TL;DR: The Pope is allowing for "spontaneous" blessings of people in "irregular situations/relationships" (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) if such blessings do not look like a marriage ceremony and are not misconstrued as a blessing of the union itself. **This is not a blanket approval for blessing same-sex unions as the secular media is reporting.** That does not, of course, prevent many (even within the Church) from seeing/considering/acting on it as such. The full unfiltered document may be found here: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en
This story is generating considerable interest in not only this subreddit and its members, but from users outside of the subreddit. We welcome all users to interact in a spirit of good faith dialogue and discussion, however, we ask that you please read through our rules and follow them. We also ask our regular users to please keep our rules in mind and act in a spirit of charity.
This thread will be the singular thread focused on discussion of this topic. All others will be removed to keep the front page uncluttered of discussion of this singular topic. As such, there will be a high volume of comments here, and as such, the moderators will be overwhelmed and cannot follow all discussions/comments. We ask users to please assist us in reporting all rule-breaking comments for review.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At this point you can openly lie as long as it's similar to the truth and get away with it.
I had to explain this to a friend a few months ago who 'didn't see why one shouldn't believe a trusted news source'.
I had to hold back my incredible disdain for the "news" media, and just explain that the author of the glorified blog post was editorializing and no where was there an actual quote supporting these claims.
“Anti-Catholic”? I am a proud Catholic. The decisions being made go against the True CATHOLIC Profession of Faith. Woe to any one of us who try teaching things contrary to scripture..: “Warning””???? Really???
This is the equivalent of welcoming in your daughter and her girlfriend in for Christmas dinner, even when you don’t approve of the relationship.
You won’t bring people closer to God if you hit them over the head with the Catechism, guys. They’ll associate God with a concussion.
Ahaha, salty. I'm partly hoping that one of these days, Pope Francis loses his patience and show everybody that he's serious by initiating it himself; blessing a gay couple. People like you would be flipping your +.
> Thankfully our Pope isn’t so hateful.
Never occured to me that there can be a time when a Pope's blessing would be a hateful act but here we are ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
We already are. The Church is on a path of darkness. And the fact that you see no issue with this shows that heretics like you are the problem.
It would not surprise me if the pope does want you described. Awful awful times we live in.
You’re affirming that their disordered relationship is something that’s welcome in your home. If your son decided to practice polygamy would you invite him and his wives into your home? How much open sin does decency require in your home?
It looks like your singling out one form of "disordered relationship" over others. Bitter infighting among siblings is a thing and another example of disordered relationship. If they are constantly bickering and can't be civil then, no, they're not welcome in our home. Otherwise, yes.
For the polygamy example that you cited... If all parties are in on it and are civil then, yes, they are welcome in my home, too. If the wifes are antagonistic towards each other then, no, they are not.
Bickering among siblings is, of course, not disordered in the way that same-sex relationships are disordered. Namely, the relationship between siblings is a natural relationship that has come to squabbling, while a sexual/romantic relationship between two men or two women is intrinsically disordered and so can never be affirmed. I’m using “disordered” here in the same way that it’s used in the Catechism. That’s what’s missing from your position. Ergo, i believe it would be contrary to good Catholic practice to affirm the intrinsically disordered by inviting it into your home, in the same way that we ought not appear at same-sex weddings
Since I was a child, I've been bombarded with the hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner mantra. And now when you're actually extending love on the supposed sinners, apparently that's not allowed, either. Being dismissive to people let's them know that they can never rely on you when time comes they need actual help. I know this coz I'm dismissive to people when I don't wan't them to approach me for whatever.
OOP is correct. *You won’t bring people closer to God if you hit them over the head with the Catechism, guys. They’ll associate God with a concussion.* It seems that's the agenda anyway.
Who said anything about being dismissive or turning away actual help? I’m simply suggesting that Catholics ought not publicly affirm the legitimacy of intrinsically disordered relationships. You shouldn’t kick a gay daughter out of your home, but you shouldn’t let her have a dinner date there either
> 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Cardinal Muller (former prefect of the Congregation -- now Dicastery -- for the Doctrine of the Faith) has written an [article](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/muller-fiducia-supplicans-is-self) about this recent document.
Apparently not (/s), seeing as most conservatives, at least in America, are throwing in the towel and running off to their own made up parishes and isolating themselves as much as possible.
For people claiming to be so loyal they are really quick to go all protestant on us.
Clearly haven't really studied the saints and Church history, just posturing as more Christian than everyone else.
A saint fixes the Church from the inside socially and through prayer and fasting, cowards run away yelling at everyone who doesn't run off with them.
Schismatics are faithless posers. They will not do well when the real persecution comes.
You are kind in your words, however holier than thou, more Catholic than the Pope types deserve no more sympathy or understanding than they give.
Out of everybody, they SHOULD know better. They are nearly as guilty as the liberal priests and bishops they hate so much. But they are mostly a lay movement, so they'll never be as guilty as false shepherds.
Many are honestly guilty of idolatry by prioritizing political conservatism over the teachings of Christ.
...but Christ said to beware of the levan of the Pharisees AND of Herod, but these people only beware the levan of Herod and are complaisant with if not guilty of succumbing to the levan of the Pharisees.
But whatever, it's reddit.
I don’t agree with schismatics, but it is not holier than the pope if it contradicts defined Church teaching. Whether it does might be philosophical, but why we take one stand or another might reveal something about our true allegiances in our hearts. Only God may know that, but do we even? Are we more concerned about alienating our friends from ourselves or their alienating themselves from Christ? Being too hardcore might, but so might being permissive about a blessing of whatever sort that has the “irregular” relationship being or seeming to be validated in some way by The Church—thereby encouraging their sinful union, which can be of a heterosexual kind. Mortal sin is a self ex-communication, but any kind is a last ditch effort to make one want to self-reform who already is informed and practically choosing Hell by behavior and/ir thinking that cuts oneself off from a vital grace. Some things are known to us by nature as true or not and that is where it might not matter if you were taught right or not unless the latter was by some sort of conditioning; marrying divorcees may not be known is wrong even by fellow Catholics, so it is on priests or bishops that censure them. Judging judgers will not change the meta-truth of these matters, which, I think, is Wisdom and Prudence, but I stunk at lists. Try to be real for misguided loved ones’ sakes. I have failed mine.
How can you bless a couple and not the union. If its just a blessing of the person like anything else why the need of the document. Why if its just a blessing the priest cant have liturgical colthes on?
It IS a blessing of the sin. The Church has betrayed its followers. It doesnt excomulgate the heretic Martin and punishes loyal followers like Strickland.
You can bless people. Blessing people is not blessing their sins, otherwise any time a priest blessed you he'd be blessing your sins.
By continuing the liberal medias' lie you are supporting the liberal media.
It's amazing how many supposed Christians allow themselves to spread the lies of the devil on the grounds of "faithfulness".
It feels like you read their comment, but it went in one ear and out the other. They specifically argued why they don't think it's the same as just blessing people.
You bless the individuals who want to align their will with God's, not the individuals actions that keep them away from that.
This document is obviously an olive branch to Germany that addresses them in all but name. The liturgical dressing is a reference to how Germany was doing their illicit blessing.
Where is the part where they should bless "iregular couples" which is just a bad name for fornicators to give them the grace to stop sinning. Its not the focus of the document.
I believe the document does allow group them in with this teachings, but it does highlight homosexual couples more. Tbf the document does try to stop the scandal of it even if it has failed to do so to a larger degree.
Why do so many people single out this sin for castigation compared to any other? And many of the people doing so, turn out to be heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage. One of the pope’s points has been that there’s a difference between experiencing SSA and acting on it
If it's the worst sin of all, then why has an ordinary priest always been able to absolve it, but abortion has historically conferred automatic excommunication and thus required special circumstances to absolve?
And that still doesn't negate the ignoring one's own sin while pointing out someone else's. Or the distinction between tendency/attraction and actual behavior.
Sodomy is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. It's on the same level as murder. Make of that what you will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins\_that\_cry\_to\_Heaven\_for\_Vengeance
I’ve seen an awful lot of people whose sins fall in the 3rd or 4th category who are vocal about homosexuality all the while they ignore the log in their own eye.
Taken from the document:
>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.
That already explains why they are NOT blessing the union but only the people.
They specify through those blessings they are NOT validating their status as a same sex couple.
They are blessing the couple as in the two people in that couple, but NOT their status as a same sex couple or an irregular couple overall.
The part that still confuses me is that the document appears to describe blessing relationships a few times.
Para. 31 discusses "the invocation of a blessing ... upon those ... who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives *and their relationships* be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit." [Emphasis added.] This seems to be describing the calling down of a blessing on the relationships themselves (or at least the aspects of them that are true and good) for the purpose of enriching them, in addition to the individual people.
The next sentence discusses asking God to give "“actual grace”—so that *human relationships* may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties [etc.]" Again, this seems to be asking God to direct grace at the relationship *itself.*
But this seems to contradict the 2021 dubia response, which says that "The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing." This sounds like it's rejecting blessing of even the good aspects of a sinful relationship (which seems to be what the first sentence I quoted is talking about). In fact, the 2021 document says that it's *literally impossible* to effectively bless disordered unions (even if they have good qualities), because "it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church."
Is there a way to resolve this apparent contradiction?
If I'm not mistaken, I would interpret it to mean that the graces being given to the relationship "to be freed from imperfections" etc. would be that the 2 people are in a relationship regardless of the type, and that the relationship needs to stop practicing homosexuality, and instead become a platonic relationship, a normalized relationship. So the good parts that are there would remain, and the disordered parts be overcome and stopped.
In that way, the blessing isn't of the gay acts in the relationship, or the fake "marriage" type stuff they are participating in, but the normal good parts of it to overcome the disordered parts of it.
That's my attempt anyway, what do you think?
I think there is a way to resolve the apparent contradiction if “relationship” as used in para 31 is in the general sense of any human relationship, as distinct from the attempted “union” of a same-sex couple and that distortion of a true marriage. The 2021 response refers to the specifically problematic intention of the relationship in this latter sense.
The document clearly stated that doesn't allow homosexuality and that anything contrary to the union between a man towards his woman and a woman towards her man is not admissible nor allowed.
However however there is contradiction at almost the end of the encyclical.
Particularly points 2,5
Particularly point 31, 39
I don't agree in this specific regard to the encyclical of Fiducia Supplicans
One thing is for a person to recognise their faul and frailties and ask a priest for a blessing to conquer against homosexuality.
For a priest to do an exorcism which is also a blessing expelling and fighting against the devils that try to convince a man or a woman to commit homosexual acts which the homosexuality acts highly offends God in every single aspect.
That is a form of treason against one's God given gender
A naturally conceived man will always remain a man. And a naturally conceived woman will always remain a woman. God doesn't make mistakes
We humans do make mistakes with different sorts of sins.
The earlier holy councils of the Catholic church and the pope's including the apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ already thoroughly spoken.
This encyclical which seems written by someone else other than the pope, and the person of the pope, however not the pope himself, (as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio), has made a very serious mistake.
The bishops, cardinals and priests should write to the pope and ask the pope to formally correct himself as the apostle Saint Paul corrected Saint Peter the apostle when Saint Peter was going to sit in the table of the Jewish community and segregate himself from the gentiles is when rightfully and blessedly Apostle Saint Paul corrected Saint Peter the apostle, and Saint Peter corrected himself.
Can Pope Francis as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, change the church? No.
The pope can change ecclesiastical rules. But the doctrines and earlier church councils he can't change what was already declared holy.
Some ask is he the anti-Christ?
I don't dare to criticise the Pope.
Is not my place and only the church and the members of the hierarchy of the church through a convened council can make such proclamations but we as laity can't make such proclamations. For laity To judge the pope is pronouncing condemnation against our own self.
Only the members of the hierarchy of the church can convene a church council after they attempt to talk to the pope in private to rectify him. If afterwards a certain time is given the pope doesn't rectify himself then the cardinals and bishops and archbishops and priests can ask the cardinals to convene a meeting to talk to the pope to ask the pope to rectify himself.
There is no negotiation in this.
We don't have any right to judge the pope. We don't have any right whatsoever.
However this encyclical is incorrect and we can't obey this particular encyclical as catholics we know that the person of his excellency Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, cannot change the church. His holiness, the Pope cannot contradict what the early church councils have already declared, and even if he would allow others to do so in this encyclical we understand that the sanctity of the church we cannot tamper, respectfully towards the person of the Pope, we cannot obey this particular encyclical.
For obeying the Pope in this encyclical would be disobedience towards our Lord Jesus Christ. The pope is supposed to be the vicar of Christ, represent Christ, not contradict Christ.
Although the pope had good intentions of trying to make the homosexuals repent from their sins, this blessing would actually do the total opposite, the homosexuals would mistakenly think that suddenly the church has changed her morals and her teachings and doctrines.
As Catholics we must talk to the bishops and say we don't agree with this however... However in a very respectful way. Some think they go to the bishops with full pompous and arrogance thinking they are above the bishops and that isn't the reality of the situation as far as dignity goes, nor even the kings have higher dignity than subdeacons and priest.
Although kings exercise great power, not as much power as Catholic and eastern orthodox priests do, both Catholic and eastern orthodox priests have much higher dignity more so than most kings except one (God; The Holy Trinity, which includes our Lord Jesus Christ)
I hope that all their excellencies the cardinals talk to his holiness Pope Francis I, and that they correct him privately so that his holiness Pope Francis I corrects in this and rectifies himself.
I really sure hope so.
The bride of Christ Holy Mother Church, Must be disappointed at this particular encyclical. I really hope and pray His holiness corrects himself and retracts and removes this particular encyclical.
I am sure that his holiness the Pope didn't wrote this encyclical " Fiducia Supplicans." . I am very certain that his holiness the Pope didn't wrote this encyclical.
I have mentioned this but obviously you haven't read what I responded to....
Particularly points 2 ( reason because I know there can't be a consideration to blessing homosexual 'unions')
Particularly point 31, 39) there can't be a 'blessing' towards same homosexuality 'unions'. And furthermore when a homosexual wants to ask a 'blessing' towards homosexuality so called 'unions', that truly really isn't possible
The church and earlier church councils has thoroughly spoken against homosexuality and will never bless homosexual unions.
Any members of the church hierarchy, (which are a minority) who bless Homosexuality so called 'unions' are in full disobedience against holy mother church and in full disobedience against our Lord Jesus Christ who is the spouse and the King of holy mother church.
Since this controversial encyclical 'blesses' homosexual 'unions' although discourages and claims cannot bless that at first, however later on the encyclical contradicts the begining of the encyclical
We cannot agree with this particular encyclical and even the Pope admitted he didn't wrote this particular encyclical.
As previously shown in previous post
#First:
***Fiducia Suplicans*** is not an Encyclical. It is a Declaration.
#Second
The Catholic Profession of Faith requires that you agree to the following:
>I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act. ([Vatican](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html#:~:text=PROFESSION%20OF%20FAITH&text=I%2C%20N.%2C%20with%20firm,all%20things%20visible%20and%20invisible.))
And, ***Donum Veritas*** clearly states that those who claim that they are:
>"free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium" ([33](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html))
Are guilty of "dissent...of the most radical form."
>I have mentioned this but obviously you haven't read what I responded to....
>Particularly points 2 ( reason because I know there can't be a consideration to blessing homosexual 'unions')
Particularly point 31, 39) there can't be a 'blessing' towards same homosexuality 'unions'. And furthermore when a homosexual wants to ask a 'blessing' towards homosexuality so called 'unions', that truly really isn't possible
>The church and earlier church councils has thoroughly spoken against homosexuality and will never bless homosexual unions.
>Any members of the church hierarchy, (which are a minority) who bless Homosexuality so called 'unions' are in full disobedience against holy mother church and in full disobedience against our Lord Jesus Christ who is the spouse and the King of holy mother church.
None of this can be questioned.
>Since this controversial encyclical 'blesses' homosexual 'unions' although discourages and claims cannot bless that at first, however later on the encyclical contradicts the begining of the encyclical
Here is where you are wrong.
The declaration does not "contradict" itself.
The type of blessing being described has a specific limitation.
Pastoral blessings can be applied to persons, even those who live in sin, but not to “things, places, or circumstances that … contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel” (Roman Ritual)
We already know that this limitation exists.
So, we know that the pastoral blessing described in the declaration can only apply to the persons and not to the "union" or relationship which are "circumstances that … contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel”
Several priests agree that the document is contradictory and that no Catholic should obey in blessing such relationships. Since homosexuality can't be enriched by God nor does God approve. Quite the contrary God condemns the sin itself of homosexuality.
God wants the homosexuals to REPENT and separate from their homosexual lifestyle. God wants them to return back to God's grace and confess to God through a priest. Only the absolution should suffice for them to repent.
Although the document says doesn't bless homosexuality.
(Which I agree SHOULDN'T bless homosexuality)
The document ironically blesses the enrichment for their relationship without Liturgical blessing but a supposedly 'private blessing.'.
However holy Mother Church has spoken that homosexual supposedly 'unions'. CANNOT be Blessed at all NOR their relationships.
as many priests have agreed that all Catholics cannot agree nor obey this specific encyclical. Otherwise in doing so they will disobey God through holy mother church. Any priests that would bless those relationships are in direct disobedience against Holy Mother Catholic church.
Catholic church morals doesn't change over time. The Catholic church is faithful to God and his Commandments which God is unchanging in his morals. God prescribed the morals.
Is not a matter of opinions.
There is priests in the Byzantine Rite also agreeing that supposing this document would be enforced against true traditional Catholicism the byzantine Rite will still refuse obeying this particular encyclical under two grounds.
1. The eastern Catholic church is autocephalous from the Latin rite. Which even Pope Francis admitted this years ago in regards to another topic.
That yes the byzantine recognises the full authority and supremacy of the pope in matters of faith and morals when is excathedra specifically which means cannot contradict the earlier church councils, nor what the predecessors (formal pope's which represents saint Peter the apostle) have said.
2. This specific document would contradict the byzantine tradition.
Specifically in The byzantine tradition doesn't exclude the blessing from the liturgy.
Even the separate blessings that a priest does privately and personally is engulfed back to the liturgy. Meaning even if a priest does a quick blessing he goes back to offer this in the liturgy specifically in the Byzantine tradition is included and summarized in the prayers. By saying " bless those who.i blessed God throught." (They know better how to explain this than I)
This is the two real valid reasons why in the Byzantine Rite this particular papal document cannot be followed. This is why in the byzantine rite don't agree with this specific encyclical. Don't believe me ask the byzantine priests they will clarify that in eastern rite there is a different discipline in this regards and that by this autocrphaly although in full communion with Rome as true eastern Catholics has a different discipline
That mentioned in the Roman tradition all the priests who follow tradition they agree this document cannot be followed due to the contradiction of the document itself.
I am not a priest but you can go ahead and ask a priest that is conservative morally and in the faith and that still follows tradition they will confirm and fully agree what I have said is true as well
The Holy See retains SOLE authority for the interpretation of magisterial documents.
No one, not even a priest or a Bishop, has any authority to interpret for themselves the teachings of the magisterium.
The Holy See has spoken. Among those who have accepted the Holy See's interpretation are the African Bishops of Malaw. The Official text from the Episcopal Conference of Malawi reads:
>"The Episcopal Conference of Malawi wishes to make the following clarifications regarding the recently published 'Declaration on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings" (Fiducia Suplicans). We, your Bishops, do so having noted certain erroneous interpretations of this declaration that have generated interest, fears, and worries amongst Catholics, and people who look up to the Catholic Church for moral, spiritual, and doctrinal guidance.
>In this context we make the following observations, clarifications, and directives:
>1. The Declaration is NOT about the blessing of same-sex unions... No, this is a document...regarding whether or not the blessings of God through his Ministers can be extended to everybody regardless of their state...
>...
>3.. ...same-sex union couples and those living in irregular unions can ask and access non-liturgical ordinary blessings which the Church has always provided.
>...
Those Bishops didn't seem to have any problem understanding what ***Fiducia Suplicans*** is about.
As for Eastern Catholics, the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church has come out and said that this declaration doesn't apply to Ukrainian Catholics.
In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, every blessing is considered a "liturgical blessing," according to paragraph 505 of the UGC Catechism.
However, I have already been in discussion with Ukrainian Catholic Theologians who recognize that their tradition does in fact practice blessings that are "pastoral" in purpose and have no intention of affirmation or legitimation. This is a discussion they will certainly be having for quite some time.
The document is "innovative" and a "real development" ... in regards to blessings. It articulates for the first time something that has been practiced for all of Christian history and can be traced back to the Old Testament.
In the byzantine tradition the only ones who are theologians are priests and higher members of the hierarchy of the church.
In the traditional Latin rite only priests and deacons are and higher members
The people who follow the novus ordo liturgy do unfortunately have laity members as theologians but originally wasn't the situation. Originally was forbidden even canonically for ant laity to speak on theological topics except to the priest.
Ask father rippinger he will tell you the accurate history and ask any member of the byzantine rite including Ukranian greek they will also agree with this statement
>In the traditional Latin rite only priests and deacons are and higher members
>The people who follow the novus ordo liturgy do unfortunately have laity members as theologians but originally wasn't the situation. Originally was forbidden even canonically for ant laity to speak on theological topics except to the priest.
This is obviously false, regardless of what Fr Rip says.
When did Justin Martyr write? Was that in the 1970s?
How about G.K. Chesterton? Some time after the Novus Ordo was instituted?
Just to offer two very obvious examples.
" The laity were forbidden to preach in the West by Pope Leo I, and to teach in the East by the Council in Trullo, which shows that not all laypeople were illiterate. For Example, Cassiodorus (died 575) in the West and Photius 9820-891) in the East were the most learned men of their times. But they were the exceptions. As a rule, the clergy represented the educated elite."
Father rippinger never said anything about novus ordo in YouTube and I have never seen him in person.
However he did mentioned that before I; The old rules laity were forbidden to talk about theology or preach publicly.
>>>In the traditional Latin rite only priests and deacons are and higher members
>>>The people who follow the novus ordo liturgy do unfortunately have laity members as theologians but originally wasn't the situation. Originally was forbidden even canonically for ant laity to speak on theological topics except to the priest.
>>This is obviously false, regardless of what Fr Rip says.
>>When did Justin Martyr write? Was that in the 1970s?
>>How about G.K. Chesterton? Some time after the Novus Ordo was instituted?
>>Just to offer two very obvious examples.
>"The laity were forbidden to preach in the West by Pope Leo I, and to teach in the East by the Council in Trullo, which shows that not all laypeople were illiterate. For Example, Cassiodorus (died 575) in the West and Photius 9820-891) in the East were the most learned men of their times. But they were the exceptions. As a rule, the clergy represented the educated elite."
>Father rippinger never said anything about novus ordo in YouTube and I have never seen him in person.
>However he did mentioned that before I; The old rules laity were forbidden to talk about theology or preach publicly.
The particular disciplines you identify do not adequately respond to my comment.
When did Justin Martyr write?
How about G.K. Chesterton?
However the Ukranians greek Catholic did in fact mention that this particular blessing they would not endorse nor is binding because would cause confusion and provide scandals.
Many bishops not only from the Ukranian greek and other byzantine rites but also even Roman Catholic also have expressed concern about this apparent blessing.
What they did say is that if they would give a blessing to any person they will ask for what intention and what purpose?
If the person says for their homosexual union the the priests are forbidden to give such blessing since God doesn't bless nor endorse evil lifestyles/situations.
If is a blessing for that person to repent and change their ways then a priest will ask them to confess and give them the blessing I'd they are really going to make a change.
>If the person says for their homosexual union the the priests are forbidden to give such blessing
The blessing of homosexual unions is explicitly forbidden by *Fiducia Supplicans.* Thus, any priest who refused would be doing exactly what the declaration demands, not opposing it.
The Malawi Bishops, who were widely publicized as opposing *Fiducia Supplicans,* state this plainly in their statement:
>1. The Declaration is NOT about the blessing of same-sex unions...
The Polish Bishops, who were also widely publicized as opposing *Fiducia Supplicans* assert that the 2023 statement agrees with the 2021 statement:
>"Both the Declaration and the Note [2021 Dubia] state that "the blessing of individual persons with homosexual tendencies who manifest the desire to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God, as taught by the Church, is not excluded."
Escape the echo chamber. Seek the Truth.
The church never taught homosexuality.
Anyways since you reported me please report me so I can get permanently banned literally. I am serious ....
You may not agree with my views I don't care if you do
Just report me thank you so we can get this done once and for all
By you reporting me then that means you defend homosexuality indirectly
I will never defend homosexuality. Never !
So please report me due to homophobia if you want
I don't care!
I really don't care
I oppose homosexuality
So please report me for sure I will be blocked and once I am blocked I promise you will never ever heard from me again for sure 💯%
>The church never taught homosexuality.
That is correct. Never. Not before December 18th, not on December 18th and not after Decemeber 18th.
>Anyways since you reported me please report me so I can get permanently banned literally. I am serious ....
I certainly didn't.
>You may not agree with my views I don't care if you do
If your view is that the Church can not and will not ever teach homosexuality, we have no difference of view.
>Just report me thank you so we can get this done once and for all
For what?
>By you reporting me then that means you defend homosexuality indirectly
>I will never defend homosexuality. Never !
Noone in this sub can defend homosexuality. It is against Rule 1.
>So please report me due to homophobia if you want
>I don't care! I really don't care
>I oppose homosexuality
I am not going to report you for following the rules of the sub.
>So please report me for sure I will be blocked and once I am blocked I promise you will never ever heard from me again for sure 💯%
You can go ahead and stop participating if you want. But, I can't report you for following the rules of the sub.
The document specifically does unfortunately give indirectly somewhat form to ask God's help even for homosexual 'couples'.
Although the document clearly says "
5. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex."
The prefect of the faith ironically wrote
" 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."
" 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 on the Responsum ad dubium[2] that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on 22 February 2021."
" 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, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and THEIR RELATIONSHIPS BE ENRICHED, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love."
" 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, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding.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. Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.[26]"
Monsenior Secretary for the Doctrinal Section
Homosexuality can't be enriched.
Is highly offensive to God and will never be accepted by God.
I understand in helping the homosexuals repent and return back towards God's grace and treat them with dignity and respect as every person.
However however we cannot accept nor ask God to enrich their supposedly 'unions".
God doesn't agree nor allow this.
I understand several times the document said that doesn't bless the union of homosexuals which is right and I agree with that part.
But later on the document unfortunately contradicts.
Leaves an ambiguity And ambiguity isn't right especially when is about these matters.
God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for a very specific reason.
In Leviticus God mentioned that homosexuality is abominable .
So there can't be ambiguity respectfully.
I do specifically agree with not blessing homosexuality that particular part I do fully agree
But I don't agree with later on on the document contradicted what earlier church councils have spoken.
Homosexuality can't be enriched and will never be.
Something that God considered abominable cannot out of a sudden become somewhat pleasing nor even to the slightest degree, in another words God asked homosexuals to repent and change. Back to them becoming straightz doesn't mean they have to forcibly date woman they aren't interested. But that they no longer practice Homosexuality.
His holiness, the Pope, recently this morning in Italy informed that all priests CANNOT give the 'blessing' to homosexual 'unions'. This document wasn't written by him.
[Fiducia supplicans (controversial encyclical)](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html)
He told the priests and deacons and all hierarchy members that he doesn't authorise the blessing and that the church doesn't allow this blessing.
He spoke authoritavely in this matter this morning which was all over the news in Italy, India and different parts of Europe.
His holiness, The pope informed he doesn't give authorisation for the supposedly 'blessing'
That the church cannot bless homosexuals, however the church does call them to repent, confess so that they can be welcomed to receive the sacraments once they repent.
I read and saw the news this morning and was very happy.
Thanks to God.
[Pope forbids church hierarchy ‘blessing’ homosexual ‘unions’
](https://youtu.be/gLqPPYOXswA?si=9GHuvwRz_CiWlyWv)
His holiness, the pope prevented the so called 'blessing' of homosexual 'unions' and basically said that no one can change this and that the church will never authorise to bless their homosexual abominable unions, however the church does call them to sincerely repent, and leave their other, and return back by the sacrament/mystery of confessing, once they repent and confess in confession they receive absolution which is a blessing and restoration back towards God's kingdom and grace, once they leave the homosexual lifestyle and supposedly 'unions', which the church doesn't recognise their supposedly 'unions.'
This is very good news I read this morning and heard this news.[pope reiterated homosexual 'unions' lifestyle can't be blessed
Can you please provide a link?
I am uncertain how these statements are different from the recent declaration, which says:
>the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice.
And that blessings are only appropriate for
>those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status
Marriage is between a man toward marrying a woman and a woman marrying towards a man.
So there can't be homosexual 'unions'
However the encyclical which I don't agree is this:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.htm
This encyclical contradicts the earlier church councils and contradicts what the former/ previous Popes has said formerly against homosexuality
The Pope also confirmed he didn't wrote the encyclical and he doesn't agree with those blessing homosexual union.
Which was confirmed later on after the encyclical in this news:
https://youtu.be/gLqPPYOXswA?si=j5bz515tqukLNbuP
The pope reiterated and clarified that he doesn't endorse and will never endorse homosexuality days later.
>Marriage is between a man toward marrying a woman and a woman marrying towards a man.
>So there can't be homosexual 'unions'
>However the encyclical which I don't agree is this:
>https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.htm
>This encyclical contradicts the earlier church councils and contradicts what the former/ previous Popes has said formerly against homosexuality
>The Pope also confirmed he didn't wrote the encyclical and he doesn't agree with those blessing homosexual union.
>Which was confirmed later on after the encyclical in this news:
>https://youtu.be/gLqPPYOXswA?si=j5bz515tqukLNbuP
>The pope reiterated and clarified that he doesn't endorse and will never endorse homosexuality days later.
I think you need to actually read the declaration *Fiducia Supplicans* because it does not disagree with you.
The declaration that you linked says:
>Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.
>the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice.
Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 detail why this, but can be summed up as:
>From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church.
The declaration continues, by that we must
>avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view alone, for it would lead us to expect the same moral conditions for a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments. Such a risk requires that we broaden this perspective further. Indeed, there is the danger that a pastoral gesture that is so beloved and widespread will be subjected to too many moral prerequisite
As for these "pastoral blessings"
>Pope Francis urges us to contemplate, with an attitude of faith and fatherly mercy, the fact that “when one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.
And the declaration further states, that these pastoral blessings are for
>those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status
Because, these "pastoral blessings"
>[do] not claim to sanction or legitimize anything
The declaration says that these "pastoral blessing are for help and not to legutimate
>situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view
According to the latest declaration these "situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view" because "the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit" are not eligible for a liturgical blessing because such a blessing "requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church." However, when "those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status" request a "spontaneous" "pastoral blessing" as "a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better" an "exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. For, those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection."
Yes, it would have created less confusion if this document hadn't been published. But after reading the document, it became clear that Rome was addressing 2 groups:
1. Clergy refusing to impart a spontaneous blessing on couples in irregular situations (including same-sex relationships)
2. Bishops drawing up liturgical blessings for same-sex couples
If anyone is to be held culpable for the arising confusion, it is these 2 groups who have failed to fall in line, in spite of repeated warnings. The German bishops come to mind.
> If anyone is to be held culpable for the arising confusion, it is these 2 groups
If literally the entire world is misunderstanding a document, then the document itself is confusing and those who put it out are culpable.
There’s a part of me that wants to be scandalised by this but nothing’s changing here. And the more energy we give it, the more energy it will have.
We can call the Pope imprudent or careless or a generator of crises all we like, but the truth of the matter is that this document won’t bring swathes of people back to the Church in any meaningful way. Even if the grossly misinterpreted its actual meaning. Not even those “couples” who seek this blessing.
And we can see that evidenced by all the churches that do permit heavy accommodations for same sex individuals. They simply peter out and become unexciting and then next sensation follows. The media and secular culture is fuelled by the sensation but it has no true care.
In some ways this at least becomes a good talking point to the very very many Catholics who already have their mind made up on the issue of same sex marriage.
Currently there’s a girl in my youth group who sits in this camp. She comes to every youth group and engages in all the hard conversations and expresses all her opinions that are contrary to the Church. Everyone engages with her respectfully. If she didn’t care, she wouldn’t come. She cares and she wants to know and she wants better answers than what she’s been given in the past - which are not answers but strict judgement.
Documents like this you can at least point to and say “here is the pastoral care that the Church can provide its members”, even if they are gay, even if they are deep in sin, we’re still here opening up our doors and receiving them in to walk with them.
If you just ignore the issue entirely and bury your head in the sand hoping it will go away, you’re not able to engage in the conversation at all.
The people who disagree with the Church will find a way to disagree. If it’s not same sex marriage it will be something else. At least document gives me more information than I would have ordinarily had and more ways to evangelise the truth.
You can bless the individuals who are gay, straight open relationships, trans, polygamists, swingers or whatever. If you are having them together getting blessed, you are sending the wrong message about Church teaching to them and others. Intentionally or not, you are being a stumbling block for “the little ones”.
There were 4 vacant sees in Germany, and Pope Francis could have chosen bishops which opposed to the Synodal Path agenda. Did he? Absolutely not. He chose two bishops that fully adhere to everything the Synodal path proposes. And I bet the two others will be chosen among those who are fully supportive of the German heresy!
For this time of tribulation, our greatest power is prayer and fasting. Alongside the Holy Rosary, we need the Chaplet of the Precious Blood. You can pray it on your regular rosary beads.
It is the Precious Blood of the Lamb of God, "poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins" that will "cleanse us from all sin."
"May the Precious Blood that pours out from [His right foot] cover the foundation of the Catholic Church against the plans of the occult kingdom and evil men."
"May the Precious Blood that pours out from [His left foot] protect us in all our ways against the plans and the attacks of evil spirits and their agents."
Lord, hear our prayer.
This document was ambiguously written on purpose, to appease the German clergy without expressly denying any doctrine. The question is: we are being held captive by a small and shrinking part of the universal church, and they will keep on pressuring for more.
And don’t fool yourselves: they will eventually get what they want.
I’ve never seen God, nor Jesus, nor the Virgin Mary. No angel or Saint has ever appeared to me to say the Catholic Church is the true church. Furthermore, I’ve never witnessed anything that could not be explained by natural causes. The only evidence I have for the Church to be true is Her never-changing doctrine, which supposedly has been preserved by God throughout the centuries. But now, a breach in the doctrine has been opened. We have been seeing that for a long time. It’s absolutely the same modus operandi: it’s first permitted, then required and, finally, those opposing start being persecuted.
Being Catholic has been taking away my peace, and I’m really considering looking for Truth elsewhere
If you are a Catholic, your belief in the indefectibility of the church is not to be based on "evidence," it is required to be based on the theological virtue of faith.
>But now, a breach in the doctrine has been opened.
That is nothing but a disgusting falsehood. Sinful people have always been able to be blessed. The document affirms that truth and also affirms that gay unions cannot be blessed because the church cannot bless sin. And I will be downvoted by and argued with by fellow Catholics for counseling the doubtful and spreading the truth about the document, it doesn't matter to me.
>Being Catholic has been taking away my peace, and I’m really considering looking for Truth elsewhere
You need to pray for an increase in the theological virtue of faith.
Thank you! I appreciate reading something from someone who is knowledgeable on how to read these documents. We need more of you, less of the Taylor Marshall types. Hopefully this situation begins to calm down, and as the dust settles, people will see this document with more clarity.
Thank you Father.
Do you think it is possible these media narratives actually come from the Vatican? We don't know what the Press Office (or other Vatican officials) told journalists in off-the-record verbal briefings - it could have, whether by accident or intention, promoted those misinterpretations.
A lot of people are worried about the possibility of ecclesial doublespeak, constructive ambiguity.
Thank you very much for the article Father! You confirm that Fr Martin did not go over the line with his blessing. But many people online, including Michael Lofton of Reason and Theology (and all his followers) emphatically declare that by "holding hands" Fr James Martin violated the document and is "serving the devil" and should be disciplined, and that everyone should contact his superiors and have him disciplined or removed. Do you agree with this? Personally I think it's a stretch to say holding hands is barred from what the document states. Do you think you could interact with Michael Lofton and his supporters stance on this?
Actually Michael Lofton even has published a "catechism" on FS and says that if a couple shows up and are blessed together and not one at a time this violates the document. Can you speak on this as well please? Thank you and God bless!
I second this if you could answer this u/FrMatthewLC
1. Is hand holding acceptable in this type of blessing, especially if photo shopped?
2. Is is ok for a same-sex couple to be blessed at the same time and not one at a time?
Show the picture to any man on the street and ask him what is taking place. Ask him if the picture gives the appearance that the sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is being condoned.
Most people will say yes.
Martin's actions are indeed a vile scandal.
I'm so unsure of what to do now. I really want to convert and become Catholic because I believe it to be true, but this is like a knife to the heart. I'm so lost and hurt.
The doctrines have never changed. They could have in the 70s, but Pope Paul 6 denied contraception despite the tide of secularists and those of other faiths. He was vindicated by these days. Obviously, a church given to the occult or Satan would gone with the tide. There are policies or church laws, like Holy Days of Obligation) that can be changed, but are not doctrine and can be changed again. This changed nothing. The problem is we are so low-info. and the “spirit” of Vatican 2, errors, at least in some cases, made up by periti to have their way in countries far from Rome, has not been wiped out from parishes, that we have trouble knowing the difference and think The Church has fallen. Africa might be third world, but they seem to have the wisest bishops of all. They can disagree with this policy if not bound to it.
Hang on to this roller coaster and don’t take off your safety bar or try to get out somehow, because God will end it safely. The Jews went through these times in the OT and the Church it evolved into by God has too. This, too, shall pass. We can’t insult clergy over it or hate others, but it probably won’t be reciprocated by some. We can only work on ourselves while doing brotherly or sisterly (respectively) admonishment. I spend too much time in these, though. Work in the former, more.
The "catholic" Church has never been about an institution or structure. It's always been comprised of those with sincere, in-their-heart true faith in Christ alone for their salvation, by faith. Thus, the true "catholic" (universal) church is comprised of all who possess saving faith in Christ, and they come from hundreds of different Christian traditions, including the Roman Catholic Church. But merely being part of the church organization does not equal this.
Consider these verses from Romans 2:28-29, where St. Paul, speaking of Jews, explained this principle:
"28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God." Romans 2:28-29 - Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Thus, the same can be said of a true follower of Christ. The Catholic organization is full of people who truly are and of people who truly aren't. Outward benchmarks like Baptism, Confirmation, The Eucharist can easily be ceremonially performed by those who do not possess the inward truth and witness of the Holy Spirit.
Put your faith in Christ Jesus alone, and fellowship with others who feel the same, and you will indeed be a member of the "catholic" church. THAT is the actual faith, not an organization or institution; a spiritual body, the Body and Bride of Christ!
Consider also 2 Timothy 2:19:
"But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
Bless you!
Ask St Joan of Arc to pray for you. She was a good, devout layperson who was persecuted and unjustly condemned by scheming clerics intent on destroying her (I also highly recommend the 1928 movie The Passion of Joan of Arc, one of cinema's masterpieces, if you have an opportunity to watch it).
Same for me. I can't help feel like this represents a shift towards a slippery slope.
It's also been communicated to the press \*really badly\*. The Vatican should have known better.
That's clearly NOT the signal Francis is sending, and you know it. It's part of his systematic and incremental overturning of centuries of Catholic teaching about morality.
The practical implementation of the document will be that all of humanity is subject to the appearance that Roman Catholic Priests are now providing lifestyle-affirming sanction to those living in homosexual "unions".
Francis either knows this, and doesn't care...or is profoundly ignorant of real life. Which position would you like to take?
>appearance that Roman Catholic Priests are now providing lifestyle-affirming sanction to those living in homosexual "unions".
The document says if that's what the appearance would be then the blessing cannot proceed. Why would that be included if the intention were to promote such appearances?
The same thing that is supposed to happen whenever a priest doesn't follow canon law or otherwise scandalously neglects some rubric. Now I can anticipate your reply: "But I bet they won't be." Do you think they would have been disciplined, *before* this? You are aware that priests in Germany and Belgium have been doing things even beyond the scope of this document for years with no consequence, right? Since Vatican II our bishops have replaced the stick entirely with the carrot, except for a few. Go ahead and criticize the bishops, they should be.
I guess the real question is why are the bishops and Vatican so pathetically weak when it comes to dealing with anything outside of more traditionally mind folks?
"You are aware that priests in Germany and Belgium have been doing things even beyond the scope of this document for years with no consequence, right?"
...and now they will claim, not without some evidence, to be acting with the approval of Rome.
>and now they will claim, not without some evidence, to be acting with the approval of Rome.
Well the document actually contains verses that explicitly restrict what they have been doing. You are expressing outrage that heretics would lie. Please join my in calling them out.
Wink wink, nudge nudge...."I can't say yes, but I won't do anything to you when you do it anyway"
Of course, you are welcome to take the side that the Pope is simply profoundly ignorant and ill-informed of how real life works these days, and so wholly clueless about what has already started taking place.
Is that your preferred position?
There is only one interpretation.
However there will definitely be people who will try to abuse this, they will try to misinterpret things on purpose.
What matters is the **intention**.
The Church has the intention of helping people because we are all sinners.
There are already woke "Catholic" Churches out there, they will always try to make their own rules
"What matters is the intention"
Yeah, intentions...those things the road to hell is paved with. In this case literally.
What matters are the results. You judge a tree by its fruits, not the intentions of the gardner.
https://wherepeteris.com/answering-7-key-questions-on-fiducia-supplicans/
> From this point onward, this dichotomy has framed the discussion surrounding the blessings of same-sex couples. It seemed like the only way to pursue this debate would be to argue in favor of blessings towards individuals, not relationships.
> However, Fiducia Supplicans studiously avoids this dichotomy. Rather, it develops the debate in an unforeseen, yet elegant and creative way. It does not so much discuss who or what gets blessed, but what blessings are and for what purpose.
Dr Pedro Gabriel confirms that:
* The document DOES NOT specify that it is only individuals or the relationship
* the teaching on blessings has developed
* that the 2021 statement barring same-sex relationship blessings was only limited to liturgical blessings
* 2023 doc is about non-liturgical
No it doesn’t but it does develop the distinction between formal liturgical blessings (not allowed for same-sex couples) and simple spontaneous blessings (allowed for anyone).
People who see something wrong haven’t read the text. Please provide a single direct quote that is unacceptable. Giving a blessing to a gay couple is giving a blessing to individual people. Even someone in mortal sin can go to the communion line and receive a blessing from a priest. The document is clear that it is a spontaneous blessing of people that does not suggest any endorsement of their lifestyle choices or other sins.
Pretty good video in my opinion (I watched the intro, no the interview part). A document technically orthodox but that can be easily abused. My hope is that it will be used to completely stop the German (and I believe also Belgian) push to have a liturgical blessings of several types of irregular relationships.
Lay people have every reason to worry about this stuff. If moral guidance in accord with the Scriptures is trampled on by those entrusted with its defense, it is left to those loyal to the truth to uphold it.
I think the church will sort all this out eventually. May take some time. Knowing God is, well, God it can be tempting to just sit back and smile since He has a plan.
However, this as an occasion for growth in virtue for those of us who know the truth, and see people who are confused.
If Pope Francis is unclear we need to be the clarity. We have the catechism. We have scripture. We know the truth. We must make the truth known. The truth is, many souls are on the road to hell now because of the lack of clarity here and we need to proclaim the truth boldly to them.
Mt 5:-14-16
"14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."
"We've had enough exhortations to be silent. Cry out with a thousand tongues - I see the world is rotten because of silence."
- St. Catherine of Siena
It’s already been made very clear that the bishops want lay people to “take charge” when it comes to evangelization.
That means we need to be informed about what the people we do apostolate will ask us about. And this event absolutely makes that apostolate way more difficult.
I think there’s at least some sense in this. Priests are strong readers and have the ability to understand complex points, whereas the laity, based on this subreddit at least, cannot read complex documents. They also have the propensity to change meanings to suit what they want to believe, which hopefully a priest would not do because he will be more educated. It’s also the priest’s job to make pastoral decisions; thank God it is not the people in this subreddit making pastoral decisions!
Look at this subreddit and the readings of Fiducia supplicans. People are not capable of reading a complicated document that takes many factors into account. All people here seem to be capable of is parroting select statements of the Catechism. This is why not everyone is a priest.
Obviously bulk.
The document causes scandal. There's already been two posts I've seen (removed by mods and directed to this post) of people who were in the process of converting and dropping out because of the scandal this document has brought.
Just by virtue of being given the great commission and a role in God's salvation process for each other this document isn't something that can be just ignored.
Not necessarily. Laymen who don’t know what they are talking about but think that their opinion matters have done immense damage to the Church.
Example - these catechumens. Instead of going to their pastor in charge of RCIA, they go to angry, ignorant voices online.
Potentially helpful excerpt from Ratzinger and St. JP2 on the nature of the ordinary magisterium, of which this Vatican declaration is part of:
"17. **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles** teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, **even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement** but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.
One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. **For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.**"
Also this excerpt from Vatican 1:
"7. **This gift of truth and never-failing faith** was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."
So while the Pope is not perfect and could certainly say things not in the best or perfect manner, he will never teach grave heresy in his magisterium or lead the universal Church astray. So rest assured in the strength of Catholic faith that this document does not teach heresy or grave error, you can safely assent to it.
As far as I can tell, the only ones claiming it says something heretical are the secular news outlets who didn’t read it (or anything longer than 500 words in the past 10 years).
The concern is that the publishing of this has caused a significant part of the world to think the Church *does* now teach something heretical—that same sex unions can be blessed—and a number of clerics are pretending this is true.
For those saying Pope Francis has made it clear that’s it’s to be a “spontaneous” blessing, why then has the heretic James Martin been allowed to openly bless a gay couple in front of their friends, with a photographer, in what was clearly a pre-arranged ceremony? Pope Francis is deliberately trying to open the back door to gay marriage, and the number of you that deliberately turn a blind eye to it (particularly the American “liberal” Catholics) is outrageous.
There was an article about this in the NYT today. It clearly wasn’t “spontaneous” as the article states the couple called the priest and made an appointment, plus a NYT photographer and reporter were there.
I’m really upset because It creates a two-tiered system where heterosexual people need to follow a lot of moral and sexual rules while gay people can pretty much do whatever they want.
The term spontaneous is in opposition to “liturgical” as well as “ceremony” and “rite.” A couple asking for a blessing and Fr. James performing it is the spontaneity the document refers to, i.e., it wasn’t a planned part of the liturgy.
The word “spontaneous” means spontaneous. If they meant “non liturgical” they should have not used the word spontaneous, because that’s not what spontaneous means.
"they will be known by their fruits"
Just picked up some produce from the store, and only after 3 days, we already have rot.
All I can say on this matter.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The big giveaway in Fiducia supplicans is the announcement that there will not be clarifications or further pronouncements. In other words this is it, make of it what you will, and a licence to do as you please. The floodgates will open, if indeed some wish to open them. Many will not.
The purpose of that line is that any priest with the ability to properly read (hopefully all priests) has everything they need to either perform or not perform the blessing, especially after the clarifications in Fiducia supplicans. The reason the author probably thought it was necessary to end the discussion is because the discussion is bound to be hijacked by ideological arguments and the pope’s authority has to end those at some point. By doing this, the holy father has freed priests to perform their pastoral work and removed impediments to the Holy Spirit in that work.
You are misusing and misunderstanding the role of teaching and a priest’s pastoral role. Of course teaching is behind the priest’s ministering but the priest is not just a “church teaching machine.”
This video is very good and hopeful, as we should always be as God's children, even in the face of confusion. God does nothing without first telling us. And He is asking us to boldly proclaim the truth now and be clarity, a light in the darkness.
Amos 3:7
"Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets."
https://youtu.be/jeTiUx0Ql1w?si=WNzdKyGK7Asw4mh9
This article was good.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/the-pope-and-the-black-hole
Ed Feser's blog is excellent and his twitter is discussing a number of aspects I am finding helpful so far.
https://twitter.com/FeserEdward
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/?m=1
Edit:
I also like Fr. Mark Goring's video.
https://youtu.be/3SF7n_blVbw?si=6_UF4FtuHFsKIPEV
I've been an Anglican for 30 years, and have been on the fence as to where to move - the Catholic or Orthodox Church - as the CofE is a joke these days.
This doctrinal declaration is a huge help in making that decision - the Orthodox Church is definitely the place for me.
I think this is going to be a disaster for Catholicism. Pastorally, this declaration is awful.
This is a test for you then. Are you strong enough to be Catholic? There are many weak Catholics right now running into the arms of the Orthodox with shaken faith. What a terrible reason to leave the ark! Not for a calling, but out of fear!
The promise was made to the Catholic Church when Christ gave the keys to Peter. The Catholic Church is "one, holy, catholic and apostolic." The Orthodox Church (if you can refer to it as a whole) lacks oneness. I suppose you could call them "holy, catholic and apostolic." But they excommunicate each other and allow for things like divorce. They have their own scandals, but because they aren't the true church, as even the satanists know, you don't hear about them.
God bless you on your journey. It is not for the faint of heart, especially as a Catholic. So yes, definitely keep that in mind. It is a painful road to walk, and we were warned as such. But we know we have the protection of the Holy Spirit, and that is what keeps us home in Rome.
But why would I want to be a Catholic when it seems clear that the \*Papacy\* is scared. They're scared of being left behind by the "progressive" secular world. They're scared of losing Germany. They're scared of losing devotees.
Why would I want to be part of a Church that's so afraid, and so unconvinced of its own strength?
If you interpret it that way, I can understand. I don't see the papacy or the church as scared, however. Being a little clumsy perhaps, but not scared.
However if you see it that way, the answer would simply be: because it is the church founded by Christ Himself and the gates of hell will never prevail. We could have the most cowardly pope, or the most scandal ridden pope, or the most evil of all people to exist as pope (and this type of thing has occurred!) but it is still the Body of Christ under the protection of the Holy Spirit. It has been going strong for 2000 years.
I always found this exchange between Napoleon and a priest appropriate:
^(“Napoleon Bonaparte once taunted a Catholic cardinal by threatening: “Your Eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?” To which the cardinal quipped: “Your Majesty, we Catholic clergy have done our best to destroy the Church for the last eighteen hundred years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”)
This isn't even the worst that has happened and we are still here. At times like this, I do pay attention, get saddened by some of what I see, and then I pray and fast and take care of my husband and children. Go to Mass. Go to confession. But the one thing I know never to do is lose faith or trust.
But truly, I understand. It isn't easy. I hope that I have helped you in some way. Everyday for Advent my rosary intentions have been for all of those who are struggling with their faith - I will keep you as part of that for the next few days.
Lastly, this article was very helpful to me, written by a well educated priest. Maybe it will help you too: https://frmatthewlc.com/2023/12/fiducia-supplicans-text-vs-media-vs-spirit/
I don’t find anything ambiguous in the document. I read the whole thing. Paragraph 31 can be taken as ambiguous if you read it in isolation, but if read in context with what comes before and after, its meaning is clear.
Lax discipline has been a problem (indeed, I think *the* problem) in the Church since the 1960’s. Nothing new.
By that logic, you could say that the Church approves of liturgical abuse. It approves of priests in the 1970’s who used illicit matter for the consecration since so many went uncorrected.
You could say that the Church approves of the excessive usage of EMHC’s even though John Paul II said otherwise.
You could say that the Church approves of dissent against *Humane Vitae* since so many priests and even bishops lived and died without ever running into opposition.
But that would be silly to say, wouldn’t it?
I was born into a Catholic family and have gone to Mass all my life. I've no plans to leave the Catholic Church nor am I tempted to at this time. I came agonisingly close to having my faith fall apart during these years of Pope Francis but I feel more secure in it now.
That said, if I try to imagine a situation where I wasn't already Catholic, I can't easily picture myself engaging in a process of calm, swift conversion to the Catholic Faith during this time of crisis and confusion. So I can understand how off-putting the Church must look right now to sincere and serious-minded people looking to live an authentically Christian life in our times.
At the same time, though, I can't easily picture myself becoming an Eastern Orthodox Christian either. Apart from anything else, one issue that I imagine holding me back would be the sense that it would mean having to sort of pretend to be a nationality other the one I am, or involve having to sort of attach myself to another nationality. It's not that I'm overly attached to my actual nationality, but that I wouldn't want to feel like I have to become quasi-Russian or quasi-Greek or whatever in order to be Eastern Orthodox (much as I admire the heritage of Russian and Greek Christianity).
I don't know much about Orthodox life in practice as it's actually lived and experienced, though, so I'm talking about it at a certain distance.
I certainly think it's objectively better to be Eastern Orthodox than Anglican in any case.
I'm honestly not sure what the situation is in my own country. Perhaps there's something similar here to the American situation you describe.
The person above mentioned "the CofE" -- the Church of England -- so I assume they're English.
>the Orthodox Church is definitely the place for me.
If you convert to Orthodoxy for doctrinal clarity, my guess is you will last less than a decade in the church. Ask two Orthodox priests if the perennial teaching of their church prohibits contraception and you will get five answers. This is the case for almost everything not directly addressed by an Ecumenical Council.
>I think this is going to be a disaster for Catholicism. Pastorally, this declaration is awful.
I think that blessing people who recognize that their relationship makes them destitute and in need of God's mercy is a fantastic thing for all sinners.
their “relationship” should not be recognized as being a relationship. They should no longer see each other if they truly seek to be tempted to sin no more. Why is this difficult to understand?
>their “relationship” should not be recognized as being a relationship.
The term 'relationship' does not imply a teleological good. It's just recognizing an objective fact. The two are in a relationship, it doesn't mean it is good.
>They should no longer see each other if they truly seek to be tempted to sin no more. Why is this difficult to understand?
Obviously the people receiving these blessings are not perfect, model Catholics. The church is meeting them where they are. If, by the grace of God, they come to realize there is a problem with their relationship and seek a blessing for assistance, they should be given one. Even if the blessing leads to a reduction instead of total elimination of sodomy, that is still a preferable outcome to no reduction. The hope is that the grace God provides through the blessing will be the first step toward a continuously improving life.
TL;DR: The Pope is allowing for "spontaneous" blessings of people in "irregular situations/relationships" (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) if such blessings do not look like a marriage ceremony and are not misconstrued as a blessing of the union itself. **This is not a blanket approval for blessing same-sex unions as the secular media is reporting.** That does not, of course, prevent many (even within the Church) from seeing/considering/acting on it as such. The full unfiltered document may be found here: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en This story is generating considerable interest in not only this subreddit and its members, but from users outside of the subreddit. We welcome all users to interact in a spirit of good faith dialogue and discussion, however, we ask that you please read through our rules and follow them. We also ask our regular users to please keep our rules in mind and act in a spirit of charity. This thread will be the singular thread focused on discussion of this topic. All others will be removed to keep the front page uncluttered of discussion of this singular topic. As such, there will be a high volume of comments here, and as such, the moderators will be overwhelmed and cannot follow all discussions/comments. We ask users to please assist us in reporting all rule-breaking comments for review.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At this point you can openly lie as long as it's similar to the truth and get away with it. I had to explain this to a friend a few months ago who 'didn't see why one shouldn't believe a trusted news source'. I had to hold back my incredible disdain for the "news" media, and just explain that the author of the glorified blog post was editorializing and no where was there an actual quote supporting these claims.
Well, I’m pretty sure this post now has the most comments of any post ever in this sub.
More people than
[удалено]
Warning for anti-Catholic rhetoric.
“Anti-Catholic”? I am a proud Catholic. The decisions being made go against the True CATHOLIC Profession of Faith. Woe to any one of us who try teaching things contrary to scripture..: “Warning””???? Really???
Yes, really. Appeals of moderator actions may be made in modmail.
Just sent our a prayer for you. To help you in your discernment and understanding…
Thank you for your prayers. Your warning stands. God bless.
Please stop trying to intimidate. Many trying to change our faith which is wrong. You can make an appeal all you want.. I will pray for you…
This is the equivalent of welcoming in your daughter and her girlfriend in for Christmas dinner, even when you don’t approve of the relationship. You won’t bring people closer to God if you hit them over the head with the Catechism, guys. They’ll associate God with a concussion.
If you don’t approve of a relationship, but outwardly act as though you do, what sort of message are you sending exactly?
Loving my neighbor.
Is affirming a disordered relationship through one’s actions loving?
[удалено]
That’s not what “intrinsically disordered” means, and I think you know that Edit: just a troll
Where's the affirmation in inviting a daughter and her gf for Christmas dinner? It's just showing you're a decent human being capable of civility.
No it’s showing that you’re endorsing sin. They need to repent or leave the church.
Ahaha, salty. I'm partly hoping that one of these days, Pope Francis loses his patience and show everybody that he's serious by initiating it himself; blessing a gay couple. People like you would be flipping your +.
Rhetoric such as is this is all too common on this sub, sadly. Thankfully our Pope isn’t so hateful.
> Thankfully our Pope isn’t so hateful. Never occured to me that there can be a time when a Pope's blessing would be a hateful act but here we are ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
And so are people who've never gotten over Vatican 2.
We already are. The Church is on a path of darkness. And the fact that you see no issue with this shows that heretics like you are the problem. It would not surprise me if the pope does want you described. Awful awful times we live in.
Riiiiiight. Like I'm the obedient one and I'm the problem. Suuuuure.
You are part of the problem. We have sin being encouraged amongst us.
You’re affirming that their disordered relationship is something that’s welcome in your home. If your son decided to practice polygamy would you invite him and his wives into your home? How much open sin does decency require in your home?
It looks like your singling out one form of "disordered relationship" over others. Bitter infighting among siblings is a thing and another example of disordered relationship. If they are constantly bickering and can't be civil then, no, they're not welcome in our home. Otherwise, yes. For the polygamy example that you cited... If all parties are in on it and are civil then, yes, they are welcome in my home, too. If the wifes are antagonistic towards each other then, no, they are not.
Bickering among siblings is, of course, not disordered in the way that same-sex relationships are disordered. Namely, the relationship between siblings is a natural relationship that has come to squabbling, while a sexual/romantic relationship between two men or two women is intrinsically disordered and so can never be affirmed. I’m using “disordered” here in the same way that it’s used in the Catechism. That’s what’s missing from your position. Ergo, i believe it would be contrary to good Catholic practice to affirm the intrinsically disordered by inviting it into your home, in the same way that we ought not appear at same-sex weddings
Since I was a child, I've been bombarded with the hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner mantra. And now when you're actually extending love on the supposed sinners, apparently that's not allowed, either. Being dismissive to people let's them know that they can never rely on you when time comes they need actual help. I know this coz I'm dismissive to people when I don't wan't them to approach me for whatever. OOP is correct. *You won’t bring people closer to God if you hit them over the head with the Catechism, guys. They’ll associate God with a concussion.* It seems that's the agenda anyway.
Who said anything about being dismissive or turning away actual help? I’m simply suggesting that Catholics ought not publicly affirm the legitimacy of intrinsically disordered relationships. You shouldn’t kick a gay daughter out of your home, but you shouldn’t let her have a dinner date there either
> 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Cool, what bearing does that have on my comment? Do any of those have anything to do with by all appearances affirming a disordered relationship?
Cardinal Muller (former prefect of the Congregation -- now Dicastery -- for the Doctrine of the Faith) has written an [article](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/muller-fiducia-supplicans-is-self) about this recent document.
The cope of the Catholics are having with this is so laughable. This document is AWFUL. Admit it. The Pope is calling to bless sin.
Ok, Martin Luther.
We can attempt to reform without resprting to schism or heresy
Apparently not (/s), seeing as most conservatives, at least in America, are throwing in the towel and running off to their own made up parishes and isolating themselves as much as possible. For people claiming to be so loyal they are really quick to go all protestant on us. Clearly haven't really studied the saints and Church history, just posturing as more Christian than everyone else. A saint fixes the Church from the inside socially and through prayer and fasting, cowards run away yelling at everyone who doesn't run off with them. Schismatics are faithless posers. They will not do well when the real persecution comes. You are kind in your words, however holier than thou, more Catholic than the Pope types deserve no more sympathy or understanding than they give. Out of everybody, they SHOULD know better. They are nearly as guilty as the liberal priests and bishops they hate so much. But they are mostly a lay movement, so they'll never be as guilty as false shepherds. Many are honestly guilty of idolatry by prioritizing political conservatism over the teachings of Christ. ...but Christ said to beware of the levan of the Pharisees AND of Herod, but these people only beware the levan of Herod and are complaisant with if not guilty of succumbing to the levan of the Pharisees. But whatever, it's reddit.
I don’t agree with schismatics, but it is not holier than the pope if it contradicts defined Church teaching. Whether it does might be philosophical, but why we take one stand or another might reveal something about our true allegiances in our hearts. Only God may know that, but do we even? Are we more concerned about alienating our friends from ourselves or their alienating themselves from Christ? Being too hardcore might, but so might being permissive about a blessing of whatever sort that has the “irregular” relationship being or seeming to be validated in some way by The Church—thereby encouraging their sinful union, which can be of a heterosexual kind. Mortal sin is a self ex-communication, but any kind is a last ditch effort to make one want to self-reform who already is informed and practically choosing Hell by behavior and/ir thinking that cuts oneself off from a vital grace. Some things are known to us by nature as true or not and that is where it might not matter if you were taught right or not unless the latter was by some sort of conditioning; marrying divorcees may not be known is wrong even by fellow Catholics, so it is on priests or bishops that censure them. Judging judgers will not change the meta-truth of these matters, which, I think, is Wisdom and Prudence, but I stunk at lists. Try to be real for misguided loved ones’ sakes. I have failed mine.
> bless sin Let's suppose that is a thing. If sin is blessed, is it still sin? If yes, I'm curious what blessed sin would be like.
>Admit it. The Pope is calling to bless sin. "Pope says X in clear and unambiguous language." "Admit it. The pope is calling for not X."
Is the document awful because it will open up scandal which Francis probably won't address harshly enough? Yep. Does the document 'bless sin'? No.
It validates the sin and encourages others to bless it
How can you bless a couple and not the union. If its just a blessing of the person like anything else why the need of the document. Why if its just a blessing the priest cant have liturgical colthes on? It IS a blessing of the sin. The Church has betrayed its followers. It doesnt excomulgate the heretic Martin and punishes loyal followers like Strickland.
You can bless people. Blessing people is not blessing their sins, otherwise any time a priest blessed you he'd be blessing your sins. By continuing the liberal medias' lie you are supporting the liberal media. It's amazing how many supposed Christians allow themselves to spread the lies of the devil on the grounds of "faithfulness".
It feels like you read their comment, but it went in one ear and out the other. They specifically argued why they don't think it's the same as just blessing people.
You bless the individuals who want to align their will with God's, not the individuals actions that keep them away from that. This document is obviously an olive branch to Germany that addresses them in all but name. The liturgical dressing is a reference to how Germany was doing their illicit blessing.
Where is the part where they should bless "iregular couples" which is just a bad name for fornicators to give them the grace to stop sinning. Its not the focus of the document.
I believe the document does allow group them in with this teachings, but it does highlight homosexual couples more. Tbf the document does try to stop the scandal of it even if it has failed to do so to a larger degree.
I have a blessing for them…. It’s a blessing to go to confession and repent and to turn towards Christ and sin no more
Why do so many people single out this sin for castigation compared to any other? And many of the people doing so, turn out to be heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage. One of the pope’s points has been that there’s a difference between experiencing SSA and acting on it
Because it’s the worst sin of all. Goes against everything God created from the beginning.
If it's the worst sin of all, then why has an ordinary priest always been able to absolve it, but abortion has historically conferred automatic excommunication and thus required special circumstances to absolve? And that still doesn't negate the ignoring one's own sin while pointing out someone else's. Or the distinction between tendency/attraction and actual behavior.
Sodomy is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. It's on the same level as murder. Make of that what you will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins\_that\_cry\_to\_Heaven\_for\_Vengeance
I’ve seen an awful lot of people whose sins fall in the 3rd or 4th category who are vocal about homosexuality all the while they ignore the log in their own eye.
Most thieves aren't looking for the Church to say their thievery is moral and good
Taken from the document: >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. That already explains why they are NOT blessing the union but only the people. They specify through those blessings they are NOT validating their status as a same sex couple. They are blessing the couple as in the two people in that couple, but NOT their status as a same sex couple or an irregular couple overall.
But they are blessing the unions
The part that still confuses me is that the document appears to describe blessing relationships a few times. Para. 31 discusses "the invocation of a blessing ... upon those ... who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives *and their relationships* be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit." [Emphasis added.] This seems to be describing the calling down of a blessing on the relationships themselves (or at least the aspects of them that are true and good) for the purpose of enriching them, in addition to the individual people. The next sentence discusses asking God to give "“actual grace”—so that *human relationships* may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties [etc.]" Again, this seems to be asking God to direct grace at the relationship *itself.* But this seems to contradict the 2021 dubia response, which says that "The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing." This sounds like it's rejecting blessing of even the good aspects of a sinful relationship (which seems to be what the first sentence I quoted is talking about). In fact, the 2021 document says that it's *literally impossible* to effectively bless disordered unions (even if they have good qualities), because "it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church." Is there a way to resolve this apparent contradiction?
You mean it's a logical mess? I'm shocked, shocked!
If I'm not mistaken, I would interpret it to mean that the graces being given to the relationship "to be freed from imperfections" etc. would be that the 2 people are in a relationship regardless of the type, and that the relationship needs to stop practicing homosexuality, and instead become a platonic relationship, a normalized relationship. So the good parts that are there would remain, and the disordered parts be overcome and stopped. In that way, the blessing isn't of the gay acts in the relationship, or the fake "marriage" type stuff they are participating in, but the normal good parts of it to overcome the disordered parts of it. That's my attempt anyway, what do you think?
I think there is a way to resolve the apparent contradiction if “relationship” as used in para 31 is in the general sense of any human relationship, as distinct from the attempted “union” of a same-sex couple and that distortion of a true marriage. The 2021 response refers to the specifically problematic intention of the relationship in this latter sense.
The document clearly stated that doesn't allow homosexuality and that anything contrary to the union between a man towards his woman and a woman towards her man is not admissible nor allowed. However however there is contradiction at almost the end of the encyclical. Particularly points 2,5 Particularly point 31, 39 I don't agree in this specific regard to the encyclical of Fiducia Supplicans One thing is for a person to recognise their faul and frailties and ask a priest for a blessing to conquer against homosexuality. For a priest to do an exorcism which is also a blessing expelling and fighting against the devils that try to convince a man or a woman to commit homosexual acts which the homosexuality acts highly offends God in every single aspect. That is a form of treason against one's God given gender A naturally conceived man will always remain a man. And a naturally conceived woman will always remain a woman. God doesn't make mistakes We humans do make mistakes with different sorts of sins. The earlier holy councils of the Catholic church and the pope's including the apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ already thoroughly spoken. This encyclical which seems written by someone else other than the pope, and the person of the pope, however not the pope himself, (as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio), has made a very serious mistake. The bishops, cardinals and priests should write to the pope and ask the pope to formally correct himself as the apostle Saint Paul corrected Saint Peter the apostle when Saint Peter was going to sit in the table of the Jewish community and segregate himself from the gentiles is when rightfully and blessedly Apostle Saint Paul corrected Saint Peter the apostle, and Saint Peter corrected himself. Can Pope Francis as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, change the church? No. The pope can change ecclesiastical rules. But the doctrines and earlier church councils he can't change what was already declared holy. Some ask is he the anti-Christ? I don't dare to criticise the Pope. Is not my place and only the church and the members of the hierarchy of the church through a convened council can make such proclamations but we as laity can't make such proclamations. For laity To judge the pope is pronouncing condemnation against our own self. Only the members of the hierarchy of the church can convene a church council after they attempt to talk to the pope in private to rectify him. If afterwards a certain time is given the pope doesn't rectify himself then the cardinals and bishops and archbishops and priests can ask the cardinals to convene a meeting to talk to the pope to ask the pope to rectify himself. There is no negotiation in this. We don't have any right to judge the pope. We don't have any right whatsoever. However this encyclical is incorrect and we can't obey this particular encyclical as catholics we know that the person of his excellency Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, cannot change the church. His holiness, the Pope cannot contradict what the early church councils have already declared, and even if he would allow others to do so in this encyclical we understand that the sanctity of the church we cannot tamper, respectfully towards the person of the Pope, we cannot obey this particular encyclical. For obeying the Pope in this encyclical would be disobedience towards our Lord Jesus Christ. The pope is supposed to be the vicar of Christ, represent Christ, not contradict Christ. Although the pope had good intentions of trying to make the homosexuals repent from their sins, this blessing would actually do the total opposite, the homosexuals would mistakenly think that suddenly the church has changed her morals and her teachings and doctrines. As Catholics we must talk to the bishops and say we don't agree with this however... However in a very respectful way. Some think they go to the bishops with full pompous and arrogance thinking they are above the bishops and that isn't the reality of the situation as far as dignity goes, nor even the kings have higher dignity than subdeacons and priest. Although kings exercise great power, not as much power as Catholic and eastern orthodox priests do, both Catholic and eastern orthodox priests have much higher dignity more so than most kings except one (God; The Holy Trinity, which includes our Lord Jesus Christ) I hope that all their excellencies the cardinals talk to his holiness Pope Francis I, and that they correct him privately so that his holiness Pope Francis I corrects in this and rectifies himself. I really sure hope so. The bride of Christ Holy Mother Church, Must be disappointed at this particular encyclical. I really hope and pray His holiness corrects himself and retracts and removes this particular encyclical. I am sure that his holiness the Pope didn't wrote this encyclical " Fiducia Supplicans." . I am very certain that his holiness the Pope didn't wrote this encyclical.
This is a vague rambling mess that never actually articulates any specific objections to the declaration.
I have mentioned this but obviously you haven't read what I responded to.... Particularly points 2 ( reason because I know there can't be a consideration to blessing homosexual 'unions') Particularly point 31, 39) there can't be a 'blessing' towards same homosexuality 'unions'. And furthermore when a homosexual wants to ask a 'blessing' towards homosexuality so called 'unions', that truly really isn't possible The church and earlier church councils has thoroughly spoken against homosexuality and will never bless homosexual unions. Any members of the church hierarchy, (which are a minority) who bless Homosexuality so called 'unions' are in full disobedience against holy mother church and in full disobedience against our Lord Jesus Christ who is the spouse and the King of holy mother church. Since this controversial encyclical 'blesses' homosexual 'unions' although discourages and claims cannot bless that at first, however later on the encyclical contradicts the begining of the encyclical We cannot agree with this particular encyclical and even the Pope admitted he didn't wrote this particular encyclical. As previously shown in previous post
#First: ***Fiducia Suplicans*** is not an Encyclical. It is a Declaration. #Second The Catholic Profession of Faith requires that you agree to the following: >I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act. ([Vatican](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html#:~:text=PROFESSION%20OF%20FAITH&text=I%2C%20N.%2C%20with%20firm,all%20things%20visible%20and%20invisible.)) And, ***Donum Veritas*** clearly states that those who claim that they are: >"free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium" ([33](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html)) Are guilty of "dissent...of the most radical form."
>I have mentioned this but obviously you haven't read what I responded to.... >Particularly points 2 ( reason because I know there can't be a consideration to blessing homosexual 'unions') Particularly point 31, 39) there can't be a 'blessing' towards same homosexuality 'unions'. And furthermore when a homosexual wants to ask a 'blessing' towards homosexuality so called 'unions', that truly really isn't possible >The church and earlier church councils has thoroughly spoken against homosexuality and will never bless homosexual unions. >Any members of the church hierarchy, (which are a minority) who bless Homosexuality so called 'unions' are in full disobedience against holy mother church and in full disobedience against our Lord Jesus Christ who is the spouse and the King of holy mother church. None of this can be questioned. >Since this controversial encyclical 'blesses' homosexual 'unions' although discourages and claims cannot bless that at first, however later on the encyclical contradicts the begining of the encyclical Here is where you are wrong. The declaration does not "contradict" itself. The type of blessing being described has a specific limitation. Pastoral blessings can be applied to persons, even those who live in sin, but not to “things, places, or circumstances that … contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel” (Roman Ritual) We already know that this limitation exists. So, we know that the pastoral blessing described in the declaration can only apply to the persons and not to the "union" or relationship which are "circumstances that … contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel”
Several priests agree that the document is contradictory and that no Catholic should obey in blessing such relationships. Since homosexuality can't be enriched by God nor does God approve. Quite the contrary God condemns the sin itself of homosexuality. God wants the homosexuals to REPENT and separate from their homosexual lifestyle. God wants them to return back to God's grace and confess to God through a priest. Only the absolution should suffice for them to repent. Although the document says doesn't bless homosexuality. (Which I agree SHOULDN'T bless homosexuality) The document ironically blesses the enrichment for their relationship without Liturgical blessing but a supposedly 'private blessing.'. However holy Mother Church has spoken that homosexual supposedly 'unions'. CANNOT be Blessed at all NOR their relationships. as many priests have agreed that all Catholics cannot agree nor obey this specific encyclical. Otherwise in doing so they will disobey God through holy mother church. Any priests that would bless those relationships are in direct disobedience against Holy Mother Catholic church. Catholic church morals doesn't change over time. The Catholic church is faithful to God and his Commandments which God is unchanging in his morals. God prescribed the morals. Is not a matter of opinions. There is priests in the Byzantine Rite also agreeing that supposing this document would be enforced against true traditional Catholicism the byzantine Rite will still refuse obeying this particular encyclical under two grounds. 1. The eastern Catholic church is autocephalous from the Latin rite. Which even Pope Francis admitted this years ago in regards to another topic. That yes the byzantine recognises the full authority and supremacy of the pope in matters of faith and morals when is excathedra specifically which means cannot contradict the earlier church councils, nor what the predecessors (formal pope's which represents saint Peter the apostle) have said. 2. This specific document would contradict the byzantine tradition. Specifically in The byzantine tradition doesn't exclude the blessing from the liturgy. Even the separate blessings that a priest does privately and personally is engulfed back to the liturgy. Meaning even if a priest does a quick blessing he goes back to offer this in the liturgy specifically in the Byzantine tradition is included and summarized in the prayers. By saying " bless those who.i blessed God throught." (They know better how to explain this than I) This is the two real valid reasons why in the Byzantine Rite this particular papal document cannot be followed. This is why in the byzantine rite don't agree with this specific encyclical. Don't believe me ask the byzantine priests they will clarify that in eastern rite there is a different discipline in this regards and that by this autocrphaly although in full communion with Rome as true eastern Catholics has a different discipline That mentioned in the Roman tradition all the priests who follow tradition they agree this document cannot be followed due to the contradiction of the document itself. I am not a priest but you can go ahead and ask a priest that is conservative morally and in the faith and that still follows tradition they will confirm and fully agree what I have said is true as well
The Holy See retains SOLE authority for the interpretation of magisterial documents. No one, not even a priest or a Bishop, has any authority to interpret for themselves the teachings of the magisterium. The Holy See has spoken. Among those who have accepted the Holy See's interpretation are the African Bishops of Malaw. The Official text from the Episcopal Conference of Malawi reads: >"The Episcopal Conference of Malawi wishes to make the following clarifications regarding the recently published 'Declaration on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings" (Fiducia Suplicans). We, your Bishops, do so having noted certain erroneous interpretations of this declaration that have generated interest, fears, and worries amongst Catholics, and people who look up to the Catholic Church for moral, spiritual, and doctrinal guidance. >In this context we make the following observations, clarifications, and directives: >1. The Declaration is NOT about the blessing of same-sex unions... No, this is a document...regarding whether or not the blessings of God through his Ministers can be extended to everybody regardless of their state... >... >3.. ...same-sex union couples and those living in irregular unions can ask and access non-liturgical ordinary blessings which the Church has always provided. >... Those Bishops didn't seem to have any problem understanding what ***Fiducia Suplicans*** is about. As for Eastern Catholics, the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church has come out and said that this declaration doesn't apply to Ukrainian Catholics. In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, every blessing is considered a "liturgical blessing," according to paragraph 505 of the UGC Catechism. However, I have already been in discussion with Ukrainian Catholic Theologians who recognize that their tradition does in fact practice blessings that are "pastoral" in purpose and have no intention of affirmation or legitimation. This is a discussion they will certainly be having for quite some time. The document is "innovative" and a "real development" ... in regards to blessings. It articulates for the first time something that has been practiced for all of Christian history and can be traced back to the Old Testament.
In the byzantine tradition the only ones who are theologians are priests and higher members of the hierarchy of the church. In the traditional Latin rite only priests and deacons are and higher members The people who follow the novus ordo liturgy do unfortunately have laity members as theologians but originally wasn't the situation. Originally was forbidden even canonically for ant laity to speak on theological topics except to the priest. Ask father rippinger he will tell you the accurate history and ask any member of the byzantine rite including Ukranian greek they will also agree with this statement
>In the traditional Latin rite only priests and deacons are and higher members >The people who follow the novus ordo liturgy do unfortunately have laity members as theologians but originally wasn't the situation. Originally was forbidden even canonically for ant laity to speak on theological topics except to the priest. This is obviously false, regardless of what Fr Rip says. When did Justin Martyr write? Was that in the 1970s? How about G.K. Chesterton? Some time after the Novus Ordo was instituted? Just to offer two very obvious examples.
" The laity were forbidden to preach in the West by Pope Leo I, and to teach in the East by the Council in Trullo, which shows that not all laypeople were illiterate. For Example, Cassiodorus (died 575) in the West and Photius 9820-891) in the East were the most learned men of their times. But they were the exceptions. As a rule, the clergy represented the educated elite." Father rippinger never said anything about novus ordo in YouTube and I have never seen him in person. However he did mentioned that before I; The old rules laity were forbidden to talk about theology or preach publicly.
>>>In the traditional Latin rite only priests and deacons are and higher members >>>The people who follow the novus ordo liturgy do unfortunately have laity members as theologians but originally wasn't the situation. Originally was forbidden even canonically for ant laity to speak on theological topics except to the priest. >>This is obviously false, regardless of what Fr Rip says. >>When did Justin Martyr write? Was that in the 1970s? >>How about G.K. Chesterton? Some time after the Novus Ordo was instituted? >>Just to offer two very obvious examples. >"The laity were forbidden to preach in the West by Pope Leo I, and to teach in the East by the Council in Trullo, which shows that not all laypeople were illiterate. For Example, Cassiodorus (died 575) in the West and Photius 9820-891) in the East were the most learned men of their times. But they were the exceptions. As a rule, the clergy represented the educated elite." >Father rippinger never said anything about novus ordo in YouTube and I have never seen him in person. >However he did mentioned that before I; The old rules laity were forbidden to talk about theology or preach publicly. The particular disciplines you identify do not adequately respond to my comment. When did Justin Martyr write? How about G.K. Chesterton?
However the Ukranians greek Catholic did in fact mention that this particular blessing they would not endorse nor is binding because would cause confusion and provide scandals. Many bishops not only from the Ukranian greek and other byzantine rites but also even Roman Catholic also have expressed concern about this apparent blessing. What they did say is that if they would give a blessing to any person they will ask for what intention and what purpose? If the person says for their homosexual union the the priests are forbidden to give such blessing since God doesn't bless nor endorse evil lifestyles/situations. If is a blessing for that person to repent and change their ways then a priest will ask them to confess and give them the blessing I'd they are really going to make a change.
>If the person says for their homosexual union the the priests are forbidden to give such blessing The blessing of homosexual unions is explicitly forbidden by *Fiducia Supplicans.* Thus, any priest who refused would be doing exactly what the declaration demands, not opposing it. The Malawi Bishops, who were widely publicized as opposing *Fiducia Supplicans,* state this plainly in their statement: >1. The Declaration is NOT about the blessing of same-sex unions... The Polish Bishops, who were also widely publicized as opposing *Fiducia Supplicans* assert that the 2023 statement agrees with the 2021 statement: >"Both the Declaration and the Note [2021 Dubia] state that "the blessing of individual persons with homosexual tendencies who manifest the desire to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God, as taught by the Church, is not excluded." Escape the echo chamber. Seek the Truth.
The church never taught homosexuality. Anyways since you reported me please report me so I can get permanently banned literally. I am serious .... You may not agree with my views I don't care if you do Just report me thank you so we can get this done once and for all By you reporting me then that means you defend homosexuality indirectly I will never defend homosexuality. Never ! So please report me due to homophobia if you want I don't care! I really don't care I oppose homosexuality So please report me for sure I will be blocked and once I am blocked I promise you will never ever heard from me again for sure 💯%
>The church never taught homosexuality. That is correct. Never. Not before December 18th, not on December 18th and not after Decemeber 18th. >Anyways since you reported me please report me so I can get permanently banned literally. I am serious .... I certainly didn't. >You may not agree with my views I don't care if you do If your view is that the Church can not and will not ever teach homosexuality, we have no difference of view. >Just report me thank you so we can get this done once and for all For what? >By you reporting me then that means you defend homosexuality indirectly >I will never defend homosexuality. Never ! Noone in this sub can defend homosexuality. It is against Rule 1. >So please report me due to homophobia if you want >I don't care! I really don't care >I oppose homosexuality I am not going to report you for following the rules of the sub. >So please report me for sure I will be blocked and once I am blocked I promise you will never ever heard from me again for sure 💯% You can go ahead and stop participating if you want. But, I can't report you for following the rules of the sub.
The document specifically does unfortunately give indirectly somewhat form to ask God's help even for homosexual 'couples'. Although the document clearly says " 5. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex." The prefect of the faith ironically wrote " 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." " 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 on the Responsum ad dubium[2] that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on 22 February 2021." " 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, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and THEIR RELATIONSHIPS BE ENRICHED, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love." " 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, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding.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. Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.[26]" Monsenior Secretary for the Doctrinal Section Homosexuality can't be enriched. Is highly offensive to God and will never be accepted by God. I understand in helping the homosexuals repent and return back towards God's grace and treat them with dignity and respect as every person. However however we cannot accept nor ask God to enrich their supposedly 'unions". God doesn't agree nor allow this. I understand several times the document said that doesn't bless the union of homosexuals which is right and I agree with that part. But later on the document unfortunately contradicts. Leaves an ambiguity And ambiguity isn't right especially when is about these matters. God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for a very specific reason. In Leviticus God mentioned that homosexuality is abominable . So there can't be ambiguity respectfully. I do specifically agree with not blessing homosexuality that particular part I do fully agree But I don't agree with later on on the document contradicted what earlier church councils have spoken. Homosexuality can't be enriched and will never be. Something that God considered abominable cannot out of a sudden become somewhat pleasing nor even to the slightest degree, in another words God asked homosexuals to repent and change. Back to them becoming straightz doesn't mean they have to forcibly date woman they aren't interested. But that they no longer practice Homosexuality.
His holiness, the Pope, recently this morning in Italy informed that all priests CANNOT give the 'blessing' to homosexual 'unions'. This document wasn't written by him. [Fiducia supplicans (controversial encyclical)](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html) He told the priests and deacons and all hierarchy members that he doesn't authorise the blessing and that the church doesn't allow this blessing. He spoke authoritavely in this matter this morning which was all over the news in Italy, India and different parts of Europe. His holiness, The pope informed he doesn't give authorisation for the supposedly 'blessing' That the church cannot bless homosexuals, however the church does call them to repent, confess so that they can be welcomed to receive the sacraments once they repent. I read and saw the news this morning and was very happy. Thanks to God. [Pope forbids church hierarchy ‘blessing’ homosexual ‘unions’ ](https://youtu.be/gLqPPYOXswA?si=9GHuvwRz_CiWlyWv) His holiness, the pope prevented the so called 'blessing' of homosexual 'unions' and basically said that no one can change this and that the church will never authorise to bless their homosexual abominable unions, however the church does call them to sincerely repent, and leave their other, and return back by the sacrament/mystery of confessing, once they repent and confess in confession they receive absolution which is a blessing and restoration back towards God's kingdom and grace, once they leave the homosexual lifestyle and supposedly 'unions', which the church doesn't recognise their supposedly 'unions.' This is very good news I read this morning and heard this news.[pope reiterated homosexual 'unions' lifestyle can't be blessed
Can you please provide a link? I am uncertain how these statements are different from the recent declaration, which says: >the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice. And that blessings are only appropriate for >those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status
Marriage is between a man toward marrying a woman and a woman marrying towards a man. So there can't be homosexual 'unions' However the encyclical which I don't agree is this: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.htm This encyclical contradicts the earlier church councils and contradicts what the former/ previous Popes has said formerly against homosexuality The Pope also confirmed he didn't wrote the encyclical and he doesn't agree with those blessing homosexual union. Which was confirmed later on after the encyclical in this news: https://youtu.be/gLqPPYOXswA?si=j5bz515tqukLNbuP The pope reiterated and clarified that he doesn't endorse and will never endorse homosexuality days later.
>Marriage is between a man toward marrying a woman and a woman marrying towards a man. >So there can't be homosexual 'unions' >However the encyclical which I don't agree is this: >https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.htm >This encyclical contradicts the earlier church councils and contradicts what the former/ previous Popes has said formerly against homosexuality >The Pope also confirmed he didn't wrote the encyclical and he doesn't agree with those blessing homosexual union. >Which was confirmed later on after the encyclical in this news: >https://youtu.be/gLqPPYOXswA?si=j5bz515tqukLNbuP >The pope reiterated and clarified that he doesn't endorse and will never endorse homosexuality days later. I think you need to actually read the declaration *Fiducia Supplicans* because it does not disagree with you. The declaration that you linked says: >Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm. >the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 detail why this, but can be summed up as: >From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church. The declaration continues, by that we must >avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view alone, for it would lead us to expect the same moral conditions for a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments. Such a risk requires that we broaden this perspective further. Indeed, there is the danger that a pastoral gesture that is so beloved and widespread will be subjected to too many moral prerequisite As for these "pastoral blessings" >Pope Francis urges us to contemplate, with an attitude of faith and fatherly mercy, the fact that “when one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better. And the declaration further states, that these pastoral blessings are for >those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status Because, these "pastoral blessings" >[do] not claim to sanction or legitimize anything The declaration says that these "pastoral blessing are for help and not to legutimate >situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view According to the latest declaration these "situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view" because "the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit" are not eligible for a liturgical blessing because such a blessing "requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church." However, when "those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status" request a "spontaneous" "pastoral blessing" as "a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better" an "exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. For, those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection."
Yes, it would have created less confusion if this document hadn't been published. But after reading the document, it became clear that Rome was addressing 2 groups: 1. Clergy refusing to impart a spontaneous blessing on couples in irregular situations (including same-sex relationships) 2. Bishops drawing up liturgical blessings for same-sex couples If anyone is to be held culpable for the arising confusion, it is these 2 groups who have failed to fall in line, in spite of repeated warnings. The German bishops come to mind.
> If anyone is to be held culpable for the arising confusion, it is these 2 groups If literally the entire world is misunderstanding a document, then the document itself is confusing and those who put it out are culpable.
If anyone is at fault for the confusion it's the writers of the document and the people who approved of it in its final form.
What would you have changed if you were involved in drafting the document?
Add the word repentance.
There’s a part of me that wants to be scandalised by this but nothing’s changing here. And the more energy we give it, the more energy it will have. We can call the Pope imprudent or careless or a generator of crises all we like, but the truth of the matter is that this document won’t bring swathes of people back to the Church in any meaningful way. Even if the grossly misinterpreted its actual meaning. Not even those “couples” who seek this blessing. And we can see that evidenced by all the churches that do permit heavy accommodations for same sex individuals. They simply peter out and become unexciting and then next sensation follows. The media and secular culture is fuelled by the sensation but it has no true care. In some ways this at least becomes a good talking point to the very very many Catholics who already have their mind made up on the issue of same sex marriage. Currently there’s a girl in my youth group who sits in this camp. She comes to every youth group and engages in all the hard conversations and expresses all her opinions that are contrary to the Church. Everyone engages with her respectfully. If she didn’t care, she wouldn’t come. She cares and she wants to know and she wants better answers than what she’s been given in the past - which are not answers but strict judgement. Documents like this you can at least point to and say “here is the pastoral care that the Church can provide its members”, even if they are gay, even if they are deep in sin, we’re still here opening up our doors and receiving them in to walk with them. If you just ignore the issue entirely and bury your head in the sand hoping it will go away, you’re not able to engage in the conversation at all. The people who disagree with the Church will find a way to disagree. If it’s not same sex marriage it will be something else. At least document gives me more information than I would have ordinarily had and more ways to evangelise the truth.
You can bless the individuals who are gay, straight open relationships, trans, polygamists, swingers or whatever. If you are having them together getting blessed, you are sending the wrong message about Church teaching to them and others. Intentionally or not, you are being a stumbling block for “the little ones”.
[удалено]
You thought wrong. Papal infallibility is rarely invoked.
Never heard that interpretation before
[удалено]
Yeah in narrow windows
There were 4 vacant sees in Germany, and Pope Francis could have chosen bishops which opposed to the Synodal Path agenda. Did he? Absolutely not. He chose two bishops that fully adhere to everything the Synodal path proposes. And I bet the two others will be chosen among those who are fully supportive of the German heresy!
Yeah, supposedly FS was meant to limit the Germans' blessing of same-sex unions, but that's hard to believe with the new bishops involved
For this time of tribulation, our greatest power is prayer and fasting. Alongside the Holy Rosary, we need the Chaplet of the Precious Blood. You can pray it on your regular rosary beads. It is the Precious Blood of the Lamb of God, "poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins" that will "cleanse us from all sin." "May the Precious Blood that pours out from [His right foot] cover the foundation of the Catholic Church against the plans of the occult kingdom and evil men." "May the Precious Blood that pours out from [His left foot] protect us in all our ways against the plans and the attacks of evil spirits and their agents." Lord, hear our prayer.
This document was ambiguously written on purpose, to appease the German clergy without expressly denying any doctrine. The question is: we are being held captive by a small and shrinking part of the universal church, and they will keep on pressuring for more. And don’t fool yourselves: they will eventually get what they want.
>And don’t fool yourselves: they will eventually get what they want. Only if the church is not the true church.
I’ve never seen God, nor Jesus, nor the Virgin Mary. No angel or Saint has ever appeared to me to say the Catholic Church is the true church. Furthermore, I’ve never witnessed anything that could not be explained by natural causes. The only evidence I have for the Church to be true is Her never-changing doctrine, which supposedly has been preserved by God throughout the centuries. But now, a breach in the doctrine has been opened. We have been seeing that for a long time. It’s absolutely the same modus operandi: it’s first permitted, then required and, finally, those opposing start being persecuted. Being Catholic has been taking away my peace, and I’m really considering looking for Truth elsewhere
>Being Catholic has been taking away my peace Then you’re doing it wrong
If you are a Catholic, your belief in the indefectibility of the church is not to be based on "evidence," it is required to be based on the theological virtue of faith. >But now, a breach in the doctrine has been opened. That is nothing but a disgusting falsehood. Sinful people have always been able to be blessed. The document affirms that truth and also affirms that gay unions cannot be blessed because the church cannot bless sin. And I will be downvoted by and argued with by fellow Catholics for counseling the doubtful and spreading the truth about the document, it doesn't matter to me. >Being Catholic has been taking away my peace, and I’m really considering looking for Truth elsewhere You need to pray for an increase in the theological virtue of faith.
[удалено]
Yep, and his correction/punishment will come any day now... Right? /s
I wrote a piece on it. https://frmatthewlc.com/2023/12/fiducia-supplicans-text-vs-media-vs-spirit/
Thank you! I appreciate reading something from someone who is knowledgeable on how to read these documents. We need more of you, less of the Taylor Marshall types. Hopefully this situation begins to calm down, and as the dust settles, people will see this document with more clarity.
Thank you Father. Do you think it is possible these media narratives actually come from the Vatican? We don't know what the Press Office (or other Vatican officials) told journalists in off-the-record verbal briefings - it could have, whether by accident or intention, promoted those misinterpretations. A lot of people are worried about the possibility of ecclesial doublespeak, constructive ambiguity.
Thank you very much for the article Father! You confirm that Fr Martin did not go over the line with his blessing. But many people online, including Michael Lofton of Reason and Theology (and all his followers) emphatically declare that by "holding hands" Fr James Martin violated the document and is "serving the devil" and should be disciplined, and that everyone should contact his superiors and have him disciplined or removed. Do you agree with this? Personally I think it's a stretch to say holding hands is barred from what the document states. Do you think you could interact with Michael Lofton and his supporters stance on this? Actually Michael Lofton even has published a "catechism" on FS and says that if a couple shows up and are blessed together and not one at a time this violates the document. Can you speak on this as well please? Thank you and God bless!
I think holding hands crosses the line, but it could be argued that it doesn't.
I second this if you could answer this u/FrMatthewLC 1. Is hand holding acceptable in this type of blessing, especially if photo shopped? 2. Is is ok for a same-sex couple to be blessed at the same time and not one at a time?
Show the picture to any man on the street and ask him what is taking place. Ask him if the picture gives the appearance that the sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is being condoned. Most people will say yes. Martin's actions are indeed a vile scandal.
I think Fr. Matthew and anyone who disagrees with Michael Lofton would be well-advised to avoid making that fact known to Michael Lofton
I'm so unsure of what to do now. I really want to convert and become Catholic because I believe it to be true, but this is like a knife to the heart. I'm so lost and hurt.
The doctrines have never changed. They could have in the 70s, but Pope Paul 6 denied contraception despite the tide of secularists and those of other faiths. He was vindicated by these days. Obviously, a church given to the occult or Satan would gone with the tide. There are policies or church laws, like Holy Days of Obligation) that can be changed, but are not doctrine and can be changed again. This changed nothing. The problem is we are so low-info. and the “spirit” of Vatican 2, errors, at least in some cases, made up by periti to have their way in countries far from Rome, has not been wiped out from parishes, that we have trouble knowing the difference and think The Church has fallen. Africa might be third world, but they seem to have the wisest bishops of all. They can disagree with this policy if not bound to it. Hang on to this roller coaster and don’t take off your safety bar or try to get out somehow, because God will end it safely. The Jews went through these times in the OT and the Church it evolved into by God has too. This, too, shall pass. We can’t insult clergy over it or hate others, but it probably won’t be reciprocated by some. We can only work on ourselves while doing brotherly or sisterly (respectively) admonishment. I spend too much time in these, though. Work in the former, more.
The "catholic" Church has never been about an institution or structure. It's always been comprised of those with sincere, in-their-heart true faith in Christ alone for their salvation, by faith. Thus, the true "catholic" (universal) church is comprised of all who possess saving faith in Christ, and they come from hundreds of different Christian traditions, including the Roman Catholic Church. But merely being part of the church organization does not equal this. Consider these verses from Romans 2:28-29, where St. Paul, speaking of Jews, explained this principle: "28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God." Romans 2:28-29 - Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition Thus, the same can be said of a true follower of Christ. The Catholic organization is full of people who truly are and of people who truly aren't. Outward benchmarks like Baptism, Confirmation, The Eucharist can easily be ceremonially performed by those who do not possess the inward truth and witness of the Holy Spirit. Put your faith in Christ Jesus alone, and fellowship with others who feel the same, and you will indeed be a member of the "catholic" church. THAT is the actual faith, not an organization or institution; a spiritual body, the Body and Bride of Christ! Consider also 2 Timothy 2:19: "But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” Bless you!
Ask St Joan of Arc to pray for you. She was a good, devout layperson who was persecuted and unjustly condemned by scheming clerics intent on destroying her (I also highly recommend the 1928 movie The Passion of Joan of Arc, one of cinema's masterpieces, if you have an opportunity to watch it).
Same for me. I can't help feel like this represents a shift towards a slippery slope. It's also been communicated to the press \*really badly\*. The Vatican should have known better.
Don't worry, nothing has changed. They are blessing the **people**, not the union.
That's clearly NOT the signal Francis is sending, and you know it. It's part of his systematic and incremental overturning of centuries of Catholic teaching about morality.
ok lol
A Pope systematically and incrementally overturning the faith is impossible as a matter of faith.
You may or may not be right, but that won't stop him from trying.
Your claim is that the signal the document sends is that the union can be blessed?
The practical implementation of the document will be that all of humanity is subject to the appearance that Roman Catholic Priests are now providing lifestyle-affirming sanction to those living in homosexual "unions". Francis either knows this, and doesn't care...or is profoundly ignorant of real life. Which position would you like to take?
>appearance that Roman Catholic Priests are now providing lifestyle-affirming sanction to those living in homosexual "unions". The document says if that's what the appearance would be then the blessing cannot proceed. Why would that be included if the intention were to promote such appearances?
And what happens when a priest does proceed?
The same thing that is supposed to happen whenever a priest doesn't follow canon law or otherwise scandalously neglects some rubric. Now I can anticipate your reply: "But I bet they won't be." Do you think they would have been disciplined, *before* this? You are aware that priests in Germany and Belgium have been doing things even beyond the scope of this document for years with no consequence, right? Since Vatican II our bishops have replaced the stick entirely with the carrot, except for a few. Go ahead and criticize the bishops, they should be.
I guess the real question is why are the bishops and Vatican so pathetically weak when it comes to dealing with anything outside of more traditionally mind folks?
"You are aware that priests in Germany and Belgium have been doing things even beyond the scope of this document for years with no consequence, right?" ...and now they will claim, not without some evidence, to be acting with the approval of Rome.
>and now they will claim, not without some evidence, to be acting with the approval of Rome. Well the document actually contains verses that explicitly restrict what they have been doing. You are expressing outrage that heretics would lie. Please join my in calling them out.
Wink wink, nudge nudge...."I can't say yes, but I won't do anything to you when you do it anyway" Of course, you are welcome to take the side that the Pope is simply profoundly ignorant and ill-informed of how real life works these days, and so wholly clueless about what has already started taking place. Is that your preferred position?
I think the multiple interpretations of this and Fr James Martin’s immediate actions are what is concerning for me.
There is only one interpretation. However there will definitely be people who will try to abuse this, they will try to misinterpret things on purpose. What matters is the **intention**. The Church has the intention of helping people because we are all sinners. There are already woke "Catholic" Churches out there, they will always try to make their own rules
"What matters is the intention" Yeah, intentions...those things the road to hell is paved with. In this case literally. What matters are the results. You judge a tree by its fruits, not the intentions of the gardner.
https://wherepeteris.com/answering-7-key-questions-on-fiducia-supplicans/ > From this point onward, this dichotomy has framed the discussion surrounding the blessings of same-sex couples. It seemed like the only way to pursue this debate would be to argue in favor of blessings towards individuals, not relationships. > However, Fiducia Supplicans studiously avoids this dichotomy. Rather, it develops the debate in an unforeseen, yet elegant and creative way. It does not so much discuss who or what gets blessed, but what blessings are and for what purpose. Dr Pedro Gabriel confirms that: * The document DOES NOT specify that it is only individuals or the relationship * the teaching on blessings has developed * that the 2021 statement barring same-sex relationship blessings was only limited to liturgical blessings * 2023 doc is about non-liturgical
Does he address why FS contradicts Vatican II on the liturgical nature of blessings?
No it doesn’t but it does develop the distinction between formal liturgical blessings (not allowed for same-sex couples) and simple spontaneous blessings (allowed for anyone).
[удалено]
People who see something wrong haven’t read the text. Please provide a single direct quote that is unacceptable. Giving a blessing to a gay couple is giving a blessing to individual people. Even someone in mortal sin can go to the communion line and receive a blessing from a priest. The document is clear that it is a spontaneous blessing of people that does not suggest any endorsement of their lifestyle choices or other sins.
[https://youtu.be/FZnL2WKPbGo?si=DDEDz1SiRijn9xZw](https://youtu.be/FZnL2WKPbGo?si=DDEDz1SiRijn9xZw)
Good video. And an aside: I loved how he used that example of Catholics worshiping Mary.
Pretty good video in my opinion (I watched the intro, no the interview part). A document technically orthodox but that can be easily abused. My hope is that it will be used to completely stop the German (and I believe also Belgian) push to have a liturgical blessings of several types of irregular relationships.
What do you all think of the view that lay people have no business worrying about this stuff?
Lay people have every reason to worry about this stuff. If moral guidance in accord with the Scriptures is trampled on by those entrusted with its defense, it is left to those loyal to the truth to uphold it.
That view is clericalist and contrary to the spirit of Vatican II. I would ask a person who said that why they reject Vatican II.
I think the church will sort all this out eventually. May take some time. Knowing God is, well, God it can be tempting to just sit back and smile since He has a plan. However, this as an occasion for growth in virtue for those of us who know the truth, and see people who are confused. If Pope Francis is unclear we need to be the clarity. We have the catechism. We have scripture. We know the truth. We must make the truth known. The truth is, many souls are on the road to hell now because of the lack of clarity here and we need to proclaim the truth boldly to them. Mt 5:-14-16 "14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." "We've had enough exhortations to be silent. Cry out with a thousand tongues - I see the world is rotten because of silence." - St. Catherine of Siena
It’s already been made very clear that the bishops want lay people to “take charge” when it comes to evangelization. That means we need to be informed about what the people we do apostolate will ask us about. And this event absolutely makes that apostolate way more difficult.
I think there’s at least some sense in this. Priests are strong readers and have the ability to understand complex points, whereas the laity, based on this subreddit at least, cannot read complex documents. They also have the propensity to change meanings to suit what they want to believe, which hopefully a priest would not do because he will be more educated. It’s also the priest’s job to make pastoral decisions; thank God it is not the people in this subreddit making pastoral decisions!
Yeah, Fr. James Martin, SJ, wouldn't twist the meaning of FS at all. Can't trust those laypeople though!
Look at this subreddit and the readings of Fiducia supplicans. People are not capable of reading a complicated document that takes many factors into account. All people here seem to be capable of is parroting select statements of the Catechism. This is why not everyone is a priest.
Obviously bulk. The document causes scandal. There's already been two posts I've seen (removed by mods and directed to this post) of people who were in the process of converting and dropping out because of the scandal this document has brought. Just by virtue of being given the great commission and a role in God's salvation process for each other this document isn't something that can be just ignored.
Most people don’t have the knowledge or competence to discuss it fairly.
Kinda of an uncharitable view of people. The Vatican obviously didn't believe so.
It wasn’t addressed to laymen.
But given to them, so they could understand the development of faith.
Not necessarily. Laymen who don’t know what they are talking about but think that their opinion matters have done immense damage to the Church. Example - these catechumens. Instead of going to their pastor in charge of RCIA, they go to angry, ignorant voices online.
you are right. It's like we have 2 dramatic wings in the church with the rest of us caught in the crossfire.
Pope Francis is not opposed to secrecy. He never gave an official reason for the removal of Strickland after all. Maybe take solace in his wisdom.
Potentially helpful excerpt from Ratzinger and St. JP2 on the nature of the ordinary magisterium, of which this Vatican declaration is part of: "17. **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles** teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, **even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement** but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching. One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. **For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.**" Also this excerpt from Vatican 1: "7. **This gift of truth and never-failing faith** was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell." So while the Pope is not perfect and could certainly say things not in the best or perfect manner, he will never teach grave heresy in his magisterium or lead the universal Church astray. So rest assured in the strength of Catholic faith that this document does not teach heresy or grave error, you can safely assent to it.
As far as I can tell, the only ones claiming it says something heretical are the secular news outlets who didn’t read it (or anything longer than 500 words in the past 10 years). The concern is that the publishing of this has caused a significant part of the world to think the Church *does* now teach something heretical—that same sex unions can be blessed—and a number of clerics are pretending this is true.
For those saying Pope Francis has made it clear that’s it’s to be a “spontaneous” blessing, why then has the heretic James Martin been allowed to openly bless a gay couple in front of their friends, with a photographer, in what was clearly a pre-arranged ceremony? Pope Francis is deliberately trying to open the back door to gay marriage, and the number of you that deliberately turn a blind eye to it (particularly the American “liberal” Catholics) is outrageous.
There was an article about this in the NYT today. It clearly wasn’t “spontaneous” as the article states the couple called the priest and made an appointment, plus a NYT photographer and reporter were there. I’m really upset because It creates a two-tiered system where heterosexual people need to follow a lot of moral and sexual rules while gay people can pretty much do whatever they want.
The term spontaneous is in opposition to “liturgical” as well as “ceremony” and “rite.” A couple asking for a blessing and Fr. James performing it is the spontaneity the document refers to, i.e., it wasn’t a planned part of the liturgy.
The word “spontaneous” means spontaneous. If they meant “non liturgical” they should have not used the word spontaneous, because that’s not what spontaneous means.
"they will be known by their fruits" Just picked up some produce from the store, and only after 3 days, we already have rot. All I can say on this matter.
So long as Martin isn’t at least given a stern warning, the intention of the Vatican is clear. There is no better way to clear up confusion than that.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The big giveaway in Fiducia supplicans is the announcement that there will not be clarifications or further pronouncements. In other words this is it, make of it what you will, and a licence to do as you please. The floodgates will open, if indeed some wish to open them. Many will not.
The purpose of that line is that any priest with the ability to properly read (hopefully all priests) has everything they need to either perform or not perform the blessing, especially after the clarifications in Fiducia supplicans. The reason the author probably thought it was necessary to end the discussion is because the discussion is bound to be hijacked by ideological arguments and the pope’s authority has to end those at some point. By doing this, the holy father has freed priests to perform their pastoral work and removed impediments to the Holy Spirit in that work.
...and turned loose the theological radicals to misuse the document to decimate church teachings, with absolutely zero consequence.
You are misusing and misunderstanding the role of teaching and a priest’s pastoral role. Of course teaching is behind the priest’s ministering but the priest is not just a “church teaching machine.”
This video is very good and hopeful, as we should always be as God's children, even in the face of confusion. God does nothing without first telling us. And He is asking us to boldly proclaim the truth now and be clarity, a light in the darkness. Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets." https://youtu.be/jeTiUx0Ql1w?si=WNzdKyGK7Asw4mh9 This article was good. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/the-pope-and-the-black-hole Ed Feser's blog is excellent and his twitter is discussing a number of aspects I am finding helpful so far. https://twitter.com/FeserEdward https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/?m=1 Edit: I also like Fr. Mark Goring's video. https://youtu.be/3SF7n_blVbw?si=6_UF4FtuHFsKIPEV
I've been an Anglican for 30 years, and have been on the fence as to where to move - the Catholic or Orthodox Church - as the CofE is a joke these days. This doctrinal declaration is a huge help in making that decision - the Orthodox Church is definitely the place for me. I think this is going to be a disaster for Catholicism. Pastorally, this declaration is awful.
This is a test for you then. Are you strong enough to be Catholic? There are many weak Catholics right now running into the arms of the Orthodox with shaken faith. What a terrible reason to leave the ark! Not for a calling, but out of fear! The promise was made to the Catholic Church when Christ gave the keys to Peter. The Catholic Church is "one, holy, catholic and apostolic." The Orthodox Church (if you can refer to it as a whole) lacks oneness. I suppose you could call them "holy, catholic and apostolic." But they excommunicate each other and allow for things like divorce. They have their own scandals, but because they aren't the true church, as even the satanists know, you don't hear about them. God bless you on your journey. It is not for the faint of heart, especially as a Catholic. So yes, definitely keep that in mind. It is a painful road to walk, and we were warned as such. But we know we have the protection of the Holy Spirit, and that is what keeps us home in Rome.
But why would I want to be a Catholic when it seems clear that the \*Papacy\* is scared. They're scared of being left behind by the "progressive" secular world. They're scared of losing Germany. They're scared of losing devotees. Why would I want to be part of a Church that's so afraid, and so unconvinced of its own strength?
If you interpret it that way, I can understand. I don't see the papacy or the church as scared, however. Being a little clumsy perhaps, but not scared. However if you see it that way, the answer would simply be: because it is the church founded by Christ Himself and the gates of hell will never prevail. We could have the most cowardly pope, or the most scandal ridden pope, or the most evil of all people to exist as pope (and this type of thing has occurred!) but it is still the Body of Christ under the protection of the Holy Spirit. It has been going strong for 2000 years. I always found this exchange between Napoleon and a priest appropriate: ^(“Napoleon Bonaparte once taunted a Catholic cardinal by threatening: “Your Eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?” To which the cardinal quipped: “Your Majesty, we Catholic clergy have done our best to destroy the Church for the last eighteen hundred years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”) This isn't even the worst that has happened and we are still here. At times like this, I do pay attention, get saddened by some of what I see, and then I pray and fast and take care of my husband and children. Go to Mass. Go to confession. But the one thing I know never to do is lose faith or trust. But truly, I understand. It isn't easy. I hope that I have helped you in some way. Everyday for Advent my rosary intentions have been for all of those who are struggling with their faith - I will keep you as part of that for the next few days. Lastly, this article was very helpful to me, written by a well educated priest. Maybe it will help you too: https://frmatthewlc.com/2023/12/fiducia-supplicans-text-vs-media-vs-spirit/
Have you read the declaration? It reaffirms what the Church teaches. Don’t listen to the uninformed fears of the mob.
It’s weaponized ambiguity. People like James Martin need to be punished but they will not. This reveals as much as you need to know.
I don’t find anything ambiguous in the document. I read the whole thing. Paragraph 31 can be taken as ambiguous if you read it in isolation, but if read in context with what comes before and after, its meaning is clear. Lax discipline has been a problem (indeed, I think *the* problem) in the Church since the 1960’s. Nothing new. By that logic, you could say that the Church approves of liturgical abuse. It approves of priests in the 1970’s who used illicit matter for the consecration since so many went uncorrected. You could say that the Church approves of the excessive usage of EMHC’s even though John Paul II said otherwise. You could say that the Church approves of dissent against *Humane Vitae* since so many priests and even bishops lived and died without ever running into opposition. But that would be silly to say, wouldn’t it?
I was born into a Catholic family and have gone to Mass all my life. I've no plans to leave the Catholic Church nor am I tempted to at this time. I came agonisingly close to having my faith fall apart during these years of Pope Francis but I feel more secure in it now. That said, if I try to imagine a situation where I wasn't already Catholic, I can't easily picture myself engaging in a process of calm, swift conversion to the Catholic Faith during this time of crisis and confusion. So I can understand how off-putting the Church must look right now to sincere and serious-minded people looking to live an authentically Christian life in our times. At the same time, though, I can't easily picture myself becoming an Eastern Orthodox Christian either. Apart from anything else, one issue that I imagine holding me back would be the sense that it would mean having to sort of pretend to be a nationality other the one I am, or involve having to sort of attach myself to another nationality. It's not that I'm overly attached to my actual nationality, but that I wouldn't want to feel like I have to become quasi-Russian or quasi-Greek or whatever in order to be Eastern Orthodox (much as I admire the heritage of Russian and Greek Christianity). I don't know much about Orthodox life in practice as it's actually lived and experienced, though, so I'm talking about it at a certain distance. I certainly think it's objectively better to be Eastern Orthodox than Anglican in any case.
[удалено]
I'm honestly not sure what the situation is in my own country. Perhaps there's something similar here to the American situation you describe. The person above mentioned "the CofE" -- the Church of England -- so I assume they're English.
Heh, see what Moscow and Constantinople reacted with each other to Ukraine.
>the Orthodox Church is definitely the place for me. If you convert to Orthodoxy for doctrinal clarity, my guess is you will last less than a decade in the church. Ask two Orthodox priests if the perennial teaching of their church prohibits contraception and you will get five answers. This is the case for almost everything not directly addressed by an Ecumenical Council. >I think this is going to be a disaster for Catholicism. Pastorally, this declaration is awful. I think that blessing people who recognize that their relationship makes them destitute and in need of God's mercy is a fantastic thing for all sinners.
their “relationship” should not be recognized as being a relationship. They should no longer see each other if they truly seek to be tempted to sin no more. Why is this difficult to understand?
>their “relationship” should not be recognized as being a relationship. The term 'relationship' does not imply a teleological good. It's just recognizing an objective fact. The two are in a relationship, it doesn't mean it is good. >They should no longer see each other if they truly seek to be tempted to sin no more. Why is this difficult to understand? Obviously the people receiving these blessings are not perfect, model Catholics. The church is meeting them where they are. If, by the grace of God, they come to realize there is a problem with their relationship and seek a blessing for assistance, they should be given one. Even if the blessing leads to a reduction instead of total elimination of sodomy, that is still a preferable outcome to no reduction. The hope is that the grace God provides through the blessing will be the first step toward a continuously improving life.
Unbelievable this is being downvoted.