I believe he's referring to this link.
Did Pope Francis Allow Priests to Bless Same-Sex Relationships?
- Thread starter JR5
- Start date
@BasilSeal... Assuming I'm reading the correct article:
Firstly... the take from that article is not doctrine, merely commentary from another Catholic Parish. It's not law, its commentary. SO... forgive me... but I don't have to accept it, as a non Catholic, as anything other than conjecture within the Church. Its not a doctrinal publication, a bulletin of official memorandum ect ect ect.
The Article...SANS PICTURES:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A GUIDE TO PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
Pope Pius XIs the Pope always right? Many non-Catholics and even Catholics misunderstand the meaning of Papal Infallibility.
They read the word “infallible” without any context and assume it means that the Pope can never be wrong. If falsely understood this way, it can be an off-putting concept for some.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Papal Infallibility as follows:
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… (CCC: 891).”
If we break the Church’s definition of Papal infallibility down, it’s apparent that the Pope is only infallible when he clearly and willingly proclaims something relating to faith and morals. That means he cannot be expected to make a correct World Series prediction every year. Nor does it mean that he cannot make private mistakes or act immorally, which many popes have done throughout history.
In fact, to be infallible, the Pope must literally speak ex cathedra, or from the seat and office of the first Pope, St. Peter. Such public proclamations are so rare, that it has only formally happened once when, in 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary to be official doctrine. So, infallibility is not something the popes have taken lightly, and they only invoke it when the Holy Spirit is speaking through them.
WHY IS THE POPE INFALLIBLE?
Now that we know what Papal infallibility is, let’s explore why it exists.In Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells Simon, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
When Jesus says this, he is not pointing to a literal rock. He is giving Simon the name of Peter, which means “stone” in the original Biblical language. Peter thus becomes the first Pope, the foundation upon which Jesus builds His Church.
The fact that the Church is built upon Peter takes nothing away from Jesus’ role as head of the Church. Peter, and the popes who succeed him, become stewards of Christ’s Church on earth. In fact, the very next verse explains Jesus’ intention:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19).
Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter by Pietro Perugino (1481-82)
Jesus is handing Peter the keys to His kingdom. Peter and all the popes are gatekeepers to the faith, but only because the Holy Spirit guides them. Indeed, Jesus tells His Apostles:
“…when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come (John 16:13).”
Since the Holy Spirit guides the Pope, who is Peter’s successor, it is impossible that the Pope can make a mistake when it comes to faith and morals, which is why he is infallible in that regard. However, when it comes to matters of personal morality or private opinions, the Pope is as human as the rest of us.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY: THE BOTTOM LINE
The Catholic Church has had more than 2,000 years’ worth of popes. Although the doctrine of Papal infallibility was only officially declared in the nineteenth century, in practice, it had been recognized since the early Church.In all that time, Papal Infallibility has never been abused, not even by the worst popes. As mentioned, it was only used once in modern times, and that was 70 years ago. The only way that such a clean track record is possible is with the help of the Holy Spirit, which always guides the Church, never allowing the gates of Hades to triumph against her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please clarify where this does anything to strengthen your argument.
How does this clarify in ANY WAY that its unacceptable for Catholic Priests to bless Irregular Passions? A public announcement in the form of an official decree works out how in this case?
If I've missed sometihng... Please help me... but if you're going to argue I'm slandering The Church. (as in the Roman Catholic Church).... youve got to spell it out for me so I can understand...
The Pope has to formally proclaim that he is speaking Ex Cathedra, i.e. from the Chair of Peter. Something that hasn't happened since Pius XII. As Catholics, we believe that when The Holy Father speaks Ex Cathedra (something that rarely ever happens) he is infallible and from my limited understanding, Popes have only spoken Ex Cathedra in matters pertaining to doctrines and dogmas. This infallibility comes From the Holy Spirit's guidance, not the
This does not mean that anything that The Pope says is infallible, The Pope can sin and tell lies just like any other man. But as Catholics we believe that The Pope cannot speak lies while speaking Ex Cathedra.
This is what is has not been clear to me. He has to say he is speaking ex Cathedra.
I would have thought he routinely speaks "in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority" on a doctrine of faith or morals, and therefore routinely speaks ex Cathedra whether he explicitly says that's what he's doing or not.
However, this is wrong. It's only ex Cathedra when he explicitly says he is doing so.
Correct, he must declare that he is speaking Ex Cathedra. As the Bishop of Rome, he has the responsibility to enforce canon law and to make sure it is being followed, but that does not mean he cannot make mistakes, or even completely fail in his duties.
Preface with : Not a dig at individual Catholics and meant as a genuine discussion:
------------------------------------------
SO... what does all this mean?
One could say "So WHAT" youre pope is making extracurricular commentary thats wrong? Why make that knowing the rest of the Church will take that and run with in in conjunction with conservative priest being shelved at a rapacious rate?
From an Art of the Argument view... I want to start picking apart inconstancies... but rather than be pedantic... I'm more curious the justification for Catholics on this issue.
It's clear this Pope doesn't align with the originals Apostolic teachings on the matter.... now we're pivoting about what is and isn't capable of the pope being wrong ect ect ect. Otherswise HE would STONGLY condemn any form of abnormal relationships as is his JOB as head of the Church.
I want to know what Catholics genuinely think.... AND I want some honest discussion here about Bishop Strickland AND other priests removed from their parshies for being conservative.
Is it now a thing that only when the Pope sits on his chair, declares "The following is Ex Cathedra" that what he says is to be held sacrosanct? and the rest is all up to subjective interpretation?.... because thats what I'm taking.....
Sometimes it seems like you are genuinely curious, but then at other times it very much seems like a trap is being laid for Catholics to walk into in that either what they think is irrelevant or wrong and not what the doctrine says or the Pope does.
And, if Catholics have concerns about any aspect of it, then I suppose there presumably is some solution at the ready that (likely) involves leaving Catholicism behind. It wouldn't be the first time that end game option was offered.
You might reflect that, at no point in this protracted discussion have I given many opinions about my feelings about the situation, only the facts or (when pressed) my best interpretation of them, and not from any position of authority.
I'm certainly not ready to judge anything the Catholic Church says or does by how Fr. James Martin interprets and acts upon it.
And, if Catholics have concerns about any aspect of it, then I suppose there presumably is some solution at the ready that (likely) involves leaving Catholicism behind. It wouldn't be the first time that end game option was offered.
You might reflect that, at no point in this protracted discussion have I given many opinions about my feelings about the situation, only the facts or (when pressed) my best interpretation of them, and not from any position of authority.
I'm certainly not ready to judge anything the Catholic Church says or does by how Fr. James Martin interprets and acts upon it.
Last edited:
I never said this, ever:
I'm not sure what argument you think that I am making.
I have said that priests are not, by this document, suddenly permitted to bless irregular passions, unions, and so on. The document also does not say it is unacceptable for priests to kick puppies. The door is not suddenly open for puppy kicking as a result of it not being mentioned as unacceptable.
Separately, you claimed ignorance on papal infallibly. So, I took some time to help find some resource to enlighten you. Don't now beat me over the head with it. If you wanted official documents, your Google is as good as mine.
I'm not sure what argument you think that I am making.
I have said that priests are not, by this document, suddenly permitted to bless irregular passions, unions, and so on. The document also does not say it is unacceptable for priests to kick puppies. The door is not suddenly open for puppy kicking as a result of it not being mentioned as unacceptable.
Separately, you claimed ignorance on papal infallibly. So, I took some time to help find some resource to enlighten you. Don't now beat me over the head with it. If you wanted official documents, your Google is as good as mine.
Last edited:
Genealogist
Catholic
This is official doctrine signed by Francis and therefore it bears the mark of authentic Magisterium which is binding. Theoretically the authentic Magisterium cannot contain any harmful or pernicious error but this certainly does.
To accept Francis as a true pope has its most devastating theological consequences.
Dyer has been over this ad nauseam.
Genealogist
Catholic
"…this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60]
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell." (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus)
It's obvious the promises of Christ for the Papacy are not verified in Bergoglio. What's the necessary conclusion?
That it's not The Church.
Please do share, fellow Catholic.
Genealogist
Catholic
But they were OK with Amoris Laetitia, since it's basically in line with their own practice of allowing divorce and 'remarriage'?
Genealogist
Catholic
It amazes me that so many people think that outside of speaking ex Cathedra, the pope can just teach all kinds of heresy and erroneous doctrines. And even when they do delve into what ex Cathedra even means, they get it wrong, because they've trusted the pundits when they could just get the truth from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Infallibility is not just limited to ex Cathedra pronouncements. That said, even when the pope is not speaking infallibly, we accept his teachings. He alone is the final judge on all matters of Faith. We cannot err in clinging to the pope.
Ok.... I'll take your point more seriously when the Pope starts removing heretical Gay Agenda preists with the same fervor as Bishop Strickland.
Until then....while you're probably correct with in your own Church doctrine/teachings.... its not refelected with the high profile preists mocking the faith and using these declarations to tacitly promote the sodmite relationship.
Good to see blighty's priests are holding firm.
A letter issued by the UK Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, representing 500 priests, as a way of clarifying their position on Fiducia Supplicans. In concluding they write:
Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and a woman has been established.
It is in this context that we must assess the recent document Fiducia Supplicans – which proposes a call for discernment which may lead to bestowing blessings on those in same-sex or unmarried unions. We note the noble pastoral desire to assist people to move forward by renewal of life and the call to conversion, building on all aspects of natural good will and virtue. Nevertheless, we see no situation in which such a blessing of a couple could be properly and adequately distinguished from some level of approval. Thus, it would inevitably lead to scandal – to the individuals concerned – to those involved directly or indirectly in the blessing – or to the minister himself. Furthermore, we fear that the practice of these blessings would confuse the faithful over the actual theology of marriage and human sexuality. Indeed, from the comments in the media over the past few days, and from concerns passed on to us by the faithful, we can already see such misunderstandings. We believe that genuine charity always follows true doctrine and that such blessings would work against the legitimate care a priest owes is flock. With honest parresia and from our own experience as pastors we conclude that such blessings are pastorally and practically inadmissable.
A letter issued by the UK Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, representing 500 priests, as a way of clarifying their position on Fiducia Supplicans. In concluding they write:
Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and a woman has been established.
It is in this context that we must assess the recent document Fiducia Supplicans – which proposes a call for discernment which may lead to bestowing blessings on those in same-sex or unmarried unions. We note the noble pastoral desire to assist people to move forward by renewal of life and the call to conversion, building on all aspects of natural good will and virtue. Nevertheless, we see no situation in which such a blessing of a couple could be properly and adequately distinguished from some level of approval. Thus, it would inevitably lead to scandal – to the individuals concerned – to those involved directly or indirectly in the blessing – or to the minister himself. Furthermore, we fear that the practice of these blessings would confuse the faithful over the actual theology of marriage and human sexuality. Indeed, from the comments in the media over the past few days, and from concerns passed on to us by the faithful, we can already see such misunderstandings. We believe that genuine charity always follows true doctrine and that such blessings would work against the legitimate care a priest owes is flock. With honest parresia and from our own experience as pastors we conclude that such blessings are pastorally and practically inadmissable.