Some of you have asked about whether a Pope can commit the sin of public dissent. I think the answer is that he clearly cannot when speaking magisterially (although, he could as a private theologian). I am willing to be corrected on this, but this is my reasoning: Public dissent is opposed to the obligation of obsequium religiosum, an obligation that binds the ecclesia discens, not the ecclesia docens. Thus, it would be something else, i.e., error, other moral/intellectual faults could also be attached depending on the case.
@@nicholasshaler7442I don’t think that follows (although, again, willing to hear out other options since I haven’t seen this treated ex professo by any other author) since the Bishops stand to the Pope in the same relation as to his teaching in the same way that we stand to the Pope…although, I am not sure the same can be said for the Pope with himself or predecessors.
@@MilitantThomistThe necessity of slavery, colonialism and the death sentencing have been spoken on by bishops and popes. Their conclusions changed with the development of society.
Kamal harris ad in the middle of the video - "i know you dont want a national ban on abortion". Solid use of the marketing budget right there. Dialed in that target audience
Not everybody is a theologian though, sometimes is just your conscience that tells you that there is something wrong with what you are being told. To resist, to doubt, to have an opposite inclination to that I don't think is dissent, but maybe I am wrong... I think we need to be more careful in general and be more charitable to all sides, since we are in a time of crisis, the very fact that we have a whole culture of catholic apologists (fighting each other btw) comes to show that we are in a crisis. In ordinary times we would just stick to talking to our local priest, bishop, and that's it...
@@loreman7267 again... I am husband, a father, and my job is not to be a theologian, or checking sources as if I am an academic, this is the insanity of the times in which we are, that we hear our local authorities teaching weird stuff then we are forced to study and then we get trapped into trying to find experts online, and everybody is divided and very opinionated.
@@AprendeMovimientoexactly. We didn’t create the situation. We are thrust into it though. Be charitable with people as they earnestly try to discern a path to maintain faith. Be they sede, sspx. SSPV. NO. Etc. the hierarchy has failed badly. And not just the current one. Pray for the church.
How about, as laity, we simply trust the Holy Spirit? U.S. Catholics, influenced by populist ideology, treat the Church like a political institution. Tradition is for us to maintain a role of humble submission to authoritative teaching. Christ's Church will always prevail. And that is true faith.
A while back I asked you if you would debate Kennedy Hall in a live and you stated you agree with him. Maybe you didn’t understand that he has publicly accused Pope of heresy, rejected novus ordo validity and once cast doubt about whether the Pope was the Pope. So I agree that some popedefenders are zealous which is why I’m careful even when dealing with sedes and SSPX. On the last point, on whether it’s a crime or not i think it’s fair to disagree but objectively Pope isn’t civil authority today and we’d have to interpret what he said in best possible way as his statements under different circumstances could carry more weight than was was stated by previous Popes or less.
@@MilitantThomist Was in a live you did a week or so ago before the avoiding Babylon episode about Cardinal Zen. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5vCgPGIrbEM.html
@MilitantThomist... Michael Lofton agreed with you about public descent. Those whom he has accused of that are popular RU-vidrs like himself not for private people and smaller circles that non of us see on twitter etc.
I recently joined the papacy hub, i don’t know what questions to ask if i can’t figure them out because you guys have probably answered them thousands of times and don’t wanna waste your guys times
I'm confused now why you are opposing Lofton in this case, as the ones he is accusing of public dissent (guys like Peter Kwasniewski, Archbishop Vigano, Taylor Marshall, etc.) all fit the definitions and examples of public dissent you have provided. Granted, I have not watched all of his videos, but I'm wondering where your opposition is coming from?
He'll call people like Steve Ray "dissents," "protestants," etc.. I am not opposing him calling those other guys dissenters...as I stated in this video.
If public dissent against bishops and cardinals counts, Lofton is guilty there, but I think the main critique of Lofton is his uncharitable and heavy handed treatment within his comments and towards lesser RU-vidrs.
Sincerely asking, how can the statement about Leo the 9th’s magisterial teaching being more authoritative than Francis’ current one be reconciled with this statement from Leo 13: "It is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed. On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge." (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua,
It seems to me that the weight of that letter, which was only addressed to a single archbishop rather than the whole Church, is heavily exaggerated by some.
Hey wagner, have you considered discussing the Charismatic movement within the church. All the critiques ive seen on youtube come from dudes who reject V2. Id rather hear a critique from someone who actually submits to the church
Funny thing is, if you actually listened to Lofton fully and directly, instead of these strawmans, caricatures, and bad representations OF what he says, you'd see you and he, actually, agree. Anyway, I'm no one's rep, so I leave these issues to you all.
I'm not sure that Michael Lofton's opinion is that the Pope can't be mistaken in an interview, or that the Pope can't be criticized in some cases. I watch him a lot, and he does criticizes Pope Francis on things, and also points out that at times he doesn't speak as clearly as he should. But he maintains that any time he exercises his authority to teach with his magisterium that it can't be heretical, but I am not certain that he considers interviews to be an exercise of his magisterium, but I could be mistaken.
@@MilitantThomist Okay I gotcha, so how does he mistreat others? Cause I don't think he will call any criticism of Pope Francis's statements public dissent and gravely immoral, as far as I can tell, and I've followed him for quite some time. But if I am wrong, let me know.
@@matthewoburke7202 He attacks good men for bad reasons. As Cardinal Zen, a hero who has suffered long for unity with the See of Peter, has said, Lofton ought to be ignored.
@@nicholasshaler7442 As far as I can tell, Cardinal Zen was in the wrong. He said Fiduccia Supplicans was contained heresy. I think Michael was right to call him out for that, because Cardinal Zen was wrong.
@@Deuterocomical I think it is possible that it is some defect on Pope Francis’s part other than public dissent, perhaps speaking imprudently or not doing his proper research on the question in Tradition.
As a hopeful Priest for the FSSPX, I greatly appreciate your videos. While they only serve as an easily consumable version of written theology for learning, their deeply grounded nature makes them quite useful. Thank you for what you do, God bless you
@@Dl3Ztrunks That's like saying there wouldn't be eastern Catholics without the schism of the Orthodox It is also false that the SSPX is to thank for the Latin Mass If anything their schism actually made it harder
A couple of months ago you were calling Gordon a despicable human being, and now you say you want to bury the hatchet. Not sure what to believe from any of you anymore. Albrecht is the only person that has kept it real.
@@nuca5104 If public dissent is very bad, then Lofton is in the right for standing against it. He may not have the best personality, but he is not wrong for defending the pope. If anything, he is consistent. For the record, I do not watch his content, except for when he exposes Taylor Marshall's lies.
I have a genuine question. I’m not at all well read on how to tell the various weights of papal magisterial authority, especially not as it pertains to past papal magisterial statements, so how do we determine that Pope Leo’s magisterial teaching on the criminalization of homosexual acts is of higher authority than that of Pope Francis’?
It aint public dissent if you follow what the church has always taught about for example the death penalty; holding onto the original position the church always taught cannot be public dissent. Nobody can change the essence of the doctrine, big difference between developing the doctrine and throwing out the baby with the bath water. Francis cannot change that from always being permitted to being "inadmissably evil". I will stick to the teaching of the Council of Trent, not some Modernist innovation or novelty.
Well... youbare and you'd, also, be wrong. Pope Francis is not the issue. Anyone paying attention would realize this much. The misinforming and misrepresenting the Pope is the issue.
@@EdwardBray-i1w Pope Francis is absolutely the issue. Things are not reducible to him, but he is easily in the bottom five popes of the last 500 years.
Michael Lofton almost turned me into an Orthodox Christian, i was like "if this is Catholic theology then i dont want none of that" thankfully thats not the case 💀
You too, huh? Mr. Lofton was my biggest barrier for entry into the church. The gauntlet presented by an un-catechized catechist in RCIA was brutal, but the eminent Loftdawg the First was worse.
Michael Lofton is right. We need to stand by the Catholic magisterium headed by the occupant of seat of Peter. Any dissent from this is sedevacatism that either lead to schism, protestatinsm.
From my understanding, there are definitive authoritative teachings, authoritative non-definitive teachings, and non authoritative teachings/opinions. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but it seems that authoritative non-def teachings you can disagree with but still must submit to it while non authoritative/ basically just opinions you can completely disagree with. Obviously this isn’t directly related to public dissent though.
@@krkenheimer I know I asked for people to correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that’s incorrect. A bishop just stating his personal opinion in something like an interview is not binding on the people’s conscience.
Good video, but here is the part where I dissent from it: I don't actually think Francis' statements on the criminality of homosexuality contradict higher magisterial teaching on the matter. First, we may consider what are the two affirmations seemingly at odds. 1) 'Homosexuality, though sinful, is not a crime,' that is, 'The State should not punish homosexuality for its own sake.' (Call this 'Francis' take') 2) 'Homosexuality is a crime', that is, 'The State should punish homosexuality for its own sake.' (Call it the 'higher teaching') Now, it is obvious, and must be recognized as so, that these two statements, if taken to use the same meaning for 'the State,' 'punishment' and 'homosexuality' are at odds and clearly contradict each other. That said, it is solely necessary to show that one at these is not being used univocally to demonstrate thus that, at least as regards this higher teaching, there is no lawful censure to be made against Francis' take, beyond maybe a call for clarity. The necessary difference in meaning, it seems to me, resides more clearily and essentially in the meaning of 'the State,' though from this it also causes an accidental distinction to the employment of the other two words. Historically, the term 'the State' has been most widely used to refer to the general civil society and its formal operations within the public sphere, that is, beyond the realm of the individual and the family in itself. If the higher teaching, in its broader historicity, is to be taken to mean this by its usage of the term, which underlies the notion of juridical crime in discussion, then one can certainly see how though the Church prescribes the forceful repression of homosexual tendencies in the public sphere as something good, virtuous and righteous, it should not take all forms possible for its execution. This allows for more derivative and specific meanings of 'the State' to be outlined as illegitimate ways to respond to such sins. It is to be recognized, for instance, that there are may perfectly legitimate, and some imperfectly legitimate, ways to enforce the practice of Infant Baptism within a community, and that these thus constitute a public matter, which concerns the historical State, yet to outright force or threaten someone to baptize their children against their will and authority as parents normatively goes against the teaching of the Church. Okay, so, to what notion of 'the State' was Francis making reference? It seems to me that he was referring to the more modern notion of the State as the institution which endows itself with the monopolistic power and coercive authority to take away the property rights of a person (within a given jurisdiction proper to such a State) on account of an immorality and thus gain the ability to enforce punishment upon them. This is differentiated from other political bodies of a public nature, which would fit the historical definition, by the fact that this State does not need to base its authority in natural law or contractual obligations binding under natural law to operate, but rather imposes conformity to its authority. Francis was probably, as we are to most charitably interpret, referring to this State and to what it punishes as crimes when he said that homosexuality is not a crime: property rights are not to be taken away to allow for certain kinds of punishment by a self-legitimizing monopoly of violence on account of homosexuality. I recognize he might be using an even stricter or maybe broader definition, but it would be really weird for him to be using the historical one, since the Church, during his and other recent reigns, has taken part in public initiatives to forcefully suppress homosexuality, though such have become more rare with the years in virtue of, you know, the Gay American Empire.
I was looking forward to seeing a video example of Michael Lofton unjustly accusing someone of public dissent, but we did not see any. He has been (for me at least) an advocate of the truth, standing by the church and the magesterium while many chose to do otherwise. I understand the concern though!
When schismatics falsely accuse the pope of teaching heresies or changing the teachings of the holy catholic church, Michael Lofton defends the church with facts and truth. He is not the only one of course, but he is certainly among those who courageously defend the magesterium.
@@johnqpublic3766 I'm sure others have thought the same thing before, but the church is still standing and always will until our Lord comes back. Anyway, all you did is claiming stuff that you cannot prove. If you can, please do. Otherwise, throw away this kind of conspiracy theories.
@@kdxdydz lol, open and notorious statements, documents and actions by Bergoglio are just a “conspiracy theory.” We can’t “prove” Bergoglio is a heretic, apparently because Bergoglio hasn’t issued a statement saying he himself is a heretic. Maybe in 500 years, when we’re all long dead, some future Pope will issue a document confirming the manifest errors of the Bergoglian tyranny.
Bro!!! That's , literally, my point at another thread. Thanks for confirming what I've also seen. This dude is a contradiction. Claims we should all be faithful, surrounds himself with sedes, schismatics, and dissenters who, straight up, lie about what the Pope has and hasn't said or done, making false claims of the Pope creating confusion (when it's the diasenters creating the confusion), then goes to make the same points and observations that Lofton is making with almost null distinction... It's baffling.
@@EdwardBray-i1w I'm pretty sure we know what's going on... Lofton riles up a tonne of Orthodox and Catholic-schismatics. And some Orthobro's are adjacent to Wagner's young Catholics & vibe with them & their online style with memes/jokes & general suspicion of anything establishment. The orthobro's try to call Lofton cringe as a cope because his arguments make them seethe because they have no counters. Then Lofton hate gets in the air of these circles and even guys like this get an irrational anti-Lofton allergy JUST through proximity because from what I see - the dude pretty much agrees with Lofton across the board. He's almost TRYING to disagree XD
@@EdwardBray-i1w Because the Pope is creating confusion. His ambiguity causes that, he focuses more on being "merciful" and "charitable" then being clear
@@igorlopes7589 no ambiguity, the Pope is very clear. Dissenterd are the ones confusing you because you listen and trust them over the Magiaterium. Pretty straight forward.
@@EdwardBray-i1w what are you talking about? Wagner has always been consistent on this issue and has for as long as I have followed him been a popesplainer. Where does he surround himself with sedes and schismatics??
@@Jodes-y7bI always wonder when lofton says go to confession if he means it as like a general admonition or if he just thinks disagreeing with him is a sin
Good video but I would add some NUANCE to the very last point. It’s not sinful public dissent to assent to Pope Francis’ teaching on criminalization of same sex acts if you aren’t aware of previous magisterial teaching on the subject. (I assume)
Yeah, except what has the Pope said on Same Sex acts. Give me first source evidence not what some anti-Pope or misanthrope has said about what The Pope said, show me primary sources in full context. That's at least what Lofton does. His videos are 3 hours cause he covers ALL points (at times too much to avoid being accused, as this video has, of an, under-informed, bias.)
I would argue that what Pope Francis has said on the death penalty goes against prior papal, Biblical, and Traditional teaching and therefore ought to be resisted, putting it in the same category as what he said about “certain acts between men.”
It seems as though the Magisterium currently wants to say all forms of torture are intrinsically evil. But this is clearly not the historic teaching of the Magisterium. Similarly with the death penalty, the Magisterium places faithful Catholics in the unnecessary position of trying to explain teachings that contradict each other.
It's prudence - it's very easy to understand. God permits what would otherwise be an action far from the ideal or even a lesser evil (double effect, just war, ectopic pregnancy etc.) But the prudence of the situation is what makes that tragic ugly action 'permissable' - the Popes & Church just say today, the death pentalty's inadmissable - it's stupid due to the circumstances and probably evil because of the sitatuion. Thomists cannot ignore all this and use theory as a get out of jail card to ignore the virtue of prudence.
I think Wagner errs here in saying that Pope Francis’s statements on the death penalty do not contradict prior and higher teaching, which he admits in the case of the Holy Father’s errors regarding punishments for acts between men.
@@nicholasshaler7442 I tend to mostly agree with you, although I believe the Holy Father’s teaching on the death penalty can barely be reconciled with Church teaching. Not so the current teaching on torture. It would seem that the Magisterium wants to say that in the past the Magisterium approved of that which is intrinsically evil. This seems to me to be the greater problem. The Holy Father places his toes right up to the line, but doesn’t cross it with the death penalty.
thanks for this, but ligouri or de sales, or bellarmino are my go-tos, of course i enjoy and venerate scholastic and thomistic sources, but the former are the literal modern flame of Catholiscism; modernism has been a grip since their time.
At the 16:11 mark, in your example, does that mean that the Pope has committed the sin of public dissent? How is public dissent different from heresy? Or are they connected and essentially if you commit the sin of public dissent, you have also committed the sin of heresy?
It might be possible for a Pope to hold heresy in his private opinion, and usually any time a Pope is being interviewed, he is expressing his own personal views. There have been times in history where a Pope might have been a material heretic in his opinion, or even manifestly heretical, but this never binds the Church to any error, because the holy spirit will never allow a Pope to teach with his magisterial power any grave error. Now I'm not accusing Pope Francis of being a manifest heretic, but he is expressing his opinion here and he might not realize that prior magisterial teaching contradicts him here, so it is okay to charitably correct him here on things that he might be mistaken on or that he could clarify. But when a Pope exercises his authority to teach either with his ordinary teaching power or by a definitive act, it is guided and protected by the holy spirit. There are different degrees of teaching authority that the Pope can exercise and it's important to know the difference between them and also not take every little thing the Pope says as being authoritative or dogmatic. However, it is still important to respect his office and never resist his authority when he exercises it. And at the same time, it is okay to correct the Pope when he is mistaken on certain things.
I'm new to your channel and really enjoyed this video and your "zoomer" humor/vocabulary mixed with seriousness. I certainly learned a lot. I feel like you might be attacking a straw man of Michael Lofton, though. I've watched him for probably hundreds of hours but I don't recall him accusing anyone of the sin of public dissent incorrectly. In fact, I usually notice him being very careful to assume the best intentions of those he's criticising. I feel like he'd agree with everything you said in this video, as he often cites the exact same documents to prove when someone is indeed publically dissenting. If you're going to bring up Lofton's name here with the connotation that he's incorrectly accusing others of public dissent, I'd appreciate an example or two. Your argument would be way more powerful with examples, and I'd likely agree if I can just see one. I doubt Lofton would do a live stream collab with you, but I'd LOVE to see it if you're both open. I feel like everyone would benefit.
People always use Jesus criticizing the pharasies in public as a reasom to criticize the Pope. what they domt think about is the Hiarchy and subordinate vs authority that Jesus has that we as layiety and evem the Bishops do not.. He didn't tell his followers to criticize the Pharasies he did it because they were his subordinates so it was criticism it was correction from a superior. Instead he told his follow because they sit on Moses seat to do what they tell you until he delegated his authority which is above the pharasies to the Apostles.
Okay, someone help me get clarity re: Lofton, please? Everything in this video made sense; in fact I already believed every point made. BUT, I don't know in what way Michael Lofton has run afoul of it. Does someone have an example? I ask, because I don't watch _all_ of his content (that would be a full-time, even an overtime, job) but I _thought_ I had watched a fairly representative sampling on RU-vid. (I don't bother with Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, etc. since such platforms are incapable of communicating anything, uh, "nuanced.") From what I recall, he does scold a lot of folk (which I find off-putting), but the scolding is either in relation to _material schism_ (i.e., holding that Pope Francis is not the pope) or, when it involves accusing someone of _public dissent_ (e.g. Strickland), seems to nicely match the definition of "public dissent" provided by this video. So if my recollection is correct, and if my sampling of his content is truly representative, then Lofton and Wagner seem to be _agreeing_ with one another, rather than disagreeing. So this video puzzles me, when it highlights Lofton as a prime offender. My best guess is that I missed some bit of Lofton's content where he accuses someone (Kwasniewski, maybe?) of what he calls "public dissent" when it doesn't actually qualify. Hence my request: Does someone have an example?
The day I stop criticising Pope Francis and how the Bishops handled Vatican 2(as a council I have no problem with). Will. Be the day I stop caring for Holy Mother Church.
The genius of Pope Francis is that he seems to understand that words and traditions don't have stable fixed meanings. Folks criticize me as being a postmodernist off in la la land or somehow contrary to Aquinas, but this is a pretty brute Heisenberg-level scientific reality: If the finest possible human instruments can't simultaneously measure momentum and position of a particle, then why should we expect the interplay of human words and interpretations to pin down something as elusive as truth? Indeed, Negative and Analogical Theology pretty much necessitate that any time we affirm anything definite about God, we must simultaneously acknowledge we're wrong. So, as Pope Francis says, respect the traditions and learn as much from them as you can, but avoid clinginess, lest you end up in a man made dogmatic box
because Jesus came down said I am the truth and gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles. But people like you and the man you are praising think differently apparently. did Jesus come down to the earth and say we all worship the divine one God therefore go as you are and dont believe in me? did he say that?
@@user-mj4nc1lg4hif we cling too hard to the past, we make our faith a relic in and of itself. Evrry day we must sacrifice Christ with the sins of yesterday and resurrect him with the hope of tomorrow's progress, otherwise our religion dies
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg literally didnt address any point i made thanks satan. did Jesus physically rise from the dead? or is that just a tradition that needs to be done away with.
If it is public dissent to appeal to a lower magisterial authority over and against a higher authority, doesn’t it follow that Pope Francis is publicly dissenting from the magisterium in appealing to his opinion over and against the magisterium of St. Leo IX (provided that Pope Francis is aware of this)? Or is there some reason that the sin of public dissent doesn’t apply to the Pope himself?
Public dissent is applied to those who are not members of the magisterium since it is opposed to the obligation of obsequium religiosum, an obligation that binds the ecclesia discens, not the ecclesia docens. Thus, it would be something else, i.e., error, other moral/intellectual faults could also be attached depending on the case.
The sedevacantist position has officially convinced me. No way to square the old and new magisteriums without having to completely undermine one or the other
Yeah Michael can get a little silly with his "low cal behavior" which I don't care for and I think does him more harm then good. Maybe he does such to add some lightness and levity to his work and life? (judgment with charity). "Overzealousness in applying moral judgments" ? That could be so. But such would be more convincing if you came up with concrete examples. You said we ought to be careful about determining something as heresy and this is something of an issue Michael has. Possibly so, but then again you need to back up what you're saying with concrete examples or it just sounds like you have a personal grudge, and nothing else.
I’m not bogging down an introductory video with 20 minutes of Loftonite examples. Anyone familiar with his work or general disposition knows exactly what I’m talking about.
@@MilitantThomist Then move on from an introductory video. Otherwise I have to assume you can't back up what you're saying and thus not much better then that which you criticize.
A welcome and an almost Chestertonian brief excursus .. on 'what is wrong' and thus containing a gracious nod at 'what is right'. Why this issue (on the forms of permissible and inadmissible dissent) is still considered moot or disruptive - after the kerfuffles surrounding Humanae Vitae and the reactions to it (etc) - is a bit beyond me. But then I am a dumb brick, and btw not only in theology; so, arguments based on the tendentious idea that the reigning Pope is declared (unofficially but adamantly, privately and publicly) not a pope at all* - because he is not Catholic (enough to suit a set of talking heads), and therefore neither his words and works .. nor by extension those of his more or less immediate predecessors like him .. are trustworthy enough (to suit the requirements of these talking heads and shock jocks) - all fly far above me, whether expressed as public dissent, private, or dubious. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o) * Or, like 'The Council', that he is the only Pope who matters - to 'us' - as a pope; regardless, therefore, of his authoritatively uncorrected predecessors' witness which may stand in disagreement with .. or at least as distinct from .. the current fashion in New Theological blather (offered at whatever level of magisterial authority, as may be); e.g. that today's lady deacons (administrators, nurses, doctors, teachers, catechists, sacristans, religious, et al) can become 'deacons' just not clerical aka ordained deacons (yet), though soon to be fulfilling all the roles, powers, duties and privileges as a male deacon clergyman (ordained as such).
@@socialsmigs1626 Do you follow Lofton? You're just saying extremely uncharitable things and not making an argument, acting like Christian said them. Are you just trying to be ironic?
