Did Pope Francis Allow Priests to Bless Same-Sex Relationships?

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.
The reason why Bergoglio is able to contradict the Magisterium is simple: he is not the pope. Those unwilling to reach this conclusion must necessarily redefine the notions of indefectibility and infallibility. Accepting a false pope as a true one has consequences.
 
Last edited:
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.
The fact that he utters such heretical statements anywhere is grave already, church law or not.
 
Last edited:
Check out what Father James Martin had to say on the news shows. 👀





Fr. Martin: "...really try to get to know LGBQT Catholics...".

3dkauh.jpg

32ojid.jpg


Edit.

Making History on a Tuesday Morning, With the Church’s Blessing​

As a Jesuit priest for more than two decades, the Rev. James Martin has bestowed thousands of blessings — on rosary beads, on babies, on homes, boats, and meals, on statues of saints, on the sick, on brides and on grooms.

Never before, though, was he permitted to bless a same-sex couple — not until Monday, when the pope said he would allow such blessings, an announcement that reverberated through the church.

On Tuesday morning, Damian Steidl Jack, 44, and his husband, Jason Steidl Jack, 38, stood before Father Martin in a living room on Manhattan’s West Side. The couple, running a bit late because of subway delays, dressed casually.Damian, a floral designer, complimented Father Martin on the pine smell of the Christmas tree.

In keeping with the Vatican’s admonition that such a blessing should not be performed with “any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding,” Father Martin wore no robes, and read from no text. There is no blessing for same-sex couples in the thick book of blessings published by the U.S. Conference of Bishops. Instead he selected a favorite of his own from the Old Testament.

“May the Lord bless and keep you,” Father Martin began, touching the two men’s shoulders. They bowed their heads slightly, and held hands.

“May the Lord make his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you. May the Lord turn his countenance to you and give you joy and peace.

“And may almighty God bless you,” he said, making the sign of the cross, “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

And then, with emotion evident on their faces, the three men hugged.

Father Martin is arguably the highest-profile advocate for L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics in America. He has met frequently with Pope Francis about making the Roman Catholic Church more inclusive, and in the fall he participated in a global gathering on the church’s future at the pope’s invitation.

On Tuesday morning, he was far from the halls of power. He was at home, making history. Father Martin had waited years for the privilege of saying such a prayer, however simple, out in the open.

“It was really nice,” Father Martin said on Tuesday, “to be able to do that publicly.”

The pope’s decision was greeted as a landmark victory by advocates for gay Catholics, who describe it as a significant gesture of openness and pastoral care, and a reminder that an institution whose age is measured in millenniums can change.

The decision does not overturn the church’s doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not allow priests to perform same-sex marriages. It takes pains to differentiate between the sacrament of marriage — which must take place in a church — and a blessing, which is a more informal, even spontaneous, gesture. And, a priest’s blessing of a same-sex couple should not take place in connection with a civil marriage ceremony, it says.

News of the pope’s decision spread quickly among gay Catholics, many of whom began preparations for blessings of their own after the busy Christmas season.

On the morning of the pope’s announcement, Michael McCabe’s husband, Eric Sherman, ran into his home office in their apartment in Forest Hills, Queens, bursting with news: Their 46-year partnership could at last be blessed.

“You wait so long for the church to come around, you kind of give up hope,” said Mr. McCabe, 73, who attends Mass every Sunday at the Church of St. Francis Xavier in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan.

The couple married in 2010 in Connecticut, before same-sex marriages became legal in their home state of New York. They had long been resigned to the church’s stance, even if they had not fully made peace with it, Mr. McCabe said.

“I know that myself and my relationship with my husband are good things,” said Mr. McCabe, who taught catechism to first graders at the church.

Although the pope’s decision stops short of recognizing Mr. McCabe’s marriage, he said he could only find the joy in the news. After rejoicing with his husband on Monday, he emailed his priest. They plan to receive a blessing early in the new year.

It wasn’t immediately clear how different priests across the country would respond to the pope’s invitation to bless gay couples. The announcement gives individual priests latitude and encouragement to offer the blessings, but does not require them to do so. Gay couples living in more liberal dioceses may be more likely to find a willing priest than those living in conservative diocesesIn Chicago, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, a close ally of Pope Francis, issued a statement saying that in his archdiocese, “we welcome this declaration, which will help many more in our community feel the closeness and compassion of God.” Many other bishops have remained mum so far. Conservative critics have said the pope’s move essentially encourages priests to bless sin.

“I’m sure many old bishops are open to this, and many young priests will have to be convinced,” said Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology at Villanova University, noting that young Catholic priests in the United States are overwhelmingly conservative.

In New York City, where a handful of progressive Catholic churches have been on the forefront of welcoming L.G.B.T.Q. parishioners, but have stopped short of marrying them and sanctifying their unions, the news from the Vatican was just as exciting for some priests as it was for their parishioners.

“I say it is about darn time,” said the Rev. Joseph Juracek, pastor of the Church of St. Francis of Assisi in Midtown, who believes the church is finally aligning with Jesus’ teachings: “This is what he is all about: That God is for all people.”

While many Catholics celebrated the pope’s decision, others felt it was too little, too late. Some L.G.B.T.Q. people who left the church years ago, feeling unwelcome, said it was a half-measure that would not tempt them to return.

Thomas Molina-Duarte, 37, a social worker in Detroit, was an active member of his local Catholic parish for many years. But when he and his husband married, they had to do so in an Episcopal church, and they eventually joined a “home church,” where they gather with a small group to do close readings of texts from the Bible.

“I welcome the news, but it’s not going to make me come back to the church.” Mr. Molina-Duarte said of the pope’s decision. “We’ve found a community of other people that we felt we could bring our full selves to.”

In New York City, Damian and Jason Steidl Jack, who were married last year, had previously discussed the possibility of a blessing with Father Martin, a longtime friend of Jason’s. When Father Martin texted on Monday afternoon and asked if they wanted a blessing, they leaped at the offer.

“God’s grace is at work in our lives, whether the Vatican issues an announcement or not,” said Jason, an assistant teaching professor of religious studies at St. Joseph’s University in Brooklyn and an advocate for gay Catholics. “But we are eager for the support of our communities and of our pastors who look after us.”

Walking back to the subway from Father Martin’s Jesuit community residence, Jason and Damian said the blessing he had given them felt both ordinary and profound.

“It’s one grace of many,” Jason said. They were a part of history, and they were also on their way to meet Damian’s mother at Walmart to shop for Christmas groceries.

“It’s like you said,” Jason told his husband, “It’s like we’re claiming our space.”

Okay...that's enough internet for now.

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
Since this thread has been fairly well behaved, in the spirit of RVF I'll hazard a guess at what might be going on.

With my tin-foil hat on, I'd say that Rome has created enough ambiguity and wriggle room in this missive to allow the MSM to run with a "Catholic blessings for gay couples" story. Perhaps the motive is to test the waters in the reaction of clergy worldwide ahead of the Synod on Synodality reconvening next year. If the push back is too widespread and strong, that indicates to the change agents that next year might be too early to implement a full Woke program of reforms.
 
Last edited:
Answer is yes of course it’s actually a form of doublethink, as George Orwell would put it, to believe in papal infallibility.
I guess the issue for me is that, if he's not making an official decree, but in effect what he is doing results in the same sense of acceptance... What's the difference.

We, in the Orthodox Church, believe that the Church as a while is never wrong... But individual clergy/bishops/patriarchs can be wrong.
 
To all of the Roman Catholics (and interested Orthodox and protestants) on this forum:

Please know that I greatly respect your dedication to your faith and that what I say below is not meant to attack you. I was a "trad" Roman Catholic for a large portion of my life before being baptized into the Orthodox Church, and when I was RC I held to a lot of myths that most RCs cling to now-a-days. These myths are perpetuated by endless amounts of commentaries and YT videos from "apologists" who don't read the official documents and official clarifications that are published by the Vatican and approved by the Pope (the highest interpretative authority in the RCC). The commentary/interpretation of a guy named Bob who lives in Florida is not a higher interpretation/authority than the pope in the RC system.

One example of a popular myth that most RCs today believe is "only the ex-cathedra statements are infallible and have to be followed". According to official RCC sources (popes and "ecumenical councils"), this is obviously not true. Vatican I, an official ecumenical council approved by a pope, defines two types of infallibility:

1. Extraordinary magisterium. This includes ex cathedra statements (there have only been 2 in all of RC history since they're a much later innovation) and doctrinal statements related to faith and morals from official (ie, papal approved) ecumenical councils.

2. Ordinary universal magisterium. This is when successive popes, in unison with other bishops around the world, consistently teach a certain doctrine on faith and morals.

One issue with this is that there is no official list of infallible doctrines, so anyone can guess what is included in #2. Another issue is that these infallibilities often contradict, with previous ecumenical councils contradicting later ecumenical councils, previous universal ordinary magisterium contradicting ecumenical councils or ex cathedra statements, or universal ordinary magisterium contradicting other universal ordinary magisterium. It's a huge mess and certainly doesn't bring any clarify (as its advertized).

Not only this, but repeated ecumenical councils (extraordinary magisterium) and papal teachings (repeatedly, therefore constituting universal ordinary magisterium) assert that Roman Catholics are obliged to give religious assent of the mind and will to even the non-infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. No one can judge the pope or his teachings.

This can be found repeatedly in Vatican I, Vatican II, Quanta Cura, the Syllabus of Errors, Auctorem Fidei, etc. Here's a quick example (from Lumen Gentium 25 of Vatican II):

"Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."

This is not a commentary from some guy in South Carolina named Trent. This is official Roman Catholic doctrine issued from the highest possible authority.

Another example (of many), from Quanta Cura (an encyclical of Pope Pius IX):

"And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church…Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.”

I can give many other examples, but I'll stop here because this post is already too long. Passionate and zealous "trad" RCs often want us to believe their own pet interpretations of RC dogma, but what they don't realize is that no one is going to take them seriously when the pope (not just one, but many) teaches the opposite. The RCC has never taught that people only have to follow the "ex cathedra" statements, and yet many lay Roman Catholics today hold this myth as official doctrine and the #1 way they cope with all the changes currently happening by Pope Francis (and other post Vatican II popes).

For the poster who accused the Orthodox of "accepting divorce and remarriage", this is because the Church has ALWAYS accepted divorce and remarriage. Divorce and remarriage is included in the Canons of St. Basil (one of the greatest saints in the history of the Church who was never condemned for his supposed "heresy"). The Canons of St. Basil were accepted as canonical at the Council of Trullo. And the Council of Trullo was accepted by the 6th Ecumenical Council. If you read these primary documents and councils (instead of commentaries by guys named Taylor who live down in Texas), it's pretty clear. The modern RCC pharisaical practice of some elaborate annulment system and papal lawyering about how they don't accept divorce and remarriage (respecting the supposed letter of the law while rejecting the spirit of the law) is a post-schism invention of the early Middle Ages. And of course, Christ in the Book of Matthew also allows divorce and remarriage under certain exceptions (exceptions that are in the spirit of the canons of St. Basil which is the canon law that governs the Orthodox Church even today on this question).

TL;DR - official sources of Roman Catholic doctrine from the RC's highest authorities refute the common myth that RCs believe that "you only have to follow the ex cathedra statements. Papal infallibility is super limited".
 
As a quick follow-up, I'd recommend any RCs who believe "you only have to follow the ex cathedra statements" to read the official decrees of Vatican I.

You can find them here: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm

All together it's only about 15 pages, a pretty quick read (could be done in less than 2 hours by anyone). Reading through the official council will definitely dispel a ton of myths that you see countless people saying constantly in the trad Catholic online sphere. And you have nothing to lose or to be afraid of by reading through an official council of your religion from back when you had "based" or "good" popes.

As you read what Vatican I teaches about the papacy, remember that it is also speaking about Francis.
 
Last edited:
"…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?
Hey, you know this forum has a setting that allows you to change your denomination to protestant right? I have no interest in debating sede-vacantism.
 
To all of the Roman Catholics (and interested Orthodox and protestants) on this forum:

Please know that I greatly respect your dedication to your faith and that what I say below is not meant to attack you. I was a "trad" Roman Catholic for a large portion of my life before being baptized into the Orthodox Church, and when I was RC I held to a lot of myths that most RCs cling to now-a-days. These myths are perpetuated by endless amounts of commentaries and YT videos from "apologists" who don't read the official documents and official clarifications that are published by the Vatican and approved by the Pope (the highest interpretative authority in the RCC). The commentary/interpretation of a guy named Bob who lives in Florida is not a higher interpretation/authority than the pope in the RC system.

One example of a popular myth that most RCs today believe is "only the ex-cathedra statements are infallible and have to be followed". According to official RCC sources (popes and "ecumenical councils"), this is obviously not true. Vatican I, an official ecumenical council approved by a pope, defines two types of infallibility:

1. Extraordinary magisterium. This includes ex cathedra statements (there have only been 2 in all of RC history since they're a much later innovation) and doctrinal statements related to faith and morals from official (ie, papal approved) ecumenical councils.

2. Ordinary universal magisterium. This is when successive popes, in unison with other bishops around the world, consistently teach a certain doctrine on faith and morals.

One issue with this is that there is no official list of infallible doctrines, so anyone can guess what is included in #2. Another issue is that these infallibilities often contradict, with previous ecumenical councils contradicting later ecumenical councils, previous universal ordinary magisterium contradicting ecumenical councils or ex cathedra statements, or universal ordinary magisterium contradicting other universal ordinary magisterium. It's a huge mess and certainly doesn't bring any clarify (as its advertized).

Not only this, but repeated ecumenical councils (extraordinary magisterium) and papal teachings (repeatedly, therefore constituting universal ordinary magisterium) assert that Roman Catholics are obliged to give religious assent of the mind and will to even the non-infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. No one can judge the pope or his teachings.

This can be found repeatedly in Vatican I, Vatican II, Quanta Cura, the Syllabus of Errors, Auctorem Fidei, etc. Here's a quick example (from Lumen Gentium 25 of Vatican II):

"Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."

This is not a commentary from some guy in South Carolina named Trent. This is official Roman Catholic doctrine issued from the highest possible authority.

Another example (of many), from Quanta Cura (an encyclical of Pope Pius IX):

"And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church…Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.”

I can give many other examples, but I'll stop here because this post is already too long. Passionate and zealous "trad" RCs often want us to believe their own pet interpretations of RC dogma, but what they don't realize is that no one is going to take them seriously when the pope (not just one, but many) teaches the opposite. The RCC has never taught that people only have to follow the "ex cathedra" statements, and yet many lay Roman Catholics today hold this myth as official doctrine and the #1 way they cope with all the changes currently happening by Pope Francis (and other post Vatican II popes).

For the poster who accused the Orthodox of "accepting divorce and remarriage", this is because the Church has ALWAYS accepted divorce and remarriage. Divorce and remarriage is included in the Canons of St. Basil (one of the greatest saints in the history of the Church who was never condemned for his supposed "heresy"). The Canons of St. Basil were accepted as canonical at the Council of Trullo. And the Council of Trullo was accepted by the 6th Ecumenical Council. If you read these primary documents and councils (instead of commentaries by guys named Taylor who live down in Texas), it's pretty clear. The modern RCC pharisaical practice of some elaborate annulment system and papal lawyering about how they don't accept divorce and remarriage (respecting the supposed letter of the law while rejecting the spirit of the law) is a post-schism invention of the early Middle Ages. And of course, Christ in the Book of Matthew also allows divorce and remarriage under certain exceptions (exceptions that are in the spirit of the canons of St. Basil which is the canon law that governs the Orthodox Church even today on this question).

TL;DR - official sources of Roman Catholic doctrine from the RC's highest authorities refute the common myth that RCs believe that "you only have to follow the ex cathedra statements. Papal infallibility is super limited".
Are you witless? This sort of condescending post is why Catholics got so p*ssed off in RVF and why many won't comment in such threads as these. I, for one, am not interested in your evangelism. I've heard it all before from Jay Dyer, and others, many times. I'm a Catholic and I shall be so unto death. I now regret having posted in this thread at all. And I'm not sure this forum can work because there will always be arrogant or witless members such as you trying to "save souls".

*Mods if we don't have some sort of rule to deter denominational evangelism we are just going get into constant scrapping.
 
Are you witless? This sort of condescending post is why Catholics got so p*ssed off in RVF and why many won't comment in such threads as these. I, for one, am not interested in your evangelism. I've heard it all before from Jay Dyer, and others, many times. I'm a Catholic and I shall be so unto death. I now regret having posted in this thread at all. And I'm not sure this forum can work because there will always be arrogant or witless members such as you trying to "save souls".

*Mods if we don't have some sort of rule to deter denominational evangelism we are just going get into constant scrapping.
You can call me witless all you want--I really don't care and I'm not going to get offended over someone else being "uncharitable" (the common accusation that RCs direct towards us Orthodox). Among the many RCs I know, unfortunately, to this day (and it's been a few years) I've not had a single RC friend/acquaintance (and I used to run in some pretty high trad circles) even attempt to refute the information and positions like the ones I wrote above. Every RC I know has either resorted to ignoring completely what I say and/or (like you) engaging in ad hominem attacks. When the other party can only respond by disrespectful attempts at name-calling and insults then everyone else (all those reading this forum who aren't you and me) can see even more clearly whose position is true.

I saw a lot of RC posters here claiming that they only have to follow the ex-cathedra statements of popes and accusing the Orthodox of "changing" Church teaching on divorce and remarriage. For contribution to this discussion, I wanted to point out (from their own sources) that these claims are not factually accurate. I'm sorry that these RCs apparently weren't aware of these sources before.

Please continue to call me witless (I mean, after all, I have done some pretty stupid things in my life), and may God bless you!
 
You can call me witless all you want--I really don't care and I'm not going to get offended over someone else being "uncharitable" (the common accusation that RCs direct towards us Orthodox). Among the many RCs I know, unfortunately, to this day (and it's been a few years) I've not had a single RC friend/acquaintance (and I used to run in some pretty high trad circles) even attempt to refute the information and positions like the ones I wrote above. Every RC I know has either resorted to ignoring completely what I say and/or (like you) engaging in ad hominem attacks. When the other party can only respond by disrespectful attempts at name-calling and insults then everyone else (all those reading this forum who aren't you and me) can see even more clearly whose position is true.

I saw a lot of RC posters here claiming that they only have to follow the ex-cathedra statements of popes and accusing the Orthodox of "changing" Church teaching on divorce and remarriage. For contribution to this discussion, I wanted to point out (from their own sources) that these claims are not factually accurate. I'm sorry that these RCs apparently weren't aware of these sources before.

Please continue to call me witless (I mean, after all, I have done some pretty stupid things in my life), and may God bless you!
In discussions prior to it going live, it was established that CiK is trying to mesh all Christians together, by avoiding the errors of RVF, which was essentially an Orthodox forum. In order to do so mutual respect for each other's denomination is necessary. That, if you had taken notice, was discussed already when this thread was used as open day to shoot at Catholics. That you haven't grasped that is evident, because you arrogantly assumed, as Orthodox, you could post your, off topic, evangelical diatribe and get away with it. And it looks like you will too, so well done.

As for being uncharitable, I've yet to read one post of a Catholic taking shots at the Orthodox or Orthodoxy, so you can bleat and moralise all you want, you fired first. And you can pat yourself on the back too, because it's members like you who cannot tame their "zeal", who will turn CiK into RVF 2. If you Orthodox want hegemony, you can go ahead without me. If you want CiK to accommodate all of us, then you need to lose some of the arrogance.
 
I should repeat now just how pleased I am that so many of my fellow Christians have such a strong interest in Catholicism!

I wonder if they remember early on that I said:

I am always quite cautious taking lay apologists and especially YouTube personalities at face value in their interpretations. Truly fair assessments are often incompatible with the algorithms.

Why not read the actual document?

I certainly never said this:

I saw a lot of RC posters here claiming that they only have to follow the ex-cathedra statements of popes and...

In fact, who here said that? I don't remember it, if so.

Oh, by the way, can you find anywhere that I said I disagree with the new guidance for priests or that I don't think it should be followed? Or that I agree with it and think it should be followed? As a lay Catholic, do I think often about the details of what blessings priests ought to be able to confer?

By the way, everyone is more than happy to thumbs up @Genealogist who, while lecturing us on how Catholic dogma works in great detail, can't tell us who is the current Pope.

This has been educational.
 
Last edited:
I should repeat now just how pleased I am that so many of my fellow Christians have such a strong interest in Catholicism!

Well, Roman Catholicism does kind of represent the foundation of Western culture and most professing Christians are Roman Catholic. In the Lutheran church I grew up in there were decisions made that mirrored what Catholics recently did at the time (one example is altar girls, another would be communion in hand). Decisions in Rome will move Western culture and move the other Christians in it whether they like it or not. Alot of us live in Western culture. We have interest.
 
Back
Top