Guy produces so much ridiculous word salad that he might have been reincarnated from a previous life in which he was a salad shooter.

If you were to ask him to define his terms, he'd be at a total loss.

Does sound as though he's describing a Hegelian dialectic, not unlike what Ratzinger had in mind.

As far as the truth not being possessed, it's probably some bizarre combination of Teilhardian evolution toward the truth, which we can never possess in its totality (since God's truth is beyond us) and some posture of humility where we do not possess truth, in the same way that if we love someone we don't possess that person.

This statement could apply to ANY number of religions or philosophies. There is ONE, Holy Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church. So yes, it admits of being something other than that. Besides, as Catholics, we ALREADY HAVE TRUTH, why would we join with others in searching for that which we already possess?  
It’s not a Catholic statement.  It is not even logical if one IS Catholic! I'm hardly a professional theologian or apologist, but I recognize nonsense and 🐮💩 when I see it. 

Catholic version - Being a (catholic) church means recognizing that (God) is not possessed (completely), but sought after (through the sacraments), allowing ourselves to be guided by a restless heart in love with (sincerity, prayer and humility).

-----

V2 version (what they really mean) - Being a (new-age, anti-christ) church means recognizing that (fraternity, equality and liberty from God) is not possessed, but sought after (through false ecuмenism), allowing ourselves to be guided by a (constant change) in love with (progress towards satan's end goal).

-----

Additional ABSOLUTE HERESIES uttered by Leo:  (https://www.usccb.org/news/2025/catholics-must-build-more-humble-church-seeking-truth-together-pope-says)

--- "No one possesses the whole truth; we must all humbly seek it and seek it together,"
--- It must be a church that does not stand "triumphant and inflated with pride, but bends down to wash the feet of humanity,"
--- It must be a church that does not judge, he said, "but becomes a welcoming place for all; a church that does not close in on itself, but remains attentive to God so that it can similarly listen to everyone."
--- etc, etc

Thanks! good translation from and into more gobbledygook modernism speak 

Serious question though, what kind of statement for you would qualify as an admission/action that the pope has joined a non-Catholic sect/religion?

" allowing ourselves to be guided by a restless heart in love with love."

Sounds like it was written by an hormonal teenaged girl.

Yes. Or anyone else looking for an easy way to sin against God without feeling guilty.

I think it matters because it informs how I think of the Church on earth and the promises of Christ and that is something that I do have some measure of control over. I should want my understanding to conform to how the Church thinks, which naturally will give rise to many important questions such as the one we are now discussing.

Is Canon Law good for learning/teaching how the Lawgiver thinks?

What does the law say about these things on heresy/loss of office?

What do the commentators say on those canons?

I guess I just figured that there must be a certain way of viewing the situation that would be - at one end, "more/most pleasing to God" and at the other end could be crass ignorance, negligence, or even implicitly heretical - and then there is everything in-between.

You may think one way, I another, we may both be permitted to do so using Catholic sources to support our position, but that doesn't equate that both positions would be equally pleasing to God. Is religious life "better" than marriage? Are following the counsels and precepts better than just follow the precepts? Is it better to walk 1 mile along or 2?  Ya feel me?

Do you come at your faith like this;

1) "I can believe x because, it is no sin - I am permitted to believe it - so there."

OR

2) "I can believe x or y or z,  - it is no sin - which one do I think is more pleasing to God?"

Will said choice be "more pleasing to God"? Not necessarily, but the intention and the motivation behind it are better than just a straight #1. Go for #2.

Hopefully that helps, as I would assume you did not intend to straw man St. Bellermine et nal, with your, "obsession with proving" bit.

E.  Laymen's efforts (apart from academic curiosity) are a waste of time and any enforcement is invalid.

I guess ^ this is where we disagree.

I never thought of it as a waste of time to learn it - not for "curiosity" but because I consider it part of the magisterium that all Catholics can reference and learn from not, "for arguments sake" but rather to to get a better understanding of how the Church Herself "thinks" in various circuмstances and then try to form one's judgments and actions based on those teachings. I can do that right now by simply attempting to learn the code (even if done with great mental difficulty). It won't "fix" anything other than my own defective understanding, which is still something I can do, and God expects me to keep working at it my whole life. 

If I have wasted your time, or annoyed you I do apologize.

Thank you for the interaction