|
Post by farronwolf on Dec 19, 2023 14:08:27 GMT
Fourth. What the hell is the Catechism for if not to explain the Church positions on any particular matter, and why the Church takes a particular position? But does the Catechism have the task of explaining how something that was never before blessed in the history of the Church, in fact, that was specifically called out just a few years ago as not being able to be blessed --- "cannot bless sin" were the Church's words --- suddenly becomes "blessable"? Like it or not, it gives the appearance of blessing sodomy. That may not be the dicastery's intent, but there is such a thing as optics, and there is such a thing as scandal. Detractors of the Church who also hold to traditional Christian sexual morality are going to have the mother of all field days with this. I can only imagine what "KJV Only" independent Baptist preachers are going to have to say about it from their pulpits this Sunday. And this time, I agree with them. (As I do sometimes.) See above. So are you saying that the sin is being blessed, and that the Church is allowing the sin to be blessed? I certainly don't get that from the text.
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Dec 19, 2023 17:23:11 GMT
But does the Catechism have the task of explaining how something that was never before blessed in the history of the Church, in fact, that was specifically called out just a few years ago as not being able to be blessed --- "cannot bless sin" were the Church's words --- suddenly becomes "blessable"? Like it or not, it gives the appearance of blessing sodomy. That may not be the dicastery's intent, but there is such a thing as optics, and there is such a thing as scandal. Detractors of the Church who also hold to traditional Christian sexual morality are going to have the mother of all field days with this. I can only imagine what "KJV Only" independent Baptist preachers are going to have to say about it from their pulpits this Sunday. And this time, I agree with them. (As I do sometimes.) See above. So are you saying that the sin is being blessed, and that the Church is allowing the sin to be blessed? I certainly don't get that from the text. That's why this document is so problematic. The text outlines what the "blessings" should be used for and as you stated, its not to bless their union (sin) which is irregular and/or same sex at its base. If that's the case, then why create this document in the first place? These couples aren't going to be approaching a priest to ask for a blessing that gives them the grace to leave their sinful union. They aren't there to acknowledge the irregularity of their union and to have the priest bless them in hopes that they turn from this relationship and seek forgiveness. The text is basically a CYA for those who wrote it and those within the Church who support it by saying the situation is no different from any other sinner, who seeks out a blessing for the grace to help them live a holy and just life. As with so many other documents of ambiguity that have arisen within the Church over the last few decades, you have the letter of the law and then you have its application.
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Dec 19, 2023 19:13:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 20, 2023 4:31:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 20, 2023 4:34:39 GMT
The Pope is not above the Eternal Law. The Natural Law is man's participation in the Eternal Law, accessible to all via human reason. If a Pope exercises his supreme authority contrary to the Natural Law, which we can all know through human reason, he can and must be corrected.
To cut to the chase, it simply indicates that the majority of the hierarchy, from top to bottom, cannot handle the objective reality that unrepented sin is incompatible with the Gospel. This, of course, is also behind the animus towards the TLM, with all its prayers of repentance and judgement, by the same people. Basically, such messages are (rightly) uncomfortable to all who struggle with chastity. Hence the crisis we face.
On the plus side, it means the move towards unification of Canterbury and Rome has just taken a great leap forward. sarc,
I will now conveniently refuse to mention the reaction of most of the rest of the world wide Anglican communion at this point, so as not to upset rain on anyone`s parade. I will also now conveniently refuse to mention the reaction of most of the rest of the fastest growing areas of the Catholicism in the world either.....
I would really like to hear the reactions of the various African bishops. From what I understand, "the gay thing" isn't well-thought-of in Latin America either. Not sure what they think about it in the Philippines. Anybody? Among other things, this is also going to give TLM adherents, many of whom are far more hard-line than I ever thought about being (I assist at the Novus Ordo when I can't get to the TLM, I did so just last week while my mother was in hospital nearby), grist for their mills, a fortiori the sedevacantists. The comments sections of various websites (even secular ones) are crackling with cries of "antipope" and worse. People who never had any issue to speak of with John Paul II or Benedict XVI definitely have issues with Francis over this and many other things. Again, even if you dissect this most recent pronouncement with Jesuitical precision, surgically excise the blessing of people from the blessing of the sins they commit, the optics are terrible. And because you just knew this was coming, and in the interest of letting everyone have their say, this from Where Peter Is: wherepeteris.com/despite-everything-always-blessed/Well, we're starting to hear from Africa now: www.lifesitenews.com/news/malawi-bishops-forbid-blessings-of-homosexual-unions-amid-confusion-over-vatican-documentAnd this from the SSPX: www.lifesitenews.com/news/scandalous-sspx-issues-statement-on-vaticans-approval-of-same-sex-blessings
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 20, 2023 4:56:33 GMT
But does the Catechism have the task of explaining how something that was never before blessed in the history of the Church, in fact, that was specifically called out just a few years ago as not being able to be blessed --- "cannot bless sin" were the Church's words --- suddenly becomes "blessable"? Like it or not, it gives the appearance of blessing sodomy. That may not be the dicastery's intent, but there is such a thing as optics, and there is such a thing as scandal. Detractors of the Church who also hold to traditional Christian sexual morality are going to have the mother of all field days with this. I can only imagine what "KJV Only" independent Baptist preachers are going to have to say about it from their pulpits this Sunday. And this time, I agree with them. (As I do sometimes.) See above. So are you saying that the sin is being blessed, and that the Church is allowing the sin to be blessed? I certainly don't get that from the text. I'm not saying that at all. Again, optics, scandal. Thought experiment here: let's suppose that some of the Proud Boys show up at a church one Sunday and ask to be blessed. Everyone good with that? If not, why not? The Ku Klux Klan? A delegation from one of those "white Aryan [sic] resistance" groups? Boko Haram? Hamas? NAMBLA? Along a somewhat less malignant line, how about "throuples"? Again, everyone good with that? If not, why not? Where to draw the line, and why? Anyone care to do an "exhaustive moral analysis"? Todos, todos, todos...
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Dec 20, 2023 5:10:40 GMT
So are you saying that the sin is being blessed, and that the Church is allowing the sin to be blessed? I certainly don't get that from the text. I'm not saying that at all. Again, optics, scandal. Thought experiment here: let's suppose that some of the Proud Boys show up at a church one Sunday and ask to be blessed. Everyone good with that? If not, why not? The Ku Klux Klan? A delegation from one of those "white Aryan [sic] resistance" groups? Boko Haram? Hamas? NAMBLA? Along a somewhat less malignant line, how about "throuples"? Again, everyone good with that? If not, why not? Where to draw the line, and why? Anyone care to do an "exhaustive moral analysis"? Todos, todos, todos...This to me is saying the sin is being blessed. "But does the Catechism have the task of explaining how something that was never before blessed in the history of the Church, in fact, that was specifically called out just a few years ago as not being able to be blessed --- "cannot bless sin" were the Church's words --- suddenly becomes "blessable" I am pretty certain white supremacists, members of the KKK, and many other groups which should never see the light of day in my opinion, have over the years been blessed by priests. Their actions hopefully have not been condoned during the process. I have no issue with people I don't agree with or agree with their actions receiving blessings. We are supposed to love our enemies are we not.
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Dec 20, 2023 10:29:54 GMT
God’s Blessings and Magisterial Teaching
Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2023
Yesterday, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, published a Declaration, with the signed approval of Pope Francis, entitled Fiducia Supplicans, “On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings.” This Declaration articulated the importance of blessings in Biblical, historical, and ecclesial perspectives.
The Declaration states that it “remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion. The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective.”
So, the Declaration wants to uphold the doctrinal integrity of the blessing given within the sacrament of marriage, while simultaneously wanting to allow a blessing that is “linked to,” but not similar to, a liturgical blessing given in marriage, thus, not causing confusion between the two. The Declaration boasts that this provision “implies a real development” that is in keeping with Pope Francis’s “pastoral vision.”
It continues: “It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.” Here, one perceives the real reason for which this Declaration was written – to bless “couples in irregular” marriages and to bless “same-sex couples.”
The Declaration elaborates on these two situations. Within this pastoral vision “there appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.”
Nonetheless, although these blessing “do not claim a legitimation of their status,” they “do beg that all that is true, good, humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.” The Declaration sees such blessings in accord with what’s been traditionally called “actual grace. ” The purpose of this grace is “so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of divine love.”
In all the above, there is the appearance of reason, but also a great deal of jargon, sophistry, and deceit.
First, the Declaration professes that what is being offered is a development of doctrine in keeping with Pope Francis’s “pastoral vision.” In Essay on the Development of Doctrine, St. John Henry Newman provides criteria for judging what is true and what is erroneous doctrinal development (a “corruption”). Ultimately, he concludes, it’s the infallibility of the Church that validates authentic development.
Newman puts forward, however, a hypothetical, though frightening, hypothesis. What if a council or a pope were to teach a doctrine that would contradict a previous council or pope? Newman declares that it would shatter the notion of doctrinal development, for who then would be able to judge what is authentically revealed and what is not?
Newman’s alarming hypothesis is not so hypothetical today. Despite its claims to the contrary, the Declaration blatantly contradicts the perennial magisterial teaching of the Church concerning irregular marriages and the sexual activity of same-sex couples. Must one conclude, with Newman, that such teaching eradicates the very notion of doctrinal development and ultimately the very notion of doctrinal truth itself?
Here I would offer a thesis that Newman did not consider – one that I believe is important within our present ecclesial context. Newman presumed that all pontifical teaching or teaching from bishops concerning doctrine and morals is magisterial. I propose that any pontifical teaching or teaching from bishops that overtly and deliberately contradicts the perennial teaching of previous councils and pontiffs is not magisterial teaching, precisely because it does not accord with past magisterial doctrinal teaching.
The pope or a bishop may be, by virtue of his office, a member of the magisterium, but his teaching, if it contradicts the received previous magisterial teaching, is not magisterial. Such false teaching simply fails to meet the necessary criteria. It possesses no ecclesial authoritative credentials. Rather, it is simply an ambiguous or flawed statement that attempts or pretends to be magisterial, when it’s not.
Second, to bless couples in irregular marriages or same-sex couples without giving the impression that the Church is not validating their sexual activity is a charade. All those present at such blessings know, without a doubt, that such relationships are sexual in nature. No one is fooled. Actually, they are rejoicing that such sexual relations are being blessed. That’s the point of these blessings. It is not their sexual abstinence being blessed, but their sexual indulgence.
Third, while couples in irregular marriages and same-sex couples can be blessed, what cannot be blessed, and so validated, is the sin in which they are engaged. It is impossible to bless an immoral act, and to attempt to do so is blasphemy, for one is asking the all-holy God to do something that is contrary to his nature – the sanctioning of sin.
Moreover, to bless irregular marriages and same-sex couples, for the purposes of authenticating their sexual activity, is an affront to and a demeaning of the sacrament of marriage itself. Such blessings undermine the dignity of marriage – a sacramental sign of the indissoluble union between Christ and his Church.
Although “On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings” may be well intended, it wreaks havoc on the very nature of blessings. Blessings are the Spirit-filled graces that the Father bestows upon his adopted children who abide in his Son, Jesus Christ, as well as upon those whom he desires to be so. Attempting immorally to exploit God’s blessings makes a mockery of his divine goodness and love.
www.thecatholicthing.org/2023/12/19/gods-blessings-and-magisterial-teaching/
or
archive.is/bPScy
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Dec 20, 2023 14:32:31 GMT
BTW, during Mass, are blessing bestowed on sinners of all kinds? Which begs the question of why particular groups need special blessings and all this attention paid to their situation, when they could simply show up at the end of any Mass and get blessed all they want, as individuals, no questions asked. One might contend that in some cases, for example where these folks are meeting privately with a priest due to any number of personal challenges or circumstances, they might as a couple request a personal blessing from such priest. But it is my understanding that priests normally dispense such informal blessings all the time already in the context of their pastoral duties, so again, why was the public declaration even needed? I suspect that the reason is simply that they knew that this would create worldwide headlines along the lines of “The Pope allows Same Sex Blessings” and this it did. The object being to subvert Church doctrine by bamboozling poorly catechised Catholics (of which, sadly, there are many today) into believing that such a blessing were indeed possible. It is clearly an attempt to dismantle the one true Church, founded by Jesus Christ Himself, by the gradual destruction of Catholic doctrine, one step at a time and souls eternally lost in the process of this being considered as merely collateral damage, and lost they will indeed be, when at our Judgment we are all asked “What did you do, or not do, to defend the Catholic Church”?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 20, 2023 14:47:02 GMT
I'm not saying that at all. Again, optics, scandal. Thought experiment here: let's suppose that some of the Proud Boys show up at a church one Sunday and ask to be blessed. Everyone good with that? If not, why not? The Ku Klux Klan? A delegation from one of those "white Aryan [sic] resistance" groups? Boko Haram? Hamas? NAMBLA? Along a somewhat less malignant line, how about "throuples"? Again, everyone good with that? If not, why not? Where to draw the line, and why? Anyone care to do an "exhaustive moral analysis"? Todos, todos, todos...This to me is saying the sin is being blessed. "But does the Catechism have the task of explaining how something that was never before blessed in the history of the Church, in fact, that was specifically called out just a few years ago as not being able to be blessed --- "cannot bless sin" were the Church's words --- suddenly becomes "blessable" I am pretty certain white supremacists, members of the KKK, and many other groups which should never see the light of day in my opinion, have over the years been blessed by priests. Their actions hopefully have not been condoned during the process. I have no issue with people I don't agree with or agree with their actions receiving blessings. We are supposed to love our enemies are we not. Whatever. I just have to think it would be very interesting to go to a predominantly black Catholic church --- sadly, there are many in the South due to a history of segregation, though some are now integrated, including the one in my town --- and explain to the parishioners why, even though nothing is being condoned about their actions, white supremacists and Klansmen are proper objects of blessings. I don't have the huevos to do that, myself. Their reaction would be entirely predictable, and nuance wouldn't be well-received.
|
|
|
Post by blackforest on Dec 20, 2023 15:24:41 GMT
When, oh when, did we ever get to the point that the Church's actions had to be "explained" to address concerns that those actions might be contrary to the Faith, and to what was hitherto taught and believed? And why?It has not always been like this. (And, please, no appeals to this or that in the past that wasn't immediately received by all the faithful. You know what I mean. This is different.) BTW, during Mass, are blessing bestowed on sinners of all kinds? This!
Also, I read through the link. Does it even specify that these blessings are given DURING Mass? My understanding is that it's still not allowed to be a liturgical blessing, yes? But not every public blessing is a liturgical one. I'm personally more of a private person and prefer any blessings be delivered accordingly, at least whenever I can get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Dec 20, 2023 15:25:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Dec 20, 2023 15:38:39 GMT
I'm sure that poor old lonely Cardinal Newman never imagined a world where priests and bishops of either the RC or C of E would be falling all over themselves to bless same-sex couples. Perhaps he might think of clergy kindly ministering to them in the gaols a la Oscar Wilde.
|
|
|
Post by blackforest on Dec 20, 2023 16:23:35 GMT
So are you saying that the sin is being blessed, and that the Church is allowing the sin to be blessed? I certainly don't get that from the text. I'm not saying that at all. Again, optics, scandal. Thought experiment here: let's suppose that some of the Proud Boys show up at a church one Sunday and ask to be blessed. Everyone good with that? If not, why not? The Ku Klux Klan? A delegation from one of those "white Aryan [sic] resistance" groups? Boko Haram? Hamas? NAMBLA? Along a somewhat less malignant line, how about "throuples"? Again, everyone good with that? If not, why not? Where to draw the line, and why? Anyone care to do an "exhaustive moral analysis"? Todos, todos, todos...
The groups you've named (save Boko Haram, who just hasn't said the quiet part out loud), have repeatedly singled out Catholics as a target for their hate and likely won't seek a blessing from said target. But I suppose if Christ went out of his way to reach the tax collectors, adulterers, and sex workers, He'd go out of His way to bless the KKK, as well. Such blessings ARE what impelled sinners to follow Him, after all.
These days, it's a theological perspective termed "radical hospitality." If it sounds crazy, it is. Our faith gets a little edgy, if we dig into it.
Todos, todos, todos indeed.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 20, 2023 16:57:03 GMT
I'm not saying that at all. Again, optics, scandal. Thought experiment here: let's suppose that some of the Proud Boys show up at a church one Sunday and ask to be blessed. Everyone good with that? If not, why not? The Ku Klux Klan? A delegation from one of those "white Aryan [sic] resistance" groups? Boko Haram? Hamas? NAMBLA? Along a somewhat less malignant line, how about "throuples"? Again, everyone good with that? If not, why not? Where to draw the line, and why? Anyone care to do an "exhaustive moral analysis"? Todos, todos, todos...
The groups you've named (save Boko Haram, who just hasn't said the quiet part out loud), have repeatedly singled out Catholics as a target for their hate and likely won't seek a blessing from said target. But I suppose if Christ went out of his way to reach the tax collectors, adulterers, and sex workers, He'd go out of His way to bless the KKK, as well. Such blessings ARE what impelled sinners to follow Him, after all.
These days, it's a theological perspective termed "radical hospitality." If it sounds crazy, it is. Our faith gets a little edgy, if we dig into it.
Todos, todos, todos indeed.
I know they won't, but my point was "if they did...", qua the Ku Klux Klan, NAMBLA, etc., not as individuals who approach the priest and obtain a blessing without tipping their hand as to their affiliation.
|
|