Mind reason and heart faith are in covenant non-presumed reciprocity; that is, they are inseparable and qualitatively equal. A voice of reason without faith is not reason and vice-versa. FS is on the reference point of the keeping in uncertainty of belief by Mary in her particular circumstances in present moment real presence of the inseparability and qualitative equality of her consents to be joined in consecrated marriages, one celibate (Lk 1:38: "let it be to me") and immediately successive one male female (Mt 1:24: "Joseph ... took his wife").
Dear Your Excellency Rector, I like the way you have guided and responded to Fiducia Supplicans, it's indeed an Evil Cake iced and shouldn't be eaten at all, we pray for all Ecclessiastical Conferences to be filled with The Grace to Reject this declaration in the strongest terms possible. God Bless us all, this program and please continue to talk about it and put pressure.
A “couple” is a “romantic couple” in society… blessing a “couple” but not the “union” is simply semantic sophistry. Claiming it does not change doctrine is simply the sugar to help the heresy go down.
@@pollywanda Blessing a couple against nature is indeed blessing a relationship/union against nature, as a couple is simply an union in concreto. It is a blasphemy to bless something which is against divine law. If Bergoglio was talking about friendly relationships, he wouldn't call them irregular couples or same sex couples, and he wouldn't put that in contrast with marriage, saying that irregular couples or same sex couples aren't morally licit, but he does, it is obvious that the relationship in question is the one forming irregular couples or same sex couples, that is to say couples against nature. Good relationships don't make couples against nature.
Jesus draws us to himself and makes himself known to those who love him. During the Marian Year of 1987/1988 I was on pilgrimage to Medjugorje for the first time. After receiving Holy Communion, as I knelt down, I heard audibly the words, Jesus is inside of you. The voice was indescribable it was like beautiful music and of immense authority, so, so beautiful. I wept with the joy of knowing Jesus was really truly present and inside of me, in my heart. My life was changed. God is real. Praise God..
@@ninabailey1852 Yes, it was a great blessing, unforgettable, and completely undeserved. The voice seemed to be by like many tinkling, shimmering, crystal bells. But really the voice was undescribable. I long with all my heart to hear it again.
7:35 Approved prostitutes using condoms… but prostitution is already a mortal sin (any sex act outside of marriage). Ratzinger did not approve of prostitution or sex outside of marriage. Closing the illicit sex acts to procreation (+prevent transmission of disease) is not a “greater” mortal sin.
@bthemedia You can't condemn prostitution on the one hand,and on the other say, 'well, if you are going to commit this mortal sin it's OK to wear a condom'. Which, by the way, is also sinful.
Approval. The word "blessing" in this case is understood as approval. The priest is approving the couple i.e. union. And people are saying this leads to confusion. There is no confusion. The statement is a lie. This is as much of a confusion as having your house burned down in front of your face.
The document says directly, "Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.." What do you think "couples of the same sex" means? What is a couple? A couple is a pairing of one man and one woman. Two persons OF THE SAME SEX cannot be a couple, so just on this point alone the document is shown to be a lie. It uses woke language (in another place it mentions 'inclusion' as some sort of virtue that God sends down a blessing for). It's a sick, sick joke. It is pure evil, straight from the mouth of the devil.
The gravity of sin, especially sodomy, is not being taught from the leadership in the church. They are negligent in care for our souls. We cannot give the impression that anything like that is ok. Souls perish after this life because no one warns them, and people don't understand the gravity of sin.
So say it’s a blessing of the “couple” but not the “union” of the same sex couple is semantic sophistry. FS claiming the blessing does not change church teaching on marriage is only the “sugar” that helps the heresy go done.
The trick is to say "two plus two equals four" in one section of the statement. This satisfies traditionalists. And then say "two plus two equals five" in another section. The latter is the real policy because it is the more liberal.
Questions: did this cardinal Fernandez ever repent of the erotic book he wrote? - did the pope redact the scandalous phrase in the document regarding "blessing same sex couples"? ...sick stuff....
As the Holy Spirit guides and protects our Lord's Church, it is comforting to know that God is in control of all things, including His Church and her doctrines and dogmas.
There is hope! This is the first Catholic I have heard speak out against this "Personal Blessing." I had lost faith in my Catholic Brothers and Sisters. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, I follow God's Word: John 1:1 (LSB): 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. I am so happy these Catholics are standing against this false Pope. The word of God is clear: The Bible says that promoting or condoning sin is wrong and displeasing to God. Sin is anything that goes against God’s will and His holy character (1 John 3:4). God hates sin and wants His people to hate it too (Proverbs 6:16-19). He calls us to repent of our sins and turn to Him for forgiveness and salvation (Acts 3:19). He also commands us to love one another and help each other overcome sin, not to encourage or approve of it (Galatians 6:1-2). Promoting or condoning sin can have serious consequences for ourselves and others. It can separate us from God and His blessings (Isaiah 59:2). It can harden our hearts and make us insensitive to the Holy Spirit’s conviction (Hebrews 3:13). It can lead us to more sin and eventually to eternal death (Romans 6:23). It can also cause others to stumble and fall into sin (Matthew 18:6-7). Therefore, as Christians, we should not promote or condone sin in any way. Instead, we should follow the example of Jesus, who came to save sinners and call them to repentance (Luke 5:31-32). We should speak the truth in love and confront sin with grace and compassion (Ephesians 4:15). We should pray for those who are trapped in sin and seek to restore them to God (James 5:19-20). We should also examine ourselves and confess our own sins to God and to one another (1 John 1:9; James 5:16). By doing these things, we can honor God and show His love to the world. You have earned a sub!
@@Romans1.24-27 I agree - it's hard not to. But I have to believe that his regime is being permitted by God, for a purpose we cannot as yet see. That doesn't mean I am not saddened by Francis's papacy. I am. But I trust in God and know that good will come out of this chaos, eventually. We were well earned about it, even by Christ Himself: "And when I return will I find faith on earth?"
Sow confusion. Jesus was very clear. Whether it is through malice or negligence, Church leadership sows confusion. When people are confused, they look for alternatives.
Wikipedia has noted in there documenting of Pope Francis (as of jan2024), states that P. Francis “ has ‘permitted’ the Blessing of same-sex Couples” in their Biography of him.
This is the result of accepting gays in the seminary. They became priests and rose from the ranks to become bishops and cardinals. Now they occupy important positions in the Vatican with power to influence and change the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Irregular relationship between couples of the opposite sex have the potential to be redeemed. Irregular relationship between same sex "couples" cannot be redeemed but ended.
Question, honest question does the pope have limits on his authority for our practice. Example can the pope ban the rosary. What’s his limits of authority even with practices..
Good Question. I know that Cardinal Cupich cancelled The St. Michael prayer at the end of Mass. Why would anyone do that, as it's a prayer of protection for the church? Just shows you how much power these prelates have!
I agree that this document by Fernandez is horrible! However, I don't agree that Pope Benedict "approved" the use of condoms. He was engaging in theological speculation about how a person begins a journey back to God and used the example of a male prostitute who, while still engaging in serious sin, starts to use condoms to protect his "clients" from and STD's (keep in mind this as discussed during an interview for a book, not in an official Church document). While contraception is a mortal sin, as is any sex outside of marriage, the prostitute is beginning to have a concern for others, the possible spark of charity that may eventually lead him back to God. This is not an approval of contraception, but an example of a person trying to taking a step in the right direction, even though that step is still very misguided and sinful. It's the intention that is slightly no longer wills evil, but rather some slight bit of good. While you cannot justify sin with good intentions, I think the overall message that Benedict was trying to give is that good intentions gets one closer to the truth than do bad intentions. Either way, this was not officially approved by Benedict and it was not in any official Church document. This is totally different than what Fernandez and Pope Francis have done.
Good points. I also don’t believe that contraception added to an illegal sex act makes the mortal sin any greater, or to not use a condom makes the mortal sin any less.
@@bthemediaratzinger engaged in the topic from a complete disgusting and totally abhorrent angle… There are at least a thousand ways to help bring male and female prostitutes to repentance and to loving Christ and stopping sin; Jesus Christ did it Himself; he didn’t talk about aids and condoms. Ratzinger should know better and likely he did, he did it on purpose. Absolutely disgusting “speculation”, degrading for the Church and ineffective.,
History demonstrates how our species continually wrestles with our conscience. The current epoch finds that it is we, not our conscience, that prevails. I would propose that FS is located purely within the immanent frame, with the result that Grace is withheld. We will all pay the price for the abomination that is FS. Rejoice however that the Body of Christ will not be returned to the Father mutilated a second time. In hoc signo vinces +.
The Sacrament of Confirmation is validly administered ONLY by a bishop BECAUSE it is contained within the episcopacy. Keep in mind that Confirmation is not essential for salvation, but to neglect to receive it thru grave negligence is sinful. All Catholic priests of the any Rite may administer the sacrament only in an emergency if requested by the recipient. However, certain conditions must be met. 1. The bishop of the diocese must receive a special indult from the Holy See (the pope). 2. The bishop can grant or deny the application of the indult to the priests of the diocese. This is similar to a bishop granting or denying priests the ability to validly absolve in the confessional in his diocese. Although the priest has, thru his sacred ordination, the power to hear confessions, he can ONLY do so VALIDLY if the bishop authorizes him to do so. To be clear - ordination to the priesthood gives the power to grant absolution. It does not give the power to confirm and BOTH sacraments require authorization from the bishop! 3. This is the “Power of the Keys” granted ONLY to St. Peter and his successors, who in turn grants some portion of his power to the bishop, who in turn grants some portion of his power to the priests of his diocese. From pope to bishop to priest in that order. 4. Eastern Rite schismatics are cut off from the “Power of the Keys” which was committed only to the popes. However, their bishops are valid, but lack the ability to authorize their priests to confirm. In many of the Eastern Rites after an infant is baptized, Confirmation and Holy Communication (a drop of the wine) are administered. 5. From the Catholic point of view the Sacrament of Confirmation administered by Schismatic priests is doubtful. 6. Please note that ALL the Sacraments belong to Our Holy Mother the Church. The Schismatics “took” these precious treasures with them when they left the Church. Therefore, they have no rights to use them. Their continued use of them only adds to their condemnation and is a sacrilege. This may sound harsh and offensive, but the truth often offends. Hope this helps.
@@TheRogZone That is somewhat helpful thank you very much. However I was already aware of these principles. The impression I have is that precisely such a power (to confirm) has been granted to Eastern priests from time immemorial as a matter of course (their custom of a priest Chrismating at baptism is very ancient.) If this is indeed the case, then even if one denies that modernist bishops have any authority to designate power (as I do,) it would seem the mind of the lawgiver is obvious and epikeia would certainly apply for Eastern Rite priests. Having spoken to other priests, it seems the policy of considering such Confirmations positively doubtful is unique to the RCI. Are you aware of any sacramental theology manual, holy office decree, or other pre-Vatican 2 source which assigns a positive doubt to such cases? This isn't merely an academic question: I have a friend who was Confirmed in precisely this manner and if there is indeed grounds for positive doubt he would very much appreciate being made aware of it.
Be careful. Eastern orthodox is different than Byzantine Catholic. Byzantine Catholic Metropolitans can confirm the faithful. They are in communion with the Church and are the bishops of the eastern rite in the Church.
@@danielsmallwood4310 both Pius X and Pius XI reserved the right to confirm to bishops for those in the Eastern Rite in the United States. This privilege of priests doing chrismation was "restored" by Paul VI so if your friend was confirmed by a priest (likely after this Paul VI "change") then it's invalid. He should seek conditional confirmation.
@@martaacosta4415 I said I was so looking forward to hearing what he had to say, that I was impatient for the talk to start. I'm sorry I expressed it so poorly that it was readily interpreted as disrespect.
Blessing is a confirmation of an attitude or an encouragement to continue in a given procedure. Is also a some kind of pray for the Divine Grace In having success in efforts undertaken on the path to salvation and the acceptance. All other lying and perverse explications are a sins against the Holy Spirit. Is like a say "good luck" in your perversity or "God will be with you". The other question what is a matter of this king of "blessing", what does pope is ordering to bless? Looks like he ordered to bless fornication. From homosexual piest to homosexual couple with blessing.
@@paulmualdeave5063how can you still possibly defend this load of apostasy? Bp. Sanborn made it clear why those "Blessings" can't be valid and approved, besides, how would you defend Pachamama and all the other attrocities, were our eyes deceived when we saw Bergoglio sitting there and appreciating pagan worship even inside st. Peter's basilica?
@@quipotestcaperecapiat1123 How can you champion Sedevacantism?? You have no pope. That literally means you are not Catholic. Only imbeciles believe the Pachamama hoax once they learn the facts. It was never even called Pachamama in the ceremony.
Where does the bible show how God blesses "Irregular Situations" and "Same-Sex Couples"? Go read about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis and you see how God "doesn't bless sin"!
The rainbow crowd confuses “blessing” with confession - Simply ask them what is a blessing ? Let them define it - they won’t be able to because the definition is an affirmation of living within the defined code of morality set thousands of years ago. So it’s impossible to bless - they really need confession and an examination of conscience or perhaps just mental health.
If God’s Laws can’t change, then by implication neither can God. God is either omnipotent and able to do any and all things (including changing anything he so desires) or he isn’t. If he isn’t then he’s either dead, or the moment he’d completed his creation fell into an eternal comatose state. Well I believe he’s a living God. A God who created a world of numerous species, many different races, trees and plants of every variety under the Sun; and when it came to sexual orientation in animals both human and non-human, his love of variety and difference didn’t abandon him which is why even in the animal world homosexuality is observed. Various non-human animal species exhibit behaviour that can be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include same-sex sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. I doubt anyone would be silly enough to suggest that animals 'choose' to be homosexual. God would not have made the world this way with homosexual men and animals only to then have this part of his creation labelled as sinners. The labelling came from men - not God.
Animals are irrational creatures. They cannot sin. Human beings are rational creatures. They can sin. Sexuality exists for reproduction. If sexuality is not used for this purpose, it is a disorder. If some animals have a homosexual inclination, it does not matter: animals don't have spiritual immortal souls. Human beings have spiritual and immortal souls, so preventing the conception of a human being by the sinful use of sexual acts potentially deprives an immortal person of existence. This is worse than murder if you think about it.
Your opening claim is incorrect. The laws that God has created for his World do not change. That does not imply that God couldn't change if he wanted to. I'm not sure how your claim even makes sense in your own mind. You then go on to say that behaviours are okay as long as animals do them. That's arguably even more absurd than the first claim. You then claim that those acts aren't choices (all human acts are choices). You then claim that, just because some people may be inclined towards unnatural acts, God couldn't possible see them as sins. I could dissect the last two claims but their absurdity is so evident that there's no need. Just remember the fate of Sodom.
@@mhtseminary " preventing the conception of a human being by the sinful use of sexual acts " I pity every man who has ever masturbated then. So that's 99.99999% of the human population.
The same-sex couple ‘blessing’ causes a number of questions. What is a homosexual couple seeking by asking for a blessing? What is the Church offering in response? What is the Holy Spirit called for and what is exactly being blessed? What is a spiritual purpose of such a ‘blessing’ and what sort of a particular help it intends to provide? Love and acceptance can make miracles of soul transformation, and Pope Francis' vision on the same-sex unions seems to be about love and acceptance. Yet, the same-sex couple blessing would make sense if the Church dumps viewing the same-sex relationship per ser as a sin. Without that, such a 'blessing' appears conflicting and self-contradictory. The entire issue of the homosexuality as such and the sin does not look straightforward at all. For example, some people refer to Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them". Does this mean that about 4% of human population should be now "put to death"? Would it be a proclaimed Christian way of love and acceptance? Would it be compatible with the words of our Lord: "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone" (John 8:7)? Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 6:9,10 was talking specifically about "men who have sex with men" with the intention to just satisfy their lust, but said nothing about homosexuality as such. The Holy Scripture condemns sexual lust in all its appearances - ‘traditional’ and ‘pervert’, but says nothing at all specifically about homosexuality and same sex people, who want to live together in love and faith. Nevertheless, this unlikely defends the incompatibility of the same-sex couple blessing with the current Church doctrines and policies. Faithfully yours, bishop Vincent Berg.
@@erict.35 I look for empaths in a priest. The world as modern as it is needs empaths more than anything. Remember what was said that love between fellow man will grow cold. I feel it now. It is the obstacle towards peace and good will. I understand Traditionalist, I do. I remember when our church started having folk masses in the gym and my brother and I would look and that and think what is that? and yearn for the cathedrals. But sometimes I see too many accusations and little love. And to pretend climate change isn’t happening which I see with some Trads and dismiss these discussions is being a negligent parent. So many are struggling. So many.
Gay people I wanted to say not porn . Are saying those who do not receive communion are all going to hell? What about Muslims ,other Christians who are not Catholic
This fellow - I don't know who he is - is not in harmony with the living Magisterium of the Church. On the subject of Hell, many Catholics, including Bishop Barron, "hope" that all will be saved. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC 1257, states that, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." The Catholic Church does not declare that any specific person is in Hell (although Hell is a real "possibility" and to be taken seriously). Think of it as Jonah preaching the destruction of Nineveh - and yet all surprisingly repent and the whole city is saved. We may indeed pray and hope for the salvation of all. The Bible itself says that God desires for all men to be saved (I Timothy 2:2-4). Pope John Paul II also spoke hopefully of this in Crossing The Threshold of Hope.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. God bless you.
Mind reason and heart faith are in covenant non-presumed reciprocity; that is, they are inseparable and qualitatively equal. A voice of reason without faith is not reason and vice-versa.
FS is on the reference point of the keeping in uncertainty of belief by Mary in her particular circumstances in present moment real presence of the inseparability and qualitative equality of her consents to be joined in consecrated marriages, one celibate (Lk 1:38: "let it be to me") and immediately successive one male female (Mt 1:24: "Joseph ... took his wife").
Not only should the queer couple be penitent, but imagine the fire awaiting Fr. Martin.
Dear Your Excellency Rector, I like the way you have guided and responded to Fiducia Supplicans, it's indeed an Evil Cake iced and shouldn't be eaten at all, we pray for all Ecclessiastical Conferences to be filled with The Grace to Reject this declaration in the strongest terms possible.
God Bless us all, this program and please continue to talk about it and put pressure.
FS is on the reference point of Mary at Lk 1:29-45 and Mt 1:24.
A “couple” is a “romantic couple” in society… blessing a “couple” but not the “union” is simply semantic sophistry. Claiming it does not change doctrine is simply the sugar to help the heresy go down.
@@pollywanda Blessing a couple against nature is indeed blessing a relationship/union against nature, as a couple is simply an union in concreto. It is a blasphemy to bless something which is against divine law. If Bergoglio was talking about friendly relationships, he wouldn't call them irregular couples or same sex couples, and he wouldn't put that in contrast with marriage, saying that irregular couples or same sex couples aren't morally licit, but he does, it is obvious that the relationship in question is the one forming irregular couples or same sex couples, that is to say couples against nature. Good relationships don't make couples against nature.
Indeed, there is no "couple" without some sort of "union."
And sugar, according to many doctors, is also “poison” for the body.
🤮
So precise in his analysis!!! Thank you both
Great conversation. Thank you!
"Fernandez creature". The interviewer's reaction - stifling the laugh. We need more of this proper Catholic content.
Thank you, Excellency, for this interview
Clarity! Thank you your Excellency. I think ‘they’ need you in The Vatican to help straighten them up on Church Teachings.
Jesus draws us to himself and makes himself known to those who love him. During the Marian Year of 1987/1988 I was on pilgrimage to Medjugorje for the first time. After receiving Holy Communion, as I knelt down, I heard audibly the words, Jesus is inside of you. The voice was indescribable it was like beautiful music and of immense authority, so, so beautiful. I wept with the joy of knowing Jesus was really truly present and inside of me, in my heart. My life was changed. God is real. Praise God..
What a beautiful blessing!
@@ninabailey1852 Yes, it was a great blessing, unforgettable, and completely undeserved. The voice seemed to be by like many tinkling, shimmering, crystal bells. But really the voice was undescribable. I long with all my heart to hear it again.
Unfortunately, the Medjugorje apparitions are false. The "messages" at that place are not from the Blessed Virgin Mary since they preach ecumenism.
Medjugorje is a fraud.
Catholic faith is not built on personal experiences and those apparitions are not to be trusted.
Thank you Mr Heiner and His Excellency.
Never knew Ratzinger approved that. Crazy world.
7:35 Approved prostitutes using condoms… but prostitution is already a mortal sin (any sex act outside of marriage). Ratzinger did not approve of prostitution or sex outside of marriage. Closing the illicit sex acts to procreation (+prevent transmission of disease) is not a “greater” mortal sin.
@bthemedia You can't condemn prostitution on the one hand,and on the other say, 'well, if you are going to commit this mortal sin it's OK to wear a condom'. Which, by the way, is also sinful.
Doesn’t irregular here mean sinful?
Thank you brothers...
Approval. The word "blessing" in this case is understood as approval. The priest is approving the couple i.e. union. And people are saying this leads to confusion. There is no confusion. The statement is a lie. This is as much of a confusion as having your house burned down in front of your face.
The document says directly, "Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.." What do you think "couples of the same sex" means?
What is a couple? A couple is a pairing of one man and one woman. Two persons OF THE SAME SEX cannot be a couple, so just on this point alone the document is shown to be a lie. It uses woke language (in another place it mentions 'inclusion' as some sort of virtue that God sends down a blessing for). It's a sick, sick joke. It is pure evil, straight from the mouth of the devil.
The gravity of sin, especially sodomy, is not being taught from the leadership in the church. They are negligent in care for our souls. We cannot give the impression that anything like that is ok. Souls perish after this life because no one warns them, and people don't understand the gravity of sin.
So say it’s a blessing of the “couple” but not the “union” of the same sex couple is semantic sophistry. FS claiming the blessing does not change church teaching on marriage is only the “sugar” that helps the heresy go done.
The trick is to say "two plus two equals four" in one section of the statement. This satisfies traditionalists. And then say "two plus two equals five" in another section. The latter is the real policy because it is the more liberal.
finally ....loved this episode.
Questions: did this cardinal Fernandez ever repent of the erotic book he wrote?
- did the pope redact the scandalous phrase in the document regarding "blessing same sex couples"?
...sick stuff....
“Beautiful vestments covereth a multitude of immorality” that was funny
Fantastic!
As the Holy Spirit guides and protects our Lord's Church, it is comforting to know that God is in control of all things, including His Church and her doctrines and dogmas.
There is hope! This is the first Catholic I have heard speak out against this "Personal Blessing." I had lost faith in my Catholic Brothers and Sisters. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, I follow God's Word:
John 1:1 (LSB): 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
I am so happy these Catholics are standing against this false Pope.
The word of God is clear:
The Bible says that promoting or condoning sin is wrong and displeasing to God. Sin is anything that goes against God’s will and His holy character (1 John 3:4). God hates sin and wants His people to hate it too (Proverbs 6:16-19). He calls us to repent of our sins and turn to Him for forgiveness and salvation (Acts 3:19). He also commands us to love one another and help each other overcome sin, not to encourage or approve of it (Galatians 6:1-2).
Promoting or condoning sin can have serious consequences for ourselves and others. It can separate us from God and His blessings (Isaiah 59:2). It can harden our hearts and make us insensitive to the Holy Spirit’s conviction (Hebrews 3:13). It can lead us to more sin and eventually to eternal death (Romans 6:23). It can also cause others to stumble and fall into sin (Matthew 18:6-7).
Therefore, as Christians, we should not promote or condone sin in any way. Instead, we should follow the example of Jesus, who came to save sinners and call them to repentance (Luke 5:31-32). We should speak the truth in love and confront sin with grace and compassion (Ephesians 4:15). We should pray for those who are trapped in sin and seek to restore them to God (James 5:19-20). We should also examine ourselves and confess our own sins to God and to one another (1 John 1:9; James 5:16). By doing these things, we can honor God and show His love to the world.
You have earned a sub!
I'm not looking forward to this year with Bergolio at the helm...
Popes come and go. Christ remains
The papacy of Francis: a tragedy
@@Romans1.24-27 I agree - it's hard not to. But I have to believe that his regime is being permitted by God, for a purpose we cannot as yet see. That doesn't mean I am not saddened by Francis's papacy. I am. But I trust in God and know that good will come out of this chaos, eventually. We were well earned about it, even by Christ Himself: "And when I return will I find faith on earth?"
@@Romans1.24-27tragedy turned into a farce
Bergolio is not at the helm of St. Peter, most definitely. Pray for the restoration of a real Pope to Rome...
Sow confusion. Jesus was very clear. Whether it is through malice or negligence, Church leadership sows confusion. When people are confused, they look for alternatives.
Wikipedia has noted in there documenting of Pope Francis (as of jan2024), states that P. Francis “ has ‘permitted’ the Blessing of same-sex Couples” in their Biography of him.
Thanks!
Superb. Thank you.
This is the response that should have been made clear in the letter or by the Pope in a statement.
Where is the file that Cardinal Ratzinger had on Archbishop Fernandez? When can the public view the entire contents?
I doubt that will come to light this side the current regime
Last days?
This is the result of accepting gays in the seminary. They became priests and rose from the ranks to become bishops and cardinals. Now they occupy important positions in the Vatican with power to influence and change the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Irregular relationship between couples of the opposite sex have the potential to be redeemed. Irregular relationship between same sex "couples" cannot be redeemed but ended.
more and more clear evidence sede is the real roman catholic church
Question, honest question does the pope have limits on his authority for our practice. Example can the pope ban the rosary. What’s his limits of authority even with practices..
Good Question. I know that Cardinal Cupich cancelled The St. Michael prayer at the end of Mass. Why would anyone do that, as it's a prayer of protection for the church? Just shows you how much power these prelates have!
@@johnjoyce1958 so there’s a few things. Can he cancel the prayer even with in private prayer?
Waiting
No comment as yet from the Vatican ???
The voice of Econe. SV played down as it is redundant now
I agree that this document by Fernandez is horrible! However, I don't agree that Pope Benedict "approved" the use of condoms. He was engaging in theological speculation about how a person begins a journey back to God and used the example of a male prostitute who, while still engaging in serious sin, starts to use condoms to protect his "clients" from and STD's (keep in mind this as discussed during an interview for a book, not in an official Church document). While contraception is a mortal sin, as is any sex outside of marriage, the prostitute is beginning to have a concern for others, the possible spark of charity that may eventually lead him back to God. This is not an approval of contraception, but an example of a person trying to taking a step in the right direction, even though that step is still very misguided and sinful. It's the intention that is slightly no longer wills evil, but rather some slight bit of good. While you cannot justify sin with good intentions, I think the overall message that Benedict was trying to give is that good intentions gets one closer to the truth than do bad intentions. Either way, this was not officially approved by Benedict and it was not in any official Church document. This is totally different than what Fernandez and Pope Francis have done.
Good points. I also don’t believe that contraception added to an illegal sex act makes the mortal sin any greater, or to not use a condom makes the mortal sin any less.
@@bthemediaratzinger engaged in the topic from a complete disgusting and totally abhorrent angle… There are at least a thousand ways to help bring male and female prostitutes to repentance and to loving Christ and stopping sin; Jesus Christ did it Himself; he didn’t talk about aids and condoms. Ratzinger should know better and likely he did, he did it on purpose. Absolutely disgusting “speculation”, degrading for the Church and ineffective.,
History demonstrates how our species continually wrestles with our conscience. The current epoch finds that it is we, not our conscience, that prevails. I would propose that FS is located purely within the immanent frame, with the result that Grace is withheld. We will all pay the price for the abomination that is FS. Rejoice however that the Body of Christ will not be returned to the Father mutilated a second time. In hoc signo vinces +.
Dans le passé il y avait Bourgia maintenant c'est le Bergolia !
#questionsfortherector What is the reason for the RCI policy of conditionally confirming those confirmed by Eastern Rite priests?
@@mhtseminary I don't understand. I am referring to #31 in the pastoral directory on the RCI website
The Sacrament of Confirmation is validly administered ONLY by a bishop BECAUSE it is contained within the episcopacy. Keep in mind that Confirmation is not essential for salvation, but to neglect to receive it thru grave negligence is sinful.
All Catholic priests of the any Rite may administer the sacrament only in an emergency if requested by the recipient.
However, certain conditions must be met.
1. The bishop of the diocese must receive a special indult from the Holy See (the pope).
2. The bishop can grant or deny the application of the indult to the priests of the diocese.
This is similar to a bishop granting or denying priests the ability to validly absolve in the confessional in his diocese. Although the priest has, thru his sacred ordination, the power to hear confessions, he can ONLY do so VALIDLY if the bishop authorizes him to do so. To be clear - ordination to the priesthood gives the power to grant absolution. It does not give the power to confirm and BOTH sacraments require authorization from the bishop!
3. This is the “Power of the Keys” granted ONLY to St. Peter and his successors, who in turn grants some portion of his power to the bishop, who in turn grants some portion of his power to the priests of his diocese. From pope to bishop to priest in that order.
4. Eastern Rite schismatics are cut off from the “Power of the Keys” which was committed only to the popes. However, their bishops are valid, but lack the ability to authorize their priests to confirm. In many of the Eastern Rites after an infant is baptized, Confirmation and Holy Communication (a drop of the wine) are administered.
5. From the Catholic point of view the Sacrament of Confirmation administered by Schismatic priests is doubtful.
6. Please note that ALL the Sacraments belong to Our Holy Mother the Church. The Schismatics “took” these precious treasures with them when they left the Church. Therefore, they have no rights to use them. Their continued use of them only adds to their condemnation and is a sacrilege. This may sound harsh and offensive, but the truth often offends.
Hope this helps.
@@TheRogZone That is somewhat helpful thank you very much. However I was already aware of these principles. The impression I have is that precisely such a power (to confirm) has been granted to Eastern priests from time immemorial as a matter of course (their custom of a priest Chrismating at baptism is very ancient.) If this is indeed the case, then even if one denies that modernist bishops have any authority to designate power (as I do,) it would seem the mind of the lawgiver is obvious and epikeia would certainly apply for Eastern Rite priests. Having spoken to other priests, it seems the policy of considering such Confirmations positively doubtful is unique to the RCI. Are you aware of any sacramental theology manual, holy office decree, or other pre-Vatican 2 source which assigns a positive doubt to such cases? This isn't merely an academic question: I have a friend who was Confirmed in precisely this manner and if there is indeed grounds for positive doubt he would very much appreciate being made aware of it.
Be careful. Eastern orthodox is different than Byzantine Catholic. Byzantine Catholic Metropolitans can confirm the faithful. They are in communion with the Church and are the bishops of the eastern rite in the Church.
@@danielsmallwood4310 both Pius X and Pius XI reserved the right to confirm to bishops for those in the Eastern Rite in the United States. This privilege of priests doing chrismation was "restored" by Paul VI so if your friend was confirmed by a priest (likely after this Paul VI "change") then it's invalid. He should seek conditional confirmation.
The minutes pass so slowly when you're waiting for His Excellency Bishop Sanborn speak...
Im not sure if your comment is a compliment or an expression of dislike.
@@martaacosta4415 I said I was so looking forward to hearing what he had to say, that I was impatient for the talk to start. I'm sorry I expressed it so poorly that it was readily interpreted as disrespect.
It’s clear, we don’t want Borgia or Bergolia either !
Blessing is a confirmation of an attitude or an encouragement to continue in a given procedure. Is also a some kind of pray for the Divine Grace In having success in efforts undertaken on the path to salvation and the acceptance. All other lying and perverse explications are a sins against the Holy Spirit. Is like a say "good luck" in your perversity or "God will be with you". The other question what is a matter of this king of "blessing", what does pope is ordering to bless? Looks like he ordered to bless fornication. From homosexual piest to homosexual couple with blessing.
Rome really stepped in it this time. Geez.
No, people not reading the document are stepping in it.
@@paulmualdeave5063how can you still possibly defend this load of apostasy? Bp. Sanborn made it clear why those "Blessings" can't be valid and approved, besides, how would you defend Pachamama and all the other attrocities, were our eyes deceived when we saw Bergoglio sitting there and appreciating pagan worship even inside st. Peter's basilica?
@@quipotestcaperecapiat1123 How can you champion Sedevacantism?? You have no pope. That literally means you are not Catholic. Only imbeciles believe the Pachamama hoax once they learn the facts. It was never even called Pachamama in the ceremony.
@@MonMon-qi5gw messages that have links are auto deleted by UA-cam.
Where does the bible show how God blesses "Irregular Situations" and "Same-Sex Couples"? Go read about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis and you see how God "doesn't bless sin"!
The rainbow crowd confuses “blessing” with confession - Simply ask them what is a blessing ? Let them define it - they won’t be able to because the definition is an affirmation of living within the defined code of morality set thousands of years ago. So it’s impossible to bless - they really need confession and an examination of conscience or perhaps just mental health.
Francis's new church is a joke, we do not need it!
If God’s Laws can’t change, then by implication neither can God. God is either omnipotent and able to do any and all things (including changing anything he so desires) or he isn’t. If he isn’t then he’s either dead, or the moment he’d completed his creation fell into an eternal comatose state.
Well I believe he’s a living God. A God who created a world of numerous species, many different races, trees and plants of every variety under the Sun; and when it came to sexual orientation in animals both human and non-human, his love of variety and difference didn’t abandon him which is why even in the animal world homosexuality is observed. Various non-human animal species exhibit behaviour that can be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include same-sex sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. I doubt anyone would be silly enough to suggest that animals 'choose' to be homosexual.
God would not have made the world this way with homosexual men and animals only to then have this part of his creation labelled as sinners. The labelling came from men - not God.
Animals are irrational creatures. They cannot sin. Human beings are rational creatures. They can sin. Sexuality exists for reproduction. If sexuality is not used for this purpose, it is a disorder. If some animals have a homosexual inclination, it does not matter: animals don't have spiritual immortal souls. Human beings have spiritual and immortal souls, so preventing the conception of a human being by the sinful use of sexual acts potentially deprives an immortal person of existence. This is worse than murder if you think about it.
Your opening claim is incorrect. The laws that God has created for his World do not change. That does not imply that God couldn't change if he wanted to. I'm not sure how your claim even makes sense in your own mind. You then go on to say that behaviours are okay as long as animals do them. That's arguably even more absurd than the first claim. You then claim that those acts aren't choices (all human acts are choices). You then claim that, just because some people may be inclined towards unnatural acts, God couldn't possible see them as sins.
I could dissect the last two claims but their absurdity is so evident that there's no need. Just remember the fate of Sodom.
@@mhtseminary " preventing the conception of a human being by the sinful use of sexual acts " I pity every man who has ever masturbated then. So that's 99.99999% of the human population.
@@mrman2415 "You then claim that those acts aren't choices (all human acts are choices)." So when did you choose to be a heterosexual?
The same-sex couple ‘blessing’ causes a number of questions.
What is a homosexual couple seeking by asking for a blessing?
What is the Church offering in response?
What is the Holy Spirit called for and what is exactly being blessed?
What is a spiritual purpose of such a ‘blessing’ and what sort of a particular help it intends to provide?
Love and acceptance can make miracles of soul transformation, and Pope Francis' vision on the same-sex unions seems to be about love and acceptance. Yet, the same-sex couple blessing would make sense if the Church dumps viewing the same-sex relationship per ser as a sin. Without that, such a 'blessing' appears conflicting and self-contradictory.
The entire issue of the homosexuality as such and the sin does not look straightforward at all.
For example, some people refer to Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them". Does this mean that about 4% of human population should be now "put to death"? Would it be a proclaimed Christian way of love and acceptance? Would it be compatible with the words of our Lord: "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone" (John 8:7)?
Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 6:9,10 was talking specifically about "men who have sex with men" with the intention to just satisfy their lust, but said nothing about homosexuality as such.
The Holy Scripture condemns sexual lust in all its appearances - ‘traditional’ and ‘pervert’, but says nothing at all specifically about homosexuality and same sex people, who want to live together in love and faith.
Nevertheless, this unlikely defends the incompatibility of the same-sex couple blessing with the current Church doctrines and policies.
Faithfully yours,
bishop Vincent Berg.
He looks mean.
@@erict.35 I look for empaths in a priest. The world as modern as it is needs empaths more than anything. Remember what was said that love between fellow man will grow cold. I feel it now. It is the obstacle towards peace and good will. I understand Traditionalist, I do. I remember when our church started having folk masses in the gym and my brother and I would look and that and think what is that? and yearn for the cathedrals. But sometimes I see too many accusations and little love. And to pretend climate change isn’t happening which I see with some Trads and dismiss these discussions is being a negligent parent. So many are struggling. So many.
@@erict.35 There is no divide between warm relations and empathy and returning to God.
@@erict.35 Well, hate leads only to the absence of God and probably to loneliness. Ironically, it also shortens your life.
@@erict.35 You should care for your body. That is Scriptural.
@@erict.35 God willing.
Gay people I wanted to say not porn . Are saying those who do not receive communion are all going to hell? What about Muslims ,other Christians who are not Catholic
This fellow - I don't know who he is - is not in harmony with the living Magisterium of the Church. On the subject of Hell, many Catholics, including Bishop Barron, "hope" that all will be saved. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC 1257, states that, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." The Catholic Church does not declare that any specific person is in Hell (although Hell is a real "possibility" and to be taken seriously). Think of it as Jonah preaching the destruction of Nineveh - and yet all surprisingly repent and the whole city is saved. We may indeed pray and hope for the salvation of all. The Bible itself says that God desires for all men to be saved (I Timothy 2:2-4). Pope John Paul II also spoke hopefully of this in Crossing The Threshold of Hope.
Outside the church there is no salvation. The church is very much like Noahs ark. Inside, you will survive. Ourside, you will perish.
Thanks!
Thanks for your support