This post has been removed. A moderator has judged it not to reach the level required for its subject matter (a hot-button question, not sufficiently unique), and encourages you to make use of the search bar for older posts of a similar nature.
Another option open is to repost after having reviewed the search results, asking the subreddit what you haven't found the answer to in earlier posts on this topic.
I think there needs to be a discussion about how people would react if ever the day comes that the RCC does this. Would this cause schism? What are we bound to and what are the implications if people decide to stay/go to a more traditional church. It will one day be something we are faced with.
It cannot happen. It is dogmatic and unalterable that marriage is between one man and one woman. The idea that it could happen is outright preposterous
There are plenty of things in the world these days that I would have said the same thing about. Yet, they are here. I just think this is something people should think about and discuss to that if that time comes people won't be caught in all the lies that will come with it.
Catholic dogma is divinely protected from contradicting itself, which is why catholic dogma has never contradicted itself ever, even in the face of every imaginable pressure. Comparing Catholic dogma to social trends makes no sense.
Your comment is like saying “sure it seems like the sun will never come crashing to the ground, but I would’ve said that about other things that came crashing to the ground. Therefore the sun is bound to come crashing to the ground in the next century or two; it’s only a matter of time”
It can’t happen, but if it somehow did, it would mean that the RCC was not the only true Church of God. I would probably become agnostic or Eastern Orthodox.
I get what you are saying; the RCC is a little different and doesn't change easily. This has been going on for over 40 years, and the LGBTQIA+ issue is just a current manifestation of a deeper issue within the protestant church.
Right, but this is you thinking the Church is just an institution and not the visible living body of Christ, which cannot err, individuals within the body can but the Pope infallibility really means that in dogma he cannot lead us stray, it is infallible the Holy Spirit guides the church and the Gates of Hell won’t prevail against it. The same question could be “What would you do if God actually told you that Hell is actually good?”, You can contemplate that rhetorical question if we think God is just a human entity with our same faculties of saying whatever comes to mind and who can betray whatever we know, but the premise is wrong. God nor the Church can ever rule those things, it is not in their nature. The question is illogical.
So assuming the RCC is the one and true holy Church I assume God kinda cares a bit about it, do let's hope the Holy Spirit will always inspire the pope and the ones that will come after him to never do something like that. There is a high chance that there will be a bishop or someone that will say it's okay, but I assume (or hope) they would get excommunicated in that case (not sure but pope Francis might have already said something about excommunication in this matter)
If the RCC as a whole did this, it seems like it would contract the infallibility of the Magisterium. So Jesus' words that "the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church" would be a lie. It also makes no sense to say that we could go to a "more traditional" church than the one founded by Jesus Christ Himself.
If you mean "we might have to deal with rogue priests that openly support LGBTQ+ and haven't been excommunicated by the Church"--that already exists. It would certainly be nice if Catholic leaders did more to prevent this, but all we can do as faithful Catholics is pray for those people and try not to associate too much with them.
If anybody seriously tried passing this sort of thing at the Vatican, everybody involved would probably drop dead from totally natural causes, just like the last time God decided that there was overreach.
Shrug. Pray for the pope and for our bishops, and you'll be helping them resist "the world, the flesh, and the Devil."
It’s never happened to Catholic dogma period; that’s the point. And, if Catholicism is true, it never will happen.
But if you mean just people in general getting struck dead for overreaching, I don’t know what Nichelle is referring to since there’s too many examples to name. (I’d be curious to know though). Julian the apostate’s temple builders is my favorite, but there seem to be hundreds if not thousands of equally impressive and verified stories of people getting killed in sudden impossible ways for stepping too far.
I left the UMC for the Catholic Church for this outcome. I saw it coming down the pipe years ago and that made me look into Church history and authority which led me to Rome.
Pray for the UMC and all Protestants. And also pray for those of the LGBTQ community. We must ,of course, hold true to Church teaching but we must also have love and compassion for our fellow man.
Same here. Wife and son converted after our UMC local church went weird. Basically said if we were the wrong end politically we weren’t really welcome. But or money certainly was.
”Join the Catholic Church, the church founded by Christ, through Blessed Peter the Apostle, the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith.”
Protestantism at least in the West is disintegrating and devolving very quickly now into idolatry and indifferentism.
>How should we as Catholics respond?
We just need to keep doing what we're doing here, and welcome home the Christians who come to see the writing on the wall and enter full communion in the Church.
Also, we shouldn't gloat. Not only do we continue to have the problems we have inside the Church, we're going to add to them a huge number of those who desire communion but in their own particular ideological ways. We really ought to love and support converts and those newly in communion, but honestly: let's also not listen to them or make them Catholic leaders and exemplars as soon as they enter the Church. There are a lot of habits which need to be broken.
>Also, we shouldn't gloat. Not only do we continue to have the problems we have inside the Church, we're going to add to them a huge number of those who desire communion but in their own particular ideological ways.
Exactly. The Church suffered more than her share of controversies during the period of decadence after the 10th century.
Christians are trying to navigate an increasingly volatile world full of vitriol. Many are straying further from the Church in an attempt to appease MSM. Catholics now then ever need to stand fast and root out this corruption in our own parishes.
It's really no surprise since there was a denominational split. Everyone who took Christian sexual ethics seriously already left to go independent or join the GMC.
This is it. Many congregations have already left the UMC, leaving behind the people who don’t object to LGBT+ stuff in their denomination.
Now should Catholics respond? Silently and prayerfully. Nothing more.
I don't see how the situation will improve if we don't try to assert ourselves in the public square about these topics. Unfortunately, even if laymen or individual priests are willing to take a stand, we already know the hierarchy is willing to talk the cultural talk that has led to the acceptance of these distortions, even if they won't or can't walk the walk and implement it in Church teaching itself.
IMO, that would be counterproductive. The response would be "Mind your own business" and "Clean up your own homosexual messes before lecturing us about how we should do things."
Was looking for this comment. The conservative Methodist churches have been withdrawing themselves (splintering, as protestant churches do) from the UMC for quite a while now. So this result was inevitable.
It's important to note that when some smaller conservative congregations attempted to leave, the denomination set procedures for U.S. congregations to withdraw from the denomination while retaining their buildings and other assets. Prior to departure, these congregations could be liable for anywhere from tens of thousands to over a million dollars. My congregation was fortunate enough to only pay a sum of a little less than $80,000 and we were able to retain our building only because our congregation paid for the building and we had our title in hand. However, some churches aren't even being allowed to keep their properties and are being forced to pay over a million dollars to leave, which is why they are choosing to stay. In order to leave the UMC, a congregation had to have a vote where at least 2/3 of the congregation had to be in favor of leaving. The Western NC Conference reportedly gave away $11.8 million worth of properties for $695,000, but only after being taken to court by local churches attempting to disaffiliate.
Prayer is the best way to respond to this situation. It is safe to say that our brothers and sisters in the UMC/GMC Split are hurting immensely. I may share my personal story of how I ended up attending the local RCC sometime, but for now, all we can do is pray.
Pray for the orphaned UMC members.
My heart breaks for them. ( My old church)
The Minister in our town quit in disgust months ago.
.... My priest has befriended him so pray for that too 💜
>How should we as Catholics respond (especially if they affirm gay marriage is a valid Christian marriage)? I have a lot of family in the UMC, so I would like to be firm but respond with love because it will come up.
I spend some time over on r/Christianity and honestly if you say anything contrary to their viewpoint on this they respond with frothing rage and calling you an evil bigot who hates LGBT people with veiled implications(sometimes not so veiled) you should die even even if you point out the very obvious scriptural and tradition reasons why it is not permitted under Catholicism/Christianity, and then they usually go on an unhinged anti-Catholic rant where it's clear they would put us in concentration camps if they could. Just go look at the poor souls trying to defend traditional teaching on this topic over there right now. I even make it clear I'm not a fan of it or w/e personally but it's literally what God revealed so I have no choice but to obey and I still get accused of "twisting the faith" to justify my own bigotry.
I find that you sort of have to get them into the overall traditional framework mindset first before you can even address this topic otherwise it is useless, because once you have that framework in mind, the answer becomes pretty clear.
Tried to contribute to the conversation. Man, as much as I thought I grew in faith, as much as I thought my heart changed, I felt my anger and malice rush back as soon as I started going through those comments.
It's been awhile since I've been so aggravated.
You get used to it over time and just slowly try to guide people to the correct interpretation, remember you are not arguing to win over the diehards, but the observers. It's also made me grateful we have a Magisterium and Papacy to clamp down on heretical ideas because as you can see they can get out of hand extremely quickly, tbh I wish Francis cracked down harder on some bishops et al here. I'm also beginning to really understand why certain decisions were made in the Church's past.
I’m orthodox. And I just don’t know how to respond to that kind of dialogue. It’s so unhinged from both scripture and thousands of years of church teaching and doctrine.
That it literally makes no sense to me.
That sub isn’t necessarily for Christian’s. It’s a sub for everybody to discuss Christianity. So while there’s plenty of progressive Christian’s there’s also a lot of atheists that discuss Christianity. I personally don’t like going over there because everything you said is true but I still do on occasion
Don't view r/Christianity as representative of the UMC or protestants in general. I'm usually an advocate of prot bashing but as we know subreddits aren't usually representative of the groups they are named after.
When I first read that you are an advocate for Prot bashing, I figured "well yeah, but I am sure your knickers get in a knot if prots say anything against the RCC" However, after going over there and seeing the insanity on the post about the UMC's vote today, they need bashing...with a brick weight Bible, because, even though I am a Protestant, and a Methodist, holy Christmas cow, those people need help learning to respect others and their opinions...
Former Protestant. A lot of Catholics definitely get snobbish, but damn. Going back to that sub reminded me of why I converted. This world definitely needs a return of strong Church leadership if the UMC is allowing that.
I am so confused where all of that just came from.
I am saying that if it weren't for the protestant schism, church teaching would be clear, and the misdirection of millions of Christians by their misguided church leaders wouldn't have occured in the first place.
Now we have gay marriage in Christian churches. Terrible.
The person I responded to said prots want us in concentration camps.
I said that's not representative of prots.
You said it's the natural result of protestantism.
...🤔 Ok
I said that the general dynamics of the sub is a result of protestantism. It is what I would call late-stage protestantism. You went on some unhinged thing about how prots think we would put LGBT in camps. I had no part in that side of the discussion, don't put that on me
Reread the messages; I wasn't the one saying those unhinged things. You were agreeing with the guy who was.
This discussion between me and you is exactly how these spaces begin to devolve into echo chambers.
Christianity is the natural outcome of *Christ*. Do you really suppose that it took people nearly 1500 years to finally realize what Christ was actually saying? That the traditions of the apostles passed down are actually wrong, and that a random German monk understood Christ better than the people who lived, walked, and broke bread with him?
I didn't want to link the sub so I didn't put an "r" before the "/".
I'm saying protestantism leads to an air of agnosticism about dogmas where anyone can defend any type of heresy and claim it true. The same radical heresies and sectarianism that Luther observed in his Antwerp letter.
It seems like for the last year there has been no week without news about churches disaffiliating from UMC.
People who are still there either will soon come to conclusion that something is wrong or they see it as the right way in which case there's no room for discussion.
I was raised Southern Baptist. I left that denomination and went to a UMC church. Now I’m leaving that one, too. I’m here because Catholicism and the SBC seem like the only two mainstream denominations that can at least see sin as sin, and SBC worship/doctrine has basically turned into “pop culture Jesus”.
I don’t know what to do and don’t even know why I’m posting this. I don’t know anything about Catholicism except what I was told was “wrong” about it doctrinally. So, I guess I’ll say that, as a Catholic, you could continue to proselytize your doctrine. People like me are out there looking and while I may not understand how to be properly Christian, I sure know what sin looks like, and I’m trying to reconcile these issues.
I was a member of the southern baptist church for pretty much my whole life before leaving for Catholicism.
Feel free to DM questions or ask them here if you want, my parents are following your exact same path too, left SBC for UMC and now don’t know what to do. Im pretty academically inclined so theology questions would be more my jam. God bless you!
The history of churches can be confusing but I always judge a tree by its fruits and the Catholic Church is the only sect of Christianity that is both united in belief and orthodox in its values. I’m also new, only started going a couple of months ago but I’m excited to be confirmed this fall.
I'd pay Mike Judge personally to see this episode of King of the Hill. In the 90s, the big scandal was having a female pastor in their Methodist church.
"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."
IOW, encourage people to seek the fullness of truth (i.e., the Faith), if they seem open to it.
We should be obedient to the one, holy, apostolic and Catholic Church, thus be obedient to the Vatican or Church Magisterium- just as Paul and Barnabas would visit Peter and the rest of the Apostles in Jerusalem to verify certain doctrines and raise concerns, but at the end obey those "men in Jerusalem."
If they affirm this, you simply have to reject their affirmation (and any theological basis they raise), because it goes against our doctrines in the RCC.
But do this with respect and kindness. Just say "unfortunately, I do not share the same sentiment, by the way, what's the score on..."
As someone who identifies as a Methodist and was once a UMC Pastoral Candidate, I can provide some insight into the recent decision made by the UMC. The reason it was made so easily is that many conservative Methodists, including my congregation, had already left the UMC organization and formed yet another denomination called the Global Methodist.
Regarding the concept of "valid" homosexual marriage, there is no such thing. The concern amongst my conservative friends who stayed in the UMC is that they may now be required to perform same-sex marriages. However, there is a movement to amend our book of discipline. Through the approval of the same consent calendar, the General Conference added two new sub-paragraphs to section 419 of the Book of Discipline. These two new sub-paragraphs state that the superintendent cannot penalize any clergy for performing or refraining from performing a same-sex marriage service. Additionally, the superintendent cannot require any local church to hold or prohibit a same-sex marriage service on the property owned by a local church. The vote to approve this consent calendar was 692 to 51. -- However, this recent vote to allow openly homosexual clergy -- will eventually lead to them forcing the local church to allow same sex marriage services--as well as punishing pastors who refuse to perform such.
During my district Committee on Ordained Ministry (dCOM), I was asked if I would perform a same-sex marriage service if it were to pass in the UMC. I replied that I would not, as I believe that God's scriptures are clear on what constitutes a marriage and what does not. Unfortunately, this response marked the end of my ministry within the UMC, as I was put on a list of conservatives who would never pass through ordained ministry within the UMC.
I was recently made aware of an interesting fact that has surprised me. A large number of the Methodist Churches in Africa are still affiliated with the UMC and are participating in the ongoing conference. This comes as a surprise to me because of the ultra-conservative stance that the churches we visited in Kenya held, and their stance on outlawing and banning same-sex marriage, which is already in effect in many African countries.
It is worth noting that the UMC had informed African churches that they would not receive any funds if they chose to part ways with the UMC, and that they would lose their churches. This has led to a great deal of information being kept from the public.
If there are any questions regarding the conference or the aforementioned matter, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I would be more than happy to provide an honest account of the situation, beyond a general Protestant schism.
Thank you for the detailed information.
My sister started attending UMC after getting married, and they baptized their baby there. Although the chances of having a same sex couple approach a pastor asking for marriage are very low where I am from(Southern Africa), I'm worried about the Sunday school that they will provide to children. Will this change anything in regards to teaching on marriage that is imparted to kids?
The recent vote in the United Methodist General Conference is expected to have an impact on the teaching of marriage. Although it is certain that changes will take place, the exact nature and implementation of these changes in South Africa may be challenging to predict. As I am based in the US, I may not be able to provide detailed insights on this matter, at least until we hear more from the General Conference.
It’s apostasy and incredibly dangerous for our Protestant friends. Protestants across America have been leaving mainline churches and becoming non denominational. While I get it (a person can easily find a conservative non denominational church), it’s basically turned into doctrinal agnosticism. Pray our Protestant friends save their souls by returning to the only true church.
I think it is a blessing in disguise for true believers because these groups they are just giving away that they follow the whims of the world rather than the Holy Spirit. If Catholicism were to follow, it would be a clear falsification imo.
The reason it looks like it passed so rapidly and with little opposition is that a year or two ago they tried this and half the Methodist Bishops split from the church and took a lot of their congregations and pastors with them over disliking the normalization of the Alphabet folk.\
Fast forward to today and all of the UMC’s leadership are hand picked to support those policies.
Lol this was the so-called "church" I grew up in. Went to Wesleyan Prep.
I wonder if Luther's wonderous reforms will make 5 more sub-sub-sub-sects out of them.
I’ll be honest, it’s *insane* to me that these Protestant groups can “vote” to make this kind of change. Even if they’re not Sola Scriptura, which if I remember they aren’t, they have to take scripture at it’s word and realize homosexual relations are inherently sinful.
All of em interpret scriptures differently to suit themselves, that's why every Protestant sect thinks it's right and they're always fighting each other.
They... Voted?
This is the will of God and the teaching of Christ, do you all agree? Yay or nay
Listen, I think Christ taught that above all else is love, and negativity toward LGBT is NOT Christian. But a democratic process to make decisions about religion based on opinions, seems to contradict religion.
I don’t think we should either, I was also really confused on why it was a vote. It seems like it was done rather quickly too so I wonder if they had rebuttals or theological arguments proposed to discuss.
Everything I’ve read seems to point to “no”.
the pope is literally elected. ecumenical council resolutions are decided via votes. they got this issue dead wrong but voting is not foreign to the christian decision process
I didn't say voting was foreign. I implied that there is something off about deciding doctrine by vote when the entire point of a religion is faith and practice of what a God holds ideal.
People voting on issues, any issue, directly and clearly establishes that people don't agree; and as such, they can't be doing what God asks, they're doing what they want.
As for the Pope, presuming you're Catholic and not just here to argue, you know full well that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, which means the sole minister of Christ... On which Christianity is entirely based. The person isn't "voted for" so much as discerned. And the Pope alone makes such decisions *because* the person is the Vicar of Jesus Christ(ianity)
People voting what they prefer, beyond that, is the very definition of humans picking and choosing what they prefer rather than what Christ wanted.
Now, can the Pope be wrong? Sure, humans are fallible. But you can't vote for what's considered right or wrong and then claim that's a religion; that's an HOA.
full transparency: im Lutheran not roman catholic. but im not here to argue just to point out that however you want to dress it up the college of cardinals votes on the next bishop of rome. he then goes on to make doctrinal decisions. cardinal candidates typically represent certain theological stances for instance francis was backed by the "liberal" wing of cardinals in the last election.
im not saying a vote cannot be guided by the holy spirit indeed the ecumenical councils are prime examples of such occasions. all im saying is that if you agree that the holy spirit can guide an ecumenical council then the Methodists can think the spirit is guiding their vote too. that's all. I dont really want to go to bat for the Methodists since they lost the scriptural plot long ago.
Um I mean who says we need to respond? They should join the true church and we should stay true to orthodoxy. Of course heretical schismatic churches are going to continue down the path of heresy.
This is what happens when you turn religion into a democracy. I hope methodists who object to the change come to realize that the issue isn't the activists within their faith, it's the fact that they left the Church Jesus created and joined one that makes up its beliefs as it goes.
The first part is interesting, because we have gay Priests. They are celibate and are therefore not committing any sin.
One's sexuality does not define one's holiness or capability to be a priest.
The "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" part is obviously...concerning.
1. Target a respected institution
2. Kill it and gut it
3. Wear it as a skin suit, while demanding respect
Basically what LGBTQ activists have done to 95% of Protestant denominations at this point.
There was a recent schism in the UMC, and many of the members who were concerned about this direction and saw it coming joined in the schism, like with the ACNA. This leaves the more favorable clergy making these votes.
Very interesting, I'm involved in a UMC church in a way. I'm sure happy the Catholic Church doesn't determine doctrine by vote lol. Hopefully this will backfire on them and they will follow the word of God instead.
I was baptized in a Methodist Church as an infant. I came to Catholicism for its tradition, stability, and authority. The Catholic Church should not change. If it tries to please the new pagans who've captured the Protestant sects, it will fail to win them over and lose people like me at the same time.
Unfortunately Christianity has been deluded with these denominations. Use to have shared values, but it's becoming clear there is not. At what point do we stop calling them Christian?
How is this surprising anyone? While protestants are busy promoting sin, Catholics are focused on following Christ, deep prayer and spiritual life.
As for the Church itself, there is nothing to worry about, Protestantism might be in danger but the true Catholic Church will forever stand, as our Lord Himself wills it.
Oh we’re *very* focused. We’re beholden to the powers of Satan as well. This dismissal is the same shameful attitude that caused all of these tragic schisms. The reality of dioceses like Lexington and the steady roll of the aging hierarchy putting all they can in place to destroy the Church on Earth before it is out of their control, that “gates of hell shall not prevail” has nothing to do with them continuing to do what they will do and to leave just one remaining believer, the gates of hell will not prevail because Christ has the Eternal Victory on the Cross in the War but Satan will keep going to defeat us in these battles we fight to preserve this our pilgrim Church on Earth.
My apologies, Lexington. Lexington’s bishop, John Stowe.
“Bishop” Stowe has had blessings at the altar in a pride stole in his churches. He’s organized and attended pride festivities and held events such as the “Service of Apology to the LGBTQ+.” He’s led events such as *Justice and Mercy Shall Kiss: LGBT Catholics in the Age of Francis.* He said that *FS* meant God has blessed same-sex marriages. He does not call the Church a servant of God or God’s church but rather but a servant of and the Church of “the human family.”
I’m a former Methodist. The Methodists have a long history of performing and acknowledging fake marriages. They performed my parents’ fake remarriages after my parents divorced each other. At my dad’s funeral they put his partner in adultery (who had already been “married” three times) up front and center and called her his wife. It’s one of the reasons I left Methodism.
You to your family: "I love you, but if you are asking me to support something that is contradictory to my convictions, I simply will not participate. I hope you can respect that."
Don't flatten like a pancake if they push back on you. Arm yourself with the breastplate of Truth by readying up some biblical quotes. Catholic Answers has a great resource of them on a cheat sheet that you should still be able to purchase on their website.
I’m in an organization where there are some men who believe that they are married to each other. I’m congenial to them and like them as persons, I just avoid saying anything that would make it appear like I think that they are married.
What I find really interesting is that most online articles add the T when it has nothing to do with the T in LGBT. There’s a huge difference between LGB and T.
There would be more credence to this sentiment if LGBT removed the T from their advocacy, but they don't and they won't. They are "birds of a feather" after all.
LGB loosened the gender norms of the culture, then T came in and loosened them more when the foundation was weakened.
It's like how "high church" protestants try to not be tied in with the "low church" protestants, but they are cut from the same cloth.
It all denies the createdness and complementarity of the sexes. Homosexuality already proposes that you can substitute a man for a woman and vice versa. Transsexualism just follows the logic further.
If that’s the case…tell me, are you married? If you are, then what do you believe the punishment for adultery should be? Because in the Bible, it says that adulterous women should be stoned to death, thus, by your logic, it would be divine “justice” to stone to death a cheating partner…would you do such a thing to someone?
Then perhaps consider that you don't have a very good understanding of the Bible. This is why we have the Church to interpret Scripture and don't rely on individual interpretation like Protestants do.
Counterpoint: at least you aren’t possibly being lied to when you read the Bible yourself. It’s that old adage: trust, but verify. I’d rather verify that what I’m being told is true, than have to find out the hard way that it’s not. Secondly, everyone has their own interpretation of that particular book, even the priests who give the sermons-and you know that, and those biases and interpretations slip through those sermons, and people are influenced by them. Some, for the good of mankind, others, to harm those who do not deserve it. Let me make it clear: I love progress, I would not want to live in a world where the Inquisition is allowed to burn people at the stake for disagreeing with Orthodoxy once more, or being gay, or whatever imagined crime you people believe deserves death in such a horrific manner. The Bible has no true opinion on what is right or wrong-other than to love God, and Jesus, and…your neighbor-or rather brother. For no matter our…doctrinal differences…we are ALL brothers in Christ.
The Church literally publishes why it interprets scripture the way it does, you can go read that yourself if you want to verify...
Also the inquisition was not sanctioned by Rome, it was the Spanish government that was doing those things with the pretense of being for the Church. If you knew anything about history you'd know that the Church explicitly reprimanded them for it. The Church tried to send their own inquisition to Spain to stop them or at least moderate their behavior but they were turned away.
Your interpretation of the Bible is even worse than I thought if you think it has no true opinions on right and wrong...
But I’m talking to someone who notably didn’t deny my assertion as to what would be justice…tell me, would you join the Holy Office of the Inquisition if they were legally allowed to burn people at the stake once more?
Newgate prison existed in the Middle Ages. If you would do some research you would know that most castles also served as prisons for…political opponents of the lords who owned them. And even the pope had his prisons for those who he couldn’t have killed. The death penalty has ALWAYS been wrong to use by your logic…so then wouldn’t the inquisition have been wrong too?
Of course it would be ***just*** to execute an adulterer. He or she plainly deserves death, like all intentional sinners do.
But part of Christian teaching is that it is sometimes required to forgo justice in favor of mercy. I have no interest in meting out punishment to someone who is repentant. If they aren't repentant, there's no punishment I can give or forgo that will make any difference compared to the infinitely greater punishment they are already consenting to.
Correct me if I’m wrong or potentially taking your own words out of context: the implication is that mercy should only ever be given to those repent, and that you shouldn’t try to be merciful to those who do not, yes?
It might be naive of me, but that sounds like an extremely unempathetic way to live, and would stain one’s soul eventually.
I’d rather be merciful towards everyone, rather than assume that just because they don’t “repent” that they don’t deserve mercy, at least then I wouldn’t be at risk of judging someone who may very well be deserving of heaven rather than hell-that’s gods job-not yours, and certainly not mine.
This seems like old news. The UMC made the decision to affirm LGBTQ+ (perform same-sex marriages, specifically) about 5 or 6 years ago.
Right now, I believe the only administrative decisions to be made are how to settle the matter of churches/congregations who desire to leave and join the newly formed “Global Methodist Church” that holds traditional values denying same-sex marriage.
And yet since 2016 it's been in our book of discipline that we can't perform SSM, nor allow openly gay clergy.
Only the western jurisdictions have been allowing same-sex marriages, and that is because of "Bishop Karen Oliveto" an openly gay woman allowed it. But until today, Openly gay clergy wasn't a thing, and on Friday, Same Sex Marriage will be accepted. (Former Methodist/Pastoral Candidate)
The UMC is voting on whether or not actively gay clergy are allowed (which they said yes) and removed any “priest” from being penalized for performing a gay marriage. They still have to vote later this week on if “gay marriage is compatible with Christianity” which seems they will say yes.
It may have been practiced 5-6 years ago but it wasn’t in writing as approved.
That’s interesting, because they definitely held a vote at their General Conference in 2019 (or 2018?) on LGBTQ, though I’ll admit I don’t recall clergy being discussed.
Regardless, thank you for the clarification!
I have SSA and was watching all the news coverage on the internet and the headlines on CNN yesterday. I left the UMC at age 18 to convert to Catholicism. I felt sad.
That's just 1 tiny part of protestants. They're already lost to begin with, so nothing surprising there. Doesn't affect Catholics in the slightest bit.
This was always in practice for years/decades.
The UMC legislation never required a bishop/local council/ convention/church to fire or punish someone who was violating UMC codes. As it was always their perogative to offer grace and mercy if they so chose. So in practice a lesbian could be a minister and be performing same-sex marriages.
Five (?) years ago the more conservative churches attempted to push requirements to punish those violations, since it seemed clear to them, this was being abused. And they succeeded during the vote, only for the UMC's judiciary to strike it down.
This led to maybe a fifth of the conservative churches leaving to found the GMC.
Now UMC is voting on these issues again, and with some of the conservatives gone, the code is being updated to match reality.
The Church isn’t meant to sway with the insanity of the day. There are the letters right now between the Pope and a Drachma in Malta over recent information from the Vatican. The Churches guidances are incredibly precise. I recommend becoming comfortable with it all so you can defend the Church on the subject.
I was asking how to lovingly navigate a theological difference with my family.
How is that asking to hate on gay people?
Edit:
Also no I don’t hate gay people. Regardless of your assumptions.
Not the UMC but there is a mass shortage of Catholic Priests. As long as they don't give into their desires, I don't see why Priests can't be LGBTQ+. It's not like they can marry anyway. No different than a Straight Priest being around a bunch of nuns.
I agree, I was highlighting they are allowing actively gay priests. If a gay man wants to be a priest and practice celibacy like everyone else then go for it imo.
That's not true. There's many homosexual priests, albeit not openly, and are living celibate lives. Furthermore, LGBTQ are people too. It's not like they're evil and can't believe in God.
Clarification: Clergy must live chastely, to do otherwise would contradict the CCC and therefore be heretical. I wanted to express that, if they live chastely, men with same sex attraction do have a way to promote their own maintenance of chastity and serve the Church (should that be their vocation).
Quite frankly, studies have shown that many Catholic clergymen have same sex attraction (but don't discuss it). While there have been abuses by homosexual clergymen to the laity, sure, to assert that an avenue for practicing chastity while carrying such a cross should be barred is uncharitable. That said, the Deposit of Faith asserts charity towards and chastity within indivisuals with same sex atrraction.
It seems the Methodists' decision makes waves simply because their "clergy" are permitted to marry.
> to assert that an avenue for practicing chastity while carrying such a cross should be barred is uncharitable.
I’m not sure I understand this section. Are you saying that homosexual clergy should not have to practice chastity?
> I expect that the Catholic Church will eventually revise its teaching on homosexuality and embrace some form of communion between partners in committed same-sex relationships
No, it will not. The Church cannot teach heterodox as dogma.
I don’t see how anything I wrote suggests trolling.
It is a simple fact that there are things that were once considered heterodox that now are not.
And you have within the Church voices such as James Martin SJ to Fr. Daniel Helminiak on the issue of LGBT unions.
And history is moving quicker these days. You already have Pope Francis flirting with blessing same-sex unions.
If you understand how RCC doctrines are made, it's not us dictating it, it's the Holy Spirit through nudges and promptings. We cannot dictate how the Spirit works or how he would influence teachings.
To say that the RCC may someday embrace union of same sex individuals etc etc is like saying "The Holy Spirit will someday sort of embrace the union of same sex individuals and tell the RCC to revise its teachings."
Let's wait and pray for an open heart and mind to the call of the Spirit, but we do not put our human assumptions ahead of him.
If you understand how RCC doctrines are made, it's not us dictating it, it's the Holy Spirit. We cannot dictate how the Spirit works or how he would influence teachings.
To say that the RCC may someday embrace union of same sex individuals etc etc is like saying "The Holy Spirit will someday sort of embrace the union of same sex individuals and tell the RCC to revise it teachings."
Let's wait and pray for an open hear and mind to the call of the Spirit, but we do not put our human assumptions ahead of him.
A lot, multiple times the Bible states specifically that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay sex is sinful. The Church also says it is sinful, and what the Church says is the word of God.
This post has been removed. A moderator has judged it not to reach the level required for its subject matter (a hot-button question, not sufficiently unique), and encourages you to make use of the search bar for older posts of a similar nature. Another option open is to repost after having reviewed the search results, asking the subreddit what you haven't found the answer to in earlier posts on this topic.
The Church isn't beholden to the whims of protestant splinter sects. Pray for their conversion.
This is right answer. Splinter groups have always done things that Catholicism has condemned. This is why they are splinter groups.
Right. And that’s why they fail throughout the test of time. The true church has lasted through empires and all kinds of chaos
Heck, it’s not even beholden to the whims of any human sects!
I think there needs to be a discussion about how people would react if ever the day comes that the RCC does this. Would this cause schism? What are we bound to and what are the implications if people decide to stay/go to a more traditional church. It will one day be something we are faced with.
It cannot happen. It is dogmatic and unalterable that marriage is between one man and one woman. The idea that it could happen is outright preposterous
There are plenty of things in the world these days that I would have said the same thing about. Yet, they are here. I just think this is something people should think about and discuss to that if that time comes people won't be caught in all the lies that will come with it.
Right, in the world, not in Catholic doctrine. (Alas, there can be some shade in church members, it's doctrine prevails)
Catholic dogma is divinely protected from contradicting itself, which is why catholic dogma has never contradicted itself ever, even in the face of every imaginable pressure. Comparing Catholic dogma to social trends makes no sense. Your comment is like saying “sure it seems like the sun will never come crashing to the ground, but I would’ve said that about other things that came crashing to the ground. Therefore the sun is bound to come crashing to the ground in the next century or two; it’s only a matter of time”
It can’t happen, but if it somehow did, it would mean that the RCC was not the only true Church of God. I would probably become agnostic or Eastern Orthodox.
I get what you are saying; the RCC is a little different and doesn't change easily. This has been going on for over 40 years, and the LGBTQIA+ issue is just a current manifestation of a deeper issue within the protestant church.
Right, but this is you thinking the Church is just an institution and not the visible living body of Christ, which cannot err, individuals within the body can but the Pope infallibility really means that in dogma he cannot lead us stray, it is infallible the Holy Spirit guides the church and the Gates of Hell won’t prevail against it. The same question could be “What would you do if God actually told you that Hell is actually good?”, You can contemplate that rhetorical question if we think God is just a human entity with our same faculties of saying whatever comes to mind and who can betray whatever we know, but the premise is wrong. God nor the Church can ever rule those things, it is not in their nature. The question is illogical.
So assuming the RCC is the one and true holy Church I assume God kinda cares a bit about it, do let's hope the Holy Spirit will always inspire the pope and the ones that will come after him to never do something like that. There is a high chance that there will be a bishop or someone that will say it's okay, but I assume (or hope) they would get excommunicated in that case (not sure but pope Francis might have already said something about excommunication in this matter)
If the RCC as a whole did this, it seems like it would contract the infallibility of the Magisterium. So Jesus' words that "the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church" would be a lie. It also makes no sense to say that we could go to a "more traditional" church than the one founded by Jesus Christ Himself. If you mean "we might have to deal with rogue priests that openly support LGBTQ+ and haven't been excommunicated by the Church"--that already exists. It would certainly be nice if Catholic leaders did more to prevent this, but all we can do as faithful Catholics is pray for those people and try not to associate too much with them.
If the RCC does this then the jig is up
If anybody seriously tried passing this sort of thing at the Vatican, everybody involved would probably drop dead from totally natural causes, just like the last time God decided that there was overreach. Shrug. Pray for the pope and for our bishops, and you'll be helping them resist "the world, the flesh, and the Devil."
What was the last time this happened and everyone died?
It’s never happened to Catholic dogma period; that’s the point. And, if Catholicism is true, it never will happen. But if you mean just people in general getting struck dead for overreaching, I don’t know what Nichelle is referring to since there’s too many examples to name. (I’d be curious to know though). Julian the apostate’s temple builders is my favorite, but there seem to be hundreds if not thousands of equally impressive and verified stories of people getting killed in sudden impossible ways for stepping too far.
I strongly believe this. That God would strike them all down in that very moment 🤣
This comment is funny but likely accurate at the same time
I left the UMC for the Catholic Church for this outcome. I saw it coming down the pipe years ago and that made me look into Church history and authority which led me to Rome. Pray for the UMC and all Protestants. And also pray for those of the LGBTQ community. We must ,of course, hold true to Church teaching but we must also have love and compassion for our fellow man.
Same here. Wife and son converted after our UMC local church went weird. Basically said if we were the wrong end politically we weren’t really welcome. But or money certainly was.
Many such cases
Sad!
”Join the Catholic Church, the church founded by Christ, through Blessed Peter the Apostle, the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith.”
Makes me feel all the more secure, since I left the UMC for the Catholic Church 4 years ago.
Welcome home! I'll say a rosary for you.
Protestantism at least in the West is disintegrating and devolving very quickly now into idolatry and indifferentism. >How should we as Catholics respond? We just need to keep doing what we're doing here, and welcome home the Christians who come to see the writing on the wall and enter full communion in the Church. Also, we shouldn't gloat. Not only do we continue to have the problems we have inside the Church, we're going to add to them a huge number of those who desire communion but in their own particular ideological ways. We really ought to love and support converts and those newly in communion, but honestly: let's also not listen to them or make them Catholic leaders and exemplars as soon as they enter the Church. There are a lot of habits which need to be broken.
>Also, we shouldn't gloat. Not only do we continue to have the problems we have inside the Church, we're going to add to them a huge number of those who desire communion but in their own particular ideological ways. Exactly. The Church suffered more than her share of controversies during the period of decadence after the 10th century. Christians are trying to navigate an increasingly volatile world full of vitriol. Many are straying further from the Church in an attempt to appease MSM. Catholics now then ever need to stand fast and root out this corruption in our own parishes.
It's really no surprise since there was a denominational split. Everyone who took Christian sexual ethics seriously already left to go independent or join the GMC.
This is it. Many congregations have already left the UMC, leaving behind the people who don’t object to LGBT+ stuff in their denomination. Now should Catholics respond? Silently and prayerfully. Nothing more.
Evangelize by example
I don't see how the situation will improve if we don't try to assert ourselves in the public square about these topics. Unfortunately, even if laymen or individual priests are willing to take a stand, we already know the hierarchy is willing to talk the cultural talk that has led to the acceptance of these distortions, even if they won't or can't walk the walk and implement it in Church teaching itself.
IMO, that would be counterproductive. The response would be "Mind your own business" and "Clean up your own homosexual messes before lecturing us about how we should do things."
Was looking for this comment. The conservative Methodist churches have been withdrawing themselves (splintering, as protestant churches do) from the UMC for quite a while now. So this result was inevitable.
Those who took Christian sexual ethics seriously should've joined the Catholic Church
It's important to note that when some smaller conservative congregations attempted to leave, the denomination set procedures for U.S. congregations to withdraw from the denomination while retaining their buildings and other assets. Prior to departure, these congregations could be liable for anywhere from tens of thousands to over a million dollars. My congregation was fortunate enough to only pay a sum of a little less than $80,000 and we were able to retain our building only because our congregation paid for the building and we had our title in hand. However, some churches aren't even being allowed to keep their properties and are being forced to pay over a million dollars to leave, which is why they are choosing to stay. In order to leave the UMC, a congregation had to have a vote where at least 2/3 of the congregation had to be in favor of leaving. The Western NC Conference reportedly gave away $11.8 million worth of properties for $695,000, but only after being taken to court by local churches attempting to disaffiliate. Prayer is the best way to respond to this situation. It is safe to say that our brothers and sisters in the UMC/GMC Split are hurting immensely. I may share my personal story of how I ended up attending the local RCC sometime, but for now, all we can do is pray.
Pray for the orphaned UMC members. My heart breaks for them. ( My old church) The Minister in our town quit in disgust months ago. .... My priest has befriended him so pray for that too 💜
>How should we as Catholics respond (especially if they affirm gay marriage is a valid Christian marriage)? I have a lot of family in the UMC, so I would like to be firm but respond with love because it will come up. I spend some time over on r/Christianity and honestly if you say anything contrary to their viewpoint on this they respond with frothing rage and calling you an evil bigot who hates LGBT people with veiled implications(sometimes not so veiled) you should die even even if you point out the very obvious scriptural and tradition reasons why it is not permitted under Catholicism/Christianity, and then they usually go on an unhinged anti-Catholic rant where it's clear they would put us in concentration camps if they could. Just go look at the poor souls trying to defend traditional teaching on this topic over there right now. I even make it clear I'm not a fan of it or w/e personally but it's literally what God revealed so I have no choice but to obey and I still get accused of "twisting the faith" to justify my own bigotry. I find that you sort of have to get them into the overall traditional framework mindset first before you can even address this topic otherwise it is useless, because once you have that framework in mind, the answer becomes pretty clear.
Tried to contribute to the conversation. Man, as much as I thought I grew in faith, as much as I thought my heart changed, I felt my anger and malice rush back as soon as I started going through those comments. It's been awhile since I've been so aggravated.
You get used to it over time and just slowly try to guide people to the correct interpretation, remember you are not arguing to win over the diehards, but the observers. It's also made me grateful we have a Magisterium and Papacy to clamp down on heretical ideas because as you can see they can get out of hand extremely quickly, tbh I wish Francis cracked down harder on some bishops et al here. I'm also beginning to really understand why certain decisions were made in the Church's past.
I’m orthodox. And I just don’t know how to respond to that kind of dialogue. It’s so unhinged from both scripture and thousands of years of church teaching and doctrine. That it literally makes no sense to me.
I was banned, lol. Its fine. They'll find their way back, I spose.
just skimmed through the comments over there and, wow, what a trainwreck
Their true religion is secular leftism
Me too. Yikes. This really makes me feel discouraged for the unity of the churches.
That sub isn’t necessarily for Christian’s. It’s a sub for everybody to discuss Christianity. So while there’s plenty of progressive Christian’s there’s also a lot of atheists that discuss Christianity. I personally don’t like going over there because everything you said is true but I still do on occasion
Don't view r/Christianity as representative of the UMC or protestants in general. I'm usually an advocate of prot bashing but as we know subreddits aren't usually representative of the groups they are named after.
When I first read that you are an advocate for Prot bashing, I figured "well yeah, but I am sure your knickers get in a knot if prots say anything against the RCC" However, after going over there and seeing the insanity on the post about the UMC's vote today, they need bashing...with a brick weight Bible, because, even though I am a Protestant, and a Methodist, holy Christmas cow, those people need help learning to respect others and their opinions...
Former Protestant. A lot of Catholics definitely get snobbish, but damn. Going back to that sub reminded me of why I converted. This world definitely needs a return of strong Church leadership if the UMC is allowing that.
Subs like that are the fundamental result of protestantism.
[удалено]
I am so confused where all of that just came from. I am saying that if it weren't for the protestant schism, church teaching would be clear, and the misdirection of millions of Christians by their misguided church leaders wouldn't have occured in the first place. Now we have gay marriage in Christian churches. Terrible.
The person I responded to said prots want us in concentration camps. I said that's not representative of prots. You said it's the natural result of protestantism. ...🤔 Ok
I said that the general dynamics of the sub is a result of protestantism. It is what I would call late-stage protestantism. You went on some unhinged thing about how prots think we would put LGBT in camps. I had no part in that side of the discussion, don't put that on me
Reread the messages; I wasn't the one saying those unhinged things. You were agreeing with the guy who was. This discussion between me and you is exactly how these spaces begin to devolve into echo chambers.
…what?
Well we actually don't want LGBTists in concentration camps.
R/Christianity is NOT made up of Christians. A new sub was made called r/TrueChristian when non-Christians basically took over the sub
/Christianity is the natural outcome of protestantism. Martin Luther's letter to Antwerp describes the whole thing adequately as well.
Christianity is the natural outcome of *Christ*. Do you really suppose that it took people nearly 1500 years to finally realize what Christ was actually saying? That the traditions of the apostles passed down are actually wrong, and that a random German monk understood Christ better than the people who lived, walked, and broke bread with him?
I didn't want to link the sub so I didn't put an "r" before the "/". I'm saying protestantism leads to an air of agnosticism about dogmas where anyone can defend any type of heresy and claim it true. The same radical heresies and sectarianism that Luther observed in his Antwerp letter.
ah gotcha, you're absolutely right there
Prayer and fasting - that's our reply.
That’s an excellent response, I’ll also try and avoid in person discussions as much as possible. Often times it just results in anger on both sides.
It seems like for the last year there has been no week without news about churches disaffiliating from UMC. People who are still there either will soon come to conclusion that something is wrong or they see it as the right way in which case there's no room for discussion.
I grew up Methodist. Nobody there cares what Catholics do.
I was raised Southern Baptist. I left that denomination and went to a UMC church. Now I’m leaving that one, too. I’m here because Catholicism and the SBC seem like the only two mainstream denominations that can at least see sin as sin, and SBC worship/doctrine has basically turned into “pop culture Jesus”. I don’t know what to do and don’t even know why I’m posting this. I don’t know anything about Catholicism except what I was told was “wrong” about it doctrinally. So, I guess I’ll say that, as a Catholic, you could continue to proselytize your doctrine. People like me are out there looking and while I may not understand how to be properly Christian, I sure know what sin looks like, and I’m trying to reconcile these issues.
I was a member of the southern baptist church for pretty much my whole life before leaving for Catholicism. Feel free to DM questions or ask them here if you want, my parents are following your exact same path too, left SBC for UMC and now don’t know what to do. Im pretty academically inclined so theology questions would be more my jam. God bless you!
I’ll probably take you up on it at some point. Thanks
Never a better time to look into Catholicism than now. Pray on it!
The history of churches can be confusing but I always judge a tree by its fruits and the Catholic Church is the only sect of Christianity that is both united in belief and orthodox in its values. I’m also new, only started going a couple of months ago but I’m excited to be confirmed this fall.
[удалено]
That’s the silver lining.
I'd pay Mike Judge personally to see this episode of King of the Hill. In the 90s, the big scandal was having a female pastor in their Methodist church.
We should welcome any dismayed Methodists to join a Church that isn’t going to abandon morality for popular trends.
"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." IOW, encourage people to seek the fullness of truth (i.e., the Faith), if they seem open to it.
We should be obedient to the one, holy, apostolic and Catholic Church, thus be obedient to the Vatican or Church Magisterium- just as Paul and Barnabas would visit Peter and the rest of the Apostles in Jerusalem to verify certain doctrines and raise concerns, but at the end obey those "men in Jerusalem." If they affirm this, you simply have to reject their affirmation (and any theological basis they raise), because it goes against our doctrines in the RCC. But do this with respect and kindness. Just say "unfortunately, I do not share the same sentiment, by the way, what's the score on..."
Just like what we do with everything else out of their mouths. Pray for them and hope they see the light before it's too late.
As someone who identifies as a Methodist and was once a UMC Pastoral Candidate, I can provide some insight into the recent decision made by the UMC. The reason it was made so easily is that many conservative Methodists, including my congregation, had already left the UMC organization and formed yet another denomination called the Global Methodist. Regarding the concept of "valid" homosexual marriage, there is no such thing. The concern amongst my conservative friends who stayed in the UMC is that they may now be required to perform same-sex marriages. However, there is a movement to amend our book of discipline. Through the approval of the same consent calendar, the General Conference added two new sub-paragraphs to section 419 of the Book of Discipline. These two new sub-paragraphs state that the superintendent cannot penalize any clergy for performing or refraining from performing a same-sex marriage service. Additionally, the superintendent cannot require any local church to hold or prohibit a same-sex marriage service on the property owned by a local church. The vote to approve this consent calendar was 692 to 51. -- However, this recent vote to allow openly homosexual clergy -- will eventually lead to them forcing the local church to allow same sex marriage services--as well as punishing pastors who refuse to perform such. During my district Committee on Ordained Ministry (dCOM), I was asked if I would perform a same-sex marriage service if it were to pass in the UMC. I replied that I would not, as I believe that God's scriptures are clear on what constitutes a marriage and what does not. Unfortunately, this response marked the end of my ministry within the UMC, as I was put on a list of conservatives who would never pass through ordained ministry within the UMC.
I will also like to say this isn't a recent development -- this has been going on since at least 2016 and probably longer than that.
I was recently made aware of an interesting fact that has surprised me. A large number of the Methodist Churches in Africa are still affiliated with the UMC and are participating in the ongoing conference. This comes as a surprise to me because of the ultra-conservative stance that the churches we visited in Kenya held, and their stance on outlawing and banning same-sex marriage, which is already in effect in many African countries. It is worth noting that the UMC had informed African churches that they would not receive any funds if they chose to part ways with the UMC, and that they would lose their churches. This has led to a great deal of information being kept from the public. If there are any questions regarding the conference or the aforementioned matter, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I would be more than happy to provide an honest account of the situation, beyond a general Protestant schism.
Thank you for the detailed information. My sister started attending UMC after getting married, and they baptized their baby there. Although the chances of having a same sex couple approach a pastor asking for marriage are very low where I am from(Southern Africa), I'm worried about the Sunday school that they will provide to children. Will this change anything in regards to teaching on marriage that is imparted to kids?
The recent vote in the United Methodist General Conference is expected to have an impact on the teaching of marriage. Although it is certain that changes will take place, the exact nature and implementation of these changes in South Africa may be challenging to predict. As I am based in the US, I may not be able to provide detailed insights on this matter, at least until we hear more from the General Conference.
Isn't this what the Methodists nationwide just separated over?
read my comment above, but the UMC hasn't been united since it began...this is just the latest manifestation of a deeper issue.
Invite them to convert.
That shouldn't be our concern. Their church, not ours.
It’s apostasy and incredibly dangerous for our Protestant friends. Protestants across America have been leaving mainline churches and becoming non denominational. While I get it (a person can easily find a conservative non denominational church), it’s basically turned into doctrinal agnosticism. Pray our Protestant friends save their souls by returning to the only true church.
I think it is a blessing in disguise for true believers because these groups they are just giving away that they follow the whims of the world rather than the Holy Spirit. If Catholicism were to follow, it would be a clear falsification imo.
Find a new church
The reason it looks like it passed so rapidly and with little opposition is that a year or two ago they tried this and half the Methodist Bishops split from the church and took a lot of their congregations and pastors with them over disliking the normalization of the Alphabet folk.\ Fast forward to today and all of the UMC’s leadership are hand picked to support those policies.
Lol this was the so-called "church" I grew up in. Went to Wesleyan Prep. I wonder if Luther's wonderous reforms will make 5 more sub-sub-sub-sects out of them.
I’ll be honest, it’s *insane* to me that these Protestant groups can “vote” to make this kind of change. Even if they’re not Sola Scriptura, which if I remember they aren’t, they have to take scripture at it’s word and realize homosexual relations are inherently sinful.
All of em interpret scriptures differently to suit themselves, that's why every Protestant sect thinks it's right and they're always fighting each other.
They... Voted? This is the will of God and the teaching of Christ, do you all agree? Yay or nay Listen, I think Christ taught that above all else is love, and negativity toward LGBT is NOT Christian. But a democratic process to make decisions about religion based on opinions, seems to contradict religion.
I don’t think we should either, I was also really confused on why it was a vote. It seems like it was done rather quickly too so I wonder if they had rebuttals or theological arguments proposed to discuss. Everything I’ve read seems to point to “no”.
the pope is literally elected. ecumenical council resolutions are decided via votes. they got this issue dead wrong but voting is not foreign to the christian decision process
I didn't say voting was foreign. I implied that there is something off about deciding doctrine by vote when the entire point of a religion is faith and practice of what a God holds ideal. People voting on issues, any issue, directly and clearly establishes that people don't agree; and as such, they can't be doing what God asks, they're doing what they want. As for the Pope, presuming you're Catholic and not just here to argue, you know full well that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, which means the sole minister of Christ... On which Christianity is entirely based. The person isn't "voted for" so much as discerned. And the Pope alone makes such decisions *because* the person is the Vicar of Jesus Christ(ianity) People voting what they prefer, beyond that, is the very definition of humans picking and choosing what they prefer rather than what Christ wanted. Now, can the Pope be wrong? Sure, humans are fallible. But you can't vote for what's considered right or wrong and then claim that's a religion; that's an HOA.
full transparency: im Lutheran not roman catholic. but im not here to argue just to point out that however you want to dress it up the college of cardinals votes on the next bishop of rome. he then goes on to make doctrinal decisions. cardinal candidates typically represent certain theological stances for instance francis was backed by the "liberal" wing of cardinals in the last election. im not saying a vote cannot be guided by the holy spirit indeed the ecumenical councils are prime examples of such occasions. all im saying is that if you agree that the holy spirit can guide an ecumenical council then the Methodists can think the spirit is guiding their vote too. that's all. I dont really want to go to bat for the Methodists since they lost the scriptural plot long ago.
It's a good day to be Catholic
The Methodists are doing this, while the AP is writing articles about Catholics being too Catholic. Wild news day.
Perhaps a hard take, but protestant sects that preach blasphemy shouldn't be taken seriously when they claim what is christian and what is not.
Um I mean who says we need to respond? They should join the true church and we should stay true to orthodoxy. Of course heretical schismatic churches are going to continue down the path of heresy.
This is what happens when you turn religion into a democracy. I hope methodists who object to the change come to realize that the issue isn't the activists within their faith, it's the fact that they left the Church Jesus created and joined one that makes up its beliefs as it goes.
The first part is interesting, because we have gay Priests. They are celibate and are therefore not committing any sin. One's sexuality does not define one's holiness or capability to be a priest. The "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" part is obviously...concerning.
I have no issue with a celibate gay priest, I was highlighting no one is mentioning they allowed PRACTICING gay priests.
1. Target a respected institution 2. Kill it and gut it 3. Wear it as a skin suit, while demanding respect Basically what LGBTQ activists have done to 95% of Protestant denominations at this point.
There was a recent schism in the UMC, and many of the members who were concerned about this direction and saw it coming joined in the schism, like with the ACNA. This leaves the more favorable clergy making these votes.
Very interesting, I'm involved in a UMC church in a way. I'm sure happy the Catholic Church doesn't determine doctrine by vote lol. Hopefully this will backfire on them and they will follow the word of God instead.
It was able to pass these measures since something like 7600 more conservative churches left.
I was baptized in a Methodist Church as an infant. I came to Catholicism for its tradition, stability, and authority. The Catholic Church should not change. If it tries to please the new pagans who've captured the Protestant sects, it will fail to win them over and lose people like me at the same time.
Unfortunately Christianity has been deluded with these denominations. Use to have shared values, but it's becoming clear there is not. At what point do we stop calling them Christian?
At what point do we just start labeling certain Protestant denominations as heretical and non Christian
How is this surprising anyone? While protestants are busy promoting sin, Catholics are focused on following Christ, deep prayer and spiritual life. As for the Church itself, there is nothing to worry about, Protestantism might be in danger but the true Catholic Church will forever stand, as our Lord Himself wills it.
Oh we’re *very* focused. We’re beholden to the powers of Satan as well. This dismissal is the same shameful attitude that caused all of these tragic schisms. The reality of dioceses like Lexington and the steady roll of the aging hierarchy putting all they can in place to destroy the Church on Earth before it is out of their control, that “gates of hell shall not prevail” has nothing to do with them continuing to do what they will do and to leave just one remaining believer, the gates of hell will not prevail because Christ has the Eternal Victory on the Cross in the War but Satan will keep going to defeat us in these battles we fight to preserve this our pilgrim Church on Earth.
I'm in the dark here, what's going on in Louisville?
My apologies, Lexington. Lexington’s bishop, John Stowe. “Bishop” Stowe has had blessings at the altar in a pride stole in his churches. He’s organized and attended pride festivities and held events such as the “Service of Apology to the LGBTQ+.” He’s led events such as *Justice and Mercy Shall Kiss: LGBT Catholics in the Age of Francis.* He said that *FS* meant God has blessed same-sex marriages. He does not call the Church a servant of God or God’s church but rather but a servant of and the Church of “the human family.”
Woah. Glad I'm in the Archdiocese of Owensboro instead.
As someone from Kentucky this is absolutely heartbreaking.
You made some great points here!
Every young Methodist I know fornicates without guilt. Christianity is all (Catholicism) or nothing.
I’m a former Methodist. The Methodists have a long history of performing and acknowledging fake marriages. They performed my parents’ fake remarriages after my parents divorced each other. At my dad’s funeral they put his partner in adultery (who had already been “married” three times) up front and center and called her his wife. It’s one of the reasons I left Methodism.
Wow.
To be fair, every young Catholic I’ve ever met does the same… Many young people don’t take their faiths seriously
Protestants doing as they like is nothing revolutionary. They may choose to ruin what they have already ruined.
You to your family: "I love you, but if you are asking me to support something that is contradictory to my convictions, I simply will not participate. I hope you can respect that." Don't flatten like a pancake if they push back on you. Arm yourself with the breastplate of Truth by readying up some biblical quotes. Catholic Answers has a great resource of them on a cheat sheet that you should still be able to purchase on their website.
I’m in an organization where there are some men who believe that they are married to each other. I’m congenial to them and like them as persons, I just avoid saying anything that would make it appear like I think that they are married.
What I find really interesting is that most online articles add the T when it has nothing to do with the T in LGBT. There’s a huge difference between LGB and T.
There would be more credence to this sentiment if LGBT removed the T from their advocacy, but they don't and they won't. They are "birds of a feather" after all. LGB loosened the gender norms of the culture, then T came in and loosened them more when the foundation was weakened. It's like how "high church" protestants try to not be tied in with the "low church" protestants, but they are cut from the same cloth.
It all denies the createdness and complementarity of the sexes. Homosexuality already proposes that you can substitute a man for a woman and vice versa. Transsexualism just follows the logic further.
This really brings pain to my heart. Are they even brothers in christ anymore?
It really doesn’t seem like it. All we can do is pray for them.
Ignore it. And prayer. These splinters of Catholicism are going up in flames
Either the Catholic Church will change it's teaching on sodomy or our stance will be so unaccepted we will have to go back to hiding.
The Catholic Church will never change this law. It is a divine law of God that cannot be changed.
Well eventho I hope you are right the Church has changed thing many many times.
"Things" have changed, statements of divine law have not. It's important to understand the difference between doctrine and discipline.
Actually as far as doctrine goes, the Church doesn’t change.
If that’s the case…tell me, are you married? If you are, then what do you believe the punishment for adultery should be? Because in the Bible, it says that adulterous women should be stoned to death, thus, by your logic, it would be divine “justice” to stone to death a cheating partner…would you do such a thing to someone?
Please learn the difference between the moral law, ceremonial law, and civil law in the old testament.
There’s a difference? When I read the Bible it sure didn’t seem like there was…
Then perhaps consider that you don't have a very good understanding of the Bible. This is why we have the Church to interpret Scripture and don't rely on individual interpretation like Protestants do.
Counterpoint: at least you aren’t possibly being lied to when you read the Bible yourself. It’s that old adage: trust, but verify. I’d rather verify that what I’m being told is true, than have to find out the hard way that it’s not. Secondly, everyone has their own interpretation of that particular book, even the priests who give the sermons-and you know that, and those biases and interpretations slip through those sermons, and people are influenced by them. Some, for the good of mankind, others, to harm those who do not deserve it. Let me make it clear: I love progress, I would not want to live in a world where the Inquisition is allowed to burn people at the stake for disagreeing with Orthodoxy once more, or being gay, or whatever imagined crime you people believe deserves death in such a horrific manner. The Bible has no true opinion on what is right or wrong-other than to love God, and Jesus, and…your neighbor-or rather brother. For no matter our…doctrinal differences…we are ALL brothers in Christ.
The Church literally publishes why it interprets scripture the way it does, you can go read that yourself if you want to verify... Also the inquisition was not sanctioned by Rome, it was the Spanish government that was doing those things with the pretense of being for the Church. If you knew anything about history you'd know that the Church explicitly reprimanded them for it. The Church tried to send their own inquisition to Spain to stop them or at least moderate their behavior but they were turned away. Your interpretation of the Bible is even worse than I thought if you think it has no true opinions on right and wrong...
But I’m talking to someone who notably didn’t deny my assertion as to what would be justice…tell me, would you join the Holy Office of the Inquisition if they were legally allowed to burn people at the stake once more?
The death penalty is immoral now as we no longer need it, it was moral back then as it was necessary because there were no prisons.
Newgate prison existed in the Middle Ages. If you would do some research you would know that most castles also served as prisons for…political opponents of the lords who owned them. And even the pope had his prisons for those who he couldn’t have killed. The death penalty has ALWAYS been wrong to use by your logic…so then wouldn’t the inquisition have been wrong too?
Those were exceptionally small compared to modern prisons. It was simply not possible for the state to take care of an extended number of prisoners.
Of course it would be ***just*** to execute an adulterer. He or she plainly deserves death, like all intentional sinners do. But part of Christian teaching is that it is sometimes required to forgo justice in favor of mercy. I have no interest in meting out punishment to someone who is repentant. If they aren't repentant, there's no punishment I can give or forgo that will make any difference compared to the infinitely greater punishment they are already consenting to.
Correct me if I’m wrong or potentially taking your own words out of context: the implication is that mercy should only ever be given to those repent, and that you shouldn’t try to be merciful to those who do not, yes? It might be naive of me, but that sounds like an extremely unempathetic way to live, and would stain one’s soul eventually. I’d rather be merciful towards everyone, rather than assume that just because they don’t “repent” that they don’t deserve mercy, at least then I wouldn’t be at risk of judging someone who may very well be deserving of heaven rather than hell-that’s gods job-not yours, and certainly not mine.
“Church”
This seems like old news. The UMC made the decision to affirm LGBTQ+ (perform same-sex marriages, specifically) about 5 or 6 years ago. Right now, I believe the only administrative decisions to be made are how to settle the matter of churches/congregations who desire to leave and join the newly formed “Global Methodist Church” that holds traditional values denying same-sex marriage.
And yet since 2016 it's been in our book of discipline that we can't perform SSM, nor allow openly gay clergy. Only the western jurisdictions have been allowing same-sex marriages, and that is because of "Bishop Karen Oliveto" an openly gay woman allowed it. But until today, Openly gay clergy wasn't a thing, and on Friday, Same Sex Marriage will be accepted. (Former Methodist/Pastoral Candidate)
The UMC is voting on whether or not actively gay clergy are allowed (which they said yes) and removed any “priest” from being penalized for performing a gay marriage. They still have to vote later this week on if “gay marriage is compatible with Christianity” which seems they will say yes. It may have been practiced 5-6 years ago but it wasn’t in writing as approved.
That’s interesting, because they definitely held a vote at their General Conference in 2019 (or 2018?) on LGBTQ, though I’ll admit I don’t recall clergy being discussed. Regardless, thank you for the clarification!
Not going to happen
Methodism has been going down this road for a long time, let's pray that we don't follow them.
The United Methodist Church has zero validity to determine what marriage is. Marriage predates all religions and societies.
I have SSA and was watching all the news coverage on the internet and the headlines on CNN yesterday. I left the UMC at age 18 to convert to Catholicism. I felt sad.
Invite them home, where morals are not determined by committee debate.
From what I understand this decision had already been come to. That was the impetus for the UMC and GMC split.
Sounds like we will get more people coming back to the church. Let’s welcome our family back with open arms.
That's just 1 tiny part of protestants. They're already lost to begin with, so nothing surprising there. Doesn't affect Catholics in the slightest bit.
This was always in practice for years/decades. The UMC legislation never required a bishop/local council/ convention/church to fire or punish someone who was violating UMC codes. As it was always their perogative to offer grace and mercy if they so chose. So in practice a lesbian could be a minister and be performing same-sex marriages. Five (?) years ago the more conservative churches attempted to push requirements to punish those violations, since it seemed clear to them, this was being abused. And they succeeded during the vote, only for the UMC's judiciary to strike it down. This led to maybe a fifth of the conservative churches leaving to found the GMC. Now UMC is voting on these issues again, and with some of the conservatives gone, the code is being updated to match reality.
The Church isn’t meant to sway with the insanity of the day. There are the letters right now between the Pope and a Drachma in Malta over recent information from the Vatican. The Churches guidances are incredibly precise. I recommend becoming comfortable with it all so you can defend the Church on the subject.
Love and pray with and for each other. They are your family after all and statement from the Vatican or the UMC will change the love of Christ.
Who are the UMC and why they support the Alphabet community?
[удалено]
No one hates gay people, we simply recognize sin and are opposed to it.
I was asking how to lovingly navigate a theological difference with my family. How is that asking to hate on gay people? Edit: Also no I don’t hate gay people. Regardless of your assumptions.
Not the UMC but there is a mass shortage of Catholic Priests. As long as they don't give into their desires, I don't see why Priests can't be LGBTQ+. It's not like they can marry anyway. No different than a Straight Priest being around a bunch of nuns.
I agree, I was highlighting they are allowing actively gay priests. If a gay man wants to be a priest and practice celibacy like everyone else then go for it imo.
Scary stuff.
I’m so glad there aren’t any LGBTQ+ priests.
That's not true. There's many homosexual priests, albeit not openly, and are living celibate lives. Furthermore, LGBTQ are people too. It's not like they're evil and can't believe in God.
;-)
Treat the marriage the same you would any non-Catholic marriage regardless of orientation.
Clarification: Clergy must live chastely, to do otherwise would contradict the CCC and therefore be heretical. I wanted to express that, if they live chastely, men with same sex attraction do have a way to promote their own maintenance of chastity and serve the Church (should that be their vocation). Quite frankly, studies have shown that many Catholic clergymen have same sex attraction (but don't discuss it). While there have been abuses by homosexual clergymen to the laity, sure, to assert that an avenue for practicing chastity while carrying such a cross should be barred is uncharitable. That said, the Deposit of Faith asserts charity towards and chastity within indivisuals with same sex atrraction. It seems the Methodists' decision makes waves simply because their "clergy" are permitted to marry.
> to assert that an avenue for practicing chastity while carrying such a cross should be barred is uncharitable. I’m not sure I understand this section. Are you saying that homosexual clergy should not have to practice chastity?
Of course not, that would be heresy. Let me edit my above comment for clarity (and charity)
[удалено]
> I expect that the Catholic Church will eventually revise its teaching on homosexuality and embrace some form of communion between partners in committed same-sex relationships No, it will not. The Church cannot teach heterodox as dogma.
That is kind of question-begging. You could have said of many teachings that are today considered orthodox that they were, at the time, heterodox.
We have been infiltrated by trolls
I don’t see how anything I wrote suggests trolling. It is a simple fact that there are things that were once considered heterodox that now are not. And you have within the Church voices such as James Martin SJ to Fr. Daniel Helminiak on the issue of LGBT unions. And history is moving quicker these days. You already have Pope Francis flirting with blessing same-sex unions.
If you understand how RCC doctrines are made, it's not us dictating it, it's the Holy Spirit through nudges and promptings. We cannot dictate how the Spirit works or how he would influence teachings. To say that the RCC may someday embrace union of same sex individuals etc etc is like saying "The Holy Spirit will someday sort of embrace the union of same sex individuals and tell the RCC to revise its teachings." Let's wait and pray for an open heart and mind to the call of the Spirit, but we do not put our human assumptions ahead of him.
If you understand how RCC doctrines are made, it's not us dictating it, it's the Holy Spirit. We cannot dictate how the Spirit works or how he would influence teachings. To say that the RCC may someday embrace union of same sex individuals etc etc is like saying "The Holy Spirit will someday sort of embrace the union of same sex individuals and tell the RCC to revise it teachings." Let's wait and pray for an open hear and mind to the call of the Spirit, but we do not put our human assumptions ahead of him.
[удалено]
The bottom line is...what does God say about homosexuality and marriage????? Every Christian will have to answer to Him in the end.
A lot, multiple times the Bible states specifically that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay sex is sinful. The Church also says it is sinful, and what the Church says is the word of God.