I’m not real keen on playing the “I told you so” card, but…
Francis’ great novelty
Within a day of Amoris Laetitia being published, I called attention to the central error upon which much of Chapter Eight is constructed; namely, the false idea that anyone other than God has the ability, much less the right, to make subjective judgments concerning relative guilt or innocence with respect to grave sins committed:
Francis goes about trying to justify his heresy by citing factors that may limit one’s culpability in sin. Be not fooled! While the Church speaks in the name of Christ, she is not the Judge of such subjective matters.
Once again, it is helpful to recall the words of Pope St. Pius X:
We leave out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge. (cf Pascendi 3)
Francis has no right whatsoever to encourage anyone to subjectively judge the internal disposition of those in mortal sin in such way, much less does he have the right to reject the dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church concerning the same.
Regular readers of this space have perhaps even grown weary of this point being repeated so often: If and when it is the case that one is inculpable for a grave sin committed (e.g., adultery, fornication), it is God alone who renders such judgment.
Finally, in January of this year, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, along with two other Eastern European prelates, zeroed in on this same error in a written appeal.
Other than this, however, critics of Amoris Laetitia have (at least in my reading) largely overlooked its fundamental importance.
Tucho provides confirmation
In a recent essay written for Medellín, the theology journal of the Latin-American Bishops’ Conference [Full text courtesy of Rorate Caeli], Archbishop Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández, author of Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing, and the alleged ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia, published a defense of the Apostolic (so-called) Exhortation, wherein he plainly confirms the centrality of this issue:
Francis’ great novelty is in allowing that a pastoral discernment in the realm of the “internal forum” can have practical consequences in the manner of applying the discipline. [Emphasis in original]
As for what this means with respect to the application of moral norms, “Tucho” says of Francis:
His emphasis is rather on the question of the possible diminution of responsibility and culpability … Although it can be held with all clarity and forcefulness that sexual relations for the divorced in a new union constitute an objective situation of habitual grave sin, this does not imply that there necessarily exists grave sin in a subjective sense, that is to say, grave guilt. [Emphasis added]
Consider these words very carefully…
The Church has always maintained that subjective guilt may not necessarily exist within an act that is gravely sinful, but she has never suggested that grave sin itself may not exist in such cases.
In other words, grave sin is always grave sin. This is an objective reality that cannot change regardless of so-called concrete circumstances. “Thou shalt not…” should be enough to make this clear; even as culpability, by contrast, is a subjective matter.
As we shall see, this distinction is critically important.
Fernandez makes what I consider a valid point when he states:
Francis has never claimed that anyone can receive communion if he is not in the grace of God.
With respect to Amoris Laetitia, this is true. Francis simply means to say that we cannot assume that a person who is in “an objective situation of habitual grave sin” is not in a state of grace.
Again, on this note, he is correct.
As I’ve stated many times, however, Francis is most certainly incorrect in assuming that humankind can render such judgments.
This is indeed his “great novelty” as Fernandez calls it, but it occurs to me now (and I do mean now as it just occurred to me) that there is yet another error involved here that is more basic still.
Another error made plain
You see, Francis is assuming that the immemorial practice of the Church – denying access to the sacraments for those in objective situations of habitual grave sin – is predicated upon the subjective guilt of the individual.
It is not.
Rather, the Church’s “practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried,” (Familiaris Consortio 84) is predicated on the objectively sinful nature of the act itself.
In this, we have yet one more reason to condemn Amoris Laetitia.
Tucho addresses the immorality problem
Moving on, Fernandez provides additional insight into the diabolically disoriented thought process behind the heretical claims that are made in the text when he states:
If the act remains objectively immoral and does not lose its objective gravity, then it is not possible that it can be “chosen” with conviction, as if it were part of the Christian ideal. Still less could it be held that, by this “choice of life”, it becomes subjectively moral. [Emphasis in original]
I find this very interesting indeed!
Francis’ alleged ghost-writer apparently understands that objective sin is always sin, that is to say, it can never become subjectively moral; even when culpability is diminished or nonexistent.
That seems to have created a dilemma for these men who had their conclusion well in mind even before the Synods ever met. Specifically, they seem to have asked themselves:
How can we paint the entire affair (no pun intended) as a moral act?
The answer they came up with is as irrational as it is stunning; they imputed the immoral act to the will of God!
Fernandez explains:
Francis [proposes] that in a context of attenuated culpability one seeks to respond to the will of God with a greater commitment, possible in the context of that situation … Staying on this path, conscience is also called to recognize “what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God … the commitment which God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits” (AL 303).
The more he explains, the worse it gets!
I mean, it is offensive enough to say that God asks one to persist in violating the Divine Law; as if to suggest that this somehow makes the act moral. How much more offensive still is it to state that “God himself is asking” for one to persist in acts that remain immoral?
This particular heresy (AL 303) has long impressed me as the most odious part of the entire text. Reading Fernandez’s defense of the blasphemy only serves to magnify its offensiveness.
The more important question that remains (at least in the minds of some) concerns that of Francis’ intent; i.e., what does he subjectively intend to teach?
Francis’ intent: Material vs Formal
Fernandez began his essay stating:
When interpreting the eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia, particularly as regards access to Eucharistic communion for divorcees involved in a new relationship, it is worth starting from the very interpretation that Francis himself did of his own text, categorical in his response to the Bishops of the region of Buenos Aires.
As most readers are aware, the Bishops of Buenos Aires published guidelines for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia which said that the document “opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” for those living more uxorio (as husband and wife) with someone other than their lawful spouse.
In light of this, Fernandez says:
It is now worth pausing to acknowledge that which is concretely what Francis leaves to us as an irreversible novelty.
Specifically, he points out:
Francis immediately sent them a formal letter stating that “the document [outlining the Buenos Aires Bishops’ guidelines] is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia.” But it is important to note that he adds: “There are no other interpretations.” [Emphasis in original]
This very letter has just been published on the Vatican website – an action that was perhaps deliberately coordinated to coincide with the publication of Fernandez’s essay.
This appears all the more likely since Fernandez labors to confer a certain doctrinal weight to the letter; as if to preempt arguments from those who would dismiss it as mere private correspondence.
The truth of the matter is, even if the letter finds its way into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which chronicles the official acts of the Holy See, its doctrinal weight is exactly nil; not because of its form but rather due to its heterodox content.
[UPDATE: The above is incorrect. For one, it’s not up to the faithful to debate the relative orthodoxy of papal magisterium. More importantly, it is now entirely obvious to me, and to all who have even a shred of senses Catholicus, that Jorge Bergoglio isn’t a member of the Mystical Body of Christ of any rank, much less its head on earth, the pope. Lastly, the letter in question has since been recorded in the Acta at Jorge’s direction, i.e., his intent is crystal clear. – LV, July 1, 2023]
That said, the letter is of immense importance in that it irrefutably testifies to Francis’ intent. As Tucho suggests, certainly Francis alone is uniquely qualified “to interpret the documents he himself wrote.” As such, surely the letter removes all doubt as to whether Francis is merely a material heretic or a formal heretic. Clearly, he is the latter.
Francis the forgetful
As readers most certainly know, one of the time bombs in Amoris Laetitia is buried in footnote n. 351 of the document.
According to Fernandez, this attempt to contravene the bi-millennial practice of the Church by stealth was very deliberate. He stated:
Although the question of the possible access to the communion for some divorcees in a new union has caused much commotion, the Pope intended – unsuccessfully – that this move be made in a discreet manner. Therefore, after developing the presuppositions of this decision in the body of the document, the application to communion for the divorced in new union was made explicit in the footnotes.
And yet, when asked about the infamous footnote on the return flight from Lesbos to Rome just eight days after Amoris Laeitia was made public, Francis said:
I do not remember that footnote.
Is he simply a forgetful old man, or an infelicitous fabricator of lies? You decide.
At this, we arrive at what is perhaps the most important thing Tucho had to say…
It all goes back to the Council
Tuco’s apologetic reaches ts climax as he asks rhetorically:
Is this change possible and acceptable? Can Francis accept what was taught by St. John Paul II and yet open a door that was closed?
He answers:
Yes, because an evolution in the Church’s understanding of her own doctrine and its disciplinary consequences is possible.
By way of historical examples, you’ll never guess what he cites… Vatican II!
Specifically, he points to the Church’s condemnations of religious liberty and the Council’s subsequent about face, as well as the “similar evolution [that] occurred on the issue of the possibility of salvation outside of the Catholic Church” (presumably referring, at least in part, to the Council’s claim that the heretical communities are “means of salvation” in UR 3).
On this note, Tuco is spot on.
If indeed the Church can alter her doctrine is such way as to affirm that which she has always condemned (as the conciliar text suggests), one might well imagine that anything is possible – even a rejection of the bi-millennial practice of the Church that is based on the very words of Christ.
If we take just one thing away from Fernandez’s 6,000+ word treatise, let it be this:
There is no divorcing the current crisis in the Church, evidenced so substantially by the heresies put forth in Amoris Laetitia, from the apostasy that entered the Church at Vatican Council II; nor can one promote the message of Fatima without paying heed to Our Lady’s warning concerning the same.
These men are successful beyond their wildest dreams. My concern has always been this horrible papacy drags on into 2018 and longer.
Please God, deliver us from apostates.
Dearest Louie,
The metaphysical absurdities which are the “novelties” proffered by these men, who are indeed particular emissaries of the diabolical, as this speaks as res ipsa loquitur—as our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ commanded–“Let your yea be yea and your no be no; anything else is from the Evil One”, the principal man as the false pope (read as not “anti”, but as “false”, as to have an anti-pope, there must be an authentic Chief Shepherd who is visible) Jorge from hell, are now so bellicose that any attempt at suggesting that these men are Catholic, yet alone popes and prelates, renders the Catholic mind which is receiving God’s grace in lieu of the “operation of error”, to experience such violent cognitive dissonance, that only by virtue of the reception of God’s superabundant grace, can one yet remain in the Peace of Christ Jesus, which is not of this wretched world.
Louie, you had this to say in closing your essay:
“There is no divorcing the current crisis in the Church, evidenced so substantially by the heresies put forth in Amoris Laetitia, from the apostasy that entered the Church at Vatican Council II; nor can one promote the message of Fatima without paying heed to Our Lady’s warning concerning the same.”
To suggest one– that “heresies” exist WITHIN the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, as “…put forth in Amoris Laetitia” and two–that “apostasy that ENTERED the Church at Vatican Council II…” literally, actually, and in an objectively real sense exists (that is, apostasy)WITHIN the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, places an affront to the ontological reality of the metaphysical law of non-contradiction, the likes of which would cause the cosmos to shudder. Heresy does not, as it cannot, exist within the Holy Catholic Church, as if it could, our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ would have lied to us about the gates of hell never prevailing against His Holy Church. Heresy, as it places an utter affront in opposition to the Faith, as the greatest sin (along with apostasy) that the miserable human creature can commit, rendering his eternal soul into an eternity of hell, in hell. Apostasy is the full on and willful rejection of the most essential aspects of the Faith as the rejection of the Faith in its entirety. The human person in apostasy having had at first held the Faith, then willfully rejecting the Faith, while either knowingly or unknowingly doing so, by virtue of the reception of the “operation of error”, as the inerrant teaching of Saint Paul, cannot both be in the rejection of the Faith (and consequently in apostasy outside the Church) and not be in the rejection of the Faith (and consequently remain within the Church) at the same time. If apostasy “entered the Church at Vatican Council II”, then being as Being (Almighty God Himself) has no meaning in reality, as Reality.
The only rightly reasoned conclusion and as the Angelic Doctor taught–we only rightly reason by virtue of our very participation in the Mind of God as the Author of right reason–, is the reality as reality that the “conciliar church” is simply, pristinely, and definitively not thus, the Catholic Church founded by Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, as God Himself. As there exists with certitude only two moral realities, those being the “good” and the “privation of the due good” as “evil”, there can be only one reality as reality for just what the creature beast thing from hell as the “conciliar church” is then, and that is the church of evil, as the church of the Antichrist. I pray this helps. The Truth is hard as He came to bring not peace but the sword, because it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. In caritas.
You can deliver yourself from the Apostates by withdrawing your recognition of the authority they claim to hold. In fact, you are duty bound by Sacred Scripture to shun those who preach a false gospel. It baffles me how traditional Catholics who know the Catholic faith continue to ignore St Paul’s admonition.
One possible objection to your assessment will doubtless be to Pascendi. Pius X said that Modernism was now “in the very veins of the Church”.
I suppose that this objection could be answered by replying that, although it was in the very veins of the Church, it was still hidden, clandestine and under condemnation. It was not, and could never be approved or even tolerated by the visible Church. Since it was not public, it was not contrary to the nature of the Church, but was a proximate threat.
What kind of man poses for a photograph gazing wistfully out of a window with a sickly melancholic smile?
Good evening The Papal Subject,
Your comment is important and it must be considered in the light of what the Holy Father, Saint Pope Pius X proclaimed, as you quote him. We know with metaphysical certitude that Modernism quo Modernism simply cannot exist within the Mystical Body of Christ as His Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as if it could, as noted above, being as Being is not real, as being cannot both be and not be at the same time and under the same respect. We also know with ontological certitude that right reason is Authored by God and as God cannot exist in contradiction, He cannot somehow abjure right reason. That said, a Modernist can existentially remain present within the temporal edifice of the Church, which projects the deception of the reality that he is actually present within the Supernatural Society of Jesus the Christ, His Church. As we exist as both flesh and spirit within the ontological reality of the human person, the flesh existing in time and space as sensate being, we then “sense” that the Modernist is “in the Church”, as that is what the flesh tells us in deception. We know with metaphysical certitude that the Modernist, as one who embraces the Hegelian synthesis of all heresies, is perfectly outside the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, as heresy places itself in opposition to the Faith.
In truth, the Modernist is a gorilla warrior, a saboteur who looks and sounds (sensate again) the part, while in truth he can only be and always remain in near perfect opposition to the part of priest, prelate, bishop, and pope. I pray this helps. In caritas.
The “similar evolution (that) occured on the issue of the possibility of salvation outside of the Catholic Church” had it’s “Big Bang” start in 1854 with Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Allocution Singulari Quandam : “For the FIRST time an OFFICIAL DOCUMENT on the NECESSITY OF THE CHURCH FOR SALVATION speaks of the “invincible ignorance” by which PEOPLE ARE SUBJECTIVELY EXCUSED from embracing Christianity.” It’s tough to think of anything else that more clearly reduces to a “meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation” (from Pope Pius XII’s Humans Generis 1950) than Pope Pius IX’s 1854 novelty interpretation of so-called “invincible ignorance”, the principles of which, imo, many of the errors of VII and Amoris Latatia are founded on.
And what happens when so-called “invincible ignorance” reduced “EENS” into a “meaningless formula” is we end up having a “meaningless Church” with “meaningless rules.”
Only an emotionally stunted Narcissus in love with his own reflection. Fernandez sounds like he speaks from experience. Shudder to think of how many people this guy has “Tucho’d” during his shameful career.
Also, Francis has announced that the Novus Ordo is irrepressible! Resistance is futile.
#notmyreligion
Yes, Invincible Ignorance should be understood in the narrow sense, but Pius IX did leave a bad legacy. I firmly believe that Vatican I did more damage than good…..and like Pope St. Gregory said of the Second Council of Constantinople “it would have been better had it never happened”. Pius IX’s project was certainly thwarted by the revolt in Italy that swept away the Papal States and Vatican I along with it–never to be properly concluded. I’ve wondered if Napoleon III’s disastrous defeat at Sedan which precipitated the fall of the Papal States was God’s punishment for Pius IX wrongly pursuing a an all too human means of strengthening papal power in an age of rapid decline through a borderline Papiolatry means. Placing that much emphasis on the personal leadership abilities of the man could not end well. Vatican I was the beginning of Popes disconnecting themselves (and their identity) from being mere humble custodians of the Deposit of Faith to modern “activist judges” bent on placing their own personal stamps on Catholic Doctrine and practice. Even Pius X began large revisions of the Divine Office ect. Leo XIII went so far as to teach that the laity are commanded to obey the clergy in ALL matters, not just faith and morals, and to never question anything! This near totalitarian approach to the Church’s human authorities (which curiously enough aped the Secular State) almost became the 5th Gospel, as “obedience, obedience, obedience” was hammered into Catholics for the next 90 years, and unfortunately taken advantage of by unscrupulous clergy. Could we have had a Vatican II during the Medieval period or at other epochs? Doubtful. People were far more matter of fact about the strengths and weaknesses of the Papacy as a Divine institution captained by all too fallible/peccable men in much of Church history. We went long stretched without any canonized popes. Vatican I birthed Vatican II as Constantinople II birthed Monothelisism a theological crisis which ended with the retroactive anathematization of Pope Honorius.
My point being as long as Pope Pius IX’s never heard of before 1854 interpretation of so-called “Invincible Ignorance” is accepted by neos, trads and even sedes, whether there’s not a Pope now or hasn’t been for 50 years or if the Pope answers the dubia or not are all irrelevant issues for as long as IINS continues to replace EENS as the primary dogma, the Church and its teachings ( post or pre VII) will for always and forever remain totally and absolutely “meaningless” regardless of whether any of these other pope issues are ever settled or not.
Dear Semper Fidelis,
Pope Honorius was not anathematized in truth, as brilliantly deduced by the Doctor and Saint of Holy Mother Church, Robert Bellarmine. Please see the dialogue between “grandfather” and me under the essay entitled: “Formal Act of Correction and Then Some”. In Saint Bellarmine’s 5 book treatise on the Pontificate, “De Controversiis On the Roman Pontiff”, you will find in Book IV, CH XI is devoted to Pope Honorius. Bottom line, Councils can err in matters of fact and as a matter of objective reality, as per Saint Bellarmine, Councils have been corrupted as a matter of their record by the Greeks, several of the early ones. If memory serves, Councils 4, 5, 7, and very likely, according to Saint Bellarmine, the one which “anathematized” Honorius, 6. A Pontiff, as Pontiff, cannot embrace/commit heresy, which is in opposition to the Faith, placing him outside the Church, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect. In caritas.
A fag. It’s no more complicated than that.
Louie,
Where does the True Catholic Church exist?
1. Surely not the Novus Ordo
2. Novus Ordo “churches” which offer the TLM “indult”?
3. Traditionalist societies under the thumb of the N.O.?
4. The SSPX which seeks recognition from the N.O.?
5. Independent Traditional priests scattered here and there?
6. Sede priestly societies or independent sede priests?
Did I miss anything?
Surely, there are good priests somewhere on the planet earth, but does that make a “Church”?
Louie, please be so kind to offer a response.
Thank you and God Bless You.
Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.
Dear Nesrad,
The Church, as our Lady of LaSalette foretold in 1846, is in eclipse, preserved and present in Her integrity until the end of time, and yet not visible to sensate human persons, as one cosmic body impairs the visibility of another. Peter has been “taken out of the way”, as inerrantly prophesied by Saint Paul in 2 Thess 2, verses 3-11, at verse 7. There is simply no one else in the cosmos that the masculine, singular, third person pronoun “he” can be, other than the Successor of Peter, who would reign over Christ’s Church holding back the Mystery of Iniquity from bringing forth the “son of perdition”, the very person of the Antichrist, as the centuries passed, “until he be taken out of the way”. Then and only then could Satan, through all the powers given him, be able to bring forth into our temporal reality, the person of the Antichrist. Can you believe for even one iota of time, that the Mystical Body of Christ, His Church, can be rendered to be, not visible, as the Mother of God foretold would be and as she cannot lie remaining one with Truth into eternity–their Hearts beating as One– and yet the mere miserable human creature as Peter’s successor would somehow remain visible? That supposition simply implodes under its own weight of absurdity.
Understanding the Latin in its negative formulation then, as is now our existential reality, as Peter has been “taken out of the way”, so has the Ecclesia, in its temporal manifestations, now under the siege of Lucifer vis a vis his emissaries, the false popes of the past 59 years as his principle slaves. This is the Great Apostasy Nesrad. Never before and never again shall such a near perfect deception fall upon this world. The Great Apostasy could not have happened over night. This summa and summit of deception has taken decades to affirm itself, as the reality of deception that it is. The Great Apostasy has occurred through the reception of the Supernatural operation of the “deceiving influence” or the “operation of error”, which Saint Paul speaks of inerrantly in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter 1, 18-32 and 2 Thess 2, 3-11. This operation of error is freely received by any and all who hold it, as it is the Supernatural operation given in lieu of grace, which is rejected by each and every human person living their lives in the flesh and as thus not having a zeal nor love for the Truth, fully deceived and yet fully culpable, as are we all. The Angelic Doctor taught that we can only choose the good over the privation of the due good (the evil) by virtue of our reception of grace alone. We will choose the evil each and every time without the reception of God’s grace, that gift which is both freely given through His glorious Redemption and completely undeserved, by each and every of His miserable human creatures, with me as the first. I pray this helps. The Truth is hard, as He is a divine Person as Jesus the Christ–Son of the Living God as God– and He commanded that He came not to bring peace, rather the sword, as it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. In caritas.
Your question was directed to Louie, of course, but as you’ve posed your question, you appear to be searching for some humanly inspired organization as the answer, and I’m questioning whether that is even possible.
Speaking as a Catholic, I have been taught to believe that the Church resides “where Peter is”. Many traditional Catholics, including myself, seriously question whether Pope Francis is really a legitimate pope. Louie seems to believe he is not, and maybe he’s correct. He further seems to suggest Benedict XVI is still the pope. And maybe he’s correct on that point as well. Still others suggest that Francis is the pope but a Modernist and a terribly bad pope. So who is right? Do we even have a pope at this time?
These are incredibly difficult questions to answer with many conflicting opinions from respected theologians. How then are lay people with absolutely no theological training expected to fathom out the truth as to what is taking place at this time in Church history? That would an almost impossible task for most. We pray, of course, but I’m not certain that the answers to any of these questions are at all obvious.
Nevertheless, may I humbly suggest that it is reasonable to believe that the Church still resides in the Papal Seat––whether it is vacant or not––as indeed, it always has between the death and elections of all popes throughout history. The fact that some vacancies between popes were much longer than others would not seem to be that relevant. And while I don’t subscribe to the theology of the Sedevacantists, this is likely the theory they embrace.
As for the SSPX, as I understand it they are not seeking recognition from any Modernist leaders in Rome or elsewhere––only from the Catholic Church. Indeed, they exist only to preserve the true teachings of the Church. They have only sought to be recognized by true Catholic Church––the Church that is faithful to all her doctrines and dogmas that were acknowledged before Vatican II. And while many “traditional” Catholics have pressed for the SSPX to do whatever is necessary to be “back in full communion” with the Church, including accepting some false compromise, that have steadfastly refused.
In Caritas, Pope Honorius was retroactively anathematized by Nicea II and III. Plus a dozen Roman Pontiffs such as Pope Saint Agatho and Pope Saint Leo II who upheld that decision. It was not some ‘Greek conspiracy”! It is a historic fact. You couldn’t be ordained in the Roman Church up until the 12th century without beforehand renouncing Pope Honorius. Sorry but this is pre-Vatican I papiolatry reality. Whether Honorius was personally culpable is immaterial: this is how the Church already judged a Pope believed to have acted like a heretic, even in a private affair—this is how strict the Catholic Church is regarding material heresy and the papacy. Also Saint Bellarmine, while defending Honorius, personally believed that Pope Liberius himself fell from his office by acting like a heretic–and was rightfully regarding as having been auto-deposed as a consequence by Christians in Rome. He states that any Pope who falls into heresy loses his office de facto. How can you misread Saint Bellarmine’s main thesis? Let me guess, you’ve never actually read De Romano Pontifice in its entirety? Just internet cuts and pastes? Saint Francis De Sales casually mentions the idea that Liberius and Honorius were possible heretics, and that this was common knowledge in the 1600’s among orthodox theologians.
Yes, I get your point johnjobilbee and I agree that the novel teaching of “invincible ignorance” is problematic and by logical extension can lead one to Unitiatis Redintegratio. I just added the idea that Pius IX’s Council is also problematic for the Church, in inadvertently spawning the heresy of papiolatry for 100 years, thus, enabling the Church to be destroyed wholesale by modernists without any serious opposition.
Dear Semper Fidelis,
Your presumption is now preceding you. In charity, look to the treatise of Saint Robert Bellarmine, Book IV, chapter IX, “On Liberius and Felix II”, which demonstrates the objective reality that you are simply in error, when you suggest that the Doctor as Saint of Holy Mother Church, Robert Bellarmine, believed according to you:
“Also Saint Bellarmine, while defending Honorius, personally believed that Pope Liberius himself fell from his office by acting like a (sic) heretic–and was rightfully regarding (sic) as having been auto-deposed as a consequence by Christians in Rome. ”
The first question of you Semper Fidelis, is how does a Pontiff in ontological reality fall, “from his office by acting like a (sic) heretic–…”? To be “acting like” is to portray oneself as someone else, who in ontological reality he is not, with metaphysical certitude. The “actor” is who he is and not who he is “acting like”. In common colloquial reality, the actor who plays the, “Tin Man” in the Wizard of Oz, is not in objective reality, the Tin Man. You see Semper Fidelis, as you allow your passions to subjugate your intellect and thus to rest in the ordinate position where the intellect rightfully belongs, you start to say and perhaps believe deceptions in lieu of ontological reality.
On pg. 502 of, “De Controversiis On the Roman Pontiff”, as translated by Ryan Grant, the great Doctor as Saint Robert Bellarmine actually has this to say about Pope Liberius:
“Now someone will say: If that is so, then why does Jerome say that Liberius bent and subscribed to heresy in the end? I respond: Although Liberius did not expressly consent to heresy, still he was interpreted as having done so since he permitted Athanasius to be condemned, whom he knew suffered persecution for the sake of the faith, and communicated with Ursacius and Valens whom he knew were heretics although they feigned otherwise. Therefore, this is what Jerome meant.”
Perhaps it is you Semper Fidelis, who is missing the theme which that great Saint and Doctor of Holy Mother Church, Robert Bellarmine, actually gave in his masterful work already cited. His actual thesis is that there had never been a Pontiff, as Pontiff, who had committed heresy, nor could there ever be, as to do so would violate the prayer which Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, offered Peter, as also his successors: “Peter, behold, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith SHALL NOT FAIL, and thou, when thou has been converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Further Semper, as to Saint Pope Agatho, Saint Bellarmine quoted him as writing to the Emperor in Epistle I, which itself was read at the Council (Sixth) which purportedly condemned Honorius, the following: “Let your tranquil mercy consider that the Lord and Savior of all, whose faith it is, who promised the faith of Peter was not going to fail, admonished him to strengthen his brethren which the Apostolic Pontiffs, the predecessors of my scanty “[Pontificate]” have always done, and has been acknowledged by all.” Saint Bellarmine then renders his belief about Pope Agatho: “Here, note that Agatho not only says the faith in the see of Peter did not fail, nor could fail, and hence the Pope cannot, as Pope, settle something against the faith, but even that all his predecessors, one of which is Honorius, always resisted heresies and strengthened the brethren in faith.” I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear Semper Fi,
I am not sure if you are a Marine or just like the saying and apply it to your faith but I was once a Marine and apply the saying to me being faithful to the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.
Your point about Pius IX seems to be unwarranted here. We know that God does not condemn to deepest parts of hell those who do not personally sin against the faith. We also need to understand what invincible ignorance is or does for someone. It is not a condition that remains with that person at death but is a state in which God Himself or a Messenger from heaven will remove prior to that person’s death if they are of good will, truly invincibly ignorant, and would desire to be baptized if they knew of the Sacrament and that it is necessary for salvation. Piux IX did not make up some new teaching that was never taught before. Those who go to heaven are Catholic no matter what, whether they appear to us as Catholics in this material world or not. And of course they need to be in a state of grace.
You seem to be a bit persuaded by those who push clericalism and deny the obedience due to those who are in authority over us, even in practical and disciplinary ways. It is my understanding that the only time a person can withhold obedience is when the person over them is asking them to sin. Whether you think they are right or wrong, pushing or arrogant, should not cause you to be rebellious.
To sum up, the teaching of Invincible Ignorance is not novel nor does it falsely appear to be true just because you put it within quotes, as if it truly does not exist. Invincible Ignorance is not an exception to EENS as if a person can show St. Peter the proverbial “Get out of hell card” as they walk by through the pearly gates, but rather a deprived state of a person who has no culpability. This state or Invincible Ignorance is removed by God Himself, if need be, prior to death.
God bless,
michael
Dearest pigg0214,
Thank you greatly for your deeply sagacious reflection of the true, the beautiful, and the good. Your words here edify so beautifully the reality that an authentic Holy Roman Pontiff, in union with his Bishops in Council, render with the infallible protection of the Holy Ghost, as the gift of Ecclesiastical infallibility, the teaching of the Faith and the Morality of the One, True, Church, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. This requires as you so beautifully again evidence in your words, the utter and implacable suppression of our intellects, if we find them somehow in contradiction to the authentic teaching of Holy Mother Church. May Almighty God continue to richly bless you and yours. In caritas.
Pigg0214 – I disagree with your contention that Pius IX ‘s formulation for “invincible ignorance” did not precipitate the current crisis. Indeed, I am most grateful to johnjo for bringing it up. His other points regarding “infallibility ” and obedience are also well-taken.
The Church of Jesus Christ exists in three parts, Triumphant, Suffering, and Militant. Just because there is great confusion as to the status of the Church Militant, does in no way lead to the conclusion that it is no longer visible or has failed. The Church Militant exists as long as one soul on Earth holds the true faith. Modernists Rome can fall even into further apostasy and it proves nothing. Man may measure that as the Church failing or the gates of Hell prevailing, but God’s ways are not Man’s. What is impossible is to legitimately hold two contradicting positions as valid at the same time. One cannot hold the true faith and hold that those who profess heresy are memebers of the body that holds the true faith. It’s so illogical that it requires a suspension of reason or a weakness of intellect to arrive and hold such a position. My2Cents, I suggest you unite yourself and your prayers with the Communion of Saints and the Poor Souls in Purgatory. There you will find the Church in all Her glory.
The concept of Invincible Ignorance is subjective. Only God can know the degree of ignorance. We must remember the sin of Adam, by which ALL are comdemned. Divine Justice is satisfied if the entire Human Race were condemned to Hell. It is only Divine Mercy that permits the opportunity for Man to avail himself to the merits of Christ’s Passion, thus attaining salvation. This is a gift from God. We were not owed this gift. We have all been judged as reprobates and duly sentenced to eternal hellfire. It is only by our sorrowful appeal that we may be granted a pardon. It is not unjust for us to think of EENS in the strictest sense nor is it possible for us to limit who recieves this Holy Pardon from Our Just Judge. Fr Feeney was punished for erring on the exclusive nature of the teaching, while V2 basically rejects the teaching in its entirety.
Dear In Caritas,
In caritate perpetua, I tell you to please loose yourself from the papolatrous inventions and revisionism of Jesuitism. Robert Bellarmine was a Jesuit with an agenda of increasing papal supremacy, and shamelessly adopted the views of Albert Pighius, which can only be called heretical, based on that of Johannes Capistrano, a mediaeval menorite monk “canonized” by Benedict XIII, who ravingly and deliriously insisted that the Roman Pope was “like a God on Earth”, “that he can desire everything”, “that he could make something out of nothing and nothing out of something”, and “could annul all human right (all laws)”. This has been the official party line at Rome for a long time, unfortunately, and blaspheming freemason Mastai Ferretti, AKA Pius IX, formally, solemnly and “infallibly” declared his see vacant in his own pseudo-council, wherein he declared Modernism as dogma, and, quite literally, accomplished everything Vatican-II, which is a huge red herring, bases itself on, in declaring that his decrees are “irreformable” “ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae”, which is, very simply, a formal rejection of Scripture, Tradition, the Vincentian Rule, the Fathers and all of Christianity as a whole, for, now, there is no rule, no Truth, no God, but a man and his “infallible” whims, Progressive Revelation is affirmed, together with Montanism and Mormonism, and he is become an “Infallible Oracle”, according to the Civilta Cattolica, and, thus, the regula fidei, which none of the Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles ever would imagine to be. Thus, according to the Relatio of his Vatican Council, no pope can ever be a heretic or err even, in plain denial of history and basic common sense, and it is impossible for an election to be invalid, this also becoming infallible, just as perpetual elections without any prolongued period of Sedevacante are infallibly necessary, for else, “the Church”, which is absolutely identical to and one with “The Pope”, would cease to exist and “the Gates Of Hell would prevail”, since “the Church”, again, the Roman Bishop, would then “err”, so that it becomes clear and obvious that “God Infuses His Thoughts directly into the Pope’s mind”, effectively making him into God’s Automaton, and he can thus rightly be called “The Holy Ghost Incarnate”, “The Third Incarnation Of Christ” and “The True Eucharist”; anathema to all heretics who deny all of this. So far the official interpretation of Vatican-I by the very authorities in charge of it, from the Civilta Cattolica and Bishop Gasser’s Relatio, according to which, you, I, and all of Tradition is collectively in schismoheresy, for heresy and schism have now become absurdly synonymous, against “The Oracle, Francis, Who Is The Church”. Little wonder the first “pope” to be “canonized” by the “Church Of The New Advent”, and specifically Wojtyla, The Great Papal Supremacist, among them, was Pius IX, the true author of both councils. You see, in denying that Jesus Christ, God Alone, Is The Principle Of Ecclesiastical Unity, and replacing Him with a mortal and fallible man who claims to be the ideal essence of unity, the universal and form of Church, to be obeyed by men as irrational animals under threat, not as Christ’s noetic sheep in the Freedom Of Truth, out of Love, all possible Antichrist heresies in history are automatically generated.
If you cannot see that Papalism is the greatest heresy in history, which effectively destroys the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, a fact recognized by Archbishop Lefebvre’s teacher and rector of the seminary in which he studied, right after Pius X, the last star in the darkness, by our Emperor’s will, rightly condemned Modernism, then I am afraid you cannot consciously remain in Holy Church, outside of which there is no salvation, but rather join Antichrist’s elevation of man above God, this being the Anti-Sacrament, the Sacrament or Mystery Of Lawlessness or Iniquity, combatted by the Katholon, which is identified by all the Fathers unanimously as The Empire, which, upon being taken away, left society at the mercy of Judaeo-pagan-masonic satanism flowing from unholy Synagogue-Logia-Vatican. There is a reason why Our Lady, at La Salette, signalled 1864 as the year of Satan’s Unchaining for the final apostasy to begin – the year of the cleverly heretical Syllabus, in which, under a “conservative” guise of sheep’s clothing, the werewolf attempted to take power over the Empire and overthrow Christian society. I believe I even have evidence to support the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre understood and accepted all this.
May The Divine Father Of Lights Grant us, His poor, miserable, sinful sons, rightly punished, His Grace, in order to achive Divine Union with Him, recognizing His Logos-Truth, Through His Spirit, One Illuminating God, Banishing all darkness, so that, united with Him, The Immortal Source And Principle Of Church Unity, we may become His Tabernacle, His Church, in image of Our Holy Lady Theotokos, Proto-Ekklesia, so as to remain firmly in perseverance by Faith, Hope and Charity. Grant us this, O Divine Lord, we beseech Thee, Amen.
pearl87- My previous response should have been directed more towards johnjobilbee; however, Semper Fidelis seems to be in agreement with him.
I believe johnjobilbee’s argument about Invincible Ignorance is a bridge to nowhere and will only cause more to doubt the truths of the faith even more. Even Pius XII says in Mystici Corporis Christii:
MCC p. 183 “For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love.”
God bless.
Further, the absurd interpretation of the Roman Bishop being guaranteed alone to be incapable of being overwhelmed by the Gates Of Hades is directly in contradiction to the unanimous teaching of the Holy Fathers. It is The Church, even each Christian, who is thus protected. St. Cyprian, St. Optatus, Origen and the Origenist Fathers, and all others dealing with the subject, agree that St. Peter is the ideal representation of every Christian, who was the first to receive such powers from The Lord to set forth that all must be one in having the same Exordium et Principio, Beginning and Principle, in Christ, so as to establish The Unity Of The Church. Participation in Christ, that is, reception Of His Divine Spirit, grants that which St. Peter received, even The Keys. Who is, thus, a successor of Peter, Bishop Of Antioch? Carnally, those who have received Apostolic Succession from him, thus most who were not Roman Bishops, but spiritually and fundamentally, every single bishop. Not even the Council Of Trent denies these facts, rather affirms them all, and thus most appropriately calls every priest “Vicar Of Christ”. Do not forget, either, that St. Peter was never Bishop Of Rome, as the Ancient Fathers have clearly recorded! He co-founded the See with St. Paul and ordained St. Linus to be the first bishop, succeeded by St. Anacletus and St. Clement, while St. Peter was yet still alive! Do not be fooled by the Papalist inventions and twisting of Scripture that Jesuitism has been so fond of! Search the more ancient sources, and you will realize how much Modernism, that is, “evolution of doctrine”, has existed since the Middle Ages, mostly thanks to Averroism and Thomism. Wonder not why so many Thomists were the chief modernists of the Twentieth Century, for, as Wojtyla affirms in Fides Et Ratio, Thomism was an “update and supercession” of the Fathers, much like Vatican-II was of Thomism, which had only been revived by Pius IX and Vatican-I, in the first place, in a carefully crafted strategy!
Even the elect would be deceived means very few will recognize Truth and how terrible it has been. Rome became the See Of Antichrist in 1864-1870, or, at the latest, 1913-1965.
Let us pray without ceasing for Our Lord’s Mercy and Forgiveness. Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν!
Errata:
On Capistrano’s quote, read: “that he can desire and is capable of doing everything”.
I’m not in agreement that it is some heresy…..but I do believe like papal infallibility, it is a complex teaching that can easily be misunderstood into a heresy. The Angels said to the shepherds “peace to all men of good will”. Surely, who counts in that category is up to God alone. Yes, that is fine, but are such men of good will truly invincible in their ignorance? Is ignorance that powerful a force as to nullify culpability?
Do you believe in the teaching of papal infallibility as taught by Vatican I? Or reject it?
God bless.
Saint Bellarmine said Catholics can only judge externals, and to the externals Liberius acted like in was in heresy. That was enough. I’m not going chapter in verse….I’ve posted on this topic before, look it up if you want. I’ve read his book.
Pope Saint Agatho said of Honorius—“he who sympathizes with a heretic is a heretic”.
Dear Nesrad,
Attamen, sed secundum Traditionis, non secundum innovationis!
Every bishop is St. Peter, and even every Christian is St. Peter, as the Fathers unanimously teach. The Rock Is Christ, and, thus, everyone who confesses as St. Peter did, becomes Petrus by participation in Petra, Christ. Eminently, of course, this is manifested in the personified unity of the bishop, who, as St. Ignatius Of Antioch best expresses, is “The Icon Of God The Father”, and, subsequently, his priests and lower clerical hierarchy further, yet not in the same degree, represent such unity visibly.
The Fathers are our rule, for they have been in closest proximity to The Apostles and Our Lord. What they do not teach or whatever they reject as foreign to Christianity we must do so, as well, even as we must hold fast to all that which they firmly held fast to. Only God’s Revelation is infallible, so that whatever is found to be in accordance with it, is likewise infallible. No human pronouncement, no bishop who claims to be a living, infallible oracle, no man and nothing at all is infallible ex sese, out of itself, as blasphemously claimed by Pastor Aeternus.
Church Is Unity With God, and whoever is united to God, by Faith, Hope and Charity, fundamentally and pre-eminently sealed by Baptism, is Church, is God’s Temple, joined to Christ, The Only Head Of The Church, becoming one with His Mystical Body. No legal body or entity carnally claiming social membership and unity with a man can be His Church, I’m afraid, as this is materialistic-nominalistic nonsense, a worldly attachment to a worldly god, the god and prince of this world, yet Our Lord’s Realm Is Not of this world. Thus, wherever Truth Is, there is Christ, even as wherever the bishop is, in that same sign, there is The Catholic Church. Whoever is united to Christ, and with a bishop, a mystagogue and minister of Christ’s Mysteries or Sacraments, even if only spiritually, for materially this is often impossible, in the same Orthodox Sign, thus united to all bishops and all Christians throughout Earth, is a Christian and in the Catholic Church.
Let us pray for True Unity in Christ Jesus, Our Saviour and Lord. “Whosoever is baptised and believes shall be saved”, as our Lord Has Revealed, so let us maintain this unity by His Divine Grace, unto salvation, that is, full Union with Him in Theosis, Amen.
Errata:
Read “Petrus”, instead of “St. Peter”, in the very first line.
“Theological training” has always been greatly exaggerated in its efficacy. What counts in “theology on one’s knees” and the Sensus Fidelium. The majority of the Church’s great doctor’s never spent a single day in seminary or any formal schooling, much less college. Since the 19th century, the worst heretics in the Church have tended to be the most educated and “trained” with the most impressive degrees from Rome. There is almost a proportionate relationship now between “theological training” and the level of heresy.
Don’t be intimidated because you are not a trained theologian in 2017! Deo Gratias for that fact. I’m indeed “trained” to no small extent but in the course of the training I had to argue with my esteemed Catholic educators and priests on too frequent an occasion, as many of them were simply ignorant on the topic they were teaching (educated yet idiot) or more seriously of evil intent in their adherence to error. I remember when Fr. Rosica visited the monastery for a talk twenty years ago now, I was immediately struck by what both a moron and a heretic he was. My judgement then, has only been confirmed more and more as the years have worn on. What use it is to be “trained” in Rome at the hands of an archheretic like Fr. Raymond Brown? Look at his battery of credentials—what good are they? I can’t say many things in life, but I can say with certainty, that Bergolio is not the Pope. That is an ontological fact beyond dispute. A truth that I hold as being self-evident to even the most untrained Catholic mind.
Errata:
Near the end, read: “Even the elect would be deceived means very few will recognize Truth and how terribly it has been concealed”.
Dear Pigg0214,
If I were to believe in the definitions of that “council”, then I would render myself an anthropotheist or practical atheist. That a man is “infallible” and “his decrees irreformable” “BECAUSE/OUT OF HIMSELF, AND NOT BECAUSE/OUT OF THE CONSENSUS OF THE CHURCH”, means anything is possible, and Revelation continues indefinitely according to the whims of a man, who, as Pius XII said, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, “can change even the essence of the sacraments”. Why do you think Vatican-II and its authors kept quoting Vatican-I, especially its Relatio, Pius IX and Pius XII to justify their alterations? Truth no longer exists, but is whatever this man fancies it to be. Thus, if I were to believe in this, then Francis is right in doing what he does, and all must blindly follow him under pain of damnation, as taught by Pius IX, who, in proper manner, as is the obvious corollary from his “magisterium”, a word he himself invented, and which refers to himself, of course, just as “church” refers to himself, had himself worshipped in Rome, as Antichrist would, when he had the Liturgy Of The Ninth Hour, the Nona, replace “Deus” with “Pius”; “Pio Nono” was worshipped at the Nona. This is where Papalist blasphemy leads to, in the end.
I am glad that Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider have denounced Papolatry, yet they themselves seem to still believe in it in an eminent degree. I can only hope and pray for them to actually reach the proper conclusions that must be logically reached. May God Illumine them and all of us by His Grace. Amen.
Look at Saint Joan of Arc, who was given the choice to recant, or face a unanimous decree of excommunication by her Catholic Bishops and Cardinals, and not only that…to be burned at the stake as a witch and a heretic and to have her ashes scattered into the river! She essentially chose being publicly condemned to hell and having her and her family’s name being forever ruined in the most grievous public scandal, rather than betray God. She is the Saint for our times. Do not deafen your conscience! You conscience tells you that Bergolio is a manifest heretic, listen to it! We need the obstinate, irreverent, and stubborn faith of Saint Joan of Arc in these wicked times. Don’t be intimidated by faithless men in mitres.
Hello Semper Fidelis,
Many innumerable people have read innumerable books and have misunderstood them perfectly; how about the Holy Writ for starters. Saint Robert Bellarmine, as Doctor of Holy Mother Church, made his case that not any of the Popes purported to have committed heresy indeed did in fact commit heresy, as they could not do so as Popes, or Ecclesiastical infallibility does not exist and the Church has indeed failed, an ontological impossibility as infinitely understood. Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, commanded this reality into being, as Being Himself. Take your dispute to Christ as that is where it finally lies in fact. Either the Ecclesium as Ecclesium has the divine protection of Ecclesiastical infallibility or it does not, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect. We as miserable human creatures simply do not get to choose, as these are matters deFide. You are misreading Saint Bellarmine, as you claim that he claimed in any sense, that Liberius or Honorius were heretics. You are crediting reasoning to him that in reality does not exist, as you claim, “I’m not going chapter in verse”. His argument has several premises, all of which are founded in reality as reality. A Council can err in fact. A Council, in actual fact several Councils (the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and perhaps the Sixth) were proven to have been “corrupted” in the words of the Doctor as Saint. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear AustrianOrthodoxCatholic,
May Almighty God have mercy on you and on me. In caritas.
Hello Tom A,
Beautiful in its rightly ordered reason. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Hi pigg0214 Not a Marine but was in the military. You are always a Marine my friend! God bless. Pius IX’s declaration is interesting, but is the formation De Fide?
As a Thomist…..the teaching is problematic as ignorance is but a negation…..it is a “nothing”…a lack of knowledge. I am not sure how a “nothing” can get one to heaven. I can understand how it lessens culpability, but it can never be a positive force to get one into heaven, otherwise why preach the Gospel when we risk people losing their precious invincible ignorance and ending up in hell? Yes exaggerating…..johnjobilbee brought this up not me…..debate him.
Indeed Tom. Invincible ignorance belongs in the realm of speculative theology, since no one is capable is saying when or if it ever applies in any given situation. Even those who would theoretically be in this state are still obliged to follow the moral law.
A sincere thank you to those who took the time to comment on my question. It was not meant, in any way, to bait anyone or to be a “trick” question. I am truly concerned that the visible Church, as established by Christ, is disappearing from the face of the earth. The “institutional” Catholic Church during this papacy and for the last 50 years or more is, IMO, NOT Catholic. I often think that when Our Lord said to Peter: “Get thee behind me, Satan”, He was envisioning the Peters who betray Him and not St. Peter who proved to be the Rock. While I am distressed at the Modernist “catholic” church, my Catholic FAITH gives me great comfort. Yes, Tom A., the Communion of Saints in Heaven, Purgatory and on Earth is what unites all of us who seek union with Our Lord and Our Lady. Let us pray for the day when the Holy, Roman Catholic Church is once again visible in all Her Glory.
Indeed again, the Last Gospel plainly says:
“That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.” John 1:9
This is for Pigg0214: from any info I could find “invincible ignorance” is far from something that the “Church has always taught” (this is another one of those “catholic answer” neocat myths now circulating in trad circles). In fact the only ones I have seen even speculating about “II” are St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and regardless of the fact they are considered two of the greatest theologians of all time that hardly qualifies “invincible ignorance” as something the “Church has always taught” (someone debating once said “II” was always taught just like Immaculate Conception was always taught but I have found no evidence of that, if you have any please let me know). And as I wrote in earlier comment, Pope Pius IX was the FIRST Pope ever, that is after 254 Popes before him and 1854 years after the Catholic Church started that even mentioned “Invincible Ignorance”, and again unless you have evidence otherwise and maybe you do but I can’t see how anyone could say “the Church has always taught “Invincible Ignorance.”
Also to Pigg: even if “Invincible Ignorance” was an infallible teaching and only meant that a person did ACTUALLY convert to the Catholic Church in their last seconds here’s what Pope Pius IX wrote in Singulari Quindem (1856) about the Church that would contradict your interpretation : the Church “is the temple of God, outside of which, except WITH THE EXCUSE OF INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE, there is no hope of life or salvation.” Sure sounds like he’s saying to me, anyway, that one can still die in “invincible ignorance” without ever ACTUALLY having converted to the Catholic Church and still attain salvation.
Actually starting to think trads and sedes try to argue and fit the things that Pope Pius IX taught and said to fit into what they want to believe he should have taught in the same way neocats do with Pope Francis.
Irishpol, why does the SSPX have to seek recognition from the Catholic Church via Modernist Rome? Why don’t they stay true to their “existence” by preserving the true teachings of the Church and all of Her doctrines and dogmas which were taught pre-Vatican II? Why does the SSPX seek “full communion” with the Modern church which is clearly NOT Catholic? By seeking this recognition, they are legitimizing the errors of Vatican II, not by word, but by behavior.
Tom A and Semper: You both bash all things VII as much as anyone I know of, which I dont totally disagree with , yet you both also defend and acccept so-called “Invincible ignorance” which, imo, if modernism can be called the synthesis of all heresies than “invincible ignorance” could be called the synthesis of all modernism. For Tom, unless he can prove otherwise, the Church has never taught that someone who dies visibly outside of the Catholic Church could attain salvation at least before “II” came along in 1854. If anyone received this “holy pardon from our just judge” we would positively know it for sure by them visibly coming into the Catholic Church before they died. No guessing game.Thats how it worked anyway before so-called “II”. And Semper quotes “peace to men of good will” which would mean the only true gift of “peace”, the graces to come into the Catholic Church given by God as a reward for their “good will.” That’s how pre-VII Catholic’s would interpret that verse.
“”II” belongs in the realm of speculative theology.” EXACTLY, that’s why none of the 254 Popes before PPIX and only 31 of the 33 Doctors of the Church even ever mentioned those two disatrous words and when Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did it was in reference to those that were living in that state not about those that died in that state unless someone can prove something they wrote says otherwise.
John, Inv Ig is totally 100% in the subjective realm. It therefore is taught as speculative theology since no one living on earth can define to what degree one is truly ignorant. Pius IX had to teach EENS with this subjective clause since only God can judge subjective intent. The Church can only judge objectively but the Church is not the final judge of the heart. As I said in another post, one is free to believe that no one dies completely ignorant and that all are given the graces to accept or reject the truth before they die. Also, as I said in a prior post, we are all worthy of eternal damnation so it would not be a miscarriage of Justice if all of humanity less the Blessed Virgin were damned. EENS still holds in the strictest sense, but we are not the subjective arbiters of who is or is not on the Church. The Church is only the objective arbiter of such declaration.
Yes, and what about “seek and you shall find”, in other words if they’re sincerely seeking the truth than they will find Catholic Church at some point, and we will know that, before they die.
The Church and we are here to teach the objective truths not subjective. Its impossible and thats why the 254 Popes for the 1854 years before Pius IX never did. Now we can see the fruits of why they never did.
Its a shame that we collectively (not me personally as I reject the entirety of the vatican 2 false faith) accept this flaming homosexual disgrace as an actual bishop. For shame.
Good Sunday morning johnjobilbee,
What we know, deFide, is that which “the Church has always known”. What She has always known is that which was, as temporally understood, in the mind of the Apostles after Pentecost. That is the perfect blanket of protection, as infinitely understood, against all “innovation” and “novelty”, that which the Luciferians who have occupied the temporal edifice of Holy Mother Church since 1958, conjure up from their ideological paradigm, under the preternatural influence of their Prince.
When we speak of that which the Church, “has always taught”, it could be different than what She has always known. She teaches in defense of Truth, Her Head. When She witnesses attacks on Truth, She then teaches definitively in a way that She has always known, and yet perhaps has not yet specifically taught, in a manner existentially identifiable, which all would readily know. Her perfectly miserable human creature members thus benefit from Her definitive teaching and are also then bound, deFide, to accept Her teaching and suppress the intellect whenever it may place a challenge to Truth, which it cannot comprehend, as infinitely understood.
Lastly, a simple analogy. Framers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc., as they each participate in the construction of a new house, simply do what they know, unspoken mostly. Therefore, as they know and do, they don’t necessarily teach, yet when challenged to do so, they certainly can. I pray this helps. In caritas.
The short answer, I believe, is that the SSPX recognizes that where Peter is, there is the Church. But like many of us, they also recognize that the Church is infested with Modernists that continue to support Vatican II. Clearly, this poses a dilemma for the Society and is almost certainly the reason why they have not accepted the offers extended to return back to the Church “in full communion”––absent an agreement to the specific conditions that they demand.
Yet, despite the evil that is taking place within the Church, she still is the Church. It is that reason, I believe, that the SSPX persists in their effort to be accepted back into the one and only Church established by Jesus Christ––despite the fact that she is now Modernist-controlled. Still, and most importantly, they will only accept an invitation to return under the condition that they be permitted to follow and preach in accordance with the true, pre-Conciliar teachings of the Catholic faith. So far that has not been forthcoming.
This, therefore, is the conundrum that they have been facing, and the one that I believe confuses many traditional Catholics. Some want the SSPX to “go it alone” (as you seem to be suggesting) and as other organizations have done. But from a Catholic point of view that really would be impossible. There is only one Church and that is “where Peter is”––regardless of the sinfulness of the current pope and bishops.
Now if the suggestion is that they only “go it alone”…until the leaders of the Church come to their senses and abandon Modernism, I really believe that is exactly what they are doing––other than continuing to “admonish”, in their own way, the current leaders of the Church for not following the true faith. They lecture the Modernist leaders on the truth, so to speak, by holding open the possibility of their returning under specified conditions.
But to suggest that they should simply ignore “the Church”, I’d suspect that the SSPX would see that action as an abandonment of the Bride of Christ. More than likely they see what they are doing as fulfilling their responsibility to God to continue in their efforts to urge those in Rome to abandon their Modernist proclivities and return to the true teachings of the Church.
Finally, as for those who fear that they will be “sucked into a trap” if they accept a return to the Church under any conditions (even if they get precisely what they are demanding), that is a lack of faith. I am confident that they believe that if they are accepted back under the conditions they insist upon, they will be in a more favorable position to lead others, including the Modernist prelates, back to the true teachings and beliefs.
Irishpol-Yes, I do think the SSPX should “go it alone”. Bishop Sheen said the devil is on a short leash, but if you get within his range, the leash won’t matter. Stay away!!!
Good morning johnjobilbee. I apologize for responding late and hope you check back to read my response.
I am pretty much in agreement with you that Invincible Ignorance (for now on to be referred to by me as “II”) can be perverted and taken where it was never intended. I do see how it has become the rule and not the exception, though I reject the idea that “II” is an exception to EENS. You are correct to say that the Church and mere humans can only judge externals and that the interior forum is for God alone. Where we tend to separate from each other is when you start laying fault at the feet of the Vicar of Christ for teaching something that you seem to actually agree with, if I understand you properly. All Pius IX was doing was allowing the possibility for those “II” to be properly judged by God to be worthy of His promises and counted among His sheep while we as mere humans were right to consider them as outside the Church since we can only and must only judge by externals. For me, it is that simple. I agree that “II” is speculative in the fact that we don’t know the mystery fully and are free to believe certain aspects about it but I don’t agree that it was a Modernist novelty pushed by Pius IX.
As In Caritas pointed out, the Church teaches definitively when She has to squash error and make the truth known to those who are simple minded. Once She does this, we are obligated to give our assent and cast away the error we once held. It is my understanding that Pius IX did not contradict any previous teaching of the Church and only made clear what was always believed, that being God alone judges the interior forum and can make whatever accommodations He desires to bring a person into His good graces before death. I firmly believe the ignorance is lifted before death and is not carried over when judged by Christ due to the Church’s teachings that one is judged “immediately” after death. Though God works outside of time, we don’t. And besides, “immediately” does not allow for something in between regardless of how much time passes.
And your point about Sedes and Trads playing the same card as the “neocats”, I can’t help but disagree. VII is rejected due to what it contradicts in previous Church teachings, not what we simply do not like or prefer to be treated differently.
+JMJ+
God bless.
It’s amazing how many folks don’t realize that Amoris Laetitia is simply the step-child of the much misunderstood Familiaris Consortio.
LifeSiteNews (may their tribe decrease!) censored me for pointing out the following:
“The weasel words in FC (like the ones in Amoris Laetitia) come in at the end of a long document – obviously, Bergoglio has learned his tactics from a pro. Look at Section 84 of FC.
First, we have this doozy:
“Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the
sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively
certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed
marriage had never been valid.”
As soon as the word “subjective certainty” is brought into the picture, we have the spectre of the internal forum, of “pastoral exceptions”, and so forth – in other words, of Modernism and desecration of two Sacraments. (Also, note that he follows this with a disclaimer: he doth protest too much.)
The crucial passage, however, is this one:
“This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for
example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the
obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in
complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to
married couples.”
There is so much wrong with this that it would take an essay to unpack it fully, but let’s try:
“Serious reasons” – typical post-Conciliar weasel words similar to the “grave reasons” used by NFP nuts and “Theology of the Body” perverts to justify fruitless marriages and sodomitical acts between marriages. What “serious reasons” can exist to live with someone who is not your spouse, and to give that person all the temporal goods of marriage, except sexual intercourse? (Once you make this concession, sex is not far behind. Wojtyla was the wedge, Bergoglio the hammer.)
Next, look at the example of a “serious reason” given – “for example, the children’s upbringing”. Which children? From the context, it is evident that Wojtyla refers to the bastard children of an unlawful and sacrilegious union. Where is the consideration of the upbringing of the children that this sinful woman (and let’s not kid ourselves – Lolek was a vile feminist, and this entire exercise of “pastoral mercy” was simply to allow women to leave their husbands and leech off another man simply because they didn’t like the way he spoke, or dressed, etc…. in other words, “catholic no-fault divorce”) actually bore with her lawful husband? Or, even if we apply it to a man, is it not equally sinful for a man to look after his illegitimate children and concubine while ignoring his lawful children and sacramentally married spouse? This is exactly the sort of moronic casuistry that Coccopalmiero and Buttiglione used to defend Amoris Laetitia.
Last, look at this blasphemous phrase: “…. a man and a woman cannot satisfy the
obligation to separate….” This is nothing more than a denial of grace and a condonation of sin. Rather than “not being able to satisfy” their obligation, they should pray and do penance, that they may receive the grace to live as Christ commanded us to, not as liberals want us to! This “not able to satisfy” nonsense is exactly what inspired Bergoglio to declare (logically) that some couples may “not be able to satisfy” the obligation to stop fornicating!
The answer to this is to simply discard the heretical (though discreet – Wojytla, unlike Bergoglio, was much more subtle) Familiaris Consortio and stick to the excellent “Casti Connubii” when it comes to expounding authentic Catholic teaching on marriage. =)”
Hello stevesojac,
Your dissection of the error is pristine and on point. Realize though that as Christ Jesus commanded: My yoke is easy and My burden light, the much “easier” reality is the reality as it indeed is. That being the reality which is edified by the existential manifestation of the “conciliar church” in toto, which as it holds the edifice of that which once was occupied and held by the Church established by Christ Jesus as His Mystical Body and Bride, is now not His Church at all. The “squatter’s rights” belong to the church of the Antichrist, which indeed the so called, “conciliar church” is, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect. The ontological law of non-contradiction cannot be breached anywhere into eternity, as Being simply IS, as He alone remains the Uncreated–Creator, the Prime Mover–Unmoved, the First Cause–Uncaused. “Let your yea be yea and your no be no. Anything else is from the Evil One.” With moral certitude, there is only the “good” and the “privation of that good which is due in the act”, no other moral reality exists in the cosmos; only the diabolical disorientation of the mind in its attempt to bend Reality into the likeness and image of man, placing an affront to Almighty God. In caritas.
Dear In Caritas,
Thank you. You are absolutely right in what you say.
We should stamp out any attempt to affirm Tradition by reference to any post-Conciliar document. That is what is happening with Familiaris Consortio, to the ruin of many non-Traditional “conservatives” who are, in the vivid image of the Prophet Elias, “hobbling on one leg” between the Church of Christ and the Conciliar Church of Baal.