The only thing I would add is you cannot criticize the Pope in a way that shakes people faith and or turns people off from any just criticism because said criticism is over the top. Ed is balanced here. We need that....Cheers boss. I am glad he brought that up.
Some commenters here don't seem to be able to distinguish between criticizing the Pope's conduct (including public remarks) and *the magisterium* . They aren't the same thing. If something is magisterial, then yes, we are obligated to show reverence and respect, and avoid publicly disagreeing with it, but not everything the pope says or does is magisterial. Further, if a magisterial document is confusing or seemingly contradicts past magisterial statements, a criticism of said confusion, I would argue, falls within the scope of a criticism of the Pope's conduct, rather than his teachings.
Trads before francis = IF you dont agree with pope you are shismatic! Trads after francis = A pope can be wrong and we need to dissent from his opinions and i decide what is orthodox and what isn't Trads turned into librals from 60 and 70 very quicky I can't wait for his aproval of contraception and your dissent next haha
Do you really think people don't get that distinction? Don't you think it's more likely they do get it and think it's not so simple or cut and dried as that?
@@MaolsheachlannÓCeallaigh yes there are people that do not get that or want to argue. There are also people as you say that have more complicated feelings about it. People are complicated. Maybe he was addressing the people he addressed and not everyone, that is also possible. Assume the best.
Repent of your own sins and lead others to Christ. Pray and love your brothers and sisters in Christ. We are called to be shepherds to one another not the accusers of one another.
Weaponized ambiguity. No fraternal correction of homosexuals and transformers. I get it, Christ dined with the outcast and sinners, but his message at the end was sin no more. Priorities seem a bit off too. To have an audience with Jim Martin two times before seeing Cardinal Zen is not right. To push Trafitionis Custodis out, and remove Bishop Strickland when there are so many other pink elephants ( or rainbow for that matter ) in the room, is concerning to say the least.
You believe this because you listen to people that constantly condemn Pope Francis. Why not listen to his defense? Weaponized ambiguity? That is assuming he means to be ambiguous. There is no evidence of that and with all the defenses people have shown, there isn’t as much ambiguity as you think. Ambiguity is handled with CCC 2478, which isn’t being applied to Pope Francis.
He doesn’t embrace homosexuality. He has called the trans movement ideological colonization. He justly fired Bishop Strickland, who wasn’t fair to his fellow bishops in the Dodgers baseball game scandal and he read a sedevacantist’s letter in public and called it “love”. He called a mortal sin “love”. Schism is a mortal sin. Traditionalis Costustodes was implemented because people were refusing to accept Vatican II and the Missal of 1970. A document was released with it confirming this. You are not victims. He polled his bishops and they reported this that this betrayal was the result of the Chrurch’s mercy to people using the Missal of 1962. Now he he making sure Catholics in full communion with the Church are the ones holding this liturgy. You are not victims.
Father Martin is an issue because our so called conservative bishops have betrayed us. They are violating Donum Veritalis by turning the public against the pope. They have slandered Pope Francis in public. Why should he listen to them when he knows they are liars? He would listen to them if they had never violated Constantinople IV canon 21. The irony is you listen to these accusers of the brethren (Rev 12:10), which lead to Pope Francis not being shown who Father Martin really is.
As a (Barely) Protestant, I greatly appreciated this talk. Dr Feser is one of my favourite Roman Catholic voices; I consider him to be far more reasonable than the average online Roman Catholic apologist (especially the popesplainers).
Rumor has it that at this time of year if you make any content that is slightly critical of the Pope, Michael Lofton will descend from the chimney and call you a schismatic and demand you repent before flying off.
Michael Lofton will call anyone suspected of being schismatic an agent of Satan and hell bound but, at the same time, will defend to the death Pope Francis' remarks that all religions are a path that leads to God, hope that hell is empty, an atheist father went to heaven, and Jesus saved Judas in the end.
@@GringoXavier A have the distinct impression you fail reading comprehension. Do you understand...the contradiction of preaching fire and brimstone...to dissenters of the pope...when the pope...denies that approach and reality? Do you see this?
@@steveempire4625 if you’re publicly dissenting against the pope then you deserve to be corrected. As for the pope? You think it’s up to you to correct him? Publicly denigrate him? I may well fail reading comprehension but at least I’ve got the brains to stay in my lane and support and defend our holy father. I am a Catholic after all.
As someone who has been seriously investigating the Catholic faith on my own for over a year, the current Pope concerns me. Especially since i do not know a single person that is Catholic in my actual life to discuss things with. I pray so MUCH, including the rosary, and use apps and the scriptures - but my own husband thinks "praying to Mary" is wrong. This is making things difficult for me. The thing is, I want the Eucharist - and I don't believe the Real Presence can be found anywhere else - meaning a different church service, since they don't even believe it. There are many obstacles for me. Faith is the smallest one. I could really use prayers. My road to baptism could be a very, very long one. I'm in a rural area and unable to drive myself due to a disability.
I'm sorry you're having struggles with your spouse. If he wants an incredible, biblical case for why we pray to the saints and Mary in particular, Tim Staple's book Behold Your Mother is about as good as it gets. I'm glad you recognize the beauty of the Real Presence and the Catholic Church, so don't give up hope! Christ told us that even our own families may turn their backs on us, so the best thing we can do is to continue to provide a good and righteous witness to your spouse and stay strong. There are a lot of online Catholic communities out there that might help you with questions and fellowship, but as anything online does, it'll take some discernment to find a good one. I'll keep you in my intentions, may God bless you and may the Spirit help you to persevere!
Do you know, you are indeed on the right road, you have been given a great gift right from the start: The Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacramento of the altar, proceed on that basis and don't worry about what people say, not even your husband. So many get no further than the doubt of protestantisme. You just carry on! My best wishes and forvent prayers for your reception into the Church❤❤❤❤
@LorenzoLozziGallo-rg8bf to pray to means to ask of, so we do "pray" to them for their intercession. Protestants conflate language and make it mean something it did not mean until modern times.
The problem is we expect our Popes to be saints when our focus should be becoming saints ourselves. We’ve rarely had saintly Popes. But percentage wise we in the laity haven’t fared much better. We can’t change anyone else, only ourselves. If you don’t see the Saint in the Church, be the Saint!
Well, I've never had the illusion that the Pope is some sort of representative of me. That's not where my criticism of Francis comes from. My criticism of Francis is based precisely on that notion that he's supposed to be a representative of Christ but that's not what I see when I watch him. What I see by both his actions and what he says is that he is betraying Christ and presenting a false image of Christ as an abuser, a relativizer of truth, and a cynical political actor. When I look at Francis I don't see Christ, I only see Juan Peron in papal garments.
@@billyg898 Respectfully, this is the opinion you have if you just look at his thumbnails. Not at all accurate as he is very charitable in his videos. When public Catholic educators make series errors in their teaching, they need to be corrected. Do you disagree with that?
@@SevereFamine I did say that he is very informative, which I know because I do watch and listen to his work. I don't disagree that publicly expressed errors often ought to be publicly corrected, but it should be done with charity, and Christian doesn't always do that. For example, just recently, Dr. Ron Conte Jr mentioned St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas on X, but didn't add the title, "St" in front of their names. Here is how Christian responded: "Are you dull or blinded by your pride? I usually tend to assume intellectual error, but your refusal to respect the great saints, the Doctor of Grace and Common and Angelic Doctor, by honoring them with the title "St." makes me assume moral error." Imagine he is on with Matt, and Matt says St Thomas Aquinas' name, but without saying "St", and Christian throws a fit and says "Are you dull or blinded by your pride? You should be ashamed to have a YT channel named after the Angelic Doctor!" That's what I mean by him being alienating. Christian has blocked Feser BTW, accusing him of being elitist, after they had a dispute over what St Thomas Aquinas says about infinite dignity, saying that Feser "doesn't know what he is talking about." Why should Matt risk putting up with that nonsense?
Regarding a Holy Father being a representative of Christ is indisputable (around 10 minutes in), but as I recall, the title of “Vicar of Christ” was dropped by Bergoglio in 2020. That was his deliberate choice, and not something to be glossed over or ignored.
When Christ established the office of the papacy, he did not create an autocracy or a dictator pope., but an office whereby Saint Peter and his successes would confirm the brethren in the faith. A bishop, “ first among equals” at the service of the Church. This was the understanding of the papacy for the first thousand years of the Church Something has drastically gone wrong.!
So this is what the Dr. is saying. You shouldn't ignore the problem. And you should be able to criticize the problem. But do so respectfully. And remember the office of the pope. And......how does this help? What will it take for the Bishops to convene a meeting to discuss whether the pope has been teaching heresy? Will he have to openly say something like, "All religions are pathways to God." Because that is heresy, pure and simple. If a kid said that in a catechism class, what would you tell him? If an adult whom you thought was a Catholic said this, what would you tell him? I believe you can tell someone they are wrong in ways that are appropriate to the context. But one thing is clear - you have to tell them they're wrong. If you don't, you are complicit with sin.
Today's Catholics are milquetoast and effeminate for the most part. I think a meeting to discuss the *validity* of Pope Benedict's resignation is also urgently needed. And I believe what Scalfari said about Mr. Bergoglio telling him Christ isn't divine and hell doesn't exist.
I always ask who or what else would you give this level of subservience and consideration too ? given his actions and words I cannot respect him as a man , he has none of the attributes of a man , a spiritual father or a leader that he should have with his years and office .
Matt and Dr Feser, i have a question for you please? I am a very devout Lebanese Catholic, i humbly believe that there is a serious problem with the infallibility of the Pope and before someone attacks me, I will explain what i mean... We are bombarded day and night ( probably to excuse all the errors and mistakes of Pope Francis ) that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex-Cathedra. Am i right so far? Now, my simple question is this: When did Pope Francis ever speak ex-Cathedra? Never, right? So, as a Catholic, i have the right and the duty to disagree with him whenever he teaches something wrong and false, right? The problem is that Popes rarely ever teach something ex-Cathedra, so it`s like the whole idea of infallibility is really, and i mean really such a rare thing? Honestly, and please do not think that i am protesting or becoming a protestant, but i honestly humbly believe that with Pope Francis, every faithful Catholic should know and learn the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also the teachings of the Magisterium and literally disagree and refute the false modern teachings... Please correct me if i am wrong. Thank you
It is a serious error to think you should only submit to the pope when he only speaks infallibly. Canon 751 says "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.",
@@AndrewDolder If he upholds the perennial teaching of the Church, fine, otherwise, it's your *duty* to NOT submit to it. Hope that cleared up any confusion.
@@marountayar2831 The Pope is infallible when teaching as universal pastor of Christians, promulgating official teachings through the DDF, or speaking definitively/Ex Cathedra when he is teaching on faith and morals specifically and in no other circumstance. This is why even pertaining to his ordinary magisterium we as Catholics are to give the submission of intellect and will. This can be read directly on the Vatican website, look for document titled Donum Veritatis, particularly paragraphs 17-18
@@marountayar2831 Read Donum Veritatis. The Ordinary Magisterium is also owed religious submission of intellect and will. So just because something is not infallible doesn't mean you can simply ignore it.
@@davidlarsson7555 where and how did you understand that i want to ignore the magisterium Just because they do not speak in an infallible manner? I Simply said that every lay Catholic is required and should know and study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the doctrine, in order for us to refuse and disagree and even fight against false teachings and errors, even if they were said by a Pope such as pope Francis, or a Bishop or a priest or any person whatsoever. Otherwise you are claiming that all Catholics must Always obey the magisterium no matter what? If this is what you are claiming, then i disagree and very strongly.
Feser is right that when the pope is doing wrong things and saying wrong things, we should critique them respectfully. What he does not make clear is what respectful criticism looks like. First, we primarily respect the office, as vicar of Christ: we honor Christ by attentively hearing His vicar. But when his vicar says woefully ignorant and silly things (like the ridiculous assertion that unemployed youth is the gravest evil in the world today), we do not violate the obligation of respect by calling the comments ignorant and ridiculous. We can ridicule what he said because it is indeed ridiculous, but respect his person because of his office. Respecting his office means STILL listening to him the next time, even though he said something knuckleheaded last time. It is not disrespectful to point out that his managerial style in the Vatican (and in Buenos Aires before) was peronist, and clarify that. It is indeed respectful to his office to point out how something he says is contradictory to what Benedict and JPII said, and that this contradiction does not help the Church. The pope doesn't deserve special respect in his own right independent of his office, and without that office he can lose the right to any special respect by being stupid and wrong-headed. Because of his office, we owe the him the respect of Christ''s Vicar, but we don't owe respect to his ridiculous acts, we owe them to him in his role as vicar in spite of those acts. And yes, we should pray for him and desire his good. We are not obliged to suffer the unjust sufferings he causes if we can licitly and morally escape them, including by rightly criticizing them. We are only obliged to suffer them (and in good will) to the extent we have no moral pathway to undo them. (We may choose to bear them willingly even if we DO have a method of escaping them, but this is not obligatory.)
@@jackieo8693Normally I would say yes , but the outrages and insults, are so extreme moral rage and insults are called for, I would not address an evil man as sir, so I would not address this evil hireling in a respectful manner. I would not refer to an abusive religious by their title but as I would any other of that ilk. Groveling and servility embolden such creatures, the contempt they have for us should be reciprocal.
14:14 "respectful criticism" While I get this discussion and while Ed seems correct in his outlook, the current pontiff is clearly beyond being rebuked and criticized respectfully. I am not sure what mechanism or medium Ed is referring to, for this *respectful criticism* to be advanced. Look around you. The doors for *dialogue* are open to sod*mites, pro choicers, radicals, progressives of every stripe, EXCEPT to trads and conservatives. Just WHO is going to bell the cat wrt the respectful criticism and just WHO is listening? Because the current Pope obviously thinks he is beyond correction, at least not from the Conservatives and the extremists beyond. What Ed and Matt need to understand are 1) the lines are drawn. Sides have been taken. Both sides are clearly unwilling to listen to each other and for good reason. Because each are diametrically opposed to the others perspective. 2) If we are talking about Pope Honorius and Pope John XXII and comparing Francis to them, I think you are willing to call a spade a spade, or in this case call him a heretic. Is that too much of a stretch to say out aloud? Because , you already went so far as to tacitly admit that Popes Honorius and John XXII were regretably not good examples of good stewards and shepherds. Saying things in hindsight is diplomatic softball. It seems you both are aware that we are going through a turbulent period which involves heresy, and I am not even talking about the pope here. The heresy in question being modernism. When are you both going to talk about this elephant (that the current Pope is riding) in the room?
The mastermind behind this shenanigan did a brilliant job. The person on Earth Catholics hold in highest esteem is the pope. So if you manage to get a masonic/peronist/modernist/marxist wolf elected as ''pope'', then you've got everyone trapped. The Church has been without a shepherd for 1 year, 11 months and 3 days now. If we go by the prophecy of St. Malachi, Peter the Roman is leading the flock (assumedly) from Heaven.
Fiducia Supplicans teaches that relationships that involve sexual activity outside of marriage can be blessed. All relationships that involve sexual activity outside of marriage are sinful. Therefore, Fiducia Supplicans teaches that sin can be blessed. Can someone please help me see how this argument is either invalid or one/both premises untrue?
FS teaches that everyone can receive a blessing, including homosexuals, which is not controversial. In that respect you are wrong. FS does not bless homosexual acts or marriages, which is good. Where you are partially correct is that FS teaches that "couples" can receive blessings. This is not good because people can get the impression the "relationship" seems to be recognized and blessed. Hopefully the next Pope will clean up this mess.
Great to see Feser on podcasts. His books on blog are what drew me back to Catholicism years ago. More people need to be aware of the work. Not just his proofs for God though they're great but his work on philosophy of mind and morality as well.
Gentlemen, you omitted one very important point in this discussion and that is, “How does one properly express their concern about the Pope’s actions or his teachings?" It is important to approach any concern about the Pope’s actions or teachings with respect, humility, and a proper sense of decorum. As you mentioned, while it is acceptable to question or seek clarification when troubled, there is a vital distinction between being frank and being obnoxious, or respectful and disrespectful. It is easy to cross the line into exaggeration, embellishment, or unwarranted conclusions, which only compound the problem. However, what you failed to mention was that you should never take your concerns public to public forums such as “out on to the street”, on UA-cam or on Facebook, etc. Public criticism of the Holy Father achieves nothing positive. It serves only to magnify perceived faults to a wider audience, invites unnecessary criticism, and risks damaging the unity of the Church. Instead, there is a proper and constructive way to address your concerns. First, bring your concern to your parish priest. He may be able to clarify or resolve the issue for you. If you are not satisfied, escalate your concern to your diocesan bishop, who has the responsibility of overseeing matters within his jurisdiction. Should the matter remain unresolved, you may address it directly to the Vatican in the form of a respectful letter. This process ensures that your concerns are heard while preserving the dignity of the Church and the respect due to the Pope as the successor of St. Peter. Let charity and prudence guide your actions, as Christ calls us to build up the Church, not to undermine her through unnecessary division. In summary, the Holy Father needs our prayers, he needs our support, he needs our respectful criticism to the extent that it is fitting but, it must always be done in the proper manner and respectfully. The proper venue to raise concerns about the Church and the Magisterium is through the Church and not publicly.
This from the magisterial Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae n 37 (and not "just" a theologian like Aquinas) comes to mind: Every one has to regulate his mode of conduct according to this constitution of the Church, which it is not in the power of any man to change. Consequently, just as in the exercise of their episcopal authority the bishops ought to be united with the apostolic see so should the members of the clergy and the laity live in close union with their bishops. Among the prelates, indeed, one or other there may be affording scope to criticism either in regard to personal conduct or in reference to opinions by him entertained about points of doctrine; but no private person may arrogate to himself the office of judge which Christ our Lord has bestowed on that one alone whom He placed in charge of His lambs and of His sheep. Let every one bear in mind that most wise teaching of Gregory the Great: “Subjects should be admonished not rashly to judge their prelates, even if they chance to see them acting in a blameworthy manner, lest, justly reproving what is wrong, they be led by pride into greater wrong. They are to be warned against the danger of setting themselves up in audacious opposition to the superiors whose shortcomings they may notice. Should, therefore, the superiors really have committed grievous sins, their inferiors, penetrated with the fear of God, ought not to refuse them respectful submission. The actions of superiors should not be smitten by the sword of the word, even when they are rightly judged to have deserved censure.”
From the 1990 CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis - On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, par. 30: “If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments. In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the ‘mass media’, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.”
In a press conference presenting Donum Veritatis, Ratzinger said that “the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century [that would be Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi] ... were later superceded once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment” (June 26, 1990, translated in “Theology is not private idea of theologian”, L’Osservatore Romano 27 [July 2, 1990], English edition, p. 5). Ratzinger bumped Pascendi!
@@littlerock5256 Not exactly. Note the qualifier. Pascendi can be made relevant again when the circumstances of the particular moment are essentially replicated. Modernism has raised its ugly head again.
I’m outside the Catholic Church, read recently about the process to select the pope and all the power plays that are even going on now to select the next pope. It is such an openly political process that I find disheartening as a Christian (clearly the Holy Spirit is not leading all the cardinals to their decision). Just another example of why I am so skeptical of the claims by the church as the true church
Largely reasonable comments by Ed (who I greatly respect ) here especially as some nitty gritty is passed over. His concerns of reversal of tradition can conflate "infallibly protected and irreformable past teaching" with "traditional and common consensus throughout the centuries." Lumen Gentium (which itself is magisterial though not clearly definitive/infallible but I think Ed submits to it) teaches us: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held." I have always found that Ed, when making arguments from traditional teaching, appears to ignore those last five words which are very important. "...definitively to be held" is a technical term of art. It is necessary but not sufficient (for infallible protection) for there to be a moral consensus of the bishops throughout the centuries on a teaching ("what the Church has always taught"); it also requires in these bishops' teaching you need some indication in whatever language that was used that the teaching is "definitive". So they need to say something along the lines of: perennial, permanent, unchanging, unchangeable , irreformable, etc. There is no set formula but the idea of it being irreversible/permanent must be manifest somehow. The Code of Canon law supports this aspect of it being "manifest" by saying that "No doctrine is defined infallibly unless it is manifestly evident". Manifestly. Not by implication or inference. Thus, this source of infallible teaching is the muddiest to establish and often where the trads go wrong. That is why JPII issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the male priesthood - only he could authoritatively confirm that what had always been taught was an already existing infallibly taught doctrine. And that was even questioned even though it was JPII who used the words "is to be definitively held" which would seem to make it a secondary object of infallibility (but at the time I believe Cardinal Ratzinger somewhere still said something to the effect that it was "a fallible recognition of an already existing infallible doctrine". Many disagree, such as myself, and view JPII's recognition itself as protected from all error and irreformable. I may be wrong that it was Cardinal Ratzinger but that is my recollection and I followed it closely at the time. Please correct me if I am wrong as to who made that comment. He remains the favorite Pope of my lifetime).
The anglophone cultural sphere has never understood the church which is Mediterranean. They do not realize what a protestant mentality they have. Not because they necessarily have that background, but their culture is and was the background of protestant mentality.
I’ve never really heard this, but I’m genuinely curious as to what you mean. How would you explain the Mediterranean view of the church and papacy? (Not being aggressive, just curious)
Oh, so an Argentinian Jesuit Pope unstoppingly declaring blatantly heretical statements is not the problem, but the "anglophone" protestant culture. Got it.
Very good very illuminating: a good proposal for dealing with this crisis? Also good to hear the acknowledgement that it IS a crisis causing much suffering!❤
The problem is that people who start out with these “genuine questions” end up sliding down the slippery slope into schism and sedevacantism. They start out logical and attempting to differentiate based on their own knowledge. The problem is that that pride doesn’t stop there and they end up outside the Church in time.
"attempting to differentiate based on their own knowledge." And you're not? The submission of your mind and will to the Church's teaching is in no way based on your knowledge? You don't "know" that it's the right thing to do? This kind of stupid response is what happens when bootlicking is prized above all else, pathetic.
Catholics who know there Faith see clearly that Pope Francis teaches error. While he is responsible to Christ. We are also responsible to Christ and must block our ears and run from a false teacher. The Pope is also responsible to protect fhe Faith, to protect us. Pope Francis fails in doing this and it is his stubborn and repeated error. Here is another example of an error or lies Pope Francis holds and teaches. "all religions teach the fundamental truth that as children of one God (LIE) we must love and honour one another, respect diversities and differences in a spirit of fraternity and inclusion (LIE) and take care of each other and the earth, our common home. Failure to follow the noble teachings of religions (LIE following the instructions of false religions and ideologies is) one of the causes responsible for the troubled situation in which our world finds itself today. Our contemporaries will rediscover the value of the lofty teachings of religious traditions only if we all strive to live by them (LIE) and to cultivate fraternal and friendly relationships with everyone, with the sole aim of strengthening unity amid diversity, ensuring harmonious coexistence amid differences, and being peacemakers despite the difficulties and challenges we are bound to face." Audience with participants in the Conference on the centenary of the first.“ All Religions’ Conference”, 30.11.2024
The Five Dubia Cardinals aren't laymen and Pope Francis has yet to dialog with them (contrary to Vatican II and his oft repeated exhortations to accompany others), which opens him up to being viewed as hypocritical.
The Lord Jesus says to some in his church "What have I sent you out to do? argue amongst yourselves, complain about my servant or lead the world to me?"
Ultramontanism worked well when you had seemingly orthodox popes. Now with Francis, ultramontanes must the resolve the contradictions they themselves created by transferring unto the pope powers from the Church he did not have.
Matt, please have a discussion on the "Papal magisterium" as well as the "ordinary magisterium" and what are the boundaries within which assent is mandatory. it seems that there is now an attempt to emphasize that or even expand that as the basis of Pope's Francis' authority to implement the changes he wants and to justify the things he says that seem contradictory to past magisterial teachings.
Either people forgot or were never catechized to know that Ordinary Magisterium is binding on your conscience. That is nothing new. Not to the level of divine Faith, but it is owed religious submission of intellect and will.
@@davidlarsson7555 True. That is why we often see people talking past each other. Often, the boundaries of authority for the interlocutors/parties are different. Some think only ex-cathedra requires assent while others, especially those emphasizing Pope Francis' Magisterium, seem to be actively pushing those boundaries outwards and in terms of importance as if it approaches the submission owed to ex-cathedra so as to abrogate/supplant the authority of traditional Catholic teachings and past popes' magisterium. There is a disconcerting clash here. Not just at the level of a specific doctrine or practice. A foreseeable result is the undercutting of the entire notion of a Holy Spirit guided teaching authority in the Church.
@@aly8380 I agree that people talk past each other, but I think the popular idea today is that as long as it isn't ex cathedra you can just ignore it or, even worse, publicly dissent against it. There are a few voices crying out in the wilderness that no, you owe the Magisterium more than that and the Magisterium is safer than the opinions of theologians since it alone has been promised divine assistance even in its ordinary means of teaching. If someone no longer believes that about the Magisterium, they are on a path leading outside the Church and are not, as they often pose, defenders of the Faith.
@@davidlarsson7555 I wish it were so simple. I know that the papal magisterium and ordinary magisterium require assent - not only ex-cathedra doctrines - but we cannot conflate them. Just because one requires assent does not mean it is infallibly true. That is why Vatican l was so keen to explain the conditions necessary for papal infallibility. The issues arise when one pope's magisterial teaching seeks to abrogate or replace a previous magisterial teaching of the Church or of a previous pope. Then we have a clash of magisterial teachings. Then we have a contradiction. Which magisterial teaching do we follow and give assent to? We cannot say that the latest teachings trumps the past ones or that the latest take is the right one. Because if the latest pope's teaching is tantamount to declaring that the perennial magisterial teachings of the Church were wrong and he's correcting them then that means the Church had been teaching error. That demolishes the claim that the Church is protected from error.
Also, if this pope effectively teaches that a previous pope was teaching error, that also demolishes any claim that popes are protected from teaching error. In that case, the current pope could just as easily be teaching error. A future pope can change the current one's "magisterial" teaching as he pleases. That is precisely the conundrum the present papacy has unleashed. It is a mess. This goes to foundational claim of Roman Catholicism as the one church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why I would like to see a further discussion on this matter.
@@aly8380 It doesn't demolish any claims. There are different levels of error. The Ordinary Magisterium is at least subjectively safe, and I can't see any way that this could be true without it also being objectively safe. I never argued that all teaching is free from error, since that would be nonsensical. What the Magisterium has taught is that this error can't rise to the level of being objectively detrimental to souls. So the Ordinary Magisterium teaching heresy is out of the question. The ordinary teachings of the Church are to be weighed in accordance with the theological notes and other criteria such as frequency and amplitude of teaching. But a special significance must be placed on the living Magisterium, which alone has been given the promise of divine assistance in teaching, and not theological interpretation of past magisterial acts. We should always seek the interpretation that harmonizes past teachings with current teachings. And this is not just relevant to the current Magisterium. Any knowledge of Church history presents us with a vast number of hermeneutical challenges. Not to mention the interpretation of Scripture. Now, hypothetically, this opens the Magisterium up to falsification. But we know, by Faith, that this is never going to happen. Please show where the current Pontiff has declared previous teaching to be in error.
Countless comments, countless videos claiming the pope is wrong or heretical, yet so few attempt to steelman and ask how they might be able to accept what he said. In my opinion the only respectful way to criticize the pope and hold to your Catholic faith is FIRST to assess his words with good faith and charity, and THEN if you still believe you are right and he is wrong you can freely give your opinions. But if you do not show the former, the latter will only serve to scandalize, and even worse could introduce a sort of Hegelian dialectic, deconstructing the Church and the Papacy online and in real time. Thank you Ed Feser for always showing us how it can be done respectfully and consistently with good faith.
On the sex abuse crisis: Satan wins every time a Catholic leaves Holy Mother Church because of the abhorrant acts by sinful prelates and the errors of inept or corrupt bishops.
Jesus says Do not judge and you will not be judged. Luke 6:37. It is clear. Our energies, our spiritual life, should be used for building up the church, not tearing it down. Let us pray for Pope Francis, and use our energies wisely. The world is in chaos. Let us bring His Peace and Concord. Jesus is our King and our God. Jesus will lead us to Truth, always.
You are misunderstanding Luke if you do not distinguish between judging and judgments. Jesus requires us to make judgments, to judge actions. He never intended peace at any cost. If we refuse to speak the truth in love, then we betray the truth and love as well. We ough to pray for Pope Francis, in gratitude for his good and proper excerise of the Petrine Office and for the humility to repent for irresponsible and scandalous exercises.
Almost didn't watch the video because of the title, and that would've been unfortunate because this was a good discussion. Would be better if the title went "How to Criticize THE POPE without being a Schismatic," just remove the descriptor "bad" as it impresses upon the audience the wrong idea. Us Asians and our African brothers love the current Pope (and we don't think he's perfectly fine either), so it's always baffling for us to see Western Catholics (not all and thankfully I see many Western Catholics defend the Pope against uncharitable criticism) think the other way. In the Philippines, the Pope's strong statements against very important issues like abortion and divorce have been our bedrock to continue the good fight against the satanic liberal forces that are trying to legislate these evils. And the Pope's consistent preaching about helping the poor resonates deeply with us Filipinos who live in a 3rd world country that is continually wrestling with corruption and poverty.
@@cavendish2925 Have his encouraging words that all Religions lead to God helped your people stay pagan since according to the Pope arguing about which Religion is true is a complete waste of time?
@@littlerock5256 I hope those are two separate observations; otherwise you would be falsely accusing all the African bishops sedevacantists for their righteous objection to Fiducia Supplicans.
@@Kirin2022 I know of no Church teaching that allows for to a declaration from an office that speaks for the pope. Additionally, they did more than to it; they refused to carry it out -- they rejected it.
Love you Matt. You’re a good man. I would say that the popes slowly doing things as Francis has, has slowly led the Catholic Church astray. This process has been going on for hundreds of years. But I’d say since Vatican I, the RCC went into areas of doctrine it shouldn’t have. Now you have the last three popes kissing korans and saying Islam worships the same God. I’m sorry but there’s no way I could be catholic and I wanted to be. Yes humans error, but these are piled up each other and are leading the RCC to become the Anglican w
Publically criticizing the Pope or asking questions is one thing. Spreading lies about him, blatantly dissenting, and having a disposition of suspicion are a different matter. Making the proper distinctions is critical.
What lies ? he betrayed our Chinese brethren to the ccp using the filth mccarick is that a lie ? how about his insults to the Chilean abuse victims , falloed by his crawlback apology , was that a lie ?.
@@paulywauly6063 Were our Chinese brethren not betrayed by bergoglio and mccarrick to the ccp ? how does Vigano factor into this ? . A lot of people covered for this filth , give us some more alleged lies about the moral imbecile bergolio .Start with the embrace of rupnick and the pornographer fernandez , his insults and crawl back apology to the Chilean abuse victims show his lack of judgement and discernment .
The Church is composed of good and bad fish read Mt.13:47-49. If Francis is not a pope, it follows that Catholic Church has no pope since he was elected.
Matt and Tuesday, first off thank you for your work. Will you please try to get on a good SSPX defender to counter John Salza? The video with Salza saying their masses don’t fulfill the Sunday obligation, among other things, is lacking in substance in some respects, apparently (see comments from that show).
3 Popes in their Magisterium have already ruled that the SSPX are schismatic and thus it follows that their Masses don't fulfil Sunday obligation this shouldn't be a "youtube debate issue".
@@littlerock5256 There are many bishops that dissent from Church teaching, this is why we are in a crisis The Pope in his Magisterium > whatever Diocese you just called
Don’t understand what not keeping quiet is going to achieve. Since I’ve returned to the Catholic Church I’ve heard nothing but vocal criticism (in its various forms) and nothing has changed except people just getting frustrated and going into schism. It certainly did not stop the pope from issuing Moto p, or insisting TC be mandatory, despite the constant groaning about the “novous ordo” in the previous years. Criticising seems to make things worst, like the lord is using Pope Francis to humble us.
In my opinion, you make the error of assuming utilitarianism; that criticism is only warranted if it achieves something. If criticism is unjust, then it should not be made. But if the criticism is just and correct, then it is valuable for its own sake, because it is true, and the truth is valuable in and of itself, regardless of the consequences.
@@mattmalcolm534 no that’s not what I mean. What I mean is criticism that leads more often than not to frustration that they are not being heard and believe if they should be heard. Which is the reality of it.
It's hard for me to be convinced that I need to be 'respectful' of a man who is actively protecting sex pests (Zanchetta and Rupnik) and who by appearances does everything he can to disrupt unity.
Pope John Paull II, Pope Benedict and Cardinal George Pell also protected sexual predators. It is just part of the corporate ethic of the Catholic Church.
I very much sympathize -- like anything else in life that's difficult, maybe you can use this as an opportunity to lean upon the Lord, who wants to help you. Bring it to Him in prayer and say "I know I'm *supposed* to respect this man, but I just can't, knowing what I know. Guide my heart, and if possible, help me to see him as You see him." Like St Therese of Lisieux for example, we can use effectively any difficulty, big or small, as an opportunity to recognize our own weakness and need for God's help, which often leads to a much greater love and joy than if we tried to do it all ourselves.
@@LaserFace23 very well said. There’s no need to be unduly anxious about our church. Take it to God. Leave it with Him. And most of all, trust Him. Our holy father can be frustrating to listen to sometimes but God will correct Him. I don’t believe it’s up to us to do so.
God has a way of taking the messes that are made in the Church and bringing good out of them. So, I think the suggestion at the end to offer up the suffering caused by some of the Pope's decisions as penece for our own sins and for the good of the Pope himself. That way, we allow God to take the whole mess and weave it into the fabric of the growth and maturation of his Church.
I agree that it's possible that the Pope makes mistakes, I believe I understand the limits of the infallibility dogma. However, we should (my opinion) always have a charitable interpretation of the holy father. It would be really bad to claim "heresy" when it's more of a misspeak or out-of-context. The idea that the Pope actually supported Amazon Catholics to worship "Pachamama" and was blessing that event, is the very opposite of charitable interpretation. Please, please don't attribute motives and describe his inner state. We can still say that we disagree on climate politics and immigration policies - I feel that is a respectful disagreement.
If it happens once... Okay. When it happens constantly, then you should probably start understanding what's really going on. Why are demon statues allowed at all?
How to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify the unjustifiable dogmas of Papal infallability. In Orthodoxy, if a patriarch or bishop teaches heresy, it's a tragedy but it doesn't call into question the entire structure of the Church. Catholicism is pretty much based on Papal authority so being a traditional Catholic with a liberal heretical pope is an impossible double bind. I don't envy you, brothers and sisters
@Martin-hd2tr You're confused. To be a traditional catholic is to follow the pope. It is untraditional to not follow the pope. Jesus did after all create His Bride, the Church, and put Peter in charge of it.
One pet peeve lol, as noted by Fr Stephen De Young, Aquinas isn't a surname, people aren't 'Aquinists', they are 'Thomists'. So 'Thomas said' is much better than 'Aquinas said'.
Part of the problem is that the Roman Catholic Church claims that the magisterium has ultimate authority, not the apostles, scripture or the church fathers. But as Matt said, bad magisterial teaching that contradicts previous magisterial teaching is being made authoritative. Surely you can see the problem. It puts the whole idea of a magisterium into question. It would be better if teaching that comes from the pope and the apparatus of the church where to be ultimately measured against scripture. Being an Anglican, I am not against tradition per se. but there should be a concurrence between scripture and the magisterium. If there is contradiction, something is terribly wrong.
@@marilynmelzian7370 i hear that, but that supposes 2 things: 1. That the Magisterium is the Ultimate rule of faith for Catholics. That's not actually true. We hold God, Scripture and Tradition above the Magisterium in terms of authority; but we also see in the Magisterium of the Church the ongoing interpretation of those sources. Indeed, the Church Fathers themselves are an earlier stage of Magisterial teaching in their time. Which leads us to 2. You also presuppose that the Magisterium as a rule of Faith has no intrinsic connection to Scripture, Tradition, Apostles and Fathers, etc. The truth is it does; the Magisterium is also guided by the Holy Spirit (with "the charism of truth", as the Fathers said); the Apostles as the first "Magisterium" (inspired by the Spirit) gave us Scripture, and Tradition, and the successors who became the later Magisterium; and what the Magisterium teaches is the clarification and development of the dogma/doctrine of Scripture, Tradition, prior magisterium, etc.
And then you fail the basic test of Scripture of what the Church MUST be capable of. See Matthew 18. The Church MUST be able to resolve doctrinal controversy or She isn't the Church. Since two people can come away reading the same thing with two very different opinions God would not allow us to have no path to recourse. That path is the Church, which then must hold the authority to make binding and ultimately final decisions in these matters. And the only credible apostolic Church in this regard is the Catholic Church.
@@kw91 I know that is what you say. And yet, when it comes right down to it, it is the magisterium which is your final authority. You can see this by the way the Catholic Church justifies magisterial teachings that are not scriptural. Even Matt acknowledged this. There are things being added right now to the magisterial teaching which contradict previous teaching. Because the magisterium is seen as the final interpreter, there is no mechanism for correcting the pope, even if he leads people astray.
@ that's not exactly true, and also a hyperbolic account of what Matt and Ed are talking about. Much of the video here is spent saying that not everything the Pope or the bishops say has Magisterial weight. And again, Scripture, Tradition, and previous Magisterium still bind on today's Magisterium, such that they are one such "mechanism" for correction. And besides that, what of God? What of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church? Does God not have the ability to keep the Church indefectible? Finally, and just because you mentioned that you are an Anglican, what exactly has stopped the Anglican Church from justifying non-scriptural teachings on sexual ethics, divorce and remarriage, and numerous other topics? Or what has kept them in any meaningful sense unified? What checks are in place, for the Anglicans or any other Church or faith community, that have succeeded over an extensive period of time? It seems to me only the Catholic mechanisms have worked over a long period of time.
“It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” - Pope Pius X Dr. Feser here is a perfect example of offering just criticism here. It’s perfectly fine to offer criticism to the hierarchy. But when it comes to the magisterium it must be acknowledged and even non-definitive pronouncements must be given the religious submission of intellect and will per Lumen Gentium. Even when criticism is given the Office must be given respect. Calling the pope the Antichrist, sedevacantism, recognize and resist, denying the indefectibility of the Church and the Roman See; all of those are off the table. This hasn’t been a very good pontificate, I think Francis is being a tad bit too pastoral and focus on evangelization; which aren’t bad things but when doctrinal emphasis is thrown out with the bathwater and your leaders aren’t the clearest it’s a problem. but this is isn’t the first time around. If we got through Alexander VI and Benedict IX we will get through Francis.
I honestly don’t get what is so bad about Pope Francis. He is not perfect (no person is), but he is doing a lot of good, and I fear that many have just adopted a knee-jerk reaction against every move he makes.
So the blessing of same sex couples isn’t a dubious teaching? The affirmation of “all religions”? The failure to correct German bishops and those who specifically contradict Church teaching (Fr. James Martin)? Really? And all this in a current social climate where these woke ideologies are infiltrating (already taken over) most of our institutions in the West. And his ambiguity on these issues isn’t a problem? I would suggest that YOU are part of the problem. The church is under assault, from without and from within, and she needs you. Don’t fall asleep on your watch.
What’s interesting is the opinion that Pope Francis is a bad pope isn’t reality when the opinion is based on outright lies and slander. I used to think he was a bad pope until I stopped listening to channels that not only constantly accuse Pope Francis, they never find him innocent of anything. There is no attempt to understand him or his teachings. Practice CCC 2478.
But Ed Feser directly addresses documents released under the authority of Francis (not in this video but in the detailed rebuttals he has written on his blog). How is that not addressing the reality of this pontificate? Pope Francis also speaks frequently with extraordinary sloppiness concerning very basic teachings of the church that should be clear, concise, and have minimal likelihood of ambiguity of interpretation. I am a new convert and I find the Popes remarks shocking and frustrating. He should be a unifier and teach clearly, his job is to create the OPPOSITE of confusion. Stop gaslighting and wake up.
"when the opinion is based on outright lies and slander." And what if one's opinion is based on a careful reading of his public statements and a careful observation of his public actions? You claim some channels constantly accuse him and never find him innocent. Is it also true that other people constantly find him innocent and never find fault? What if the truth is somewhere in between, such that he's still on balance, bad at his job?
@ Matt : We need to practice CCC 2478 with Pope Francis and give him the benefit of the doubt. This prevents the sins in CCC 2477. It is better to give the accused the judgment of charity over the accuser. Rev 12:10 is a clue as how we find wolves in sheep’s clothing.
@ eafowler Im not gaslighting, Im practicing CCC 2478. You are a new Catholic and haven’t been shown how this part of the Catechism handles confusion. We are to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, it’s called the judgement of charity. Our right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty comes from this Biblical teaching. There is a requirement in this section to ask the person about the issue. In the case of the Pachamama incident for example, the accused were never asked before being accused of idolatry. They never said the word Pachamama and we know they are from Brazil, where it was never worshipped, so the default is these Catholics being innocent. And yes, we know they are Catholics. This avoids the sins in CCC 2477. There is no evidence of their guilt if one practices CCC 2478. You are new to Catholicism and frankly, you should just be voicing opinions and not making statements of fact or judgements. You don’t know enough about Catholicism right now to be teaching or rebuking, especially when you are shown to be wrong. Read Donum Veritalis.
@@paulmualdeave5063 I agree with giving the benefit of the doubt, and giving the accused the judgment of charity. This would apply to bishops as well as the Pope, would it not? Does it therefore follow that we are forbidden from saying certain bishops are "bad bishops"? Take as an example Cardinal McCarrick. His misdeeds have been publicized and it seems to me that he was a bad bishop. Am I being uncharitable in that assertion and risking sin?
While I agree that we should PRAY 4 the Pope & love him the way we love our enemies I still think he is one of the worst pope's in my life time. Recently a Mormon made the remark that our pope has gone WOKE I responded Well on our over 2k yr history we began w/ Judas who sold Jesus 4 30 pieces of silver Our first St.Peter betrayed him we r a church of poor sinners but I am proud 2 b Catholic it's a great gift from God!
This video helps to highlight why the likes of Michael Lofton has become to utterly unpalatable, to the point where it is hard to even see Lofton himself as a likable person.
This all speaks to orthodox and Protestant issues with even having a pope figure in the church. Seems like it an issue similar with the kings of the Old Testament and also opens the church to more criticism than otherwise we would have from inside and outside the church
My buddy Ed Feser is a strong principled critic of the Pope and a loyal son of the Church and the Pope. Who says differently here you and I will have words. We need principled critics and defenders of the Pope. Extreme Pope haters and Pope Splainers are of no help at all....
He said the Pope works for Christ. Don't we work for Christ too? Aren't we supposed to represent him in our life too? I didn't understand that comment.
What’s the full interview right now when you join our Locals community. mattfradd.locals.com/support
The only thing I would add is you cannot criticize the Pope in a way that shakes people faith and or turns people off from any just criticism because said criticism is over the top.
Ed is balanced here. We need that....Cheers boss. I am glad he brought that up.
What more can we what's there? 😊
Some commenters here don't seem to be able to distinguish between criticizing the Pope's conduct (including public remarks) and *the magisterium* . They aren't the same thing. If something is magisterial, then yes, we are obligated to show reverence and respect, and avoid publicly disagreeing with it, but not everything the pope says or does is magisterial. Further, if a magisterial document is confusing or seemingly contradicts past magisterial statements, a criticism of said confusion, I would argue, falls within the scope of a criticism of the Pope's conduct, rather than his teachings.
Trads before francis = IF you dont agree with pope you are shismatic!
Trads after francis = A pope can be wrong and we need to dissent from his opinions and i decide what is orthodox and what isn't
Trads turned into librals from 60 and 70 very quicky
I can't wait for his aproval of contraception and your dissent next haha
Do you really think people don't get that distinction? Don't you think it's more likely they do get it and think it's not so simple or cut and dried as that?
Bingo!
@@MaolsheachlannÓCeallaigh yes there are people that do not get that or want to argue. There are also people as you say that have more complicated feelings about it. People are complicated. Maybe he was addressing the people he addressed and not everyone, that is also possible. Assume the best.
Repent of your own sins and lead others to Christ. Pray and love your brothers and sisters in Christ. We are called to be shepherds to one another not the accusers of one another.
I'm a protestant who loves this channel. Very informative and edifying.
Weaponized ambiguity. No fraternal correction of homosexuals and transformers. I get it, Christ dined with the outcast and sinners, but his message at the end was sin no more.
Priorities seem a bit off too. To have an audience with Jim Martin two times before seeing Cardinal Zen is not right. To push Trafitionis Custodis out, and remove Bishop Strickland when there are so many other pink elephants ( or rainbow for that matter ) in the room, is concerning to say the least.
Make sure when you speak of Christ you capitalize the H in His brother
100% correct brother. UA-cam wont allow corrections, I’d have to pull the post.
You believe this because you listen to people that constantly condemn Pope Francis. Why not listen to his defense? Weaponized ambiguity? That is assuming he means to be ambiguous. There is no evidence of that and with all the defenses people have shown, there isn’t as much ambiguity as you think.
Ambiguity is handled with CCC 2478, which isn’t being applied to Pope Francis.
He doesn’t embrace homosexuality. He has called the trans movement ideological colonization. He justly fired Bishop Strickland, who wasn’t fair to his fellow bishops in the Dodgers baseball game scandal and he read a sedevacantist’s letter in public and called it “love”. He called a mortal sin “love”. Schism is a mortal sin.
Traditionalis Costustodes was implemented because people were refusing to accept Vatican II and the Missal of 1970. A document was released with it confirming this. You are not victims. He polled his bishops and they reported this that this betrayal was the result of the Chrurch’s mercy to people using the Missal of 1962. Now he he making sure Catholics in full communion with the Church are the ones holding this liturgy.
You are not victims.
Father Martin is an issue because our so called conservative bishops have betrayed us. They are violating Donum Veritalis by turning the public against the pope. They have slandered Pope Francis in public. Why should he listen to them when he knows they are liars? He would listen to them if they had never violated Constantinople IV canon 21. The irony is you listen to these accusers of the brethren (Rev 12:10), which lead to Pope Francis not being shown who Father Martin really is.
Pray for Pope Francis ✝️❤️🔥🇻🇦
A manifest heretic such as Bergoglio cannot be a pope. Plus, that dude isn't even validly consecrated.
As a (Barely) Protestant, I greatly appreciated this talk. Dr Feser is one of my favourite Roman Catholic voices; I consider him to be far more reasonable than the average online Roman Catholic apologist (especially the popesplainers).
Rumor has it that at this time of year if you make any content that is slightly critical of the Pope, Michael Lofton will descend from the chimney and call you a schismatic and demand you repent before flying off.
After criticizing the Pope himself and failing to offer other Catholics the same right.
Michael Lofton will call anyone suspected of being schismatic an agent of Satan and hell bound but, at the same time, will defend to the death Pope Francis' remarks that all religions are a path that leads to God, hope that hell is empty, an atheist father went to heaven, and Jesus saved Judas in the end.
@@steveempire4625 a Catholic angry at someone defending our pope? Strange times indeed.
@@GringoXavier A have the distinct impression you fail reading comprehension. Do you understand...the contradiction of preaching fire and brimstone...to dissenters of the pope...when the pope...denies that approach and reality? Do you see this?
@@steveempire4625 if you’re publicly dissenting against the pope then you deserve to be corrected.
As for the pope? You think it’s up to you to correct him? Publicly denigrate him?
I may well fail reading comprehension but at least I’ve got the brains to stay in my lane and support and defend our holy father. I am a Catholic after all.
As someone who has been seriously investigating the Catholic faith on my own for over a year, the current Pope concerns me.
Especially since i do not know a single person that is Catholic in my actual life to discuss things with. I pray so MUCH, including the rosary, and use apps and the scriptures - but my own husband thinks "praying to Mary" is wrong.
This is making things difficult for me.
The thing is, I want the Eucharist - and I don't believe the Real Presence can be found anywhere else - meaning a different church service, since they don't even believe it.
There are many obstacles for me. Faith is the smallest one. I could really use prayers. My road to baptism could be a very, very long one. I'm in a rural area and unable to drive myself due to a disability.
I'm sorry you're having struggles with your spouse. If he wants an incredible, biblical case for why we pray to the saints and Mary in particular, Tim Staple's book Behold Your Mother is about as good as it gets. I'm glad you recognize the beauty of the Real Presence and the Catholic Church, so don't give up hope! Christ told us that even our own families may turn their backs on us, so the best thing we can do is to continue to provide a good and righteous witness to your spouse and stay strong. There are a lot of online Catholic communities out there that might help you with questions and fellowship, but as anything online does, it'll take some discernment to find a good one. I'll keep you in my intentions, may God bless you and may the Spirit help you to persevere!
Do you know, you are indeed on the right road, you have been given a great gift right from the start: The Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacramento of the altar, proceed on that basis and don't worry about what people say, not even your husband. So many get no further than the doubt of protestantisme. You just carry on! My best wishes and forvent prayers for your reception into the Church❤❤❤❤
@@mattbernacki9282we don’t exactly pray to the saints, rather ask them to pray for them, because their prayers have more power.
@LorenzoLozziGallo-rg8bf to pray to means to ask of, so we do "pray" to them for their intercession. Protestants conflate language and make it mean something it did not mean until modern times.
I needed to hear this conversation. Thank you!!!! God bless.
Thank you so much for this! It’s so lovely to hear Dr Feser “in person,” after reading much of his writing.
Edward Feser is a great gift to faith and reason.
He's a joke
@@aisthpaoitht ultramontism on steroids
The problem is we expect our Popes to be saints when our focus should be becoming saints ourselves. We’ve rarely had saintly Popes. But percentage wise we in the laity haven’t fared much better. We can’t change anyone else, only ourselves. If you don’t see the Saint in the Church, be the Saint!
Well, I've never had the illusion that the Pope is some sort of representative of me.
That's not where my criticism of Francis comes from. My criticism of Francis is based precisely on that notion that he's supposed to be a representative of Christ but that's not what I see when I watch him. What I see by both his actions and what he says is that he is betraying Christ and presenting a false image of Christ as an abuser, a relativizer of truth, and a cynical political actor.
When I look at Francis I don't see Christ, I only see Juan Peron in papal garments.
🎯🎯If someone didn't know who he is, would he find credible evidence that he is the vicar of Christ on Earth? I don't think so
Oh, reaching out to the margins, welcoming the suffering, is what I believe he is most noted for…..unbecoming vicar of Christ?
When will you have Christian Wagner on?
Christian is very informative, but he is rude, particularly other public defenders of the faith.
He's alienating.
@@billyg898 Respectfully, this is the opinion you have if you just look at his thumbnails. Not at all accurate as he is very charitable in his videos. When public Catholic educators make series errors in their teaching, they need to be corrected. Do you disagree with that?
@@SevereFamine I did say that he is very informative, which I know because I do watch and listen to his work.
I don't disagree that publicly expressed errors often ought to be publicly corrected, but it should be done with charity, and Christian doesn't always do that.
For example, just recently, Dr. Ron Conte Jr mentioned St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas on X, but didn't add the title, "St" in front of their names. Here is how Christian responded:
"Are you dull or blinded by your pride? I usually tend to assume intellectual error, but your refusal to respect the great saints, the Doctor of Grace and Common and Angelic Doctor, by honoring them with the title "St." makes me assume moral error."
Imagine he is on with Matt, and Matt says St Thomas Aquinas' name, but without saying "St", and Christian throws a fit and says "Are you dull or blinded by your pride? You should be ashamed to have a YT channel named after the Angelic Doctor!"
That's what I mean by him being alienating. Christian has blocked Feser BTW, accusing him of being elitist, after they had a dispute over what St Thomas Aquinas says about infinite dignity, saying that Feser "doesn't know what he is talking about."
Why should Matt risk putting up with that nonsense?
No thanks.
If Pope Francis has no respect for Holy Tradition why should we respect him as a particular Pope, as opposed to respect for the office of the Papacy?
Thank you, Matt and Ed.
Regarding a Holy Father being a representative of Christ is indisputable (around 10 minutes in), but as I recall, the title of “Vicar of Christ” was dropped by Bergoglio in 2020. That was his deliberate choice, and not something to be glossed over or ignored.
Right. Francis is due to the respect of the office. But it's clear that he doesn't understand that office in the same way that the church has.
When Christ established the office of the papacy, he did not create an autocracy or a dictator pope., but an office whereby Saint Peter and his successes would confirm the brethren in the faith. A bishop, “ first among equals” at the service of the Church. This was the understanding of the papacy for the first thousand years of the Church Something has drastically gone wrong.!
So this is what the Dr. is saying.
You shouldn't ignore the problem.
And you should be able to criticize the problem.
But do so respectfully.
And remember the office of the pope.
And......how does this help?
What will it take for the Bishops to convene a meeting to discuss whether the pope has been teaching heresy? Will he have to openly say something like, "All religions are pathways to God." Because that is heresy, pure and simple. If a kid said that in a catechism class, what would you tell him? If an adult whom you thought was a Catholic said this, what would you tell him? I believe you can tell someone they are wrong in ways that are appropriate to the context. But one thing is clear - you have to tell them they're wrong. If you don't, you are complicit with sin.
Today's Catholics are milquetoast and effeminate for the most part.
I think a meeting to discuss the *validity* of Pope Benedict's resignation is also urgently needed. And I believe what Scalfari said about Mr. Bergoglio telling him Christ isn't divine and hell doesn't exist.
I always ask who or what else would you give this level of subservience and consideration too ? given his actions and words I cannot respect him as a man , he has none of the attributes of a man , a spiritual father or a leader that he should have with his years and office .
@@RickW-HGWT 🎯🎯
Matt and Dr Feser, i have a question for you please? I am a very devout Lebanese Catholic, i humbly believe that there is a serious problem with the infallibility of the Pope and before someone attacks me, I will explain what i mean...
We are bombarded day and night ( probably to excuse all the errors and mistakes of Pope Francis ) that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex-Cathedra. Am i right so far? Now, my simple question is this: When did Pope Francis ever speak ex-Cathedra? Never, right? So, as a Catholic, i have the right and the duty to disagree with him whenever he teaches something wrong and false, right?
The problem is that Popes rarely ever teach something ex-Cathedra, so it`s like the whole idea of infallibility is really, and i mean really such a rare thing?
Honestly, and please do not think that i am protesting or becoming a protestant, but i honestly humbly believe that with Pope Francis, every faithful Catholic should know and learn the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also the teachings of the Magisterium and literally disagree and refute the false modern teachings...
Please correct me if i am wrong. Thank you
It is a serious error to think you should only submit to the pope when he only speaks infallibly.
Canon 751 says "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.",
@@AndrewDolder If he upholds the perennial teaching of the Church, fine, otherwise, it's your *duty* to NOT submit to it. Hope that cleared up any confusion.
@@marountayar2831 The Pope is infallible when teaching as universal pastor of Christians, promulgating official teachings through the DDF, or speaking definitively/Ex Cathedra when he is teaching on faith and morals specifically and in no other circumstance. This is why even pertaining to his ordinary magisterium we as Catholics are to give the submission of intellect and will.
This can be read directly on the Vatican website, look for document titled Donum Veritatis, particularly paragraphs 17-18
@@marountayar2831 Read Donum Veritatis. The Ordinary Magisterium is also owed religious submission of intellect and will. So just because something is not infallible doesn't mean you can simply ignore it.
@@davidlarsson7555 where and how did you understand that i want to ignore the magisterium Just because they do not speak in an infallible manner? I Simply said that every lay Catholic is required and should know and study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the doctrine, in order for us to refuse and disagree and even fight against false teachings and errors, even if they were said by a Pope such as pope Francis, or a Bishop or a priest or any person whatsoever. Otherwise you are claiming that all Catholics must Always obey the magisterium no matter what? If this is what you are claiming, then i disagree and very strongly.
Feser is right that when the pope is doing wrong things and saying wrong things, we should critique them respectfully. What he does not make clear is what respectful criticism looks like.
First, we primarily respect the office, as vicar of Christ: we honor Christ by attentively hearing His vicar. But when his vicar says woefully ignorant and silly things (like the ridiculous assertion that unemployed youth is the gravest evil in the world today), we do not violate the obligation of respect by calling the comments ignorant and ridiculous. We can ridicule what he said because it is indeed ridiculous, but respect his person because of his office. Respecting his office means STILL listening to him the next time, even though he said something knuckleheaded last time. It is not disrespectful to point out that his managerial style in the Vatican (and in Buenos Aires before) was peronist, and clarify that. It is indeed respectful to his office to point out how something he says is contradictory to what Benedict and JPII said, and that this contradiction does not help the Church. The pope doesn't deserve special respect in his own right independent of his office, and without that office he can lose the right to any special respect by being stupid and wrong-headed. Because of his office, we owe the him the respect of Christ''s Vicar, but we don't owe respect to his ridiculous acts, we owe them to him in his role as vicar in spite of those acts. And yes, we should pray for him and desire his good.
We are not obliged to suffer the unjust sufferings he causes if we can licitly and morally escape them, including by rightly criticizing them. We are only obliged to suffer them (and in good will) to the extent we have no moral pathway to undo them. (We may choose to bear them willingly even if we DO have a method of escaping them, but this is not obligatory.)
We can criticize without ridiculing.
@@jackieo8693Normally I would say yes , but the outrages and insults, are so extreme moral rage and insults are called for, I would not address an evil man as sir, so I would not address this evil hireling in a respectful manner. I would not refer to an abusive religious by their title but as I would any other of that ilk. Groveling and servility embolden such creatures, the contempt they have for us should be reciprocal.
14:14 "respectful criticism"
While I get this discussion and while Ed seems correct in his outlook, the current pontiff is clearly beyond being rebuked and criticized respectfully. I am not sure what mechanism or medium Ed is referring to, for this *respectful criticism* to be advanced. Look around you. The doors for *dialogue* are open to sod*mites, pro choicers, radicals, progressives of every stripe, EXCEPT to trads and conservatives. Just WHO is going to bell the cat wrt the respectful criticism and just WHO is listening? Because the current Pope obviously thinks he is beyond correction, at least not from the Conservatives and the extremists beyond.
What Ed and Matt need to understand are 1) the lines are drawn. Sides have been taken. Both sides are clearly unwilling to listen to each other and for good reason. Because each are diametrically opposed to the others perspective.
2) If we are talking about Pope Honorius and Pope John XXII and comparing Francis to them, I think you are willing to call a spade a spade, or in this case call him a heretic. Is that too much of a stretch to say out aloud? Because , you already went so far as to tacitly admit that Popes Honorius and John XXII were regretably not good examples of good stewards and shepherds. Saying things in hindsight is diplomatic softball. It seems you both are aware that we are going through a turbulent period which involves heresy, and I am not even talking about the pope here. The heresy in question being modernism. When are you both going to talk about this elephant (that the current Pope is riding) in the room?
The mastermind behind this shenanigan did a brilliant job. The person on Earth Catholics hold in highest esteem is the pope. So if you manage to get a masonic/peronist/modernist/marxist wolf elected as ''pope'', then you've got everyone trapped. The Church has been without a shepherd for 1 year, 11 months and 3 days now. If we go by the prophecy of St. Malachi, Peter the Roman is leading the flock (assumedly) from Heaven.
This was so very helpful for me. Thank you.
Fiducia Supplicans teaches that relationships that involve sexual activity outside of marriage can be blessed.
All relationships that involve sexual activity outside of marriage are sinful.
Therefore, Fiducia Supplicans teaches that sin can be blessed.
Can someone please help me see how this argument is either invalid or one/both premises untrue?
You misrepresent Fiducia supplicans. What you wrote is factually untrue
FS teaches that everyone can receive a blessing, including homosexuals, which is not controversial. In that respect you are wrong. FS does not bless homosexual acts or marriages, which is good. Where you are partially correct is that FS teaches that "couples" can receive blessings. This is not good because people can get the impression the "relationship" seems to be recognized and blessed. Hopefully the next Pope will clean up this mess.
Careful Matt you might unleash the wrath of the Loftonites.
I don’t think they care much for PWA already.
Brillant, thank you.
Thank you so much Dr. Edward Feser 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Great to see Feser on podcasts. His books on blog are what drew me back to Catholicism years ago. More people need to be aware of the work. Not just his proofs for God though they're great but his work on philosophy of mind and morality as well.
Great help. Thank you. God bless.
I am learning that to pretend to fix God’s church by human means is foolish
Gentlemen, you omitted one very important point in this discussion and that is, “How does one properly express their concern about the Pope’s actions or his teachings?" It is important to approach any concern about the Pope’s actions or teachings with respect, humility, and a proper sense of decorum. As you mentioned, while it is acceptable to question or seek clarification when troubled, there is a vital distinction between being frank and being obnoxious, or respectful and disrespectful. It is easy to cross the line into exaggeration, embellishment, or unwarranted conclusions, which only compound the problem.
However, what you failed to mention was that you should never take your concerns public to public forums such as “out on to the street”, on UA-cam or on Facebook, etc. Public criticism of the Holy Father achieves nothing positive. It serves only to magnify perceived faults to a wider audience, invites unnecessary criticism, and risks damaging the unity of the Church. Instead, there is a proper and constructive way to address your concerns.
First, bring your concern to your parish priest. He may be able to clarify or resolve the issue for you. If you are not satisfied, escalate your concern to your diocesan bishop, who has the responsibility of overseeing matters within his jurisdiction. Should the matter remain unresolved, you may address it directly to the Vatican in the form of a respectful letter.
This process ensures that your concerns are heard while preserving the dignity of the Church and the respect due to the Pope as the successor of St. Peter. Let charity and prudence guide your actions, as Christ calls us to build up the Church, not to undermine her through unnecessary division.
In summary, the Holy Father needs our prayers, he needs our support, he needs our respectful criticism to the extent that it is fitting but, it must always be done in the proper manner and respectfully. The proper venue to raise concerns about the Church and the Magisterium is through the Church and not publicly.
The only comment I see on here that actually gives the correct answer(and that includes the video)
Thank you very much for this!
Excellent Matt, thank you!
Yeah keeping silent about the sex scandal in Boston was a real good idea
Sensible, reasonable, rational, logical, thank you!
This from the magisterial Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae n 37 (and not "just" a theologian like Aquinas) comes to mind:
Every one has to regulate his mode of conduct according to this constitution of the Church, which it is not in the power of any man to change. Consequently, just as in the exercise of their episcopal authority the bishops ought to be united with the apostolic see so should the members of the clergy and the laity live in close union with their bishops. Among the prelates, indeed, one or other there may be affording scope to criticism either in regard to personal conduct or in reference to opinions by him entertained about points of doctrine; but no private person may arrogate to himself the office of judge which Christ our Lord has bestowed on that one alone whom He placed in charge of His lambs and of His sheep. Let every one bear in mind that most wise teaching of Gregory the Great: “Subjects should be admonished not rashly to judge their prelates, even if they chance to see them acting in a blameworthy manner, lest, justly reproving what is wrong, they be led by pride into greater wrong. They are to be warned against the danger of setting themselves up in audacious opposition to the superiors whose shortcomings they may notice. Should, therefore, the superiors really have committed grievous sins, their inferiors, penetrated with the fear of God, ought not to refuse them respectful submission. The actions of superiors should not be smitten by the sword of the word, even when they are rightly judged to have deserved censure.”
From the 1990 CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis - On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, par. 30: “If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the ‘mass media’, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.”
In a press conference presenting Donum Veritatis, Ratzinger said that “the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century [that would be Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi] ... were later superceded once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment” (June 26, 1990, translated in “Theology is not private idea of theologian”, L’Osservatore Romano 27 [July 2, 1990], English edition, p. 5).
Ratzinger bumped Pascendi!
Wow. That says it all. Thanks for sharing
@@littlerock5256 Not exactly. Note the qualifier. Pascendi can be made relevant again when the circumstances of the particular moment are essentially replicated. Modernism has raised its ugly head again.
Excellent Document, worth reading every bit.
@@Kirin2022 This is modernism. Papal teaching is always relevant.
I’m outside the Catholic Church, read recently about the process to select the pope and all the power plays that are even going on now to select the next pope. It is such an openly political process that I find disheartening as a Christian (clearly the Holy Spirit is not leading all the cardinals to their decision). Just another example of why I am so skeptical of the claims by the church as the true church
This is a glorious explanation ❤️🔥🙏🏼 thanks doc!
There’s a stark difference between the Sacred Office and the man IN the Office.
Largely reasonable comments by Ed (who I greatly respect ) here especially as some nitty gritty is passed over. His concerns of reversal of tradition can conflate "infallibly protected and irreformable past teaching" with "traditional and common consensus throughout the centuries."
Lumen Gentium (which itself is magisterial though not clearly definitive/infallible but I think Ed submits to it) teaches us: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held."
I have always found that Ed, when making arguments from traditional teaching, appears to ignore those last five words which are very important. "...definitively to be held" is a technical term of art. It is necessary but not sufficient (for infallible protection) for there to be a moral consensus of the bishops throughout the centuries on a teaching ("what the Church has always taught"); it also requires in these bishops' teaching you need some indication in whatever language that was used that the teaching is "definitive". So they need to say something along the lines of: perennial, permanent, unchanging, unchangeable , irreformable, etc. There is no set formula but the idea of it being irreversible/permanent must be manifest somehow. The Code of Canon law supports this aspect of it being "manifest" by saying that "No doctrine is defined infallibly unless it is manifestly evident". Manifestly. Not by implication or inference.
Thus, this source of infallible teaching is the muddiest to establish and often where the trads go wrong. That is why JPII issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the male priesthood - only he could authoritatively confirm that what had always been taught was an already existing infallibly taught doctrine. And that was even questioned even though it was JPII who used the words "is to be definitively held" which would seem to make it a secondary object of infallibility (but at the time I believe Cardinal Ratzinger somewhere still said something to the effect that it was "a fallible recognition of an already existing infallible doctrine". Many disagree, such as myself, and view JPII's recognition itself as protected from all error and irreformable. I may be wrong that it was Cardinal Ratzinger but that is my recollection and I followed it closely at the time. Please correct me if I am wrong as to who made that comment. He remains the favorite Pope of my lifetime).
Thank you.
The anglophone cultural sphere has never understood the church which is Mediterranean. They do not realize what a protestant mentality they have. Not because they necessarily have that background, but their culture is and was the background of protestant mentality.
@@alexandros6433 this
I’ve never really heard this, but I’m genuinely curious as to what you mean. How would you explain the Mediterranean view of the church and papacy? (Not being aggressive, just curious)
So true. Moral Relativism plagued the American culture so much as Protestantism.
Oh, so an Argentinian Jesuit Pope unstoppingly declaring blatantly heretical statements is not the problem, but the "anglophone" protestant culture. Got it.
Very good very illuminating: a good proposal for dealing with this crisis? Also good to hear the acknowledgement that it IS a crisis causing much suffering!❤
The problem is that people who start out with these “genuine questions” end up sliding down the slippery slope into schism and sedevacantism.
They start out logical and attempting to differentiate based on their own knowledge.
The problem is that that pride doesn’t stop there and they end up outside the Church in time.
"attempting to differentiate based on their own knowledge." And you're not? The submission of your mind and will to the Church's teaching is in no way based on your knowledge? You don't "know" that it's the right thing to do? This kind of stupid response is what happens when bootlicking is prized above all else, pathetic.
@@Thunderjerky He sounds like a ''trust the expert and shut up'' kind of guy.
Catholics who know there Faith see clearly that Pope Francis teaches error. While he is responsible to Christ. We are also responsible to Christ and must block our ears and run from a false teacher. The Pope is also responsible to protect fhe Faith, to protect us. Pope Francis fails in doing this and it is his stubborn and repeated error. Here is another example of an error or lies Pope Francis holds and teaches. "all religions teach the fundamental truth that as children of one God (LIE) we must love and honour one another, respect diversities and differences in a spirit of fraternity and inclusion (LIE) and take care of each other and the earth, our common home. Failure to follow the noble teachings of religions (LIE following the instructions of false religions and ideologies is) one of the causes responsible for the troubled situation in which our world finds itself today. Our contemporaries will rediscover the value of the lofty teachings of religious traditions only if we all strive to live by them (LIE) and to cultivate fraternal and friendly relationships with everyone, with the sole aim of strengthening unity amid diversity, ensuring harmonious coexistence amid differences, and being peacemakers despite the difficulties and challenges we are bound to face." Audience with participants in the Conference on the centenary of the first.“ All Religions’ Conference”, 30.11.2024
When St paul criticized St peter he wasn't a layman.
The Five Dubia Cardinals aren't laymen and Pope Francis has yet to dialog with them (contrary to Vatican II and his oft repeated exhortations to accompany others), which opens him up to being viewed as hypocritical.
Aquinas in the summa doesnt prohibit it whether you are a layman or clergy. It's a superior/prelate relationship. Stop with this modernism.
The Lord Jesus says to some in his church "What have I sent you out to do? argue amongst yourselves, complain about my servant or lead the world to me?"
Matt looking a little like Groucho Marx today.
Ultramontanism worked well when you had seemingly orthodox popes. Now with Francis, ultramontanes must the resolve the contradictions they themselves created by transferring unto the pope powers from the Church he did not have.
“You guys hope for an opportunity to attend a more reverent Holy Mass?! Schismatic!!”
“You guys want to conserve tradition?! You’re a liberal!”
God used lightning to show this Bergaglio does not hold the keys to the Kingdom.
Matt, please have a discussion on the "Papal magisterium" as well as the "ordinary magisterium" and what are the boundaries within which assent is mandatory.
it seems that there is now an attempt to emphasize that or even expand that as the basis of Pope's Francis' authority to implement the changes he wants and to justify the things he says that seem contradictory to past magisterial teachings.
Either people forgot or were never catechized to know that Ordinary Magisterium is binding on your conscience. That is nothing new. Not to the level of divine Faith, but it is owed religious submission of intellect and will.
@@davidlarsson7555 True. That is why we often see people talking past each other.
Often, the boundaries of authority for the interlocutors/parties are different. Some think only ex-cathedra requires assent while others, especially those emphasizing Pope Francis' Magisterium, seem to be actively pushing those boundaries outwards and in terms of importance as if it approaches the submission owed to ex-cathedra so as to abrogate/supplant the authority of traditional Catholic teachings and past popes' magisterium.
There is a disconcerting clash here. Not just at the level of a specific doctrine or practice.
A foreseeable result is the undercutting of the entire notion of a Holy Spirit guided teaching authority in the Church.
@@aly8380 I agree that people talk past each other, but I think the popular idea today is that as long as it isn't ex cathedra you can just ignore it or, even worse, publicly dissent against it. There are a few voices crying out in the wilderness that no, you owe the Magisterium more than that and the Magisterium is safer than the opinions of theologians since it alone has been promised divine assistance even in its ordinary means of teaching. If someone no longer believes that about the Magisterium, they are on a path leading outside the Church and are not, as they often pose, defenders of the Faith.
@@davidlarsson7555 I wish it were so simple. I know that the papal magisterium and ordinary magisterium require assent - not only ex-cathedra doctrines - but we cannot conflate them. Just because one requires assent does not mean it is infallibly true. That is why Vatican l was so keen to explain the conditions necessary for papal infallibility.
The issues arise when one pope's magisterial teaching seeks to abrogate or replace a previous magisterial teaching of the Church or of a previous pope.
Then we have a clash of magisterial teachings.
Then we have a contradiction.
Which magisterial teaching do we follow and give assent to?
We cannot say that the latest teachings trumps the past ones or that the latest take is the right one.
Because if the latest pope's teaching is tantamount to declaring that the perennial magisterial teachings of the Church were wrong and he's correcting them then that means the Church had been teaching error.
That demolishes the claim that the Church is protected from error.
Also, if this pope effectively teaches that a previous pope was teaching error, that also demolishes any claim that popes are protected from teaching error. In that case, the current pope could just as easily be teaching error. A future pope can change the current one's "magisterial" teaching as he pleases.
That is precisely the conundrum the present papacy has unleashed.
It is a mess.
This goes to foundational claim of Roman Catholicism as the one church that is guided by the Holy Spirit.
That is why I would like to see a further discussion on this matter.
@@aly8380 It doesn't demolish any claims. There are different levels of error. The Ordinary Magisterium is at least subjectively safe, and I can't see any way that this could be true without it also being objectively safe.
I never argued that all teaching is free from error, since that would be nonsensical. What the Magisterium has taught is that this error can't rise to the level of being objectively detrimental to souls. So the Ordinary Magisterium teaching heresy is out of the question.
The ordinary teachings of the Church are to be weighed in accordance with the theological notes and other criteria such as frequency and amplitude of teaching. But a special significance must be placed on the living Magisterium, which alone has been given the promise of divine assistance in teaching, and not theological interpretation of past magisterial acts. We should always seek the interpretation that harmonizes past teachings with current teachings. And this is not just relevant to the current Magisterium. Any knowledge of Church history presents us with a vast number of hermeneutical challenges. Not to mention the interpretation of Scripture.
Now, hypothetically, this opens the Magisterium up to falsification. But we know, by Faith, that this is never going to happen.
Please show where the current Pontiff has declared previous teaching to be in error.
Countless comments, countless videos claiming the pope is wrong or heretical, yet so few attempt to steelman and ask how they might be able to accept what he said. In my opinion the only respectful way to criticize the pope and hold to your Catholic faith is FIRST to assess his words with good faith and charity, and THEN if you still believe you are right and he is wrong you can freely give your opinions. But if you do not show the former, the latter will only serve to scandalize, and even worse could introduce a sort of Hegelian dialectic, deconstructing the Church and the Papacy online and in real time. Thank you Ed Feser for always showing us how it can be done respectfully and consistently with good faith.
Thank you for this video. Very helpful to many Catholics and potential converts like me
On the sex abuse crisis: Satan wins every time a Catholic leaves Holy Mother Church because of the abhorrant acts by sinful prelates and the errors of inept or corrupt bishops.
I think people are being a little silly getting upset over what the Pope said. He was teaching about tolerance. It was basic ecumenicalism.
Brilliant! ❤️💙
Thank you
I'm praying for the Pope every night, tjust as I pray for my parish priest and my bishop.
Excellent comments!
Jesus says Do not judge and you will not be judged. Luke 6:37. It is clear. Our energies, our spiritual life, should be used for building up the church, not tearing it down. Let us pray for Pope Francis, and use our energies wisely. The world is in chaos. Let us bring His Peace and Concord. Jesus is our King and our God. Jesus will lead us to Truth, always.
You are misunderstanding Luke if you do not distinguish between judging and judgments. Jesus requires us to make judgments, to judge actions. He never intended peace at any cost. If we refuse to speak the truth in love, then we betray the truth and love as well. We ough to pray for Pope Francis, in gratitude for his good and proper excerise of the Petrine Office and for the humility to repent for irresponsible and scandalous exercises.
Almost didn't watch the video because of the title, and that would've been unfortunate because this was a good discussion. Would be better if the title went "How to Criticize THE POPE without being a Schismatic," just remove the descriptor "bad" as it impresses upon the audience the wrong idea. Us Asians and our African brothers love the current Pope (and we don't think he's perfectly fine either), so it's always baffling for us to see Western Catholics (not all and thankfully I see many Western Catholics defend the Pope against uncharitable criticism) think the other way. In the Philippines, the Pope's strong statements against very important issues like abortion and divorce have been our bedrock to continue the good fight against the satanic liberal forces that are trying to legislate these evils. And the Pope's consistent preaching about helping the poor resonates deeply with us Filipinos who live in a 3rd world country that is continually wrestling with corruption and poverty.
Sedevacantism is growing in Africa. And didn't most of the African bishops reject Fiducia Supplicans?
@@cavendish2925 Have his encouraging words that all Religions lead to God helped your people stay pagan since according to the Pope arguing about which Religion is true is a complete waste of time?
@@littlerock5256 I hope those are two separate observations; otherwise you would be falsely accusing all the African bishops sedevacantists for their righteous objection to Fiducia Supplicans.
@@Kirin2022 I know of no Church teaching that allows for to a declaration from an office that speaks for the pope.
Additionally, they did more than to it; they refused to carry it out -- they rejected it.
Thank you!
Love you Matt. You’re a good man. I would say that the popes slowly doing things as Francis has, has slowly led the Catholic Church astray. This process has been going on for hundreds of years. But I’d say since Vatican I, the RCC went into areas of doctrine it shouldn’t have. Now you have the last three popes kissing korans and saying Islam worships the same God. I’m sorry but there’s no way I could be catholic and I wanted to be. Yes humans error, but these are piled up each other and are leading the RCC to become the Anglican w
Low time for the high church... Met the King who is to come bless and keep you
Publically criticizing the Pope or asking questions is one thing. Spreading lies about him, blatantly dissenting, and having a disposition of suspicion are a different matter. Making the proper distinctions is critical.
@@ryanb4780 Feser lies about the Pope.
What lies ? he betrayed our Chinese brethren to the ccp using the filth mccarick is that a lie ? how about his insults to the Chilean abuse victims , falloed by his crawlback apology , was that a lie ?.
@RickW-HGWT excuse me but it was Vigano who covered for McCarrick .. not Francis.
What other lies are you believing. ????
@@paulywauly6063 Were our Chinese brethren not betrayed by bergoglio and mccarrick to the ccp ? how does Vigano factor into this ? . A lot of people covered for this filth , give us some more alleged lies about the moral imbecile bergolio .Start with the embrace of rupnick and the pornographer fernandez , his insults and crawl back apology to the Chilean abuse victims show his lack of judgement and discernment .
The Church is composed of good and bad fish read Mt.13:47-49. If Francis is not a pope, it follows that Catholic Church has no pope since he was elected.
Ex Cathedra statement De ranking the papacy BEFORE the next pope - pope PIZZA
Matt and Tuesday, first off thank you for your work. Will you please try to get on a good SSPX defender to counter John Salza? The video with Salza saying their masses don’t fulfill the Sunday obligation, among other things, is lacking in substance in some respects, apparently (see comments from that show).
3 Popes in their Magisterium have already ruled that the SSPX are schismatic and thus it follows that their Masses don't fulfil Sunday obligation
this shouldn't be a "youtube debate issue".
@@mousakandah5188
@littlerock5256 call your local Bishop, ive heard it can vary from diocese
@@mousakandah5188 I Case you didn't know this is a yt comment section
@@littlerock5256
There are many bishops that dissent from Church teaching, this is why we are in a crisis
The Pope in his Magisterium > whatever Diocese you just called
Don’t understand what not keeping quiet is going to achieve. Since I’ve returned to the Catholic Church I’ve heard nothing but vocal criticism (in its various forms) and nothing has changed except people just getting frustrated and going into schism.
It certainly did not stop the pope from issuing Moto p, or insisting TC be mandatory, despite the constant groaning about the “novous ordo” in the previous years. Criticising seems to make things worst, like the lord is using Pope Francis to humble us.
In my opinion, you make the error of assuming utilitarianism; that criticism is only warranted if it achieves something. If criticism is unjust, then it should not be made. But if the criticism is just and correct, then it is valuable for its own sake, because it is true, and the truth is valuable in and of itself, regardless of the consequences.
@@mattmalcolm534
no that’s not what I mean. What I mean is criticism that leads more often than not to frustration that they are not being heard and believe if they should be heard. Which is the reality of it.
@@glen-y8p Yes I agree that it can make people frustrated and feel powerless.
It's hard for me to be convinced that I need to be 'respectful' of a man who is actively protecting sex pests (Zanchetta and Rupnik) and who by appearances does everything he can to disrupt unity.
Pope Pius XII, Address Ancora Una Volta, Feb. 20, 1949:
The Pope ... the principle of the unity of the Church
Pope John Paull II, Pope Benedict and Cardinal George Pell also protected sexual predators. It is just part of the corporate ethic of the Catholic Church.
@@littlerock5256 Agreed. Tell Pope Francis that.
I very much sympathize -- like anything else in life that's difficult, maybe you can use this as an opportunity to lean upon the Lord, who wants to help you. Bring it to Him in prayer and say "I know I'm *supposed* to respect this man, but I just can't, knowing what I know. Guide my heart, and if possible, help me to see him as You see him." Like St Therese of Lisieux for example, we can use effectively any difficulty, big or small, as an opportunity to recognize our own weakness and need for God's help, which often leads to a much greater love and joy than if we tried to do it all ourselves.
@@LaserFace23 very well said. There’s no need to be unduly anxious about our church.
Take it to God. Leave it with Him. And most of all, trust Him.
Our holy father can be frustrating to listen to sometimes but God will correct Him. I don’t believe it’s up to us to do so.
Dig deeper, frankly.
God has a way of taking the messes that are made in the Church and bringing good out of them. So, I think the suggestion at the end to offer up the suffering caused by some of the Pope's decisions as penece for our own sins and for the good of the Pope himself. That way, we allow God to take the whole mess and weave it into the fabric of the growth and maturation of his Church.
I agree that it's possible that the Pope makes mistakes, I believe I understand the limits of the infallibility dogma. However, we should (my opinion) always have a charitable interpretation of the holy father. It would be really bad to claim "heresy" when it's more of a misspeak or out-of-context. The idea that the Pope actually supported Amazon Catholics to worship "Pachamama" and was blessing that event, is the very opposite of charitable interpretation. Please, please don't attribute motives and describe his inner state. We can still say that we disagree on climate politics and immigration policies - I feel that is a respectful disagreement.
If it happens once... Okay. When it happens constantly, then you should probably start understanding what's really going on. Why are demon statues allowed at all?
What's the charitable interpretation of the Pachamama incident, when even the Pope called those idols Pachamamas?
Lets not forget Bergolio kissing the hammer and sickle mockery of the Crucifixion.
@@Willis_S JPII kissed the koran.
It wasn't Pachemama, it was Our Lady of the Amazon. Check the video.
Ah yes speaking ambiguously like the Lord said
Question: What would Pope Francis or any other future Pope need to do to warrant the claim that Catholicism as such is not not what it claims to be?
Looking forward to this. Eds blog and books are great.
Catholics do have the "Paul opposed Peter" doctrine, while many Protestants claim the "do not touch the anointed of the Lord" doctrine.
both apply
Paul rebuked Peter for his personal hypocrisy, not his Magisterium.
@AndrewDolder the problem there was that Peter's hypocrisy was feeding the heresy that the Law had to be observed by non-Jews.
How to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify the unjustifiable dogmas of Papal infallability.
In Orthodoxy, if a patriarch or bishop teaches heresy, it's a tragedy but it doesn't call into question the entire structure of the Church. Catholicism is pretty much based on Papal authority so being a traditional Catholic with a liberal heretical pope is an impossible double bind. I don't envy you, brothers and sisters
Are you not thrown back on individual judgement in your situation = protestantism?
@Martin-hd2tr You're confused. To be a traditional catholic is to follow the pope. It is untraditional to not follow the pope. Jesus did after all create His Bride, the Church, and put Peter in charge of it.
@@AndrewDolder Alas, Benedict XVI did not validly resign. So as it is, we have a pope-less Church.
One pet peeve lol, as noted by Fr Stephen De Young, Aquinas isn't a surname, people aren't 'Aquinists', they are 'Thomists'. So 'Thomas said' is much better than 'Aquinas said'.
He did forget to bring up Honorius !!!
Part of the problem is that the Roman Catholic Church claims that the magisterium has ultimate authority, not the apostles, scripture or the church fathers. But as Matt said, bad magisterial teaching that contradicts previous magisterial teaching is being made authoritative. Surely you can see the problem. It puts the whole idea of a magisterium into question. It would be better if teaching that comes from the pope and the apparatus of the church where to be ultimately measured against scripture. Being an Anglican, I am not against tradition per se. but there should be a concurrence between scripture and the magisterium. If there is contradiction, something is terribly wrong.
@@marilynmelzian7370 i hear that, but that supposes 2 things:
1. That the Magisterium is the Ultimate rule of faith for Catholics. That's not actually true. We hold God, Scripture and Tradition above the Magisterium in terms of authority; but we also see in the Magisterium of the Church the ongoing interpretation of those sources. Indeed, the Church Fathers themselves are an earlier stage of Magisterial teaching in their time. Which leads us to
2. You also presuppose that the Magisterium as a rule of Faith has no intrinsic connection to Scripture, Tradition, Apostles and Fathers, etc. The truth is it does; the Magisterium is also guided by the Holy Spirit (with "the charism of truth", as the Fathers said); the Apostles as the first "Magisterium" (inspired by the Spirit) gave us Scripture, and Tradition, and the successors who became the later Magisterium; and what the Magisterium teaches is the clarification and development of the dogma/doctrine of Scripture, Tradition, prior magisterium, etc.
And then you fail the basic test of Scripture of what the Church MUST be capable of. See Matthew 18. The Church MUST be able to resolve doctrinal controversy or She isn't the Church. Since two people can come away reading the same thing with two very different opinions God would not allow us to have no path to recourse. That path is the Church, which then must hold the authority to make binding and ultimately final decisions in these matters. And the only credible apostolic Church in this regard is the Catholic Church.
@@kw91 I know that is what you say. And yet, when it comes right down to it, it is the magisterium which is your final authority. You can see this by the way the Catholic Church justifies magisterial teachings that are not scriptural. Even Matt acknowledged this. There are things being added right now to the magisterial teaching which contradict previous teaching. Because the magisterium is seen as the final interpreter, there is no mechanism for correcting the pope, even if he leads people astray.
@ that's not exactly true, and also a hyperbolic account of what Matt and Ed are talking about. Much of the video here is spent saying that not everything the Pope or the bishops say has Magisterial weight. And again, Scripture, Tradition, and previous Magisterium still bind on today's Magisterium, such that they are one such "mechanism" for correction.
And besides that, what of God? What of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church? Does God not have the ability to keep the Church indefectible?
Finally, and just because you mentioned that you are an Anglican, what exactly has stopped the Anglican Church from justifying non-scriptural teachings on sexual ethics, divorce and remarriage, and numerous other topics? Or what has kept them in any meaningful sense unified? What checks are in place, for the Anglicans or any other Church or faith community, that have succeeded over an extensive period of time? It seems to me only the Catholic mechanisms have worked over a long period of time.
9:54 Bless you
“It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” - Pope Pius X
Dr. Feser here is a perfect example of offering just criticism here. It’s perfectly fine to offer criticism to the hierarchy. But when it comes to the magisterium it must be acknowledged and even non-definitive pronouncements must be given the religious submission of intellect and will per Lumen Gentium. Even when criticism is given the Office must be given respect. Calling the pope the Antichrist, sedevacantism, recognize and resist, denying the indefectibility of the Church and the Roman See; all of those are off the table. This hasn’t been a very good pontificate, I think Francis is being a tad bit too pastoral and focus on evangelization; which aren’t bad things but when doctrinal emphasis is thrown out with the bathwater and your leaders aren’t the clearest it’s a problem. but this is isn’t the first time around. If we got through Alexander VI and Benedict IX we will get through Francis.
Pray for all
When has the Church ever been in a normal state? 1940s 🤔 It never has been.
I honestly don’t get what is so bad about Pope Francis. He is not perfect (no person is), but he is doing a lot of good, and I fear that many have just adopted a knee-jerk reaction against every move he makes.
I think with readily available UA-cam videos and ppl who make comments without research, influenced others into falsehoods. But I dunno
So the blessing of same sex couples isn’t a dubious teaching? The affirmation of “all religions”? The failure to correct German bishops and those who specifically contradict Church teaching (Fr. James Martin)? Really? And all this in a current social climate where these woke ideologies are infiltrating (already taken over) most of our institutions in the West. And his ambiguity on these issues isn’t a problem? I would suggest that YOU are part of the problem. The church is under assault, from without and from within, and she needs you. Don’t fall asleep on your watch.
I was in Satan’s Divine Mercy Vortex 20 years 🌀 Yikes
I guess Mary’s warning in Quito 1595 was correct
Thumbnail is in poor taste.
What’s interesting is the opinion that Pope Francis is a bad pope isn’t reality when the opinion is based on outright lies and slander. I used to think he was a bad pope until I stopped listening to channels that not only constantly accuse Pope Francis, they never find him innocent of anything.
There is no attempt to understand him or his teachings.
Practice CCC 2478.
But Ed Feser directly addresses documents released under the authority of Francis (not in this video but in the detailed rebuttals he has written on his blog). How is that not addressing the reality of this pontificate? Pope Francis also speaks frequently with extraordinary sloppiness concerning very basic teachings of the church that should be clear, concise, and have minimal likelihood of ambiguity of interpretation. I am a new convert and I find the Popes remarks shocking and frustrating. He should be a unifier and teach clearly, his job is to create the OPPOSITE of confusion. Stop gaslighting and wake up.
"when the opinion is based on outright lies and slander." And what if one's opinion is based on a careful reading of his public statements and a careful observation of his public actions? You claim some channels constantly accuse him and never find him innocent. Is it also true that other people constantly find him innocent and never find fault? What if the truth is somewhere in between, such that he's still on balance, bad at his job?
@ Matt :
We need to practice CCC 2478 with Pope Francis and give him the benefit of the doubt. This prevents the sins in CCC 2477. It is better to give the accused the judgment of charity over the accuser. Rev 12:10 is a clue as how we find wolves in sheep’s clothing.
@ eafowler
Im not gaslighting, Im practicing CCC 2478. You are a new Catholic and haven’t been shown how this part of the Catechism handles confusion. We are to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, it’s called the judgement of charity. Our right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty comes from this Biblical teaching. There is a requirement in this section to ask the person about the issue. In the case of the Pachamama incident for example, the accused were never asked before being accused of idolatry. They never said the word Pachamama and we know they are from Brazil, where it was never worshipped, so the default is these Catholics being innocent. And yes, we know they are Catholics. This avoids the sins in CCC 2477. There is no evidence of their guilt if one practices CCC 2478.
You are new to Catholicism and frankly, you should just be voicing opinions and not making statements of fact or judgements. You don’t know enough about Catholicism right now to be teaching or rebuking, especially when you are shown to be wrong.
Read Donum Veritalis.
@@paulmualdeave5063 I agree with giving the benefit of the doubt, and giving the accused the judgment of charity. This would apply to bishops as well as the Pope, would it not? Does it therefore follow that we are forbidden from saying certain bishops are "bad bishops"? Take as an example Cardinal McCarrick. His misdeeds have been publicized and it seems to me that he was a bad bishop. Am I being uncharitable in that assertion and risking sin?
And the American church is right about Pope Francis.
It's normal for there to be problems in the Church.
While I agree that we should PRAY 4 the Pope & love him the way we love our enemies I still think he is one of the worst pope's in my life time. Recently a Mormon made the remark that our pope has gone WOKE I responded Well on our over 2k yr history we began w/ Judas who sold Jesus 4 30 pieces of silver Our first St.Peter betrayed him we r a church of poor sinners but I am proud 2 b Catholic it's a great gift from God!
Please have more philosophers and theologians on the show, the conversation can generaly be more in dept and nuanced.
but, this guy is clueless ......he doesn't say anything.
Will the full interview be uploaded on UA-cam? If so, when?
This video helps to highlight why the likes of Michael Lofton has become to utterly unpalatable, to the point where it is hard to even see Lofton himself as a likable person.
Talk for yourself
@ don’t act like I’m alone in this assessment of Lofton, nor like ours is a minority opinion of him.
This all speaks to orthodox and Protestant issues with even having a pope figure in the church. Seems like it an issue similar with the kings of the Old Testament and also opens the church to more criticism than otherwise we would have from inside and outside the church
nah... the apostles said that they weren't above criticisms just like normal dudes...
Trust in Gods sovereignty.
My buddy Ed Feser is a strong principled critic of the Pope and a loyal son of the Church and the Pope. Who says differently here you and I will have words.
We need principled critics and defenders of the Pope. Extreme Pope haters and Pope Splainers are of no help at all....
Feser is a egoist clown. He doesnt worship God, he worships his pride of "Catholicism."
He said the Pope works for Christ. Don't we work for Christ too? Aren't we supposed to represent him in our life too? I didn't understand that comment.