Genealogist
Catholic
A Catholic take on Fiducia Supplicans
Sermon: Fiducia Supplicans, by Rev. Michael DeSaye
Sermon: Fiducia Supplicans, by Rev. Michael DeSaye
Last edited:
Did Pope Francis Allow Priests to Bless Same-Sex Relationships?
- Thread starter JR5
- Start date
This says it all
Wow! That second video is possibly the sharpest condemnation of this new document I've seen from any source!
It's worth pointing out that both of those individuals are Sedevecantists, they are not in communion with Rome.
I have to wonder what the reasons for staying within the Latin church are now. I was convinced first by first millennium Church history to end up not becoming catholic, regardless of what Rome is doing today, I would convert to The Orthodox Church even if Rome was politically "traditional" while yet having laid innovative foundations. Within Rome's own system, Vatican II is never going to be overturned. It's infallible within its own system, and is of the same ambiguous spirit of this blessing of those in homosexual unions. Does that spirit confess Christ as Lord? Is this The Holy Spirit? The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, but if your church doctrinally confesses untruth, it follows that your pillars are of a different pillar than the Christ's pillars and are upholding something different.
My take is that Pope Francis did not unambiguously give blessing to bless same-sex relationships, he instead gave it ambiguously, because while people stick along under the vatican's communion despite its innovations, he knows he doesn't have to explicitly say much for everyone to stick around for the millennia long Roman departure from the faith. There's no question about it as the actual blessing in practice is now taking place with gay couples. And it's just as bad as if he gave it unambiguously.
Didn't St. Paul say in Romans that the Romans can be cut off of the tree? It is the same as the vatican giving ambiguous blessing for clown and jazz masses in Germany and America. It is the same as giving uniates and assyrian catholics ambiguous blessing to confess different doctrines while also claiming they confess the same doctrines. The Vatican is silent on this and would rather depose or excommunicate traditionalists within their church than even say a word to prove for us all and assure us that during all of this their innovations aren't really a complete departure from the faith. The silence of clergy is atheism. If the spirit of confusion weren't at work here, why is it so ambiguous? Ambiguous apostasy and ambiguous prayer with Muslims and Jews is still apostasy.
God's not looking for a church that has apostasy and heresy with the excuse of "It was ambiguous but but I was convinced because I thought the Roman pope was God's universal shepherd for ever and ever and I chose the church which in my time on earth already admits the infallible Roman see used forgeries to prove ahistorical doctrines to anathematize the eastern church during our schism with them."
My take is that Pope Francis did not unambiguously give blessing to bless same-sex relationships, he instead gave it ambiguously, because while people stick along under the vatican's communion despite its innovations, he knows he doesn't have to explicitly say much for everyone to stick around for the millennia long Roman departure from the faith. There's no question about it as the actual blessing in practice is now taking place with gay couples. And it's just as bad as if he gave it unambiguously.
Didn't St. Paul say in Romans that the Romans can be cut off of the tree? It is the same as the vatican giving ambiguous blessing for clown and jazz masses in Germany and America. It is the same as giving uniates and assyrian catholics ambiguous blessing to confess different doctrines while also claiming they confess the same doctrines. The Vatican is silent on this and would rather depose or excommunicate traditionalists within their church than even say a word to prove for us all and assure us that during all of this their innovations aren't really a complete departure from the faith. The silence of clergy is atheism. If the spirit of confusion weren't at work here, why is it so ambiguous? Ambiguous apostasy and ambiguous prayer with Muslims and Jews is still apostasy.
God's not looking for a church that has apostasy and heresy with the excuse of "It was ambiguous but but I was convinced because I thought the Roman pope was God's universal shepherd for ever and ever and I chose the church which in my time on earth already admits the infallible Roman see used forgeries to prove ahistorical doctrines to anathematize the eastern church during our schism with them."
23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,
24 The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:
25 The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
26 The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
This is the blessing for the children of Israel. If someone were committing sodomy, they would see if the sodomites were willing to repent. The judges would pray to God and ask if they should be put to death to give them an opportunity to repent and receive forgiveness from God by their death.
Now the Catholic Church allows not only communion for abortionists, transgenders, and those who have anal sex, but they can ask their priest for a special ambiguous blessing. Literally a service of blessing just for them!
And have we forgotten that before this, transgenders were given to be allowed to be godparents by the vatican? And the criteria according to the vatican is "In special cases, and if it does not cause public scandal."
"Hey young boy, you want to join our faith? This transgender would like to be your sponsor. Oh, you're ok with that? Good. Now we've met the criteria, no scandal. Your silence helps us be catholic atheists, just as Pope Francis intended, as long as we submit to him! After all, 70% of us in America don't even know the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood. No one told them, Papa Frank is too busy talking about resetting our thinking, and moving in a new direction, and working with the world to make it a better place. Why might he be doing that?"
24 The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:
25 The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
26 The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
This is the blessing for the children of Israel. If someone were committing sodomy, they would see if the sodomites were willing to repent. The judges would pray to God and ask if they should be put to death to give them an opportunity to repent and receive forgiveness from God by their death.
Now the Catholic Church allows not only communion for abortionists, transgenders, and those who have anal sex, but they can ask their priest for a special ambiguous blessing. Literally a service of blessing just for them!
And have we forgotten that before this, transgenders were given to be allowed to be godparents by the vatican? And the criteria according to the vatican is "In special cases, and if it does not cause public scandal."
"Hey young boy, you want to join our faith? This transgender would like to be your sponsor. Oh, you're ok with that? Good. Now we've met the criteria, no scandal. Your silence helps us be catholic atheists, just as Pope Francis intended, as long as we submit to him! After all, 70% of us in America don't even know the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood. No one told them, Papa Frank is too busy talking about resetting our thinking, and moving in a new direction, and working with the world to make it a better place. Why might he be doing that?"
Islam has a similar problem of ambiguity in their religion. Muslims have a choice, to reject the ahistorical and heretical doctrines of Islam, or to hold onto a religion which contradicts its ownself. Muhammad pays lip service to The Gospel and Torah while also going against it. It is the same with Rome. He tells Christians to judge by The Gospel and Torah, but also shows his demonic inspiration by having lead Muslims to create coping pathways to justify how they're in continuation with Jesus and the prophets yet teach something entirely different. They happen to also be fond of forging falsities just like Rome relied upon during the schism. Falsities like "Well the gospel confirmed what we say until it became corrupt." And Muslim apologists are always so confident when making up things. Source? Trust me bro. The prophet, the prophet! The keys, the keys!
But many will come in sheep's clothing.
But many will come in sheep's clothing.
This forum is becoming hostile to Catholics. Are we now actively attacking other denominations?
You can criticize the document, assuming you read it in it's entirety. A follow-up document has been released which clarifies a lot of confusion.
You just posted two paragraphs on how the Catholic church is the false church.
Is this an Orthodox forum?
Genealogist
Catholic
Sedevacantism is Roman Catholicism during the Vacancy of the See of Peter.
The Sedevacantist position is a necessary condition for a Catholic to remain such, since Francis is not only a false pope, but he is also the head of a false religion.
With love, my post wasn't directed against individuals. Yes, my post was against the Latin church. But I'm not beating up the denomination or members and destroying it by causing division or corruption. I'm using words for anyone who is willing to hear about what led to this continual decline of morals in the vatican. You can stay Latin or become Orthodox and either way my words would not have hurt you.
Faith without works is dead. Unless the Vatican proves they care about the faith (which they can't do, because the faith has been denied since the schism) then I will observe the Pope's silence and lack of works as atheism and his deposing of traditionalists as betrayal. And I will view Vatican II as contradiction, and prior doctrines as innovations incompatible with the early Church.
Yes, I could have easily said nothing, but I spent the time because I pray anyone who is willing to see will see.
I am not an admin. But I know that disagreements over churches are acceptable and that this is a thread for criticism or defense of the Pope and of what leads Rome to behave this way in the first place. Samseau said on Roosh's forum when Roosh gave his blessing for it that Orthodoxy is the de-facto Apostolic form of Christianity for the forum. I interpret that to mean it is de-facto for many of the people here, who are Orthodox, and it is de-facto that The Orthodox Church gets its own place within the forum for us discuss together, at the same time allowing other churches to discuss and for all of us to explain our disagreements and reasonings. What Samseau didn't mean is that you are forced to be Orthodox or not criticize the Orthodox Church. If you are willing to criticize The Orthodox Church, I will be one of the people who will defend The Church, not needing to silence you.
Last edited:
And the Greeks baptized a prominently gay couple's baby, I already posted an article of Greek hierarch homosexual perversion earlier. There's no shortage of scandals in the Orthodox church. Would you like a ecumenistic one too?
If you want to talk about "blessing of ambiguity" should we not start here? The bishop oddly seems to never have been introduced to Psalm 117
If you want to ask EMJ, then there's nothing wrong with the document (IMHO: I think he shoots himself in the foot with one admission)
The thing is, if you're going to try to draw converts from political scandals, you're trying to attract them for the wrong reasons, and if you do succeed, then you will only succeed in uprooting the person from their community in an era where stable people are a rarity, in an attempt to plant them shallowly in an Orthodox Church. What good will you be doing other than setting them up for failure when the first major scandal hits an Orthodox Church?
Everything you said in the 2nd paragraph (outside of the last statement) can easily apply to many Orthodox
As for your last paragraph, the Orthodox Church is outside the scope of the thread, several Catholic posters have complained that this thread has just been used as an excuse to dogpile on Catholics, and I can't say that I disagree with them, I just don't see what you'll accomplish other than driving people away from the forum.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò did not mince words. He wrote:
Archbishop Viganò's opinion article is a long read.
Edit.
For those who speak and understand Italian.
Archbishop Viganò's opinion article is a long read.
Edit.
For those who speak and understand Italian.
Last edited:
Elpidophoros, not "the Greeks". Majority of Greek bishops actually in Greece condemn this and Mount Athos has said "he is not welcome here." One could say that it's apples to apples with Catholicism that there are still faithful bishops in the American Greek Church despite this, but it's not. If I am not allowed to make that point in relation to the happening that this thread covers, I am not really interested in this thread. In fact, I made this post to point out that this transcends political happenings and scandals. I'm going to state something that doesn't necessarily mean I think you don't know it, but to point it out.
In the Orthodox Church we laity have a relationship with our bishops. If a bishop is a molester and is found out, we're not scared to depose him. If our bishop teaches wrongly, we are patient with them, knowing that we are not bound to a bishop's mistakes, we don't have to accept everything they do. If their teaching and behavior hurts us, then we seek a faithful bishop, especially if the unfaithful bishop is about to be excommunicated. And there is word that American Orthodox Churches including The OCA are going to cease communion with Elpidophoros if this continues. This is the whole witness of our Church, and no individual bishop can escape that fact when they depart from The Faith. Our Church will never change, because the Holy Spirit rests upon the pillar of our Church, our Christ, even when unfaithful bishops are elected because of our sins. If we get a sinful bishop, we pray with penitence and ask God to have mercy on us. While we are merciful and patient with them, we don't have to struggle trying to justify everything they say, either.
Ultimately it is because of the whole theology of our Church, regardless of outliers like Elpidophoros. However, if I was say, in Elpidophoros' Church, and he did the same FS service of blessing for a couple just as he made that gay couple godparents in the past to the disgust of the entirety of Greece, I would leave his Church, to... another Orthodox Church, and I wouldn't be scared to do so. I'd care about community if I was enjoying it, but I don't want to be around that. If one wants to stay in the Latin church, they will find ways to stay in the Latin church, if one wants to stay in The Orthodox Church, they will find ways to stay within The Orthodox Church. Not only is there a difference in how much easier it is to find faithfulness in The Orthodox Church, but our methods of staying in the Church when things go wrong actually make sense. We don't have to justify when unfaithful bishops are wrong on dogma and morals, and that's why pointing out contradictions within the Latin church is so powerful. We are the middle path... neither protestant nor papal. When disagreements happen, we run back to our forefathers, and seek out our faith, and we find it without fail. For a reason, looking for the faith in Pope Francis fails.
"Ignatius Loyola: To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it"
I apologize if I have written an overwhelming amount of words. I just don't want disagreements to be a no no on this forum. When there was a sola scriptura discussion, I began a discussion with Godfatherparttwo and I enjoyed it. When I saw that many others were debating/posting with him and I had already said all I wanted to say, I stepped back. I didn't want to dogpile him. I won't justify myself, but I want to justify the principle that drawing deeper meaning from happenings within the catholic church and disagreements are ok. I spent quite a lot of effort in that sola scriptura discussion but I never complained that Orthodox people were being attacked or dogpiled. And I had to spend quite a lot of time here explaining what my actual point was in my OG post, but I am not complaining to you that you dogpiled on me or hurt my feelings.
In Christ - WoodArch4033
A) There's no way to dogpile Orthodoxy in that thread (or any thread here that we can post in for that matter), it was Godfatherparttwo with Scorpion occasionally chiming in vs everyone else.
B) You can have discussions and disagreements only with people that want a discussion. The RC posters in this thread don't seem to be too interested in anti-Catholic polemics.
C) When there's no interest in discussion, It's not about feelings, it's a matter of respect for the person who was made in the image of God. Whether they're in the wrong or right, God respects people enough to let them go in their own ways, and it is ego driven to assert your opinion past this point.
Why bother, who exactly was your audience, which Roman Catholic were you talking to? Granted your post, it wasn't anywhere near as tactless and inflammatory as острог's post on page 10, (I just realized now he responded to me). If there were Catholic posters in this thread praising Fiducia Supplicans or Pope Francis' decision, then you may be able to make a case for what you said, (not that I disagree with it's content), but there are crickets coming from that end.
Seemingly, that's not the case in Roman Catholicism either, although it seems to be harder to do for the Roman Pontiff. That article that Budo posted, did you not read it? or the posts earlier in the thread (1,2)Does it not show that there's still room for dissension?
My audience is in my impression a forum that discusses political happenings and Christianity. There will always be disagreement among different people, even among Orthodox Christians. This was my first post in this thread. Again, if this is a thread only to discuss a happening, where drawing deeper meaning on the origination of that happening is not allowed, then I am not interested in the thread, and I am not interested in pursuing debate with people who are uncomfortable to. I am only interested in discussion with people who are comfortable with it, because I'm not going to suck the life out of someone in an argument, as that doesn't accomplish anything as a Christian. As of now, I haven't had a discussion with anybody other than you and Sea Eagle about how scandalizing my post is. And that is the risk of a forum. People will see posts they are not interested in/disagree with. They can engage or ignore it, or say that it's better for another thread. I am under the impression that because this is in Christianity general, viewpoints from other Christians are welcome. What do you expect, Orthodox Christians to be welcomed to a discussion and not share our teaching? Should I be sorry that others are offended by our teaching? Isn't this a forum for humble truth-seekers who are ok even if the other believes their church isn't the church, or their way isn't the way that will save a country?
You are Orthodox, I am not sure why you would point to Budo's post about a bishop under Rome teetering on Sedevecantism as proof that Rome isn't self-contradictory. It's the ahistorical ecclesiology of Rome and the fallout of Vatican II which pushes trads to be Sedevecantists.
If I were Roman Catholic I would be scandalized by what Archbishop Vigano is saying.
That's not even remotely close to what I said.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the Roman Catholics have been complaining of people not talking about things in relation to what the document says, when you cannot even accurately quote/understand my post? It's almost like they've noticed behavioural patterns and backed off from engaging because of it.
Yes. as proselytism is unrelated to the thread topic, DanielH understood the thread trajectory being a former mod, and mods unfortunately did not heed his advice and left the thread unlocked, which unsurprisingly, lead to Vas Incrementum leaving. Question: Are proselytizing posts of any benefit when the forum becomes an echo chamber?
I'm done with this thread, it needs to die off.
Ok, forgive me for misinterpreting "Does it not show that there's still room for dissension?" I don't know what you mean by room. And what you would say dissension even accomplishes within the Roman system if you elaborated.
This thread isn't only about the document. The document is ambiguous, but it doesn't exist in a void. I came into a thread that wasn't only about the document, but about the whole context of the document and discussion about the intended effects. I don't need to have the last word but it's very uncharitable of you brother, to say that your post was easy to interpret when you responded to me when I said "We don't have to justify when unfaithful bishops are wrong on dogma and morals, and that's why pointing out contradictions within the Latin church is so powerful"
To say things that insinuate that there is a behavioral pattern that I am giving off. Or maybe you aren't insinuating that I am? I can't tell anymore and I'm not making judgements. This is too many words.
Maybe you're right that me adding to the posts against Catholicism didn't lead to anything. I've just noticed that in Catholicism there is an apologetics machine which focuses on defending Pope Francis as a true pope despite what things said and especially done which contradict the faith and indicate apostasy. Only one looking into the heart of the claims of the papacy of the second millennia and into the great schism will someone realize they are not bound to this, and sedevecantism is obviously no solution. Notice, nobody addressed my comments about Church history. Watching Bishop Strickland's address after being removed from his diocese was saddening to me, he seemed so hesitant to question the validity of the pope and further, the millennia of papal claims: that his speech became spiritual gobbledy-goop about "forces in the church" basically trust the plan (tm) just as DanielH said. If Bishop Strickland seriously considered historical papal claims, he wouldn't have to suffer through this, and he could come home to a warm, welcoming Church. A Church that, yes, even if I have spoken about harsh realities, has a warm loving community. We wouldn't have a general desire to bring this knowledge if we didn't have love.
This thread isn't only about the document. The document is ambiguous, but it doesn't exist in a void. I came into a thread that wasn't only about the document, but about the whole context of the document and discussion about the intended effects. I don't need to have the last word but it's very uncharitable of you brother, to say that your post was easy to interpret when you responded to me when I said "We don't have to justify when unfaithful bishops are wrong on dogma and morals, and that's why pointing out contradictions within the Latin church is so powerful"
To say things that insinuate that there is a behavioral pattern that I am giving off. Or maybe you aren't insinuating that I am? I can't tell anymore and I'm not making judgements. This is too many words.
Maybe you're right that me adding to the posts against Catholicism didn't lead to anything. I've just noticed that in Catholicism there is an apologetics machine which focuses on defending Pope Francis as a true pope despite what things said and especially done which contradict the faith and indicate apostasy. Only one looking into the heart of the claims of the papacy of the second millennia and into the great schism will someone realize they are not bound to this, and sedevecantism is obviously no solution. Notice, nobody addressed my comments about Church history. Watching Bishop Strickland's address after being removed from his diocese was saddening to me, he seemed so hesitant to question the validity of the pope and further, the millennia of papal claims: that his speech became spiritual gobbledy-goop about "forces in the church" basically trust the plan (tm) just as DanielH said. If Bishop Strickland seriously considered historical papal claims, he wouldn't have to suffer through this, and he could come home to a warm, welcoming Church. A Church that, yes, even if I have spoken about harsh realities, has a warm loving community. We wouldn't have a general desire to bring this knowledge if we didn't have love.
I respectfully disagree. Criticism is different from hostility. I am Catholic and agree with much of what @WoodArch4033 is saying. This current "Pope" is an enabling apologist for sodomites. This is unacceptable. In my opinion, The Pope's sympathy and "understanding" and compassionate "love" for gays is a projection of his own internal gayness. There is a relationship between the well founded gay pedophilia within the very fiber of The Church and its current "ambiguous" stance on faggotry and the "blessing" of gay marriages/unions. This is pure blasphemy. It is an evil rot emanating from the very core of The Vatican.
