that is why it is almost impossible to dialoge here
with catholic apologists, as what they say regarding what Rome and the pope actually teaches is NOT what gives put out forpublic discussion!
its like talkin to Mormons/JW, as they can sound biblical to uninformed, but that is to get them into their church, in order to get the "real doctrine!"
Never! Tolerance for the sinner is NOT tolerance for the sin.
And yes, I have many reservations on what the pope is saying. However, it is the office that commands respect rather than the man. I pray daily for him.
Well, I guess it commands respect by it's subjects, however, as a Christian who follows the bible, I find no such office as the RCC's Pope. So as for me, I'm not bowing down and kissing his ring.
But that is not the case in our church. Really, is your church that stale?
Is there no variety? No, we don't hang our hats on tradition. I don't agree with you.
Just one example. We don't always give an invitation. Sometimes, sometimes not. As the Holy Spirit guides, so we do.
Peter went to Rome to die. Paul was in Rome longer than Peter was. There is no historical record of Peter ever being in Rome except that he was taken there as a prisoner and hung out to die as a martyr. That is about the extent of it.
Your argument is that the Pope's statement is correct on homosexuality and that he has not gone against the RCC magisterium.
Do you hold that same to be true in the case of Pope Clement - when he said that by the highest authority invested in him as an apostle and successor of Peter - he forever abolished the Jesuit order?
If so - then how is this current Pope legit - given that he is of the non-existent (extinguished) order according to Pope Clement? And if the infallibility of the Pope holds true in the case of Clement - then we should not expect the current Jesuit Pope to necessarily be infallible, because he belongs to a condemned order - by the standards of the RCC itself.
The alternative is that Clement speaking in the highest sense that a Pope can speak -was not infallible - in which case this current Pope would have no higher claim to infallibility - and could indeed make a mistake at that level even if claiming to make a statement or pronouncement in the highest sense - but all the authority invested in him as successor of Peter.
Is he simply hedging by answering a direct question - with a misdirecting question?
In the eyes of the common person the Pope has changed his stance on abortion and homosexuality, and therefore has gone against the dictates of the Magesterium. In the eyes of the common person he is a "different" pope in that respect. That is evidenced in the remarks of President Obama himself: