March 13 ought to have been a happy day in Rome. But the mood in and around Vatican City before, during and after the 10th anniversary of Pope Francis’s election was more somber than festive — and not because the anniversary fell during Lent. Rather, the melancholy reflected the current atmosphere in the Holy See, which has gone unremarked for too long and deserves candid description.
The financial reform of the Holy See, while not without accomplishments, has stalled far short of completion; both the Vatican’s structural deficit and its vast unfunded pension liability remain to be seriously addressed.
The German bishops openly defy Roman authority, much of institutional German Catholicism seems comfortable with apostasy, and a schism is not out of the question. The papal voice in response to this crisis is, at best, muted. Yet the authority of American bishops to provide for the liturgical nourishment of some faithful Catholics is squashed.
Bishops and cardinals who have a tenuous grasp on fundamental truths of the Catholic faith continue to be appointed, in part because of the (typically unreported) fact that Pope Francis often governs in an imperious manner with little concern for established procedure.
The somber mood in Rome these days also reflects embarrassment over the dramatic decline of the Vatican’s moral authority in world affairs: the result of both inept papal commentary and Vatican policies that create the impression that the Church is abandoning her own. Very few senior churchmen are enthusiastic about the Holy See’s kowtow to the Marxist mandarins of the People’s Republic of China, whose communist party now plays a prominent role in naming bishops. The Holy See’s accommodating approach to the brutal thugocracies in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela breeds more embarrassment. When opposition leaders plead for the Holy See to vigorously defend the persecuted Church and imprisoned Catholic dissidents in those countries, their requests often go unanswered — or they’re told by a (very) senior Vatican official that, while he is personally sympathetic, the Pope insists on a different approach.
And then there is the fear engendered by a systematic effort to deconstruct the legacy of St. John Paul II. The John Paul II Institute for Studies of Marriage and Family at the Pontifical Lateran University has been gutted; its new, theologically woke faculty attracts very few students. The approach to the moral life that has dominated the “synodal process” thus far is a flat-out rejection of the basic (and classic) structure of Catholic moral theology that undergirds the Polish pope’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor — just as the deliberate ambiguities in the 2016 apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, undercut John Paul II’s teaching in the 1981 apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family, Familiaris Consortio.
Full story at Catholic World Report.
Let up pray for our Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Francis:
May the Lord preserve him and give him life and make him blessed upon the earth and yield him not up to the will of his enemies.
Amen.
God bless the Holy Father who he chose to shepherd Holy Mother Church!
If God chose the pope, what does the College of Cardinals do?
Discern His Will.
You don’t know that?
How do we get people catechized?
1) “Discern His Will. You don’t know that?”…..I know that. Ask those who assert that God choses popes
2) “How do we get people catechized?”…..Provide accurate information about the Faith and live by example.
Are you a Christian? If God authored the Sacred Scriptures, what did St. Paul do?
We cannot always rely on Catholic clerics to authentically listen to and act upon the Divine Will of God. Many have been rebellious against God, all through history.
You can always trust the Pope and the Magisterium.
“You can always trust the Pope and the Magisterium.”….would you trust a pope like Liberius? Honorius? Virgilius?
Did they teach anything against the Faith?
That’s right people. You can always trust the Magisterium in its entirety, when in union, they teach the rest of the Church in matters of faith and morals. When you listen to them in those matters, you listen to Christ.
It’s only the rad trads who don’t like him. The inevitable conclusion of being a rad trad Catholic is conversion to Islam. Islam is the only religion that will be steadfast in opposing the sexual depravity of the world. Catholicism has been one of the last holdouts, but it looks like the house of cards is going to fall within five years as the church will approve gay marriage.
Who, exactly, are these “rad trads?” I have never met one. Anyway, gay pervert sex acts are serious Mortal Sins. There is no such thing as gay “marriage.” If the Catholic Church ever lied and sinned grievously to Almighty God, and foolishly tried to destroy Christ’s holy Sacrament of Marriage– this would end up in a serious schism. Faithful Catholics would remain true to Christ. And the evil ones– possibly under a heretical, schismatic, false Pope– would collapse and fall to the Devil.
you are under-informed re Islam
The answer is no
https://rcrc.org/muslim/
The answer is still no
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty
The Church is not going to approve gay marriage. Some people will believe anything.
Without a strong commitment, dedicated, hard work, a strong backbone, integrity, good morals, honesty, good discipline, order, perseverance in hard times, careful, correct thinking and action, self-belief, and adherence to standard, excellent, time-honored, and proven, traditional ways of doing things—- (no short-cuts, laziness, or cheating) — you won’t get very far, or succeed at much. Doesn’t matter if it’s in Marriage, raising kids, running a home, running a school or university, running a bank or managing finances, working to excell in areas like sports, music, or anything else; managing a businnes, office, farm, or workplace, managing a state or country– or managing a worldwide Church… That’s why flaky, “shaky,” lazy, flimsy, corrupt leftist liberalism, and “easy-way” (by cheating) permissiveness are so awful– it is always guaranteed to ruin everything and everyone. Christ gave us The Way, over 2,000 years ago. That’s all there is– and His Pathway is never going to change. It’s made just for us– with thorns as well as roses. (No Cross, no Crown.) Too many people today, want a false, “Cross-less Christ.” Best to submit to Him, in faith, with a happy heart — and go. And all will be well.
I think the pope and Vatican should give up their “human” ways– and give up their phony Synods, as well as give up Martin, Hollerich, Paglia, McElroy, Cupich, and many others… many need strong reprimands and probably, excommunication!! Get rid of Paglia and the dishonest, current Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL), return it rightfully to the structure of Pope St. John Paul II. Give up rebellion against Christ, follow the Catechism and Canon Law honestly and devotedly, deny “bad Catholics” (like Biden, Pelosi, etc.) Communion, return to good discipline, and run the Church right– and be good, honest, practicing Catholics– and really mean it!– for all the world to see!. True Charity in Christ’s Name requires morality, detachment, and good discipline, with no desire for false “popularity” and phony self-gain.
Weigel has been holding off for quite a bit on the atmosphere in Rome. He lives there, he knows it. I think he was hoping for a betterment of the situation by now and felt that now he , sadly, had to tell the truth
Tragically, the Diocese of Albany, NY, now has over 400 clergy child sex abuse cases, filed in just the last few years– so this Diocese is filing for bankruptcy. So sorry for all the poor, suffering victims.
The Oakland Diocese announced in all Diocesan church bulletins last Sunday, that it may soon file for bankruptcy, due to approximately 330 clergy child sex abuse cases, as Bishop Barber explained. May God bless and heal all the poor, suffering victims of clergy child sex abuse!
You can find an official Letter dated March 16, 2023, from Bishop Michael C. Barber, explaining all of this, posted on the Diocese of Oakland website, under the “Bishop Barber” section, in his “2023” year interviews, statements, letters, etc. Tragic.
Jeremiah York, age 24, former Director of Liturgical Ministries and Executive Assistant to the Rector, at the Cathedral of Christ the Light, was arrested in Walnut Creek on January 6th, on charges of possession and sharing of child pornography– and was removed from his job at the Cathedral. Investigations of the case are ongoing. York is also a photographer, and took photos for the Diocese. York formerly worked with liturgies of various types– Masses, religious events, Baptisms, Confirmations, Weddings, Funerals, etc. The news story is on the Diocese of Oakland website. What a horrorific Catholic news story!
What’s your point? This is a lay person, not a cleric. Plus, as the same new story you referred us to points out, investigations are ongoing, and there aren’t even charges filed yet. In our justice system, “Crazy,” a person is innocent until proven guilty. You’re presenting this as if the allegations are true. That’s wrong. You are severely corrected.
Jon, I have to agree with you on this one. Although, I do not know anything about this situation there have been people, including priests, who have been falsely accused, and sometimes the accusations do not come out until the person is long dead and no longer able to defend him/herself.
Cardinal Pell, Fr. George Rutler and others were accused and exonerated. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, but that does not make it so. There needs to be reasonable proof.
Anything to make the church look bad.
This is obviously someone who has it in for the Church.
It is no secret that Weigel detests Pope Francis. When others criticized Weigel’s favorite pope, St Pope John Paul II, he responded with sharp criticism and admonished the pope’s critics to respect the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ. Interesting that now a pope not akin to Weigel’s views, both political and theological, occupies the Throne of St Peter, he makes no mention of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ but instead longs for the day when the current pope’s reign will come to the end. Isn’t that a sin?
He used to be a good Catholic. I hope he gets over whatever is bugging him. If he is comparing anybody to JPII, they are going to fall short. That is a once every thousand years thing.
William Robert, I do not have before me the corpus of Weigel’s commentary on Pope Francis, only the original article in Catholic World Report. Based on this I have to means to evaluate your take on Weigel. In the readers’ comment section of this article, Weigel responds to some comments with this:
“I have never claimed to be the “official” biographer of John Paul II and indeed have spent two decades correcting people who say that when introducing me. As for being “inside,” I am quite inside enough to know exactly what I’m talking about in this column — and to know that the votaries of this pontificate are trafficking in fantasy on this tenth anniversary.”
Weigel certainly gives reasons for the lack of optimism in Rome; most appear in the article above. My question to you is, has Weigel provided enough evidence to verify his claim that things are not bright and sunny on this 10 year anniversary? In other words, is the article true? And if so, your question is answered. it is no sin to speak the truth.
“…no means to evaluate…” sorry for the typo
Many long for the end of this papacy, but of course– not the death of the poor pope. Just the end of all the frustrsting evils destroying the Church. Looks like the German bishops are headed for schism. I am sure that Catholic journalists are sick of announcing “bad news” of our Church to the world. Can’t there ever be “good news” to report? What will come to pass, with this continuation of the frustrating Synod on Synodality? Any possible good? I recently read about a group of Latin American bishops who concelebrated a Mass in Brazil, for the Synod on Synodality– with a statue of the Pachamama prominently displayed on the altar. There was a video and photo of this awful event. Where is the young, heroic, Austrian Catholic “pachamama thief and destroyer,” Alexander Tschugguel? Lots of frustrating and embarrassing ambiguity, confusion, and sin, for poor Catholic journalists to report to the world, in this papacy!
“Interesting that now a pope not akin to Weigel’s views, both political and theological, occupies the Throne of St Peter, he makes no mention of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ but instead longs for the day when the current pope’s reign will come to the end. Isn’t that a sin?”….is it a sin that the Vicar of Christ no longer refers to himself as the Vicar of Christ?
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/12708/the-mysterious-disappearance-of-the-vicar-of-christ
No– it’s not a sin. One must be very clear-headed, and logical, on this. Christ is our true “pope,” our true King, in Heaven! Also, the current pope does not use the term, “Vicar of Christ.” Wonderful for all Catholics to desire God’s Justice on this, for true and correct Catholic leadership– for Christ! A Catholic pope is allowed to lead like monarchs of old, until death (or may also choose to resign). There is no means of the top clerics who elected him (College of Cardinals) to discuss possible serious errors, and then apply discipline– or replace him. The “Dubia” did not work. This is like a king in days of old, with Divine right. All one can do, with poor papal leadership, is to simply groan in misery, hoping and praying for God’s Justice to intervene. And keep standing steadfast with Christ, in the True Faith. The Catholic faithful must have really suffered greatly, under the scandalously immoral pontificate, of the terrible “Borgia” pope, Pope Alexander VI (1431-1503). He had several mistresses, and illegitimate children, who all gained much power, prestige and wealth.
Pope Alexander VI reigned from 1492-1503. That’s a total of eleven years of a terrible, scandalous, sinful pope– on his way straight to Hell– unless he repented, which I don’t think he did.
When at last the pope was suffering from a very severe sickness, he spontaneously requested, one after another, each of the last sacraments. He first made a very careful confession of his sins, with a contrite heart, and was affected even to the shedding of tears, I am told; then he received in Communion the most Sacred Body and Extreme Unction was administered to him.
Forgot to cite my source. Wikipedia page on Pope Alexander VI and they have it as a quote from Bishop Alexis Celadonit. This page has a lot of notes and footnotes if you are interested in that history.
We should pray that Francis’s pontificate ends ASAP.
Be careful what you pray for.
Weigel is just mad nobody buys his books anymore. JPII and the New Evangelization are passe.
“The New Evangelization and the ministries it inspires, and all individual Catholics who desire to be the missionary disciples and the leaven our world currently needs, have a unique gift in Pope Francis.”….has the gift stopped giving?
https://wherepeteris.com/what-does-pope-francis-have-to-say-to-the-new-evangelization/
The New Evangelization was supposed to be reinstructing Catholics in the Faith. I have never seen Pope Francis address that. He talks about going out to the people who are hungry for the Gospel.
I think this author is confused with Pope John Paul II calling for a new evangelization effort.
But it is minor.
This is a good article and a good reminder that Pope Francis is fulfilling the calls of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
There are many Catholics who never read those Pope’s writings so they do not understand and criticize what those Popes were sure was God’s Will for the Church.
Thanks for the article link.
A word about ambiguities: Just because you don’t understand something or someone else does not understand something does not mean it is ambiguous.
Just because someone takes something the wrong way (like this recent secular interpretation of priestly celibacy being temporary) does not mean it is ambiguous.
Temporal would have been a better word and maybe it was a translation error.
Catholics who know the faith get it. When someone misunderstands, you correct.
If you don’t understand, ask.
Some people express their ideas in an ambiguous manner– for whatever reasons they may have. Or else they may be unskilled, poor communicators. It is the responsibility of world leaders, secular and religious– to learn to publicly communicate clearly, so that they can be good leaders. If they cannot do this, they will be a very poor leader, and will not do much good for their cause. We should not expect the public to spend hours trying to figure out what a world leader who is a poor or ambiguous communicator– is “really” trying to say.
Sloth
Sloth? Yes. Laziness at communication.
Pope Francis and all of need to realise that our time on this earth is limited.While here we need to follow our Lord Jesus Christ to the best of our abilities.Lord have mercy on all of us sinners!
The Vatican Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is developing a new, Mexican/Latin American indigenous form of the Mass, valled the “Mayan Rite.” Is this truly, honestly necessary? St. Juan Diego, and many other Latino and Indian saints, worshipped at the Latin Tridentine Mass and Sacraments.They kept much of their indigenous ways– clothes, food, customs, etc.– and adopted some Spanish ways of life, too. But these devout Saints were fully Catholic, and loved their Faith, taught to them by Spanish missionaries. Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to St. Juan Diego as an Indian princess. It must have been very meaningful to him. But I don’t think he would have accepted a “Mayan Mass.” Are there some groups of Mexican/Latin American indigenous peoples who are truly Catholic– and are desperately in need of this “Mayan Mass?” The indigenous peoples of Mexico and Latin America, have now had Catholicism since the 16th century! Why would they ever want to dig up long-ago discarded, worthless, heretical Pachamamas and other pagan idols?
The Vatican Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is now working to develop a new “Mayan Rite” of Mass, for indigenous peoples of Mexico/Latin America. Is this really necessary? The indigenous peoples there, have now had Catholicism since the 16th century. Are they honestly Catholic? Why dig up centuries-old, long-ago discarded Pachamamas and other pagan idols, and ways of worship– and try to wrongfully include all of this heretical stuff of another religion, in a Catholic “Mayan Rite” of Mass? What’s the point? St. Juan Diego and all the other indigenous and mestizo Latino Saints, worshipped at the Latin Tridentine Mass– which the current pope oddly does not care for. I would think that the holy Latin Tridentine Mass, which the current pope strangely objects to– is honestly better, it is authentically Catholic– but the new “Mayan Rite?”– no, I don’t think so. Big mistake! And who will honestly want to be a priest for this new “Mayan Rite,” to serve these oddly unknown, unheard-of, “Mayan Rite” Catholic, indigenous parishioners and their families?
Saint Juan Diego lived in the 15th century. He was an Aztec.
St. Juan Diego was born in 1474 and died in 1548. His name at birth was Cuauhtlatoatzin, which means, “talking eagle.” He was born in what is now Mexico City, as an Aztec Indian, a gifted member of the Chichimeca people, one of the more culturally advanced groups of indigenous people there. In 1524, when he was 50 years old, St. Juan Diego and his wife, Maria Lucia, were among the first indigenous people to convert to Catholicism, and they were baptized by one of the first Spanish Franciscan missionaries to arrive in the area. St. Juan Diego had his famous apparitions of the Blessed Mother in December of 1531, at age 57. Because the Spanish Franciscan missionaries arrived in the Mexico City area in 1524, and St. Juan Diego was converted to Catholicism then– and because of his famous apparitions in 1531, I always think of him as living in the 16th century Of course, he was born in the 15th century– you are correct. Love to read all about him, and all the other fabulous saints.
Our Lady of Guadalupe and other Marian apparitions have always been very much-loved, in Mexico and Latin America. Wouldn’t Our Lady be much more important to the indigenous peoples, than a “Mayan Mass” with heretical Pachamamas, and other idols?
There is no Pachamama or other idols. There are 3 things which some will find controversial but most Catholics will not.
I read that they do have Pachamamas and idols, and worship them, and worship ancestors. They do dances, one of them at the end of the Mass. And they try to get in contact and communicate with the spirits of the idols. Totally heretical.
Of course, as St. Juan Diego died in 1548, before the Latin Tridentine Mass was promulgated in 1570– he actually attended a Mass that was very similar to the Latin Tridentine Mass.
He may have attended a Franciscan Mass. You would have to get a liturgical history that was pretty detailed to find out.
All the important elements of Mass have been there since the beginning of the Church.
Are you able to find out much about the Mass there in California.
Not every order or area had to change to the Mass of Pius V.
Liturgical history is usually presented as “Jesus said the first Mass at the last supper.”
I am sure that someone along the way wrote down the history of the Mass. I have read that there are histories that have many volumes but I have never encountered one.
Mayan Rite-once again, everything is wrong.
Please, if you read something on a muckraker site, go to a more responsible site and get the facts.
The proposal for the Vatican to approve a “Mayan rite” is not that outrageous, if you get the facts.
You may not approve of it even if you get the facts.
But-hear me on this-you are not the people the Lord has given the right to approve or disapprove of it.
And neither are the people on those websites you go to.
No. You are wrong. In previous years, previous popes tried to get rid of this outrageously heretical abuse of the Mass. There are wrongful, fake “diaconal ordinations” of husband and wife together, as a fake, “ordained” “team” of permanent deacons, pachamamas and other indigenous idols, dances and attempts to communicate with the spirits of the idols, ancestral worship, worship of the “gods” (idols) of creation– earth, sky, creatures, (etc.) plants, animals, material objects– each thing is said to have a “soul.” This belief is called “animism.” This is NOT Catholic!
The “Mayan rite” that you are referring to does not have any of those things and it is the decision of the Vatican.
“Did they teach anything against the Faith?”…..”always trust” is a path to blind obedience at best and should not include matters of prudential judgements
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Pope-Liberius
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope-vigilius
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
None of the articles that “Paul Stanley Bergeron” listed here supports the idea that popes Liberius, Viglius, nor Honorius should not be trusted. In fact the articles prove that in spite of the weakness of some of these popes, and the pressures they were under, the doctrine of papal infallibility was at work in those men, and therefore the faithful can indeed “always trust the Pope and the Magisterium” when they teach on matters of faith and morals, and liturgical discipline.
For example, concerning Honorius’ case, even Bishop Hefele who during the deliberations of Vatican I had difficulties concerning the doctrine of papal infallibility, eventually found that Honorius’ words explaining his teaching on the two natures of Christ, albeit incorrectly worded, showed nonetheless that the thought of Honorius was orthodox. This is from the same New Advent article listed above, people. And if you read the articles on Liberius, you’ll find that the “letter of Pope St. Anastasius I mentions [Honorius] with Dionysius, Hilary, and Eusebius as one of those who would have died rather than blaspheme Christ with the Arians.” And if you read the article on Vigilius, in the end, the Pope accepted the teachings of the Synod of Constantinople.
Isn’t it interesting, folks, that opponents of the Church’s doctrine of papal infallibility would continue to cling to the weak cases of these three popes? That they had to go all the way back to the 7th century to try to attempt to prove their weak point? The truth is that in spite of human weakness (and some of these men were weak), and in spite of the challenges and pressures before them, God protected the Church and these popes (as He will any pope, including Francis) and the rest of the Magisterium from error in matters of faith and morals. The Catholic faithful can always rely on that, because this is Catholic dogma as enshrined in the Councils of Vatican I and II. The cases that “Paul Stanley Bergeron” listed do not present any kind of substantial objection to the Catholic doctrine of papal reliability or infallibility.
The statement “Always March 17, 2023 at 10:13 pm
You can always trust the Pope and the Magisterium.”…without qualifying “when they teach on matters of faith and morals and liturgical discipline” leaves the faithful exposed to practicing blind obedience. The behaviors of the popes cited above and the current pope are clear examples that require a great deal of labor to justify. Of course it’s easier to use the “straw man” technique to smear those who point this out. Paul, Catherine of Siena, and Charles Borromeo did not become saints for tolerating such behavior either.
“Always” may not have expressly qualified what he/she meant by the phrase “always trust”, but the fact that “Paul Stanley Bergeron” subsequently mentions these three specific popes whose teachings at some point were questioned for their orthodoxy shows that he himself inferred that what “Always” meant by the phrase is that the Magisterium can “always be trusted” in matters of faith and morals. Besides this is the only reasonable inference a Catholic can draw from that phrase because it coincides with the Church’s doctrine on infallibility. Therefore, “Paul Stanley Bergeron’s” excuse here is disingenuous.
“….he himself inferred that what “Always” meant by the phrase is that the Magisterium can “always be trusted” in matters of faith and morals. Besides this is the only reasonable inference a Catholic can draw from that phrase because it coincides with the Church’s doctrine on infallibility. Therefore, “Paul Stanley Bergeron’s” excuse here is disingenuous..”….you brought up the Magisterium, not I. Stick to the facts.
Yes, you did bring up the Magisterium. You brought up the heads of the Magisterium during part of the 7th, 6th, and 4th centuries: namely, Honorius, Liberius, and Vigilius resepctively. No use eqivocating.
You were responding to “Always” who specifically mentioned the Pope and the Magisterium. It is reasonable to understand that you were therefore writing about the Magisterium.
Additionally, contrary to “Paul Stanley Bergeron’s” point, “always trusting” and obeying the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals is not “blind obedience.” This is flat wrong. A faithful Catholic who may have difficulty with a Church teaching is called to ask the Holy Spirit to “enlighten” his/her conscience so as to be able to “think with the Church” (sentire cum Ecclesia). Unity with God and the rest of the Church is the aim, not division. In fact, disagreeing with, and mistrusting the Magisterium on a teaching without petitioning the Holy Spirit’s guidance, without thought and discernment is intellectually “blind” and “slothful.” That is what it means to be blind to one’s prejudices and biases, without guidance from the Holy Spirit and without guidance from the Church’s ministers.
“….’always trusting’ and obeying the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals is not ‘blind obedience.”’This is flat wrong.”….strawman argument
Not a straw-man argument from me at all. Read your own words from March 20, 8:47pm: “…without qualifying ‘when they teach on matters of faith and morals and liturgical discipline’ leaves the faithful exposed to practicing blind obedience.” Why don’t you do the most honorable thing for someone in your position: admit that you have written wrongly and erroneously. Then move on, and do not do the same thing again.
“Yes, you did bring up the Magisterium. You brought up the heads of the Magisterium during part of the 7th, 6th, and 4th centuries: namely, Honorius, Liberius, and Vigilius resepctively. No use eqivocating.”….please define “Magesterium” and provide the specfic source of your definition
Rather than me having to provide the definition of Magisterium, I should be the one asking “Paul Stanley Bergeron” for it, since he was the one who initially responded to “Always” concerning it. He should know the issue he is responding to and writing about. Nonetheless, folks, I will be gracious, as I typically am (ahem). “Paul Stanley Bergeron” should read the Catechism paragraphs 84-95.
“Rather than me having to provide the definition of Magisterium, I should be the one asking “Paul Stanley Bergeron” for it, since he was the one who initially responded to “Always” concerning it. He should know the issue he is responding to and writing about. Nonetheless, folks, I will be gracious, as I typically am (ahem). “Paul Stanley Bergeron” should read the Catechism paragraphs 84-95.”…and here it is:
The Magisterium of the Church
85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”48
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
The dogmas of the faith
88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them.
89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50…..where does this say that the pope (a person)= the Magisterium (an object)? Are a person and an object identical?
“where does this say that the pope (a person)= the Magisterium (an object)? Are a person and an object identical?” Yes t is. It’s everywhere in the section of the Catechism that “Paul Bergeron” himself pasted here. I do advise him to read the text more carefully please, specifically paragraph 85 where it says “living teaching office” (is an object living? No. But the person occupying the office is living), and where it says that the task of interpreting the Word of God is entrusted to the bishops in union with the Pope. Figuratively, I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot compel it to drink.
1) “where does this say that the pope (a person)= the Magisterium (an object)? Are a person and an object identical?” Yes t is. It’s everywhere in the section of the Catechism that “Paul Bergeron” himself pasted here. I do advise him to read the text more carefully please, specifically paragraph 85 where it says “living teaching office” (is an object living? No. But the person occupying the office is living), and where it says that the task of interpreting the Word of God is entrusted to the bishops in union with the Pope. Figuratively, I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot compel it to drink.”….the person occupying an office (the Pope) and the teaching authority of his office (the Magisterium) are two different things. Popes die and are replaced. The Magisterium does not go away and is metaphorically “living”. It is an error to conflate the two. I have not criticized the Magisterium. The Magisterium does not change. The Magisterium is trustworthy when it is exercised. Popes on the other hand do not always exercise the Magisterium. They do other things too, some of which lead outside observers to question what they truly believe. This is when trust becomes an issue. For example, Pope Francis has called the practice of abortion comparable to “hiring a hit man”. I agree. But when he declares that the faithful have a moral obligation to receive a vaccination that has a questionable ethical manufacturing process, one wonders if he has the opposite view of abortion and sees it as a case of a means to an end. So, please tell me, what is the source of the cells used to test the batches of new vaccine doses that he insists the faithful receive.
“Paul Bergeron’s” understanding of the Magisterium needs to be expanded. The Magisterium is not merely the Church’s teaching office but is also the Pope and the bishops who occupy those offices. It is in error to interpret the word “living” merely in a metaphorical sense. Given the context in which that word is used in Catechism paragraph 85, the Church means that word also to be read literally. The correct understanding is that the Magisterium of the Church is “living” and “breathing”(literally)—because the Magisterium resides in the living and breathing bishops and the Pope who presently occupy those teaching offices.
Another point: not everything that an individual bishop or pope utters or does is an exercise of his teaching office, ok? When a pope is talking in his sleep, or when he is chatting at the breakfast table, or when he is fielding questions at the back of a plane en route back to Rome, or when he is being interviewed in Italian TV telling viewers to get vaccinated, or when he is reprimanding a pilgrim at St. Peter’s Square for grabbing his hand, he is not necessarily exercising his authoritative teaching office. On such occasions he might refer to doctrinal teachings, and so Catholics still ought to listen respectfully and heedfully nonetheless. But we Catholics recognize when our spiritual shepherds are acting authoritatively or not, and we know if the subject is about faith and morals or not. I mean, we Catholics understand this. Opponents of the Church would try to confuse Catholics and try to create scandal either because they have an agenda, or because they are confused. But Catholics solid in their Catholic faith are not so confused.
However, when the Pope writes an encyclical condemning something like the death penalty, or when he mentions a topic that relates to divine revelation in several homilies, or when he delivers several speeches that touches on an aspect of faith and morals, then we Catholics know that he is speaking as Peter’s successor and the Supreme Pontiff. And we are called to listen, heed, and obey.
PSB, why would you need to qualify that on a Catholic website?
Catholics should know that.
We have a lot of people here who distrust the Pope because some bad internet sites have targeted him.
Stop bickering.
Maybe there is something that you do not want to believe? Lots of Catholics use birth control, have abortions, are in illicit sexual unions etc.
People who are not faithful always want to find fault with the Church. “It’s sexist; its from the middle ages; it’s a bunch of old white men.”
Just be at peace. The Church and the Pope are not going to lead you astray.
“…why would you need to qualify that on a Catholic website?
Catholics should know that.
We have a lot of people here who distrust the Pope because some bad internet sites have targeted him.
Stop bickering.
Maybe there is something that you do not want to believe? Lots of Catholics use birth control, have abortions, are in illicit sexual unions etc.
People who are not faithful always want to find fault with the Church. ‘It’s sexist; its from the middle ages; it’s a bunch of old white men.’
Just be at peace. The Church and the Pope are not going to lead ypu astray.”…..do you have a problem with this too?
” And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.”—Galatians 2:11
No. of course not.
Why would I?
You ain’t St. Paul remonstrating Cephas over changing his behavior depending on who was in the room.
“Paul Stanley Bergeron’s” bringing up of Galatians 2 shows that he is still confused. No one in the Church has said that the popes and the Magisterium are without sin (impeccability). Galatians 2 displays Peter’s “peccability.” Rather, the Church is saying that in matters of faith and morals, the popes and the rest of the Magisterium when in union they teach on matters of faith and morals are infallible. On these matters the Magisterium are not going to lead the faithful astray. On these issues, the faithful can “always trust” the popes and the Magisterium. By the way, bringing up Galatians 2 as it relates to papal infallibility is a typical mistake by Protestants. But we still have to be patient with them.
“No. of course not.
Why would I?
You ain’t St. Paul remonstrating Cephas over changing his behavior depending on who was in the room.”….so was St. Commentor known for condeming all criticism as de facto heresy?
“None of the articles that “Paul Stanley Bergeron” listed here supports the idea that popes Liberius, Viglius, nor Honorius should not be trusted. In fact the articles prove that in spite of the weakness of some of these popes, and the pressures they were under, the doctrine of papal infallibility was at work in those men, and therefore the faithful can indeed “always trust the Pope and the Magisterium” when they teach on matters of faith and morals, and liturgical discipline.”….do you understand the difference between “infallibility” and “impeccability”?
“Paul Stanley Bergeron’s” raising of the issue of “impeccability” is a red-herring. Nobody ever said that the popes he listed were without sin. The question was on their orthodoxy, not their personal morality. And that question is answered by the articles that “Paul Stanley Bergeron” himself linked to: namely, that the accusation that these popes erred in matters of faith and morals was weak. What may have happened here folks is that “Paul Stanley Bergeron” didn’t read before-hand the articles he had linked to; he may have merely grabbed whatever first articles he could find online on each of these popes presuming that the long articles would prove his preconceived erroneous notions about these popes. Pathetic.
There are people on the Internet who want to find fault with Popes so they do not have to obey something, whether it is not using birth control or something else.
Just pray and obey and make sacrifices for sinners.
If you are someone who needs to make a decision and there is a temptation, follow the Church and the Pope.
You will not ever get in trouble with God for that.
Read the Gospels, pray the Rosary.
We need to stop coming here spoiling for a fight because we don’t like something the Internet said the Pope said.
There have always been sinners in the Church.
Learn Church history.
1) “The Pope gets to select bishops. He is not doing anything wrong.
You are saying (I think) that you can’t trust the Pope to appoint a bishop that you like, yes?”….Commenter raised the objection to the cardinals, not I
2) “I think you are getting trust confused with approval.”….should one approve clergy who are not orthodox in belief, or is that a matter of taste?
“There are people on the Internet who want to find fault with Popes so they do not have to obey something, whether it is not using birth control or something else.
Just pray and obey and make sacrifices for sinners.
If you are someone who needs to make a decision and there is a temptation, follow the Church and the Pope.
You will not ever get in trouble with God for that.
Read the Gospels, pray the Rosary.
We need to stop coming here spoiling for a fight because we don’t like something the Internet said the Pope said.”….do you also disagree with Paul? Catherine of Siena? Robert Bellarmine?
I disagree with the anti-Catholics not the saints.
“commenter March 22, 2023 at 7:20 am
I disagree with the anti-Catholics not the saints.”
And
commenter March 9, 2023 at 5:28 pm – Reply
They are advocating for a change in the Church’s teaching that people in mortal sin cannot receive communion. There is nothing opaque about it.”
Did you both both of these statements?
“They” were elevated by “whom”?
The Pope gets to select bishops. He is not doing anything wrong.
You are saying (I think) that you can’t trust the Pope to appoint a bishop that you like, yes?
I think you are getting trust confused with approval.
So what Catholic belief do you not like that you are making this kind of excuse?
Authentic catholic belief requires no excuse.
You are the one equivocating on Catholic belief, not I.
I do not know what you do not want to obey.
Maybe capital punishment, Vatican II, abortion.
You are not being very straightforward.
I accept the Church and Her teachings.
1) “You are the one equivocating on Catholic belief, not I.”….are you certain you are reading my posts?
2) “I do not know what you do not want to obey.”….it’s not so much a question of “obey” as it is “trust”
3) “Maybe capital punishment, Vatican II, abortion.
You are not being very straightforward.”….do I object to capitol punishment? No. Do I object to Vatican II? No again. Do I object to abortion? Most emphatically. Your turn: do you know the difference between “infallibility” and “impeccability”?
4) I accept the Church and Her teachings.”….good for you. I do too.
Yes, I do know the difference.
So capital punishment is one of the things that you do not agree with. It was John Paul II who said that. Did you not trust him?
I’ll be honest and this will get me thumbs down but I did not trust Pope Benedict XVI that much but when he was acting as Pope I did. His writings as Pope-not his writings as a theologian- are trustworthy. He was very liberal and he kind of gave me the creeps. But his work as Pope you can trust.
Even though something they do as Pope makes a problem, it is still trustworthy. When he lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, there were a lot of people who complained. I don’t think he should have done that until they repented but…you can trust that the excommunications are lifted.
Do you see the difference?
1) “So capital punishment is one of the things that you do not agree with. It was John Paul II who said that. Did you not trust him?”….if you contend that Pope St. John Paul II was infallible when he pronouced his opposition to capitol punishment, please explain to me how St. Paul is wrong when he wrote “The State does not bear the sword in vain”. I trust Scripture, and the Magisterium before I trust a novel teaching
2) “I’ll be honest and this will get me thumbs down but I did not trust Pope Benedict XVI that much but when he was acting as Pope I did. His writings as Pope-not his writings as a theologian- are trustworthy. He was very liberal and he kind of gave me the creeps. But his work as Pope you can trust.”….you have your criteria for trust as does everyone else. I try to apply logic to mine.
3) “Even though something they do as Pope makes a problem, it is still trustworthy. When he lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, there were a lot of people who complained. I don’t think he should have done that until they repented but…you can trust that the excommunications are lifted.
Do you see the difference?”….I agree that the excommunications were lifted. I saw the matter as disciplinary, not as a matter of faith and morals. When a pope, or anyone else, conducts himself in a manner contrary to the teachings of the church, breaking the “hermeneutic of continuity”, trust will be eroded.
Was this a death penalty? (Metropolitan Nashville Police Department fire uopn Audrey Hale)
https://youtu.be/Ue2tZa4hT0c
1) ”… raising of the issue of ‘impeccability’ is a red-herring. Nobody ever said that the popes he listed were without sin.”….yet another qualifier to “always trust”
2)”The question was on their orthodoxy, not their personal morality.”..that’s your reply: change the question
3) “And that question is answered by the articles….inked to: namely, that the accusation that these popes erred in matters of faith and morals was weak.”….as compared to the actions of these popes?
4) “What may have happened here folks is that “Paul Stanley Bergeron” didn’t read before-hand the articles he had linked to;”…I was aware of these cases long before they were posted on the respective cites. It was through expert Catholic apologetics that their actions were shown not to contradict the gift of papal infallibility, which is not impeccability
5) “…he may have merely grabbed whatever first articles he could find online on each of these popes presuming that the long articles would prove his preconceived erroneous notions about these popes. Pathetic”….how about less “resounding gong” and “clanging cymbol” and more “charity”?
For the record folks: “Paul Stanley Bergeron” has failed to prove his point that the three popes he listed (Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius) shows that one cannot “always trust” the popes and the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals. “Faith and morals” are the principal issues on which the Church calls us to rely on the Magisterium, always.
Here’s a clue https://www.forbes.com/sites/joefolkman/2020/01/24/42-of-direct-reports-claim-they-are-thinking-of-quitting-due-to-leaders-they-dont-trust/
This article from Forbes is irrelevant. “Paul Stanely Bergeron” must understand the Catholic dictum that whatever the sins, faults, and weakness of the members of the Magisterium may be, nonetheless its members (that’s the popes and the bishops), when in union they teach the faithful on matters of faith and morals, are infallible. Therefore, in those matters the rest of the Church can always trust them and rely upon them.
The words of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman are instructive: “No good can come from disobedience. [The pope’s] facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may be biased. [The pope] may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when the pope speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.” —St. John Henry Newman (Letter to Lady Simeon, November 10, 1867).
You will obey. Got it. But…would you trust ….
someone who swings his hand at a woman?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/europe/pope-francis-woman-altercation-trnd/index.html
Would you trust someone who tells women they must vacate a home after telling them they could stay?
https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-vatican-assault-on-religious-life-claims-more-victims
Or would you trust someone who lets an oppostion political party help him pick management in his “business”?
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/vatican-confirms-renewal-contested-accord-with-china-bishops-appointments-2022-10-22/
These are all invalid questions, links, and points from “Paul Bergeron.” They are irrelevant to the matter being discussed which is his erroneous identification of 3 ancient popes as proof that the Magisterium cannot be trusted on matters of faith and morals: exactly the matters that the Church calls on Catholics to rely upon them. “Paul S. Bergeron” has been proven wrong on this issue but instead of admitting that he understands and is mistaken, he spews tangential irrelevancies.
“You will obey. Got it. But…would you trust ….” Well, yah. On matters of faith and morals, a faithful Catholic obeys the Magisterium because he trusts that God has preserved the same Magisterium from error.
I think I see the issue, now.
No, I would not trust a drunk member of the Magisterium to drive me home after a party.
No. I would not trust a member who had raped a young man to hear my son’s confession.
No. I would not trust someone who stole money with the parish finances.
Obviously this is not the issue we were talking about. You can trust the Pope and the Magisterium on telling you things of God. That is a tenet of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is a guarantee from God.
Those things come in official documents and the Catechism. They do not come in interviews and off the cuff remarks.
And they do not come from websites run by lay people (or even youtube videos by some clergy).
It takes discernment sometimes and lay people and sometimes even Cardinals say things that are not accurate or are mistaken.
I just watched a homily on Youtube and there were a lot of mistakes in it, inaccuracies.
If you know the Faith, you can tell better so make sure that you know the Bible and the Catechism.
Paul, I never saw that second story. Would I trust him? Yes. He is following the Church’s law. These sisters did not want to and thought they found a way around it. He never said they could stay but he did bring in 3 sisters to look after the one who is too sick to move.
He really is not at fault in this. The nuns are being disobedient.
On the nuns story, I agree that it is not a warm fuzzy. The law in the Catholic Church is that if an order has only 5 people they are supposed to join with another order.
It sounds like this is about the property more than about the nuns, though.
“…I never saw that second story. Would I trust him? Yes. He is following the Church’s law. These sisters did not want to and thought they found a way around it. He never said they could stay but he did bring in 3 sisters to look after the one who is too sick to move.
He really is not at fault in this. The nuns are being disobedient.”.. He never said they could stay but he pocketed their money anyway?
“These are all invalid questions, links, and points…. They are irrelevant… been proven wrong….tangential irrelevancies.”
Did the Magisterium allow this?
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254142/breaking-vatican-blames-communication-error-for-anglican-service-in-pope-s-church-in-rome
The Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church) did not allow it because ummm…that is nonsensical.
However, the Lord did so lets wait and see what good He is going to make through this.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/did-jesus-really-make-peter-pope-1110
This explains it better:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/four-levels-of-the-churchs-teaching-12242
I do not know which beliefs you do not like, if any.
Maybe you were just not catechized correctly.
If you want to know the truth, it is here.
If you just want to self-justify, nothing will help.
PSB, you have helped me to clarify my own beliefs and the Church’s by your persistence.
It is not the humans that we trust but God.
He guarantees the Church and the Pope and the Magisterium.
That does not mean that every member of the hierarchy is infallible. When they stay in union with the Pope and the other bishops, they are because they are in the Catholic Faith.
When they come up with their own ideas (like the bishop of San Diego) the others remind him that he is wrong.
to jon: “O, Jesus! Meek and humble of heart, hear me: From the desire of being esteemed, deliver me; from the desire of being extolled, deliver me. Jesus, grant me the grace to desire this: That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should”. Amen. Peace.
Tacking on the Magisterium to those exhibiting imprudent judgment does not make them trustworthy.
“22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you.* Depart from me, you evildoers.’”–Matthew 7:22-23
Yes, the Magisterium can be trusted in matters of faith and morals, regardless of the sins of its members. Check St. John Henry Newman’s quote above. Plus, none of the Bible verses that “Paul Bergeron” wrote pertain to this issue.
You seem to be mixing up secular things with religious things.
Is this about a specific thing or do you just not like submission or are you just untrusting?
“Is this about a specific thing or do you just not like submission or are you just untrusting?”….it’s the pattern that bothers me. I submit to my boss and I trust to the degree that is prudent. Do you “always trust the pope” in this instance?
https://www.voanews.com/a/pope-francis-calls-covid-19-vaccination-moral-obligation-/6390278.html
What is the source of the cells used to test the batches of new vaccine doses that he insists on each of us to receive?
OK. I get that you have boundaries and since using the vaccine is not a thing where you need to obey, it is OK.
On faith and morals, you can always trust the Pope. You know that.
On other things, like the vaccine, you can trust him that you will not get in trouble with God for obeying him.
Since the Pope said that you could or should take the vaccine, you can take it even if the testing cells come from a source that the Vatican usually would say to avoid. You will not offend God by doing so. If it offends you, it is not required for you to do so.
Thank you for giving a specific.
The reason that someone may not want to take the vaccine could be their conscience and this is a true proper use of conscience.
But it also could be pride or scruples.
“The reason that someone may not want to take the vaccine could be their conscience and this is a true proper use of conscience.
But it also could be pride or scruples.”
Your turn.
What is the source of the cells used to test the batches of new vaccine doses that he insists on each of us to receive?
O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being loved…
From the desire of being extolled …
From the desire of being honored …
From the desire of being praised …
From the desire of being preferred to others…
From the desire of being consulted …
From the desire of being approved …
From the fear of being humiliated …
From the fear of being despised…
From the fear of suffering rebukes …
From the fear of being calumniated …
From the fear of being forgotten …
From the fear of being ridiculed …
From the fear of being wronged …
From the fear of being suspected …
That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I …
That, in the opinion of the world,
others may increase and I may decrease …
That others may be chosen and I set aside …
That others may be praised and I unnoticed …
That others may be preferred to me in everything…
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…
“The reason that someone may not want to take the vaccine could be their conscience and this is a true proper use of conscience.
But it also could be pride or scruples.”
Your turn.
What is the source of the cells used to test the batches of new vaccine doses that he insists on each of us to receive?
1) “The Magisterium is not merely the Church’s teaching office but is also the Pope and the bishops who occupy those offices. It is in error to interpret the word “living” merely in a metaphorical sense. Given the context in which that word is used in Catechism paragraph 85, the Church means that word also to be read literally. The correct understanding is that the Magisterium of the Church is “living” and “breathing”(literally)—because the Magisterium resides in the living and breathing bishops and the Pope who presently occupy those teaching offices”….https://www.logicalfallacies.org/reification.html
2) “When a pope is talking in his sleep, or when he is chatting at the breakfast table, or when he is fielding questions at the back of a plane en route back to Rome, or when he is being interviewed in Italian TV telling viewers to get vaccinated, or when he is reprimanding a pilgrim at St. Peter’s Square for grabbing his hand, he is not necessarily exercising his authoritative teaching office. On such occasions he might refer to doctrinal teachings, and so Catholics still ought to listen respectfully and heedfully nonetheless. But we Catholics recognize when our spiritual shepherds are acting authoritatively or not, and we know if the subject is about faith and morals or not. I mean, we Catholics understand this. Opponents of the Church would try to confuse Catholics and try to create scandal either because they have an agenda, or because they are confused. But Catholics solid in their Catholic faith are not so confused.”….so when observers note the technique used for “reprimanding a pilgrim”, they are “opponents” trying “to create scandal”? That’s called “gaslighting”
Second time
What is the source of the cells used to test the batches of vaccine doses that he insists that the faithful receive?
The Pope apologized for swatting at the lady who grabbed him.
Why did the pope apologize?
Paul Stanley Bergeron, the cell question was addressed already.
If you do not use the Pope and the Magisterium, what do you use?
The Bible, i hope.
It seems like you are Protestant or schismatic ex-Catholic, which is your decision but trying to undermine the faith of the little ones is really not a good thing.
1) ‘… the cell question was addressed already.”….so the source of the cells was provided? Please identify the post time and date.
2) “If you do not use the Pope and the Magisterium, what do you use?
The Bible, i hope.”…..I use all three and Sacred Tradition when they are in harmony, plus my conscience which I work on improving.
3) “It seems like you are Protestant or schismatic ex-Catholic, which is your decision but trying to undermine the faith of the little ones is really not a good thing.”…..so asking questions and offering criticism makes one a Protestant or schismatic? Is it okay to impune the questioner or the critic instead of answering the question or responding to the criticism? Do you trust this passage from the encyclical?
“Unity prevails over conflict
226. Conflict cannot be ignored or concealed. It has to be faced. But if we remain trapped in conflict, we lose our perspective, our horizons shrink and reality itself begins to fall apart. In the midst of conflict, we lose our sense of the profound unity of reality.
227. When conflict arises, some people simply look at it and go their way as if nothing happened; they wash their hands of it and get on with their lives. Others embrace it in such a way that they become its prisoners; they lose their bearings, project onto institutions their own confusion and dissatisfaction and thus make unity impossible. But there is also a third way, and it is the best way to deal with conflict. It is the willingness to face conflict head on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process. “Blessed are the peacemakers!” (Mt 5:9).
228. In this way it becomes possible to build communion amid disagreement, but this can only be achieved by those great persons who are willing to go beyond the surface of the conflict and to see others in their deepest dignity.”—Evangeli gaudium
1) ‘… the cell question was addressed already.”….so the source of the cells was provided? Please identify the post time and date.
2) “If you do not use the Pope and the Magisterium, what do you use?
The Bible, i hope.”…..I use all three and Sacred Tradition when they are in harmony, plus my conscience which I work on improving.
3) “It seems like you are Protestant or schismatic ex-Catholic, which is your decision but trying to undermine the faith of the little ones is really not a good thing.”…..so asking questions and offering criticism makes one a Protestant or schismatic? Is it okay to impugn the questioner or the critic instead of answering the question or responding to the criticism? Do you trust this passage from the encyclical?
“Unity prevails over conflict
226. Conflict cannot be ignored or concealed. It has to be faced. But if we remain trapped in conflict, we lose our perspective, our horizons shrink and reality itself begins to fall apart. In the midst of conflict, we lose our sense of the profound unity of reality.
227. When conflict arises, some people simply look at it and go their way as if nothing happened; they wash their hands of it and get on with their lives. Others embrace it in such a way that they become its prisoners; they lose their bearings, project onto institutions their own confusion and dissatisfaction and thus make unity impossible. But there is also a third way, and it is the best way to deal with conflict. It is the willingness to face conflict head on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process. “Blessed are the peacemakers!” (Mt 5:9).
228. In this way it becomes possible to build communion amid disagreement, but this can only be achieved by those great persons who are willing to go beyond the surface of the conflict and to see others in their deepest dignity.”—Evangeli gaudium
Concerning “Paul S. Bergeron’s” persistent doubts:
1) His point of calling the Church’s definition of Magisterium as an example of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness is in error. He insists on his own deficient understanding of the term, rather than prayerfully trying to understand what the Catechism is saying. Hey, if he doesn’t like how the Church defines its own terms, he doesn’t have to remain a Catholic: he may freely leave. Or if he isn’t a Catholic, he doesn’t have to be one. There are a lot of Protestant denominations out there that are begging for new members.
2) Who in this comment thread said that the observers of how the Pope reprimanded a pilgrim at St. Peter’s Square are “creating scandal”? No one. This is a red-herring. Plus, the Pope apologized the following day for how he reacted. People have moved on from that encounter between Pope and pilgrim, except perhaps “Paul S. Bergeron”. Everybody knows that the woman should not have grabbed an elderly person like that and didn’t easily let go; everyone understands that the Pope reacted instinctively and ungraciously to being grabbed by the hand; it was a natural human reaction. People understand that the Pope is a flawed human being. But that encounter doesn’t take away anything from the Catholic faith that when the Pope officially teaches on matters of faith and morals he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. On those matters, the Catholic faithful can trust and rely on him. Always.
1)”…the Pope apologized the following day for how he reacted.”….why?
2) Third and last time: What is the source of the cells used to test the new batches of vaccine doses that he insists that the faithful receive?
To have to ask why the Pope apologized for how he reacted is pedantic.
The CDF has already assured Catholics back in 2020 that receiving the Covid vaccine that “employed cell lines drawn from tissue obtained from two abortions that occurred in the last century” (that is, in the 1970’s and 1980’s) is morally licit because “the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote.” In other words the researchers and developers of the Covid vaccine did not cooperate formally nor materially in an active way in the procurement of those abortions. Therefore, it is not obligatory for the ordinary Catholic to avoid such vaccines, derived from the passive material cooperation of those researchers and developers, especially if the moral reason for getting vaccinated is “not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed.”
The CDF was also clear that although the Church has judged that getting the Covid vaccine is allowed, it does not mean that procuring abortion is licit, nor does it “imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.” The circumstances of the Covid pandemic, as well as the remoteness of the passive material cooperation in the procurement of the cell lines, do not make getting the Covid vaccine wrong. The Pope therefore is not in error on this issue. (CDF, “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines”; December 17, 2020).
“Hey, if he doesn’t like how the Church defines its own terms, he doesn’t have to remain a Catholic: he may freely leave. Or if he isn’t a Catholic, he doesn’t have to be one. There are a lot of Protestant denominations out there that are begging for new members.”…..why should I leave to be a Protestant?
https://www.lutheranworld.org/news/vatican-issues-commemorative-reformation-stamp
“These are all invalid questions, links, and points…. They are irrelevant… been proven wrong….tangential irrelevancies.”
Did the Magisterium allow this?
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254142/breaking-vatican-blames-communication-error-for-anglican-service-in-pope-s-church-in-rome
“Hey, if he doesn’t like how the Church defines its own terms, he doesn’t have to remain a Catholic: he may freely leave. Or if he isn’t a Catholic, he doesn’t have to be one. There are a lot of Protestant denominations out there that are begging for new members.” ….why should I leave?
https://www.lutheranworld.org/news/vatican-issues-commemorative-reformation-stamp
1) “To have to ask why the Pope apologized for how he reacted is pedantic.”….there is a world of difference between a “reprimand” and a physical blow to a weaker person
2) From the reference:”It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive”… the “certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion” has not been provided and the question regarding quality control testing of batches of vaccine doses as opposed to production remains unanswered
Advice to “Paul S. Bergeron”: it is recommended that he does his own legwork now and answer for himself the above quibbling and pedantic questions. His original point on “obeying” and “trusting” the Magisterium (presenting three ancient popes) has been refuted and found wanting. Now he’s bringing up tangential and irrelevant non-sequiturs. Good luck.
1) “Advice to “Paul S. Bergeron”: it is recommended that he does his own legwork now and answer for himself the above quibbling and pedantic questions “…..so if you want something done right do it yourself
2) “His original point on ‘obeying’ and ‘trusting’ the Magisterium (presenting three ancient popes) has been refuted and found wanting.”….the power of reification
3) “Now he’s bringing up tangential and irrelevant non-sequiturs. Good luck.”….yet you continue to respond. Why?
“Yet you continue to respond?” We respond because of goodwill, anticipating that you might have a point after these questions have been answered by us. It turns out you didn’t really have a point. You seemingly were only interested in asking quibbling irrelevant pedantic questions. And admittedly many of your questions you asked and the sites you paste here sound impertinent and even derogatory of the Catholic Faith.
1) “….goodwill….?
“You are severely corrected.”
“Why don’t you do the most honorable thing for someone in your position: admit that you have written wrongly and erroneously. Then move on, and do not do the same thing again.”
“Nonetheless, folks, I will be gracious, as I typically am (ahem).”
2) “You seemingly were only interested in asking quibbling irrelevant pedantic questions.”…and you continue to respond to them, flaunting examples of your “goodwill”. Where’s the logic?
3) “And admittedly many of your questions you asked and the sites you paste here sound impertinent and even derogatory of the Catholic Faith.”….who is admitting what?