Vitalis 🇻🇦

I consider myself ultramontanist to some degree. Civil authority is legitimate only insofar as it conforms to the natural and divine moral law which the Church authentically interprets. If the Supreme Pontiff said something contrary to my beliefs or biases, or my interpretation of older teachings, my first instinct would be to question myself rather than skepticism.

There is a world in between ultramontanism and reflexive, reactionary mistrust and derision of the Holy Father.

@PopeDefendersX I always say this. Source of the problem: @CatholicSOTC and its propaganda network. Their posts are amplified to high degree by the algorithm and is seen by any Catholic that comes to X.

It's sad to see how much misinformation is being pushed by SSPX and believed by their supporters.

An individual could be blessed before FS, correct. It is not a function of the Petrine See to create new doctrines but rather to define and clarify existing ones already contained in the Deposit of Faith which was closed upon the death of the Last Apostle. Bishops around the world ask Peter questions, Peter answers in the form of these documents and letters.

@enrixrp @NixonandIke @MLJHaynes An individual could be blessed before Fiducia supplicans. Now they are holding scandalous blessings of their civil marriage.

JUST IN: Pope Leo XIV responds to Cardinal Marx — Says Vatican does not approve blessing of same sex couples. Adds a blessing can be given to “all people” like at the end of Mass. Leo states—— “First of all, I believe it is very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual issues. We tend to think that when the Church speaks of morality, the only moral issue is a sexual one. In reality, I believe there are much larger and more important issues—such as justice, equality, the freedom of men and women, and religious freedom—that should take priority over that particular issue. The Holy See has already spoken with the German bishops. The Holy See has made it clear that we do not agree with the formal blessing of couples—in this case, same-sex couples, as you requested—or of couples in irregular situations, beyond what Pope Francis has specifically permitted by saying that all people should receive the blessing. When a priest gives the blessing at the end of Mass, when the Pope gives the blessing at the end of a great celebration like the one we had today, there are blessings for all people. Francis’s famous expression, “everyone, everyone, everyone,” expresses the Church’s conviction that everyone is welcomed, everyone is invited, everyone is invited to follow Jesus, and everyone is invited to seek conversion in their own lives. To go beyond this today, I believe, could cause more disunity than unity, and that we should seek to build our unity on Jesus Christ and on what Jesus Christ teaches. This is my answer to the question.

@Moderatemuch @jarldietrich It authorizes the blessings of individuals, not their union. x.com/enrixrp/status…

@jarldietrich So they can’t follow FS?

Very good to see. The Vatican has told the German bishops to stop blessing gay couples

@AnxietatemPlena @DrStrange133323 @CatholicSat If he had any sanctifying grace, he lost it after these stupid posts he made.

@DrStrange133323 @CatholicSat And there it is, wishing for schisms

Vatican has published its 2024 letter to +Stephan Ackermann, Bishop of Trier, rejecting the German bishops proposals for the blessing of homosexual couples.

@RosaryQuotes123 No... I am in a state of mortal sin and my parish only does confessions at a very specific time on Tuesday.

Did you receive Jesus today?

I'm using the magisterial definition of pornography as written in CCC 2354 > Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. The book does not meet this definition. What definition are YOU using?

@enrixrp @FiatLuxGenesis Keep telling yourself that.

You shall not bear false witness. Cardinal Fernandez wrote a short pastoral reflection titled "Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing." This is a spiritual/reflective work on human love and affection and discusses romantic and marital love in a theological and pastoral context. It is not explicit nor does it meet any reasonable definition of pornography.

@SwankyGallery @CatholicArena Spiritual growth is a gradual process. Not every person that met Christ was immediately converted, but that didn't make His ministry "useless".

@CatholicArena Really what is the purpose? Our politicians meet with the pope and leave with no better morals.

🇺🇸 🇻🇦 Pope Leo XIV will meet with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Vatican on May 7th

It is a book about the relationship between human love/desire and the mystical love of God. It contains discussions of orgasm and sensual pleasure and about a mystical encounter used in bodily terms which Bishop Fernandez himself admitted to be a naive work and not something that he would write today. It fails to meet "pornography" by definition as it does not depict explicit sexual acts ordered to lust. The book tries to speak about spirituality but it does so in a poor and theologically unsafe way.

@enrixrp @FiatLuxGenesis You forgot about his blasphemous pornographic book Mystical Passion: Spirituality and Sensuality

@FiatLuxGenesis This is like saying the Vatican never intended to take the Council of Nicaea seriously because they only sent their papal legates. Or that Christ never intended to take salvation seriously because we are given only the opportunity to speak to Priests.

@joaosilveiraaa Arius was not a Bishop. He was a priest influenced by Middle Platonism who was excommunicated by his own Bishop, imprudently reinstated by another Bishop, before being condemned at Nicaea.

Today is the feast of Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (in Egypt). He lived in the 4th century, in turbulent times. After the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) condemned the theses of Bishop Arius—who claimed that Jesus was the most perfect of creatures but was not God, nor the Son of God of the same substance as the Father—the Arians counter-attacked in order to have their ideas accepted as Catholic doctrine. The Emperor Constantius II and many Catholic bishops defended the Arian heresy, but Saint Athanasius never ceased to proclaim the error of Arius and the divinity of Jesus Christ. Because of this, he was removed from the episcopal see of Alexandria and exiled three times. The Arian errors did not prevail, fortunately, largely thanks to this great defender of the truth. From this comes the famous phrase Athanasius contra mundum: “If the world is against the truth, I will go against the world!” He is a saint more relevant today than ever! Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Nicaea II says no Rome = no Ecumenical Council

@kingofthehood89 It's an interesting question and I couldn't help but reply. x.com/i/status/20500…

Once someone is in Heaven, their intellect is purified and becomes perfectly ordered towards God with the Beatific Vision. So, whatever deficiencies you may have seen during their time on Earth does not reflect who they are now. You can refuse to ask for or accept intercession but you cannot block their intercession because praying for somebody doesn't require permission. Nothing impure will ever enter it. (Revelation 21:27)

Is it possible to reject a Saints intercession? I don’t want John Paul II or Faustina praying for me

In your poll question, no one is compelled to press a button at all. The setup is a voluntary death lottery and an intrinsically unjust system in which participants freely choose to engage. By entering it, one chooses without coercion to materially cooperate in a gravely disordered structure that conditions human life on collective choice.

I think the Red/Blue button thing is underbaked. It should be more like this: -If 70% or more press blue-everyone lives. -If 80% or more press red- blue dies, red lives. -If neither qualify- red dies, blue lives. With this adjustment- what button do you press?

@tradwife29 Well, I think that we should have proof before we post a claim on a public space. What made you come up with that conclusion?

I think the SSPX will experience a growth in attendance and vocations after the consecrations. What do you think?

In Catholic theology, morality is determined by object, intention, and circumstnace. The morality of an act is dependent on its object (what you choose), and not just intention. Cooperation with evil is forbidden when it is formal / you share in the act itself. If the system itself is unjust, refusing to act is morally justified even if a bad outcome still occurs. Pressing red means you choose that blue dies and pressing blue means you choose that red lives only if enough others do so. Both of which are cooperation in a system that conditions life/death on collective choice. One may not do evil so that good may result. (Cf. Romans 3:8) #article2" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">newadvent.org/summa/2018.htm…

@enrixrp @ZloNoNameSov You participate in it no matter what, it can make you feel better but choosing neither is still a choice that leads to death of others and you taking self made moral high ground doesn't change that fact

@cegielczyk @ZloNoNameSov I refuse to legitimize the system and become an agent of its violence. If red dies, the moral responsibility lies with the designer of the system and those who choose to participate in killing.

@enrixrp @ZloNoNameSov Refusing to vote still counts into global %, if Red dies it's because less then 70% of ALL people pressed blue, just because you didn't press the button to feel morally superior doesn't make you any better

You're treating my refusal as casual killing. Refusal is not an act of killing, is not an act ordered toward death, and is not an act that uses death as a means. It is simply withholding participation in an immoral system. The cause of death remains to be the unjust rules of the scenario and not the refusal.

@enrixrp @ZloNoNameSov If you are not choosing, you're taking away % from both, all it takes is max 30% of people thinking like you and thinking it's smart and you irreversibly doomed red