Archbishop Fernandez, the new head of the Vatican’s doctrine office, quoted in America Magazine on July 6:
“There is nothing that can compare to (marriage) and using that name to express something else is not good nor correct.
“That is why I think that the greatest care must be taken in avoiding rites or blessings that could feed that confusion. Now, if a blessing is given in such a way that it does not create that confusion, it will need to be analyzed and confirmed.”
Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas in subsequent Twitter posting:
“Archbishop Fernandez needs to read Genesis 19:15-29, ‘The Lord God rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom & Gomorrah’ and Romans 1. Pray that he returns to the Catholic faith.”
Listen to Bishop Strickland. He’s 100% right.
Just announced that Fernandez will be made a cardinal.
Appointing so many homosexual apologists lets you exactly what Francis is up to, and it’s not good.
What are homosexual apologists and who are they?
See? All those people who are trying to gaslight Catholics who are deeply concerned about Fernandez being appointed to the DDF aren’t misreading Fernandez’s opinion about same-sex unions being blessed at all. Fernandez is saying, “Well, yes, marriage is between a man and a woman, but if there is a way to bless homosexual unions without equating them to marriage, then that would be hunky-dory.”
They are going to bless homosexual unions in the Catholic Church within three years. The synod will be their opportunity to introduce it.
Stop gaslighting those of us who are worried about the Church going gravely astray when the Church’s leaders are signaling what they are going to do instead of clearly and completely disavowing it. Fernandez is not disavowing gay unions in the Church. He’s saying they could be possible.
Strickland gets it. Too bad he’s not going to the synod to raise heck. But he can raise heck on Twitter.
He did not say it would be hunky dory. I guess people don’t understand what his new job is.
But of course, the greatest sin is saying the Latin Mass. Poor Pius XII, he must be rolling over in his grave!
Maybe Bishop Strickland didn’t learn in priest or bishop bible class that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t homosexuality. It was failure to show hospitality. All the bible scholars are teaching that now, even Jewish rabbis who know the bible very well say Sodom and Gomorrah is teaching about the sacred duty of hospitality. You have to read it in context. That’s what my pastor and my parish DRE have said. We know more about the bible now than they did in the 1900s when Strickland went to priest school.
Huh?? Are you serious?
Well, the Bible itself actually says what the sin of Sodom was, and it isn’t homosexuality.
In the Epistle of Jude it states the sin was sexual perversion and unnatural vice. It most definitely was homosexuality. And homosexuality is condemned elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Leviticus and in Romans. The gay reimagining of the Bible doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Why for well over 2,000 years was Sodom and Gomorrah understood to refer to homosexuality, but just in the past several decades — the era of the rainbow people — now it means something different that is friendly to gays? Gays have a vested interest in removing the Bible’s condemnations of homosexuality. They have a biased and incorrect interpretation of the Bible.
“Well, the Bible itself actually says what the sin of Sodom was, and it isn’t homosexuality.” ah the old scam that the sodomites want you to believe the sin was actually was being uncharitable wrong YFC it was sodomy. A sin that is unnatural and cries to heaven for vengeance. It will be this sin that your crowd venerate may actually cause the Church to split.
Well, those who taught you that are wrong, wrong, wrong. And not all Jews teach that either.
I think rabbis would know what their own scriptures mean. They’ve been reading it for longer than the Catholic Church has been around.
“I think rabbis would know what their own scriptures mean.”
You mean the Talmud and/or Kabala?
you can’t be serious
Jude 1: 7 ” Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
Your woke priest is ignoring that among the chief sins mentioned in the Sodom and Gomorrah story is the crowd of men outside of Lot’s house who were wanting to rape the angels in his home who appeared in handsome male forms. In fact and sadly so, Lot showed “hospitality” to these male angels by trying to offer the crowd a virgin daughter instead(!). Your priest has told you a woke and false interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah designed to try and change the Catholic Churches teachings on sexuality, which is completely contrary to the intent of the inspired Hebrew author who wrote the story, as well as the Church’s historical understanding of the Old Testament teaching behind this story.
We, the Laity need to rise up and let these woke heretical priests and bishops know that our obligation to follow them as Shepherds ceases when they jump off a cliff. None of them, even if elected Pope, can change 2,000 year old dogmatic teachings of the Church.
There is no such thing as woke. At least there is no agreement on what it means other than the past tense of wake. Let’s stop using it here and in politics. If there is any agreement on what it means it is anything with which we disagree.
You just don’t like it because it’s an effective slur against Democrats. Woke means liberal, leftist, communist Democrat.
Are you kidding?
So white people steal another word from the black community and completely change its meaning?
Since when does the word “woke” belong to the black community? On the other hand, how do you know if it was not a black conservative who thought up the newer meaning for “woke”? People steal words from each other all the time. One brown-skinned Muslim said he was tired of being called a “White Supemists” because he was protesting the genderbending grooming of his children. And the super idiots who say math is racist because it is “white”, which is hilarious to Arabs and Asians.
What on earth is a “White Supremist”? And what is “gender bending grooming”? Why is he protesting instead of preventing Republican/conservatives from grooming his children?
In answer to “Woke up’s” post today at 3:50 pm, you did not understand me since you do not know the terms that are commonly used on many news programs. All I can tell you is that the Muslim man did not say it was Republican/conservatives who were trying to groom children for changing their sexes but anyone who is involved in the LBTG group (Alphabet People) of whatever political persuasion. Put terms you do not know in your search engine and get the definitions. It’s easy.
“We know now more about the Bible than the people who wrote it.” There. Fixed it for you.
I accidentally gave South Coast a thumbs up thinking he was just being sarcastic.
Anne – South Coast was being sarcastic. (I’m not South Coast, by the way).
I was.
To avoid confusion, I will now add /s.
Actually, that’s probably true. I think we know more about the meaning of Genesis today than Moses did. He couldn’t have known as much about it as we do because he didn’t know about Christ. Christ fulfills the Old Testament, and the Old Testament prefigures Christ, so it stands to reason that Christians would know more about the Old Testament’s meaning than the Old Testament’s authors did.
Moses stayed with God face-to-face for 40 days on Mount Sinai. You’d think he’d been told about Christ, even at His pre-incarnation stage.
Some of the Old Testament prophets knew about a promised messiah, but they didn’t know it would be God incarnate. We do know more than the Old Testament authors about the meaning of what they wrote.
Only if you disregard that whole “jot and tittle” thing.
We know more …. What pastor and what DRE told you this claptrap?
At Archbishop Mitty High School we were taught that Sodom and Gomorrah was about inhospitality, and that people who interpret it to be about homosexuality are projecting their hatred for gays into the story.
For the sin of inhospitality, Sodom and Gomorrah were burned down, sulphur and brimstone rained down on them, Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt, while Lot himself went off to commit incest with his daughters. All because inhospitality is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance and is greater in gravity than the seven deadly sins.
Oh, okay. Next time some Jehovah’s witnesses show up at my doorstep, asking to come in, when I’m not done cleaning up the house, I’ll just let them in and tell them to do the cleaning themselves. I can’t risk being rained on with fire and brimstone.
(I bet that interpretation was invented by sodomites.)
Well if the DRE said it it must be true…OMG a Bishop vs. a DRE (who is probably a veil-less nun who wants to be a priest). I think you need to go back to basic Catholic class.
“Brothers and sisters, today we gather to celebrate and bless Sheila and Susan and their love for each other. Don’t they both look wonderful in their tuxedos? It’s a big day for them and for our church. God is love, and wherever two or three gather in the name of love, there is God. So God is with us and with Sheila and Susan, and we will now bless them and recognize their love as an example of Christian accompaniment and partnering.”
That will be the day I quit the Church. Archbishop Fernandez and Pope Francis had better not do it.
if it is done; it won’t be the
(true) Catholic Church that does it
Justin,
Popes come and go but the Deposit of Faith stays because Our Lord promised that He would be with us (the Church) till the end of the age. So, please, don’t leave.
tuxedos, your lack of faith is the problem.
Justin Illusion, there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. She is united with the Pope as her head. Any other belief in a Catholic is heresy.
If God wants people to have strong faith, he shouldn’t let the church’s highest ranking clergymen give even a whiff of proclaiming heresy. If I owned the company and the managers acted against the company’s interests or led people to think that the company sold a different product than it does, I’d fire them. All of them.
listen well grasshopper:
“an heretical pope – ain’t the pope”
even fits in a fortune cookie
“orient” your thinking to this
incontrovertible truth
The Pope is not heretical.
You have either already stopped going to Church or you want to and are looking for an excuse.
If you are a follower of Jesus, you will never leave the Church because that is where He is.
Yes, he is everywhere. Yes, you still pray and all the other lame things that those who leave the Church say.
Lots of people leave the Church because they know better than, they are better than.
No difference between you and those who leave because they won’t marry same sex couples or they won’t ordain women.
“Maybe Bishop Strickland didn’t learn in priest or bishop bible class that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t homosexuality. It was failure to show hospitality. All the bible scholars are teaching that now, even Jewish rabbis who know the bible very well say Sodom and Gomorrah is teaching about the sacred duty of hospitality”
Dear we know more,
you are right that there is a concerted effort to reinterpret Genesis from the traditional interpretation that the sin of Sodom was, well, sodomy. I do not doubt in the least that your pastor and DRE have altered their viewpoint to accord with the Queer interpretation you so ably described. But now let us consider a few things: 1. Not all bible scholars are on board with the new learning. For example, in 2016, Brian Neil Peterson wrote: What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else? It is not a book that I have read; I only show that the new learning is not well-received everywhere. 2. Ask yourself, what is the genesis of this new learning? Does it come from the Genesis text itself? Isn’t it a little strange, maybe even suspicious, when a queer interpretation of Sodom comes at the same time as the LGBTQ+ juggernaut flexes its muscles in just about every area of life? What do we know now about Biblical Hebrew and culture at the time of the destruction of Sodom that we didn’t know 20+ years ago? Probably nothing, but what has changed in this time? Strenuous efforts by he LGBTQ+ juggernaut to achieve the normalization of homosexuality etc. Could that be the real reason your pastor and DRE are sold on the Queer interpretation of Sodom? Something to think about, at the very least.
Ezekiel 16:49-50, 56-58
Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy.
Instead, they became arrogant and committed abominations before me; then, as you have seen, I removed them.
Did you not hold your sister Sodom in bad repute while you felt proud of yourself,
before your evil was exposed? Now you are like her, reproached by the Arameans and all their neighbors, despised on all sides by the Philistines.
The penalty of your depravity and your abominations—you must bear it all—oracle of the LORD.
Dan, yet Jesus said that “it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city.” (Matt. 10:15). Whatever the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was which you say is sodomy, apparently Jesus says those two towns will bear the day of judgement much better than others. So is Jesus sold into the queer interpretation of Sodom? Something for you to think about.
“So is Jesus sold into the queer interpretation of Sodom? Something for you to think about.” A complete non sequitur, requiring little thought to see it for what it is. Nobody ever said sodomy was the greatest of sins, or at least, no one I know or regard as reputable has so declared. Let’s put Matt. 10:15 in context. The rejection of the Son of God is the ultimate outrage, the highest sacrilege possible. To reject His disciples’ mission of mercy is to reject Him. Consequently it will be more tolerable for any other sinner than those guilty of rejecting Christ’s mission.
If as Dan says rejection of the Son of God and his apostles is the greater sin, and because Jesus’s mission is continued today by the successor of Peter and the apostles, therefore rejecting the teachings of Pope Francis and the bishops today is the greater sin than sodomy. Jesus confirms this when he said whoever rejects the apostles rejects him. In effect Dan is saying that the homosexual sodomites of Sodom and Gomorrah (and the gays of today) will be better off in the day of judgement than those who these days attack and reject Pope Francis.
Cities who reject God and Jesus Christ fall. It is worse with each generation because each has been forewarned and should know better. Sodom, Gomorrah, Babylon, Santorini Island were all cities that rejected God and were destroyed.
Look what happened to New York city after the Holy Eucharist was desecrated at St. Patrick’s Cathedral by naked men before 9/11. God lifted his protection around the city. The only thing left standing at Ground Zero was the cross. God is never mocked.
If as Dan says …” Yes, a thoroughly Catholic viewpoint, or so it seems, if the rejection is final and unrepented. That is why last week I posted a call to prayer for myself as I felt overwhelmed by the conflicts the synodal process has produced as well as many other aspects of this pontificate. I said then and affirm now that I lack the wisdom to see as God sees but I can always pray about things I don’t understand and about things that dismay me, as there are occasions of grief courtesy this pontificate. That said, a blanket statement that the gays of today are better off at judgment than critics of Pope Francis is too facile/simplistic. God searches the heart and knows the culpability of each of us, and beyond any of this it best for all of us not to offend God at all, as He is already much offended by human sin whatever the variety.
The blanket statement is what Jesus says. There is no good second guessing God. That offends him too. This is part of your problem. You think you know more than God. Pride is worse than lust.
“This is part of your problem. You think you know more than God. Pride is worse than lust. To Pride is worse: After reading this comment and reading mine upon which yours is based I just shook my head. After goveling in humiliation before the entire Cal Catholic audience I am for this reason accused of knowing more than God and of pride. And here I thought I had confessed I knew less than God and for that reason required of myself and increased commitment to prayer. My guess is you took great exception to this from my previous post:
“That said, a blanket statement that the gays of today are better off at judgment than critics of Pope Francis is too facile/simplistic.”
Let us consider two people: the first is a homosexual man who preys upon young boys and sodomizes them. The second is a bishop of the Church who agonizes over what he sees in the leadership of Pope Francis and for love of God and his flock expresses his anguish in print or spoken voice, which qualifies him as a critic of Pope Francis. Nevertheless he prays for Pope Francis incessantly. Now suppose both die. Would you, Pride is worse, consider the gay man to be better off at judgment than the bishop? Whose heart was given over to Jesus, and whose to Satan? It is always a little tricky to take the example of Jesus and the apostles and apply it directly to far different situations today.
Notice how you made the gay person really bad and the bishop the poor victim?
No it’s not always tricky. You only make it so.
Groveling? Telling us that Jesus’s statement is too facile and simplistic and then telling us you were also groveling? Odd.
Consistent with Jesus’s words, even that gay rapist may experience more mercy on judgement day than that bishop. The first vice is lust, but the second is pride. Pride is worse. Get rid of yours.
“Notice how you made the gay person really bad and the bishop the poor victim?” To victim July 11, 2023 at 9:51 pm, and Your problem July 11, 2023 at 10:42 pm : Yes that was the point. I was responding to Pride is worse by producing a counterexample to the notion that one could apply Jesus’ words without difficulty to modern situations. While some situations are not always tricky I only made this so to prove a point. The gay man was morally destitute and by preying on boys may well have ruined their lives. Jesus had some things to say about young ones and millstones. The bishop, however, evinces a love for Pope Francis by virtue of his constant prayer for him, and his love for God in his service to the flock. Love and pride do not easily reside together in a soul, so I do not think the sin of pride can be laid at the bishop’s feet. It is instead a matter of great sorrow that he differs with Francis. So in this example, I sought to make it clear that the bishop’s heart was clean and conscience clear, while the gay man loved evil. Thus in conclusion it is not always easy to apply Jesus’ words to his disciples to today.
To groveling July 11, 2023 at 11:41 pm, I say, there is no inconsistency in the pointing out of errors in reasoning and the virtue of humility, as long as the pointing out is done humbly. That I have tried to do, but the poster Pride is worse, July 12, 2023 at 9:22 am, was having none of it. Not moved by my example, nor convinced of any humility on my part, this poster denied the validity of everything I wrote.
“Consistent with Jesus’s words, even that gay rapist may experience more mercy on judgement day than that bishop. The first vice is lust, but the second is pride. Pride is worse. Get rid of yours.”
And here I thought my example was so extreme that such a conclusion regarding the two men would be impossible to reach. The last admonition, “Get rid of yours,” conflates the critical analysis of thought with pride. This should, as a rule, not be done, although the temptation to do so may be great.
These are two hypothetical situations that you made up in your head, the gay rapist and the bishop. You deliberately made it extreme but reality is usually not like that. It’s like you wrote a novel with fictional characters and now you’re judging which one of your characters goes to heaven and which goes to hell. Your point then is contrived. Invalid.
Jesus was giving a concrete situation showing that gays and sodomites will have a better judgement than those who pridefully reject Him and his apostles. That’s a warning to those who reject Pope Francis and the bishops. It’s a warning to those who think their sin is less than what gays and lesbians do.
It’s not true you cannot apply Jesus’ words directly to situations of today. If you think we can’t and you think you know better than Jesus then you are very prideful.
It is easy to apply Jesus’ words to today. It doesn’t take rocket science. All a person needs is humility to be guided by the Holy Spirit and the Church. You just do not want to admit the plain words of Jesus that the gays will be shown greater mercy than those who reject the Pope’s and bishops’ teachings as successors to the apostles. Instead of admitting this you would instead say how difficult to apply to our time Jesus’s words. You in effect have aside the Word of God in favor of your own ideas. That’s pride.
Jude 1: 7 ” Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
they’re playing fast and loose with words….if these men do choose to bless these arrangements, it won’t require any declaration that the Church is changing it’s teaching. The blessing will mean nothing because as a sacramental, no spiritual benefit can come without the proper disposition to be receptive to such blessing and this is basic Catholic theology. Also, while the optics would be horrible, it would, in the end, just be rogue narcissistic prelates misbehaving a la the Avignon Popes….It won’t last and will just one more wart on the nose of the Church in history.
You have a better understanding than most.
It’s a nothing burger.
Bishop Strickland can’t read.
Not the first time.
OK. I apologize. I got sucked into the BS.
When I actually looked at the tweet, he was responding to a writing by Edward Pentin where Pentin mischaracterizes what Frenandez said.
Mea culpa.
But Bishop Strickland should not have fallen for it either.
There is a vlogger who said that Strickland is surrounded by people who are misinforming him, that he is too busy to check out the facts.
sucked into it: Pentin’s tweet is written above the passage from America magazine by Archbishop Fernandez. It is quite unlikely that B. Strickland read the short tweet of Pentin but ignored the longer passage below it on which Pentin’s tweet was based. As I see it, Pentin drew the correct inference from Abp. Fernandez’ words and B. Strickland thought so as well. So either both Pentin and B. Strickland are right or both are wrong. Since the writing of Abp. Fernandez on this issue carry so much weight, it would be a simple matter for him to dispel any ambiguity that may have arisen from the article in America.
There was another incident a few weeks ago where he completely misread a document.
I am now wondering if he is doing his own tweets.
There is a video online where Fr. James Martin clearly states that he is good friends with Pope Francis and that Pope Francis wants same-sex marriages. Why is such a man not called out and confronted by Pope Francis if what he is saying is untrue. Such reports are what is fueling the confusion about what the pope truly believes.
Pope Francis has said that the Church cannot marry gay people.
That is not enough. He needs to discipline those who say he said otherwise.
The combox is quaking.
Yet Francis refuses to enforce doctrine.
There is no doctrine that Pope Francis is failing to enforce.
Do you know what doctrine is?
I’m seriously thinking of moving to Tyler, or anywhere in Smith County, Texas for that matter, so I can be in Strickland’s diocese.
Me, too!
Clicks are not worth going to hell for.
get your clicks
on Route 66
The quote that Edward Pentin uses is “examined and verified”.
Because yes, that is his job.
Nobody in the Church should be doing those kinds of blessings unless the Vatican approves.
The Vatican does not approve.
He is saying that it should not be done without Vatican approval.
Of course, all those who are so scared that the Church is going to approve gay marriage are freaking out because they cannot read or they read things through the lens of their fears.
And people who say they would throw their souls away over it…Really?
Hopefully it is like all the people who said they were going to move to Canada if Trump won the election in 2016.
Why doesn’t he simply say that under no circumstances would or could a same-sex union be blessed by the church? Why say that a proposal for a gay union would have to be examined and confirmed? That implies at least one form of gay union could be blessed by the church it it were to pass muster. Instead, since gay unions are intrinsically evil, they cannot ever be blessed. He should say that just as plainly as I have said it. I should be in charge of the DDF. There would be no confusion nor ambiguity, let me tell you.
I think America magazine made it look like they wanted it to look.
When I saw the interview, it was obvious that he supported the CDC ruling that they could not be blessed.
The Pope has already settled this matter of the blessing of same-sex unions through the CDF in a “Responsum” dated February 22, 2021 which said:
“it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.”
And the Archbishop basically agreed with the Pope that the Church avoid “rites or blessings that could feed that confusion.”
Note, he did not say the church should avoid blessing gay unions, period. The way they will get around this, Jon, is by claiming that the unions they will have the church bless will not involve sexual activity. That way they don’t change marriage, they don’t change the responsum, and they enact blessings for “chaste” gay unions, which everyone knows won’t be chaste at all. Read between the lines. Tucho said that gay blessings that do not cause confusion with marriage should be analyzed and confirmed. They will say it’s a blessing of a friendship or a mutually supportive partnership and claim it has nothing to do with sex. But everyone will know that it has everything to do with gay sex, despite the claims to the contrary, Sheila and Susan will stand at the altar in their tuxedos, they’ll make promises to each other, the priest will bless them, everyone in attendance will applaud the happy couple, they’ll have a reception afterwards with a wedding cake, and it will have all the appearances of a wedding day, yet the church will claim they are chaste, therefore it shouldn’t be confused with marriage. Then Sheila and Susan will go to their shared home and their shared bed and carpet munch.
They don’t do all that for those convalidating a civil marriage.
The last two words in “Read between the line’s” comment is lewd and inappropriate. It has no place in a Catholic website.
Fernandez’s kissing book is worse.
Prove it.
“Why say that a proposal for a gay union would have to be examined and confirmed? That implies at least one form of gay union could be blessed by the church it it were to pass muster.”
Well said, no, very well said– a most perceptive point of logic. In addition I found this from article shared by interested July 9, 2023 at 1:21 pm:
[Archbishop Fernandez] also emphasized the importance of another charge given him by Francis, which is to ensure that all Vatican departments are in alignment with the “recent magisterium”.
“It can happen that answers are given to certain theological issues without accepting what Francis has said that is new on those issues,” Fernández said. “It’s not only inserting a phrase from Pope Francis, but allowing thought to be transfigured with his criteria. This is particularly true for moral and pastoral theology.”
I suppose the continuation of ambiguity/confusion by these the Archbishop’s words was inevitable given the charge given him by Pope Francis in these words above.
I find nothing confusing or ambiguous in Pope Francis’ teachings and they are all in union with the Catholic Church.
This internet trope has got to stop.
Be faithful.
Everyday there is news and what Pope Francis actually says, not interpreted by someone who is out to get him or is trying to make their living by drumming up scandal on the Internet.
If you read something that confuses you, pray to the Holy Spirit.
We can discuss it here but remember he always teaches in union with the Faith.
Hebrews 4:9-12
Therefore, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God.
And whoever enters into God’s rest, rests from his own works as God did from his. Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience.
Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart.
I wish these churchmen would stop giving interviews.
It just confuses and upsets Catholics.
Why doesn’t doesn’t the link to twitter take you to twitter?
It takes you to a place called Catholic Monitor.
Is this even legit?
I can’t see twitter anymore because of the new policy.
Can somebody verify this as even real?
https://catholicherald.co.uk/exclusive-im-here-to-enforce-the-recent-magisterium-says-archbishop-fernandez
For those interested
Let’s give thanks and praise to Lord in gratitude.
There are children in China, North Korea, and many other places that don’t even know what the Catholic Church is.
While Archbishop Fernández clearly stated that “doctrine does not change,” he said that the dicastery will operate differently under his leadership than in the past, focusing more on fostering conversation and promoting theological knowledge rather than “persecuting” or “condemning.”
In the particular details of people’s everyday lives, “it is difficult to throw doctrine down like stones,” he said. “This conviction of mine will probably give another color to the dicastery, but that is inevitable if you realize I am the first Latin American to hold this role.”
This was a part of this article that I had not seen anywhere before.
And this speaks to what we do here.
We confront those in error and in weakness of faith and I agree that it does not work.
It just pushes them to go lower.
Those who care about doctrine, take the time to learn doctrine and correct themselves when they see they are in error.
For those who do not care about doctrine, no doctrine is going to convince them.
We don’t want their souls to end up in hell, but I don’t know what to do.
The Church makes her own the attitude of the Lord Jesus, who offers his boundless love to each person without exception.
During the Synod, we discussed the situation of families whose members include persons who experience same-sex attraction, a situation not easy either for parents or for children. We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence.
Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.
251. In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is unacceptable “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should
make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex
Amoris Laetitia
It is very hard to filter out the noise on the Internet.
This is very sad IF a bishop tweeted that.
I have some thoughts as to why but I hope they do not turn out to be true.
Pray for this bishop and for Archbishop Fernandez (soon to be Cardinal.)
Psalm 16
The Lord is my portion and my cup
To Thee, great One in Three,
Eternal praises be
Hence evermore.
Thy sov’reign majesty
May we in glory see,
And to eternity
Love and adore.
David and Jonathan were the first gay couple in the Bible. Whatever gay blessing Tucho and Francis cook up will probably involve a reading about David and Jonathan’s love for each other.
Go take a cold shower and get your mind out of the gutter, The relationship between David and Jonathan was just male bonding during time of war as Jonathan had saved David’s life not had sex with him. The love David was talking about was “laying down one’s life for a friend”.
“David and Jonathan were the first gay couple in the Bible.” That’s funny, I never read this in the Old Testament, at least the real Old Testament. You may have picked this up in the James Martin translation, but as this is newer and unapproved.
King David was not gay. He was a womanizer. Remember the story of David and Bathsheba? King David later repented of his lustful sins. Very famous, in the Bible.
A good Catholic friend of mine said Fernandez is a Freemason and a Soros spy. If they have infiltrated the church at such high levels, they are there to do what they’ve been chosen to do. Decades in the making.
Well, your “good Catholic friend” is wrong. It is better for her to do her research first instead of slandering a minister of the Church.
Fernandez was interviewed by the “Crux” on July 7th where he refutes such ignorant gossiping/slander by your “good Catholic friend.”
Question. “It’s no secret that the criticism will likely continue, as not everyone shares your vision. What would you like to say to those who are skeptical about the way in which you will carry out the task you are undertaking?”
Fernandez: “That I am not a Freemason, nor an ally of the New World Order, nor a Soros spy infiltrated in the Church. Those are pure fantasies. I try to be an honest person, I confess often, I love the Church and its doctrine, most of my writings are about spirituality and prayer. I cannot conceive my life without God. So [they may] have confidence, and it is better [for them] to look for enemies of the faith elsewhere.”
Tucho is going to Bud Light the Catholic church. Watch.
Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church.
Catechism of Trent
Groomers don’t just get you to trust them.
They cause you to distrust the people that you should trust so that you will do what they want.
Anyone who tells you the Pope cannot be trusted or who tries to get you to distrust the head of the Doctrine dicastery is a groomer.
They will act like they are your savior. They are not.
They are trying to come between you and the people your savior has sent to guide you.
Except that there’s good reason to distrust the people you mentioned. There is evidence and a track record. People aren’t concerned for no reason whatsoever. There’s history, documents, books, articles, and past decisions that show what kind of leaders they are, and it’s rational to expect more of the same in the future. Stop gaslighting people into thinking that they are the problem or that their assessment of events and circumstances is incorrect.
Evidence, you are denying God and the influence of the Holy Spirit.
And I do not believe you.
I do not believe there is evidence or a track record.
There might be things that get distorted by the groomers on the Internet.