The first full news cycle after the Vatican released a declaration allowing pastors to offer blessings for couples in irregular situations was filled with predictable handwringing, improbable popesplaining, and yet another round of doomsaying, mostly from the usual suspects.
The declaration, Fiducia supplicans, is a 5,000-word document explaining “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.”
The permission comes with a slew of caveats – no formulae are to be drafted or prescribed, no suggestion of approval given to the irregularity per se, nothing to indicate that such unions should be on par with marriage, inter alia – never mind that some dioceses have already promulgated blessing formulae and some bishops’ conferences have at least drafted them, while priests and bishops have been doing the things for years, already.
The more erudite pundits parsed the fine distinction between blessings “for” couples and blessings “on” couples, while some incredulous voices expressed refusal to admit the document countenances blessing couples at all, but only allows the blessing of individuals who are in irregular relationships of various kinds.
The last time we were treated to so public a display of pedantry, Bill Clinton’s lawyers had given advice to the former president regarding the meaning of “is” and whether he could safely deny having sexual relations with “that woman” under his desk in the Oval Office.
Much of the secular mainstream press eventually settled on reportage of the story as some variation of: “Pope approves blessings for same-sex couples that must not resemble marriage,” with early headlines at once more sweeping and breathless. Many stories skipped the inside baseball and missed some of the finer theological points, but mostly they said what was in the box.
Whether by accident or design – and the only thing keeping me from saying certainly that it was by design is my deep understanding of senior churchmen’s bottomless incompetence – almost the only immediately discernible effect of this latest farce was to move the stories about the pope’s judicial corruption and inveterate cronyism off the front pages.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued statements almost immediately, each of which did little more than acknowledge that the thing had been done.
The Pillar has a helpful roundup of reaction from around the world, which ranges from the president of the Austrian bishops confrence’s “Basically, one can no longer say no,” to the Malawian bishops’ official line, according to which Fiducia supplicans “is NOT about the blessing of same-sex unions and sacramental endorsement of the same as married couples,” and “blessings of any kind and for same-sex unions of any kind, are not permitted in Malawi.”
Practically speaking, the document gives cover to folks who were already blessing couples of all kinds and allows bishops keen on collaborating with the advancement of what candid minds must now recognize as the pope’s personal agenda of peculiar “accompaniment” some additional wherewithal to silence malcontents and pressure the unwilling, but Fiducia supplicans lacks an enforcement mechanism.
Pope Francis will have to employ means already available if he wants to make Fiducia stick in places where Church leaders don’t want to be stuck with it, and it is already apparent that such sticking will be nasty and dirty and maybe even bloody. It remains to be seen whether he is really spoiling for that sort of business.
It almost would be nice to believe that there is a lace-clad ecclesiastical Lord Vetinari pulling strings behind curtains, but anyone who has spent any real time among the echelons of ecclesiastical power knows that clerics of rank wear strapped shoes or slippers because, in the main, they want practical wisdom sufficient to the safe operation of laces-ups.
When it comes to Pope Francis’s use of ecclesiastical power, it is remarkable to note that he has turned the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith into a personal tool for the unilateral implementation of personal papal agenda items, often without any apparent regard for anyone else in the Church.
Also, Pope Francis wears lace-up shoes.
Social media have been rife with dark-comic takes on this latest farce, with memes depicting everything from John the Baptist blessing Herod and Herodias to … well, this is a family-friendly outfit. One has seen or heard quips about taking Thomas More and John Fisher off the calendar – perhaps the Holy Martyrs of Uganda, while we’re at it? – and talk from tongues only loosely ensconced in cheeks of rehabilitating Henry VIII.
Some of that has raised a chuckle, even a chortle, even a good belly laugh.
Still, it’s important not to lose sight of what really matters. Sure, this declaration will create confusion and maybe even exacerbate existing divisions. This is a problem in the Church, but it is a problem for the Church as perfect society at the nexus of politics and theology. It is a problem that ultimately concerns power and the exercise of power in the Church: Power to teach and sanctify, but primarily to govern.
As far as this scribbler is concerned, the real and only question regarding Fiducia supplicans is: What did Francis know about Rupnik and when did he know it?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Bergoglio has forfeited any and all moral authority to exercise the Petrine ministry.
Bergoglio forfeited moral authority to exercise the Petrine ministry many years ago with Amoris Laetitia. What he does here is to blaspheme God’s goodness and mercy by requiring Him to bless and approve intrinsically disordered perversions that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Even beyond that, Fiducia supplicans is a frontal attack that denies sin exists at all.
To your point —
https://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-song-to-celebrate-fiddle-faddle-soup.html
And you base this on what church teaching?
Based on the existence of God and His moral order, a moral order Francis has denied for ten years, reflected in the idiotic paragraph 25: The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to “a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”[16] Thus, when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. For, those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection.
The idiocy narcissistically characterizes rational God given moral principles as narcissistic elitiism and childishly characterizes such a Godly pastoralism as some sort of demand for perfection.
Absolutely. Whether he was validly elected pope is irrelevant. It has been for a long time now. Catholics should ignore this twisted, hateful old man.
Wow. This writer finds comedy and humor in this matter.
I guess I am what this writer calls a “doomsayer,” or what Pope John the 23rd called “prophets of doom.”
Call me old fashioned, but when I think about something the catastropher of the sinking of the Titanic, or the widespread corruption of Catholic doctrine, I feel very sad; I don’t feel like making a joke.
But maybe I’m not as up to date or renewed as I should be.
Humor is what makes difficult things tolerable. Even dark humor. Minus that, you head towards discouragement and despair. And those don’t come from God.
Precisely, mrscracker.
As incompetent as higher-ups may be, there is an ideological deliberateness and demented intentionality of sticking it to faithful Catholics. It’s the entire agenda and consistent messaging in every issue taken up by the Vatican in the past ten+ years. From China to Malawi, there is an unmistakeable obsessive disdain and contempt for the very faithful who make the Church tick. The fake slogans about “going to the peripheries” are just cover for pushing core Catholics to the margins and, I suspect, out of the flock entirely. These are evil times in the Church. God save us.
Evil times within the Church indeed!
Yours truly is fascinated by the layered twists in Fernandez’s Feducia supplicans…
We’re groomed that it’s not about parity with natural and indissoluble “marriage,” nor even marriage parody, nor sacraments, nor rituals, nor anything other than an unscheduled and “spontaneous” blessing toward, what, eventual conversion?
And, there’s still something very traditional here, like earlier shamans reading goat entrails…But, the final twist is that it’s still a blessing of a couple rather than of two (or more?) individuals. And, a blessing not by a mere prayer leader, but rather by an indissoluble alter Christus. Sort of ecclesial after all!
But enforcement is very simple!
Because of the triumphalism of guru James Martin, and because of the universal (universality!) spin of the media, and the rudimentary catechesis of the masses (Masses?) in the pews…the local and conflicted padre, in every case, is constrained to NOT offer the “blessing”! If for no other reason than because of the universal “scandal” and “confusion”—two debilitating conditions explicitly imposed by the same Feducia supplicans.
Full rejection of the full Declaration is automatically enforceable because, by its own words, the document is self-extinguishing.
‘ What did Francis know about Rupnik and when did he know it?’
Touche
Dad? Son?
Another James Scott? Who knew?
Anyway Rupnik is off topic. One mistake at a time please. Cheers.
Not hardly. Once of Altieri’s theses is that Francis’s support of Rupnick and other depraved criminals in elevated Church ranks really deserves to be exposed and condemned. His ridiculous and emotion-roiling declarations like this one are not for the purpose fo advancing the will of God but rather obscuring the acts of Rupnick. Evil agenda.
Whether by accident or design, asks Altieri, can be said by design, that in issuing a public statement, however it may be strictly tailored to avoid error, it will be perceived universally as a flat out permission. I think Alieri would agree with that intent by Pope Francis, as does Larry Chapp in his latest, ‘The DDF’s “innovative” Declaration’, as well as most commenters. Chapp asks why issue it at all [since it was already acceded] and why with significance as a Declaration. He ends with allusion to purpose.
A question was addressed by me on whether an unrepentant sinner can in any circumstance be blessed. I entered a comment offering a common sense opinion that in instances following consultation with a priest the person living in sin, let’s say irregular union indicates a willingness to consider repentance may privately receive a priest’s blessing worded in favor of that repentance. However, if the priest were to make that a public admission or announcement, it would likely be eventually understood as a quasi if not accommodation of irregular unions. This appears the likely strategy. Whether the Declaration can be enforced may be a moot, but not unimportant question if priests assume it’s an open permission as Chapp cites several public interpretations as such.
*Excellent* concluding question:
“What did Francis know about Rupnik and when did he know it?”
Everything about Bergoglio and his papacy should be viewed through the lens of Rupnik.
I wonder if we will get to the end of this year before this hits the fan. Begoglio, Tucho, Martin don’t care how this effects those who don’t submit to their erroneous perspective. They delight in it. They have provided the sure way to beat down faithful priests. They revel in it.
We need be very cognizant of what happens next. The tornado of law suits which are about to befall faithful priests whose consciences will forbid them from providing a bogus blessing to SSA couples. Who will be first? What diocese will hang their clergy out to dry? Which religious order and congregation? Which bishop will knife his priests in the back?
Recall well the injustice leveled upon bakers for not providing a wedding cake? Does anyone think for a moment that the LGBTQXYZ legal counsel will turn a blind eye to Catholicism? While they ignored other ostensibly “faith” groups from abuse accusations they butchered Roman Catholicism. We are the juicy meal for atheists.
Recall as well those Catholics who individually refused to be inoculated for the Chinese bioweapon. How many heard “Your pope says its ok, pull up your sleeve.” I don’t recall any bishop coming to their rescue. Such courageous individuals lost their livelihood. I can count the number I know of on one hand.
James – Excellent comments regarding, “The tornado of law suits which are about to befall faithful priests whose consciences will forbid them from providing a bogus blessing to SSA couples. What diocese will hang their clergy out to dry?”
So far, the only bishop in the United States that I have seen opposing this is Bishop Strickland.
Your further reference to those who refused the Covid shot on religious principles was spot on.
James:
There is no doubt that the Pontiff Francis revels in his ceaseless acting out of his subversive impulses.
He is a lifelong false shepherd, a man whose mind is darkened by his apparent life-long alliance with the homosexual subculture, as indicated by his personal defense waged to protect the homosexual sex abuser of Argentina Rev. Julio Grassi, his two papal election campaigns managed by his long-time colleagues ex-Eminent sex abuser Mr. McCarrick, and the sex abuse coverup artist the late Eminence Danneels of Belgium (defender of “the Belgian McCarrick,” aka Excellency Roger Vanghelgue, the fiend-bishop who raped his own little nephew).
It is now explicit that the Pontiff Francis believes that homosexual behavior deserves to be blessed and is to be tacitly approved.
No surprise, given his personal relationships with and protection / rehabilitation efforts with McCarrick, Danneels, Grassi, Rupnik, Zanchetta, etc.
This points to the purpose of his orchestration of the Pachamama idolatry event: to groom the Church faithful to accept his contempt for the 6th Commandment, he decided to make prior show of his contempt for the 1st Commandment.
As David Warren noted years ago, for the Pontiff Francis, the choice offered is him…or Jesus.
Ah, nice. Comparing my parents to Herod and Herodias. Super charitable.
What has failed to be mentioned is that this document does *not* give cover to disobedient Bishops and Priests; it curtails their practice to strictly defined perameters, and specifically defines where exactly they’ve crossed the line.
It’s not sinful to ask God to give sinners grace to ammend their lives. The Document *EXPLICITLY* says that’s the sole purpose of a legitimate blessing.
This in fact draws a more distinct line, of where exactly these wayward clerics are in error.
Herod and Herodias? I don’t I’d connect those dots personally even if some similarities existed.
In any case, our parents’ behaviors don’t reflect on us. And it’s perfectly okay to reference distant historical figures in an article to make a point.
Are you parents Rupaul and Elton John?
Fr. Chris Alar on the matter:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RWETLzSHK8Y
The first full news cycle after the Vatican released a declaration allowing pastors to offer blessings for couples in irregular situations was filled with predictable handwringing, improbable popesplaining, and yet another round of doomsaying, mostly from the usual suspects.
It’s difficult to pay attention to or take seriously the point the author is making when his first paragraph is the establishment of moral equivalency on all sides, a growing tendency on CWR.
I very much share your concern, Rich. The growing tendency of CWR to equilibrate the tectonic shifts that Bergoglio and his cabal have opened into gaping moral and theological abysses has lessened its credibility in my eyes too.
No, it isn’t. Granted, I’m only the editor, but I think I have a decent bead on what CWR is publishing. And has been. Consistently. In fact, I think CWR, since the start of this pontificate, has been far more consistent and steady than most Catholic publications.
It is very odd to consider that first paragraph an exercise in moral equivalency.
This is just the beginning. Very soon a same-sex couple will DEMAND that the Bishop bless their ‘irregular situation’ and if the Bishop refuses the excrement hits the air circulator and the ‘situationists’ can officially play the victim role, and the beat goes on.
Way to go Frank.
First and foremost, why would a Catholic Priest Bless anyone who presents themselves as being in a disordered sexual relationship, without first making it clear to that person that he needs to repent, overcome their disordered sinful inclination and be reconciled with Christ? How is it Loving and Merciful to accommodate an occasion of sin by Blessing a couple who identify as a couple through their engaging in sin?
Spot on!
Yes, N.D.
The best blessing that can be given to any of the partners who make up a sinful couple is the blessing that accompanies absolution granted to each partner individually who sincerely repents and immediately gives up being in a sinful relationship in order to walk more righteously with the Lord. A priest who bypasses this first and greatest responsibility to specifically lead sinful people to repentance in order to provide only a generic blessing however it may be construed is derelict in his duty to save souls.
In Fiducia Supplicans, there is no specific call for each partner of a sinful union to repent, immediately give up their sinful relationship, and seek the awesome blessing that accompanies absolution? This cannot be found even between the lines, though some might pretend otherwise. The most important blessing the Church can grant to each of the partners of any same sex or other “irregular union,” and it is nowhere to be found in a document on blessing people in ongoing sinful relationships. Why? And what does this reveal?
I’m with Fr Weinady OFM on this one! This by all accounts is a car wreck of document and is confusing and confused! Francis speaks about preparing for death, if this is document is part of such preparation I WON’T LIKE TO Be In HIS SHOES! HOLY FATHER REPENT PLEASE!!!! Oh do couples get a copy of heal me with your mouth with every blessing?
Once again Mr. Altieri has, while using more words than any reasonable person should, managed to convey a completely discombobulated and incomprehensible message.
He seems to disapprove of those who disapprove of Fiducia supplicans, calling them doomsayers, as if being someone who believes in what the Church has always believed and wanting Church leaders to uphold that is a bad thing.
On the other hand, he seems to disapprove of Fiducia supplicans itself, calling it “this latest farce” and a “personal papal agenda item… without any apparent regard for anyone else in the Church”.
And he says, “…this declaration will create confusion and maybe even exacerbate existing divisions. This is a problem in the Church…” which seems to be what the previously condemned doomsayers are saying. So why does he condemn them? Unclear.
And nowhere do we get a sense of what Mr. Altieri actually thinks about blessing same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples. He is very opinionated about Pope Francis, about the existence of the document, and about the people who don’t like it. But he does not tell us what he thinks about what the Fiducia supplicans says and does.
I wish CWR would help him write better by declining his pieces that don’t have a clear viewpoint and are not written succinctly.
I guess that makes me an Altieri doomsayer. Oops. One can’t want clarity these days, whether from the Vatican or from CWR.
Your message was far more discombobulated than Altieri’s which was quite clear.
The Bergoglian Papacy will go down in history as known, not for its love of Christ and the salvation of souls, but for its Weaponized Ambiguity. For this, Christ Himself told us, He will spit them out of His mouth.
As far as I’m concerned, Bergoglio has forfeited any and all moral authority to exercise the Petrine ministry
The modernist influences have been slowly infiltrating into the Church since the 18th century. The discussions at Vatican II revealed the large number, including clergy and laity. At the same time they have transforming secular cultures, especially in the United States. It is difficult not to see that the Holy Father is not concerned with these influences. He does not seem to understand how devastating the sin of the flesh are, sins which our Blessed Mother has said, are why most people go to hell. All of the popes from Clement XII to Benedict XVI were doing their best to protect the Church from modernist influences.
A very slippery slope and the water is still flowing downhill.
We now see the outlines of Pope Francis’s plan to destroy the church. This document basically is so confusing that each individual bishop may make whatever rules he wants in his diocese. He can ban gay blessings entirely, or he may endorse and encourage them. Futhermore, each priest may decide that his bishop has decided wrongly ,and enforce his personal interpretation of this document. Francis has often said “Not everything doctrinal should be decided in Rome”. The fundamental nature of the church is that everything IS, in fact, decided ultimately by Rome. Francis has just destroyed the fundamental unity of the Catholic church. We are now just another confused, infighting protestant church. Pope Francis is an evil clown.
1 Corinthians dealt with a matter of an irregular union that was opposed by St. Paul. IIRC during St. Augustine’s conversion to Christianity he gave up his irregular unions. A true blessing would be directed to ending an irregular union.
So many are overlooking the theological and sacramental error that invalidates this entire blessing.
In administering sacraments, Sacred Tradition holds that three conditions must be properly present and disposed in order for the Sacrament or Blessing to be truly efficacious.
1) Form – The priest or Deacon, duly ordained in the Catholic Church, is God’s representative and, as such, is the dispenser of God’s graces to be poured down from Heaven upon the recipient. The recipient is always a person. Even though a priest may validly bless a house, car or an animal, the grace bestowed is directed toward the physical and spiritual well being of the person or persons who own these objects, for their greater good.
The Catholic Church, over the centuries, has formalized rituals to ensure the full and proper administration and dispensing of Sacraments and blessings. The Form is comprised of both the duly ordained minister along with the proper ritual to be conducted.
2) Intent – For the Sacrament or blessing to be valid, there must be a right and proper intent on the part of both the dispenser (minister) and the recipient (person or persons).
A classic situation the demonstrates a lack of intent, would be one in which there is to be a marriage, but one of the recipients, bride or groom, has been previously married and divorced, but keeps knowledge of it a secret. The sacramental Marriage rite is performed after which the couple happily leave on their honeymoon. Is the marriage valid? No, because there is an impediment to the dispensation of grace. One of the married couple withheld information that would have prevented the sacramental marriage in the first place. This is called an impediment.
3) Matter – There are two components included in the proper “Matter” of a sacrament. First, there are material elements that, by definition, are part of the formal ritual used in the dispensing of a sacrament or blessing. The most common of these are Holy Water and Holy Oils. The other component of matter necessary for a sacrament or blessing to be valid involves the recipient(s) of said sacrament or blessing.
For example, a little girl approaches her parish priest and asks him, ever so sincerely, to baptize her cat. In this case, assuming that the priest would be willing, and goes through with the ritual using Holy Water and Oil per the rite of Baptism, the “Matter” is lacking. No matter how loving, gentle and precious the girl’s cat may be, it is not a person. This baptism confers no divine grace on the cat.
Now, getting back to PF’s latest attempt to destroy what Christ founded on the Rock of St. Peter, we can see that intent is there, i.e., there is a valid priest or deacon. The form is there, as PF, in his authority as Vicar of Christ, has declared this blessing of same-sex couples to be valid.
But what about the “matter”?
The teaching Magisterium of the Church, “in firma traditione”, in long-standing tradition, has forbidden marriage between two men and/or two women. Such a blessing, by its very nature, is pronounced upon the “couple”, not two distinct and separate individuals. Therefore, in a same-sex blessing, the “matter” is deficient, thus invalidating the blessing and impeding the dispensing of God’s grace on the persons.
It is essential to keep in mind that almighty God, throughout Sacred Scripture, has made it abundantly clear (Genesis) that physical relations between two men or two women is an abomination in His eyes, and a sin worthy of the most serious punishment.
In conclusion, this so-called “blessing”, approved by PF, contradicts, not just one, but the BIG THREE – the teaching Magisterium, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, and, as such, is forever invalid as it is lacking in matter. The very nature of homosexuality makes the matter, i.e., the homosexual couple, deficient and closed to God’s grace.
However, this deficiency, in no way, shape or form, should ever preclude anyone from praying for their conversion and eternal salvation.
Who needs Richard Dawkins when you have Pope Francis? All of this nonsense feeds right into my lifelong thesis that, matters of disagreement between folks with slightly different invisible friends and edicts/values, is a major problem, and one which none of you seem able to take seriously enough.
Andrew,
Please, do tell us more about your invisible friends!
May I speak for the singer?
Once upon a time there was a garden. In the garden lived a snake. The snake did not have a name, but a certain spirit moved him, and its name was something like Pride of Self.
Two people also lived in the garden. They had their being in, through, from and with the Free Spirit who created them–His name was something like I AM WHO AM.
The people met the snake.
*******
All people have invisible friends. We yearn for some friends to visits. We invite them into our lives. Their spiritual presence helps, gifts, and graces us. Departing, we remember their benevolence, beneficence, and benefits. We yearn for their next visit. We seek the places where they may dwell.
Other friends are false friends. They manifest enough goodness in order to deceive us as to the nature of their essential being. The fruit from their trees often appears to be a good color. Any blemish or rottenness hides in or near the core. Yet the fruit may appear nutritious to our fancy. Apples are good to eat, no? They keep our body healthy and our mind alert, right? Then we shall be well enough to learn, tomorrow, how to become more of a friend to good friend or foe.
Some invisible ‘friends’ should rightly be named foes, but some people do in fact enjoy their presence. Their fruit is nice enough and the rotten core isn’t too bad. These spirit ‘friends’ claim our attention. The more persistent and powerful present great-looking and quite large fruit. To the unwary, their disease and pestilence insidiously affects us, one small nibble at a time. Any long term harm or lifelong regret are far in the future, they may say. If we allow them to speak and LISTEN so to them, if we WELCOME them into our lives, deviously and deceptively, their fruit will grow larger and more colorful. Until it ripens and then…If we imbibe that overly ripe fruit, its decay travels readily into our heart, mind, soul and body. We require the services of a good physician. A complete cure will occur if we fulfill and follow the cure of His directions and prescriptions. Only the scars, the adhesions, the marks of the wounds will remain.
Paradoxically, however, if poison becomes a person’s habitual food, the person no longer recognizes what is poisonous and what is nutritiously good. One becomes the other, just as one becomes like the Good Physician by imbibing the medicine of His sacrificial, loving, life-giving flesh/blood, just as he prescribed.
Is the situation where humans can’t agree on which undetectable god poofed the universe into existence analogous to the situation where humans of a specific religion can’t agree on whether gay is okay? If so, then all of this silliness is a candidate for immediate cancellation.
Human agreement is not required for truths of revelation.
Explain the details as far as you can, but the damage has been done. The worldly world has misinterpreted FS decisively. As it was meant to be? Hopefully not. Protestant circles are in greater disarray. Sort of a jesuitical maneuver? Hopefully not.
The main point is simply that the blessings for sodomite couples are an open and all out blasphemy. Those who legitimize (i.e. the Pope) or confer (i.e. priests) curse God. That’s the terrible reality of what is going on.
The blessing of an individual is simply a petition to God, calling down supernatural grace from Heaven that is given for the physical and spiritual benefit of the person being blessed. However, when blessing a couple, such a blessing goes deeper in that it not only becomes affirmation and acknowledgement of their relationship, but is a petition to God for His affirmation and acknowledgement of said relationship. In a sacramental marriage, the blessing, affirmation and acknowledgement of the relationship are part of the ritual. One of the main objectives of marriage is for the couple to go forth and multiply. To even suggest a blessing on a couple who’s main objective in life is disordered pleasure derived from physical acts that not only reject the reality of begetting new life, but in and of themselves slap Almighty God in the face in mockery of all that is pure, chaste and holy.
Years ago, I read that the demons work hard to tempt homosexuals to commit the sin of sodomy. But, when the actual act commences, even the demons leave because the act is so hideous and vile that it is too much for even them to bear, ostensibly because they still retain some semblance of their primordial angelic nature.
Let no one be deceived, all authority comes from God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), and only a validly elected Pope, in communion with Christ And His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), can be part of The Magisterium Of Christ’s Church.
Tomorrow, Jorge will climb back up into the lofty Seat of St. Peter and, using his papal powers, will castigate another orthodox prelate or demand the closure of more Latin Masses. The real question is whether such declarations can be obeyed anymore without fear of compromising the salvation of souls. Christ is IN his loyal prelates and He is IN the Latin Mass. Why would Jorge demand cancelation of the one and closure of the other? Is this man really taking the salvation of souls seriously?