Pope approves blessings for same-sex couples if they don't resemble marriage

[IcyChain]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you to a degree there, Icy. All the Traditionalists that *I* know adhere strictly to the Deposit and Dogmas of the Faith; anything that swerves from that (i.e,, female priests, female deacons, homosexual "marriage", etc., etc., etc.) is not accepted.

Other than the tendency of a significant number of traditionalists to reject or otherwise criticize Vatican 2, my main issue with traditionalists does not relate to their views with respect to individual theological points (most of which I would tend to agree with them on). It is that their ecclesiology is fundamentally protestant in that they sit in judgment of the pope in the same maner that the protestant layperson sits in judgment of his pastor. They determine for themselves what the deposit of the faith allows and prohibits. If they privately conclude that the pope has taught inconsistently with their private determinations, they condemn him publicly and accuse him of heresy as some people have done in this very thread. There is simply nothing Catholic or traditional about that. This attidude of the laity and disresepct of the vicar of Christ would have been unheard of in most ages.

Ergo, the stuff coming out now from, say, Germany with this Synodality or whatever you call it, for example, is not accepted by the Traditionalists, because it contradicts the infallible teachings of the Church. It might be new, certainly, but that doesn't make it correct. It's not that the Traditionalists are throwing anything away, it's that if some cockeyed innovation comes along that flies in the face of the Church's infallible teachings, they refuse to abide by it.

Well, I am not asking people to follow the German bishops. I am asking them to follow the roman pontiff. The vicar of Christ. The one to whom our Lord Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom. To me, the pope is not just another bishop. The German bishops must ultimatley submit to the authority of the pope, as well.

Luther, on the other hand, took stuff that had been there from the beginning of the Church, and chucked it out if he didn't agree with it. He did away with five sacraments, he threw out the Pope as Vicar of Christ, he threw away all of the Apostolic Fathers, and he threw away nearly a dozen Old Testament books that the Church had already declared to be canonical Scripture---and he was on the verge of throwing out at least two New Testament books, until his buddy Philip Melanchthon talked him out of it, saying that if he kept on at the rate he was going, he was going to end up with a pretty thin Bible before long.

So the difference, as I see it, is that Luther threw things away, whereas Traditionalists refuse to throw away things that have been there since the beginning of the Faith in order to embrace new, contradictory novelties. Now, you are correct in saying that the Pope and the bishops are the ones who get to say what is and what isn't----but only if it does not contradict Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Deposit, Conciliar decrees, or any other form of infallible teaching approved by the Church.

Well, who gets to decide whether something contradicts Holy Scripture and the deposit of faith? Who gets to determine what must be kept, what should be discarded, and what should be changed? Let's say the pope decides that X is in line with Sacred Scripture and you decide that X contradicts Sacred Scripture. Then we have a choice. We can submit to the authority of the pope and follow him, or we can refuse to submit to the authority of the pope and let our own interpretation be our guide.

But letting your own interpretation be your guide and refusing to submit to the authority of the pope is not really a Catholic thing. That is literally the foundational principle of the Protestant reformation.

Therefore, the bishops in Germany can churn out decrees by the hundreds of thousands, if they want to; but if it is not in line with the teaching the Church has had since 33 A.D., I for one am not going to accept it, bishops or no. And if the Pope himself came out tomorrow and said polygamy or some such nonsense was perfectly fine (I am not saying he's going to), I wouldn't accept that, either. There are more than enough warnings from Jesus and Paul in the Scriptures and various Early Fathers that plainly tell you, "If you are hearing a teaching that flies in face of what you have been taught, ignore it."

That's where I'm at. You may do as you wish.

Well, here I think the difference between us comes down to a fundamental view of what the pope is capable of. I think that the pope and the living magisterium are protected from falling into these types of grave errors because they are guided by the Holy Spirit in a special way. Only a few times in the 2000 year history of the church have we even potentially seen this type of grave error (Honorious, Liberius, Vigilius, and a few others are always brought up) and these cases are highly disputable if you investigate the facts of them carefully.

I mean, do you really think it is possible for the vicar of Christ, the man who has the keys to the kingdom and the gift of never-failing faith, to come out one day and say "Homsexuals are free to marry" or "Abortion? Go right ahead"? To me, if such a thing were possible, I do not see any logical reason to remain Catholic. The pope would seem to have no purpose other than to make an infalliable declaration once every two hundred years and then just go back to being an ordinary bishop. I wouldn't see any strong reason to have a pope if that were possible. I may as well join the Eastern Orthodox or the Oriential Orthodox, both of whom have valid masses, if the pope could just as easily fall into error as some of the bishops of those churches have.

 

[Michie]

Sorry - deleted my posts. I apologize for posting anything negative here.

You know Markie, and I am going to put this in the most charitable way possible… you are not a practicing Catholic and have not been for years. I remember you coming here when you were converting singing the glories of the RCC. I always know how to find you. All one needs to say is “Catholic”. And you are a Johnny on the spot to keep jabbing at our faith. The above quote from you shows you are not a man of your word. I have noticed this for the longest time… it’s not cool to dip your toes in the water and think you have the right to say the things you do inside this forum and outside of it. If you to continue to tear down what our faith and the faith actually teaches, go to GT or somewhere else to whine and spout nonsense. We are all struggling as it is. We do not need your help. No matter how you sugarcoat it. I’m convinced you are completely anti-Catholic and I do not appreciate how you keep coming back here to basically tear down our Faith and traditions because you think you know better. God bless you on your journey but most of us have enough respect not to hit the Baptist forum or anywhere else inappropriate for those trying to follow their Faith traditions and rile them up because they were a flash in the pan convert. Let those that are your Catholic relatives as you mentioned figure it out. Your mission seems to pull those practicing away from the Church. Your weird evangelization is not needed here. Have some respect. This is a safe haven for those trying to understand and remain in their faith.

 

[IcyChain]

The papacy seems to be causing more problems than solving them these days.

Simple answer please - do you follow the Vatican or Tradition now? You can no longer do both.

This also shows there is no way around private interpretation. Which will it be - follow the Vatican, or Tradition?

Your questions are rank nonsense. You have not and can not prove that Pope Francis has contradicted Sacred Tradition.

 

[Lady Bug]

I think this point is exaggerated by some that insist you NEED someone to tell you what it says. There will be differences as long as there are people.

You don't need it all the time but those Scriptures indicate that there are certain instances.

 

[IcyChain]

You don't need it all the time but those Scriptures indicate that there are certain instances.

Perhaps he should get together with his Protestant brethren and take another 500 years to come to an agreement on whether infants should be baptized, before making that claim.

 

[Lady Bug]

Perhaps he should get together with his Protestant brethren and take another 500 years to come to an agreement on whether infants should be baptized, before making that claim.

Unfortunately there is hopeless disagreement on even adults getting baptized.

 

[Lady Bug]

Perhaps he should get together with his Protestant brethren and take another 500 years to come to an agreement on whether infants should be baptized, before making that claim.

To be fair I had problems with infant baptism until I was pointed out a passage in Luke Ch 18, I think, but once I saw it, I can't unsee it now.

 

[Chrystal-J]

For many conservatives, the document was the logical culmination of a papacy that began with Francis asking, “Who am I to judge?” in response to a question about gay priests in 2013. (The New York Times)

The Pope must of skipped over this passage:
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? (1 Corinthians 5:12)

 

[RileyG]

The papacy seems to be causing more problems than solving them these days.

Simple answer please - do you follow the Vatican or Tradition now? You can no longer do both.

This also shows there is no way around private interpretation. Which will it be - follow the Vatican, or Tradition?

God will have the final say.

 

[Markie Boy]

I get it. But all over I see some bishops and clergy saying this is totally out of line with all church history. Are they wrong?

 

[Michie]

I get it. But all over I see some bishops and clergy saying this is totally out of line with all church history. Are they wrong?

No you don’t get it. All you do is obsess over the RCC. It’s plain to see all over CF. You just can’t control yourself. You even go against your own word. This is a safe haven for Catholics. The last time you came here you claimed the Synod had an opening dance which was clearly untrue. Is your parish getting prepared for the Synod? You are unabashedly anti-Catholic. Take it somewhere else. There is no need for you to keep pouring salt into the wounds of faithful Catholics.

 

[Michie]

The bishop of Orihuela-Alicante in Spain, José Ignacio Munilla, has elaborated on his responseto the Vatican declaration Fiducia Supplicans on the blessing of couples in irregular unions.

In an interview with the online forum Religion in Freedom, the prelate pointed out that the text signed by the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, and Pope Francis “does not affirm anything that is against the faith of the Church.”

Continued below.

Bishop Munilla: Fiducia Suplicans Not ‘Heretical’ But Application Will Be ‘Chaotic’

The Fiducia Supplicans declaration prohibits liturgical blessings but allows pastoral blessings for people living in irregular and objective situations of sin.

www.ncregister.com

 

[Michie]

'Beware of reading too much too quickly' into same-sex blessings document, say global bishops

While several Western European bishops praised the Dec. 18 declaration of the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on blessing same-sex couples as "a major breakthrough in pastoral care," reactions elsewhere have been mixed, with African bishops offering explainers for "confused"...

www.oursundayvisitor.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

I get it. But all over I see some bishops and clergy saying this is totally out of line with all church history. Are they wrong?

I'm agreeing with Michie. You left being Catholic. But you hang on and on and on. I wouldn't mind if you could figure your way back to being Catholic, but clearly that's not what you are doing. Go be whatever you want to be. But go be it. You aren't, and by your own admission, Catholic any longer. Don't pretend you are still half-Catholic or something. You did burn that bridge, didn't you?

 

[chevyontheriver]

'Beware of reading too much too quickly' into same-sex blessings document, say global bishops

While several Western European bishops praised the Dec. 18 declaration of the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on blessing same-sex couples as "a major breakthrough in pastoral care," reactions elsewhere have been mixed, with African bishops offering explainers for "confused"...

www.oursundayvisitor.com

Well, it's either a 'major breakthrough' or it's a rupture with Catholic teaching or it's no change at all.

I think I'm with fellow Protestant Gerhard Cardinal Muller as he writes in Pillar: Müller - ‘Fiducia supplicans’ is ‘self-contradictory’

 

[Michie]

Well, it's either a 'major breakthrough' or it's a rupture with Catholic teaching or it's no change at all.

I think I'm with fellow Protestant Gerhard Cardinal Muller as he writes in Pillar: Müller - ‘Fiducia supplicans’ is ‘self-contradictory’

Yep. And therein lies the confusion. I think what upsets me the most is when those like Fr. Martin and other clergy take this and give a very false witness to the faithful. Yet nothing is done about it. Muller is probably next on the chopping block.

 

[Michie]

Ambiguity of ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ Makes Way for Multiplying Misinterpretations

COMMENTARY: The new declaration from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ensures that no one knows what exactly is being blessed, as it expressly forbids any ritual text that might specify it.

www.ncregister.com

 

[Michie]

More Bishops Voice Criticism — and Support — for Vatican Document on Blessing Same-Sex Couples

In addition to the bishops in Kazakhstan, Malawi, and Zambia, who said they would refuse to implement the Vatican declaration, a few more bishops have since condemned the new guidance.

www.ncregister.com

 

[Michie]

British Association of Priests Expresses Grave Concern About ‘Fiducia Supplicans’

The statement also expresses the clergy’s concern that conducting such blessings ‘would confuse the faithful over the actual theology of marriage and human sexuality.’

www.ncregister.com

 

[zippy2006]

Well the document clearly states the blessings are not intended for those who seek to have their status legitimized.

This document is much more problematic than some are letting on, and it's not just the mainstream media that interpret it to be a step in a certain direction. Cardinal Müller thinks the document is self-contradictory, and he may well be right. In that case it would be as helpful to say, "Well the square circle clearly states that it is a square, and therefore there is no problem." The problem is that it is simultaneously a circle.

The only conceivable way to read the document in a non-contradictory way would be to assume that it is directed at gay couples who are intending to live chastely, but I think this would be an enormous stretch. That possibility aside, the DDF is trying to square a circle, perhaps to throw a bone to the Germans. It's not possible to bless same-sex couples without blessing same-sex couples.