More Moral Theologians Condemn Fiducia Supplicans as Presenting "Grave Harm" to the Faithful

Please consider supporting my work with a cup of coffee!
www.buymeacoff...
Summary
In this video, Mark Lambert discusses the recent intervention by three moral theologians and their critique of Fiducia Supplicans, a declaration by the Holy See's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. He highlights Pope Francis' approach to moral issues and his controversial statements, which seem to contradict traditional Catholic teachings. Mark also discusses the abandonment of natural law in moral theology and the threats to Christian doctrine on sex ethics. He criticizes the press release that attempted to clarify Fiducia Supplicans, arguing that it fails to address the real-world circumstances and undermines the distinction between blessing persons and blessing sinful unions. Mark emphasizes the importance of understanding Christianity and the need for pastors to teach the truth of faith and reason.
Takeaways
Pope Francis' approach to moral issues and his controversial statements have raised concerns among traditional Catholics.
There is a growing sense that Pope Francis ignores previous magisterial statements and asserts his own magisterium.
The abandonment of natural law in moral theology and the spread of theological opinions that defy doctrine pose threats to Christian ethics.
The press release attempting to clarify Fiducia Supplicans is inadequate and fails to address real-world circumstances.
Pastors have a responsibility to teach the truth of faith and reason and to communicate the importance of holding fast to moral absolutes.
Chapters
00:00
Introduction and Background
01:29
Pope Francis' Approach to Moral Issues
02:23
Controversial Statements by Pope Francis
05:11
Ignoring Previous Magisterial Statements
06:36
Fiducia Supplicans and the Magisterium
08:27
Abandonment of Natural Law in Moral Theology
09:55
Threats to Christian Doctrine on Sex Ethics
15:11
False Teachings and Appointments in the Church
18:23
Critique of Fiducia Supplicans
23:12
Inadequacy of the Press Release
28:14
The Importance of Understanding Christianity
31:05
Challenges in Distinguishing Blessing Persons and Blessing Unions
34:30
The Downgrading of Sin and Doctrine
39:54
The Need for Pastoral Responsibility and Evangelization
41:21
Conclusion
Full article at Fist Things here: www.firstthing...
I am 1/3rd of @catholicunscripted so if you don't follow us please do check out our channel there and subscribe!
You can support our work in evangelisation and education on our website here: www.catholicun... scroll down until you see "Support Our Cause"
Please do like this video and share!

[@tomthx5804]

The article by Professors George and Finnis and Ryan at First Things is one of the most excellent ones out there.

[@orarerosarium]

You are helping me make sense of years of confusion I experienced before, during, and after attending theology school. I’m afraid many Church pastors, leaders and professors have led the sheep away. We see the consequences of modernism in the Church now. 😢

[@user-sd6yu1xs4g]

Mark, ...Better to fear Hell and escape, it! Then not, and find yourself falling in it.- Never, Ever, to be released!....Fear Him, who can destroy both body and soul in Hell.......... Brilliant show. Keep up the good work . ......

[@SurelyLord]

Came here to ask Mark if he would please include the author names / article links or book titles… I don’t always catch your words (not you, it’s me!) and the closed captions are miserable at decoding your accent (again, not you!) Thanks for your educated deep dives on these topics. I for one would definitely like to add whatever you are reading to my night stand. 😊 Sending prayers asking Christs blessings as we fight the good fight. I went to Catholic grade school starting 1969 near Lake Erie and Monsignor Charles Sweeney was not going to let go of the TLM practices until he had to. We said the St Michael prayer after every Mass until he passed around 1975 🙏 God bless him too. - Cleveland, OH

[@orarerosarium]

I have been thinking the very same thing. I wanted to ask Mark for a reading list. I also used CC, but it’s not 100% accurate.

[@maryannelindenberger6199]

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!! GOD BLESS YOU!!! GOD HELP US ALL!!!

[@marklambert5232]

I am currently reading Infallibility, Integrity and Obedience: The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church, 1848-2023 by Prof John M Rist. The Moral Theology book I was reading from is Morality: The Catholic View by Father Servais Pincknaers OP

[@Mark3ABE]

@@marklambert5232I am sure that this would be well worth reading. It is important to try to understand the history of the Church in the light of surrounding historical circumstances. When Pope Pius IX came to power, he was considered a very liberal Pope. He introduced major reforms into the Government of the States of the Church. When the American Ambassador to the States of the Church reported back to Washington in 1846, he said that this was the most civilised and the best governed part of all of Europe and that other European powers would do well to take note. At this time, Antonio Rosmini was Prime Minister - he was a Theologian and a Philosopher and had great plans for the future of the Church and Pope Pius IX had him in line to be made a Cardinal. Then came the Revolution of 1848 - the Pope and his Court were forced to flee for safety to Gaeta in the Kingdom of Naples. Then, the Pope was approached by the Emperor Napoleon III who offered to restore the Pope to power, in return for certain concessions. Antonio Rosmini strongly advised against entering into any arrangement with a man who was an atheist, hostile to the Church and an unscrupulous adventurer. The Pope sent Rosmini into exile and took up Louis Napoleon’s offer. Louis Napoleon then installed a French Governor-General who imposed heavy taxation on the population, to fund not only his army of occupation (about 50,000 strong) but also to fund his own colonial adventures in France. He even forced the Roman Mint to debase the silver currency and this caused the States of the Church to be unceremoniously ejected from the Latin Monetary Union. Then, when he did finally withdraw his troops in 1870, because of his war with Prussia, the King of Italy was finally able to annex Lazio and Rome. King Victor Emanuel II and those responsible for the reunification of Italy (Count Cavour and Garibaldi) were all atheists whose aim was to destroy the power of the Church in Italy. In this environment, Pope Pius IX tried to salvage some vestige of his dignity by having himself declared infallible. The majority of the Bishops did not support this novel dogma. Many declared that it was blasphemous. The Archbishop of Paris was the most outspoken. It was forced through by a minority of the Bishops of the whole Church, although they constituted a majority of those Bishops still actually at the First Vatican Council in 1870. This dogma introduced a “ticking time bomb” into the Church.

[@tolkienlewis6887]

KZbin is now alerting me to your talks. Thank you again for your ministry.

[@marklambert5232]

Thank you so much for listening and commenting! Much appreciated!

[@patriciamathews5975]

To be Catholic is to follow the universal Magisterium that is based on the unchanging Scripture & Tradition of the Catholic Church. Even the Bible believing Orthodox & Protestant Churches clearly know scripture cannot be changed or reinterpreted apart of its application within the entire Church magisterium. (Teachings) Also, Tradition cannot be altered if it is based on "applied" scripture and cultural norms that fall outside of universal Church teachings. Adjustments can alter norms if there is no change in interpretation. (An update can be applied for clarity, etc.) But to apply novel and modern interpretations based on a particular psychological milieu is not universal and can only fail to reach a societal threshold if inclusive principals of Natural & Divine Law are ignored. These bedrock principles of Natural & Divine Law are at the core of the universal Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.

[@marklambert5232]

I agree but what it does achieve is the introduction of division and confusion among the faithful.

[@patriciamathews5975]

@@marklambert5232 Yes, division & confusion. Throw in some sparkly novelties & the uncatachized fish bite. (Sad)

[@aly8380]

The book mentioned: "Infallibility, Integrity and Obedience: The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church, 1848-2023" by John M. Rist Rist is a Catholic convert. In April 2019, Rist was one of nineteen names on a public letter to bishops of the world accusing Pope Francis of heresy.

[@springleaf1035]

Many thanks. It came out as Wriste on the screen and had zero amazon search results.

[@lianasammartino8490]

In Canada in my church, at times, at the moment of Communion I see also people presenting themselves to the priest with their hands crossed on their shoulders, they do not get the host but a blessing. Probably those people are from other denominations or just want a blessing. But they are INDIVIDUALS, not a COUPLE! And the idea that they bless the couple but not the union is laughable at: a couple is such BECAUSE OF the union!

[@Mark3ABE]

I am not convinced that the definition of the dogma of the Assumption by Pope Pius XII was by way of invoking the novel dogma introduced in 1870, that is to say, that of “Papal Infallibility”. My reason for saying this is that the Pope wrote first to every Bishop in the Catholic Church and sought specific consent from the Episcopate for the proposed dogmatic definition. So, the definition derives from the authority of the Bishops, meeting not in person, by way of a formal Ecumenical Council, but meeting, in effect, as we should say today, remotely. Then, it was not a novel doctrine. Very early on (before the Great Schism, in fact) a Council of the Church had approved the Assumption as a “probable doctrine” not in any way contrary to the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures nor the Tradition of the Church in which the Faithful were free to believe, if they wish. So, in 1950 we do not have Pope Pius XII teaching a new, or novel, doctrine, by which the Church departed from its existing teaching on his own authority alone. There was a decision by the whole of the Episcopacy of the Church that formalising what had been, until then, a “probable” doctrine would be a wise thing. Neither the Bishop of Rome, acting in person, on his own authority alone, nor even an Ecumenical Council of the Church, can define a dogma which contradicts, or even which does not fit in with, the specific teachings of the Sacred Scriptures and of the continuing Tradition of the Church. So, for example, the Pope had the humility to admit that his belief that there is no actual Hell (or if there is, that no one is actually there) is not in accordance with the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures, nor with the teachings of the Church. It is simply a humble, personal, admission, by the Pope that, to some extent, he has “lost the Faith”. As a result, no faithful Catholic would ever considering paying any attention to what the Pope might say or do. Clearly, he retains the administrative authority of the Papacy - he can remove faithful Catholics from the Priesthood, as Bishops and Cardinals and replace them with those sharing his own beliefs (or lack of belief). Nevertheless, even if all of these new Cardinals should vote in an apostate Pope, no teaching which he might attempt to define, which contradicts the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures or the continuous Tradition of the Church, would have any authority. As a lawyer would put it, such a purported would be “ultra vires” - beyond the scope of the powers entrusted to him.

[@marklambert5232]

I don't disagree with any of that, nor am I suggesting Bergoglio is not the Pope, it is more a comment on the utter confusion he is causing in the Church and the fact that his poor judgement and lack of faith is undermining the office of the pope making it more difficult to evangelise.

[@Mark3ABE]

@@marklambert5232In some ways, I am rather envious of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, because they believe that only the Emperor was able to call an Ecumenical Council of the Church and an Ecumenical Council must include all of the Bishops, both of the Eastern Church and of the Western Church. As a result, they take the view that, after the Great Schism of 1054 and the fall of the City in 1453, it would no longer be possible to call an Ecumenical Council. They take the view that the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church defined all of the important dogmas - the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, Mary as the Mother of God, etc. They do not consider that any further dogmatic definitions are necessary - that the Church may continue until the Second Coming just as it is. That does make life a lot easier for them. They do have their own problems, of course. One or two quite minor disagreements on interpreting existing dogma, but, more seriously, questions of administrative authority in the Church. Still, in principle, all national Orthodox Churches are autonomous - there is no world wide, centralised administrative authority which can interfere even at the local Parish level. In the early Church, it was always said “where the Bishop is, there the Church is” and most administrative matters were dealt with by the local Bishop, without interference from Rome (or from Constantinople). We are now faced with a Church which has become centralised to an almost ridiculous degree. The Pope can remove a Parish Priest, on his own whim alone, without reference to the local Bishop or the national Bishop’s conference.

[@springleaf1035]

Good content but I was attracted by the phrase "supplants with villains." Procedural skullduggery is now a much repeated tactic that would appear to reveal a grooming toward heresy while counting on the faithful to obey and not notice.

[@marklambert5232]

Yes I think that is exactly what is going on and has been for the course of this papacy - just look at the Pontifical Academy for Marriage and Family Life for example!

[@stephenkeay1868]

We seem to be back to counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. The question though can easily stated - Is it permissible to bless evil?

[@basilnortz5816]

Thank you for a thoughtful presentation of that article. I would only say that I think that Humanae vitae, Ordinatio sacerdotalis, some passages of Evangelium vitae and Dominus Jesus were also ex cathedra statements.

[@marklambert5232]

Well they were not I'm afraid. Dominus Iesus, for example, was a "Declaration" from the CDF & thus carries the same Magisterial weight as Fiducia supplicans. In fact it was the last time the CDF (now DDF) issued such a "declaration". By contrast, an ex cathedra statement, as defined by the Catholic Church, is a statement made by the Pope in his official capacity as the supreme teacher of the Church, where he speaks on a subject of faith or morals, as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church, and indicates by certain words, such as "we define" or "we proclaim," that he intends to speak infallibly. The Pope must teach in his public and official capacity as the pastor and doctor of all Christians, and not merely as a private theologian or preacher. It must be clear that he speaks as the spiritual head of the Church universal and intends to determine a point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way. Additionally, the Pope must intend to bind the whole Church and demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching. These conditions are necessary for an ex cathedra statement to be considered infallible and binding on the universal Church. I hope that helps!

[@Mark3ABE]

@@marklambert5232Yes, you are correct. Humanae Vitae does not introduce any new doctrine. It applies existing doctrine to a new situation. In my view, it stands on the basis of its own logical consistency with the existing teaching of the Church and with common sense (wisdom is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit). In summary, what Pope Paul VI said was that it was perfectly legitimate for a married couple to choose to limit the size of their family. However, he also pointed out that it is not permissible to do evil, that good may come of it. So, the contraceptive pill, in his opinion, does violence to the natural balance of a woman’s body - it introduces disorder into what Almighty God has created for no good medical reason. Rendering a woman infertile is not a valid medical reason for offering her the contraceptive pill. There is also some medical evidence of the dangers associated with taking the contraceptive pill. It can render a woman permanently infertile, or otherwise, make conception difficult. It can also predispose her to certain forms of cancer. So, all that Pope Paul VI was doing was looking at existing Catholic teaching and applying common sense, so as to arrive at the conclusion which he did. Humanae Vitae was seen as being “Magisterial” at the time, since it ran counter to the spirit of the age. However, if a Pope points out that something is taking place in the world around us which is disordered in the light of the Gospel and of the Catholic Faith, this does not amount to introducing a new dogmatic definition and does not amount to an invocation of Papal Infallibility.

[@basilnortz5816]

Thank you for your response. The weight of a document from the Magisterium is determined not only by the type of document, but by the language used within the document. (Donum Veritatis, 24) There some differences between the declaration Dominus Jesus and Fiducia Supplicans. First, Dominus Jesus was signed by every Congregation in Rome (with the exception of the Secretary of State). And it contains statements like this: “It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.” Ordinationis sacerdotalis contains the solemn affirmation: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” This was repeatedly affirmed by the Congregation of the Doctrine of faith as a definitive and infallible statement. The book by Hans Kung, Infallibility? based its argument against papal infallibility from the fact that Humanae vitae obviously fulfilled the prerequisites for an infallible statement, but was (according to him) obviously wrong. God bless you and your good work! @@marklambert5232

[@aevans8216]

I know this is off topic I,am a 57 year old wanting to purchase my first catechism which would you recommend thank you

[@marklambert5232]

I would recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Ascension Edition - if you pop that into Google it will take you there. I would also recommend the Catechism in a Year podcast by Fr Mike Schmitz available on KZbin! God bless!

[@aevans8216]

@@marklambert5232 thank you so much for your quick reply much appreciated

[@Mark3ABE]

Ensure that you buy an edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church before the Pope introduced error into it a few years ago. He changed the teaching in the Catechism concerning the death penalty, so that the Catechism now contradicts the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures, of the Tradition of the Church and of the Council of Trent. Buy an edition as approved in 1994 by Pope John Paul II. The Pope has also stated that, having falsified the Catechism concerning the death penalty and got away with it, he intends, before long, when he thinks that he will be able to get away with it, to falsify the teaching of the Church on the question of homosexuality. This is not supposition - he was recorded, at his meeting with the Jesuits in Lisbon recently explaining this to them openly.

[@edwardbell9795]

Hope Hell is empty. Not a very Catholic thing to say? This sounds like Michael Voris' critique of Hans Urs von Balthasar and of Bishop Barron.

[@marklambert5232]

Oh well spotted Edward that's exactly what I was going for. NOT. 😄

[@edwardbell9795]

That's okay. I'm enjoying your videos and those of your colleagues. Thanks for finding good material, like the First Things essay. Hope, of course, is a good theological virtue, but even when Pope Francis says innocuous or seemigly uncontroversial things he manages to sow confusion.​@marklambert5232

[@edwardbell9795]

The Church rejects all forms of collectivism, or does it? You mention subsidiarity but didn't mention solidarity. The two complement each other in Catholic Social Teaching. But I guess you can’t really speak of solidarity as collectivism. The latter is tainted by its historic association with totalitarian ideologies.

[@mht5875]

Collectivism is a Leftwing Social Construct(TM Pending)

[@marklambert5232]

CCC 1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. I recommend you read the CCC from paragraph 1878. Come back to me if you still have questions.

[@tomthx5804]

The John Rist book is one everyone can benefit by reading, but I don't think his conclusions follow from the evidence presented in the book, Rist signed a letter in 2019 saying Francis had committed heresy - but that conclusion was flawed and did not follow from the evidence he presented. Numerous excellent Catholic commentators, such as Janet Smith, pointed out that the letter did not supply any evidence of heresy. The letter simply repeated a number of bad things that Francis did that made all good Catholics mad, such as appointing bad bishops, being ambiguous, leading people to believe things that are not true. But no evidence of heresy at all. So in his book on Infallibility and papal power, Rist tries to make the case that Vatican I caused an inflation of papal powers that has ultimately proved harmful. But he does not make that case. Francis has said nothing infallible that is wrong. He has not benefited from a world in awe of his papal power, and people doing as they are told without thinking. Previous popes were well liked and admired - but not because we overly glorify the pope - We simply had EXCELLENT popes for the last 150-200 years, and everything they did was totally in accord with faith - well reasoned and PERSUASIVE. So we liked them, and some became rock stars. The isolated instance of Francis does not mean they basic structure of papal authority must be adjusted. We already see the "adjustment" after Fiducia Supplicans - bishops simply IGNORE a bad pope and wait for a new one. Vatican II made clear the bishops had powers to help govern the church WITH the pope. So now bishops have to a large extent ignored Francis. The system works, no need to change everything all round again. Reducing papal power might lead us into a Protestant like state or like the Eastern Orthodox.

[@springleaf1035]

Thanks, maybe you have a link to the 2019 Rist letter?

[@mn17771]

I found an excellent video interview with Bishop Schneider on KZbin, on this topic, to be very interesting and informative. Aired 2 months ago, titled: 'Bishop Schneider Responds to Archbishop Vigano on Papal Legitimacy'. (Sorry, the name of the channel inexplicably blocks the comment, but search for the title and it will show.)

[@aly8380]

I think the critical discussion for those unhappy with the Declaration and Francis in general needs to focus on the elephant in the room. FS is an magisterial document unless proven otherwise. As such it demands assent of mind and will. This is not just an opinion piece by a wayward theologian. It cannot be dismissed out of hand on KZbin. And who has the authority to "declare" it is not magisterial? Not talking heads on KZbin. There is no clear mechanism I know of to do that especially since condemnation is far from universal among the bishops. See an article written by Cathy Caridi, "Fiducia Supplicans and the Magisterium" dated 4 Jan 2024. She's a canon lawyer. I too am out of kilter on the ramifications this whole mess for the Church. It's rough and I feel like there has been a head-on car crash.

[@marklambert5232]

Yes exactly - I think I said in my last video FS IS MAGISTERIAL! But this makes things worse and more confusing for the Church, not better!

[@aly8380]

@@marklambert5232 I don't think Cardinal Muller, who would be exceptionally well placed to address this head-on, has really said much about it. AND of course Cardinal Ladaria who was head of the Dicastery when the 2021Responsum was released. This is a pressing conundrum and someone has to do their homework and bring some solid expertise onboard for a discussion. Dr. Ashenden would certainly be insightful as usual. We know what M. Lofton would be saying about that!

[@aly8380]

@@marklambert5232 Cardinal Ladaria said in a Vatican News interview in 2021: "Our mission is to promote and protect the doctrine of faith. A task that will always be necessary in the Church, which has the duty to transmit the teaching of the Apostles to the new generations. What was called the "concern for correct doctrine" was born before the Holy Office, it is already in the New Testament. ...the concrete way of completing this task has changed over the centuries and we can think that it will change further. But the concern for fidelity to the doctrine of the Apostles will always remain."

[@mn17771]

​@@aly8380 Cardinal Gerhard Muller has made his position and opposition to Fiducia Supplicans crystal clear in his statement in December last. You can read his statement at new daily compass on the web.

[@aly8380]

​@@mn17771 He did make clear his opposition however I was hoping Muller would address head on the magisterial value of the Declaration. As I mentioned, this is a magisterial document unless proven otherwise. As such it demands the Catholic faithful's assent of mind and will. That is in the Catechism. There is no mechanism or authority I know of for declaring such a document "unauthoritative." I thought having an interview or better yet a discussion panel with him AND Cardinal Ladaria (former prefect of the Dicastery too like Muller) is much needed.

[@vincentberg1069]

The same-sex couple ‘blessing’ causes a number of questions. What is a homosexual couple seeking by asking for a blessing? What is the Church offering in response? What is the Holy Spirit called for and what is exactly being blessed? What is a spiritual purpose of such a ‘blessing’ and what sort of a particular help it intends to provide? Love and acceptance can make miracles of soul transformation, and Pope Francis' vision on the same-sex unions seems to be about love and acceptance. Yet, the same-sex couple blessing would make sense if the Church dumps viewing the same-sex relationship per ser as a sin. Without that, such a 'blessing' appears conflicting and self-contradictory. The entire issue of the homosexuality as such and the sin does not look straightforward at all. For example, some people refer to Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them". Does this mean that about 4% of human population should be now "put to death"? Would it be a proclaimed Christian way of love and acceptance? Would it be compatible with the words of our Lord: "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone" (John 8:7)? Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 6:9,10 was talking specifically about "men who have sex with men" with the intention to just satisfy their lust, but said nothing about homosexuality as such. The Holy Scripture condemns sexual lust in all its appearances - ‘traditional’ and ‘pervert’, but says nothing at all specifically about homosexuality and same sex people, who want to live together in love and faith. Nevertheless, this unlikely defends the incompatibility of the same-sex couple blessing with the current Church doctrines and policies. Faithfully yours, bishop Vincent Berg.

[@mht5875]

Homosexual couple blessing is just one step away from gay marriage in the Catholic Church

[@vincentberg1069]

@@mht5875 If a gay couple should not reject sin but choose love, why would they seek marriage and Church blessing? - Could they just simply have sex? This matter does not look straightforward at all. Love is not just a manifestation of feelings, but the most harmonious form of human unity. Any marriage and family, including same-sex, is not about just sex - it is possible to have without marriage and Church’s blessing. Marriage is intention, willingness and hope to live together in the most harmonious form of human unity. Can Church refuse Her blessing for such aspiration? Can Church still label sex sinful if it is a true expression of love? Not soulless and dogmatic answers are needed, but spiritual and loving.

[@mht5875]

​@@vincentberg1069 While I am familiar with the "love is love" mantra, the issue is not all sex is equal. A married man and woman have the chance for Unity (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5). Even Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman in the Gospel of Matthew. Two dudes or two women, cannot have that same Unity. The Catholic Church also teaches that a spouse is also accountable for having the other spouse get into heaven, as Fr. Chris Alar has mentioned on more than one occasion. It's not just a case of two dudes or two women bonding socially, from what I have seen, has been confused with gay identity. The Catholic Church does not bless friendships, obviously, but can bless the individuals who have a friendship. Speaking of gay marriage, whatever happened to the MCC? They no longer around anymore?

[@Mark3ABE]

@@mht5875I believe that the Marylebone Cricket Club is still around and still based at Lords.

[@Ebergerud]

Listening to Francis' ideas about politics is pointless. He's from Argentina - the country where political ideas go to die. It should be rich, but it's a complete failure. Peron, Eva Peron, Francis - all losers.

[@artstocker60]

As a little boy Bergoglio dreamt of being the next Eva Peron.

[@chissstardestroyer]

Well, seeing as sacred scripture diametrically contradicts reality on numerous points: we KNOW that the bible is a collection of lies; for instance: the timescale of creation doesn't even come *close* to reality, nor does the structure of the universe recorded in scripture match reality at all, and if God cannot lie: we *know* that He has nothing at all to do with scripture, so thus we know that theology is at *best* a pseudoscience, and thus mere superstition, if not overtly contrareality and thus nobody can possibly believe anything of theology, nor can we believe in God at all- as His word is a collection of lies! That is truth that I said, but that said, we also know that nothing of God can be listened to, as His teachings are contra-reality and thus are lies in and of themselves; and since scripture is a recent development, sacred tradition is even more dishonest; so therefore we go with the Scientific Method: grassroots up, nothing "top-down" such as revelation, but we're to revoke all access that God could possibly have, as well as anything else of any sort of "command economy" to begin with, absolutely including revelation- and all of eternity combined must and will inevitably be completely eradicated by man in this mortal coil as response to His teachings of the structure of eternity being, as it is, contra-reality and contra-virtue and contra-goodness and thus contra-salvation in and of themselves!

[@marklambert5232]

Are you a fifteen year old? Read a book!

[@chissstardestroyer]

@@marklambert5232 Well, sir, if you're *that* immature in how to respond: you're worthless- due to complete ineptitude; as is every single being that relies on, or is even versed in, any kind of theology: as all theology, bar none, is heretical magical occult nonsense. And no: I'm actually far wiser than you yourself are, dummy to have thought that nonsense!

[@sodetsurikomigoshi2454]

"At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a DESTROYER.” - St.Francis

[@pavelrazamazov2672]

How does one square this with the Catholic rule that no person can judge a sitting Pope?

[@pavelrazamazov2672]

@@Deborah_de_Peppy Canon 1404 The First See is judged by no one. People have different opinions on the matter, but its a dangerous game to play when criticising the hierarchy especially the Pope. Best to just pray for him and let God sort it out.

[@marklambert5232]

"The Pope is to be judged by no one, save in the case where he deviates in a question of faith" -- St Humbert de Silva Candida (11th C). Personally, I think it is a bit silly to say "no person can judge a sitting Pope" in the context you are using it here; i.e. that you can't criticise anything the pope does. What that statement actually means and expresses is that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world and renders judicial decisions personally or through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See. This means that no person can judge a sitting Pope in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church. However, if the bishop is the judge and an objection is lodged against him, he is to abstain from judging (Code of Canon Law 1442). This indicates that there are certain situations where a bishop, who is also a person, cannot judge a sitting Pope.

[@Mark3ABE]

@@marklambert5232There is an inherent difficulty in what St. Humbert de Silva Candida says. If we are entitled to disagree with the Pope if he deviates from the Catholic Faith, who is to determine whether or not the Pope has, in fact, deviated from the Catholic Faith? If every individual is to be considered free to decide, on his own authority alone, whether or not the Pope has deviated from the Catholic Faith, does not this amount to an approval of Martin Luther and John Calvin, who said that very same thing? Some deviations are obvious and, clearly, quite simply, wrong. For example, the Sacred Scriptures state, specifically, that the civil authority has full power to wield the civil sword on behalf of Almighty God and this includes imposing, in appropriate cases, the death penalty. So, if the Pope alters the Catechism of the Catholic Church to state the opposite of what is stated in the Sacred Scriptures, then, clearly, he is wrong and a faithful Catholic must simply ignore this error. I, personally, will rely upon the edition of the Catechism as it was issued and approved by Pope John Paul II in 1994. Since Pope Francis has stated, openly and unashamedly, that he wishes to introduce ambiguity and confusion into the Church on matters of essential doctrine, then, of course, in saying so he has, for all practical purposes abdicated as successor of St Peter. He remains as Bishop of Rome, as Primate of All Italy and he retains the power to appoint and remove any of the Clergy throughout the world. However, these are administrative powers. He can retain these powers but still have forfeited his right to teach on matters of faith and morals.

[@Mark3ABE]

@@pavelrazamazov2672Remember, that Our Lord himself did prophesy that the Church would fall into apostasy in the last days and that this apostasy would signal his imminent return. So, at one level, we should rejoice in having an apostate Pope - it signals the immediacy of the return of the Lord! The third “secret” of Fatima is along these lines - that the Church would fall into apostasy - even at the highest level. In other words, the Pope would become apostate. So, we may raise our eyes in hope - the return of the Lord is now close at hand.

[@ericschilling9757]

No. The problem is the Christian far-right who gradually gets more and more afraid of progress and love. Their world is small and cold and uncreative. Desperate to find the mote in another's eye while ignoring the beam in their own. They are very afraid of the messages in the Sermon on The Mount.

[@UncleKlausSchwab]

Absolute nonsensical comment. Calling everything you hate "far right" is intellectual laziness. This just sounds like an inane rant from a curmudgeon online littered with bromides and sophism.

[@liammccann8763]

By Christian far right, do you mean African Catholics?

[@patrickparsons2378]

There is no such thing as the 'Christian far right'. That is just a Woke delusion. There are only orthodox Christians and those who don't really believe in Christ. The Sermon on the Mount, if you have actually read it, does not say anything about sin. It doesn't say 'blessed are the sodomites'. Christ's attitude towards the sinner is very simple: repent and do it NO MORE. If you cannot, don't expect Christ to say 'Oh, well that's alright then. No worries. Love is love'. No, Christ did not say that because sanctioning sin and evil does not bring redemption nor salvation.

[@JackGordone]

Eight words into your post, one knows there's little reason to proceed. Silly invective is akin to warnings about receding edges at the Cliffs of Moher.

[@springleaf1035]

Eric, this is a very polarized view. Lambert discussed Progress and Love (at least gay love) around the 16 minute mark. I'm sure that in a broad conversation, we could find common ground, but once one labels me "far right" there is no Christian charity left to have the conversation.

[@mn17771]

The Power of the Faithful, TheSensus Fidelium. Can the Faithful validly criticise/disagree with the Pope's Pronouncements? THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH 'Canon 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, WHO STRENGTHENS HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE FAITH, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.' It is a valid expectation that a Pope, in all his sayings, must strengthen, not weaken and confuse, the Faith of the Faithful. It is also justifiable to expect that his opinions must be in keeping with the Scriptures, and that this must be manifestly evident to ALL the Faithful, regardless of their level of Catechesis. Confusion and obfuscation are an anathema. Clarity is key. 'Canon 749 §3. No document is understood as defined infallibility unless THIS IS MANIFESTLY EVIDENT.' Even though these canons regard infallible teachings, the sentiment is validly to be expected for all utterances of the Pope. Regarding the Faithful: 'Canon 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the RIGHT and even at times the DUTY to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.' (Other Church Law - Canon 750 ) 'Canon. 750 §1. A PERSON MUST BELIEVE with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, IN THE ONE DEPOSIT OF FAITH entrusted to the Church, and at the same time PROPOSED AS DIVINELY REVEALED either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is MANIFESTED BY THE COMMON ADHERENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore ALL ARE BOUND TO AVOID ANY DOCTRINES WHATSOEVER CONTRARY TO THEM. §2. Each and every thing which is PROPOSED DEFINITIVELY by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is REQUIRED TO SAFEGUARD REVERENTLY AND to EXPOUND FAITHFULLY THE same DEPOSIT OF FAITH, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.' I have capitalised the conditions necessary for these laws to be valid. We are never expected to believe anything that is contrary to the Word of God. The role of the Pope is to protect, defend and explain the Deposit of Faith, which has been divinely revealed in the Bible, and handed on by Sacred Tradition. No one can add to, or take away from this Deposit of Faith. Divine Revelation ended with the final Book of Revelation in the Bible. A Pope can make errors when he is not speaking infallibly, that is why we are not obliged to follow Teachings that contradict the Word of God. Jesus is the Head of the Church, He is the real Pope. Canons (747 - 755) are the Laws governing the Teaching Authority of the Church, and are available on the Vatican website. In answer to my opening question, yes they can. IMHO.