The big “breaking” news item over the weekend is that the guidelines produced by the bishops of Buenos Aires for the implementation of Amoris Laeitia, along with the infamous letter of Francis approving of the same, have been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS).
The Vatican has confirmed that these documents were entered into the AAS by explicit order of His Humbleness via a “Papal Rescript” (so-called) that was addressed to Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin in June 2017.
Though few need to have their memories refreshed, the crux of the matter is simple:
The aforementioned guidelines interpret Amoris Laetitia as allowing for admission to Holy Communion those who persist in an objectively adulterous relationship and are unwilling to “live in continence.”
In response to this, Francis’ letter states, there are “no other interpretations.”
According to many Catholic commentators, that these texts have been published in the AAS is of major significance.
Church Militant, for example, stated that the importance of this move “cannot be underestimated” [sic] in that it “elevates the referenced documents to the level of ‘authentic Magisterium.’”
Rorate Caeli made a similar declaration, informing readers that “AAS upgrades Pope Francis’ private letter to the Buenos Aires bishops to the official magisterial status of an ‘Apostolic Letter.’” [Emphasis in original]
One Peter Five suggested that publication in the AAS confers “an official, and at least quasi-authoritative status” to the documents.
As for whether or not this makes them “authentic magisterium,” they chose to consult Dr. John Joy, a “specialist in Magisterial authority”:
“It means that it is an official act of the pope,” Joy said, “rather than an act of the pope as a private person. So it cannot be dismissed as a merely private endorsement of their implementation of AL. It is an official endorsement. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” and thus requiring religious submission of will and intellect. Such a requirement, Joy said, would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals.
Inasmuch as the letter was in praise of pastoral guidelines that were anything but concrete, this seems unlikely.
Let’s stop here for a moment to see if we can make either heads or tails of these claims.
According to Dr. Joy’s manner of thinking, prior to its publication in the AAS, Francis’ letter concerning the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia could reasonably have been dismissed as the mere endorsement of “a private person.”
Isn’t this kind of like writing a doctoral dissertation and having your defense dismissed by the university’s review board as merely your private opinion concerning what the dissertation intends to state?
It would seem that our “specialist” is unaware of the signature on Amoris Laetitia.
In other words, Amoris Laetitia is Franciscus’ text. As such, he is eminently qualified to say what it means; whether he does so as a “private person” or otherwise makes no difference.
More noteworthy still is Dr. Joy’s implication that pastoral guidelines do not have a doctrinal character; more specifically, that they do not “teach on matters of faith and morals.”
This, as most readers of this space most certainly recall, was one of the central arguments put forth by the Kasperians heading into both of the Synods.
The article continues:
Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way through establishing, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.
Yes, you read that correctly: the credibility of Amoris Laetitia – a document that plainly insists that the Divine Law is impossible for some persons to keep, that adultery doesn’t constitute a state of mortal sin even for those who know better, and what’s more, that God Himself desires that they should persist in such situations.
And yes, you also read correctly – Francis’ insistence that “there are no other interpretations” of Amoris Laetitia only “potentially removes the possibility that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way.”
I’m sure Dr. Joy means well, but the biggest question his commentary raises is why anyone would bother to quote him as an expert.
In any case, there you have it – just a few reactions to this weekend’s “big” news story:
Its importance cannot be overestimated, it upgrades the documents’ contents to magisterial status, it makes them an “official” act of the “pope” as opposed to that of a private person…
At this, I would remind those who think that publication of these texts in the AAS is a game-changer that Amoris Laetitia was published therein long ago.
Here’s the bottom line, folks:
The game is largely unchanged since April 8, 2016 – the day Amoris Laetitia was made public. The objective sense of that text is plainly blasphemous and heretical. Period. As such, no one will ever owe “assent” to that unholy screed; “religious” or otherwise.
Furthermore, there has never been any reason whatsoever to imagine that Amoris Laetitia itself is anything other than an “official” act; one that Francis most certainly intends to be received as “authentic magisterium” and not as mere personal opinion.
As for the Buenos Aires guidelines and Francis’ letter, these are but icing on a putrid cake.
If this latest “development” – if it even qualifies to be called that – is helping the scales fall from certain eyes, or otherwise encouraging the timid to speak plainly, great, but don’t make too much of it.
Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic; notorious, formal, pertinacious, and that, my friends, is hardly breaking news.
Please forgive the repetition, but I have no other choice: We need your help!
This will separate the men from the boys. What Cardinals/ Bishops have enough b•••s to confront him. It’s time for them to act as a body and stop this tyrant’s destructive acts.
Dire times indeed. The JP2/B16 version of modernism is under attack by the Bergolio/Kasper sodomite version of modernism. Why do so many trads care?
If any doubt remains inside the head of Cardinal Burke and his Dubia supporters, this should remove any and all doubt that Bergoglio is, as Louie wrote above: “…a heretic; notorious, formal, pertinacious.” END OF DEBATE…DO YOU HEAR THAT, CARDINAL BURKE? A formal, public, notorious, and pertinacious heretic CANNOT either get validly elected or retain the Chair of Peter. PERIOD. I am tired of waiting on the cowards who wear the RED hat of a cardinal. Even my dog has enough intelligence to see this. And, YES, I have made my own personal judgment in the matter of Bergoglio. How many more faithful Catholics will it take for Dubia Cardinals to act?
Because we haven’t yet ascended to the supreme bliss of sedevacantist enlightenment. Have mercy on us.
“Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic; notorious, formal, pertinacious, and that, my friends, is hardly breaking news.”
And therefore the logical conclusion is that he can not possibly be the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
I await “Cardinal” Burke’s announcement of this fact.
Al Jr, you do realize that if somehow Bergolio were removed and Ratzinger acknowledeged as still Pope, you would still be advocating that a modernist could be Pope.
Yes. I didn’t require your input. Is there no limit to sedevacantist arrogance.
When you make anti-sede remarks you most certainly ask for a response from sedes.
And the same can be said of Ratzinger and all the other conciliar “Popes.” Modernism is the big elephant in the room that the vast majority of trads refuse to recognize. I would think if one were to call oneself a traditionalist, one would be aware of modernism and able to easily identify a modernist by what they say and write. Bergolio is simply one variant of a modernist while JP2 and B16 were a different strain of the same error.
No Al there is no limit. I will keep reminding all that modernism is a heresy defined by Pope St Pius X. No one ever answers me how a modernist heretic can also be a Catholic. Yet the vast majority of trads, who should know better, keep associating modernists with Catholics.
The only one here whose credibility is at stake is Dr. Joy’s.
As if Francis doesn’t know how to interpret his own document all of a sudden?
What? So now a Pope can’t interpret official Church documents?
Will the stupidity never end?
Francis is now on the record as a FORMAL HERETIC. He’s obstinately done so in the face of many corrections. We don’t need any Fraternal Correction of Burke’s to ‘prove’ it anymore. Francis has strategically preempted Burke. The fire is ablaze, burning all curtains of ambiguity away.
Tom is a voice for clarity here. He’s spot on about Modernist usurpersin the Church.
After growing up Catholic I liken my journey of faith like this….
The church is a large building with many stories. Up till this recently I was always in the building but never looked into the basement. In the top I could be Catholic, be faithful, be a believer but not really know how or why. This room is always pretty full but still with people leaving. This year I got to go into the basement! In the basement are the Dogmas of the church, the writings of St Anthony, St Vincent, St Augustine, St Catherine, and many others. I also discover some very bitter truths, Vat ii, yes a smouldering fire had been lit in the basement, but it wasn’t lit at Vac ii it started with plans of the great enemies of the church, the freemasons and hidden forces of the Jews and their secret 2000 year religion. These plans took hold when the idea was put in that “all religions can led to God”after French Revolution, a world that didn’t need the One true Catholic faith ruling over them and one we could all get to heaven together no matter what we believe. This smouldering fire is now starting to catch hold in building, every recent so called pope adding to the fire. Some people have smelt the smoke and left. Nearly everyone above has yet to smell or see the smoke. What will happen if it catches fire. For every planned world disaster a planned rescuer will arrive with a false hope. The church has the truth in its Dogmas but the rest of what I have found out is very unpalatable. How long do we stay in the building, if we warn people will they listen.
Any true pope, when he instructs the universal Church on matters of faith, morals or obedience, always speaks magisterially. AL HAS to be magisterial teaching…IF Bergoglio were a Pope. Being that he CANT be a Pope we sede’s are not alarmed by AL. Much ado about nothing.
Rich, its an emotional issue with the RR crowd. They want their Pope and nothing we say or anything Bergolio says is going to convince them otherwise. I feel sorry for Bergolio. He is trying very hard to let everyone know that he is ushering in a new faith. Yet for a handful of stubborn trads who insist “official teaching has not changed,” the whole world knows it.
You rabid sedevacantists would have blocked Christ from the cross. “What? The Messiah is to be crucified? It cannot be! I won’t allow it!” And the response would have been: “Get behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal to me; for thou dost not mind the things of God, but those of men.” Yet you would have persisted in your arrogance. “What?!?! A Judas was among us??? How dare you allow this, Jesus?!?!” And later as Peter ascended the papal throne, you would have screamed, “It cannot be! I’ve got it all figured out! Since Peter thrice denied Christ, he cannot be the pope!” And so on and so forth ad nauseam.
Your religion is sedevacantism, not Catholicism. Hence your internet fora are so barren that instead of spending time there, you spend copious amounts of time here every day attempting to convert others to your pitiful religion of sedevacantism.
Not at all. We simply recognize him as yet another Judas Pope. The examples of Judas’s betrayal and Peter’s denials weren’t given in vain. As for emotionalism, rabid sedevacantists exhibit it every day in this forum attempting to convert us to your new religion of sedevacantism.
Peter was crucified upside down–a martyr for the faith. Judas was never a pope. He betrayed Our Lord and hung himself. Are you expecting Bergoglio to hang himself?
Al, Jr., you seem to be having a bad day in that you are particularly harsh and way overstating your “rabid” criticisms of the sedes that post here. I would hardly characterize any of them as rabid or emotional. I hope you have a blessed Advent and Christmas season anyway. And I really mean it.
PS – Last I knew sedevacantism isn’t religion but only a conclusion reached about one individual.
TomA If Benedict is such a modernist why did the modernists hate him so much, in fact, threatened him to resign? I have claimed that for many their formal logic is pretty good, but their material logic is as distorted as modern art. But I think not only your material logic is such; you formal logic is distorted as well. That’s a pretty poor combination.
There are different camps within the Modernists. They are divided, and the more aggressive modernists hated Pope Benedict.
“If Benedict is such a modernist why did the modernists hate him so much, in fact, threatened him to resign?”
And where is the proof of that? If you are going to judge others lack of “logic”, you should probably start with your own.
I was a Sedevacantist. I’m not exaggerating when I say it nearly drove me mad; I had to rely on psychiatric self-help techniques to recover. I have never encountered even one example of a well-balanced Sedevacantist. They are all bitter and obsessional, which is what I also became.
The issue is the existence of a visible Church. If Sedevacantism is true, Catholicism is false. If it is no longer possible to know the bounds of the Church by reference to what the Church Herself sets out publicly, the Church is no longer visible, and we are in the world of the Protestants. It’s more than an emotional issue; it’s a Faith issue.
Either the one called “Pope” by the Church is Pope, and the Church is that which is subordinated to the Pope, or the Church is whatever and wherever you PRAYERFULLY DISCERN it to be.
You rabid anti-sedevacantists don’t know what the Church even teaches. Peter sinned. Peter did not teach nor profess heresy. Apples and Oranges.
St Peter did worse than teach heresy; he apostatised.
How is the Church with the apostate “pope” in the Vatican the visible Catholic Church?
Really? How so?
He – voluntarily, albeit through fear – denied Christ. Not just part of His teachings (heresy); he denied God the Son, and his own discipleship. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives, under Apostasy: “Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion”.
I think that fits the case, doesn’t it?
Was he even pope then? No. The Catholic Church was born on Pentecost.
If it isn’t, Catholicism has failed. Do not allow the scandal of the eclipse of the Faith to lead you to despair of Christ’s Church.
If Catholicism is true, that Church is the same Church, formally, as the One that existed before the crisis began.
If the continuity is only a material one, and the substance has been completely ripped out – which is what Sedevacantism implies – then that is the end of Catholicism. Gates of Hell have prevailed.
True.
No, it doesn’t mean the Church failed. It means the one who claims to be the Vicar of Christ can not possibly be the Vicar of Christ. Those who believe that an apostate can still be the visible head of the Catholic Church present a church to the world that has failed.
Francis is not an Apostate; beware of sloppy language, particularly in this area. He purports to be a Catholic Christian.
I agree with you he is a formal heretic, but that is just our private opinion about him. That doesn’t make law.
If something private can deprive Francis of the Pontificate, before the Church has made this clear publicly, then the Church’s bounds are not visible after all but knowable only through private discernment. That is the end of traditional Catholic ecclesiology, and with it Catholicism.
If he were to publicly renounce his Catholicism, or join a heretical sect publicly, that would be different. It would also be different, if the Church publicly refused him obedience as a heretic. He would then fall from the Pontificate, according to some authorities.
Welcome back to the mansion as topsy-turvy as it is with our “Holy Father”. Sorry you had to spend those distressing years in the wood-shed.
The one thing that is holding me back from Sedevacantism is the fact that Our Lord criticised and severely rebuked the high priest Caiphas and many of the Pharisees and Scribes saying they had no faith and even called them whitened sepulchres. However, He never denied Caiphas, and the others, their hierarchical positions and even the Gospel writers clearly never indicate that their authority be questioned. It would have been a sede type option back then to say that Caiphas couldn’t possibly be the High Priest as he was faithless, had an inferior understanding of scripture and denied Christ as the Messiah.
Thank you Akita (I assume your comment was addressed to me: there doesn’t seem to be a way to tell on this blog).
Topsy-turvy, indeed.
Are you and your family keeping well?
quiavideruntoculi, John I, Alphonsus, Akita, and others,
Thanks for chiming in. With the exception of alphonsusjr.,where’ ve y’all been? Your comments here today are much appreciated, faithfilled, and strengthening. It seems lately that this blog’s comments have been infected and dominated by the spirit of sedevacantism. Nothing personal against those who are lost in it, but yes, it can be damaging to those who come to this blog only to be led astray.
Our Lady of Good Success told us way back in the 1600s that there would be a crisis IN the Church exactly in these days. So here we are, in the Passion of our Church.
As far as “rabid” for the spirit of sedevancatism, perhaps, but for some reason I think of “heyena”, scavengers for souls. Nothing personal. Really, it is not the person I am attaching, but the evil one.
-Awaiting The Reign of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart!
It can’t come soon enough.
Once again I wish to speak out and underline what it is that should be of the UTMOST addressed here in this atrocious promulgation of this scandalous “Joy of Sex” document. Until we all come clean and address the issue of the wholesale promulgation of NFP that has been going on for close to a century now (yes a century. The machinations of NFP started to rear its ugly head in the late 1800s) and its inherent redefinition of marriage and its purpose, we are only putting bandages on the real issue at hand here by wishing to get rid of this utterly painful man who sits on the chair of Peter.
After all what is at the core of this new false teaching in this document. It is that one can continue to benefit from the sex act while they are clearly living in adultery.
As I said before the machinations of reversing the order of the purposes of marriage for “unity of the couple” and their so called ” sanctification” as being primary over procreation and education of children for God’s glory as the true primary purpose is what is at stake.
I get the impression that there are still many who clearly do not understand that the secondary and tertiary purposes of marriage are all SUBORDINATE to the primary purpose of procreation and are not separate entities from one another. The secondary and tertiary purpose only have meaning when they are subordinate to the procreation of children for God’s glory.
Of course I would be remiss if I did not also underline that marriage is to reflect Christ and His ONE ( not two, not three ect.) Bride the Catholic Church. Christ had only one bride. The Catholic Church. The Church is indisoluble and so must marriage be a REFLECTION of this indisolubility on earth because it and only it has been given the SACRED and GRAND mission by God of being the vehicle that brings souls into the world. The SOUL which is of the utmost value to our Lord and must reflect who He is. This grand mission of bringing souls into the world through the conjugal act is from God and it has many rules and obligations attached to it. Which the modern false church has tried to destroy and subvert.
Marriage can only end when one or both spouse spouses die because in heaven and hell there will no longer be the need for more souls to be created and thus no longer the need for marriage as we know it on earth. This is why marriage, in the hierarchy of things, is not above the priesthood. Because in heaven or hell all ordained priests wil still have the mark of the priesthood but not all persons who were validly married on earth wil be married after death.
I would also be remiss if I did not speak of the hierarchy of male and female roles within marriage. This is another area in marriage that has been severely wounded and beaten up upon. Christ gave His life for His ONE BRIDE the Catholic Church just as a husband is to give his life for his one bride. The head of the Church and the family has the highest price to pay. His life. A wife and mother is required to give her life in adifferent way. Through cooperating with her husband in all that is not sinful or destructive to the family and marriage for the grand purpose of raising up children to be citizens of heaven.
It is not a persons personal and private motivation to reap and pick and choose which benefits of marriage he or she wishes to steal and suck out of the institution of marriage while ignoring certain or all of God’s laws on marriage that matter. It is what our Lord Jesus Christ has instituted when He created marriage as the act that was instituted to bring souls into the world destined to be citizens of heaven and reflect who Christ is and what He taught that matter PRIMARILY and UTMOST.
As Our Lady of Fatima warned, it is the sacrament of marriage that will be attacked in the end and that will be the downfall of our world as we clearly see it happening before our eyes. We should all double down and pray our Rosary this advent season more fervently and passionately than ever.
May you all have be so blessed as to have a most holy and hope filled Advent and Christmas season this year.
The Church authoritatively teaches that NFP is a morally acceptable practice, provided certain criteria are met. This has been clear since the late 19th century.
Who are you to gainsay the Church? What qualifications do you have in moral theology?
@AlphonsusJr………Bravo!
The sedevacantists need our prayers…..Miserere!
I have been on this website for years now. Look me up under Louie’s section on comments on marriage for all of my quotes and references from Church doctors, Saints, scripture and so on.
This is one of the few websites by the way that has not banned me from speaking out against NFP and married clergy and deacons.
Thank you Louie and may God bless you for not being a snowflake.
A simple online search of the terms “heresies of Benedict XVI” will tell you all you need to know. Rinse and repeat with each modern Pope back to and including the Freemason Roncalli. The Great Apostasy has already happened and is simply ongoing and reaching its climax, and everyone is wasting their precious time speaking of an evil entity which is NOT the Church. 2 Thess ch 2.
Quia, You said, “The issue is the existence of a visible Church. ” Well there is also the issue of indefectibilty and unity of faith, but lets stick with visible. Has a council or Pope ever defined visible? The day after Pentacost was the Church “visible?” Of course it was, but according to your logic it was not visible. When did the Church actually become visible? And what is the definition? To whom must it be visible to? It what manner must it exhibit its visibility? In unity of faith? I would say that doesn’t apply anymore. There is no more unity of faith from one diocese to another. Does it exhibit its faith by being indefectible? That doesn’t apply anymore either. Vatican 2 taught error, Paul VI promulgated a protestant worship service, JP2’s Code of Canon Law allows non Catholics to receive communion. Etc etc. The list of errors in the post conciliar church are too numerous and well documented that no one in their right mind could possibly say the conciliar church is indefectible. So I ask, by what metric do you ascribe to declare a divine institution to be visible?
Yes, so worth the time and effort for you to go back and read what Anastasia has written in charity. Perhaps this veil too will be lifted from your eyes. Thank you for all your time and effort, Anastasia, in this area.
@quiavideruntoculi:
Francis said ‘Christ made himself the Devil’ – is this not the worst possible apostasy?
Thanks Cortez your support is always welcome. God bless.
False dichotomy quia. Where do you imbibe this outrageous heresy?
How would a heretical Pope make the Catholic Church fail when such a thing was considered a possibility for hundreds of years by eminent Doctors of the Church like Sts. Bellarmine and De Sales among a host of others?
So in your view the Catholic Church fails every time a Pope dies or an antipope sits on the Chair of Peter? Ridiculous. The R&R Trads have created a religion which is both ahistorical and hysterical. 1917 Canon Law itself cites Pope Paul IV’s magisterial teaching on the possibility of a heretic claiming to be Pope and thereby not being Pope. And yes, given his Bull was re-affirmed by the Motu Proprio of Saint Pius V in 1566 and included in Canon Law makes this teaching MAGISTERIAL. Folks like you are the ones who refuse to follow the actual teaching of the Catholic Church with your rank papolatry. A Pope can be/become a heretic, deal with it.
If I would write a book, the title would be “None Dare Call it Papolatry Anymore”. You would rather see the Church theologically destroyed than acknowledge a heretic in Rome. Unbelievable.
Reading the comments on R&R blogs, priests and self-profession canonical experts can’t even make the distinction between “public heresy” as described by Canon Law and “formal heresy”. Nor can they properly distinguish between “material” and “formal” heresy, yet they all claim to be experts on why Francis is still Pope. “He’s only preaching material heresy”. This phrase is nonsense….one can only preach “heresy”. Formal/material refers to the subject holding it, not the heresy itself—heresy is heresy is heresy! There is no way that Bergolio can be in material heresy given its definition. There is no way he is invincibly ignorant of the basic moral teaching of the Church, AS POPE! He is neither exhibited one iota of good will necessary to be in material heresy. He’s openly acknowledge his intent to CHANGE the teaching—that in itself is formal heresy. He’s been in formal heresy for years folks, and now there is no doubt that his heresy is both public and official. He is not the Pope. That is what “public heresy” entails “ipso facto” (automatic) or even in the 1983 Code “Latae sententiae” (by the force of law itself) loss of office. Any appeal to “competent authority” to “remove” him (ie. try him for the crime of heresy) is erroneous, since there is no competent authority to enforce a ruling against a sitting Pope. Otherwise conciliarism would reign and any sitting Pope could be removed on any pretext. So legalistic appeals based on this premise and that he is must therefore still Pope fall completely flat. He can only be declared to have lost his office via public heresy. Good luck imposing any canonical penalties…..he’s an absolute monarch and totally insulated.
2 2Vermond: “Where is the proof of that?”
Here is certainly a possible proof given the fact that Satan has infiltrated the Church and as Our Lord has said “Satan is a murderer”:
“Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi published letters from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in which he begged not to be transferred for having exposed alleged corruption that cost the Holy See millions in higher contract prices. The name “VatiLeaks” is a play on the word WikiLeaks, a not-for-profit media organisation whose goal is to bring important news and information to the public.
“Over the following months the situation widened as documents were leaked to Italian journalists, uncovering power struggles inside the Vatican over its efforts to show greater financial transparency and comply with international norms to fight money laundering. In early 2012, an anonymous letter made the headlines for its warning of a death threat against Pope Benedict XVI” (From the VatiLeaks website).
Anybody has to be able to point to it and say, “There it is”. That’s my definition of visible.
The Church was, by my definition, visible at Pentecost.
You have drawn false inferences from what I said.
I said that, without a public judgement or declaration by the Church, our personal views on Pope Francis remain just that; personal views.
If it is left to PRIVATE DISCERNMENT to say who is or is not in the Church, that means the Church is reduced to “the invisible Church of all believers” professed by the Protestants, and every teaching is at the mercy of the individual, who may at any point form some strong conviction that the Pope who taught / ratified / encouraged it was a heretic.
A Papal interregnum poses no difficulties for my position. Nor does an Antipapacy, which merely entails – at worst – a very plausible but ultimately false pretender to the mantle of “visible Church”. The Catholic church still remains, under that contingency, readily point-outable.
That is not relevant. I asked about your credentials for a reason.
Speaking as someone naturally sympathetic to the view that NFP is wrong (I only abandoned this when I was talked out of it by a very learned and Holy Priest), I am also aware that moral theology does not work as you seem to think it does.
St Alphonsus de Ligouri is a doctor of the Church. He was the founder of moral theology in the systematic form in which it has been handed down to us.
He taught Probabilism, which has been endorsed by all Popes since his canonisation. Probabilism is (now) the Church’s ONLY permitted approach to moral theology.
Probabilism teaches that it is MORAL to follow any solidly probable opinion, even if you personally don’t agree with it.
So, for example, if you had scruples about making a “not guilty” plea in the abstract if a defendant is in fact guilty of a crime, but then found yourself in the dock, guilty, but you wanted to make a “not guilty” plea, you would be free to do so because it is a solidly probable opinion that this is a moral thing to do.
The arguments for NFP are, for many, intrinsically probable (because persuasive) and have been for many many years suppored by a majority of moral theologians, who were authors in the subject APPROVED BY THE POPE to Publish.
By all means make the case contra. But do not presume to bind people’s conciences, where the Church has loosed.
That is Pharisaical.
I refer you to my comment above in reply to Anastasia.
I am sure I would find many of her points persuasive. I was in the past an adherent of the same view, but a holy priest – my spiritual director – patiently but firmly dissuaded me from it in the course of a long correspondence.
I agree that a Pope can become a heretic, and that Pope Francis most likely is himself a formal heretic.
This has not, however, been officially or publicly established. Nor have we reached the point where the Pope has definitely declared HIMSELF a heretic. It has certainly not been declared by the Church, and until it is there is no feasible alternative to the view that he remains the Pope.
And may I say, what a characteristically bitter Sedevacantist rant! Vintage stuff.
quiavideruntoculi –Thank you for this!
The sin of heresy is the formal cause of one’s removal from the Catholic Church. That is Dogma. As Louis himself pointed out, a delcaration is immaterial to both the Popes acceptance of the office and his loss of office, if you actually paid attention to this blog you would realize the Louis is a sedevacantist where Bergolio is concerned.
The heresy of Bergolio is ”notorious” thereby not a matter of private judgement unless you yourself reject the Rule of Faith.
Qui: Could you be specific about what in Semper’s post was “bitter”? I think people need to be careful not to confuse frustration with bitterness. It might make lurkers/readers think poorly of those who hold the sedevacantist position.
Anyone: I have a general question regarding replies here….it appears that you can not reply to some posts…why? Is there a limit of some sort?
“As far as “rabid” for the spirit of sedevacantism, perhaps, but for some reason I think of “heyena”, scavengers for souls. Nothing personal. Really, it is not the person I am attaching, but the evil one.”
And I would argue that your position…that a manifest heretic such Bergoglio can possibly be the Vicar Of Christ… is a position with which the Evil One would agree. He has and continues to deceive many through Bergoglio.
Nothing personal, of course. 😉
Why are you thanking Quia? One sentence he says we are all to refrain from private judgment about the Pope and in the next sentences he goes on making private judgments about what level of heresy the Pope has attained or has not attained. He and other RRers also make many private judgments as to what papal teachings are in error and which ones are not. You see that is the whole point of Popes and Magesteriums. They settle the issue so private judgment is no longer required. Only assent. Francis has come right out and said his interpretation of AL is magesterial. Issue settled. Assent. That my friends is how things work in the Catholic world. It has been quite predictable listening to the papal apologists on the right come up with a million reasons as to why Francis doesnt mean what he says. Some have now moved the goal posts and say that his heresy must be pronounced ex cathedra before he loses his office. On one blog, one misguided fool even commented that he actually has to be sitting in the chair! The 1917 Code of Canon Law states that to lose an office, the heresy must be public. Folks, its been public since vatican 2. The Church exists and is visible, there are simply no Catholics occupying any of its offices. Only modernists. We are a flock with no earthly shepherd. Why is that so difficult to accept? It was all foretold in scripture and from Our Lady. Man has been wanting to go it alone without God since the Garden. Well, Man has finally gotten his wish. We the remnant who still hold the traditional faith must cling to tradition and the Rosary to attain salvation. The SSPX and other groups, can and do provide true sacraments (for now), but remember, they have no authority from the Church. They exist to preserve the true priesthood. I have one more observation. When/if some formal act by someone in charge occurs in regards to the papal status, the declaration will have been promulgated by a modernist. You will have defered your own private judgment into the hands of a modernist. It goes back to a question I always ask, yet is never answered. Why do you look to modernists to solve the problem of modernism?
Well when I see an SSPX chapel or a sede chapel, I point to it and say, “There is a Catholic Church.” But when I see a NO parish, I point and say, “There are a bunch of neo protestant modernists who call themselves catholic.” So I guess your definition of “visible” depends on private judgment.
I’m used to it 2Vermont but thank you. R&R types have nothing in their theological arsenal but virtue signaling. Everyone who disagrees with their untenable position is deemed emotionally unstable and unrighteous. I take that as a sign the argument has gotten under their skin.
So in Quia’s world. Joan of Arc, when declared a heretic and sentenced to be burned at the stake and her ashes thrown into the river, by the competent authorities in France, would therefore have to have been a heretic regardless of the objective sin of heresy. The declarative power of a Church authority is that powerful.
Likewise an apostate (YES he is an apostate) who prances around in white and claims to be Pope, but has as much in common with the Catholic Faith as the Dalai Lama, still remains Pope after manifest, repeated public heresy and manifestly ill will towards the Faith (never having been a Catholic). This man remains Pope in perpetuity, unless a legalistic declaration is made. He has effectively reduced the Catholic Faith to nominalist categories of meaningless. If Bergolio can not only remain a Catholic, but, dead God, Pope, then John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and all open heretics are also Catholics and rightly deserve communion. What kind of objective standard do you have for Church membership or doctrine? NONE. No Quia, again I say it, you are the heretic.
My only credentials that possibly could impress you are that I am baptized and married if that helps. My references are not my personal thoughts or phylosophies. I really wish you would have taken the time to read my many references that totally support the arguments against NFP from Scripture, Church fathers, Saints and the magisterium , prior to the freemasonary period, on contraception which includes the so called practise of NFP when it plans to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children while benefiting from all the other effects of conjugal intercourse.
I fail to see how your one learned so called holy priest and what he has mysteriouly said on NFP out weighs all my references from Scripture, Church fathers, Saints and what the magisterium has said prior to Pius XII. You haven’t even taken the time to read them.
Continence (refraining from sexual intercourse) is one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit and it is not chastity which is another separate fruit of its own from the Holy Spirit. Continence is the issue. We have been told for close to century now that continence is impossible from the modernist point of view, first beginning with married couples then with married clergy and now for adulterers and sodomites.who do not believe in God’s powers and graces.
Dear Tom A,
You’ve explained very well the rabbit-hole that is sedevantistism.– so, thank you too.
Honestly, my head (and heart) hurts to consider it any longer– it’s the epitome of hopelessness.
I am not saying there isn’t a strong argument for your position. I remain personally somewhat swayed by the logic of it and was previously an adherent of your view.
That doesn’t change the fact that NFP is a solidly probable option, and so those who take it in good conscience are not sinning. Period. (If you’ll excuse the pun). The Church’s permission in this regard is the whole case for the (limited) position I am advancing.
God bless you and your family, and all power to your elbow, Ma’am.
“The sin of heresy is the formal cause of one’s removal from the Catholic Church. That is Dogma.”
That’s not true on a legal and practical level – which is what concerns us here -, though it is true spiritually. A private heretic, although severed from the Church spiritually, can remain part of the Church’s body and may continue to enjoy and exercise jurisdiction.
The law makes clear that only the cleric who publicly defects from the Faith loses his office ipso facto. Pope Francis has not said “I am not a Catholic”, or “I am a heretic.”
@Tom A
When you point to a particular church, and say “that is a particular Church” (wrongly, in fact), that is your private judgement.
But it is not the Church’s judgement. You have to use a private definition, not a public one. Without a public definition, you are in the realms of Protestantsim; a Church which does not self-identify, but must be “discerned” is not the Church of the Creeds.
There is no possible way to walk-back this position, if you are right about Pope Francis. How can legal authority ever be re-established, if this is the state of play in reality? If you are right, Catholicism has failed.
More bluster, fulminations, and unsupported personal attacks.
If there is no way of removing him, you’d better sit tight until he dies hadn’t you? You speak as if something would change if I agreed with you about how hopeless the situation is. All that would change is that I would end up being mentally ill, because reconciling belief in an indefectible Church and belief in the complete breakdown of that Church in all functional respects is not possible.
John XXII pertinaciously adhered to a doctine which was widely known to be contrary to the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. A huge stink was kicked up.
He recanted on his death-bed, but there’s a good argument to say he was a heretic. Did he lose his office?
You cannot use out-of-date positions to condemn a position that has been expressly permitted by the Church authorities.
Your authority does not trump the Church’s. Making out that people who do not agree with you SIN by acting on their beliefs is not consistent with Probabilism, and is potentially spiritually dangerous.
Make the case. Maybe the Church will change Her mind (though I can’t think of one example where the Church became *less* liberal on a position in history – but there might be one) and rescind the permission.
NFP when it plans to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children is contracepting in act, word ,and deed. Contraception is a sin. Always was and always will be. Continence for grave reasons is not a sin. Please take the time to read the Scripture and Saints, church fathers and magisterium references as the authority I reference.
Exactly!
And therefore, the “gates of hell” have prevailed.
Bahaawhahahhhaaa! “elbow…”
(Thank you for the laugh).
No John XXII was not a heretic since the matter had not been authoritatively defined until after his death. He was simply in error. If one were to hold his position after the issue was defined, then that person would hold a heretical position. A Council tried to have him declared a heretic post-mortem, but the reigning Pope did not concur. A very good synopsis of the issue can be read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (prior to V2 of course).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm
Exactly. Once again the R&R folks don’t know the facts.
2vermont, its worse than just being ignorant of historical facts. The RRers rehash old protestant distortions and fables to besmirch the Papacy. When faced with two differing accounts of history, an RRer can be counted on siding with the protestant version of Catholic history when the subject is the Catholic Papacy.
The bottom line is that the NO church teaches a false faith. This fact is beyond question. I cannot answer definitively why any of this happened or how we progress from here, but I can say with certitude that the NO church does not teach the Catholic faith as held by my forefathers. So why in heavens name would anyone want to be in union with, or seek recognition from, the purveyors of a false faith? Why look for answers to these troubled times from those who caused much of the trouble?
“The law makes clear that only the cleric who publicly defects from the Faith loses his office ipso facto. Pope Francis has not said “I am not a Catholic”, or “I am a heretic.”
EXACTLY—BINGO! You finally see the light. We agree 100%. You get part of it right so we are making progress.
Yet, again, poor knowledge does not piety make. The term “defect” in the uneducated conjures up images of a Soviet Agent leaving his country. This is not the meaning. Also, it is not defecting from the Catholic Church, but the “Catholic Faith”. R&R ignoramuses think that unless Bergolio flashes his membership card as a Seventh Day Adventist or some such, he remains Pope. Rubbish.
The word defect used here comes from “deficere”.
Defect: Late 16th century: from Latin defect- ‘failed’, from the verb deficere (see defect).
deficere
“Fail, LOSE”
So another literal translation would be “publicly LOSES the Catholic Faith”.
As Catholic Dogma teaches, to reject part of the Catholic Faith is to reject ALL of it. How does someone who wants to delete the 4th, 6th and 9th Commandments from the moral law, not constitute less than a complete apostasy from the truth? FORMAL HERESY. He even uses the phrase in his Amoris Laetitia. “It can simply no longer be said………” followed by heresy after heresy. Formal heresy then and there.
“If there is no way of removing him, you’d better sit tight until he dies hadn’t you?”
Withdrawing submission to the heretic sufficed in God’s eyes. The rest is up to fate and history. And no R&R dreamers, there is no calvary coming to the rescue. You are NEVER going to punish Bergolio for his crimes. All we can do is publicly oppose this heretic, that is what charity and fidelity to Christ our King demands. Yet, this little, you refuse to do. You want to keep playing “church” with an apostate in Rome.
“You speak as if something would change if I agreed with you about how hopeless the situation is”.
Hopeless for man, not hopeless for God. That is where you fail. Modern people lack real, theological faith. They want man to solve all of their problems. God has permitted this crisis as a punishment for that attitude.
“I would end up being mentally ill, because reconciling belief in an indefectible Church and belief in the complete breakdown of that Church in all functional respects is not possible”.
Then you deny reality. The Vatican II religion is neither defectible nor the Catholic Church. If the Vatican II Church were indefectible than my First Communion in April 1982 would not have been a invalid (a sacrilege). The Catholic Church does not provide invalid Sacraments. How was it invalid? Invalid matter, as the recipe permitted by the Archbishop was ruled 100% invalid by no less than the CDF (not that they did anything about it being modernists themselves and not caring one iota).–Long story in my Novus Ordo diocese.
The True Catholic Church is underground and in the shadows, as even any mainstream Conservative Novus Ordo Catholic will tell you. They are betrayed by their own words. The institutional church has apostasized. This does not end the Catholic Church anymore than it did for my English ancestors who didn’t have a “visible” Church for nearly 300 years. Yet 1/3 of the population remained Catholic, and only saw a priest 1-2 times a year if that. We are going back to that soon.
I meant the “Cavalry will not coming to the rescue”. CALVARY will in fact be the only thing to come to the rescue. I’m going to use that line from now on!
If Bergolio is the Visible Head of the Church, then there is no visible Church!
You tell me yourself that the Visible Head can be a heretic/apostate. Therefore, you have no moral authority to lecture anyone, no matter how unorthodox, about what it means to be Catholic!
That’s the bed you’ve made so sleep in it.
“So why in heavens name would anyone want to be in union with, or seek recognition from, the purveyors of a false faith? ”
Note that the SSPX “News” page has NO mention of this topic. It’s as if it didn’t happen.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/all
If the NO sect is the Catholic Church and a heretic is Pope, then the gates of hell have prevailed in my opinion. If the Church is eclipsed by a false church and there is no longer a Pope then the gates of hell have prevailed in your opinion. Whose opinion is correct? Did not Our Lady say that Rome will lose the faith? And what good is a Pope if you do not allow him to teach you. Afterall, a Pope has the authority from Christ to teach and you have the obligation to learn and assent. If we have to resist our Church and her teachings lead us to damnation, then hell has prevailed. We know in the end that hell will not prevail. We have Christ’s promise. So I leave all that up to God and do not follow those who preach a false faith. If you want to remain “in union” with those you “resist,” go ahead. I cannot live that contradiction. I rather live a mystery than a contradiction.
Another one to add to the ‘Losing Credibility’ list – Dr. Ed Peters, CANON Lawyer!
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1118.asp
I swear at some point the goalposts will be moved so far back these guys will start arguing that Francis has not changed anything because he can’t go out there and physically erase Our Lord’s prohibition against adultery from every copy of the Bible in existence. So everything is all good!
“Probabilism teaches that it is MORAL to follow any solidly probable opinion, even if you personally don’t agree with it.”
Ummm, then does that mean it’s okay to spend time gambling at a slot machine based on the probability of a pay-out?
Hey, now we all indulge in a lotto ticket and play bingo in Church, but here we are dealing with taking that to the limit.
For example putting everything on the line for excessive gambling.
And likewise as Anastasia explained, making total recourse of the infertility period as a purely contraceptive means.
Does this then imply that one should therefore have a responsibility to have sex only during fertile periods then?
The same can be said about voting – a probability.
But is it moral that one can one use voting to choose the worst immoral candidate? Especially when a better candidate is available, or witholding a vote is a sensible act?
Is it moral that one can put everything, their house, family’s futures and the like on a card game? Especially when there are better ways to make money?
And can one use NFP as a method of contraception or supposing they are in a particular grave situation? Especially when there are better options like -abstinence, or remedying that with recourse to better job searching?
Probabilism doesn’t give you the right to choose whatever you want when a better more moral option is available, which in the case of deciding to have children there are several other recourses that can be taken. Our obligation is therefore to pick the best one. This is definitely harder! But it’s what one has to do.
Likewise the NFP thing seems to be built on generally vague grounds, the same as those being attempted to use for giving adulterers Holy Communion, because PROBABLY SOMEHOW SOMEWAY there just might be an excuse we haven’t been able to grasp that might just let them off the hook.
Basically your ‘Probabilism’ justifies Amoris Letitia. But of course I’m certain St Alphonsus de Ligouri didn’t intend for it to be abused like this and would not doubt have firmly put up logical borders. but the point is that indeed NFP opens the door to sin. And any extraordinary grounds are probably few if not non-existent.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”
The goal posts must always move to keep the charade alive. The reason for this is because most start out with the premise that Francis is Pope. This becomes the fixed certitude that then must be defended at all costs. All other truths and principles are allowed to fall as long as the prime directive is maintained. Its sad, because the fixed certitude that we should all defend is not who is Pope, but that Christ established an indefectible Church. Any information that attacks that indefectibility should be examined in light of this fact. If Bergolio claims to be Pope and does not exhibit the charism as promised by Christ, then the definition of indefectibility should not suffer in order to keep a Argentinian Peronist on the Papal Throne.
The doctrine was authoritatively proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. If this hadn’t been clear, the upsurge of opinion against him would not have been so pronounced or so rapid.
It hadn’t been proposed by extraordinary magisterium. A great many things that we take for granted about the Faith haven’t.
I do oppose the Pope. I refuse to obey him, and I do work for his deposition – so quite how that equates to wanting to “play Church” like some school-girl I don’t see at all. I agree he is a heretic. Once again, you prove my point about Sedevacantists and their splenetic rantings.
Pope Francis holds heretical views. I think that it is not an unreasonable reading of his behaviour to say he is formally a heretic, and it is the one I follow. I do not agree that this has been made sufficiently clear in the public forum so that it is beyond reasonable doubt. He has made it clear that he adheres to doctrines which are heretical. But is he pertinacious? You cannot read his heart, any more than I can, and he hasn’t disclosed this malign animus to us (even though we agree it probably exists), or made it unambiguously clear by his actions.
You say, he wants to erase x, y, and z. Well, maybe he does. Or maybe he, being stupid as well as evil, does not realise the significance of his half-baked ideas. He is a hugely ignorant man. If he were anyone other than the Pope, we could demand an answer from him. Corporately, I believe an imperfect council could legitimately demand an answer from him, and that would settle the matter.
The other thing that would settle it is if he made a clear statement of animus against the Church qua Church, or joined a non-Catholic sect.
I agree with you that the situation is very dire. But if Francis has lost his office, then a fortiori all the heretical prelates (there are many) have lost their office too. There is nothing left. There is no way of walking back this scenario.
If the Church lacks the power to produce “perpetual successors” to the Petrine See, She is finished. This cannot be.
“If the NO sect is the Catholic Church and a heretic is Pope, then the gates of hell have prevailed in my opinion.”
I never said the NO sect is the Church. The NO sect is an aberration; a cancer being permitted to grow WITHIN THE CHURCH.
But it is within. It is not outside – where it should be. That’s the whole problem.
“Our obligation is therefore to pick the best one. This is definitely harder! But it’s what one has to do.”
That sounds like Tutiorism, which is condemned by the Church.
Following a solidly probable (= tenable; it’s not a statistical term in this context) is always a safe option, because the Church has declared it safe.
“Probabilism doesn’t give you the right to choose whatever you want when a better more moral option is available”
It gives you the right to choose. We are always free to follow any MORAL option. That is why it is not a sin to get married, even though it is always better to become a Priest.
A failure in the hierarchy to teach the Faith, and attempts by many to gainsay it or deliberately twist it, is what happened during the Arian crisis.
Canon X of the 8th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV) teaches:
“CANON 10
No layman, monk, or cleric shall, previous to an examination and conciliar decision, leave the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, though he may pretend to know that the latter is guilty of a grave crime; nor shall he omit his name in the liturgy. The same rule is to be observed also by bishops and priests toward their patriarch. Whoever is found to act contrary to this decision of the holy council, shall, if a bishop or cleric, be suspended; if a monk or layman, excommunicated.”
“NFP when it plans to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children is contracepting in act, word ,and deed.”
This is an emotional rhetorical argument relying on a false analogy.
Use of a contraceptive (condom, pill, &c.) frustrates the marital act per se; so too does coitus interruptus. NFP does not frustrate the marital act per se. We agree – I hope – it is not sinful for a husband and wife to engage in the marital act during infertile times, if they are NOT practising NFP.
So the NFPers’ sexual act is clearly not intrinsically evil in and of itself, as a contracepted act would be intrinsically evil. If the husband and wife sin, by using NFP without just cause, it is through a lack of faith in God, or through a lack of generosity or whatever. They are not sinning against nature, in the way that a contracepting couple sins.
The Catholic Church – I mean, the one that actually exists, rather than the one in your head that lives in the catacombs – does not teach anything de fide that is false.
Many of its clerics, including the Pope, teach heresy.
But the Apostolic Succession must be preserved, and is preserved; the ordinary universal magisterium rumbles on in spite of the peripheral noise.
Ordinary jurisdiction rests with, and only with, Bishops of Holy Church.
Not with Sedevacantists, or any other sect.
The answer is in the dogma EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS.
Quia, I can definitely agree with your assessment as to the NO sect being a cancer. Cancers, like a virus must infect a host. The Host, Holy Mother Church, remains spotless and indefectible even though the cancer grows and obscures Her beauty. But the cancer or virus IS NOT Holy Mother Church.
No one advocates being outside the Catholic Church. Since the NO sect is a cancer it must be cut out and discarded. You seem to think sedes want to be outside the Catholic Church. I have no idea where you got that idea. We simply are not part of the NO sect cancer that has invaded the Church.
Does apostolic authority rest with the NO sect cancer? Does it rest with modernist heretics? If yes, then you saying the authority that Christ gave His Church is now in the hands of the enemy. Is that your position? Because if its not in the hands of the ememy (modernists), the in whose hands is it in?
All clerics who have jurisdiction have jurisdiction.
Yes, many of them are heretics. A large part of the Church has been taken over by heretics. Humanly speaking, the position looks nearly hopeless.
But not all bishops are heretics. And not all the heretics are pertinacious.
Christ promised the gates of Hell would not prevail. He didn’t promise they wouldn’t have a damn good try.
And who will do the cutting out, since you have deprived all the hierarchy of their jurisdiction by your dead-end arguments?
Rejecting the jursidiction of your Patriarch – the Pope – is schismatic.
“The Host, Holy Mother Church, remains spotless and indefectible even though the cancer grows and obscures Her beauty. But the cancer or virus IS NOT Holy Mother Church.”
That’s true. But for all practical purposes – I would even venture so far as to say, for the purposes of Papal infallibility – an encumbent remains Pope until the Church declares that he is not Pope.
Let’s accept for the sake of argument that Pope Francis is explicitly a heretic. Let’s say that what he has done till now puts that to any reasonable observer beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What does that mean? He loses his office ipso facto.
But when PRECISELY did he lose it? That is an important question. Are all of his acts valid? Or only the ones before last Tuesday when he made that really outrageous howler?
In practice, as after the council of Constance, the Church (probably his successor as Pope) would have to give a judgement.
Consider: could God permit a heretic Pope to invoke the plenitude of his Apostolic authority to define a binding dogma that was false BEFORE he was declared deposed?
I very much doubt it, because that act would – so far as I can see – have irretrievably moved the goal-posts.
Quia, those are all vital questions that I can only have an opinion about. The problem is that there seems to be no one left in authority to make these judgments. The whole lot of the RCC seems infected with modernism and has no credibility. There are Eastern Churches that may still have authority. I am not sure how infected they are with modernism. I would presume their Liturgy has provided some immunity to modernism, but I just do not know enough of their internal workings.
You do yourself credit by your measured words.
How the solution comes about, we can only speculate. This can be useful, though, when it comes to testing our other theories. History is also very useful. There is no argument against a fact; pity the facts are so often disputed or obscure, and the quotations so often unverifiable.
What matters to you and I is, which one of us is in the Church, and which of us is a schismatic?
A Sedevacantist chapel, where the Pope is not named in the Mass, and where no bishop has ordinary jurisdiction or any hope of getting any, cannot – so far as I can see – be part of the Church, because it sets up a definition of where the Church is which contradicts the Church’s own definition. This implies a fatal breakdown in the Church as a visible society, and a break in continuity with the pre-crisis Church.
I would hold the same view, even if I agreed that Pope Francis were manifestly a heretic (though I already agree he is very likely a formal heretic).
The cancer will not cut out the cancer. I have no idea who will cut it out. I just know who will not cut it out. Maybe the Eastern Churches can help. They have authority, visibility, and the faith (I think).
I reject the claimant to the papacy. That is not schismatic.
Well I say all the NO sect bishops are heretics. Name one who has not condemned V2 or the NO. Saying a protestant “mass” every day is pretty much as pertanacious as one can get. Nothing is more heretical as the Novus Ordo. The Eastern Catholic Churches retain visibility, authority, and apostolic succession. Perhaps Christ’s promise of the gates not prevailing is manifest in them. It was predicted that Rome would lose the faith.
I reject him too, in one sense; for all practical purposes, I ignore him. He has, for me, lost the moral right to his office, and I want him kicked out ASAP.
But his laws are still law in the Church, while the Church tolerates him. When he consecrates a bishop or creates a cardinal, that’s a bishop and a cardinal, and they will enjoy ordinary jurisdiction. It must be this way. If not, the show can’t go on and the Church is finished, and has been probably for some time.
Perhaps look at it this way. He is Pope, to whom the Church answers. When the Church ceases to answer to him (which process I believe is well on its way), that can only end one way for him; deposition.
Don’t set up your own Church. There’s only One. It has lots of holes in it, and it’s nearly sunk, but it is Christ’s, and He will preserve it.
I would also argue that his ordinations are doubtful due to improper form. There is just so much wrong with the NO sect that it cannot be Christ’s Bride. The NO sect is a Whore! Pius XII lists two conditions to be a member of the Church, Baptism and hold the Catholic faith. An opinion as to the legitimacy of a claim to the Papacy is not an article of faith necessary to hold to be Catholic. The Western Schism demonstrates that one maybe be wrong in who has the proper claim to the See.
It seems one of the biggest arguments against sedevacantism is that one must be in union eith the Roman Pontiff. While this is most true, it is most true for a specific reason. One must be in union with the Roman Pontiff because the Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff is the one person protected by the Holy Spirit to preserve, defend, and teach the Catholic faith incorrupt of any error. Sedes have absolutely no issue with being in union with a true Roman Pontiff. Our claim is based on the objective reality of what Bergolio preserves, defends, and teaches is not the Catholic faith but a false religion. The Catholic faith teaches that we must avoid and having nothing to do with those who preach a false Gospel. Bergolio and Co certainly are guilty of that. No declaration of any authority at all is necessary. A school child who knows his or her Baltimore Cathecism could tell you that Bergolio is not Catholic. Many good questions remain about authority and visibility which I cannot answer. But those issues pale in comparison with the contradiction of being in union with someone I am suppose to resist. That is a contradiction no one has ever explained to me how we are suppose to solve. I rather accept a mystery as to what happened and will happen to the Churh then live a daily contradiction.
Ha….I think I figured it out. It looks like we can’t respond to any post that results in a 5th indent/paragraph/column. I suspect this is like this because if we could respond then the text of the blog comments would go out too far to the right.
The essence of Faith is an attitude of intellectual submission to the authority of God revealing. The essence of heresy is pertinacious rejection of that authority.
A person may be labouring under a huge panoply of actual errors which amount to material heresies, without actually being a heretic in his heart.
MERE error is not enough. Francis must be shown to reject Catholicism qua Catholicism. I don’t think he has been taught at all well; he is clearly a very stupid, probably now senile, old man. There’s a fair bit of reasonable doubt about; I say this as someone who agrees that he IS a formal heretic. Maybe I’m being uncharitable, I don’t know; I don’t think so.
You have every right not to listen to him, now that it is clear he has nothing useful to say.
A schoolchild who knew his catechism could tell that what Bergoglio TEACHES is not Catholic.
That is not the same as being able to judge that he is a formal heretic. That’s much more difficult to achieve; as I say, it’s quite easy when an individual has a superior who can summon him and have an account of his faith demanded of him. It is very difficult when it is the Pope, who has no lawful superior.
“Well I say all the NO sect bishops are heretics.”
Dear friend, that is the end of the Church. There is no hope from the East on that view; none of them has condemned V2 either.
“Many good questions remain about authority and visibility which I cannot answer. But those issues pale in comparison with the contradiction of being in union with someone I am suppose to resist. That is a contradiction no one has ever explained to me how we are suppose to solve. I rather accept a mystery as to what happened and will happen to the Church then live a daily contradiction.”
Bulls Eye. R&R folks live in contradiction because they have not correctly diagnosed the problem.
“Per se”? Seriously? Our Lord said that when a man looks at a woman with lust he commits adultery. Our Lord did not say this man doesn’t per se commit adultery. Our Lord said this man commits ADULTERY! This man doesn’t even have to be in collusion with the woman he is gazing at with his lustful willful thoughts in order to commit adultery.
Any willful thought alone or willful desire that fantazes on thwarting the integrity of the conjugal act by separating the conjugal act from procreation would qualify as contraception and a sin in ones mind and heart, just as lustful thoughts qualify as adultery. This goes without saying that even if the NFP contracepting thoughts were done during the fertile period or during fantasies in ones mind it would still be a sin. Wake up! It is not even just the act and planning that NFP also is guilty of but it includes the thought and desires and rejection of respecting the integrity of the sex act and its primary purpose as ordained by God Himself that NFP is guilty of.
Again, you are using a flawed analogy, and making an emotional rhetorical argument rather than engaging with what I have put forward. You also don’t seem to have grasped why I said “per se”; unlike you, I am not trying to deploy rhetorical arguments to diminish the force of the contrary position, I am making a concrete factual point as follows. The sexual act of an NFP-using couple is indistinguishable from the act of a non-NFP using couple having sex at an infertile time, as far as the physical act is concerned. The thought process is also identical: I want to have normal sexual relations with my spouse now. This is distinct from a contracepting act, where the act and the intention are different. The intention is to achieve satisifaction in an unnatural way by misdirecting seed or rendering the woman infertile. If you want to mount an effective critique of NFP you cannot do it so lazily as by simply conflating it with contraception.
But that isn’t what you want to do is it?
I believe you want to grand-stand your moral superiority and preach to people about the evils of NFP, which you have already privately discerned. You do not have the authority to hand down sentences on this. The Church does, and She has spoken. By all means make the contrary case, but don’t pretend you are an authority, or that authority is on your side on this one.
Some poor souls may be taken in by your pious-sounding ranting, but it is not your place to bind where the Church has loosed.