• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

‘ Benedict trusted Francis. But he was bitterly disappointed,’ biographer says in new interview

Cosmic Charlie

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated
Oct 14, 2003
15,771
2,486
✟98,459.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Pius XII, the actual author of Mit Brennender Sorge (You've read it no doubt) was later identified falsely as 'Hitler's Pope'. That has finally been put to rest by Rabbi David Dalin.

You mean the ones who published their refusal of Humanae Vitae in the New York Times on the very day Humanae Vitae came out and they hadn't even had time to read the encyclical before they refused it? Remember Charlie Curran? As far as I know he wan't cosmic like you are. I got to meet him way back and there is no way he should have been a Catholic theologian.

JPII just couldn't believe a priest could be so depraved as to do such things. And he had experience with Polish Communists making false claims about priests. So he had a big blind spot. Bennie finally worked to expose and remove as much filth as he could. Far more than pope Francis who seems to shield and protect sexual abusers as long as he can before reluctantly throwing them under the bus.

Loved.


They have full and ordinary power. They do not regularly wield full and ordinary power well. But then not all get to be known as a 'Dictator Pope' either. It's not at all synodal. But then why bother with being synodal when it's so much faster to dictate?
Meaning absolutely no harm or accusation here but....

You Cherry pick your explanations, I'll cherry-pick mine. I didn't like a lot of actions the various popes in the last 80 years took, but I couldn't do anything about it and when I whined about it I got: "The Catholic Church isn't a Democracy".

Well, they're right. Now we've got a Pope who (surprise) is doing things a lot of people don't like, and they are whining about it. Well, "The Catholic Church isn't a Democracy".

Learn to live with it. I do.


 
Upvote 0

IcyChain

Active Member
Nov 22, 2023
353
63
Alexandria VA
✟21,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
if Curran had it his way the Magisterium would have no power at all short of ex cathedra decisions.
Are priests and laypersons free to reject the teachings in Fiducia Supplicans if they have privately interpreted it to be in contradiction to the deposit of faith?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟300,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Are priests and laypersons free to reject the teachings in Fiducia Supplicans if they have privately interpreted it to be in contradiction to the deposit of faith?
FS pertains to clerics, not laity, but FS constitutes the perfect case of an unreceived, non-infallible teaching. We have bishops, cardinals, episcopal conferences, and at least one Eastern Catholic Church rejecting this teaching, not to mention various non-Catholic Christian bodies and leaders. If Vincent of Lerins is our touchstone then such a teaching need not be held. This is precisely what is supposed to happen to an erroneous teaching according to the theology of receptionism so widely developed since the Second Vatican Council. A layperson who dissents alone is in a very different situation than a layperson who dissents alongside and under the guidance of so many high-ranking Catholic leaders throughout the world.

Francis has moved far beyond receptionism with his "synodality," and if his favoring of "synodality" is anything more than lip-service then he will drop the document wholesale. Note that in Fernandez' press release he has already taken the first steps towards backpedaling on this catastrophe. He makes a number of concessions to the opponents of the document, albeit simultaneously engaging in a rather remarkable form of gaslighting by attempting to reinterpret the nature of their intentions and opposition, in much the same way that he gaslighted the African bishops by lying and claiming that they are merely concerned about the collision of blessings with anti-homosexuality laws in their countries. (And yes, it is a lie. Let's call a spade a spade for once. Fernandez is well aware that he is speaking a falsehood and he asserts this falsehood all the same. There's no need to redefine the word "lie" in the same way some have redefined the word "couple.")

If Fernandez had doubled-down it would be a different story, but as is he responded to the dissent in a conciliatory manner, retreating significantly within a follow-up document that the original document literally claimed would not exist. The liberals overplayed their hand. They do not understand the global Church; they do not understand their flock. There is now a parochialism in Rome which dwarfs the parochialism of the previous pontificates.

Rome has very often been corrupt in the past, and the sexual abuse and financial scandals are enough proof that it is corrupt now, but in the past the corruption leveraged its power in a way that did not impinge on formal doctrine. This has changed with the growth of a post-Christian morality, including the homosexual lobby. Beginning with Marx but especially with Comte, religious doctrine takes on an explicitly sociological color, and an increasingly moralizing world--with international communication, coverage, and interest--will only continue to exert pressure on the centralized head of the West's largest religion.

I think it is rather important for Catholics to not stick their head in the sand at this point in history. Ignatius of Loyola's resolution was bad then, but it is especially bad now, "What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical church so defines." His descendant may come to learn the hard way that we are not all Jesuits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,741
19,752
Flyoverland
✟1,361,151.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
FS pertains to clerics, not laity, but FS constitutes the perfect case of an unreceived, non-infallible teaching. We have bishops, cardinals, episcopal conferences, and at least one Eastern Catholic Church rejecting this teaching, not to mention various non-Catholic Christian bodies and leaders. If Vincent of Lerins is our touchstone then such a teaching need not be held. This is precisely what is supposed to happen to an erroneous teaching according to the theology of receptionism so widely developed since the Second Vatican Council. A layperson who dissents alone is in a very different situation than a layperson who dissents alongside and under the guidance of so many high-ranking Catholic leaders throughout the world.
I'm not all that into 'receptionism', the idea that we could reject Humanae Vitae and that that determined truth, but clearly when cardinals and bishops aren't receiving it, that's an excellent measure of it having reception problems. And a growing bunch of priests and theologians aren't receiving it either. And ordinary hoi polloi laity, to the extent they know anything about it, well only the tiniest minority have knowingly accepted the blessing of couples in irregular relationships. Many will accept being told that nothing at all has changed. And the rest who know anything about this see it as a scandal. Priests are hearing it from the laity, laity are simply leaving, it's not well received. As more people figure it out the problem will only grow.
Francis has moved far beyond receptionism with his "synodality," and if his favoring of "synodality" is anything more than lip-service then he will drop the document wholesale.
Indeed, the whole thing is very anti-synodal. It's very top-down.
Note that in Fernandez' press release he has already taken the first steps towards backpedaling on this catastrophe. He makes a number of concessions to the opponents of the document, albeit simultaneously engaging in a rather remarkable form of gaslighting by attempting to reinterpret the nature of their intentions and opposition, in much the same way that he gaslighted the African bishops by lying and claiming that they are merely concerned about the collision of blessings with anti-homosexuality laws in their countries. (And yes, it is a lie. Let's call a spade a spade for once. Fernandez is well aware that he is speaking a falsehood and he asserts this falsehood all the same. There's no need to redefine the word "lie" in the same way some have redefined the word "couple.")
What he said he wanted was for bishops to quietly accept the document as part of the perennial doctrine of the Church, just not ready for prime time in a bishop's diocese. The whole point is that this new invention of a teaching is outside of the perennial teaching of the Church and that is why it is being rejected.
If Fernandez had doubled-down it would be a different story, but as is he responded to the dissent in a conciliatory manner, retreating significantly within a follow-up document that the original document literally claimed would not exist. The liberals overplayed their hand. They do not understand the global Church; they do not understand their flock. There is now a parochialism in Rome which dwarfs the parochialism of the previous pontificates.

Rome has very often been corrupt in the past, and the sexual abuse and financial scandals are enough proof that it is corrupt now, but in the past the corruption leveraged its power in a way that did not impinge on formal doctrine. This has changed with the growth of a post-Christian morality, including the homosexual lobby. Beginning with Marx but especially with Comte, religious doctrine takes on an explicitly sociological color, and an increasingly moralizing world--with international communication, coverage, and interest--will only continue to exert pressure on the centralized head of the West's largest religion.

I think it is rather important for Catholics to not stick their head in the sand at this point in history. Ignatius of Loyola's resolution was bad then, but it is especially bad now, "What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical church so defines." His descendant may come to learn the hard way that we are not all Jesuits.
We have a fork in the road. We can either admit that there is something very wrong OR we can accept the blessing of polygamous marriages, and LGBTQ marriages and every other sort of 'irregular' marriages. The door is open. The Friends of Francis know what they can do. And they're doing it. Pope Francis could call back FS for study and correction or he can just let things go as they are.

For me, I cannot accept FS as it stands now, even with the lame corrections to date. I don't plan on leaving, but if they want to excommunicate me then fine. I get it that others are leaving and I don't have a great reply to them except that this cannot stand.

I respect Ignatius of Loyola greatly, but in this cardinal Newman seems a far better guide for a situation like this.
 
Upvote 0

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,329
259
✟56,313.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Are priests and laypersons free to reject the teachings in Fiducia Supplicans if they have privately interpreted it to be in contradiction to the deposit of faith?
Yes of course.

Fiducia Supplicans is not a binding text.
Catholic Church always teached that we Catholics cannot refuse to use the logic that God placed in our mind, and Fiducia Supplicans is entirey un-rational: if a sign is not a sacrament, it is a sacramental, by definition of sacramental, there are no other third ways
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,741
19,752
Flyoverland
✟1,361,151.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Fiducia Supplicans is not a binding text.
It is presented by cardinal Fernandez as part of the perennial teaching of the Church and thus part of the Ordinary Magisterium. He has said bishops are not free to refuse it but may only delay implementation for a period of further study until it can be fully received in various retrograde dioceses. So the Declaration is being presented as binding.
Catholic Church always teached that we Catholics cannot refuse to use the logic that God placed in our mind, and Fiducia Supplicans is entirey un-rational: if a sign is not a sacrament, it is a sacramental, by definition of sacramental, there are no other third ways
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church refused FS on the basis that they had no distinction between liturgical blessings and any other kind of blessings. Blessings were always and only, to greater or lesser extent, liturgical. The UGCC has no non-liturgical blessings. All their blessings are liturgical. So FS claiming a whole new category of pastoral non-liturgical blessings simply failed as impossible.

The thing is in the Latin Rite the same thing holds. Inventing a non-liturgical blessing category simply doesn't make it so. Distinguishing between 'pastoral' blessings and 'liturgical' blessings is so much fun with words. All blessings are pastoral and all blessings are liturgical. The minister of the blessings may vary but a parent leading a blessing before a meal of a family is definitely liturgical.

The UGCC objection applies to the Latin Rite, and likely all other rites of the Catholic Church as well. The invention of new categories of blessings is un-liturgical nonsense. Had FS been vetted by more than cardinal Fernabdez and James Martin maybe they would have discovered that.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟300,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I get it that others are leaving and I don't have a great reply to them except that this cannot stand.
I have been waiting for a new pope for awhile now. It will be a historic conclave.
 
Upvote 0

IcyChain

Active Member
Nov 22, 2023
353
63
Alexandria VA
✟21,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
FS pertains to clerics, not laity, but FS constitutes the perfect case of an unreceived, non-infallible teaching. We have bishops, cardinals, episcopal conferences, and at least one Eastern Catholic Church rejecting this teaching, not to mention various non-Catholic Christian bodies and leaders. If Vincent of Lerins is our touchstone then such a teaching need not be held. This is precisely what is supposed to happen to an erroneous teaching according to the theology of receptionism so widely developed since the Second Vatican Council. A layperson who dissents alone is in a very different situation than a layperson who dissents alongside and under the guidance of so many high-ranking Catholic leaders throughout the world.

Francis has moved far beyond receptionism with his "synodality," and if his favoring of "synodality" is anything more than lip-service then he will drop the document wholesale. Note that in Fernandez' press release he has already taken the first steps towards backpedaling on this catastrophe. He makes a number of concessions to the opponents of the document, albeit simultaneously engaging in a rather remarkable form of gaslighting by attempting to reinterpret the nature of their intentions and opposition, in much the same way that he gaslighted the African bishops by lying and claiming that they are merely concerned about the collision of blessings with anti-homosexuality laws in their countries. (And yes, it is a lie. Let's call a spade a spade for once. Fernandez is well aware that he is speaking a falsehood and he asserts this falsehood all the same. There's no need to redefine the word "lie" in the same way some have redefined the word "couple.")

If Fernandez had doubled-down it would be a different story, but as is he responded to the dissent in a conciliatory manner, retreating significantly within a follow-up document that the original document literally claimed would not exist. The liberals overplayed their hand. They do not understand the global Church; they do not understand their flock. There is now a parochialism in Rome which dwarfs the parochialism of the previous pontificates.

Rome has very often been corrupt in the past, and the sexual abuse and financial scandals are enough proof that it is corrupt now, but in the past the corruption leveraged its power in a way that did not impinge on formal doctrine. This has changed with the growth of a post-Christian morality, including the homosexual lobby. Beginning with Marx but especially with Comte, religious doctrine takes on an explicitly sociological color, and an increasingly moralizing world--with international communication, coverage, and interest--will only continue to exert pressure on the centralized head of the West's largest religion.

I think it is rather important for Catholics to not stick their head in the sand at this point in history. Ignatius of Loyola's resolution was bad then, but it is especially bad now, "What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical church so defines." His descendant may come to learn the hard way that we are not all Jesuits.
Thank you for the response.

I believe that your answer to the question is "Yes, priests are free to reject Fiducia Supplicans, and laypeople are free to reject Fiducia Supplicans (to whatever extent that they might otherwise hav been obligated to give religious assent to the document)." Is my understanding here correct?

If that is correct, what are your criteria for rejecting a magisterial teaching? Here, it appears that your criteria are:
1) I have reviewed the teaching and made a determination that it contradicts the deposit of faith; and
2) A substantial number of Catholic leaders have made the same determination.

Should anything be added to or subtracted from that list?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟300,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Should anything be added to or subtracted from that list?
You are speaking about an argument from authority (i.e. an argument from the authority of the Roman magisterium, which has issued a document). My idea here is that the Vatican is not the sole source of Catholic magisterial teaching. For example, this is why ordinary magisterial teaching relates to the bishops and especially to the things they hold unanimously.

When the DDF issues a teaching and a large number of bishops reject it, including episcopal conferences and even a sui juris Church, what we have is a magisterial conflict, and this is why laypersons are and should be confused. Or in other words, you are incorrect in thinking that the Magisterium is the pope and not the bishops. You are arguing from an authority which is itself divided.
 
Upvote 0

IcyChain

Active Member
Nov 22, 2023
353
63
Alexandria VA
✟21,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You are speaking about an argument from authority (i.e. an argument from the authority of the Roman magisterium, which has issued a document). My idea here is that the Vatican is not the sole source of Catholic magisterial teaching. For example, this is why ordinary magisterial teaching relates to the bishops and especially to the things they hold unanimously.

When the DDF issues a teaching and a large number of bishops reject it, including episcopal conferences and even a sui juris Church, what we have is a magisterial conflict, and this is why laypersons are and should be confused. Or in other words, you are incorrect in thinking that the Magisterium is the pope and not the bishops. You are arguing from an authority which is itself divided.
Well as for defining the Magisterium I will just stick with the Catechism:
The Magisterium of the Church​
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.​

Regardless, I'd be happy to rephrase my question.

If that is correct, what are your criteria for rejecting a papal teaching? Here, it appears that your criteria are:
1) I have reviewed the teaching and made a determination that it contradicts the deposit of faith; and
2) A substantial number of Catholic leaders have made the same determination.

Should anything be added to or subtracted from that list?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,741
19,752
Flyoverland
✟1,361,151.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
The Magisterium of the Church​
Can you compare and contrast for me 1.) the Magisterium of the Church and 2.) the Magisterium of Francis?

I hear several friends of pope Francis referring specifically to the 'Magisterium of Francis' but I never remember hearing of a 'Magisterium of Benedict' or a 'Magisterium of John Paul' of of any other specific pope.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,741
19,752
Flyoverland
✟1,361,151.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
It will be a historic conclave.
Yes. Either we get Francis II or the electors will want someone who can clean up the mess. We'll see. I wonder though, if this isn't a more apocalyptic time. I know that apocalypse predicters have always been wrong so far.
 
Upvote 0

IcyChain

Active Member
Nov 22, 2023
353
63
Alexandria VA
✟21,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Can you compare and contrast for me 1.) the Magisterium of the Church and 2.) the Magisterium of Francis?

I hear several friends of pope Francis referring specifically to the 'Magisterium of Francis' but I never remember hearing of a 'Magisterium of Benedict' or a 'Magisterium of John Paul' of of any other specific pope.

The term magisterium is based on the Latin word for “teacher” (magister). In contemporary Catholic usage, it has several meanings. First, it refers to the teaching authority which Christ has given to the Church. Here the term refers to the authority itself, not those who exercise it. This usage appears in statements like, “The Church exercises its magisterium when it authoritatively proclaims Christ’s teachings.”

Second, the term refers to those who exercise this teaching authority—in other words, to the pope and the bishops teaching in union with him. Collectively, they are referred to as the “Magisterium,” as in “the Magisterium has infallibly taught that God is a Trinity.”

Third, the term can refer to a particular body of teachings that have been authoritatively proclaimed. This usage appears in statements like, “Humanae Vitae belongs to the magisterium of St. Paul VI.

From the Recent Magisterium of Pope John Paul II​



During his heroically long pontificate John Paul, in his magisterium, commented at some point on virtually every controversial or disputed point in the Council documents and on the event of the Council itself. He may not have solved, settled, definitively pronounced, on every controversial issue, but he offers commentary and insight on them.

Try to think of some controversial aspect of the Council or it’s documents that John Paul II did not write about or preach about.

I think what Francis is saying by this is that, if you have a problem with any aspect of the Council, turn to the papal teaching of St. John Paul II for clarifications and help in interpretation.

Some who don’t like the magisterium of Pope John Paul II will say, “No, Francis is pointing their personal virtues.” That’s because by the canonization, John Paul’s magisterium is getting a boost. Ask yourself which documents of future St. John Paul II the LCWR (aka The Zittelle) rush to cite. Do they want to see canonized the one who issued Ordinatio sacerdotalis? No. In effect, the bodies of magisterial teaching of these two Popes are, by the canonizations, getting a serious boost.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,741
19,752
Flyoverland
✟1,361,151.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity

The term magisterium is based on the Latin word for “teacher” (magister). In contemporary Catholic usage, it has several meanings. First, it refers to the teaching authority which Christ has given to the Church. Here the term refers to the authority itself, not those who exercise it. This usage appears in statements like, “The Church exercises its magisterium when it authoritatively proclaims Christ’s teachings.”

Second, the term refers to those who exercise this teaching authority—in other words, to the pope and the bishops teaching in union with him. Collectively, they are referred to as the “Magisterium,” as in “the Magisterium has infallibly taught that God is a Trinity.”

Third, the term can refer to a particular body of teachings that have been authoritatively proclaimed. This usage appears in statements like, “Humanae Vitae belongs to the magisterium of St. Paul VI.

From the Recent Magisterium of Pope John Paul II​



During his heroically long pontificate John Paul, in his magisterium, commented at some point on virtually every controversial or disputed point in the Council documents and on the event of the Council itself. He may not have solved, settled, definitively pronounced, on every controversial issue, but he offers commentary and insight on them.

Try to think of some controversial aspect of the Council or it’s documents that John Paul II did not write about or preach about.

I think what Francis is saying by this is that, if you have a problem with any aspect of the Council, turn to the papal teaching of St. John Paul II for clarifications and help in interpretation.

Some who don’t like the magisterium of Pope John Paul II will say, “No, Francis is pointing their personal virtues.” That’s because by the canonization, John Paul’s magisterium is getting a boost. Ask yourself which documents of future St. John Paul II the LCWR (aka The Zittelle) rush to cite. Do they want to see canonized the one who issued Ordinatio sacerdotalis? No. In effect, the bodies of magisterial teaching of these two Popes are, by the canonizations, getting a serious boost.
You did point out that some have referred to a 'Magisterium of John Paul II' or a 'Magisterium of Paul VI' which I was unaware of. I never understood anything but a single Magisterium, a united thing, not competing or contradictory things based on who was pope.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,866
6,532
64
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟355,332.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, it's good to see that we've moved on to debating the meaning of the term "magesterium", instead of debating the meaning of the term "couple". :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

mourningdove~

"Pray, and prepare ..."
Site Supporter
Dec 24, 2005
10,860
4,140
✟696,138.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Well, it's good to see that we've moved on to debating the meaning of the term "magesterium", instead of debating the meaning of the term "couple". :rolleyes:

At least these debates haven't 'evolved' yet into a discussion of "What is the meaning of 'is'?"
^_^

Frankly, alot of the 'hair splitting' I'm seeing these days over the meaning of words reminds me of this jaw-dropping moment in history ...


 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,741
19,752
Flyoverland
✟1,361,151.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Well, it's good to see that we've moved on to debating the meaning of the term "magesterium", instead of debating the meaning of the term "couple". :rolleyes:
We beat the 'couple' thing to death. I'll say no more on that for fear of opening the silliness up again.

I just get amazed that we even have such a thing as the 'Magisterium of Francis' as if you can have contrary magisteria and that's somehow OK. Out with the old and in with the new. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
 
Upvote 0