"The Indefectible Church of Rome" – A Crucial Teaching in the Age of Pope Francis

[chevyontheriver]

The Pope may have an opinion, and as Pope Francis stated, Church teaching cannot change.
He 'feels' the clergy use the application of 'mercy' while upholding teaching is to be practiced.
He does not negate teaching nor can he. As he said he simply cannot.

You say he simply CANNOT negate teaching. It appears to me that he HAS negated teaching by signing Fiducia Supplicans. Is the only way to square that circle for me to change and to accept Fiducia Supplicans as true? I have only and always wanted to be a good Catholic Christian. It has never been so difficult for me, not even in my college days. I never thought I would be a dissenter to the ordinary and perennial teaching of the Magisterium and reject a declaration of the Holy Office/CDF/DDF.

 

[jamiec]

More quotes I dug up:

"The Roman Pontiff – like all the faithful – is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is 'servant of the servants of God.' He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the bishopric of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation. The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy."
–Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

"Discredit is cast upon the authority of the Church in the name of a Tradition, to which respect is professed only materially and verbally. The faithful are drawn away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter and to their rightful Bishops: today's authority is rejected in the name of yesterday's..."
–Pope St. Paul VI

"I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biased. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience."
–St. John Henry Cardinal Newman

"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave her...but judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments...then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone."
–Pope St. Pius X

"The Roman Pontiff – like all the faithful – is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is 'servant of the servants of God.' He does not make arbitrary decisions,………"

………except when he does. This idiotic notion (no other word will fit) that the Pope is absolutely & totally incapable of teaching error, falsehood, heresy or nonsense. is an exercise in reality-warping. It is no different from the attitude that declares heliocentrism false, because the Bible supposedly requires it to be.

The Pope is not subject to anything, if it does not suit him to be. Words such as those quoted are nothing more than the equivalent of a baby's pacifier, given it to make it shut up and sleep. They are a propaganda lie, told to deceive the gullible & over-trusting. They vastly understate the extent claimed for Papal authority, as stated at Vatican 1. They ignore the canon - present still in the 1983 Code, as canon 1404 - that "the First See is judged by no-one". The Church would be defenceless against a Pope who decided to offer human sacrifice to satan on the altar of St John Lateran. If a Pope canonised Mohammed the false prophet of Islam, the Church would have no alternative but to accept that canonisation as totally valid. If a Pope deified Julius Caesar, there is absolutely nothing anyone - except possibly God - could do about it. Because that is how the CC is contructed.

And God's record of acting in order to defend "His People" is a decidedly skimpy one: if the Papacy set out to obliterate the Church, God would not lift a finger to save the Church; God is not a Saviour. The Shoah is the absolute proof that God is no Saviour; it absolutely eviscerates the myth of the Exodus, with its story of its supposed saviour-god. A God who permits an abomination like the Babel of sects, heresies, schisms & superstitions that Christianity has become, is a far worse shepherd than any hireling on Earth. And a Papacy that makes a 180 degree about-face in its attitudes to them, leaves one sick with giddiness.

For all practical purposes, despite all the ecumenical junkets & so-called "Agreed Statements", the Pope is the god-Emperor & Autocrat of the Church. He has unfettered and boundless dominion to do any damn - or damnable - thing he chooses; everyone else has to stand by and applaud, as though, forsooth, we are all of us nothing more than performing seals obediently clapping our flippers.

 

[WarriorAngel]

‘Fiducia supplicans’: What does it say?

What did the Vatican actually say about blessing 'same-sex couples'?

www.pillarcatholic.com

What’s the background?​

In 2021, the Vatican’s doctrinal office issued a document known as a “responsum,” replying to the question of whether the Church has “the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex.”

Its answer was “negative” — and the reasoning for that answer was set out in an accompanying “explanatory note.” The intervention, which was approved by Pope Francis, generated protests among Catholics in countries where same-sex blessings are common practice, especially Germany.

Despite the ruling, bishops in both Germany and neighboring Belgium began to advance contrasting proposals for the regulation of same-sex blessings, raising the topic’s profile among Catholics worldwide.

In July this year, Pope Francis himself addressed the issue, in response to a series of question from five cardinals.

The pope wrote that “pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage.”

But he added that it was “not appropriate for a diocese, a bishops’ conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially establish procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters.”

.............

Fernández said that the pope’s July response, which was issued while the declaration was being studied, “provided important clarifications for this reflection and represents a decisive element for the work” of the doctrinal dicastery.

The cardinal insisted that, like the July response, “this declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion.”
.................

In its first section, The Blessing in the Sacrament of Marriage, the text rules out any “rites and prayers that could create confusion” between marriage and other forms of union not recognized by the Church. It underlines the validity of “the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage.”

........

Regarding the liturgical meaning of blessings, it says that a liturgical blessing “requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church.”

.......


“For this reason, since 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.”

 

[Reader Antonius]

So after reading all you wrote, to be a good Catholic must I accept Fiducia Supplicans as written? Are the thousand or so bishops not accepting Fiducia Supplicans bound to drop their positions and accept it?

I can empathize deeply with your concern, I have my own reservations on the document's prudence, yet not on its orthodoxy or moral basis. I also can sense a bit of anguish too. As a Lector, I cannot turn away from your pain if I have the ability to assuage it...or at least attempting to do so.

Therefore, I will endeavor to lay out tomorrow a focused answer to your question (I may even post it on the main forum). Until then, I do have a question. I ask it in the hope of perhaps putting things in a better light.

How does Fiducia Supplicans affect you, personally, in your current state of vocation? How does it hurt or help what God has asked of you in your state in life?

Now, I don't necessarily expect nor need an answer. It's more rhetorical, perhaps. But I do not ask it flippantly.

You see, I'm involved with Courage International, an approved Catholic apostolate for men and women who experience same-sex attractions (SSA), and those who love them. More importantly, they promote living with SSA in a Catholic way, incorporating and integrating the crosses they bear in order "to open one's life to God, to ask for His help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness." (FS, 40.)

To do that, for anyone with SSA, is quite a challenge! They get hit on "two fronts" as it were, and on the front that seek help with, the Way of Christ does not provide a "remedy" for this "burning" that St. Paul offers Holy Matrimony to be. (1 Cor. 7:8-9). To worsen matters, Western society has completely turned against them. It may appear that Western society is "welcoming them," etc. Yet, in reality, instead of showing SSA folks social stigmas or outright violence as in the past, now they are encouraged to live in ways that hurt them...very deeply, in fact. Moreover, Courage doesn't simply wait for SSA folks to come to them. They outreach as well, striving to bring the Truth of the Gospel – which alone can allow anyone with SSA (and related issues) to live a life of freedom, love, and hope – to a world that has, for intents and purposes, lost its mind.

I wonder if you know how simple & easy it is for folks with SSA, even those who know the truth, to be destroyed. Certainly, for the vast majority, their affliction will cause a lifetime of pain, error, immorality, and that's just getting started. Many of them have been treated poorly their entire lives for something they cannot control (although all I've known wished they could). Many have been beaten, rejected by family, belittled, bullied, and killed simply for having the condition. And this is also true for many of the folks we see in Courage. It happens literally all the time, even among those who don't act on their SSA. Even in good Catholic families. All. The. Time. It's why we even have an almost full sub-apostolate dedicated to helping those who love the person with SSA (EnCourage).

All the years I've been involved, it has only gotten worse. In just a decade, societies have become either violently hostile even to judicial or mob execution to people with SSA (not simply those who act on those urges, either), or so "welcoming" they might as well beat them given that affirming or legitimizing SSA ends in an internal pain...even misery. Even misery unto death by despair & suicide. And, yes, even in Courage some people suffer the last also, because the condition is an extremely difficult one to bear. Even with grace, its a heavy cross. The Evil One has won the cultural war here, and so the Church must do the best she can. Courage is one of the ways she does this.

And I can assure you, Courage is grateful for Fiducia Supplicans. Why they of all people, given their staunch orthodoxy in faith & morals (to which I can readily attest!) would give thanks for FS might seem impossible to understand. And I suppose it would be...if Fiducia Supplicans did teach error in faith and morals! Yet, Courage is behind it, even promoting it & its authentic meaning. Attached is the header of a recent Letter to the Apostolate on this very point.

One the reasons that Courage International understands the value of this document's teaching (which, honestly, is more about the theology of benediction than anything) might be put this way:

The post-Christian, post-modern world has, in a way, almost entirely lost its collective mind. Moreover, the Catholic Church & Christianity in general are being rejected on grounds having little to do with liturgy or theological presentation (as in the past). So, what is the Church – especially the Supreme & Ecumenical Pontiff – to do in response?

The Church could, in the face of the near total loss of sense nowadays, bunker herself. Restore old rites, embrace disciplines that exclude sinners or punish them publicly, return to the manualist moral theology and/or Neo-Scholastic tradition, & make the world engage her on her terms. "The Church's way or the highway"; and if you take the highway, well the more's the pity for you. But the Church will, if nothing else, remain pure of the madness around her at any cost. Even if the world burns, let the Church be pure of any taint of this wretched earth!

On the other hand, the Church could brave the unstable world, like a man walking on thin ice to help another who has fallen through it. Leaving her own places of power or theological comfort for the sake of souls whose collective madness is likely to bring destruction and Hell. She can strive to find a way to really *speak* to this world in a manner they can understand...or, at the least, will not ignore out of hand without giving it a second thought. She could, on the one-hand, strengthen herself by regulating her liturgy, enforcing orthodoxy among theologians, and seeking insights from ressourcement. Yet, simultaneously, she could also go out to the extremely dark & twisted paths walked by many; especially those with SSA. In doing this, Church could also both simultaneously maintain her traditions in substance, but also dispense with much that, frankly, drives away many souls in need.

She could do that also with full trust in Papal & Ecclesial indefectibility, promised by Christ in this her most sacred of tasks. And she could do it knowing that, even if mistakes are made, the gates of Hell cannot prevail. No fear of failure.

Consider that. Salvation of souls trumps everything else in the Church, aside from fidelity to Christ (which is already guaranteed, anyway). Courage follows that charge with great zeal.

And does it not remind you of something? Something we hear many times each year? It is Written:

A reading from the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew (+):

"For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.

He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.

Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’

And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’

He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’

But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance.

But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’"

The Gospel of the Lord.
(Matthew 25:14-30 ESV-CE).

Forget not that the wicked servant didn't fail to return the Master's talent. In fact, he kept it quite safe! It was undefiled by changing, messy hands of moneymakers, dirtied by stinking marketplaces or bazaars, nor tarnished by constant handling. No...it was just as his Master had left him...and he was cast into Hell for doing what appeared to be simply the Master's Will.

For the Master commanded nothing from the servants except to simply entrust them with his money.

Reflect on this, I beg you as a Reader of the Church. Hopefully tomorrow I can tackle the question of Fiducia Supplicans itself.

Pray for me, the sinner.

 

[Reader Antonius]

@chevyontheriver
Please accept my sincere apologies for my delay.

I don't think it would be good time-management for me to parse the entire document. Instead, I propose to offer an overview explanation of why the document is both orthodox & also morally valid, and then leave it free for you to ask questions of interest to you. This does not suggest nor indicate that the document does not have deficiencies or legitimate pastoral & prudential concerns. That said though, the issue here is Catholic Orthodoxy & moral Truth.

I think much of confusion is simply due to people either not reading the document or – in reading the document – being unable to distinguish between types of blessings in the Biblical & traditional sense. This, especially in the Latin tradition...although not exclusive to it. It simply is possible to bless a couple living sinfully without blessing their sin; the goal being ultimate rejection of that sin. The key lies precisely in what Fiducia Supplicans explains. Frankly, I think many Roman Catholics, especially more faithful ones, haven't seen the damage that can be done by priests rejecting to bless anyone struggling with sin; even those who, due to past sins & choices, are now deeply involved in a sinful situations. In many ways, Fiducia Supplicans is a highly complex but elucidating theological position. It's a pity that many do not see what it is saying: namely, that some types of blessings do not (and cannot) bless sinful relationships, but they can bless people of the right disposition and receptivity.

An analogy that helps me understand this is the pastoral care of addicts. Same-sex attraction and unwedded sexual relationships can be compared to addiction. Like an addict, a person struggling with these issues is likely to face setbacks before making true progress. In such cases, should a priest offer a blessing, knowing that the behavior may repeat, or wait until the person is fully recovered? The answer, dating back to at least the 16th century, is affirmative. If the person is sincere in seeking God's graces and is earnest in their efforts, the priest has no reason to withhold a blessing, even if there is an expectation of future struggles. Refusing the blessing would not only be unhelpful but also lacks pastoral compassion and care. A blessing by those in Holy Orders, especially if repeated, has a transformative and consecrating effect.

Based on the document, & the sheer insanity of this modern Western world(!), I think the approach of the Supreme & Ecumenical Pontiff certainly has a possibility to lead to ambiguous practices, or even heretical (dissident to FS!) practices which are far worse. Yet I am also reminded of the ancient saying, "abusus non tollit usus." The abuse of a gift or of a thing does not take away its good use. That being said, it is most certainly within the realm of Catholic Orthodoxy to discuss the prudential decisions of the Sacred Hierarchy. But there's a right and wrong way to do that, as Donum Veritatis teaches us clearly.

In that sense then, I do not take your or any other's concerns on this document lightly! The point of my above post is that the Catholic Church, East & West, must be prepared to sacrifice something in order to place the salvation of souls at the priority. This, especially in our post-Christian age which tends to reject even the "whiff" of anything Christian. This certainly has nothing to do with doctrine, which cannot change in any substantive sense, but rather the praxis of the Church.

Fiducia Supplicans is in many ways a revolutionary document, but not in the sense of overturning the already existing affirmations of the Church since ancient times. Rather, it is revolutionary in the sense of the development of doctrine. In particular here, the doctrine around the concept of benedictions in a deeper Christian & Apostolic sense. This primarily however follows the Latin theological tradition, although it has a strong Biblical basis. Naturally, it is different from the East (akin to their distinction on what validates a marriage). That said, I strongly believe that this theology of benediction is not alien to the East either. But I think it will take time for the East to incorporate these theological developments. But even if they don't, it doesn't threaten Catholic unity.

The most apparently problematic part of Fiducia Supplicans is a concluding passage: namely, no. 31. Let's cite it (emphasis mine):

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.

Now, taken purely in isolation, there appear many ambiguities that could suggest an abuse (although, as I have shown, there's also obstacles to this too). Yet, no passage of any Magisterial document must be taken in isolation. So let's quote "the horizon outlined here" that preceded no. 31 in the document. I'll offer some quotes with brief comments:

"[M]arriage—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. 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." (no. 4).

Commentary: This is one of the strongest affirmations of Catholic doctrine in the text, and it comes at the beginning so as to frame what is to come. This is very telling as to what the document is trying to achieve.

"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." My commentary: Again, doubling down on the doctrine, but also affirming the previous Responsum of the DDF that the Church cannot bless same-sex unions.

"8. Blessings are among the most widespread and evolving sacramentals. Indeed, they lead us to grasp God’s presence in all the events of life and remind us that, even in the use of created things, human beings are invited to seek God, to love him, and to serve him faithfully. For this reason, blessings have as their recipients: people; objects of worship and devotion; sacred images; places of life, of work, and suffering; the fruits of the earth and human toil; and all created realities that refer back to the Creator, praising and blessing him by their beauty. [Note: No "relationship" nor any such thing is listed here].

9. 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."

Moving on, here is where both the previous doctrine is fully upheld, but also developed in a pastoral way:

"11. Basing itself on these considerations, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Explanatory Note to its 2021 Responsum recalls that when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. For this reason, since 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. The Holy Father reiterated the substance of this Declaration in his Respuestas to the Dubia of two Cardinals.

12. One must also 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 prerequisites, which, under the claim of control, could overshadow the unconditional power of God’s love that forms the basis for the gesture of blessing."

This really is the crux of what Pope Francis desires with Fiducia Supplicans. He knows that many are turned away from blessings, even with the proper disposition, simply on the basis of irregularity. My own mother, who is divorced & remarried, has been told by the Church that she cannot participate in Catholic worship due to her irregular situation. While obviously false, this is a very common viewpoint.

32. Indeed, the grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else. This grace can orient everything according to the mysterious and unpredictable designs of God. Therefore, with its untiring wisdom and motherly care, the Church welcomes all who approach God with humble hearts, accompanying them with those spiritual aids that enable everyone to understand and realize God's will fully in their existence.

33. This is a blessing that, although not included in any liturgical rite, unites intercessory prayer with the invocation of God's help by those who humbly turn to him. God never turns away anyone who approaches him! Ultimately, a blessing offers people a means to increase their trust in God. The request for a blessing, thus, expresses and nurtures openness to the transcendence, mercy, and closeness to God in a thousand concrete circumstances of life, which is no small thing in the world in which we live. It is a seed of the Holy Spirit that must be nurtured, not hindered.

38. For this reason, one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation. At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church's closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God's help through a simple blessing. In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God's light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.

40. Such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage. Indeed, through these blessings that are given not through the ritual forms proper to the liturgy but as an expression of the Church's maternal heart—similar to those that emanate from the core of popular piety—there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one's life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness.

This is a crucial point of the document, which will be reiterated an even given a quasi-formula in the DDF's clarification. The document encourages blessings in informal contexts, such as visits to shrines or prayer groups, with a focus on the disposition of those seeking blessings. It addresses concerns of potential misuse & asserts that the blessings are intended to open one's life to God and invoke the Holy Spirit for growth in fidelity to the Gospel.

Thus, in Fudicia Supplicans there are many paragraphs that take great pains to reaffirm Catholic Orthodoxy. Moreover, it develops a theology of benediction which is by no means new beyond its reformulation for our time, as per St. Cardinal Newman's teaching of doctrinal development. Indeed, such development is almost always driven by something. In this case, it was driven by the total loss of the concept of Matrimony as a basis of society among the vast majority of the West.

If we assume that there are blessings which are able to distinguish between the sin of a person or persons even, then why should we withhold such a blessing given the power that God can use through blessings? It's worth noting that exorcism is not a sacrament. But merely a sacramental blessing. Is the demon being blessed? No. Is the demoniac in a state of demonic control being blessed? No. The person is being blessed for the sake of casting out the demon. Given that Satan has won the culture war, who can say what the blessings envisioned by Pope Francis might do against the Enemy? These blessings are rooted fundamentally in the disposition of those who seek them. Same-sex attraction, especially if it is lived out, can be analogous if not equivalent to an addiction. I have seen this first hand in my work with Courage International. Likewise in irregular relationships. Blessings may help break this!

There are also cases when a gay couple moved by the knowledge or acceptance that what they are doing is contrary to the Catholic faith, & feeling as though this needs to be corrected, comes to a priest seeking blessing. Oftentimes, such a situation takes place in the early stages of repentance. It may be very difficult for these people to totally extricate themselves from the relationship they've created in their ignorance & sin. Especially, in places where gay marriage has legal or financial implications. Just to simply command them to separate immediately is not pastorally effective, much less a case of good discernment. What Fiducia Supplicans foresees are that such early blessings in the context of future & ongoing repentance may be given in situations laid out in the document. But the blessing must not be given, as the document clearly states, in such a way that it leads those being blessed to feel as though their sin is legitimized. Unfortunately, heretics will misuse FS. But it's akin to how the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea led to the Arian reformulation of "homoiousios" to hold onto power. Evil will always have a comeback to the affirmation of Truth; not to even mention Church pastoral policy!

But in terms of the eternal Good, a blessing which gives God's power to aid a person who, in many ways is trapped by a relationship that has built over time in increasing sinfulness, to be liberated from that trap & snare of the Devil...this is indeed a good. Of course, it is very messy and in many ways foreign to us in past Christian praxis. But this world is in a stage unlike any before. We are not simply living in the paganism of Greco-Roman civilization, but rather in a fundamental post-Christian civilization which rejects even the most basic concepts of true morality. For the sake of the Salvation of Souls, the Church has already demonstrated an avid ability, & even willingness to throw away what is precious to her in order to save souls. Why should she not, given that her Master gave away what was most precious to Him to save us all? Tomorrow we'll look at the Clarification.

 

[Reader Antonius]

@Reader Antonius

A primary argument against FS is that "it is not possible to bless a 'couple' without blessing their 'union' or their 'relationship'".

That is where I think many are being willfully confused.

If we can understand the concept of blessing a drug addict without blessing his drug use, we can understand the concept of blessing a couple without blessing their adultery or fornication.

It may be willful, but it may be not. Either way though, I think you've correctly identified a major issue here (if not the issue!). Fiducia Supplicans also likely has many ancient, medieval, and Reformation era precedents over the centuries. I think often of certain monastic stories which involve blessings great sinners with full knowledge of their predilections. There's also a history in the Roman Church of greater indulgence than the East, both in the penitential practices, but also in receiving the traditores. Moreover, despite preaching against it, the Church has often blessed and/or regularized cases of "bridal abduction" (which sometimes was simple rape; but other times young lovers eloping without parental consent & dowry communication).

This attempt to bless and regularize was not widely decried by the Church (as far as I'm aware), although bridal abduction certainly was! There are cases of Roman priests blessing schismatic Eastern Christians, and vice-versa. Cases of Catholic priests participating in Eastern Christian weddings (or, less frequently, Protestant weddings), sometimes blessing to the couple afterward. The goal of these blessings are obviously not over theoretical issues of communion, schism, heresy, etc., but rather to bless the people involved; presumably in the hope that what is not in accord with the Gospel (e.g., schism, heresy) be moved to it by the blessing.

And of course, unless a priest is told, many cohabitating couples preparing for marriage have been blessed – perhaps in the order of thousands! This isn't, of course, what Fiducia Supplicans envisions per se, but is the blessing "invalid" due to the sin of the couple? No, of course not. Blessings are hard to "invalidate," compared to Sacraments. A failed exorcism does not indicate the blessings which constitute exorcism were invalid or ineffective; it simply means it was not enough. This is often why exorcisms are repeated...sometimes over weeks, months, and, in rare cases, even years!

Thus, the distinction between blessing a situation (i.e., legitimizing or affirming it), and blessing the persons involved clearly exists already. Now it has been more properly formulated by Fiducia Supplicans.

 

[chevyontheriver]

@chevyontheriver
Please accept my sincere apologies for my delay.

You have obviously spent a great deal of time on this. I will try to get back to you soon.

 

[Reader Antonius]

You have obviously spent a great deal of time on this. I will try to get back to you soon.

Well, it is my vocation as an instituted Lector of the Latin Church of Rome. We are the spiritual descendants of both the Apostolic prophets & the teachers (Eph. 4:11 ESV-CE). While our office is a lay one, we have been blessed (constitutively ) to the task of making the Word of God flourish more in the hearts of mankind. That is why it is my privilege, my pleasure, and my delighted duty to take such time.

So, there's no rush at all. Take your time to not only consider what I have written and quoted, but to pray over it as well.

And be of good cheer! Today is the Lord's Day of the Word of God, to which I will proclaim a reading well-suited to it, before I'm off to Mass!

A Reading from the Book of the Prophet Nehemiah:

They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, "This day is holy to the Lord your God; do not mourn or weep." For all the people wept as they heard the words of the Law. Then he said to them, "Go your way. Eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to anyone who has nothing ready, for this day is holy to our Lord. And do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength." So the Levites calmed all the people, saying, "Be quiet, for this day is holy; do not be grieved." And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them. (Nehemiah 8:8-12 ESV-CE).

V. The Word of the Lord.
R. Thanks be to God.

 

[zippy2006]

Fr. Kevin Flannery, S.J. has recently translated and made freely available St. Robert Bellarmine's consideration on whether a heretical pope might be deposed. This should be helpful to those with confusions in this matter, including the OP. (link)

There is a particular quote that is appropriate, "And let me add that the state of the Church would be the most miserable if she should be compelled to recognize a manifestly prowling wolf as a shepherd."

The point here is that there is no prima facie certitude that a pope could never be a heretic, even for Bellarmine. He understands Pighius' optimistic opinion to be merely probable.

 

[zippy2006]

And I can assure you, Courage is grateful for Fiducia Supplicans.

I know several Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction, and I personally know a chaplain for Courage. All of them are deeply, deeply disturbed by Fiducia Supplicans.

 

[zippy2006]

While not (perhaps yet) "Dé fide défénítá," they are most certainly "sententia certa," if not "facta dogmata."

Already addressed in the post that you failed to address:

Well, no. That Gasser thought the Bishop of Meaux spoke well does not make anything sententia certa. Indeed, you have given no real argument for why you believe that papal indefectibility is sententia certa, and I am wondering if you are confusing Ott's claim about the indefectibility of the Church (which he does label sententia certa) with a claim about the indefectibility of the Pope.

If all these things are true – and they are surely so! – then we run into a problem if we have a Pope who, as St. Robert Bellarmine defines (to paraphrase) "...is able to err as Pontiff, and that even as a particular person he is able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the Faith (indicating formal heresy)."

Yes, that is a problem, and it is exactly why Bellarmine said that a heretical pope would be ipso facto deposed, and why Cajetan said that a heretical pope should be formally deposed by the Church. You should try actually reading Bellarmine. I linked to a new translation (here).

No [one] believes in Pighius view, but St. Robert Bellarmine's.

I am convinced that you do not know the difference, as you avoid explication on this point at all costs.

No St. Robert Bellarmine's position, which is the position +Gasser (without "correction" from Bl. Pius IX) claims is being elevated to a dogma...

Let me help you here. Gasser is referring to Chapter II of De Romano Pontifice’s Book 4, where Bellarmine states:

4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics. . . (source)​

​

Note that this has to do with whether a pope can define a heretical proposition. It has nothing to do with your concern about whether a pope can be a formal heretic. One need not define anything to be a formal heretic.

...or even in the ordinary Magisterium, he cannot bind the Church to error in either faith or morals in his authentic Petrine Magisterium.

This is false and had been refuted by Dr. John Joy (link). Your counterargument from O'Regan is refuted by Scott Smith (link).

The converse problem quickly becomes obvious: If it is true that the Pope actually can teach error in faith & morals by way of his ordinary Magisterium, then it would mean that the Pope is capable of binding the faithful to heresy or immorality in the ordinary Magisterium. This destroys the Indefectibility of the Church, for, again, the Church would not longer be what she is constituted and established as being. This is precisely because the teachings found in the ordinary or authentic Magisterium, while usually reformable of themselves, and thus also non-definitive in nature, are obviously why they are regarded as non-infallible. Nevertheless(!), it is immemorial Catholic teaching that the level of assent required of even these teachings is that of the submission of the will and intellect in obedience to the ordinary Magisterium. Submission to heretical error, immorality, etc. means a defectible Church. No longer a city on a hill.

A distinction must be made between the teaching of heresy and the teaching of error:

Can Dr. Fastiggi then prove, beyond doubt, that the SENSE of the phrasing in the “never-failing faith” given to Peter and his successors is, instead, an absolute protection that prevents them from ALL error in matters of faith and morals? That is, that there is no possibility that the phrase is meant to allow for some similar sort of qualification, limitation, or reservation comparable to how Christ’s protection of the Apostles still allows their successors to err?​

​

And to make that question more pointed: one of the commonly proposed qualifiers to the protection offered to the popes is that they will never fall into the formal sin of heresy, i.e. of obstinate denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, and that this is meant to leave room for the pope to err in two ways: (1) holding (and teaching) an error about a matter that is either (a) not yet defined, or (possibly) (b) is defined but only as a truth that is “to be held” and not is not “to be believed with divine and Catholic faith”, or (2) by holding (and teaching) an error that is the matter of formal heresy, but not holding it obstinately, and when the error is pointed out, he reverses course and holds the truth. Arguably, (under this view), a pope’s “never failing faith” is that he never suffers in his soul the sin of heresy by which his faith fails and he departs from union with the Church. A person can be in the state of grace (and have living faith) but be in error on a matter of faith, through mere ignorance of Church teaching – and this both Bellarmine and the Gasser expressly left room for in the pope’s case. (Smith)​

Yet, let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment: Let's say Pope Francis has bound the entire Church to a heretical teaching through, say, Amoris Laetitia, or whatever have you.

According to Bellarmine he would be ipso facto deposed from the Petrine office. Bellarmine protected the office, not the person. He thought that they could be separated in the (unlikely) case of a heretical pope.

But if that occurs (as it should given Catholic doctrine & praxis), then a serious problem arises.

Of course a serious problem arises. That's why this is such a protracted issue. But theologians like Bellarmine and Cajetan did not bury their head in the sand because a serious problem could arise. Bellarmine would never countenance your bizarre idea that, no matter how much a pope's utterance might appear to be heresy, it simply can't be heresy, because we know a priori that it could never be heresy. Again, I would invite you to actually read Bellarmine if you disagree.

The entire preservation of the Indefectibility of the Catholic Church rests on the inability of her or her sacred hierarchs acting sub Petro et cum Petro to teach error in faith and morals in the ordinary Magisterium.

And Catholic theology is agreed that a heretical pope either would be deposed or should be deposed. Vatican I says nothing to the contrary, nor does Bellarmine. Your sources do not support your position.

No, obviously this Divine assistance is primarily given to ensure the Indefectibility of the Church. That she remains truly the Sacrament of Salvation for the world. Therefore, the Divine assistance which prevents serious error in faith and morals is first elicited out of God's promises of the Indefectibility of His Church. This is precisely why the Church can be so bold as to enjoin submission of will and intellect on things that are not irreformable, nor (in some cases) even prudent. Why? Because the Holy Spirit ensures there is no substantive danger to the Church's constitution through the teaching of substantive errors of either faith or morals.

I would suggest a re-read of the book of Revelation. Your idea that everything will always be hunky dory on the part of the Church may need a bit of an adjustment.

Well, I think I've spent quite enough time on this.

So do I.

, even in my vocation,

You are a layman. Stop resting on laurels that you don't have.

, in constantly explaining what should be basic Catholic catechesis...

The nuances of Gasser's relatio and arguments between academic theologians are not basic Catholic catechesis, and that's good news for you given the many errors of the OP.

This, especially, when sophists are incessantly raving these facile & ridiculous ecclesiological perspectives that disrupt the peace of the faithful.

There are bigger fish to fry that re-hashing what should be evident to all the orthodox Catholics of East & West. Namely, saving souls!

Get over yourself. Stop pretending to have authority you do not. Stop pretending complex issues are simple. Stop pretending that you understand this topic. Good intentions only go so far.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Fiducia supplicans​

11. Basing itself on these considerations, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Explanatory Note to its 2021 Responsum recalls that when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. For this reason, since 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. The Holy Father reiterated the substance of this Declaration in his Respuestas to the Dubia of two Cardinals.

 

[Michie]

The Vatican this week prompted widespread debate among bishops and other Church leaders, after Monday’s publication of Fiducia supplicans, which offers a framework for clerical blessings of same-sex couples.

While some have praised the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s text, others have raised serious concerns, and some bishops’ conferences have pushed back on the implementation of the document in their countries.

Fiducia supplicans was authored by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, who was appointed to lead the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith earlier this year.

But Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who led the Vatican’s doctrinal office from 2012 until 2017, said in an essay Thursday the text is “self-contradictory” and “requires further clarification.”

Müller sent that essay, with exclusive permission to publish, to The Pillar, and to publications working in Italian, Spanish, and German.

In light of the ongoing debate over Fiducia supplicans, and Müller’s role in the Church, The Pillar publishes his essay below, in its entirety:

The Only Blessing of Mother Church is the Truth That Will Set Us Free. Note on the Declaration Fiducia supplicans​

Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller

With the Declaration Fiducia supplicans(FS) on the Pastoral Significance of Blessings, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) has made an affirmation that has no precedent in the teaching of the Catholic Church. In fact, this document affirms that it is possible for a priest to bless (not liturgically, but privately) couples who live in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, including same-sex couples. The many questions raised by bishops, priests, and laity in response to these statements deserve a clear and unequivocal response.

Does this statement not clearly contradict Catholic teaching? Are the faithful obliged to accept this new teaching? May the priest perform such new practices that have just been invented? And can the diocesan bishop forbid them if they were to take place in his diocese? To answer these questions, let us see what exactly the document teaches and what arguments it relies on.

Continued below.

Müller - ‘Fiducia supplicans’ is ‘self-contradictory’

'The only blessing of Mother Church is the truth' writes Cardinal Gerhard Müller

www.pillarcatholic.com

 

[Buzzard3]

[Important Note: This original post that began this thread has certain deficiencies due to the development of my understanding of the subject since it was first written. Rather than edit the original post, I have instead written what I hope is a better, more clear exposition on the topic later in this thread. It can be found here, post #38. While I stand by the overall conclusion & thrust of the original post, the later commentary is fuller, free of the errors here, and also has helpful links to excellent resources I've discovered as I've continued researching the topic. Páx et bonum!].

Pax, Ειρήνη, שלום! Praised be Jesus Christ!

The title is a tad more on-the-nose than I'd prefer, but I do feel that the situation on the Catholic blogosphere & even among well-known Catholic personalities (especially those who describe themselves as traditionalists) requires a certain edge. This is a topic I've wrestled with since Amōris Lætitia came out during my seminary years, and as I've watched large numbers of otherwise well-meaning Catholics (East & West) come to the conclusion that the Pope is a de facto heretic. For those who don't go that far, for whatever reason, there is a resurgence in the idea that a Pope can formally teach heresy (some claim Pope Francis already *has* done so).

Yet, this concept of a heretical Pope has serious theological problems and implications. This, especially, if someone is openly claiming that the Pope either is a formal heretic, or has formally taught heresy. If such a thing is true, then both the Catholic Church & Christianity itself is in a lot of trouble (to understate it enormously!). No...let's go ahead and say it: If a Pope of Old Rome can be a true heretic, then God has been forsworn. If that is so, then He is not God. (Psalm 91:4; Heb. 10:23; etc.). The logic of this is inescapable, as many Catholic theologians have noted for centuries; long before Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I. Even the historical & logical ramifications of such a thing are utterly astounding! Think about it. Why preserve the Church through all the Great Heresies, Worldly Persecutions, and Diabolic Trials just to drop the ball with...Pope Francis?? Wait, what?!?! It is not surprising that many who have accepted the idea of a heretical Pope have either fallen from the Faith, or are otherwise in a state of open "resistance" to the Ecumenical Pontiff – an idea contrary to the Catholic Faith on its very face, as even Pope St. Pius X (among many other saints) taught quite clearly & vehemently.

So what do we do? I'm no fool. As an instituted Reader and a practicing Romano-Byzantine Catholic of 15 years, I know well that the Church is full of rot; sadly, even the Roman Church. And I think most can agree that Pope Francis, for all his numerous excellent qualities, has not the theological acumen nor deft use of language than previous Pontiffs. Yet, that's beside the point. If anything we were "due" for a less than stellar pope in the Church for well over a century, if not far longer.

It's not the point because the Catholic doctrine regarding the Papacy is not dependent on the individual within office, but rather the Word of God. It is He alone who vouchsafes to keep His Promises...not Jorge Bergoglio, nor any other. And, more importantly, this isn't just coming from wild speculation on my part – it's profoundly present in the Apostolic Tradition.

Naturally, these forums are not arenas where I can exposit a 20 page essay on all the many reasons why Papal indefectibility is sentia certa (although it would be quite easy!). Instead, I want to point to the most important and specific documents that have special magisterial weight. Notably among these is Vatican I's teaching in Pāstor Aēternus. Many, both then and now, saw that document as primarily about defining the extraordinary charism of Papal infallibility. As we all know, this is a rare charism that requires extremely specific conditions before the Holy Spirit will grant it. Yet, Pāstor Aēternus is a *vastly* more important text in laying out the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine on the Papacy. And, as many have shown since the days when the very text was debated at the Ecumenical Council, it contains a strong & clear teaching that the Holy See is indefectable. More specifically, it teaches that the Pope cannot be a formal heretic, nor can he bind the Church to any heretical teaching. Surprised? Far-fetched? O how Catholic catechesis has fallen...

Let us begin there.

In order to properly understand Vatican I's teaching we must remember the context. For centuries hence, the Church struggled with factions that had differing views of the Pope of Rome. Despite a rather consistent teaching history in favor of what Pāstor Aēternus would decree, there were many who denied perennial doctrine. Some thought the Pope had only limited jurisdiction (e.g., Gallicans), others that he was a sort of oracle (e.g. "Ultramontanes"), that he could indeed be a heretic ("Dollingerites"), and still others. Hence, when Chapter IV of the pre-promulgated text was being discussed, the issue of the Pope's teaching authority & its nature was hotly debated.

A key insight into these debates is the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser. This text, often ignored to great ills, laid out the substance of the debate and provides an essential hermeneutic to these questions. I cannot obviously outline it all here, but it is readily available. Henceforth I will therefore paint in broad strokes:

The concept of a heretical pope as a theological question is not new (hardly!). The rise of Protestantism, especially, made it a topic discussed in the Post-Tridentine era. Most famous among those is probably St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. Ironically, those who wish to argue that the Pope can be a heretic attempt to quote him to that effect. But as I will show, they greviously misunderstand him. Nevertheless, let us begin with him.

St. Robert Bellarmine taught that it was generally agreed that a Pope might fall into material heresy in a private capacity; most likely due to ignorance or error. This may have been the case with Honorius I and John XXII (although those cases are not anywhere near as clear as many claim!). Yet, the question as to formal heresy had zero consensus. Both St. Robert Bellarmine, and another theologian of whom we will speak shortly (Suárez), merely *speculated* on this possibility. Yet, both men concluded that the Roman Pontiff could not fall into formal heresy due to Divine assistance.

Suárez, especially, rejected the idea completely. He taught that even if a Pope, as a private Christian, fell into error out of ignorance, God would Providentially ensure that such a Pope could not harm the Church. Following the Angelic Doctor's line of thought, God would simply not allow such a Pope to impose heresy or even erroneous teaching on the Church universal. As he put it: "The faith of Peter was Catholic and unable to fail; but the faith of the Roman Church is the faith of Peter. Therefore, the faith of the Roman Church is the Catholic faith, from which this See can never defect." The quote is so like unto St. Bellarmine's teaching it is often mistaken as his!

These teachings made their way into the debates regarding Pastor Aeternus. As the Relatio of Gasser states, this debate was to be *settled* with the promulgation of the Ecumenical Council. One of the issues that arose in the debates was a number of theologians who held to a teaching by a certain Albert Pighius, who taught that the Pope as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To some this seemed extreme, especially the more "liberal" bishops of Dollingerite & Gallican tendencies.

Yet, Bishop Gasser leaned into this "fear" and argued brilliantly that Pighius' teaching was *not* only his own. The attempt to make a hard distinction between Pighius and St. Bellarmine was not as easy as the more liberal bishops thought. Why? Because St. Bellarmine was quite aware of Pighius' teaching! On Pighius' teaching, St. Bellarmine – that oft-misquoted "champion" of proponents of Papal heresy – declared:

"It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." This, ultimately in fact, is *precisely* the conclusion St. Bellarmine himself reached.

Thus, Bishop Gasser demonstrated to all that the doctrine in the proposed Chapter IV (more on that later) was not that of Albert Pighius, nor the extreme opinion of the "Pope is an oracle" schools. No, rather it is one and the same which St. Bellarmine taught as the most certain and assured. That is, the most common and certain opinion. In passing we should reiterate for clarity that the teaching adopted in Chapter IV of Pāstor Aēternus does follow St. Bellarmine on the points that the Doctor of the Church did and did not mean. Namely, that a Roman Pontiff could perhaps hold to material heresy in his capacity as a private teacher through ignorance or some other means, but that God would never allow the Successors of St. Peter to fall into formal heresy, nor bind the Church to such heretical teaching in the Papal Magisterium.

Before going further, let us not forget that this idea that Pope Francis has fallen into formal heresy and/or is attempting to bind the Church to heretical teaching (take your pick on which...) in the Magisterium is *precisely* what many giants in the "traditionalist" community (for lack of a better umbrella term!) have and do argue. I need not name names...

Instead, let us come to what may be called the "clincher." Forget not, dear reader, that an Ecumenical Council is the supreme historical act of teaching authority in the Catholic Church. Even if it only deals with ordinary magisterial teaching, it remains far greater than any lesser vehicle of teaching.

The teaching of St. Bellarmine above, according to the Relatio, was *formally dogmatized* at the First Vatican Ecumenical Council in the decree Pāstor Aēternus. Most specifically in Chapter IV. Let us cite the relevant passages as briefly as we may.

To begin, the Chapter notes both Papal infallibility & indefectability are present since ancient times. It quotes the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople professing: "For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true security of the Christian religion." It goes on after a few more examples to state what is the most important definition of Papal indefectability to date:



We should note here that these paragraphs come before the extraordinary, solemn definition of Papal Infallibility with its subsequent conditions. Some have thought these paragraphs are little more than explanatory passages to prepare for the dogmatic definition. Yet, this is most certainly not what the Council Fathers thought! Their including the Formula of Pope Hormisdas (cited above in 6.) is a crucial hermeneutical key. Indeed, the lack of citation of this in the ineptly named, rebellious "Correctio Filialis" a number of years ago speaks volumes!!!

But let us return to the Relatio for our evidence. During one of the debates, the Bishop of Meaux, France, spoke out in favor of dogmatizing St. Bellarmine's Fourth Opinion (the one I discussed above). His call was not received well, it seems, by more liberal bishops (especially the French). Yet, Bishop Gasser defended him and declared:

"This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter's successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The Bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: 'If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.'"

This is a remarkable point, and it underscores why Papal indefectibility, even if not *extraordinarily* defined as Papal infallibility, is sententia certa – more specifically, "sententia ad fidem pertinēns et theologice certā." In layman's terms: "A teaching pertaining to the Faith that is theologically certain due to its intrinsic connection with the doctrines of Divine Revelation."

These truths may or may not be definitively approved by the Church (yet?), nevertheless they cannot be doubted without injuring the vitals of the Faith and its inner harmony as bequeathed by Christ Himself.

To conclude, am I saying Pope Francis is a best pope ever? Nope! Am I saying everything he says is golden and undying wisdom? Nope. Am I saying that he cannot hold apparently wonky private opinions about things? Not that either. Am I saying I think allPope Francis' lesser prudential decisions, pastoral judgements, or liturgical choices are protected by God? No.

But what I am saying is what St. Bellarmine said and Pastor Aeternus confirmed. To wit, I end with the great Jesuit Doctor of the Church's words himself regaring the first Pope and archetype of all his Successors:

"[St. Peter] could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith. The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith." ("De Controversis" Book 4, Ch. III).

And lastly, I must – as an instituted Reader – issue a caveat from the Holy Scriptures of which Holy Mother Church has entrusted to my unprofitable care:

"Vēre peccātum hariolandi est repugnāre, et scelus īdōlolatrīae nōlle acquiēscere..." (I Sm. XV:XXIII N.V.)

"For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and disobedience is as iniquity and idolatry..." (1 Sm. 15:23 ESV-CE).

May it not be so for any of us with regard to the current Supreme Pontiff, even in the midst of confusion & anxiety...first and foremost myself!!

Let us pray:


O God, shepherd and ruler of all the faithful,
look favorably on your servant Francis,
whom you have set at the head of your Church as her shepherd;
Grant, we pray, that by word and example
he may be of service to those over whom he presides
so that, together with the flock entrusted to his care,
he may come to everlasting life.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the
unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Amen. +

I welcome disagreements and comments, but demand charity from all (myself included).

Popes can err without violating the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

An earlier example than Pope Francis was the Koran-kisser, John Paul II. He wasted millions of Church dollars travelling around the world
on behalf on his stupid and pointless "Inter-faith Dialogue", praising false and pagan religions ... extinguishing what was left of the Church's missionary spirit in the process.
And who can forget his absurd Polytheist Party at Assisi in 1986?

Jesus said "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" but someone forgot to tell JP2.

His modernist bs made me feel embarrassed to be a Catholic. Why the Church saw fit to declare him a "saint" is a mystery to me.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Popes can err without violating the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

Peace. Δόξα Ιησού Χριστό!, שלום עליכם! Laudetur Iesus Christus!

It is my hope and endeavor to correct the deficiencies in the OP later today, so as to make clear what is not and to correct what is false. The overall theological & ecclesiological conclusion is sound, but the OP was written in a previous level of my study of this topic. A valuable lesson in humility. Suffice it to say for now that the Ubipetrine position is not that Popes can never err, but rather the following (which aligns with St. Bellarmine & Vatican I by way of extension):

1. A Pope may err out of simple ignorance of fact. Even Ecumenical Councils can err this way too. Honorius I is an almost perfect example of this.
2. A Pope could teach heresy in his capacity as a private theologian. John XXII is a case of this (albeit this had yet to be defined).
3. A Pope may hold privately to a materially heretical belief (albeit this idea is challenged by Vatican I), but he cannot bind Church to a heretical or immoral proposition. [This has never happened].

This is generally the Ubipetrine position, and it takes its main inspiration from St. Robert Bellarmine, the Relatio of Vatican I, and Pastor Aeternus. There are some, like myself, who believe Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus actually rules out #3, but it matters little; a form of theoretical rather than practical.

In any case, the main problem most Catholics are falling into is that Popes can err in the ordinary Magisterium, and, in that ordinary Magisterium, bind the Church to a heretical or immoral position. This justifies dissent & even resistance to the Supreme & Ecumenical Pontiff in the public square. The only time, for those who hold to this idea, that a Pope is free from either promoting error or immorality is when he speaks ex cathedra in the extraordinary Magisterium as defined by Vatican I. Yet, this is both evidently false, illogical, and, more importantly, not consonant with the wider tradition of Catholic doctrine of the Papacy. That would be the main issue.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Okay, enough. I've had more than enough self-righteous snottiness from you and your reflection in the mirror, The Lector. Placing you both on "Ignore".

Both of you disappearing in 10...

9...

8...

7...

6...

5...

4...

3...

2...

1...

0. We have lift-off! (y)

Yes, indeed. I have acted poorly to you with arrogance, and sinned on top of it. Even if you do not see this, I again offer my sincere apologies for my words, ask your forgiveness for my sins, and beg you to pray for me.

I will repent and endeavor to be charitable as much as I am able...and if I fail, please - whether you or another - correct me!

 

[zippy2006]

But instead perhaps we too have sinned. I know for certain that I have sinned. In my weariness, frustration, pride, & vanity, I trespassed against my brothers: @Wolseley (the most of all), @Buzzard3, @Michie, and @zippy2006. This was not right; not only from the basic Christian charity of all believers, but also my duties to my office. My spiritual father has warned me of this, and I did not heed him. I will ask him to impose a penance for these acts of uncharity. I also ask these brothers and sisters to forgive me.

Thank you, I appreciate this. I too apologize for harsh words.

See my recent thread for an explanation of why many of us are so frustrated with the constant "popesplaining": "Don't believe your lying eyes."

 

[zippy2006]

In any case, the main problem most Catholics are falling into is that Popes can err in the ordinary Magisterium, and, in that ordinary Magisterium, bind the Church to a heretical or immoral position. This justifies dissent & even resistance to the Supreme & Ecumenical Pontiff in the public square.

This is a theological opinion, and you are free to hold it, but there is no reason we need to follow you. Consider the case of John XXII:

2. A Pope could teach heresy in his capacity as a private theologian. John XXII is a case of this (albeit this had yet to be defined).

John XXII did much more than teach heresy in his capacity as a private theologian. He taught it in his sermons as pope, and this is what caused the problems:

In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision. (source)

Now we could quibble about this case, but if we follow its logic then on your theory a pope's teachings, given in his sermons, have no magisterial weight. If you are willing to live with that conclusion, fine, but the standard view today is that teachings given in papal sermons do have some magisterial weight. The obvious conclusion, it seems to me, is that magisterial error is possible, and therefore in some cases objecting to and correcting magisterial error is legitimate and even salutary.

One of the core problems here is that identifying an act of the "ordinary magisterium" is not at all straightforward, and the Church has never offered a clear-cut litmus test for knowing when something is or is not a magisterial act. What inevitably occurs is that those who favor a broader scope for the ordinary magisterium will restrict its authority and certitude (to help avoid binding errors), and those who favor a more certain and authoritative ordinary magisterium will narrow its scope (to help avoid binding errors). This is precisely what happened with infallibility at Vatican I: an increase in certitude and authority resulted in a significantly narrowed scope for infallible teachings. The number of teachings which are accepted to be infallible has decreased with each decade.

Now the so-called "popesplainers" wish to have it both ways. They will say, for example, that a pope can teach heresy in his sermons, like John XXII did, but that we cannot accuse Francis of teaching heresy or even error in his sermons, because to do so would impugn the indefectibility of the pope, the Church, and the ordinary magisterium. I would not have so much trouble with the "popesplainers" if they stayed in their lane, were logically consistent, and acknowledged the fact that their theories are merely theological opinions. I think the conservatism that "popesplainers" represent is a useful part of the Church, but too much of it enforced too brazenly suffocates the Church.

Edit: The other problem, here, is that unanswered dubia present an intractable problem for Catholic ecclesiology. Imagine if John XXII had simply ignored the quasi-dubia leveled against him. Such a decision suspends the teaching authority of Rome in a rather stark and problematic way, and given that the ignoring of dubia is an intentional act, it is not wrong to ascribe to it a meaning.

 

[Buzzard3]

Okay, enough. I've had more than enough self-righteous snottiness from you and your reflection in the mirror, The Lector.

Sorry to hear that you're not at all impressed by "great swelling words of emptiness" (2Peter 2:18, NKJV).

 

[zippy2006]

Many people get this very wrong, and, ironically(!), resemble Mr. William Ward: "I should like a new Papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast." What I mean by this is that the ordinary Magisterium is assumed by many Sedefectivists as capable of teaching error in either faith and morals, and is only protected by extraordinary means of Papal Magisterium. Yet, this misses the point entirely!

This is misrepresentative in an odd way. Note that your position is the one that draws near to Ward. The one who thinks extraordinary definitions to be rare is far from Ward. From an article published today:

Newman had no issue with the truth of the doctrine [of infallibility]. In fact, he had already publicly embraced it. But he had many concerns about how the faithful might falsely exaggerate its scope out of misguided piety. W.G. Ward, one of Newman’s most zealous followers, and later one of his most aggressive critics, would do precisely that, extending the scope of infallibility to include encyclicals and even papal addresses and speeches. “I would like a new papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast” he once declared.[2] (When Newman was made a cardinal by Leo XIII, he would write to an Anglican friend that “the cloud has been lifted from me forever . . . . Poor Ward can no longer call me a heretic.”[3]​

​

“Omniscience cannot be limited to a restricted group of questions; in its very nature it implies the knowledge of all, and infallibility means omniscience.”[4] This false allegation of the nineteenth-century anti-Catholic propagandist Andrew Dickson White might seem to far too many Catholics of the twenty-first century to be an obligation of Catholic orthodoxy. Far too many educated Catholics strive to preserve their orthodoxy by treating all papal announcements as infallibly defined, with “infallibly defined” understood in a way that is “rigid, documentary and static.”[5] No distinction is made between Vatican II’s obsequium religiosum, a “religious submission of mind and will” (understood by Francis Sullivan and Avery Dulles as “an honest and sustained effort to overcome any contrary opinion I might have, even when that effort is unsuccessful”) and the “obedience of faith,” as if such distinctions are nothing more than dangerous niceties. What looks like robust doctrinal adherence becomes, at the worst, quasi-schismatic ideology.​

​

-Infallibility, Ideology, and the Road to Ecclesial Harmony, by Christopher Baglow​

​

More from the same piece:

In his helpful book, How to Go from Being a Good Evangelical to a Committed Catholic in Ninety-Five Difficult Steps, the convert Christian Smith gives this as Step 80: “Do not become a Catholic because you think it will give you certainty.” To me, it seems that it is a sense of insecurity and overemphasis on certainty that drives otherwise excellent, earnest Catholics into doctrinal ideologies like the ones I lamented above. His exhortation is timely and marvelous:​

​

Some Evangelicals find Catholicism attractive because they think it offers them certainty about Christian beliefs. Previously, they thought an inerrant Bible alone provided certainty . . . . Looking to Rome, some decide that the . . . Magisterium provides the [cognitive] certainty that conservative Protestantism taught them to desire . . . it seems to provide that absolute certainty.​

​

Don’t do that. Don’t think that way. Establishing certainty is a distinctively modern secular project, not a Christian one. . .​