Answering Father Mousa

Pope Blesses Same Sex Relationships
St. Mary Orthodox Church | 8 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=716I8sGmLjA

My excuses, you seem confused about who is Pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine said, a heretic cannot be Pope.

CCC § 283 is, to my best understanding, heresy, since in irreparable conflict with the dogma of the Council of Trent, Session V, canon 1, 2 and 3, each of which deal with the events of Genesis 3.

This makes the upholders of that Catechism, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and now Bergoglio, again to my best understanding, non-Popes.

The last Pope was a cowboy, elected in emergency election in 1990, died in 2022. The present Pope is a Pinoy, elected in more orderly circumstances, by clergy, in 2023.

5:55 If two homosexual men in a couple told you, they wanted to make peace with God, they wanted to find a lesbian couple for partner exchange, for real marriage, would you bless them?

In that case, I'd agree to bless them expressly for that purpose, not the contrary one.

The problem with the document is, § 31 seems to presume they should be staying faithful to each other.

Of the contraceptive perversions, homosexuality is worse than normal contraception (well, contraception isn't normal) insofar as a man and a woman may stay faithful and decide to be fertile next time, but the only way for such two men to be fertile next time is for next time for each to be with a woman, that is with another person.

So, I'll have to disagree with Fr. Mark Goring on that one. Btw, he also would definitely refuse to bless sin, and would not bless the couple as couple.

7:16 I'd respond, that man already showed he was not Pope in 2014, in the "God is not a Demiurge with an omnipotent magic wand" quote or interview.

11:39 You are hearing from me now.

Michael I did not bless same sex couples, even for sticking to each other, even hoping they would become chaste.
Michael II is not doing so either.

The Papacy is not invalidated by the act of an Antipope, like US currency is not invalidated by someone printing a three dollar bill.

11:46 No. Our Church structure was that of Nicaea II, in 787.

It expressly tied the validity of councils to Papal consent.

11:50 The Council of Nicaea II in 787 seems also to have stated, dogmatically, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

No one prior to Palamas in the Vlakhernae synod pretended this referred only to an economic sending in the life of the Church, after God created.

But Palamas did realise that if it referred to the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, this is equivalent to filioque.

Filioque was also taught expressly in the I Council of Toledo, AD 400. Note, we both agree, in the III Council of Toledo, filioque was read in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed, in 589. BUT, well before the Visigothic invasion, filioque was taught by the I Council of Toledo, in 400. When Priscillianism was condemned.

This was 41 years after Hosius of Corduba had died, a man who had known St. Athanasius of Alexandria.

11:54 Come on!

The Greek and Coptic versions of the prayer Sub tuum praesidium end with "thou alone art pure, thou alone blessed" ... they express the Immaculate Conception.

Palamas believed it.

In 1666, Russians started to disbelieve it, due to the Skirzhal, a theological manual by a Greek Orthodox of Venice, translated to Slavonic, but one who had compromised his orthodoxy by studying among Lutheran heretics. Avvakum was burned on the stake among other reasons for staying faithful about the Immaculate Conception.

The denial comes from the West. The survival comes from the East, mainly. It is original Christian dogma, and it is definitely the maximal and correct expression of the sinlessness, by which Our Lady had defeated Satan, even before She was pregnant with God.

11:59 Whatever it means, it's not a heresy that belongs with the Papacy, since Bergoglio is not the Pope.

12:20 Thanks for reminding how the German councils have contributed to this grave error.

They imitate your Church structure, and end up with very bitter fruit.

12:41 "no one is infallible except Jesus Christ"

OK, St. Matthew when writing his Gospel?
St. Mark when writing his?
St. Luke when writing his?
St. John the Beloved when writing his?

And the four other authors, or even five if Hebrews was instead by St. Barnabas, as some have claimed, were they not infallible when writing?

The council of Jerusalem, was it not infallible?

When St. Paul gave St. Timothy oral instructions, were these not infallible?

When the council of Nicaea in 325 condemned Arius, was it not infallible, like the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

Are Apostles not Theopneust? Are their successors not Theopneust? John 20, verse 22, was it not God who breathed on them?

Matthew 28 verse 20, is God not ordering His Church to be infallible and promising His assistance to be unfailing?

Collective acts begin with individual acts, both the election of St. Matthias in Acts 1, and after the Holy Spirit started an unusually well timed collective act, did it not end in an individual one, Acts 2, with the sermon of St. Peter, the same who spoke out for electing a successor for Judas the Traitor?

Was there not an infallibility in the Old Covenant, even before the New Covenant, in Caiaphas before there was one in Cephas? Was John the Beloved fallible in chapter 11 and verse 51?

12:45 "we are all sinners, bishops and priests included"

And on the exegesis of many on Galatians 2, even the first Pope.

Though Clement the Stromatist considered that was someone else named Cephas, not the first among the twelve.

That does not take away from his infallibility on occasions like Acts 1 and 2.

13:03 Not only that.

Pope St. Coelestine I said, one had the right and duty to withdraw obedience from Nestorius, from when he first started to preach heresy.

He wrote this the year before the Council of Ephesus was held. Some had already told the patriarch of Constantinople, "you are not my bishop" after he had denied the fact that Mary is the Holy Theotokos. This is also correct. And it happened before any kind of council had as yet called Nestorius to repentance.

13:10 "but a Pope cannot be removed"

A false Pope can show he is false, by preaching heresy, which gives everyone in the Church immediate right to conclude he is not the Pope.

For this, we have St. Robert Bellarmine, we have Pope Paul IV, we have Torquemada (not sure if it was the Inquisitor or his uncle the Cardinal), we have St. Francis of Sales and we have a debate protocol from the Council in the Vatican 1869—70.

A "Pope" that teaches heresy is not a Pope. Precisely like a Nestorios who denies Theotokos is not a patriarch of Constantinople.

13:17 A Pope cannot be in heresy. A man in heresy cannot be Pope.

Therefore a "Pope in heresy" cannot infect the whole Church.

13:40 I do not go to a Mass that mentions "Francis" in the diptych.

If a Mass were said "una cum papa nostro Michael" in Paris, I would be in communion with a Pinoy who makes up what is lacking in Rome.

14:06 Thank you for making a good point against "una cum papa nostro F..." can't bring myself to write it out or say it even!

14:15 By going to a Church where Pope Michael II is commemorated, I agree that we may sing Gloria in excelsis even on a Christmas under such dire forebodings as this one.

That is what I can recall offhand of his Christmas message.

Is there a heresy in that?