his human state, because he's divine and we use the word "God" for that. Yes, Jesus is divine. Yes, Jesus is God. No, Jesus was neither omnipotent nor omniscient when he was walking the earth teaching his apostles. He was fully divine - fully God - but God doesn't MEAN omnipotent and omniscient. During that time, the FATHER was all that, but Jesus - fully divine - fully God - was NOT omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnipresent. Perhaps he emptied himself to enter the human state, but that's speculative. The key is that when Jesus said those words to Judas too, he meant them, but he could not necessarily fully foresee the future, for only the Father, Jesus' God, could do that,

So, that's one possible answer.

A nuance of it is that Jesus was speaking the way YHWH did in the Old Testament. YHWH consistently promised great things to the Hebrews, BUT it was always predicated on the Hebrews following his commandments and code. God did not repeat that fact every time he said he'd do something great, but it was always understood, and God's behavior always made it clear that, whatever he promised, you could lose out on that promise if you were rebellious.

So, perhaps Jesus did not know at that point that Judas would betray him and it was Judas' betrayal that acted like every other rebellion in Scripture: to lose the promised blessing. We may not like the way God presents his promises, without the legalistic asterisk, but He's God and he doesn't have to respect our legalistic norms.

That's one branch of possibility.

The other is that Jesus knew all along that Jesus would betray him, and that Judas was a liar from the beginning. If that's the case, then even as Judas stood there Jesus had already eliminated him from "you who have followed me", because Judas hadn't really followed Jesus, only pretended to. That there will be twelve thrones in the end is established, and that those who follow him will sit on them is clear enough. The disciple who replaced Judas may well have been there too, after all.

As I see it, those are two (and a half) explanations of the text that all satisfy me insofar as they don't change the text (though the first does insist on the proper definition of "God" which is not the traditional English definition when applied to Jesus during his human mission), and all make sense and fit in with everything else.

I know that they won't satisfy some others for various reasons. Some will dig in on the erroneous English understanding of the word "God". That error is why the Trinity, as understood by so many, is an incomprehensible muddle. As revealed, in the Greek, it is comprehensible. With the later traditional "embellishments", it isn't.

I know that some will try to play lawyer with the present tense in English and the pronoun "you",

I see the arguments, but I don't think they're particular good in this case.

Any of the two branches of explanation works. Which one is actually true? I have no way of knowing that.

There, there was a reasonable discussion of Scripture and of a problem with it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:28:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 51.

#53. To: Vicomte13 (#51)

At the Last Supper, Christ knew Judas would betray Him.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22 17:32:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Vicomte13 (#51)

I think that there are two possible understandings.

So the words of Christ, God's Words, are ambiguous and require interpretation by man? Well, at long last you admit it.

"One is that, as of that moment, Jesus intended for all twelve of them to sit on thrones. Judas was an apostle at that point, and Jesus intended a throne for him. Judas' later apostasy cost him that throne."

So Jesus, the Son of God, didn't know His fate and didn't know that Judas was going to betray Him? Really? Then what was He telling (hinting about) to the Apostles about His death and resurrection from almost the beginning?

"The other is that Jesus knew all along that Jesus would betray him, and that Judas was a liar from the beginning. If that's the case, then even as Judas stood there Jesus had already eliminated him from "you who have followed me", because Judas hadn't really followed Jesus, only pretended to. That there will be twelve thrones in the end is established, and that those who follow him will sit on them is clear enough. The disciple who replaced Judas may well have been there too, after all."

This is a more plausible answer but it still abundantly makes the point clear that the meaning of Scripture, in this case the specific words of Christ (if the recording of the event is accurate) are open to interpretation, albeit reasoned interpretation but interpretation none-the-less.

You are an honest man. Not like some here on LF.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22 20:50:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 51.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com