Confidential meeting seeks to sway-synod to accept same-sex unions

[CrossCuT]

​It is not the Church that entertains these things. It is an unfaithful group of the hierarchy. This group wants to have unions blessed both by government and the Church. If they try to force the issue at the Synod it will lead to open schism. 

​"Blessed" ? Does that mean they will be thought of as a legit sacrament? Or is just a formality like saying "We are cool with this union." Which just seems ceremonial and inconsequential.

[KnightofChrist]

​"Blessed" ? Does that mean they will be thought of as a legit sacrament? Or is just a formality like saying "We are cool with this union." Which just seems ceremonial and inconsequential.

​Both, they will start by saying "we're cool with it" then later they will push for it to be a sacrament. Or they will put it on the same level. That's what I believe anyway. This group is deceptive and secretive, they work in the shadows because they know bringing their work to the light would harm it. Anyway this was all suppose to happen. 

[PhuturePriest]

​I legit LOL'd

 

/German American

/Married to a Pole

​I'm proud of being German (Vulga-German, specifically), but it kills me on the inside when every issue with the Church is caused by Germans while those destitute Poles with their unreadable language somehow remain spotless.

[Era Might]

I blame Bismarck's moustache (and the partitions of Poland).

[CrossCuT]

​Both, they will start by saying "we're cool with it" then later they will push for it to be a sacrament. Or they will put it on the same level. That's what I believe anyway. This group is deceptive and secretive, they work in the shadows because they know bringing their work to the light would harm it. Anyway this was all suppose to happen. 

​I am a supporter of gay marriage in the sense of being offered by the state or government, but I do respect the choice of a religion to not participate as long as such a big thing is offered by the aforementioned. That is their prerogative even if I disagree with it. I think its odd that they would push for that since it would technically be invalid right? I mean the whole idea is that they are just stewards of Gods word/law etc and they cant actually CHANGE it.

[KnightofChrist]

​I am a supporter of gay marriage in the sense of being offered by the state or government, but I do respect the choice of a religion to not participate as long as such a big thing is offered by the aforementioned. That is their prerogative even if I disagree with it. I think its odd that they would push for that since it would technically be invalid right? I mean the whole idea is that they are just stewards of Gods word/law etc and they cant actually CHANGE it.

​Yes, they are only to pass down what was given to them. They are not to add anything or take away anything. The Church cannot change her teachings. But of course there has always been those who have tried.

[CrossCuT]

I do NOT agree with the church using their stance on Sacramental marriage to prevent homosexuals from getting married through their state/country with a marriage certificate etc. They can ban homosexuals from getting married within their faith, but I do not believe they have the right to ban homosexuals from getting a marriage certificate that is recognized by the state and offers them certain benefits as being partners legally.

[Ash Wednesday]

​I'm proud of being German (Vulga-German, specifically), but it kills me on the inside when every issue with the Church is caused by Germans while those destitute Poles with their unreadable language somehow remain spotless.

​Whoa, my family was Volga German as well. Woot!

Pfeifer, Russia!

 

(Sorry for being OT... bad bad bad Mediator of Meh, lash me with a wet noodle)

Edited May 28, 2015 by Ash Wednesday

[MarysLittleFlower]

I do NOT agree with the church using their stance on Sacramental marriage to prevent homosexuals from getting married through their state/country with a marriage certificate etc. They can ban homosexuals from getting married within their faith, but I do not believe they have the right to ban homosexuals from getting a marriage certificate that is recognized by the state and offers them certain benefits as being partners legally.

​I think the reason the Church is against this is because the state has no role in deciding morality, in any case it's not its job.

It's more the liberals in the Church who are pushing for this though... and perhaps ultimately for it to be a "Sacrament". but of course that is impossible and against doctrine.

[Nihil Obstat]

​I think the reason the Church is against this is because the state has no role in deciding morality, in any case it's not its job.

It's more the liberals in the Church who are pushing for this though... and perhaps ultimately for it to be a "Sacrament". but of course that is impossible and against doctrine.

The state cannot determine morality, but it is bound by natural law to acknowledge and adhere to the Church's moral teaching.

[KnightofChrist]

A society that embraces unions that cannot or will not produce children, homosexual unions, couples who abort, couples who use contraction etc is a society that will commit generational suicide.

Edited May 28, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[franciscanheart]

A society that embraces unions that cannot or will not produce children, homosexual unions, couples who abort, couples who use contraction etc is a society that will commit generational suicide.

​False. They'll use in vitro. 

[KnightofChrist]

​False. They'll use in vitro. 

​No, most people won't be able to afford vitro. Vitro won't save such a society, it would only delay its downfall.

[KnightofChrist]

Of course you were probably joking lol but still.

[PhuturePriest]

​Whoa, my family was Volga German as well. Woot!

Pfeifer, Russia!

 

(Sorry for being OT... bad bad bad Mediator of Meh, lash me with a wet noodle)

I'm not sure if we ever intermingled with Russians, but being in Russia did influence my ancestors by making them become alcoholics.

All hail the Motherland.