Roman Catholic Church in Kentucky Blesses Women in Immoral Relationship

[The Liturgist]

Catholic priest wearing rainbow stole gives ‘blessing’ to women civilly ‘married’ for 22 years - LifeSite

The Saint Paul Catholic Church in Kentucky posted a picture of the 'blessing' on their official Facebook page. The text accompanying the photo said that the 'blessing' was 'offered according to the guidelines in Fiducia Supplicans.'

www.lifesitenews.com

This incident demonstrates how Fiducia Supplicans is already being abused to perform what are obviously liturgical blessings, exactly like what the Church of England recently decided to do. This represents, in the case of Fiducia Supplicans, what I think my traditional Catholic friends such as @chevyontheriver @Michie and @RileyG , among others, have been fearing would happen, and is why other traditional Catholics such as Fr. Zuhlsdorf, Fr. Hunwicke and Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky, along with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Sarah, Raymond Cardinal Burke and so on are doing everything in their power to fight this.

 

[RileyG]

Lord have mercy!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Catholic priest wearing rainbow stole gives ‘blessing’ to women civilly ‘married’ for 22 years - LifeSite

The Saint Paul Catholic Church in Kentucky posted a picture of the 'blessing' on their official Facebook page. The text accompanying the photo said that the 'blessing' was 'offered according to the guidelines in Fiducia Supplicans.'

www.lifesitenews.com

This incident demonstrates how Fiducia Supplicans is already being abused to perform what are obviously liturgical blessings, exactly like what the Church of England recently decided to do. This represents, in the case of Fiducia Supplicans, what I think my traditional Catholic friends such as @chevyontheriver @Michie and @RileyG , among others, have been fearing would happen, and is why other traditional Catholics such as Fr. Zuhlsdorf, Fr. Hunwicke and Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky, along with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Sarah, Raymond Cardinal Burke and so on are doing everything in their power to fight this.

And cardinal Muller, don't forget him. He had Fernandez' job a while back.

The matter of uncorrected abuse is significant. While an abuse doesn't invalidate something proper, the immediate significant 'abuse' of FS by James Martin, a close confidant of pope Francis, and without a word of correction so far, makes it a real question of whether James Martin et all might really understand FS far better than all of those people trying to say nothing at all has changed. James Martin has called them on that pretention, and until he is corrected by the Vatican the James Martin understanding is distinctly possible and maybe even probable. In FS cardinal Fernandez vociferously denies that anything has changed just like someone might vociferously deny that they moved the goalposts when in fact they did.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

And cardinal Muller, don't forget him. He had Fernandez' job a while back.

The matter of uncorrected abuse is significant. While an abuse doesn't invalidate something proper, the immediate significant 'abuse' of FS by James Martin, a close confidant of pope Francis, and without a word of correction so far, makes it a real question of whether James Martin et all might really understand FS far better than all of those people trying to say nothing at all has changed. James Martin has called them on that pretention, and until he is corrected by the Vatican the James Martin understanding is distinctly possible and maybe even probable. In FS cardinal Fernandez vociferously denies that anything has changed just like someone might vociferously deny that they moved the goalposts when in fact they did.

It is the time when the wheat and the tares aspect of the Church is getting rather obvious.
Schism is never the answer and, by God’s grace, I will never leave the Church.

Jesus said I know my sheep and my sheep know my voice and they will not listen to any other. The proper response is to follow our Lord’s commands, which are return not evil for evil. Bless and curse not. Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you.
Homosexuality is a form of pleasure for some people. To try to convince them that heterosexuality is better is like arguing that vanilla is a better flavor than chocolate.

Satan is like the master of marketing that created false conflicts and gets his marks aka victims to choose sides in a non-existent unprofitable war. We see this in advertising all the time Coke vs Pepsi. In the sixties it was what brand of cigarettes do you smoke. What clothes do you wear. What shoes are cool? These are all distractions from what is really going on.

Do you think that the Son of Man who told us what does it profit a man should he gain the whole world and lose his own soul is going to care what brought you pleasure in this world?
Really?

We are called to deny ourselves, take our cross daily and follow Him. That means all of our appetites are to be denied and brought under the control of reason and truth, not for the indulgence of pleasure only.

Sex, which I will refer to as the marital act, is meant for the procreation of children as its primary end. It has a unitive aspect, in the absence of children, only when properly performed by husband and wife in their right disposition.

That means no contraception and natural family planning only for grave reasons. In America, and I am guilty of this 100 fold and a worm most miserable, we Catholics have not been properly catechized on the sacrament of marriage.

I see many so called young traditional Catholics getting married and say, oh we don’t want kids right away, so we will use natural family planning for the first four years or so of our marriage. That is not a grave reason, but a selfish reason.

If you don’t want to have children, then why are you getting married? Because we want to have sex silly! That is so backwards I want to scream.

The marriage is formed by the marital act. The public sacrament announced in Church is only a public declaration. The sacrament is performed by the couple. The priest is only their witness before God.

If you are standing at that altar, and you don’t want children, you are lying to God by presenting yourself for marriage. You are just using a ceremony to try and justify sexual activity while holding part of yourself back, it’s not a complete marital union.
A sacrament enters into in that manner is considered valid but not consummated and therefore annulable, unless the couple repents and legitimately consummates the marriage.

Do you know that once the marriage vows are taken that it is forbidden for a woman to refuse a reasonable request for the marital act under pain of mortal sin? If the woman that you are marrying does not believe that then don’t marry her. If a man doesn’t want children don’t marry him .

Why is masculinity gone? Because men have refused to control their lust and look to women to be the grantees of pleasure rather then the wives they should be. Too many women marry these simps that can’t control themselves and wind up whining and begging for sex.

If my wife refused the marital act, I would leave the marital bed and tell her that we cannot be together until she repents and goes to confession for her mortal sin. A man is not a man and head of his household until he has his libido under control. Masturbation, inappropriate content and contraception are all mortal sins. Why is your house in turmoil or you are not properly respected as the head? Are you engaging in mortal sin? Repent, go to confession and see what happens. Do not validate your wife in her mortal sin for the sake of your own pleasure either. Deny yourself and take up your cross.

Why are we seeing so much problems with homosexuality? It is because we have looked upon sex as for pleasure only and not the proper marital act that it is. The battle is not between gay and straight. It is between chaste and unchaste. God told is through Paul’s letter to the Roman’s what happens when you behave unchaste. Leaving the natural use of the woman, God gave them over to their lusts. The natural use of the woman is children. Leaving that, we see a culture that is abandoned by God to all of its own lusts. A man that follow his lusts and looks at them as good is an idolater. He has made himself his own God. The Bible says his god is his belly and he has become as a brute beast good for nothing.

Are we to be surprised at homosexuals? What do we expect when we treat the marital act in the same way that they do? Homosexuals are not to be hated, but rather pitied as we would a child that was an alcoholic or addict. We don’t tell an alcoholic Jim Beam is no good, Jack Daniel’s is better, or an addict cocaine is junk methamphetamine is the way.

We repent, ask God to forgive, mortify our bodies and come back to the obedience of faith.
What is the hymn we sing? Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me. Is my libido under control and under submission to God and His Church? Am I chaste?

I know for most of my life I was not, but by the grace and mercy of God, I can say today

I am a Catholic man. The woman with whom I will have intercourse with either is or is to be the mother of my children. I will never use contraception, not have intercourse with a woman who does. I will not attempt union with my wife whole she is in a state of mortal sin, as what fellowship has light with darkness? I follow God’s command to flee fornication and turn my body over to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose name is forever blessed.

For a fresh perspective on homosexuality, I highly recommend the book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover MD
It is an extremely well written report about homosexuality and its religious and medical implications

 

[Hazelelponi]

Catholic priest wearing rainbow stole gives ‘blessing’ to women civilly ‘married’ for 22 years - LifeSite

The Saint Paul Catholic Church in Kentucky posted a picture of the 'blessing' on their official Facebook page. The text accompanying the photo said that the 'blessing' was 'offered according to the guidelines in Fiducia Supplicans.'

www.lifesitenews.com

This incident demonstrates how Fiducia Supplicans is already being abused to perform what are obviously liturgical blessings, exactly like what the Church of England recently decided to do. This represents, in the case of Fiducia Supplicans, what I think my traditional Catholic friends such as @chevyontheriver @Michie and @RileyG , among others, have been fearing would happen, and is why other traditional Catholics such as Fr. Zuhlsdorf, Fr. Hunwicke and Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky, along with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Sarah, Raymond Cardinal Burke and so on are doing everything in their power to fight this.

Just curious, how much of the Catholic church do you suppose is bothered by this?

Do Catholics have any remedy for addressing and correcting errors like this without walking away from the church itself?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Just curious, how much of the Catholic church do you suppose is bothered by this?

Do Catholics have any remedy for addressing and correcting errors like this without walking away from the church itself?

Yes, we repent in sack cloth and ashes, as well as pray and fast to seek the face of the Lord . We never entertain schism as obedience is the highest virtue.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, we repent in sack cloth and ashes, as well as pray and fast to seek the face of the Lord . We never entertain schism as obedience is the highest virtue.

Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky and others are actively working on deposing Pope Francis. It has been argued by many traditional Catholics that actually obeying Fiducia Supplicans would be a sin, which is why in Ukraine, Kazakhstan (which has a Catholic minority comprised of Germans who were abducted and relocated there by Stalin led by HG Athanasius Schneider, who I would not mind seeing as Pope) and several other countries its implementation has been prohibited by the local bishops.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky and others are actively working on deposing Pope Francis. It has been argued by many traditional Catholics that actually obeying Fiducia Supplicans would be a sin, which is why in Ukraine, Kazakhstan (which has a Catholic minority comprised of Germans who were abducted and relocated there by Stalin led by HG Athanasius Schneider, who I would not mind seeing as Pope) and several other countries its implementation has been prohibited by the local bishops.

I am not advocating obeying Fiducia Supplicans, rather obey God. Avoid schism, remain in n the Church, repent, fast and pray. We know from the teachings of Christ that sex for pleasure is a sin and the marital act has a proper place.

Francis is reacting to traditionalists becoming tribal and thinking that is righteousness. When we see our brothers in sin, our hearts should break, just as our Lord’s does when he sees us and will do anything, even death on a cross, to call us back to the truth.

Too many times we become as the proud Pharisee and list our great Christian accomplishments and neglect the man who comes into Church and just wants to say Lord have mercy on me a sinner.

Instead of wasting time condemning homosexuals, we need to shine forth the righteousness of Chastity. Fornication and lust are like drugs dragging their practitioners from the path of life and enslaving them to sin. Don’t get lost in the argument of gay vs straight. It is rather pure, chaste vs foul, adulterated.
A gay man is incredibly lonely, despite his protests to the contrary. A gay man is looking to be loved but will never find it, as lust looks at the object and wishes pleasure from it, while marriage is a sacrifice to God for the good of the family it produces

More often than not, but not always because Satan is slick and not one dimensional, it is a demon of fear rather than a demon of lust that torments the homosexual. Fear of loneliness, fear of rejection, fear of being unloved. We play into that fear and assist the demon when we harp on condemning the homosexuality rather than finding the real problem, and the word of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because of us.

I know it is not an easy solution and we need to study spiritual warfare, rather than using slogans and one liners. The battle is more complex than we think and we cannot do it alone. That is why we have the Church, the communion of saints.
Satan wants us fighting alone, because he can the more easily manipulate us. He is breaking up the Church to render it ineffective and stale

His strategy began as soon as Peter and the apostles began speaking on Pentecost, by calling them drunks. It became more manifest in the great schism and later in the reformation. The lonelier we are the more vulnerable we are. Same with homosexuals. Satan has them trapped in loneliness

 

[The Liturgist]

Francis is reacting to traditionalists becoming tribal and thinking that is righteousness.

Nonsense. The traditionalists are in no respect acting tribal. On the contrary, the Traditionalists were making every effort to be a part of the mainstream, even, until recently, actively contributing to dialogue about how to reform the missal so as to make it conform more closely with Sacrosanctum Concilium (which the Novus Ordo Missae actually failed to comply with; note that the entity called the Concilium led by Annibale Bugnini was not created by Vatican II or Sacrosanctum Concilium but was rather a separate entity organized by Pope Paul VI on its own initiative).

The accusation of tribalism on the part of the traditionalists is a terrible accusation to make, when many traditionalists actually attend Novus Ordo masses, and are chiefly as a group concerned with preventing liturgical abuse and also ensuring access to the liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite as well as solemn churches, and access to other staples of the Roman church such as forty hours devotion, the Liturgy of the Hours or Divine Office, and also supporting important initiatives like the Pro Life movement, and opposing the schismatic tendencies of the German bishops.

Not one author on New Liturgical Movement, nor Fr. Zuhlsdorf, nor Fr. Hunwicke, nor even the Rorate Caeli people could be accused of tribalism.

What is more, even if the traditionalists were acting in a tribalist manner, and thus even if Pope Francis’s reversal of Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum was warranted, which it wasn’t, this does not justify by any means the legitimization of the blessing of sexually perverse relationships by Fiducia Supplicans, not by any means whatsoever.

And I think my traditional Catholic friends such as @chevyontheriver @Michie and others would take grave offense at this question.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way @boughtwithaprice , speaking of those some believe, erroneously I think, to be tribalists, it might surprise you to know that according to Catholic Answers, Is an SSPX Mass Valid for Our Sunday Obligation? , Catholics who attend an SSPX mass out of love for the traditional liturgy fulfill their Sunday obligation despite the irregular status of the SSPX. This might be a valid option in the few places where extremely liberal bishops have suppressed the FSSP and ICKSP as well as the Diocesan Latin Masses allowed by Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum , and still allowed by a great many bishops who have in my view very properly refused to implement Traditiones Custodes, or implemented it in a De Minimus way. It would also be a valid option for Roman Catholics in dioceses where there are no Eastern Catholic churches officially opposed to Fiducia Supplicans available, and where the local bishops have embraced Fiducia Supplicans.

Now, that said, in your post, you rightly stress the importance of obedience and the aversion of schism, and on this point I agree.

However, the obedience Roman Catholics owe is to Sacred Tradition, to the Magisterium, to the faith once handed down from the Apostles, and not to the current Bishop. Even under Vatican I, the Pope cannot use Papal Infallibility to contradict the Magisterium, and what is more, there are very specific criteria under which the Papal Infallibility provisions of Vatican I must be invoked for the decision of a Pope to be considered infallible, and Pope Francis hasn’t done that. Indeed, only on two occasions has a Roman bishop acted infallibly, by promulgating a dogmatic definition ex cathedra, and the only two doctrines promulgated in this manner were the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (I am not sure why Pope Piux XII felt it necessary to proclaim the later doctrine ex cathedra, since the doctrine of the Assumption already was part of the Sacred Tradition of not only the Roman Catholic Church but also both the Eastern Orthodox churches, who refer to it as the Dormition (likewise many Byzantine Rite Catholics) and the Oriental Orthodox, and other traditional churches such as conservative Old Catholics (such as Union of Scranton), Assyrians and Anglo Catholics.

Now, insofar as Traditiones Custodes was deemed to contradict the Magisterium, HG Athanasius Schneider, who remains a validly ordained bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, decreed that disobedience of it is not sinful. The specifics of his declaration can be found here: "The prohibition of the traditional Latin Mass is an abuse of ecclesiastical power and noncompliance with its prohibition does not in fact constitute disobedience"

Likewise, he and his Metropolitan, who remain the sitting Roman Catholic Bishops of Astana, have prohibited the implementation of Fiducia Supplicans in their diocese, and my understanding is their brother bishops have done likewise. This is also the case among the pious beseiged Greek Catholics of Ukraine, and in many other countries. It remains my hope that the next Pope will be the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church or another Byzantine Rite Catholic Church, as I believe they would bring the balanced perspective required to take the many good things implemented by Vatican II and finally implement them properly, without what Pope Benedict XVI described as a “hermeneutic of rupture”, and also insodoing prepare the Roman church for reunification with the Eastern Orthodox.

Needless to say the Orthodox will not countenance the prospect of reconciliation with the Roman church in light of Fiducia Supplicans; indeed the prospect of reunion with the Anglicans was terminated for much less (the Episcopal Church unilaterally deciding to ordain women without consultation from the rest of the communion, and getting away with it). But compared to that, Fiducia Supplicans is much worse.

Finally, I would argue that if a schism does emerge as a result of Fiducia Supplicans, which seems highly probable, the schismatic party would be whichever party deviated from the historic Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is to this Magisterium that Roman Catholics owe their primary allegiance, and if their bishop is adhering to that magisterium, they should follow it. Where a bishop or even the Pope contradicts the Magisterium, if a bishop contradicts the Magisterium, it is the duty of their superiors in the hierarchy, up to and including the Pope, to depose them, and if a Pope contradicts the Magisterium, it is up to the entire Synod of Roman Catholic bishops to depose the Pope, if the College of Cardinals does not take appropriate action in a sufficient amount of time.

For that matter, it seems probable that the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch probably could depose a sitting Pope, since in the fifth century, Pope St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria deposed Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, and Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (I can’t recall if Rome has a Patriarch of Jerusalem) have the same privileges as Rome according to Canons VI and VII of the Council of Nicaea. For that matter, I suppose the Orthodox bishops could try, but I doubt such a declaration would be heeded, but it might if a Roman Pope was sufficiently unpopular, and to a certain extent, this will be a conflict waged in the realm of public opinion. Of course right now the Eastern Orthodox church suffers from a severe division due to a geopolitical crises which has caused massive unpopularity for two of our Patriarchs, but the Oriental Orthodox suffer no such encumbrances, and indeed are widely admired for their fortitude in resisting Islamic and Communist persecution.

The real way to restore unity in the Roman Catholic Church is through a conciliar model which stresses the importance of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, for these councils were pivotal to the unity of the Catholic Church during those years when it was in the greatest peril, from the doctrinal perils of Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Eutyches, the Monothelites and the Iconoclasts. These councils also represent the pathway to the end of the worst schism in church history, the East-West Schism with the Orthodox, which really ought to be the main focus of Catholics at present, since that schism is now approaching its 1,000th anniversary, and it would be an absolute tragedy if in 1055 communion has not been restored between Rome and the Orthodox on the basis of the traditional faith of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[jamiec]

Catholic priest wearing rainbow stole gives ‘blessing’ to women civilly ‘married’ for 22 years - LifeSite

The Saint Paul Catholic Church in Kentucky posted a picture of the 'blessing' on their official Facebook page. The text accompanying the photo said that the 'blessing' was 'offered according to the guidelines in Fiducia Supplicans.'

www.lifesitenews.com

This incident demonstrates how Fiducia Supplicans is already being abused to perform what are obviously liturgical blessings, exactly like what the Church of England recently decided to do. This represents, in the case of Fiducia Supplicans, what I think my traditional Catholic friends such as @chevyontheriver @Michie and @RileyG , among others, have been fearing would happen, and is why other traditional Catholics such as Fr. Zuhlsdorf, Fr. Hunwicke and Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky, along with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Sarah, Raymond Cardinal Burke and so on are doing everything in their power to fight this.

People said this would happen. Did PF or Tucho listen ? No.

 

[The Liturgist]

People said this would happen. Did PF or Tucho listen ? No.

Forgive me, but who is Tucho?

 

[The Liturgist]

Just curious, how much of the Catholic church do you suppose is bothered by this?

Do Catholics have any remedy for addressing and correcting errors like this without walking away from the church itself?

A huge number of Catholics are distressed by this, and there is a group of traditional Catholics including Gerhard Cardinal Muller, Raymond Cardinal Burke, HG Athanasius Schneider, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, and Dr. Peeter Kwasniewsky who are working on strategies to correct this error and I believe Dr. Kwasniewsky is even investigating the possibility of deposing Pope Francis, or having him censured.

 

[jamiec]

By the way @boughtwithaprice , speaking of those some believe, erroneously I think, to be tribalists, it might surprise you to know that according to Catholic Answers, Is an SSPX Mass Valid for Our Sunday Obligation? , Catholics who attend an SSPX mass out of love for the traditional liturgy fulfill their Sunday obligation despite the irregular status of the SSPX. This might be a valid option in the few places where extremely liberal bishops have suppressed the FSSP and ICKSP as well as the Diocesan Latin Masses allowed by Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum , and still allowed by a great many bishops who have in my view very properly refused to implement Traditiones Custodes, or implemented it in a De Minimus way. It would also be a valid option for Roman Catholics in dioceses where there are no Eastern Catholic churches officially opposed to Fiducia Supplicans available, and where the local bishops have embraced Fiducia Supplicans.

Now, that said, in your post, you rightly stress the importance of obedience and the aversion of schism, and on this point I agree.

However, the obedience Roman Catholics owe is to Sacred Tradition, to the Magisterium, to the faith once handed down from the Apostles, and not to the current Bishop. Even under Vatican I, the Pope cannot use Papal Infallibility to contradict the Magisterium, and what is more, there are very specific criteria under which the Papal Infallibility provisions of Vatican I must be invoked for the decision of a Pope to be considered infallible, and Pope Francis hasn’t done that. Indeed, only on two occasions has a Roman bishop acted infallibly, by promulgating a dogmatic definition ex cathedra, and the only two doctrines promulgated in this manner were the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (I am not sure why Pope Piux XII felt it necessary to proclaim the later doctrine ex cathedra, since the doctrine of the Assumption already was part of the Sacred Tradition of not only the Roman Catholic Church but also both the Eastern Orthodox churches, who refer to it as the Dormition (likewise many Byzantine Rite Catholics) and the Oriental Orthodox, and other traditional churches such as conservative Old Catholics (such as Union of Scranton), Assyrians and Anglo Catholics.

Now, insofar as Traditiones Custodes was deemed to contradict the Magisterium, HG Athanasius Schneider, who remains a validly ordained bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, decreed that disobedience of it is not sinful. The specifics of his declaration can be found here: "The prohibition of the traditional Latin Mass is an abuse of ecclesiastical power and noncompliance with its prohibition does not in fact constitute disobedience"

Likewise, he and his Metropolitan, who remain the sitting Roman Catholic Bishops of Astana, have prohibited the implementation of Fiducia Supplicans in their diocese, and my understanding is their brother bishops have done likewise. This is also the case among the pious beseiged Greek Catholics of Ukraine, and in many other countries. It remains my hope that the next Pope will be the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church or another Byzantine Rite Catholic Church, as I believe they would bring the balanced perspective required to take the many good things implemented by Vatican II and finally implement them properly, without what Pope Benedict XVI described as a “hermeneutic of rupture”, and also insodoing prepare the Roman church for reunification with the Eastern Orthodox.

Needless to say the Orthodox will not countenance the prospect of reconciliation with the Roman church in light of Fiducia Supplicans;

Since the Orthodox reject a number of Catholic dogmas, no reconciliation is ever going to be possible. So FS, no matter how deplorable, changes nothing. Re-union between Rome & Constantinople was completely impossible before PF, and will remain equally impossible after him. Ir is never going to happen, because one or other of the two must alter its doctrine in order for that to happen. And neither can make that change. God Himself cannot bring about re-union between them.

IMHO, they are as re-united now as they ever will be; so people should be grateful for what unity between the two there is, and not lose it (precarious as it is) by greedily insisting on having complete visible re-union, which is completely unattainable. It is all too easy to lose the second or third best that is perfectly adequate for general purposes, as a result of being discontented with anything short of the absolute best. The phantom of illusory perfection has already damage among Christians; more of the same is not needed.

and even if, by some impossibility, there were to be a full corporate reunion between the two bodies, there would only be some schism a few years later, which might very well be even worse than that which had preceded it. The Athonite monks regard the Pope as the Antichrist; so they would never never agree to full corporate re-union with a Catholic Rome.

God has had a long time to bring about full corporate re-union between Rome & Constantinople. if God has not granted it yet, what an earth makes anyone imagine that He will grant it in the future ? (The abortive re-unions of 1274 & 1439 can safely be ignored.)

indeed the prospect of reunion with the Anglicans was terminated for much less (the Episcopal Church unilaterally deciding to ordain women without consultation from the rest of the communion, and getting away with it). But compared to that, Fiducia Supplicans is much worse.

Finally, I would argue that if a schism does emerge as a result of Fiducia Supplicans, which seems highly probable, the schismatic party would be whichever party deviated from the historic Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Both those who resist Papal teaching, and those who teach falsely, depart from "the historic Magisterium of the Catholic Church". The only solution seems to be, for a future Pope to withdraw FS. There is no "equipment" in Catholicism for Catholics to resist false teaching by a Pope, without getting themselves in trouble.

It is to this Magisterium that Roman Catholics owe their primary allegiance, and if their bishop is adhering to that magisterium, they should follow it.

Not "should" - "are obliged to".

Where a bishop or even the Pope contradicts the Magisterium, if a bishop contradicts the Magisterium, it is the duty of their superiors in the hierarchy, up to and including the Pope, to depose them, and if a Pope contradicts the Magisterium, it is up to the entire Synod of Roman Catholic bishops to depose the Pope,

The bishops have no authority or power or right to depose the Pope.

if the College of Cardinals does not take appropriate action in a sufficient amount of time.

The College of Cardinals have no authority or power or right to depose the Pope. He is not subject to them - all of them, like all other Catholics, all bishops and all other clergy included, are subject to the Pope.

For that matter, it seems probable that the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch probably could depose a sitting Pope,

Not possible. Canon 1404 of the 1983 Code - repeating something that has been taught since about 500 - goes: "The First See is judged by no-one". A reigning Roman Pope cannot be judged, tried, deposed, and no Council can be Ecumenucal without some form of Papal agreement. So it is useless to try summoning an Ecumenical Council to deal with a Pope. For such a gathering would not be Ecumenical, but a pseudo-Council (of which there have several, such as Ephesus in 449, Hieria in 754, and Pisa in 1511, and Pistoia in 1786).

since in the fifth century, Pope St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria deposed Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, and Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (I can’t recall if Rome has a Patriarch of Jerusalem) have the same privileges as Rome according to Canons VI and VII of the Council of Nicaea. For that matter, I suppose the Orthodox bishops could try, but I doubt such a declaration would be heeded, but it might if a Roman Pope was sufficiently unpopular, and to a certain extent, this will be a conflict waged in the realm of public opinion. Of course right now the Eastern Orthodox church suffers from a severe division due to a geopolitical crises which has caused massive unpopularity for two of our Patriarchs, but the Oriental Orthodox suffer no such encumbrances, and indeed are widely admired for their fortitude in resisting Islamic and Communist persecution.

The real way to restore unity in the Roman Catholic Church is through a conciliar model which stresses the importance of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, for these councils were pivotal to the unity of the Catholic Church during those years when it was in the greatest peril, from the doctrinal perils of Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Eutyches, the Monothelites and the Iconoclasts. These councils also represent the pathway to the end of the worst schism in church history, the East-West Schism with the Orthodox, which really ought to be the main focus of Catholics at present, since that schism is now approaching its 1,000th anniversary, and it would be an absolute tragedy if in 1055 communion has not been restored between Rome and the Orthodox on the basis of the traditional faith of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

A tragedy ? Why ? If the unfriendliness between the two can last from 1054 (or earlier) to 2024, it might as well last well beyond 2054. A piece of paper saying there is no longer a schism between the two, will prove nothing. There is no Orthodox culture of friendliness to, let alone communion with, Catholics in communion with Rome. It is always Catholics who are pathetically eager for full communion with the Orthodox, and who grovel endlessly to praise Orthodoxy to the skies. The Orthodox, not having ecumenised themselves silly, unlike Rome, look on such slavish and gutless flattery and self-hatred with the contempt that it so richly deserves. They do not need, and they do not want, re-union with Rome; not unless Rome is prepared to renounce (what Orthodoxy (affects to ?) regard as) Rome's errors. But if Rome did that, it would be denouncing its own Faith & dogmas as heresies & errors; as well as convicting itself of tyranny for punishing (sometimes with death) those who rejected those dogmas. If Rome is that badly wrong, it deserves to be denounced far more severely than its harshest criticis have found words for. Rome would be no Church of Christ, but "the masterpiece of Satan".

The CC is in any case rotting to death. It is extremely sick. To wish it to be in communion with Orthodoxy is equivalent to wishing Orthodoxy to catch leprosy or cancer. Which is a horrible thing to wish on anyone. The CC does not deserve to be re-united with anyone. After the Godawful hash Rome has made of its liturgy in the last 50+ years, the Orthodox would be barking mad to be in communion with Rome.

 

[jamiec]

Just curious, how much of the Catholic church do you suppose is bothered by this?

Do Catholics have any remedy for addressing and correcting errors like this without walking away from the church itself?

There is no remedy for this. The best one can hope for, is that a future Pope will cancel FS.

Though it is always possible that it may simply be allowed to become a dead letter.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Athonite monks regard the Pope as the Antichrist

Not ex-officio in the manner of, say, the Presbyterians who adhere to the Westminster Confession. Furthermore, the Athonite monks have some influence but very little power, given that the Greek church venerates them but seldom heeds their advice, warnings or admonitions, as should be evident by the fact that they are the only canonical Greek Orthodox Christians outside of the small number of Greeks in the mostly Arabic Patriarchate of Jerusalem who use the Julian Calendar.

The reality is that reunion between Catholics and Orthodox is possible, in particular between the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox, since the only real difference between the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox Christians is the former commemorate the Pope of Rome in the Diptychs and the Great Litany, but it will require painful changes on the part of the Roman Catholics, changes which would have been much less painful or dramatic pre-Vatican II.

This is why Rome needs an Eastern Catholic Pope who can move the Western church away from the distractions of Modernism and even to a lesser extent some excesses of Scholastic Theology, to focus on the Patristic essence of the Catholic faith, to focus on the Eucharist and the other sacraments, and the ecumenical councils. Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, and Pope St. John Paul II were moving in that direction.

 

[jamiec]

Yes, we repent in sack cloth and ashes, as well as pray and fast to seek the face of the Lord . We never entertain schism as obedience is the highest virtue.

obedience is not the highest virtue, important & essential though it is.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no remedy for this. The best one can hope for, is that a future Pope will cancel FS.

Though it is always possible that it may simply be allowed to become a dead letter.

There is a remedy and that is for bishops to refuse to implement it, for starters, which is happening now, and for Pope Francis to be censured or asked to resign, and failing that to be canonically deposed.

Consider, just for a moment, that Pope Honorius I was actually declared anathema for his embrace of Monothelitism. Admittedly, this happened post-mortem, but it happened. Consider also that the attempts by Pope St. Victor to unilaterally change the calendar of all the Eastern churches, while well-intentioned, represented a jurisdictional overreach, as St. Irenaeus of Lyons was quick to point out, and as a result the matter was not resolved for another 150 years or so at the Council of Nicaea.

 

[jamiec]

1. Not ex-officio in the manner of, say, the Presbyterians who adhere to the Westminster Confession. Furthermore, the Athonite monks have some influence but very little power, given that the Greek church venerates them but seldom heeds their advice, warnings or admonitions, as should be evident by the fact that they are the only canonical Greek Orthodox Christians outside of the small number of Greeks in the mostly Arabic Patriarchate of Jerusalem who use the Julian Calendar.

The reality is that reunion between Catholics and Orthodox is possible, in particular between the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox, since the only real difference between the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox Christians is the former commemorate the Pope of Rome in the Diptychs and the Great Litany, but it will require painful changes on the part of the Roman Catholics, changes which would have been much less painful or dramatic pre-Vatican II.

This is why Rome needs an Eastern Catholic Pope

What do you think St Sergius I (687-701) was - a Mormon ? A leprechaun ? A South Sea islander ? He was a Syrian, one of several entries, in a century in a century rich in them. But Papal history is probably far too "Western" & "Latin" & "Augustinian" & "scholastic" to be worthy of notice. Except when it is handy for belabouring Catholics, of course.

I notice that - as usual in screeds that suck up to the high-and-mighty Orthodox - it is only Rome that had to make any changee. Never the all-so-perfect Orthos. Why not come clean, be honest, and admit to being a shill for the Orthos ? (If you are not one yourself.) Honesty is a virtue, after all. You post is pro-Ortho propaganda posing as an Irenicon.

who can move the Western church away from the distractions of Modernism and even to a lesser extent some excesses of Scholastic Theology, to focus on the Patristic essence of the Catholic faith, to focus on the Eucharist and the other sacraments, and the ecumenical councils. Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, and Pope St. John Paul II were moving in that direction.

Now that is impressive Catholic-bashing. It really is.

You speak like almost all the Orthodox - I know of one exception IRL, who never allowed himself to demean other Christians. To hear these self-conceited fellows bloviate, the proverbial Visiting Martian could very easily be forgiven for supposing that Catholicism

1. never bothered with the Fathers
2. never bothered with the Eucharist
3. was totally rationalist in theology
4. is totally ignorant of the Councils of the Church

and that Christ and His Apostles were all Greeks. I suppose one should be grateful that you don't crap all over St Augustine of Hippo & St Thomas Aquinas - as Orthos so often do. No doubt we Catholics should repent in sackcloth & ashes for having had the effrontery to have a theological tradition of our own, one that is universal, and not purely Greek in ethnicity or language, nor purely Patristic. The insane snobbery affected by so many Orthodox, "who give liking to nothing, but what is hammered on their own anvil", is not remotely Christian. Unlike Judaism & Protestantism and (so-called) Orthodoxy, Catholicism does not believe that God can be imprisoned within an ethnicity, or within the few centuries of the Church's life, or within the Apostolic age, or within the Bible, or within the Church, or within Tradition, or within anything else. Christian Theology did not end in 843 AD, and is not confined to the jumped-up patriarchate of Constantinople, which would be nothing without the sponsorship of Caesar.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

obedience is not the highest virtue, important & essential though it is.

Obedience is the highest because it requires humility. We obey the office of the hierarchy, not the man Francis. It is never a righteous act to go into schism.

Regardless of human reasoning, there is one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. To leave her is to do injury to the body of Christ. Popes come and go. We have had bad and have had good, but there is only one Church.

Is Christ divided? God forbid. Jesus had the twelve apostles with Him. Did he say you are my council and on this council I will build my Church?

No! He gave the keys to Peter. Two keys. Teaching authority and political authority. To rebel against teaching authority is heresy. To rebel against political authority is schism. Both are evil acts
Like it or not, Heaven is a kingdom, not a democracy