Thank you Mr. Ybarra for the great work you do for the Church. May God bless you richly and strengthen you in your walk with the Lord…

Thank you Erick for speaking out about this. FS needs to be retracted just like Vigilius' 1st Constitutum was.

Great job Erick, FS definitely must be removed and condemned, due to the scandal it causes within the church.

Very insightful discussion.

Good point about Peter's mistakes, nowhere does Scripture indicate that these heirarchical malfunctions would stop after the Apostolic age, in fact, it seems quite clear from Scripture that the Church will have to suffer through more of such things until the end of time.

Thank you, Erick and Larry, for this great conversation! It helped me a lot and - using Erick's words - it made me feel more sane. I wish this kind of conversation reach more places. Unfortunately, here in Brazil it is very difficult to find something like this. I hope it will change soon. God bless you, brothers!

FS needs to be retracted. I agree.

Erick, I wonder if this question of grace is not merely a repetition of the 17th-century quarrels around casuistry between the jesuits and the jansenists. I recently discovered Blaise Pascal's provincial letters, and the jansenists he supported condemn exactly those kinds of distinctions. For instance, the jesuits said such things 1) If in a case you give money to a judge in order to bribe him, this is a sin. But if you give him money so that he feels obliged to take a particular interest in judging the case, then distinction - it's ok! 2) If you swear, 'I did not do such a thing', while in fact you actually did, but immediately add with a low and inaudible voice that you didn't do it before you were born, or this or that day, then it's not a lie. 3) 'I swear I will do it', but you intend to do it only if your will doesn't change in between, then it's not perjury. Now if it were just for that, I would condemn casuistry fully, but Jesus himself seems to be using it sometimes. When he said in the Temple court, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." Or else, "Go up to the feast on your own. I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet come. [...] But after His brothers had gone up to the feast, He also went- not publicly, but in secret." The question seems to be: how are we to determine the limits between legitimate and illegitimate casuistry?

Fantastic discussion. Love your work Erick

FS document is very scandalous and ambiguous look what Fr James Martin has been promoting on social media 🥵 pray for the church ⛪️ 🙏 oh Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner ✝️☦️🙏

Why stop with the brother sister Example? There are all kinds of sordid types of relationships one can think of That shall remain nameless. It seems to me that the road to hell is paved with this type of bottom-up moral theology as I believe you referred to it. God bless you both

It's ideological colonization. Very good discussion.

The body of Christ aka the Church itself is everywhere isnt it? I mean whether its in the church building or not its wrong.

Hey Erick, Gavin Ortlund came out with a “Proto-Sola Scriptura” video, and sadly a lot of new Catholics or on the fence Christians are falling away from the Church due to these types of videos. It’s too much to make a case in the comments section, but would you be willing to look at his latest and rebuttal it? Thank you!

I agree that a pope could be so imprudent in his policies, perhaps even maliciously so, as to be “orthodox but scandalous” and maybe even abusive. That being said, as bad as the pope may be and as much as we might legitimately criticize him and call him out, at the end of the day he is still the pope. If he gives a firm command, short of sin we must submit and obey. At least with Fiducia Suplicans it seems to be the case that the pope is saying that while these blessings might be possible and even good to do there was no clear command to bishops and priests to in fact implement them. This thankfully allows many bishops to essentially say no thank you. On the magisterial front I’m surprised you guys didn’t mention the concept of magisterial safety for the non definitive magisterium. That traditional notion that at the very least the Holy Spirit will not allow the non definitive magisterium to be outright heresy and dangerous to souls which is why must submit to it is at least one point I think Lofton explains very well.

This video didnt age well, Holy Father gave clarification

The issue of gays and their rights to enjoy love in the way heterosexuals do has been at the forefront of late. I am not referring to one-night hookups which are forbidden in the same way they are for heterosexuals but rather, couples living in loving monogamous same-sex relationships that reflect the love God has for all His subjects. While I agree that gay marriage as defined presently by the Catholic Church is not possible, there remains a growing effort for the Church to recognize the love, partners in monogamous gay unions, have for each other. While this type of marriage sacramentally is not possible, allow me to explain what might be. There is a social/sexual revolution coming in the Church. In one aspect of this coming revolution, the Church wants to expound on Pope John Paul’s central idea in “Theology of the Body” and how it centers on the fact that God wants a deep intimate loving relationship with each of us in the same way a committed monogamous heterosexual couple enjoys. It is not meant to reflect this in the physical sense but is mirrored in that way, to reflect the deep love God has for each of us, and the Church attempts to bring to light, to celebrate the joy and exultation that comes from such a love. The Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality has long been that it is not inherently sinful, as a person does not choose to be either homosexual or heterosexual. However, the Church has always taught that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law”. According to the Catholic theology on sexuality, all sexual acts must be open to procreation by nature and express the symbolism of male-female complementarity. The Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality has been founded on the belief in a natural order created by God, as it has been based on the idea that sexual acts should be by the natural law of procreation and male-female complementarity. This theology has been used to form the Church’s view on the sacrament of Marriage and the notion that marriage is only permitted for the purpose of a union between a man and a woman. “Male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27) Recent scientific developments, however, may influence how the Church addresses this issue in the future. Some feel God may be working in His Church to rectify a wrong that has survived for centuries. Could the coming changes in the Church and yes, changes are coming, possibly be the work of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised? Could Pope Francis be His messenger in all of this? The principle of doctrinal development in Catholicism allows for the Church's understanding of its teachings to evolve and develop over time while still preserving the core truths of the faith. Some examples of this are Original Sin, the Trinity and the doctrine of Purgatory, the Eucharist, Canon of Scripture, religious liberty, social justice, and the role of women in the Church and society, but to name a few. Should the beliefs of the Church in the area of homosexuality and same-sex unions not evolve when presented with modern scientific evidence that proves otherwise or, should She remain with Her head in the sand in the interest of maintaining the status quo and “preserving the gospel”? The Catechism says, the Church and Her theology, cannot be at odds with science (CCC 159). Medical experts have stated they can find no studies to show that homosexuality is an abnormality in the human person. Experts now widely agree (American Psychological Association (APA), World Health Organization (WHO), American Medical Association (AMA), World Medical Association (WMA), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Library of Medicine, and many other numerous research studies) that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality rather than a conscious choice made by individuals or an unnatural disorder the homosexual was born with. Scientific studies NOW conclude that homosexuality will make up 3% of the population, no matter what, and that homosexuality IS part of the natural order. So, it seems our knowledge of this matter has changed. Should not our theology develop and evolve in light of these new findings? After all, aren’t homosexuals made in the image and likeness of God, as we all are? If we are not to dispute the scientific and medical consensus, the question then becomes, are homosexuals not allowed to carry out God’s plan of love and commitment in the best way possible, in loving monogamous same-sex unions? Are they not allowed to participate in true love and commitment that mirrors Christ’s love for us on the cross in the same way heterosexual couples who have impediments to marriage, are given dispensations by the Church, even though they cannot fulfil all marriage requirements? It is through no fault of their own, that gays are who they are. God made them as surely as he made you and me, and we all know, God doesn’t make junk.

Let us think together. Some people said "It’s well known that gay men in particular have a tendency to be far more promiscuous than straight people. Perhaps that is changing with more social acceptance". It is a very valuable thought I believe. Would not social acceptance (including permission of same-sex marriage) trigger the process of changing promiscuous behaviour and making our society better? Similarly, would not Christian acceptance (including acceptance of same-sex marriage) trigger the process of changing sinful behaviour and making our Christian communities stronger in love and faith? Let us think. If a gay couple should not want to reject sin and choose love, why would they seek marriage and Church blessing? - Could they just simply have sex? This matter does not look straightforward at all. Also, it is worthy to notice, that in the overwhelming majority of good Christian families the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters between husband and wife do not pursue giving birth to a new child, but rather serve as expression of love. Then, would not it be very cruel and then unchristian to label as sinful even truly loving relationship of a homosexual couple? Love is not just a manifestation of feelings, but the most harmonious form of human unity. Any marriage and family, including same-sex, is not about just sex - it is possible to have without marriage and Church’s blessing. Marriage is intention, willingness and hope to live together in the most harmonious form of human unity. How can Church refuse Her blessing for such aspiration? Can Church still label sex sinful if it is a true expression of love? Not soulless and dogmatic answers are needed, but spiritual and loving. It is why we need spiritual thought, wisdom and vision. Being dogmatic, self-righteous and judgemental are unlikely signs of them. We do not need to be afraid of disagreements and even mistakes. It is natural for the humans. We should be alarmed when we are lacking ability of spiritual consideration and thinking together and replacing them by self-righteousness and hostility. Let us think and pray together. Faithfully yours, bishop Vincent Berg.