←back to thread

First American pope elected and will be known as Pope Leo XIV

(www.cnn.com)
606 points saikatsg | 5 comments | 08 May 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nickthegreek ◴[08 May 25 17:22 UTC] No.43928638[source]▶
"Whereas Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay clerics, Cardinal Prevost has expressed less welcoming views to L.G.B.T.Q. people.

In a 2012 address to bishops, he lamented that Western news media and popular culture fostered “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel.” He cited the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.”"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/world/americas/pope-candi...

replies(15): >>43928744 #>>43928820 #>>43928830 #>>43928904 #>>43928911 #>>43928948 #>>43929020 #>>43929030 #>>43929239 #>>43929343 #>>43929708 #>>43929793 #>>43929936 #>>43929957 #>>43931844 #
sepositus ◴[08 May 25 17:40 UTC] No.43928911[source]▶
Curious, do you think he's wrong that it's at odds with what was taught by the apostles? It's obviously unpopular, but I have yet to see a convincing argument (based in the teachings of the Bible) that promotes same-sex marriages.

If I were in his position, and part of my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures," then I would probably want to be as accurate as possible.

replies(13): >>43928988 #>>43929022 #>>43929079 #>>43929106 #>>43929271 #>>43929309 #>>43929328 #>>43929364 #>>43929430 #>>43929877 #>>43930031 #>>43930845 #>>43931821 #
whynotminot ◴[08 May 25 17:50 UTC] No.43929079[source]▶
My understanding is that the Catholic church does not actually take scripture as the sole source for church doctrine. “Sola Scriptura” is a thing for some — perhaps even most — Protestant denominations. But not for the Catholic Church.
replies(3): >>43929101 #>>43929140 #>>43929281 #
bigstrat2003 ◴[08 May 25 18:05 UTC] No.43929281[source]▶
That is true, but doctrine does need to not violate scripture. So if the Bible prohibits something (which IMO it pretty clearly does prohibit gay relationships), the church can't say "well actually it's ok now". If that did happen it would cause quite a crisis for the church, since it is a Catholic article of faith that God guides the official dogma of the church as he guided the humans who wrote the books in the Bible. So if the two are in disagreement, the whole faith kinda collapses.
replies(1): >>43929354 #
dylan604 ◴[08 May 25 18:12 UTC] No.43929354[source]▶
The Old Testament said to not eat pork. The church today says it's okay. It also says not to keep the festivals of the pagans specifically one where you cut down a tree and adorn it with ornaments, yet it is now top two "holy" holidays
replies(2): >>43929482 #>>43931273 #
sepositus ◴[08 May 25 20:57 UTC] No.43931273[source]▶
This is usually taught within the first year of any seminary or religious study of Christianity. It's widely understood _why_ people are now permitted to eat pork. A good place to start is reading modern commentary on Acts 11:4-6 and basically all of Romans 14.
replies(1): >>43931520 #
dylan604 ◴[08 May 25 21:25 UTC] No.43931520[source]▶
And the New New Testament could come out and say that same sex is not taboo and there's plenty of people in the world now to not be concerned about shallow gene pools.

The point is that the canon of writings assembled into the book is based on how people think at the time. Things change and evolve. A book canonized today would probably undo even more of the old testament teachings as archaic and no longer relevant with their version of Romans 14 and Acts 11:4-6. Francis 2:8-10 or from a series of letters sent to the people of Americas instead of Corinthians. These writings are just a snap shot in time

replies(2): >>43931748 #>>43934990 #
sepositus ◴[08 May 25 21:53 UTC] No.43931748[source]▶
But I don't know why we are playing hypotheticals here. Such a dramatic change (i.e., introducing Francis 2:8-10) is far outside of the bounds that have been set for thousands of years within the Catholic tradition. The original discussion was why it might be more appropriate for a Pope to have a view that reflect's the biblical understanding of marriage rather than one that fits the modern times. If he is leading the global church through interpreting scriptures and maintaining the traditions, such a dramatic change as introducing new teachings that would seemingly contradict our prior understanding of marriage would completely step outside the bounds of his office.
replies(1): >>43932027 #
dylan604 ◴[08 May 25 22:32 UTC] No.43932027[source]▶
You keep ignoring the main point in that the canonized book was done so by men that selected writings that they felt represented the views they held. For thousands of years, pork was bad. Suddenly pork was good, so writings they felt supported that decision were included. If there were writings that taught otherwise, it was very convenient to leave them out. Look at the writings of Enoch as an example. It didn't toe the line, so it was omitted. A decision made by men.
replies(2): >>43932163 #>>43932164 #
1. sepositus ◴[08 May 25 22:54 UTC] No.43932163[source]▶
> You keep ignoring the main point in that the canonized book was done so by men that selected writings that they felt represented the views they held

No, you're trying to trivialize changing the canon of the Bible. It's a pointless argument if you're not going to adopt the understanding of the Catholic tradition and then argue within it as the subject of this conversation is the Pope.

I was under the impression we were arguing why it's important for the Pope to have an accurate view of the Bible. Instead it seems like you're just wanting to say that it's all man-made anyways so might as well change it which is a completely foreign thought process to a genuine Catholic.

replies(1): >>43932219 #
2. dylan604 ◴[08 May 25 23:02 UTC] No.43932219[source]▶
The catholic tradition of changing the canon? They modified the 10 commandments to allow for idols. Moses's own brother got in trouble for making an idol. You think that was some small change? They did it to increase their membership and income streams. Allow the pagans with their mother/son idols to keep them with a Mary/BabyJesus rename, and bada-bing, new members. So excuse me if I don't hold their respect for canon quite so sacrosanct as you apparently do.
replies(1): >>43932305 #
3. sepositus ◴[08 May 25 23:17 UTC] No.43932305[source]▶
> I don't hold their respect for canon quite so sacrosanct as you apparently do.

That's fine, it just makes it pointless to make a argument for what the office of Pope should and shouldn't do. It's like going into a Muslim country and telling everyone how stupid their views are because you don't respect their holy texts. Why bother?

That was my point, you're not interested in having an actual conversation. Which is fine. That's why I said I had a misunderstanding of what was going on here. But it's clear now.

replies(1): >>43932680 #
4. dylan604 ◴[09 May 25 00:24 UTC] No.43932680{3}[source]▶
The Bible is a book used by a much wider audience than the Pope's followers. The pope at the time just tweaked the book to increase his followers. A very convenient reasoning from the Pope's perspective. So you seem to not be accepting that on why would a pope should and shouldn't do.

Since the time of the canonizing of the book, lots of history has happened where the pope of the time has softened some of what was traditional practices. Again, not sure why it is okay to accept some pope from historical time could canonize the bible, but a future pope would not have similar authority to make further amendments. He is the Vicar after all, and is infallible. Unless you do not believe that about modern popes??

replies(1): >>43932778 #
5. sepositus ◴[09 May 25 00:44 UTC] No.43932778{4}[source]▶
I said you were trivializing it, not that it was impossible. My original comment is it's "far outside the bounds" of what has been traditionally done by Pope's. To suggest that the answer to the question on marriage is to introduce an entirely new canon to the Bible that appears to contradict previous books of the canon (I supposed he'd have to remove those at the same time) is simply unprecedented and has never once occurred in the history of the church since the Bible was canonized.