I agree with the sentiments of our Patriarch. Even in this country the term "blessing" has the connotation of approval and will be seen by many as an approval of the life style to which they aspire. I'm sure that is not what Pope Francis has in mind. Nevertheless, it is easy to perceive the confusion the document will and does already engender. While Jesus showed great compassion on the woman caught in adultery, and treated her with tender mercy; he told her to sin no more. Unfortunately, I don't think that spirit will prevail over some Catholic clergy who are "burning at the bit" to approve gay marriage.
Not shocked by "Fiducia Supplicans", or not shocked by the reaction of the many more traditional and orthodox prelates in opposition to it? Personally, neither shocks me, and I think Abp. Shevchuk's response was wonderful and right on point.
I've yet to see any response from our Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) bishops, but perhaps I've not looked in the right place(s).
I've yet to see any response from our Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) bishops, but perhaps I've not looked in the right place(s).
I haven't seen one as yet, but here's the response from the Melkite Eparchy of Newton: link. [pbs.twimg.com]
The letter ends by stating:
Quote
If there is a request to attend or to do a blessing or ceremony either inside or outside a church it can only be done with my prior written permission. Disregard for this prescription will result in canonical penalties.
I'm interested in your response. Would you care to expand? If not publicly, please send me your thoughts via pm. I am intrigued.
Thanks.
Bob
I'm sorry. Alas, I thought the meaning of my response would be rather obvious, but let me put it this way:
I would have been shocked if "Fiducia Supplicans" had been released during the pontificates of Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI, but under the present circumstances the publication of this document does not shock me at all.
I fully understand. I didn't want to come out with my own take on this before a conversation could take place. I have been leery about this Pope from the beginning, but have kept my counsel and watched as these things have developed. I just didn't want to tip my hand.
I just finished a book entitled "The Political Pope," by George Neumayr, a well-respected author on religion and politics, who has published in many publications. He has outlined what has happened in this papacy, named names, given background and history that explains this and previous documents. Those who knew Pope Francis in his earlier roles are either not surprised or are delighted, depending on their orientation: either faithful to the Church's teaching or opposed to it. He presents Pope Francis as a leftist who has read and been influenced by Marxism prior to his entry into the Jesuits. He also outlines the left turn of this order during and after the Vatican Council (2) which also heavily influenced this pope. The book is copyrighted in 2017 so it is dated and does not include this current document, but does give clues as to this outcome--rather prophetic IMHO.
We can only hope that the Lord will intervene to save His Bride from destruction at the hands of Pope Francis and the liberals with whom he has surrounded himself.
We can only hope that the Lord will intervene to save His Bride from destruction at the hands of Pope Francis and the liberals with whom he has surrounded himself.
We can only hope that the Lord will intervene to save His Bride from destruction at the hands of Pope Francis and the liberals with whom he has surrounded himself.
Amen, amen, amen!
I find that an awful and destructive thing to say and affirm with "Amens" about the person of this good and saintly pope. I'm done with this Forum; and pleas don't privately address me. In any case, the "Gates of Hell" will not prevail, so not to worry.
Seeing as what Pope Francis did to Bishop Strickland, one wonders how far he will allow to go this rebellion against what he has written before the cookies start to hit the fan?
And those who, like Cardinal Fernández, defend this, are amazing in how they can twist words, meanings, and generally obfuscate what has been said.
Not shocked by "Fiducia Supplicans", or not shocked by the reaction of the many more traditional and orthodox prelates in opposition to it? Personally, neither shocks me, and I think Abp. Shevchuk's response was wonderful and right on point.
I've yet to see any response from our Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) bishops, but perhaps I've not looked in the right place(s).
You mean the Ruthenian bishops (thank GOD! I left that mess!) who authorized the "Teal Terror" and changed the wording of the Creed? THOSE bishops???
I would be shocked if they made any protest against this at all!
Maybe this topic was too controversial to post. When members have polarizing opinions, it does not work to promote the Christian charity for which this forum has been known. There have certainly been many statements made by many individuals, both clergy and lay, both inside and outside the Catholic Church in response to the recent papal instruction concerning this topic. The more made, the more polarized we seem to become.
I am asking forgiveness of the members of the board for my statements that may have offended any of you.
What I find to be destructive are documents issued by the highest authorities in the Church that accommodate the Christian teaching to modern immoral sensibilities by being doctrinally vague and open to abuse in praxis. Any actions that can be taken in an equivocal sense, and which could in any way give the impression of "blessing" sin must be avoided. The Church in the West is a desiccated husk of its former self, and I can only hope that a leader from a part of the world (perhaps Africa) that has rejected the modern Western approach will be chosen to bring about a great moral and doctrinal reformation at some point in the future.
What I find to be destructive are documents issued by the highest authorities in the Church that accommodate the Christian teaching to modern immoral sensibilities by being doctrinally vague and open to abuse in praxis. Any actions that can be taken in an equivocal sense, and which could in any way give the impression of "blessing" sin must be avoided.
Apotheoun,
I could not agree more. And I thank you for stating so succinctly what I have been thinking since the beginning of this pontificate.
You mean the Ruthenian bishops (thank GOD! I left that mess!) who authorized the "Teal Terror" and changed the wording of the Creed? THOSE bishops???
I would be shocked if they made any protest against this at all!
Well, get ready to be shocked because Eparch Kurt Burnette of the Eparchy of Passaic has issued his reflection and guidelines on Fiducia supplicans: link. [reddit.com]
We celebrated at Christmas the joy that God is with us, is among us and He has invited all people with merciful love to the communion with Him. In this spirit, we, the members of the Hungarian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, address the following message to the ordained ministers and members of our local Church.
The declaration Fiducia supplicans on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on 18 December 2023, does not change the Catholic Church’s belief and perennial teaching on marriage and sexual morality. Considering the pastoral situation in our country, the Bishops’ Conference specifies that the ordained ministers can bless all people individually, regardless of their gender identity and sexual orientation, but they should always avoid common blessing for couples who live together in a non-marital partnership or in a marriage that is not valid in the Church, or who live in a same-sex partnership.
At the same time, we accompany our brothers and sisters living in special life situations with love and respect, helping them to gain a deeper understanding of God’s will by living according to the Gospel of Christ.
Theophan, you are not alone in having second thoughts about posting opinions that seemed offensive. I, myself, have second thoughts about coming on too strong in some of my comments about this topic in other threads. This is one of those really charged-up issues, and it is difficult to treat charged-up issues with objective restraint. I guess we need to remember we are all on the same team and we all want what is best for the future of our Church. At any rate, I am also sorry if I offended anyone, and I will try to understand those with strong, but, differing opinions.
Having said that, may I chime in with a little comment on Ambiguity......
"Anything that is doctrinally vague is open to abuse in praxis"........ yes, but it is also open to the most beautiful of actions, the most profound of outcomes.....because it is open. The Gospels of our Lord are filled with challenges to the rigidity of doctrine. The doctrine of rest on the Sabbath, for instance, is often challenged by Jesus, right in front of the Pharisees. Rather than impose the letter of the Law, Jesus challenges the Pharisees to consider exceptions and ambiguities. Does this mean He is condoning the sin of working on the Sabbath? Or, rather, is He opening a door for love and compassion to enter? Is He abolishing the Law or leading those present to a greater understanding of it? When Jesus asserts, 'man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man', what did He mean? Is not the challange of vagueness an invitation to think and act out of free will and discover the Spirit of the Law? Or is it better to conform to a doctrine because that doctrine is beyond interpretation.........even more important than those for whom it was intended?
The Gospel sermons and parables are not narrow and bounded. They are open- ended stories designed to make us confront our conscience. We are called to participate in their teachings. They are purposely vague, ambiguous and meant to be guide rails to lead us to love, faith, empathy, and even wisdom. They are affirmations that God believes his creation will make the choices they need, and those choices will not be made out of fear of non- compliance, but out of love.
Can we not consider that the Pope's approach may follow this kind of precedent, this way of teaching? Must we jump to the conclusion that he is a radical, trying to tear down everything we were taught? That he is a danger? That the Church will be destroyed because of the definition of a blessing?
Must we demand rules, so opaque with definition, that they allow no chance for the Spirit in them to shine through?
Ambiguity is inherent, and a necessary quality for some things- it's not always to be feared. It allows a chance for things deeply human to enter the situation. This is how I look at it.
I wouldn't call anything related to same-sex activity "beautiful." Blessing individuals who are struggling with sin, but who are making attempts at moral reformation is one thing, for that can be a great gift. But the blessing of "couples" in relationships where the actions involved are morally reprehensible, and which involves either direct or tacit approval of grave sin, is something else altogether.
Christ's actions with the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John illustrate how the Church should act in such situations: "Jesus looked up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'"
Ambiguity, which may give the impression of the approval, or worse yet, of the blessing of sin, is a lie; and God is not the author of lies or of confusion.
Finally, I am reminded of a pontificate of long ago, where the pope was ambiguous, and in his ambiguity he gave aid and comfort to those opposed to Christ, and we all know what happened to him, for he was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council, and even his successor, Pope Leo II, condemned him by name:
"We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."
Ambiguity is inherent, and a necessary quality for some things- it's not always to be feared. It allows a chance for things deeply human to enter the situation. This is how I look at it.
Quote
One of the standards the Church uses to measure the quality of her leaders is a simple line from Scripture: “God is not the author of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33). So it was for Paul. So it is now. So it is for local pastors and bishops, including the bishop of Rome. Confusion among the faithful can often be a matter of innocent individuals who hear but fail to understand the Word. Confused teaching, however, is another matter. It’s never excusable. ... Over the past decade ambiguity on certain matters of Catholic doctrine and practice has become a pattern for the current pontificate. ...
-- Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia.
My sincere and grateful thanks to ajk, Theophan, and Apotheoun for expressing my own sentiments about this subject far better and more eloquently than I would have done. And specifically to ajk for the links you have provided.
I've thought further about this document and the reactions both for and against it. I think the problem is the idea that the Catholic Church has been against the LGBTQ individual. Noting could be further from the truth. The Church has always been open to anyone and everyone.
That said, it is also true that we are all--emphasis ALL--brought to Christ by repentance. No one becomes part of Him--of His Mystical Body--by coming in with his pride and sin wrapped around him. We are baptized to remove the stain of our First Parents and then, throughout our pilgrimage, we are called to examine who we are, what we have done, and who we are becoming through the beautiful Mystery of Confession. No one has a "right" to be part of the Mystical Body. We are all invited and we all come with the humility of spirit that admits we are broken, have fallen short in many ways, and are in need of the medicine that the Church has to offer.
We fail to recognize that the Jesus, while on earth, was an Orthodox Jew. Leviticus' condemnations of irregular relationships were a given. There are those who want to argue that Jesus never said anything against the relationships that the Pope seems to say can be blessed. But they fail in their argument by trying to take Him out of the context in which He came. They also fail to remember what God did to Sodom and Gomorra (sp?). The Beatitudes back this up. "Blessed are the pure in spirit"; "Blessed are the pure in heart." We're called to work on that in the framework which our Creator set out--not the framework that our fallen world has resurrected in out contemporary society.
I think where we have lapsed is in jettisoning our ascetic tradition in the Western Church. The fasting and other practices we have abandoned had as their purpose, giving the individual the tools needed to fight the passions--whether regular or irregular. Our Eastern Catholic and Orthodox brethren still maintain these practices and their example is a light for this darkness.
We published a message a couple of days ago about homosexuality and the blessing of homosexual couples. And our message for this Christmas is that we should respect God's creation as He did it and the natural law of a man and a woman bonding together for the procreation of children. And this is our wish for everybody that was to follow this law of God. And as we concluded in our letter it is forbidden for any priest to bless two men or two women who call themselves a couple.
Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings
Presentation...
Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a “Declaration.”
It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.--Víctor Manuel Card. FERNÁNDEZ Prefect
Introduction
...2. Encouraged by such a great and consoling truth, this Dicastery has considered several questions of both a formal and an informal nature about the possibility of blessing same-sex couples and—in light of Pope Francis’ fatherly and pastoral approach—of offering new clarifications ... III. Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex 31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, ... 38. For this reason, one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation. At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing. In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.
39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation,...The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple. ... 41. What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. ...
Víctor Manuel Card. FERNÁNDEZ Prefect
Mons. Armando MATTEO Secretary for the Doctrinal Section
Wow. Where did you find this powerful video? I have to say that I, too, found this video by an Anglican convert to not only be helpful, but also a call to stand firm in the Faith.
Wow. Where did you find this powerful video? I have to say that I, too, found this video by an Anglican convert to not only be helpful, but also a call to stand firm in the Faith.
Bob
I was an Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) before my conversion to Catholicism in the late 1980s, and I have continued to have an interest in the Anglican communion even after becoming Catholic.
That said, Dr. Ashenden has always been a very thoughtful person, and he was of course at one time the chaplain for Queen Elizabeth prior to his conversion. I posted his most recent video here because I felt that he expressed clearly what is wrong with the recent Vatican document; while firmly stating the need to remain faithful to the truth of Christ regardless of the errors of those in positions of authority in the Church.
Two interesting podcast videos (i.e., from "The Catholic Thing") that touch upon the spurious document "Fiducia Supplicans," and a few other recent issues going on at the Vatican and in the Church in general.
The word "innovation" was brought up in the first video, and it is important to remember that in the ancient Church that term was just another word for heresy.
In October I was sent a book that describes the current situation in the Catholic Church and how to respond. I know that this is not the Book section, but post it here because of its relevance to the current discussion.
Quote
Persecuted from Within: How the Saints Endured Crises in the Church by Joshua Charles and Alec Torres Hardback — 240 pages
This book's review says that the reader will learn:
How to talk to non-Catholics about the pandemic of filth and error in the Church
When to obey — and when to disobey — a priest or bishop
How several saints were purified and sanctified by unholy superiors
What not to do when responding to the crisis of persecution in the Church
How Christ both predicted and prefigured the sufferings of His Church at the hands of wicked prelates
Practical ways you can respond and share the truth
Achievable means to embolden your faith and remain obedient while correcting error
I can say that if my bishop had been Patriarch Nestorius, or Patriarch Dioscorus, or Pope Honorius, or Patriarch Pyrrhus, et al., I would have had no qualms in rejecting the teaching espoused by them, and in resisting them in any way that I, as a layman, could. We are bound to hold fast to the truth of Christ even if parts of the Church's hierarchy have rejected that truth.
It's been interesting to me the attacks that Pope Francis has made on conservative Catholics. Years ago--and I mean MANY years ago--I was in a conversation with my spiritual father about the fact people had criticized me for being "so conservative." His reply was that "a person can never be too conservative when it comes to the Faith." I have kept that in mind. My next spiritual father--after the aforementioned died--told me that the ancient practice of challenging the innovator to show and prove where his innovation was consistent with the Faith once delivered to the Apostles. I've kept that in mind, too.
I must tell all of you that I am grateful for each of you and the support you have demonstrated on this thread and on this board over the years. At times it can seem that one is isolated. It makes me wonder if there is something wrong with me when I am challenged in defending the Church's traditional teaching.
When things are going in a bad direction in the Church, as often seems to be the case these days, I am reminded of the advice given by St. Augustine to the newly baptized catechumens of Hippo Regius:
"Therefore, because you have been made members of Christ I must warn you; for I fear dangers for you, and not alone from those who are pagans, not alone from the Jews, and not so much from the heretics as from bad Catholics. Choose from among the people of God (the Christians) those you would imitate. For if you wish to imitate the multitude, you shall then not be among the few who shall enter in by the narrow way." [M. F. Toal (Editor), The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Volume 2, page 225]
I thought about the implications of "Bad Catholics" after reading the last post. What does one do when a family member decides to marry outside the Church--in a civil ceremony or in a non-Catholic church--and one is pressured by other family members to attend--or worse be a witness or other wise participate?
I was put in this position and my penance once I confessed was rather harsh.
Thephan said, "I thought about the implications of "Bad Catholics" after reading the last post. What does one do when a family member decides to marry outside the Church--in a civil ceremony or in a non-Catholic church--and one is pressured by other family members to attend--or worse be a witness or other wise participate?
I was put in this position and my penance once I confessed was rather harsh."
Well Theophan, now we are getting to the heart of the issue, at least for me. The whole situation is no longer a doctrinal discussion. It is now about people, feelings and conscience, entering a scary grayness.
Everything seems cut and dry when the well defined rule or doctrine states you are not allowed to participate in the wedding service. However, the rule seems at odds with one's conscience when it involves another's feelings, especially someone close. It also seems at odds with the Gospel concepts of understanding, love and being non- judgemental.
I knew a man, a close friend actually, that was older and has since passed away. He had four daughters and one son. He was Roman Catholic, and obeyed the rules of the Church his whole life. Only the son and one daughter married within the Catholic Church. These two Catholic weddings he attended and celebrated. The other three daughters' weddings, he did not attend. He did not celebrate them. He did not " give away" these daughters at the non- Catholic altars. He did not revel and participate in the merry making. His wife attended without him. He held, without wavering, to the Catholic doctrine. I have no idea if he had any second thoughts about his decisions before he died, he never spoke of it. I hope he died still feeling justified by his staunch beliefs.
The bottom line is, the man in question was being a "good Catholic" I suppose..... He followed the rules. However, is that the entire definition of a good Catholic, the follower of a well defined doctrine? Where do the human factors come in? Is belief superior to our deeds? .....even when it allows hurt?
I am glad that you posted this latest thought Theophan. It really gets to the heart of what I have been trying to express all along. And that is...the way we treat others, our concern for their well being and mercy toward them, is way more important than blind allegiance to letter of the law. Is this so heretical of a thought?
The old man I knew was not a " bad Catholic", but during the weddings of his three daughters, I often wondered..........did he act as a "bad Christian". Did he put doctrine before Gospel?
Happy New Year to everyone.
Alex, my New Year wishes and prayers for your recovery and health....
I guess the issue involves the fact that not everyone in church or family is at the same level of intensity in their faith commitment. And that makes for some very tense family dynamics. I think it relates to a description of the way the Russian Orthodox Church was purified by the persecution of the Bolsheviks. It was back to the First Century. Those who were willing to put their lives on the line for Christ stayed--a much smaller number than when it was custom to pack the churches on a regular basis. I think we find that in families.
I have told clergy that we need--IMHO--a better catechesis for our young people when they are beginning to think about dating and eventually choosing a spouse. Many never think of their faith or how it will be lived out with someone whose value system is found to be radically different, though much of that is glossed over during courtships. It can often mean the loss of faith for a Christian when he/she finds that living with a nonbeliever or much weaker believer challenges the regular practice of the Faith.
St. John Chrysostom is quoted as saying, "Thousands and thousands of people crowd the churches. Of those thousands, only a few hundred understand what it is all about. Of those few hundred, only a handful take that knowledge and attain their salvation." (BTW, this is one of those tough sayings I wrestle with on a regular basis.)
The discussion is most certainly doctrinal in nature.
Here is an excellent article by Fr. Thomas Weinandy in which he makes it clear that the things set forth in "Fiducia Supplicans" is not magisterial teaching:
Today the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith put out another defense of the new document on Blessings that we have been discussing. There is a significant statement that I have copied and posted below. In other words, a bishop cannot forbit his priests from doing these "blessings."
I thought that the Catholic Church taught that the pope teaches in communion and in collaboration with the bishops of the world. This seems to undermine that idea and makes it seem as if the pope is the only bishop and teacher in the Church. If Pope Francis can undermine the local bishop, what good is it to have a local bishop?
Sounds like the pope is pushing for some kind of clash with the world's bishops that would become a real crisis.
Quote
Each local Bishop, by virtue of his own ministry, always has the power of discernment in loco, that is, in that concrete place that he knows better than others precisely because it is his own flock. Prudence and attention to the ecclesial context and to the local culture could allow for different methods of application, but not a total or definitive denial of this path that is proposed to priests.
The lunacy continues: "... a proposal for short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions)." So bless couples but not their (acknowledged!) unions.
Today the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith put out another defense of the new document on Blessings that we have been discussing. There is a significant statement that I have copied and posted below. In other words, a bishop cannot forbit his priests from doing these "blessings."
I thought that the Catholic Church taught that the pope teaches in communion and in collaboration with the bishops of the world. This seems to undermine that idea and makes it seem as if the pope is the only bishop and teacher in the Church. If Pope Francis can undermine the local bishop, what good is it to have a local bishop?
Sounds like the pope is pushing for some kind of clash with the world's bishops that would become a real crisis.
Quote
Each local Bishop, by virtue of his own ministry, always has the power of discernment in loco, that is, in that concrete place that he knows better than others precisely because it is his own flock. Prudence and attention to the ecclesial context and to the local culture could allow for different methods of application, but not a total or definitive denial of this path that is proposed to priests.
Oy vey ist mir!! (Yes, I'm a convert from Judaism)
Earlier, Bob, you referred to the book "Persecuted From Within". While I was looking at it on Amazon I saw another that, in light of all that's been happening recently (and not so recently) with our dear pontiff, seems more than appropriately titled as "The Dictator Pope" by Marcantonio Colonna (aka Henry Sire). Going on the title alone it seems like it might be worth a read.
More and more I sigh and shake my head at the words and actions of Pope Francis. My wife, who has unfortunately left the Church, commented on the day he was elected to the papacy that nothing good would come of this.
If you want "The Dictator Pope," don't buy it. I already have it; have read it, and will send it to you. I have yet to read "Persecuted From Within." This latter has a review in which the author outlines when it is okay to disobey one's bishop--and from extension this pope.
I started to read the full document but stopped at the passage I posted. I figured the rest was not worth my time since its logic, as with the original document is so tortured as to be a joke.
If you want "The Dictator Pope," don't buy it. I already have it; have read it, and will send it to you.
Bob
Wow, many thanks for that, Bob! Your offer is very much appreciated! It turns out that I can get it from the library on an inter-library loan, so I'll do that first, and save you the hassle and cost of mailing it. Thanks again!!
I bought mine on Amazon and when I got it, I found some kind of library stamp in it. Apparently the seller borrowed it and then sold it rather than return it. What a world!!
On another note, I will be buying my children a copy of "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" before Pope Francis orders revisions according to his innovations.
On another note, I will be buying my children a copy of "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" before Pope Francis orders revisions according to his innovations.
You mean the Ruthenian bishops (thank GOD! I left that mess!) who authorized the "Teal Terror" and changed the wording of the Creed? THOSE bishops???
I would be shocked if they made any protest against this at all!
Well, get ready to be shocked because Eparch Kurt Burnette of the Eparchy of Passaic has issued his reflection and guidelines on Fiducia supplicans: link. [reddit.com]
In short, FS does NOT apply.
Well, guess what? Neither Bishop Kurt, nor any other Catholic bishop, is allowed denial or dissent:
"Within the horizon outlined here is the possibility of blessings of couples in irregular situations and of same-sex couples..."
"...here is the possibility..." The possibility? Is this the Magisterium or a speculative theologian addressing this issue? But more. My mind has been refusing to understand the obvious, that Pope Francis and his like-minded Card. Fernández, now finally established as doctrinal Prefect, actually want and require at least the pinch of incense, and "not a total or definitive denial of this path that is proposed to priests." The path, what they want, is the blessing of same-sex couples but it's just a "proposal," but it must not be denied: "... a proposal for short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions)." A blessing of the couple but not their union? An oxymoron is to become a new and innovative doctrine of blessings? If not doctrine (yet) then certainly praxis. The answer of the clergy, in particular bishops, and the faithful to the "proposal" must be, NO.The answer must be the "total or definitive denial of this path." It must be that the Church does NOT BLESS same-sex "couples" for any reason, at any time or place, whatsoever.
Thank you, again, for your sharp analysis of this confusing language and its consequences.
I think that Pope Francis is running up against "the sense of the Faithful" and he is finding that he has stumbled. He appears to be too arrogant to admit his mistake and has doubled down with his hand-picked doctrinal chief. It's interesting to me that he has done away with a solid Catholic head for the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith and imported his own "yes man" to fill that slot.
There is a book out that I never thought I'd see written that posits that one can, in certain circumstances, disobey one's bishop--and I would imagine that means the Bishop of Rome, too.
You mean the Ruthenian bishops (thank GOD! I left that mess!) who authorized the "Teal Terror" and changed the wording of the Creed? THOSE bishops???
I would be shocked if they made any protest against this at all!
Well, get ready to be shocked because Eparch Kurt Burnette of the Eparchy of Passaic has issued his reflection and guidelines on Fiducia supplicans: link. [reddit.com]
In short, FS does NOT apply.
Well, guess what? Neither Bishop Kurt, nor any other Catholic bishop, is allowed denial or dissent:
It's a question one might ask if this applies to the Ruthenian bishops. The head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has stated emphatically that it does not apply to his sui juris Church and also suggested that it does not apply to any Eastern Catholic Church. He cited the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches.
Meanwhile, Pope Benedict's secretary has been summoned for a private audience with Pope Francis after he publicly stated that Pope Benedict would never have made the sort of statement that this teaching makes. We'll see if he is silenced or gets the Strickland treatment.
This saga goes on day to day.
I don't think either Pope Francis or his new doctrinal chief know what the function of the Holy See is. Years ago when he said "Who am I to judge?" it struck me that I knew the answer to that even he didn't. He's the man responsible for keeping the Deposit of the Faith from innovations that contradict what has been taught in all ages and all places. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is supposed to be the place that evaluates any innovations to see if they are in line with that same Deposit. But these two seem to have turned that upside down and persecuted al those who are calling them out over it.
The pastoral intent of Fiducia Supplicans is to offer grace that affects reconciliation. The pastoral failure of the document is that it fails to acknowledge the necessity of repentance. The authors have not provided clarity on Church teaching, rather they have offered a document filled with implied and explicit contradictions. The document’s stated intent is to avoid confusion and scandal. It [sic] this regard, it has utterly failed.
This has been my argument since the "about face" on the issue of same-sex and adulterous relationships has move to the front in the Church. Pope Francis claims he is opening the Church up while I have argued that the Church has always been open to all.
The difference is that I have argued that we are all call to Christ by repentance--this being the most important thing in all this. Metanoia comes up. We are called to a constant conversion of life; we all examine our lives to see how we are doing or not doing; we have our priests to shine a light on us in the Mystery of Confession where he acts in the Person of Christ and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The difference here is that people in irregular relationships want "in" without repentance. They want their relationships to be declared regular like the secular culture says they are.
In fact, I would further argue that the Holy Spirit is the One not mentioned--or truly mentioned--in this document. The Holy Spirit cannot be involved in confusion, being the Spirit of Truth. He has consistently revealed the truth of the basis of our humanity and its sexual component from Leviticus to St. Paul and through the constant teaching of the Apostolic Churches, even in their division from one another: they have all retained the truth taught from the earliest times.
I've also argued that this document misses one very important point beyond those already mentioned. That is the eternal point. St. Paul spells it out for us in 1Cor 6:9. There is no eternity in the kingdom for a number of lifestyles that were common in his time and which continue today. It seems to me that encouraging these irregular lifestyles is not an act of love or of mercy when the eternal consequences are so graphically spelled out.
St. Paul spells it out for us in 1Cor 6:9. There is no eternity in the kingdom for a number of lifestyles that were common in his time and which continue today. It seems to me that encouraging these irregular lifestyles is not an act of love or of mercy when the eternal consequences are so graphically spelled out.
If there is no stopping it, I recommend to those following Fiducia Supplicans, as a reading prior to blessing, (I read it to the Church in my homily for Meatfare, 2021) Romans 1:18-2:1:
Quote
RSV Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
Two developments—both entirely foreseeable, one so easily avoidable as to be in essence an unforced error—are making the already improbable management of the Fiducia supplicans fiasco almost entirely impossible.
The first is the reported influx of requests for papal blessings on parchment sheets for same-sex couples. ... when they find themselves having to insist that something they’ve said or written is clear, the reason behind the need for such insistence is often that it isn’t. ... The really ironic thing about this situation is that the Vatican system has a guy who is supposed to point this stuff out to the pope before he does things like this, so that things like this don’t happen.
The problem these days is that the guy happens to be Victor Manuel Cardinal Fernandez, architect of the very scheme that has put the pope in the bind.
It's a question one might ask if this applies to the Ruthenian bishops. The head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has stated emphatically that it does not apply to his sui juris Church and also suggested that it does not apply to any Eastern Catholic Church. He cited the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches.
Meanwhile, Pope Benedict's secretary has been summoned for a private audience with Pope Francis after he publicly stated that Pope Benedict would never have made the sort of statement that this teaching makes. We'll see if he is silenced or gets the Strickland treatment.
This saga goes on day to day.
I don't think either Pope Francis or his new doctrinal chief know what the function of the Holy See is. Years ago when he said "Who am I to judge?" it struck me that I knew the answer to that even he didn't. He's the man responsible for keeping the Deposit of the Faith from innovations that contradict what has been taught in all ages and all places. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is supposed to be the place that evaluates any innovations to see if they are in line with that same Deposit. But these two seem to have turned that upside down and persecuted al those who are calling them out over it.
Please correct me now if I am wrong, but my understanding of being "in communion with Rome" does not allow for any sort of Lone Ranger mentality regarding the Catholic faith. The pope gives orders and you obey. End of discussion.
Don't really know who they are. It's not them that that's super important to the article, or issue at hand really. The Newsweek article is about Bishop Strickland and a different view of this polarizing hero. The facts it contain point to a Bishop that ( in the terms of Pope Francis) is allowing ideology to guide, if not replace, theology. It portrays a Bishop who seems to be overly concerned with extreme right- wing politics (reactionary politics)., let alone other issues which remain confidential to the papal investigators. It portrays a Bishop very eager to be in the secular limelight, fond of controversy, and a sower of disunity.
The bill- board sized smoke screen is a nice diversionary touch though........lol
OK, I stand corrected for mis- assigning the quote. Sorry, Edward H. I really wasn't " blaming" anyway. I was merely trying to paint the phrase in a different way- that some think the treatment justifiable........
Faithful America is the largest online community of Christians putting faith into action for social justice. Our members -- Catholic, Protestant, and more
So we see that we have a group which poses as part of the diocese of Tyler, TX, and who have some reason to demand the removal of the bishop thereof. In reality, none of these people or their organization has any business sticking their noses into this diocese or its business or the actions of its bishop. In addition, when I read further, their self-description reads like the typical Leftist organization that is against the teachings of the Catholic Church to begin with so their criticisms ought to be ignored.
Please correct me now if I am wrong, but my understanding of being "in communion with Rome" does not allow for any sort of Lone Ranger mentality regarding the Catholic faith. The pope gives orders and you obey. End of discussion.
Tell me why this is wrong?
Thank you.
Edward H,
I found an answer to your question from St. Robert Bellarmine--my patron saint--and a 16th century Jesuit. Please give me a couple days to copy it out and post it with appropriate citation.
A Lexington, Kentucky, Catholic Church has been blowing its own horn after giving a blessing to a same-sex couple, insisting it is only doing what Pope Francis wants.
"History was made Sunday at Historic Saint Paul Catholic Church. This same-sex couple, civilly married for 22 years, asked for a blessing which Fr Richard freely offered according to the guidelines in Fiducia Supplicans,” the church posted on Facebook.
Allied Mechanical & Electrical - We Are Ready To Take Your Call Allied Mechanical & Electrical - We Are Ready To Take Your Call Ad www.alliedmepa.com [alliedmepa.com] A Vatican press release, however, stated that the doctrine referenced reflects the fact that “the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.”
The church later issued a Facebook post pushing back against any critics, such as journalist and editor Michael Matt, who objected in a post on X. “This is not the private blessing for individuals that some would argue is the intended target of the new Vatican document. This is a ‘married’ lesbian couple getting a public blessing in church,” he posted.
It's a question one might ask if this applies to the Ruthenian bishops. The head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has stated emphatically that it does not apply to his sui juris Church and also suggested that it does not apply to any Eastern Catholic Church. He cited the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches.
Meanwhile, Pope Benedict's secretary has been summoned for a private audience with Pope Francis after he publicly stated that Pope Benedict would never have made the sort of statement that this teaching makes. We'll see if he is silenced or gets the Strickland treatment.
This saga goes on day to day.
I don't think either Pope Francis or his new doctrinal chief know what the function of the Holy See is. Years ago when he said "Who am I to judge?" it struck me that I knew the answer to that even he didn't. He's the man responsible for keeping the Deposit of the Faith from innovations that contradict what has been taught in all ages and all places. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is supposed to be the place that evaluates any innovations to see if they are in line with that same Deposit. But these two seem to have turned that upside down and persecuted al those who are calling them out over it.
Please correct me now if I am wrong, but my understanding of being "in communion with Rome" does not allow for any sort of Lone Ranger mentality regarding the Catholic faith. The pope gives orders and you obey. End of discussion.
Tell me why this is wrong?
Thank you.
In spite of appearances to the contrary, especially with reference to Pope Francis, the Church is a monarchy, with Christ as King, and the pope as His vicar. It is not a dictatorship--though sometimes the two-monarchy and dictatorship-are indistinguishable. The pope does not say "Jump!" and we all ask, "How high?", regardless of the circumstances. If something does not apply or is outside of Eastern Catholic Canon Law, it seems to me that, well...it just does not apply and therefore is irrelevant...for Eastern Catholics. Being in communion with Rome does not mean that we have to adopt a hive mentality. I hope and pray, anyway.
Remember...the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. I'm pretty sure Francis has not done so in this case. But, maybe I'm wrong...
Don't really know who they are. It's not them that that's super important to the article, or issue at hand really. The Newsweek article is about Bishop Strickland and a different view of this polarizing hero. The facts it contain point to a Bishop that ( in the terms of Pope Francis) is allowing ideology to guide, if not replace, theology. It portrays a Bishop who seems to be overly concerned with extreme right- wing politics (reactionary politics)., let alone other issues which remain confidential to the papal investigators. It portrays a Bishop very eager to be in the secular limelight, fond of controversy, and a sower of disunity.
The bill- board sized smoke screen is a nice diversionary touch though........lol
With just a couple minor word changes to your post, Hutsul, one might get the impression you, or the article in question, were referring to Pope Francis .
J. MIchael said: "With just a couple minor word changes to your post, Hutsul, one might get the impression you, or the article in question, were referring to Pope Francis"
J Michael,
Well, I kind of figured that someone would comment similar to this- that Pope Francis is also an ideologist, a left leaning one to boot. But, that is not the case at all. The Holy Father is not promoting an ideological agenda. There is a huge difference here. It is the difference between ideology and faith. If you would, please read the following, especially how the writer describes the "truth about ideology" and the "truth about belief" Read it, think about it, and ask yourself which angle is Bishop Strickland coming from, and which the Holy Father? It is one of the best distinctions between the two that I have ever encountered, or considered.
Don't really know who they are. It's not them that that's super important to the article, or issue at hand really. The Newsweek article is about Bishop Strickland and a different view of this polarizing hero. The facts it contain point to a Bishop that ( in the terms of Pope Francis) is allowing ideology to guide, if not replace, theology. It portrays a Bishop who seems to be overly concerned with extreme right- wing politics (reactionary politics)., let alone other issues which remain confidential to the papal investigators. It portrays a Bishop very eager to be in the secular limelight, fond of controversy, and a sower of disunity.
The bill- board sized smoke screen is a nice diversionary touch though........lol
In your zeal to bash Bishop Strickland, I think you have missed my point. The Newsweek article you highlight is about, and references the "petition" as the link I included, and that link now has the "bill- board sized smoke screen" (if I understand you correctly). So those folks you invoke as properly discerning "Catholics" who signed the anti-Strickland "petition" will perhaps now through the same website, be thanking Target for LGBTQ Christmas decorations, as requested. That was my point. Perhaps you didn't get it; all the worse if you did.
I suspect that the chief charge against Bishop Strickland is simply that he was not a team-player, as in go team right-or-wrong. The yes-men culture is still very, very strong in the Church. It has given us the pedophilia and homosexual and abuse scandals, and bankrupt diocese all -- allow me to romanticize here a bit -- for lack of one just man.
If you would, please read the following, especially how the writer describes the "truth about ideology" and the "truth about belief" Read it, think about it, ... It is one of the best distinctions between the two that I have ever encountered, or considered.
It took me a the few seconds scanning it before pegging it as just good 'ol "Reformation" Ideology.[/quote]
Well, of course it did. Not even worth considering.
I used to consider myself somewhat intelligent, but I suppose the years have slowed my thinking down a bit. But, even with the lower gear of age, it is becoming quite apparent to me that nothing Pope Francis says or does is going to be met with approval by " conservative Catholics", if that is the right term. Actully, what was "conservative Catholic", is now........ "reactionary Catholic"........
I leave you with the following:
"While I fully support a return to tradition and orthodoxy, the problem I see with reactionaries is their desire to make the Church an oasis from modernism while pushing away people who are in desperate need of God’s mercy. I can appreciate the effort to make Church a safe space for people who seek refuge from the world’s corruption. But I feel it needs to be said that the moment the Church becomes an exclusive club for the spiritually well, the Gospel of Christ is lost."
And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” — Mark 2:17 RSV
I am betting that reactionary Catholics' reactionary positions are not limited to Church doctrine. The majority probably, like Bishop Strickland, support MAGA agendas, distrust Democracy, are anti- vaxers, blame societal woes on immigration and are election deniers. I am also betting that, before long, reactionary Catholics will develop a theory on how Pope Francis stole the election at the Vatican. They might even overpower the Swiss Guards and storm St. Peters in their effort to take the Church back in time, and make it great again.....lol.......
In all seriousness, though, it is too upsetting to see how some are trying to outdo others in the race to heap more fuel at the Pope's burning stake, while congratulating eachother in their new found "evidence" against the him.. And, frankly, it's not fun being all alone in defending him......
And with that, I follow Utroque out the door of this Forum. You can get back to entertaining more crucial ideas like- which nano- second we should celebrate a holiday. It's been real.
J. MIchael said: "With just a couple minor word changes to your post, Hutsul, one might get the impression you, or the article in question, were referring to Pope Francis"
J Michael,
Well, I kind of figured that someone would comment similar to this- that Pope Francis is also an ideologist, a left leaning one to boot. But, that is not the case at all. The Holy Father is not promoting an ideological agenda. There is a huge difference here. It is the difference between ideology and faith. If you would, please read the following, especially how the writer describes the "truth about ideology" and the "truth about belief" Read it, think about it, and ask yourself which angle is Bishop Strickland coming from, and which the Holy Father? It is one of the best distinctions between the two that I have ever encountered, or considered.
I do not accept the nominalist understanding of the faith advocated by the website linked above.
That said, is the orthodox Catholic faith a system (συνίστημι) of beliefs?
Yes, it is a system of interrelated truths.
In fact, I would liken the faith of the Church to a piece of fabric in which the various threads come together to create a single piece of cloth (i.e., like the seamless garment worn by our Lord). As a consequence, if one were to pull out a thread, and then another thread, and so on, the person would eventually destroy the piece of cloth, which only exists because of the systematic structure inherent to the fabric.
Now, in Catholic theology this arrangement of the doctrines of the faith is normally referred to as the "hierarchy of truths"; that is, to the structure whereby the various doctrines of the faith come together in order to form a single complexus (i.e., a single complex reality). It is important to remember that the term "hierarchy of truths" does not mean that some truths are more true than other truths; instead, it simply highlights the fact that the various truths of the faith are interconnected, and that some teachings depend upon others within the structure in order to be held fast, and in order to be understood correctly. Taking into account what I have said to this point, if one were to begin to deny elements of the faith, e.g., the dogmas of the Incarnation and the Trinity, or aspects of the moral nature of man in relation to God, etc., the whole structure of the faith would collapse.
Finally, let me give a pertinent example of what I am talking about: if one were to propose a completely novel distinction, i.e., one that never existed before in the history of the Church, between a liturgical blessing of an ordained priest and some type of a spontaneous blessing (whatever that means) of a priest, the one proposing this spurious innovation would be causing a rupture in the Church's life and practice of the faith. In the example given orthodoxy would no longer coordinate with orthopraxy, and this would be like pulling out a thread from a piece of fabric, which would start a process that would damage the ability of the Church to proclaim the Gospel clearly and faithfully, and this corruption of the faith would cause great harm to the Gospel and to the Church. Alas, it should be borne in mind that for the ancient Church Fathers the term innovation was simply another word for heresy.
It took me a the few seconds scanning it before pegging it as just good 'ol "Reformation" Ideology.
Well, of course it did. Not even worth considering.
I used to consider myself somewhat intelligent, but I suppose the years have slowed my thinking down a bit. But, even with the lower gear of age, it is becoming quite apparent to me that nothing Pope Francis says or does is going to be met with approval by " conservative Catholics", if that is the right term. Actully, what was "conservative Catholic", is now........ "reactionary Catholic"........
I leave you with the following:
"While I fully support a return to tradition and orthodoxy, the problem I see with reactionaries is their desire to make the Church an oasis from modernism while pushing away people who are in desperate need of God’s mercy. I can appreciate the effort to make Church a safe space for people who seek refuge from the world’s corruption. But I feel it needs to be said that the moment the Church becomes an exclusive club for the spiritually well, the Gospel of Christ is lost."
And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” — Mark 2:17 RSV
Ah, "reactionary Catholics," such an interesting term, and so very judgmental. I bet it makes you feel superior to all the lowly "reactionary Catholics" here at the Byzantine Forum, and no doubt elsewhere.
Originally Posted by Hutsul
I am betting that reactionary Catholics' reactionary positions are not limited to Church doctrine. The majority probably, like Bishop Strickland, support MAGA agendas, distrust Democracy, are anti- vaxers, blame societal woes on immigration and are election deniers. I am also betting that, before long, reactionary Catholics will develop a theory on how Pope Francis stole the election at the Vatican. They might even overpower the Swiss Guards and storm St. Peters in their effort to take the Church back in time, and make it great again.....lol.......
In all seriousness, though, it is too upsetting to see how some are trying to outdo others in the race to heap more fuel at the Pope's burning stake, while congratulating eachother in their new found "evidence" against the him.. And, frankly, it's not fun being all alone in defending him......
I do not really care about MAGA, or any of the other political things you mentioned; instead, I care about Christ and His Church. That said, I have never heard of this group that you call "reactionary Catholics," do they belong to some sui juris Church that is unknown to me? I mean I have heard of the sui juris Latin Catholic Church, the sui juris Melkite Catholic Church, and the sui juris Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, etc., but I have never heard of a sui juris Church called the "Reactionary Catholic Church."
Alas, I am sure you will be disappointed, but I am not a member of this new "Reactionary Catholic Church."
Originally Posted by Hutsul
And with that, I follow Utroque out the door of this Forum. You can get back to entertaining more crucial ideas like- which nano- second we should celebrate a holiday. It's been real.
I am sure it is hard for you to have to listen to the views of people you clearly despise, seeing that you have - with a broad brush - given those you disagree with here at the Byzantine Forum the title of "reactionary Catholics." Such is the way of things at the present time I suppose.
It took me a the few seconds scanning it before pegging it as just good 'ol "Reformation" Ideology.
Quote
Well, of course it did. Not even worth considering.
I used to consider myself somewhat intelligent, but I suppose the years have slowed my thinking down a bit. But, even with the lower gear of age, it is becoming quite apparent to me that nothing Pope Francis says or does is going to be met with approval by " conservative Catholics", if that is the right term. Actully, what was "conservative Catholic", is now........ "reactionary Catholic"........
I leave you with the following:
"While I fully support a return to tradition and orthodoxy, the problem I see with reactionaries is their desire to make the Church an oasis from modernism while pushing away people who are in desperate need of God’s mercy. I can appreciate the effort to make Church a safe space for people who seek refuge from the world’s corruption. But I feel it needs to be said that the moment the Church becomes an exclusive club for the spiritually well, the Gospel of Christ is lost."
And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” — Mark 2:17 RSV
I am betting that reactionary Catholics' reactionary positions are not limited to Church doctrine. The majority probably, like Bishop Strickland, support MAGA agendas, distrust Democracy, are anti- vaxers, blame societal woes on immigration and are election deniers. I am also betting that, before long, reactionary Catholics will develop a theory on how Pope Francis stole the election at the Vatican. They might even overpower the Swiss Guards and storm St. Peters in their effort to take the Church back in time, and make it great again.....lol.......
In all seriousness, though, it is too upsetting to see how some are trying to outdo others in the race to heap more fuel at the Pope's burning stake, while congratulating eachother in their new found "evidence" against the him.. And, frankly, it's not fun being all alone in defending him......
And with that, I follow Utroque out the door of this Forum. You can get back to entertaining more crucial ideas like- which nano- second we should celebrate a holiday. It's been real.
Wow! Just....wow!
There's much that could could be said in reply to the above, but at this stage in the conversation it would be pointless, especially as AJK and Apotheoun have already said much that I would, albeit in different words.
I just can't believe, though, the sour grapes and lack of charity expressed in the sentence I've put in bold. Regardless of where, if anywhere, one stands concerning the calendar issue(s), it's rather sad that Holy Pascha should now be reduced to the status of a mere "holiday". Oh well....
Well, for some reason, my post above didn't format properly. Probably something I failed to do. So, just to make it clear, everything above "Wow! Just....wow!" is Hutsul's post quoted. Apologies for any confusion I may have sown!
Please correct me now if I am wrong, but my understanding of being "in communion with Rome" does not allow for any sort of Lone Ranger mentality regarding the Catholic faith. The pope gives orders and you obey. End of discussion.
Tell me why this is wrong?
Thank you.
Because you have not accurately described "communion" much less Catholicism.
Please correct me now if I am wrong, but my understanding of being "in communion with Rome" does not allow for any sort of Lone Ranger mentality regarding the Catholic faith. The pope gives orders and you obey. End of discussion.
Tell me why this is wrong?
Thank you.
I like to say, do the experiment: observe the evidence, believe your own eyes. See what is going on in this forum and throughout the Church as evidence of the Catholic faith and "being in communion." Words readily associated with Pope Francis are "possibility" and "innovation" and "Synodality." Observe in the reaction to Fiducia supplicans the true "Synodality," eminently existential rather than the artificial, programmed caricature of a Synod, "on Synodality." Pope Francis is getting a good and healthy dose of real synodality, aka sensus fidelium. He's getting what he wanted, just not what he expected.
There is an article in The National Catholic Register. I have copied the title and the first sentence. It seems to me to give some idea of the background out of which this controversial document comes.
Quote
Rediscovered Book by Cardinal Fernández Features Graphic Erotic Passages on ‘Spirituality and Sensuality’ This is not the first time that a book with a sexual focus previously published by the Argentinian theologian has caused controversy.
My intention is not to add fuel to the fire already blazing here.
There is an article in The National Catholic Register. I have copied the title and the first sentence. It seems to me to give some idea of the background out of which this controversial document comes.
Quote
Rediscovered Book by Cardinal Fernández Features Graphic Erotic Passages on ‘Spirituality and Sensuality’ This is not the first time that a book with a sexual focus previously published by the Argentinian theologian has caused controversy.
My intention is not to add fuel to the fire already blazing here.
Bob
Cardinal Fernández Responds to U... Certainly Would Not Write [That] Now’ [ncregister.com] So he wrote it as a young-presbyter (!;from presbuteros=elder) and now he's grown' up. It's still his and he has to own it and distance himself from it if that's the case. Great saints have changed their opinions. The concern I have is that this being so sensational will obscure the real issue, the very problematic theology of Fiducia supplicans and the clarification:
1. it bifurcates the nature of blessings 2. it does that by bifurcating liturgy 3. it bifurcates the minister of the blessing 4. it raises the subjective feeling of the Pope to doctrine 5. it ignores Church as communio and the sensus fidelium 6. it is an insult to the apostolic character shared by all bishops
To expand on two related points, 3 and 6. Catholic theology is especially developed regarding the sacramental character or sphragis, seal. We are imprinted through Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Orders with an indelible and irrevocable mark, seal, character; it is as much who we are as our intrinsic human nature, it is who we are as a Person. It is there however we are clothed, wherever we are, whatever we are doing. We sometimes signify this: the sticharion/alb is the "robe of glory," the baptismal garment, proper to all who have "put on Christ" in baptism and are anointed in the common priesthood. The deacon, presbyter, bishop wear the stole proper to their order.
So while the eyes of the world and the theology of Fiducia supplicans would have us see a functional difference in the confused concept of the non-liturgical priest, unvested (all the worse if wearing his stole) giving some kind of nuanced (diminished???) blessing, the eyes of faith and God see, always, the one signed in the sacramental/mystical character of who he really (ontologically) IS.
These are the aspects of our rich Byzantine liturgical and spiritual tradition that come to my mind as I reflect on Pope Francis’ recent declaration, Fiducia Supplicans. On December 18, 2023, the Vatican issued this “Declaration on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings” that the Church may have some clarity on those blessings that are at the heart of the Holy Mysteries (i.e. the seven sacraments) and those which are considered more extemporaneous or spontaneous. ... The declaration clarifies for Catholic faithful that which many Catholic priests have already come to know in their compassionate ministry to those with same-sex attraction. ... Important to note is that, in our society, the word "couple" has come to be understood as two people who have entered a relationship that is either one of dating, engagement, or marriage. According to Church teaching, two people of the same sex cannot be in any of these types of relationships. There can never be a Church blessing for these. ... As the faithful of our Eparchy strive to grow in holiness in all aspects of their lives, and as we unpack the words of our Holy Father, finding how they apply to our Byzantine Catholic liturgical, spiritual, and disciplinary tradition, I encourage the English translation of Fiducia Supplicans to be printed in parish bulletins* and that parish priests assist their faithful in understanding the teachings of the declaration in light of the abundant blessings that we are graced by in our Byzantine Catholic Church.
from the youtube transcript @11:30 in other words there cannot be a blessing for the relationship of two people who are in a same sex union and that's one once again confirmed by paragraph five and paragraph 11 of fiducia supplicans as well as others those are the most prominent though so he's [Bishop Robert] just completely reiterating what fiducia supplicans says.
Quote
Fiducia Supplicans
III. Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex
31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex,
I saw that on EWTN last night. Good discussion, imo. I hope Fr. Murray isn't "sanctioned" for voicing his opinions on this and other topics I've heard him discuss with Raymond!
Pope defends decision to approve same-sex blessings
Pope Francis on Sunday (January 14) defended a landmark decision approving blessings for same-sex couples, suggesting that those in the Catholic Church who have resisted it have jumped to "ugly conclusions" because they do not understand it.
I think he misses the point that there is a "sense of the Faithful" that has risen here to oppose his recent teaching document. I remember reading the Circular Letter of the Oriental Patriarchs to Pio Nono in which the Orthodox patriarchs, invited to Vatican I, tell Pius the 9th that the people are the guardians of the Faith; the clergy are the guardians of the Mysteries.
Pope defends decision to approve same-sex blessings
Pope Francis on Sunday (January 14) defended a landmark decision approving blessings for same-sex couples, suggesting that those in the Catholic Church who have resisted it have jumped to "ugly conclusions" because they do not understand it.
I think he misses the point that there is a "sense of the Faithful" that has risen here to oppose his recent teaching document. I remember reading the Circular Letter of the Oriental Patriarchs to Pio Nono in which the Orthodox patriarchs, invited to Vatican I, tell Pius the 9th that the people are the guardians of the Faith; the clergy are the guardians of the Mysteries.
Spot on, Bob!
Perhaps if Francis had himself engaged in some "fraternal discussions" with some of the more orthodox bishops of our Church BEFORE allowing for the release of "Fiducia Supplicans" as it currently reads-though I really can't see that happening, given the man- he wouldn't be facing the push-back, the "opposition", that he's created.
Others have, rightly or wrongly, characterized Pope Francis as a "dictator". A dictator has little use for any kind of "sense of the Faithful."
The more I hear from and of this man, the less I like him, and the greater my feeling that he is truly demeaning the Chair of St. Peter by his words and actions. When one has little respect for the man, it makes it difficult, though not impossible, to respect the office he holds.
And yes...I know..."...the gates of hell will not prevail...". Another Pope, Paul VI, said this, "“… We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation.
“The Church is no longer trusted. We trust the first pagan prophet we see who speaks to us in some newspaper, and we run behind him and ask him if he has the formula for true life. I repeat, doubt has entered our conscience. And it entered through the windows that should have been open to the light: science.”
Though he was, at the time, referring to "science", his words today could have a much broader meaning. Seems to me that Satan's smoke is getting thicker and more toxic the more we progress through this current papacy. But, that's just my opinion...
A defensive tactic of advocates and defenders of Fiducia s. is to avoid the actual heterodox proposal by seemingly commenting on it but actually with something related that is orthodox. So we bless everyone -- every-ONE. Here is Pope Francis himself:
Quote
Rome Newsroom, Jan 15, 2024 / 09:37 am
Pope Francis responded publicly to questions about the Vatican’s declaration on blessings for same-sex couples for the first time in a television interview on Sunday night. ... The pope underlined that “the Lord blesses everyone” and that a blessing is an invitation to enter into a conversation “to see what the road is that the Lord proposes to them.”
“The Lord blesses everyone who is capable of being baptized, that is, every person,” Francis repeated.
Subterfuge at its best. Bait and switch: everyone therefore couples.
It is possible to get lost in all the correct and pertinent critiques and objections to Fiducia s. and its subsequent "Press release" theology. The correct doctrine in the document is made irrelevant by the one word that should be the primary theological focus: couple(s). What needs to be simply said in response is that the Church has not and does not bless couples other than has been done already within the deposit of faith: those who are married or espoused/betrothed in the Church. Theologically, what other legitimate couples are there?
Quote
The Declaration [Fiducia supplicans] contains a proposal for short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions)...
Another aspect pointing to the questionable theology in Fiducia supplicans is that it presumes to be authoritative teaching, rather, it a "vision" and all but exclusively references only Pope Francis:
Quote
Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church.
At the same time, the Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, ... But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him.
And even more so, going back further, something that Pope Francis and, it seems, many Catholics have forgotten:
Quote
Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. [emphasis added]
The Dutch Bishops Conference publicly rejects the new teaching about blessing people in same sex relationships.
Quote
The Dutch bishops have rejected the Vatican’s recent opening to the blessing of same-sex couples, emphasizing the distinction between blessing individual believers living in irregular relationships and blessing the relationship itself.
They have reverted to the prior Vatican teaching that individual persons can be blessed but irregular relationships cannot.
The Dutch Bishops Conference publicly rejects the new teaching about blessing people in same sex relationships.
Quote
The Dutch bishops have rejected the Vatican’s recent opening to the blessing of same-sex couples, emphasizing the distinction between blessing individual believers living in irregular relationships and blessing the relationship itself.
They have reverted to the prior Vatican teaching that individual persons can be blessed but irregular relationships cannot.
And here's the statement of the USCCB....hmmm...."WASHINGTON - In response to the Declaration “Fiducia supplicans” issued by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith today, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) offered the following statement from its spokesperson, Chieko Noguchi, executive director of public affairs.
“The Declaration issued today by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) articulated a distinction between liturgical (sacramental) blessings, and pastoral blessings, which may be given to persons who desire God’s loving grace in their lives. The Church’s teaching on marriage has not changed, and this declaration affirms that, while also making an effort to accompany people through the imparting of pastoral blessings because each of us needs God’s healing love and mercy in our lives.” https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/statement-usccb-vaticans-document-addressing-pastoral-blessings
No mention of the distinction between blessing individuals and blessing relationships. Is the USCCB really as wishy-washy (or lost?) as this seems to imply? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Is the USCCB really as wishy-washy (or lost?) as this seems to imply?
Let me suggest an answer by a slight rearrangement of the grammar in your question.
" the USCCB Is really as wishy-washy (and lost) as this seems to imply." The USCCB is divided between the bishops appointed by Popes St John Paul 2 and Benedict XVI and those appointed and promoted by Pope Francis. The latter are those who publicly backed these recent policies and have made cardinal, in some cases, as a result.
Is the USCCB really as wishy-washy (or lost?) as this seems to imply?
Let me suggest an answer by a slight rearrangement of the grammar in your question.
" the USCCB Is really as wishy-washy (and lost) as this seems to imply." The USCCB is divided between the bishops appointed by Popes St John Paul 2 and Benedict XVI and those appointed and promoted by Pope Francis. The latter are those who publicly backed these recent policies and have made cardinal, in some cases, as a result.
Bob
I've long thought that the USCCB was sorely deficient in both cojones and orthodoxy. You, or rather they, have further confirmed that.
I can't blame the bishops too much. Being appointed bishop is a political event, even when it is supposed to be an ecclesial one. Look at what happened to Bishop Strickland. Like the proverbial trout which jumps above the water and is caught by a passing eagle, it pays to keep one's head down and go quietly about one's work. Now there are brave bishops. The bishop of Cleveland is under fire because he has issued strict new guidelines for addressing LGBTQ and transgender issues in his Catholic schools. He's done this despite the document we have been discussing and he has no intention to backtrack.
There is an organization that claimed to be Catholic that provided 12,500 signatures calling for Bishop Strickland to be removed. Turns out that is a mix of all stripes of Christian and others. It's a Leftist front group that made a lot of noise and finished with the head of a Catholic bishop. So it's not a bed of roses for these guys.
_______________________________________________________ The mistaken definitions are now being published by the mainstream media. Here is a quote taken from an article whose link is included.
Quote
The Pope officially approved the blessings of same-sex couples
In December 2023, Pope Francis officially approved the blessing of same-sex unions.
This is a worsening situation that may just dissolve into a status quo unless a voice that cannot be dismissed comes forth. Those who remain diplomatically neutral are just the lukewarm of Revelation 3:16. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
Quote
silence means consent proverbial saying, late 14th century; translation of a Latin tag, ‘qui tacet consentire videtur [he who is silent seems to consent]’, said to have been spoken by Thomas More (1478–1535) when asked at his trial why he was silent on being asked to acknowledge the king's supremacy over the Church. The principle is not accepted in modern English law.
It's interesting that the video in "Pope Francis Commissions . . .," a comment was made about the blessing of homosexual relationships. The comment was that it seemed that the Anglican Church's blessing ceremony and Fiducia Supplicans release seemed to be done "in tandem." It was also noted that the rationales seemed as if Pope Francis and Abp Welby were exchanging notes.
This "commissioning" seems to have stirred up all the sides in the Church and in the Anglican Communion.
And, look at how the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury recently celebrated Anglican worship in the sanctuary of a Roman Catholic sanctuary in the Vatican City State/Rome. Now, Anglican prayer services were offered in this recent/past week in Rome within a RC sanctuary. These are bizarre times.
The head of the African Bishops Conferences, Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu of Kinshasa, Congo, went to Rome and obtained a statement exempting the entire African continent from this recent change in Catholic doctrine and practice.
It's interesting for the forceful way Cardinal Abongo made his presence known when he went to Rome.
Quote
The pope’s private secretary was informed by the cardinal, who said he went straight from the airport to Francis’ residence at the Vatican guesthouse, saying, “Tell him that I have arrived, I am in the house, and I am there only until Thursday evening, and I want to meet him before leaving because that’s what I came for.” Ambongo arrived (sic) to Francis the same day.
A subsequent article, which I failed to copy and attach here, said that Cardinal Abongo obtained a signed document exempting the whole of Africa from Fiducia Supplicans. It said that he and Cardinal Fernandez sat and had each word approved by Pope Francis to that effect.
How does that work? How does one portion of the Church obtain an exemption to a papal document while the rest of us are called to obey it?
I had a thought a minute ago. (Doesn't come often.) The Holy Father is trying to separate the idea of "approval,"" permission," and "support" from his attempt to redefine "blessing." But these three are already attached in our common language surrounding this word.
When my son-in-law asked me if I would object to his marrying my daughter, he specifically asked for my "blessing." How did that not include those three concepts?
" . . . on December 24, Bishop Martin Mtumbuka of Karonga Diocese in Malawi called upon the people of God in his Episcopal See to “forget and ignore this controversial and apparently blasphemous declaration in its entirety.”
The good bishop makes a very strong statement. I wonder if he will get the Bishop Strickland treatment.
This is a worsening situation that may just dissolve into a status quo unless a voice that cannot be dismissed comes forth. Those who remain diplomatically neutral are just the lukewarm of Revelation 3:16. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
Quote
silence means consent proverbial saying, late 14th century; translation of a Latin tag, ‘qui tacet consentire videtur [he who is silent seems to consent]’, said to have been spoken by Thomas More (1478–1535) when asked at his trial why he was silent on being asked to acknowledge the king's supremacy over the Church. The principle is not accepted in modern English law.
Unfortunately, dialogue with the Coptic Orthodox Church [copticorthodox.church] is now a (potential) casualty of Fiducia supplicans. Seems like the Vatican now has to determine whether it wants unity with groups like Anglicans and Scandinavian Lutherans or with the Eastern Churches. It cannot be with both.
Here is a synopsis of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church held recently. It is worth the read to take the above-mentioned link for the full statement on the LGBTQ issue. It is unequivocable. Thank you, San Nicolas for this update. I noticed the consultation with the other Churches of the Oriental Orthodox communion. This is troubling because it means the Armenians, Syriac Orthodox, the Malankara and Malabar Churches, and possibly the Ethiopians. It could not be worse because these Churches have been in dialogue with our brethren in the Orthodox Churches with which the Catholic Church shares the Chalcedonian definitions. I wonder when the next shoe will drop.
Quote
On March 7, 2024, at 11 AM, the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, led by H.H. Pope Tawadros II, and with the attendance of 110 of the current 133 members, held the General Meeting at the LOGOS Center of the Papal Residence in St. Bishoy’s Monastery – Wadi El-Natrun, Egypt.
The following are the decrees and recommendations of the Holy Synod for the March 2024 session:
First: Decrees:
6- After consulting with the sister churches of the Eastern Orthodox family, it was decided to suspend the theological dialogue with the Catholic Church, reevaluate the results achieved by the dialogue from its beginning twenty years ago, and establish new standards and mechanisms for the dialogue to proceed in the future.
Second: Recommendations
3- The Coptic Orthodox Church affirms its firm position of rejecting all forms of homosexual relationships, because they violate the Holy Bible and the law by which God created man as male and female, and the Church considers any blessing of such relations, whatever its type, to be a blessing for sin, and this is unacceptable.
Here is another link to the African response to Fiducia Supplicans. Cardinal Obongo speaks of "a kind of Western imperialism" and "cultural colonization" in reference to this document.
Click the link below to read a news article about the recent official response of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Vatican document "Fiducia Supplicans":
The Lord wondered "will I find faith on earth" at His return. The longer this goes, the farther apart the Apostolic Churches move. So much for the last half century or more of hard work and dialogue that had at it's aim our eventual return to full communion. Seems it has all gone down with this one document.
One thing that stands out to me is that eventual communion will mean that no one makes a statement like this without consultation--a consultation that would have stopped it in its development.
Damage control by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández to the Coptic Orthodox Church. We'll see if the dialogue reopens. I recently watched again the interview with Metropolitan Hilarion and his reaction to Fiducia Supplicans. Seems there was a hint that the Chalcedonian Orthodox may not be on board for any serious dialogue seeking renewed communion.
I just found this article. It seems that the fight over Fiducia Supplicans continues even if the MSM will not report it.
Cardinal Sarah calls African Catholic scholars to ‘take over’ after Western ‘ideological contamination.’
Quote
CV NEWS FEED // In a conference delivered to priests, religious, and lay students of theology in Cameroon, Cardinal Robert Sarah warned the African Catholic academic world against the “diseases” that Western actors are trying to impose worldwide and encouraged African Catholics to “take over” after the collapse of European Christianity.
Sarah, the former prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship, delivered the conference titled “The Vocation of a Catholic University in Light of the Teachings of Benedict XVI” at Cameroon’s Saint-Cyprien Theological School in the Diocese of Obala in April. The full conference was published this week in its original French by La Nef (“The Nave”), an independent French Catholic magazine.
During the conference, Sarah extensively quoted Pope Benedict XVI’s writings regarding the true character of a Catholic university. The cardinal explained that “the sense of truth is the cornerstone that must underlie any solid culture. Without the search for truth, there is no foundation. Everything becomes fluid.”
“This is a crucial issue for the future of Africa. I urge you not only to seek the truth but to love it passionately!” he said.
The Guinean cardinal specifically warned African academics to be “wary of being contaminated by the intellectual diseases that the West wishes to impose. The West fears the search for truth. For many Westerners, truth has become an unmentionable term.”
“If you speak of truth,” he said, “you are accused of dogmatism and oppression. But behind these deceptive discourses lies the violence of the dictatorship of relativism, which often masks unspoken financial and material interests.”
“Therefore, it is crucial that your university, which is entirely at the service of truth, be openly and proudly Catholic,” he added.
The connection between faith and culture Sarah also highlighted that “faith and culture are indissolubly linked. Where man seeks God with integrity, culture flourishes, sciences develop, and civilization becomes more refined.”
“European academics have forgotten this,” he noted. “And their voluntary amnesia sterilizes their culture, which now revels in the ugliness of certain contemporary art or questions its most solid foundations through ‘woke’ ideology.”
“Your generation of African academics must take over!” he exhorted:
By studying under God’s gaze, you will highlight the foundations of all authentic civilization: the difference between man and woman, respect for the elderly. You will rid yourselves of the dictatorship of deadly gender theories and the LGBT lobby, which, under the pretext of liberation, seek to impose their delusion.
“Do not be afraid!” the Sarah concluded:
I repeat to you: you will only be able to respond to the demands of truth and justice if you welcome Christ and let Him illuminate your intelligence, your studies, and your life. You will only be able to serve Africa if you open wide the doors of your universities to Christ.
In answer to your post, the document and the "official" explanations would seem to support the idea that the "blessings" are for individuals. However, when two people in a relationship come forward together, the optics would indicate otherwise. In other news, the German Catholic Church has been pretending to bless homosexual couples for some time now and they do not split hairs over it. They are all in for it.
In our own country, there is a report that a parish in the diocese of Lexington, KY, is blessing couples by appointment. Does that sound like individuals to you? There was a picture posted online of the first such event. The priest wore a stole and the "blessing" was in church, both things that Fiducia Supplicans says are not to happen.
If it looks like a duck, it waddles like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, I'm sure it's a duck. What we seem to have here is people pushing the envelope, confusing the Faithful, and putting us all in the position of having to explain to our brethren in other Churches who still uphold the traditional condemnation of homosexual relationships what has suddenly changed in the Catholic Church and why. Three years ago, we were told that the Church could never bless these relationships, whether straight or LGBT.
I just found this article. It seems that the fight over Fiducia Supplicans continues even if the MSM will not report it.
Cardinal Sarah calls African Catholic scholars to ‘take over’ after Western ‘ideological contamination.’
Quote
CV NEWS FEED // In a conference delivered to priests, religious, and lay students of theology in Cameroon, Cardinal Robert Sarah warned the African Catholic academic world against the “diseases” that Western actors are trying to impose worldwide and encouraged African Catholics to “take over” after the collapse of European Christianity.
Sarah, the former prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship, delivered the conference titled “The Vocation of a Catholic University in Light of the Teachings of Benedict XVI” at Cameroon’s Saint-Cyprien Theological School in the Diocese of Obala in April. The full conference was published this week in its original French by La Nef (“The Nave”), an independent French Catholic magazine.
During the conference, Sarah extensively quoted Pope Benedict XVI’s writings regarding the true character of a Catholic university. The cardinal explained that “the sense of truth is the cornerstone that must underlie any solid culture. Without the search for truth, there is no foundation. Everything becomes fluid.”
“This is a crucial issue for the future of Africa. I urge you not only to seek the truth but to love it passionately!” he said.
The Guinean cardinal specifically warned African academics to be “wary of being contaminated by the intellectual diseases that the West wishes to impose. The West fears the search for truth. For many Westerners, truth has become an unmentionable term.”
“If you speak of truth,” he said, “you are accused of dogmatism and oppression. But behind these deceptive discourses lies the violence of the dictatorship of relativism, which often masks unspoken financial and material interests.”
“Therefore, it is crucial that your university, which is entirely at the service of truth, be openly and proudly Catholic,” he added.
The connection between faith and culture Sarah also highlighted that “faith and culture are indissolubly linked. Where man seeks God with integrity, culture flourishes, sciences develop, and civilization becomes more refined.”
“European academics have forgotten this,” he noted. “And their voluntary amnesia sterilizes their culture, which now revels in the ugliness of certain contemporary art or questions its most solid foundations through ‘woke’ ideology.”
“Your generation of African academics must take over!” he exhorted:
By studying under God’s gaze, you will highlight the foundations of all authentic civilization: the difference between man and woman, respect for the elderly. You will rid yourselves of the dictatorship of deadly gender theories and the LGBT lobby, which, under the pretext of liberation, seek to impose their delusion.
“Do not be afraid!” the Sarah concluded:
I repeat to you: you will only be able to respond to the demands of truth and justice if you welcome Christ and let Him illuminate your intelligence, your studies, and your life. You will only be able to serve Africa if you open wide the doors of your universities to Christ.
This is a dichotomy all western churches seem to be experiencing. The "Global South" leadership in all major church, be it Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, or others, appear to be the primary defenders of orthodoxy, whereas their western counterparts are either totally compromised or, in the case of orthodox Westerners, outnumbered.
I just ran across an article in the Washington Post related to Cardinal Fernandez, the head of the Catholic Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. I have lifted out a line that seems to explain what he is about in the Pope's name and seems to hint at the direction they both want to go.
(Cardinal Fernandez) left open the door to a recasting of official church teaching — or catechism — that states homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.”
“All subjects can be refined,” he said. “And the language we use can always be much better. In this way there is a chance of greater clarity.”
(Cardinal Fernandez) left open the door to a recasting of official church teaching — or catechism — that states homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.”
“All subjects can be refined,” he said. “And the language we use can always be much better. In this way there is a chance of greater clarity.”
"Clarity" - the traditional position sure is unclear, isn't it?
"Clarity" is the smoke screen for redefining to either obscure or reverse the original meaning. IMHO
What His Eminence does not say--or perhaps does not know or remember--is that Pope St. John Paul 2 commissioned the Catechism of the Catholic Church to spell out precisely what the Catholic Church believed, believes, and will always believe. He did it within the confusing era following the Second Vatican Council when everyone and his brother were making statements about what the Church taught--or they thought it should have taught, causing a great deal of confusion. The thought behind the CCC was to stop the confusion once and for all time. There were even people who thought that his final--second--edition would stand the test of time as did the Catechism of the Council of Trent (400 years).
Apparently, no such luck.
Seems we are reverting to an age of confusion and the very relativism that Pope Benedict warned about on the eve of the Conclave in which he was elected pope.
I just came across an article in an Anglican news source that mentions that fact that 19 pairs of Catholic and Anglican bishops were commissioned to do the same sort of joint "missionary work" that has just been mentioned in an earlier post. It was in 2016. I wonder why no Catholic source mentions these two events. Could it be that it is too radical for Catholics to accept? The Anglican Ordinariate people are reportedly furious over this since two of the pairs have a woman "bishop" included.
Has anyone else noticed that an issue becomes a non-issue when the officials who are called out simply ignore it? And continue to do so? And bring other irrelevant issues to the fore to divert attention away from what is important?
The issue is still this: since when has "gravely depraved, perverted lust" become the same as love?
As bad as those moral teachings are, the most disturbing to me coming from Pope Francis is:
Quote
On whether it can ever be morally licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate, Pope Francis urged Catholics to vote no matter what.
“In political morality, in general they say that if you don’t vote, it’s not good, it’s bad. You have to vote, and you have to choose the lesser evil. What is the lesser evil? That woman, or that man?
So, by Papal pronouncement, Trump and Harris are evil -- not policies but persons. Evil walks the earth today in the form of two persons one of whom will become President of the United States.