Sweden Priests to not call God "Father" to be Gender Neutral

Like Sweden wasn't cucked enough, now they're trying to bring SJW crap to GOD HIMSELF. This is getting out of hand Sup Forums. How long will we let less than 3% of the population dictate how we live?

express.co.uk/news/world/884122/Sweden-clergy-priests-stop-calling-God-male-gender-neutral-worship

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=11BKY1m0jUQ
youtube.com/watch?v=ajMqhFz3FIk
youtube.com/watch?v=n40tm2P374w
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=kgou9QDR4KM
catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/the-male-priesthood-the-argument-from-sacred-tradition.html
youtube.com/watch?v=2GKCYbvDepY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Guarantee this won't be applied to the moon god of the "New Swedes"

Marriage and the Jezebel Spirit
youtube.com/watch?v=11BKY1m0jUQ

>Since the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, a Jezebel spirit roams about the world seeking to convince women to usurp authority within the family - take the scepter from the man – while an Ahab-like spirit infects countless men causing them to flee from responsibility - shrink from exercising their God-given authority. Granted that men and women are equal in their human dignity, God has brought order to this equality. Remember that Adam was created first and then came Eve. First the head of the family was created and then the helpmate - created from Adam's side making Eve the heart of the human family. But then came sin and with sin infection within the divine institution of marriage. The key to restoring marriage - the key to defeat the Jezebel spirit and the weakness of Ahab is found in St. Paul's Letter to the Ephesians: Wives should be submissive to their husbands as if to the Lord because the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is Head of the Body the Church, as well as her Savior. As the Church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

wat

lol man. probably some sun/moon paganism. I just thought this an interesting article. But who know maybe monotheism is soooo 2017 lol. It's going to be 2018 after all, the new current year.

come bro dawg give it more than 3 letters. They're changing the "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" to "in the name of God and the Holy Trinity". Like next God is probably going to not be male at all but all genders.

I meant allah.

In the catechism there is written that God has no gender.

So, where is the problem?

You are criticizing The Church of Sweden for this but you don't know catechism. But Swedish are cucks )))))):

What the baboons fail to realize is that the fact that god is called father does not mean people in general think that god is man. It is rather childish to personify your image of god as having a literal sex at all anyways.

What the father really means is that the traditional role god has had in the stories resembles the role of a father. Not that the god is literally a man. There is no reason to stop calling god a father because it actually describes the way god acts in the myths. The reason god is fatherly is because that resonates with the way human society is structured and tells us how to live, but that is a long discussion.

Stupid shit to force the word Father out of it; that is all Iam saying.

Gas the swedes. There are literally videos of swedes watching women getting gangraped by mudslimes and do nothing about it. Their weak progressive genes should not spread and infect other countries. They are worse than the mudslimes.

"Our father, who art in heaven"

youtube.com/watch?v=ajMqhFz3FIk

OMG JESUS WAS A MISOGYNIST BIGOT SEXIST! >

Every time I, as a Catholic, start to despair about Francis' latest bullshit, I read something like this and realize that we could have it so much worse.

This, just build a huge wall around Sweden and let no one in and out. The mudslimes will kill the Swedes, then they will turn the place into Syria and kill each other. Whites can come back after no one is left.

What Christcucks believe in:
The Holy Trinity: the FATHER, the Son, and the Holy Sprit.

Get fucked, Kike.

I agree, however we should put in the stipulation that only their white women are allowed out.

Wouldn't be surprised if that commie heretic comes out with some sickening shit like that.

I disagree, Swedish white women are born coalburners. Just let the mudslimes enrich them along with the rest.

Hey man, it's about quantity at this phase. the west is at a low point and we need as many pure skins as we can get!

Remember, shoot a traitor before you shoot an enemy, or in this case: Shoot a race traitor before you shoot a mudslime.

Well my hope is that, since he's 81, he'll die before he gets that far. Then we just need a hardcore reactionary pope to undo all his damage.

>swedish women
>pure
They all have nigger DNA inside their uterus.

Proddies; to be expected.

I've heard a Catholic priest refer to the Holy Trinity as the "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" because it's "neutral."
The adoption of protestantism is continuing at a rampant speed. Especially with this pope trying to baptize divorce and "remarriage" like the Anglicans did (and, well, like Luther baptized polygamy).

Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer is the traditional formula, but it's not meant to be gender neutral. It's just meant to be ways of thinking about the Father (Creator), the Son (Redeemer), and the Holy Spirit (Sustainer). It's a formula of the Trinity. God is still Father and Jesus is still a man.

I understand that it technically is theologically valid, but the priest (that I know) is a swoony SJW wimp who said it in front of a bunch of nuns who had dropped their habit and became feminist "nuns." It was intentional to not offend them.
Traditionally it is always in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

>feminist nuns

Good. Let Christianity burn.

We only have 2 nuns that wear the habit left in our diocese. The rest are grey-headed feminists who dropped the habit back in the 70's.
Fucking novus ordo neo-catholic protestant religion.

youtube.com/watch?v=n40tm2P374w
Sweden isn't dead.

I don't speak Arabic, what does the title of that song mean?

Let me guess: the ones wearing the habits are younger, right?

Uses BBC flag
You fucking cuck go back to watching your wife get fucked by niggers you son of a bitch

One is. Another is a black nun who can't stand the feminist new-religion bs.

*an older black sister.

As I suspected. Young people and Africans will save the Catholic Church. The Vatican 2 generation in the US and Europe can't die off fast enough.

>tfw you want your country disappear as soon as posible
sodom all over again

>black nun

Does she think wearing a habit is going to save her on the DotR? She should probably put on pants and join the feminists if she wants to have any chance of surviving. We are going to kill the other habit-wearing nun as well if she is a Novus Ordite,

Did you see Francis call out Card. Sarah recently? Absolutely unprecedented.
I agree. Yet, we will have a new generation of V2 descendants to deal with: the charismatic/Steubenville novus ordo crowd. Ultramontanists to the core that fulfill all the worst protestant stereotypes about they believe how Catholics are required to believe everything the pope utters.

If you were an adult I'd speak to you.

This is a problem I'm seeing with the church, I plan to ask a theologian about it.

The logic for not requiring the veil:
>B-but 1 Cor 11:2-16 reflects the culture of the time! The culture isn't the same now!

The logic for banning women priests:
>Jesus didn't give a flying fuck about the culture of the time. If he wanted women apostles he would have had them, but he didn't.

This is hypocrisy. Make up your fucking mind.

You are even worse than them. You still call Jorge Bergoglio the "pope" even though he has excommunicated himself on countless occasions by pronouncing heresy knowingly (e.g., he claims Jews can be saved without Christ and the Church).

Speak plainly. I didn't follow your pointed comments at an issue you yourself brought up.
He is most certainly a material heretic via Amoris Laetitia ('one can no longer say that someone in grave sin is deprived of sanctifying grace', etc). I'm not the Magisterium; you may consider yourself to be, so I'll wait until there is a formal correction.
Even St. Vincent Ferrer backed an antipope and the man raised people from the dead. Who gives a shit whether or not Francis has lost his office or not--the point is that following his disorientation (communion with protestantism) is detrimental to your salvation.

Fuck off with this nigger bullshit. Blacks are horrible and everything that their shit covered skin touches turns to shit too. God hates niggers

This is a good way of explaining it.

>a material heretic

Someone is a material heretic only if they IN GOOD FAITH pronounce heresy because of a lack of knowledge of what the Church teaches. It beggars belief that a Pope could somehow be ignorant of basic dogmas of Catholicism. Bergoglio knows exactly what the dogmas of the Church are, but wants to change them.

It is written under his name. A document of the Catholic Church. With his approval. And it is heresy.
That's called material heresy.
I completely agree that he wishes to change them; if not by decree, by how the Protestants did it--change the pastoral practice. Once you change the pastoral practice, the belief changes.
As the axiom goes, lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. The law of prayer determines the law of belief which determines the law of how one lives.

You're alright, leaf

Compare these. They're both official Vatican documents.

We all know God is genderless but this is cancer, we said lord and father because of tradition and simplicity. Ffs now what do we say, xir majesty?

Peace be with you, user.

What's your iq?

The "document" on the left is from the neo-Catholic post-conciliar "Catholic Answers." It's not an official Vatican document but it supposedly cites a statement from the CDF, Inter Insigniores.

Secondly, the use of chapel veils is not comparable in any way to the necessity of an all male priesthood. You're comparing a practice to an unchangeable component of the priesthood.
What is your contention again?

link?

God bless that man. Abandoned by Francis and basically given over to the government on a silver platter.

Okay, here's the exact statement from Inter Insigniores.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html

Blech, cites Gaudium et Spes right out of the gates. The damnable V2 document that tells us that the UN is a shining example of a global government.
Ok, thanks. But again, I didn't get your issue.
I'll try to infer it; you're saying that in the same document it uses relative pastoral practices for the use of the chapel veil but does not apply the same principle to women in the priesthood?

...

In the same document it essentially states that women don't need to wear veils because it's the current year, but also that Jesus didn't care that it was the current year when he only ordained men.

The next pope will have a lot of wrongs to right.

Ah, I get what you meant now.
The two things are not on par, not wearing the chapel veil doesn't lead to the creation of a new ecclesiology, priesthood, and theology. The ordaining of women does.
Personally, my wife and all my daughters wear it at mass.
This is an example of the same ridiculous disorientation that JPII also put out, that said altar girls was an abuse, but did not include a consequence of condemnation to it--and even allowed it in his diocese of Rome.
The reason he allowed it (same situation as when Paul VI allowed Holy Communion in the hand) was because it had been done by dissidents for twenty years. In Paul VI's case, entire Bishop conferences were threatening to go into schism over Communion in hand.
In this document, the CDF is conceding something to the dissidents as a pastoral practice but remaining firm on what would actually be a change in doctrine.

>not wearing the chapel veil doesn't lead to the creation of a new ecclesiology, priesthood, and theology
>entire bishop conferences were threatening to go into schism over communion in hand
Listen to yourself

Yes. I completely expect a full blown schism.
I didn't say not wearing chapel veil won't alter one's belief in the sacrality of the Sacrament or the sanctuary. I said it doesn't lead to a new theology.
On Communion in the hand, Paul VI tried to reign it in but then gave in, like post-conciliar popes usually do.
>ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

What about ordaining women leads to a new theology, then?

Scripture clearly tells us we are all priests; just like God told Israel that it would be a nation of priests.
And yet, not every Hebrew could offer sacrifices at the Temple; there was a ministerial priesthood.
And so, as the Old foreshadows the New--which is always greater and complete--the New Israel (the Church) also has a ministerial priesthood.
The Apostles became the first Bishops, who ordained priests underneath them.
Their priesthood is a priesthood only by virtue of Christ's, an extension of Christ's, they are literally acting in the Person of Christ when at the altar.

Christ simply did not come as a woman. His mother was His first disciple and it is not recorded anywhere in Scripture or Tradition that she ever baptized anyone or acted in any priestly capacity.
Basically, the priesthood is the priesthood only with certain components, and if one of those components are changed, it is no longer the priesthood. If you change the "thing", it breaks the "thing" and is no longer the "thing."

Or simply, a woman "priestess" is a blasphemy against the nature of Christ, who is both God and man.

This makes sense to me, but point me to the church document that says this. Every official doctrine I have found says that priests are only chosen from men because that is what Christ did, and has no other reasoning for it.

Hmmm, I'll look for a pre-conciliar document as post-V2 documents are always too wordy, never seem to get to the point, and make ambiguous statements that can be taken by both dissenters and orthodox.

also the swedish church recently encouraged their followers to let refugees live in their homes

*taken differently by both dissenters and orthodox, I mean

take this cross off your flag right fucking now

praise Jesus

If the thread goes dead, I'll post a thread with pic related with info.
Helping wife give infant a bath. Be back

The Church has been destroyed from within

DAS RITE murder your unborn babies and flush them down the toilet its what god wants

"In the name of god, the xir, and the holy spirit, amen.

Now that I think about it--there are no pre-conciliar official Church documents or proclamations (that I know of) that has broached this subject... because it was unheard.
As Inter Insigniores no. 8 says,
>The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. But each time that this tradition had the occasion to manifest itself, it witnessed to the Church's desire to conform to the model left her by the Lord.
In other words, there has been no reason to formulate a document on this--until JP2 did in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
What you're looking for is apologetics and the traditional understanding of why.

Dr. Kreeft is a convert, not a traditionalist but good in several apologetic subjects.
>youtube.com/watch?v=kgou9QDR4KM
You might be able to find other gems on the subject on this channel, perhaps from Fr. Ripperger.
>catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/the-male-priesthood-the-argument-from-sacred-tradition.html

not the One True Church

youtube.com/watch?v=2GKCYbvDepY
Sweden needs another Carolus.

The cross dates further back than Christianity, also Jesus was on a pole, not a cross. uneducated retard.