What’s up with men like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider?
I mean, don’t they recognize the simple fact that Amoris Laetitia contains textbook examples of sheer, unadulterated blasphemy and heresy? Do they not realize that certain of the propositions set forth in this odious document were plainly condemned by the Council of Trent?
The answer is of course they recognize all of this. As for why neither one of them has said so plainly is debatable.
That said, it seems that the most charitable, and most likely to be accurate, supposition that one can make is that they are exercising what they believe to be “prudence.”
Both men, it seems, have reasoned that to boldly condemn the text of Amoris Laetitia as blasphemous and heretical, and thus to call for the document to be retracted in its entirety, while entirely justifiable, would likely be to invite consequences that would make it all the more difficult to continue doing good.
In other words, they have convinced themselves (or perhaps better said, deceived themselves into believing) that the position of influence that they presently enjoy may be taken away, at which point their opportunity to “fight the good fight” in service to the Church will be diminished.
There can be little doubt that this is exactly what led Cardinal Sarah to drastically tone-down his rhetoric on the necessity of ad orientem worship; he has convinced himself that the Church is best served by holding on to the office he presently occupies; reasoning, perhaps, that his replacement is likely to be a bona fide liturgical liberal.
I can tell you that certain highly regarded and influential clerics with whom I have a personal relationship have expressed precisely this line of reasoning to me firsthand on any number of occasions.
While men such as these may sincerely believe that their reticence is an exercise in prudence and a valiant attempt to be “wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove,” it is perhaps more properly considered a manifestation of what might be called “Clerical Messiah Syndrome” (CMS).
Those who fall victim to CMS suffer from delusions of grandeur whereby they imagine that they are called to something more than simply preaching the Gospel plainly, in season and out of season.
For them, it is not enough for their “yes” to mean yes and their “no” to mean no; rather, they must move beyond (i.e., excuse themselves from) such personal obligations in favor of the larger mission – namely, to rescue the Church from the squalor of her present condition.
In charity, I have news for these clerics – you’re not the Messiah; Jesus Christ alone is the Savior of His Church.
Your duty is to safeguard the flock; to proclaim the truth loudly and clearly and to condemn the errors that threaten to jeopardize their eternal salvation in no uncertain terms; even if doing so should cost you your very life.
With this in mind, I ask you esteemed members of the sacred hierarchy:
Do you recognize the blasphemy and the heresy contained in Amoris Laetitia?
If so, say so plainly!
Do you believe what the Scriptures tell us about “a little leaven”?
If so, call for the retraction of this poisonous document!
Do you believe that ad orientem worship is necessary for the good of souls?
If so, insist on its restoration!
To do otherwise is to deny the truth, and Our Blessed Lord who is Truth incarnate had something to say that you may wish to consider very carefully:
But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. (Mt 10:33)
St. Therese points out in one of her letters that if St. Peter had only asked Our Lord for the grace to always be faithful to Him he would never have fallen.
Archbishop Lefebvre also points out that one needs to ask for the graces to defend the Faith:
“You will denounce these scandals in order to prevent them from leading souls to hell. You will not be afraid to denounce all that which drags souls into sin.
In order to have this courage and this force, you will ask these graces particularly of the Blessed Virgin Mary. You know, my dear friends, Mary is our Mediatrix Mother. She is the Mediatrix of all graces.”
Yes, yes, a thousand times: YES! I’m afraid that buildings will have to be burning and mountains of corpses rotting all around them before these comfortable men might get serious. And so it is with most men of today’s spiritually emaciated West.
Mr. Verecchio is incorrect. As both the pope and a number of his subordinates have made abundantly clear (though there should have been no doubt to begin with), Amoris Laetitia is binding magisterial teaching. As such, Cardinals Burke and Schneider are obligated to assent to its teaching in all points. That fact ought sufficiently to explain their recent silence on the document.
And so too, for that matter, is Mr. Verecchio obliged to assent, just as he also to other papal teachings such as Humanae vitae and Familiaris Consortio. If he doesn’t like Amoris Laetitia, and therefore insists on being a “Cafeteria Catholic” who picks and chooses which parts of Magisterial teaching he assents to, then he is more than welcome to abandon the Catholic Church and adopt a new religion.
To Hell with prudence. No man worthy of that title , not to mention Cardinal of the CC, could possibly allow the blasphemous & heretical Binding Document that Amoris Laetitia is, to go un-condemned. The reaction we got from Cardinal Burke was to ignore it. Does the good Cardinal not realise that the average pew-sitter has not been catechised in the past sixty years? They believe everything the Pope says & as AL is already being implemented in many areas by Bishops who agree with PF’s Marxist/Masonic/Modernist Agenda & who are not ignoring it, why doesn’t he & other consecrated men in the Hierarchy not explode with justifiable anger & call for an Imperfect Council immediately? If they are not prepared to stand their ground for the Catholic faith they are not worthy of the titles & offices they hold. Do they not realise that their silence is viewed as complicity? I really feel let down by Bishops Schneider, Lenga, Gadecki & Cardinals Burke, Sarah, Arinze, Pell & Napier. Since the slap on the wrist they received for writing that letter to PF they have all fallen silent. What good are men like this when the CC needs them?
I imagine it’s hard to make the first move. I am reminded though of an Indiana Jones movie when Indy took a “leap of Faith” and stepped off a cliff face onto what seemed like nothing but air, but was in reality an invisible pathway to the other side. I bet if one of these guys took that “leap of Faith” and just let their “yes mean yes” and their “no mean no”, God would ” reveal the path” (shower down His Graces). One can never go wrong by simply saying the Truth and putting your Faith in God.
The recently released statements of Pope BXVI make all the sense in the world now….They’ve all taken leave of their senses . Churchmen the likes of the saintly Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre are no more to be found, we have to face these sad days rosary in hand while doing as much reparation as we are capable. The vision the children of Fatima had concerning the Bishop dressed in White cannot be too far off.
Oh? And do you accept the Inquisition’s ruling against Galileo which still stands too, is defined clearly to be heretical, and upheld by numerous Popes?
Therefore Catholics are bound to hold Geocentrism (That the Earth does not move) to be truthful in keeping with the Tradition of the Fathers, defined to be infallible.
As a Geocentrist I observe this, despite that numerous Popes predating the Sedes’ favorite one – Pius XII – have failed to uphold and even believe in heliocentrism, as well as lately Darwinian Evolution.
If the Church went off the rails, then perhaps the seat has been vacant ever since Galileo and Copernicus were taken off the Index and imprimaturs granted to books advocating Copernican ideas? But I guess there’s no ‘authoritative magisterial document’ produced that goes against the Church’s ruling against Galileo except maybe a speech or letter here and there which says it might be possible or which appeals to Relativity as an excuse.
But given a lot of Catholics still believe the Earth goes around the Sun, we’ve got a mighty big problem all right. So what does Revisionist Historian believe?
Is the Catholic Church therefore debunked? Or is there more than just simply what is available in the Cafeteria that determines whether the Pope is the Pope or not?
These are all disgraceful men. No, they don’t think so, and neither may some of your readers. Regardless, I refuse to believe that the behavior of these men (including the other popes and bishops) is the behavior that Jesus Christ demanded and expected of them when they were chosen to shepherd His flock.
Without question, I truly admire your courage. And that’s what it is––courage. You gain nothing (in terms of worldly material benefits) by publicly calling out these disgraceful men who continue to silently allow so many souls to follow a path that will most certainly lead to their destruction. Burke, Sarah and Schneider (he has disgraced the name of St Athanasius) apparently believe that as long as they celebrate the TLM now and then, and sound more like traditionalists than the others, they’ll be okay. It’s as if they believe God will be grading on a curve.
Unfortunately, many traditional Catholics seem to believe this as well and often take great umbrage with anyone who might suggest that these more traditional sounding men should be criticized for softening their messages from time to time instead of going full bore ahead with the truth. But if you think about it, the behavior of these pseudo-traditionalists should not surprise any of us. After all, they were not selected as bishops in the aftermath of Vatican II by bucking the system. They went along to get along. That’s why they now wear the red hats.
How this ends is not for any of us to say, but it’s also irrelevant as well. What God expects of these feckless men is precisely what you have said they should do––their job––regardless of the consequences or the outcome. And from everything I can tell from reading your great columns, that is exactly what you are doing. It is also what He expects of me and the rest of us.
Both of these men are employeed by the N.O. “church”. End of subject.
What legalism. This is exactly the point that the sedevacantists make, but to the opposite effect. If a pope falls into heresy, the See becomes vacant. No caffeteria Catholicism there. The man on St Peter’s Chair is the one who abandons the Church and adopts a new religion.
Well said, Irish!
You are absolutely right: The examples you mention also undermine the idea that papal authority is of divine origin.
That is why I myself have followed my own advice to Mr. Verecchio, and left the Catholic Church.
But Mr. Verecchio (and so too you, it seems) want to have your cake and eat it too: As Catholics, you insist that papal authority is of divine origin, and needs to be obeyed, yet you refuse to obey and assent to Pope Francis’s exercise of that authority.
That is not Catholic. Insofar as you dissent from Pope Francis, you are not Catholic.
According to the “whatever the Pope says is right ” crowd, like Mr RH above, Saint Paul was entirely out of line to correct St Peter –
Galatians 2: 11-14 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
.
For those Catholics saying : “my Church – right or wrong!” you might as well be saying “my mother: – drunk or sober!!”
.
The following two incidents occurred after St Peter received the “keys of the kingdom” and the power to “bind and loose” :
Matthew 16:21-23 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”
Observe above how our Lord rebukes Peter even after giving him the “keys of the kingdom” , which leads to the conclusion that not every papal statement is the truth. And again:
Luke 22:54-62 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance. And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.
.
-So according to Sacred Scripture, not every so-called utterance of a Pope can possibly be correct, especially when they stray into fields they know absolutely nothing about, or make up their own opinions on matters having nothing to do with handing on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
.
Francis by his actions seems to say “I do not know Him!” I wonder – will Francis some day weep bitterly?
.
Louis and all Catholics have an absolute right to reject novel teachings made up out of thin air as modern Popes have been doing for decades, as well as clearly heretical teachings opposed to the Magisterium for centuries before Vatican II. It takes a brain to inform oneself of Church teaching before the robber council, and there is no excuse today with documents at your fingertips. Louie is not a cafeteria Catholic by any means. He is one of the few that gets the Truth right more often than not and he defends Church teaching – which cannot be changed- as it has been handed down from the tie of our Lord.
.
It is time to grow up and realize that the hierarchy are not oracles from God Almighty and are prone to error, the Pope included.
.
It is time to grow up and realize that the institutional Church is racked with the cancer of Modernism – and the faith does not lie with them.
Michael F Poulin
Alas, this is why I have felt the need to turn to the SSPX for my instruction in the faith. It is disorienting to think that the SSPX is not considered Catholic, while they defend the faith and call out heresy for what it is, while the Novus Ordo church fails to teach the faith clearly and strongly. I need to know the truth of the faith. It is like clear and refreshing water to learn the Truth.
It is easy for us to state the truth on a blog. It is more difficult to state truth (and confront heresy) as a bishop of the Church (if a bishop wants to keep his job). Yes, the two bishops may be weak, but how brave are we really, in comparison?
I’m afraid their ‘moment of truth’ has come and gone. What are they gonna do? Come out now, months after its release, and finally condemn it? Ain’t gonna happen this side of the Chastisement brother.
If I may ask, what denomination have you joined, if any?
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“I had to preach before a panoply of microphones and each of my remarks was greeted as if it were a striking declaration. Yet what did I say beyond what any other bishop could have said?
There lies the key to the enigma: the other bishops had been for a number of years no longer saying the same things. How often, for example have you heard them speaking of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
My personal experience never ceases to amaze me. These bishops for the most part were fellow students with me in Rome, trained in the same manner. And then, all of a sudden, I found myself alone. But I have invented nothing new; I was carrying on. Cardinal Garrone even said to me one day: “They deceived us at the French Seminary in Rome.” Deceived us in what? Had he not himself taught the children of his catechism class thousands of times, before the Council, the Act of Faith: “My God, I firmly believe all the truths Thou hast revealed and that Thy Church doth teach, because Thou canst neither deceive nor be deceived.”?
How have all these bishops been able to metamorphose themselves in this manner? I can see only one explanation: they were always in France and they let themselves become gradually infected. In Africa I was protected. I came back the year of the Council, when the harm had already been done. Vatican II only opened the gates which were holding back the devastating flood. In no time at all, even before the end of the fourth session, it was catastrophic. Everything, almost, was to be swept away; prayer first of all.”
Are you serious?! What rot. What are you now? A big tough protestant? Or slightly worse a big tough pagan? So utterly, utterly weak, and your theology is equally weak. Your life must be so meaningful now [LAUGH!] Joining the sodomites, contraceptors and the baby killers, how’s that for a sellout? You’re a complete Judas (sorry, but it’s true) [ … And we all know what happened to him… ] Time for confession, me thinks. Repent while you still have a chance, and return to sanity. Utterly pathetic. >-(
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PqQ8pbJPh_s
Galileo: victim or villain.
http://archives.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/galileo_victim_or_villain.pdf
As quoted from the link below on Galileo:
“But what does this say of the Church’s claim of infallibility? As we have seen, at no point did the Church ever claim infallibly that geocentrism was true, or heliocentrism false. The Inquisition was an astute body, but it was not the Church. The pope never approved the decisions of the Holy Office in an infallible manner. In fact, it was with forethought that in each case the reigning Pontiff only approved them in a general, and thus not infallible, way.”
@ Revisionist Historian,
I wonder why you cite Church law regarding obedience to superiors but omit the section that pertains to standing up to their errors.
Can. 212 says ” Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.?
But it goes on to say:
Ҥ3 They have the right, INDEED AT TIMES THE DUTY, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church.
They have the right also TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS TO OTHERS OF CHRISTS’ FAITHFUL, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
————-
I’m sure you can find plenty of examples of un charitable disrespect from Catholic bloggers, which you’re right to call out. But you’re wrong to view public criticism of hierarchical error as hypocrisy, and leaving the Church was an even bigger mistake. Our Lord promised He will be with us till the end of time, and warned that without Him in the Eucharist you “have no life within you”. May God grant you swift recognition of these truths, and consequent desire to return to the only True Church on earth. God Bless you.
Great article Louie. I have to say however one should not put Bishop Schneider at the same level as Cardinal Burke, the latter is clearly a hired hand, not a true shepherd. Of course Bishop Schneider could have said more, but he did say in his reply to Chris Ferrara’s open letter the AL destroys all three Sacraments at the same time, Marriage, Confession and the Eucharist. So let’s pray for him so he won’t run away from the wolfs.
My apologies to the Sedes…
I thought ‘Revisionist Historian’ was one of you, but he’s just a damned heretic.
What the fool fails to realize is that the Popes who upheld Geocentrism merely upheld what is plainly written in Sacred Scripture, and in Tradition through the Patrimony of the Fathers of the Ancient Hebrews all the way to the original Christians aka the Catholic Church.
Not only that, but not even science and reality are on ‘Revisionist Historian’s side either! The jig is up. The results of PLANCK, KOBE etc. have come in, alongside multiple failures of Relativity and the current Big Bang ideology to materialize except to escape into even more metaphysical imaginations.
This incense Revisionist Historian lights to atheistic non-science is the religious faith that Revisionist Historian follows. Good luck to him. Perhaps the gods of Chance might aid him to escape eternal hellfire.
With all due respect to Jason Winschell at the SSPX article link. He’s demonstrably dead wrong.
The Church and subsequent Popes through the Inquisition ruled objectively that Galileo and Copernicus were contrary to Scripture, and the errors was “declared and defined.” Numerous Popes did everything using the full weight of their authority to censor and prevent the spread of Galileo’s ideas. Something Galileo himself recanted of at the end of his life. In other words the Inquisition delivered its ruling and the Papacy enforced it as a defined heresy and this has never been revoked.
John Paul II tried to exonerate and clear Galileo of this error. The answer that came back was that he couldn’t. So instead he compromised and appealed to Relativity, which basically argues, when one actually understands it, that science cannot say with any certainty using Relativity to say what goes around the other.
Benedict XVI admits that VATICAN II itself was begun because the Church was figuring out how to tackle the Galileo affair and the dilemma it brought them due to the severity of the Pope’s enforcement of it, something they never needed to fully expound upon because it was clear from Sacred Scripture and the Full consensus of the Fathers, which is infallible according to Vatican I, which was geocentric. It was a matter of attacking the inerrancy of Scripture and the Capital ‘T’ Tradition of the Church.
Jason Winschell has the foolishness and pride to accuse Urban when he states, “Motivated by wounded pride, Pope Urban
VIII certainly exaggerated when he referred to the
whole thing as the worst scandal in the History of the
Church. ” Actually Urban was far wiser than Jason Winschell, especially now that Science has come to vindicate Urban, Bellarmine and the Holy Inquisition who saw where this revolution was headed. The fact that the Western Schism, Protestantism and the Enlightenment Renaissance were occurring was proof of this revolution of many against the Church which they saw clearly, and Jason Winschell does not. This is why as Benedict XVI stated, the Galileo Affair and the embarrassment of the modernist clergy decided to convene Vatican II to set things right between the Church and the Modern World. Except the Holy Spirit prevented Vatican II from ever saying anything about it, and neither could John Paul II’s group attempt to exonerate Galileo. This is also why, amazingly enough the Miracle of Fatima, which many tie to the council, was highlighted by the spectacular Miracle of the Sun. Do note: It is the Sun moving and dancing in that Miracle. Not the Earth.
Anyone further interested in this topic in detail should look forward to an upcoming documentary. ‘The Church Vs. Galileo.’ You can see a trailer for it here. Utterly fascinating stuff. With all the madness in the world today, God’s victory is still in hand!
https://gwwdvd.com/2016/07/28/the-church-versus-galileo-official-trailer/
If there were hundreds of Bishop Schneiders in the N.O. “church”, it wouldn’t make a bit of a difference. They belong to the wrong establishment and anything they say would be flushed down the drain. Get out!!! That is the ONLY response that would truly make an impact.
Dear RH: The Pope’s (the head of the VISIBLE CHURCH) authority is only legitimate and must be obeyed when it is in conformity with Christ, the Invisible Head, who established His Church on earth. When that authority is misused in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ, it is in error, no longer legitimate and must not be obeyed. The Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra in matters of faith or morals. Papal authority is of Divine origin when speaking “ex cathedra” not in a human sense which is subject to error willingly or unwillingly. No Catholic is bound to be obedient to disobedience. Christ is the True and Only authority.
You don’t say where the ‘right’ establishment is, so where are we to go to?
The CC has been headquartered in Rome since St. Peter decided that was the place to build the Church of Christ on earth. It cannot, IMO, be located elsewhere even though for the past half century it has been usurped by Marxist/Masonic/Modernists. It is they who have to be removed, not the faithful flock of Christ.
By consecration all Bishops & Cardinals are supposedly protected from error by the Holy Ghost, but this does not necessarily mean that Communists hiding behind the veil of Catholicism & attaining high positions within the CC would come under the umbrella of the Holy Ghost – rather, I feel, the opposite. He would allow them to expose themselves for what they truly are.
Ana Milan, thank you for your comment. I was not thinking of a physical location (Rome). I was referring to an establishment (or priestly society)which adheres to the Holy, Roman Catholic Church as established by Christ Himself which celebrates the ancient liturgies dating back to Peter and the Apostles. I could only think of the SSPX which is not at the moment subject to the authority of those who have hijacked the Eternal City. I hope and pray that our good clergy, Bishops, Cardinals etc. would make the same accurate statement that you have made. That would be a wonderful start.
It can be very difficult for a lot of us to know where to go, in this severe crisis. We just do the best we can. Yes, the CC has been headquartered in Rome for a long time. One of the Four Marks of the Church is visibility. But in my opinion, in this time of severe crisis, we don’t have a visible church; it has been occupied by modernists, and as such, is not the visible CC, but a pale shadow of it. Where is it located? It’s difficult to say. The Dominicans of Avrille have put it well in describing the situation. The modernist sect that occupies Rome feeds off of the True Church, like a parasite feeds off its host. There is a bit of transference of true substance, but it is tainted with modernism. That’s not to say, IMO, that there’s no true faith left in the Church today. There are Catholics in the Conciliar Church who do maintain their faith somehow, by the grace of God. And, as Bishop Williamson says, it’s a mistake to think that there’s no faith left in the Church today. But make no mistake…the Modernists are in control. But we know how it ends. Our Lady will put an end to the crisis, eventually.
Well, we do not know exactly why the words have not been stronger than they have; we cannot read their minds. But they must tread a delicate path for the pope IS still the pope and worse things can happen to those who protest too loud, too long, too forcefully. There can be a prudence here. A better day will come and if we have no one left who will embrace all the true teachings of the Church to lead us, where will we be? If the most faithful are more vigorously persecuted, demoted, and removed and all we have are those who go along with the OWO and accept the ’30 pieces of silver” then we would have NO shepherds at all.
Just read at the Remnant that Cardinal Burke repented and now joined Bishop Athanasius Schneider to ask Francis to “clarify” what he said in his AL. At least now among 5100 Catholic Bishops the number of bishops ask for clarification just double. Thanks be to God.
Providence chose Rome because it was the most efficient way to transmit Catholicism throughout the known world. The Church’s HQ could change, especially if Rome is to be chastised as severely as the prophecies indicate. I don’t know where you get the idea that the Bishops and Cardinals are protected from error.
The Pope is protected under the conditions of infallibility defined at Vatican I. It is the Pope’s commission directly from Our Lord to confirm the brethren in the faith. Even when the Popes are disobedient, they are still the visible sign of Our Lord’s promise to remain with His Church. If the Holy Ghost wishes to define a dogma in 2016 or beyond, the Pope alone can do it.
To be able to stand alone under these circumstances and with all the pressure that their fellow bishops and cardinals will bring to bear on them would take heroic courage and humility. That is why those of the SSPX, clergy and faithful, particularly
love and venerate Archbishop Lefebvre. It is plainly a task for great saints. Not for those who stand up strong one minute and apologize for it the next.
If Bergoglio made you leave the Church, you should have looked into sedevacantism before you walked out the door. Now you’re a heretic or apostate thanks to him, Vatican II and the wretched Novus Ordo Mass.
Public heretics are not members of the Church, no matter what rank they appear to hold. Therefore they have no authority to rule the Church. Did you not look at what St Robert Bellarmine taught?
As far as I can make out, it’s the sedevacantism is the most sure way to remain consistently Catholic. It took me ten years, but there you go.
Michael, Our Lord promised the papacy to St Peter in Matthew 16, but he did not confer the office upon him until after the Resurrection. “Feed my sheep.” I believe this was taught at the Vatican Council in 1870.
The leader of the SSPX is about to capitulate to satan (vatican 2). This bishop, fellay, is doing his best to make jorgee-boy appear legit. IMO Fellay has already sold out to the v2 heretical religion and is only looking for the easiest way to hoodwink his flock.
Can you list the specific lines, sections, or specific statements in Amoris Laetitia that are heretical, and next to each one list why or what makes them heretical? Having a very specific technical resource like that would be very beneficial to those seeking to better communicate the dangers of Amoris Laetitia. I am thinking it may be best to actually write a new article, whose sole purpose is to catalog each specific line of heresy in Amoris Laetitia and explain why that specific line is heretical. Publish that and let those concerned about Amoris Laetitia go to town with it.
For what purpose would he waste his time doing that? If you lend credence to AL then you never knew your faith. Forget about disputing AL and just study and learn the Baltimore Catechism.
Dear therealilconservatore:
Go to the blog One Peter Five and seek the following:
Theological Censures Against Amoris Laetitia
which is the work of about 40 esteemed theologians and clergymen.
Midway through the post is a link to the actual document presented to the worlds cardinals and I believe to some bishops. It is mindblowing in its condemnation of Amoris Laetitia. You will learn so much. It is chilling to truly see the evil promoted by The a Bishop of Rome, Francis, with his exhortation.
Shame on you, rich. Here is someone seeking enlightenment and you are so condescending. Why so pompous and priggish?
Thanks for this info – good stuff.
http://www.onepeterfive.com/theological-censures-amoris-laetitia-revealed/
Also, Mr. V. posted a number of excellent articles on AL in April of this year. ( Archives available to the right.)
Shame on me in 2016? I doubt it.
rich, did you read the comment before asking what purpose it would serve?
therealiconservatore wrote :”Having a very specific technical resource like that would be very beneficial to those seeking to better communicate the dangers of Amoris Laetitia.” Why would you mock such an admirable motive as correcting errors around us? If you’ve given in to despair of making a difference in the world on a person to person basis, then I suggest you aren’t putting enough trust in God’s power to make “all things work unto good, for those who believe”.
Thank you for link. I couldn’t get it to copy and paste.
I love that there is dissection of the odious parts of the exhortation and in scholarly yet accessible language you come to understand how existentially toxic various passages are. Amoris Laetitia is truly lethal to souls. That our shepherds want to operationalise it is horrifying.
rich, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. When Fellay capitulates to Rome (vat2) officially and definitely, I’ll believe it and not one second sooner. In the mean time, “about to” doesn’t mean a thing to me. Maybe, you are right. Time will tell.
You say there is no Pope and yet we have a Pope. I just found out here that Vatican II was called to order because of Galileo. Your prophecy about the SSPX is also wrong. I like you and those like you. You guys give the comment section a humorous twist. I would like your thoughts on Big Foot and Flying Saucers.
Amen. My take on what God expects of His faithful at this point, is for us to keep on spreading the truth and fighting error, in the plainest words possible. Even if most are duped or evil or not listening right now, you never know what soul or souls will have the Grace to “get” it. Cast the pearls, and let God provide more than swine to appreciate them. 🙂
The beautiful thing is that the Church has continued unperturbed this entire time. When John Paul II decided to destroy tradition, the Church calmly gave Marcel Lefebvre the authority to ordain Bishops and keep the faith going through Canon Law. Nothing has changed now that we have Pope Francis.
I am logically consistent, and that is actually sane.
You, however, think it is possible to be disobedient to one whom you consider to be Christ’s vicar, when the Catholic Church that you claim to be a part of clearly mandates obedience to said vicar. With all due respect, that strikes me as irrational and therefore insane.
And by the way, I am not a Protestant. I am actually a faithful member of the most ancient of the Eastern Christian Churches: the Assyrian Church of the East. That is actually Christ’s True Church.
There is no need to argue about the Galileo controversy, because the fact is that you are in a sufficiently intractable pickle just with Amoris Laetitia.
To repeat: It is just as binding an act of the ordinary Magisterium as is Humanae vitae or Familiaris Consortio, yet you stubbornly dissent from it.
That is not Catholic. You are running afoul of the Catholic teaching on papal authority just as much as any so-called “liberal” Catholic, and you therefore have as little right to call yourself Catholic as do I.
But at least I am honest about it. Thus, my commitment to truthfulness is manifestly greater than yours.
Yes, but what is the criterion whereby one determines, as a faithful Catholic, what conforms to Church teaching and what does not?
Ultimately, that criterion is solely papal authority. It is not for you, as a member of the ordinary faithful, to put yourself above papal authority in any way, shape, or form. That is disobedience, dissent, and not Catholic.
Yet that is precisely what you are doing. Nor is it for you to determine whether Pope Francis is misusing his authority. In so doing, you are setting yourself up in judgment over the pope, and that is something that the Catholic Church has expressly and repeatedly forbidden since the 6th century.
Your faith as a Catholic obliges you to believe that authority comes from God, and to assent unconditionally to any exercise of it. Nor am I making any of this up: Magisterial statements articulating this obligation could be multiplied by the dozen, and are in fact so multiplied, on websites such as http://www.novusordowatch.com.
So stop acting like liberals who dissent from Humanae vitae, and obey and assent to the very authority whom you castigate dissenters from Humanae vitae for rejecting. If you do otherwise, then you are not Catholic.
The irony is that you yourself are now a public heretic for your dissent from and rejection of Pope Francis’s papal Magisterium. For the fact is that there is nothing that canonically or in any other way deletigimates Francis’s election to the papacy. So if I am badly off for being a heretic, then you are no better off.
I have found the True Church, and it is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, the most ancient of the Eastern Christian Churches. I encourage you to look to the Christian East for a way out of the insoluble doctrinal contradictions of Roman Catholicism.
Thank you for point out one of numerous instances in history where the Catholic Church has committed itself infallibly to a proposition in a way that it has later had to retract in embarrassment.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is never honest about these sorts of retractions, but always dishonestly tries to make out what clear was a supposedly infallible propagation of manifest falsehoods in the first instance something less than that through elaborate obfuscations.
Now, with Pope Francis, however, the inner doctrinal contradictions that such a system of deceit inevitably creates are becoming impossible to ignore. By sanctioning the morality of divorce and remarriage in Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis has highlighted in indisputably glaring fashion one particular subset of these contradictions. And the resulting cognitive dissonance is driving faithful Catholics worldwide crazy.
Nevertheless, despite the pain involved for faithful Catholics, the pontificate of Francis represents a salutory development in that it serves the truth. Anything that contributes to the unraveling and eventual collapse of the elaborate system of deceit that is the Roman Catholic doctrinal edifice is ultimate a service to truth, justice, love, and the genuine cause of Christ.
It’s not legalism at all. The kind of obligation to obey and assent unconditionally has been enunciated literally dozens of times by the popes themselves, and by virtually all standard manuals of dogmatic theology prior to Vatican II. It is thus a cardinal doctrine of Catholicism, and by rejecting it as a mere legalism, you set yourself up as a manifest heretic against Catholic teaching.
Eastern Christians and Protestants have been using the resistance of Paul to Peter for many centuries as the basis of a conclusive, Scripturally based argument demonstrating the manifest falsehood of the Catholic understanding of papal authority. But the Catholics themselves, such as yourself, fail to appreciate the devastating force of this argument because of your highly selective – i.e., heretical – understanding of just what that authority consists in.
And what does it consist in? It consists in the untrammeled obligation to obey and assent to any expression of the papal magisterium, whether ordinary or extraordinary.
I am not making this up. Sedevacantist Catholics (of whom I am not one) have provided the service of accumulating literally dozens of Magisterial articulations of this obligation, which you can peruse at http://www.novusordowatch.com. By ignoring them, explaining them away, etc., you make yourself guilty of heresy when it comes to the nature of papal authority, as understood by Catholics.
Yet, the irony is that the professed notion of such authority commanding unconditional assent and obedience can be swept away at a single stroke by citing Paul’s conduct to Peter as described in Galatians.
Wake up! Your catholic faith is invalidated by a host of insoluble contradictions of this kind.
Paul resisted Peter to his faith well after the resurrection, so you cannot escape the devastating force of this particular apostolic episode against Catholic teaching on the papacy with that particular stratagem.
“Unperturbed” ? I hope you are trying to drip with sarcasm here, and I’m just too dense to get it.
Even the SSPX website talks about how “upset” Lefebvre himself was, by Rome’s reactions to his seminary work, (banning his seminarians from their dioceses) and their deceits and broken promises and everything that happened through the years after that, including his own “official excommunication”, which scared a lot of people off from supporting his good work, even to this day.
I’m not very patient or long-suffering by nature, but “calmly” is not how I think history will look back on any of the reactions of people living through these times, who are still members of the Church,– especially including Mr. V’s.
These cardinals are merely following the Catholic dogma that it is unlawful to judge the pope – a teaching that has been reiterated numerous times since the 6th century.
It is you who are being contumacious and disobedient by presuming to elevate yourself in judgment over him whom you believe to be Christ’s divinely instituted supreme authority.
You will notice that the canon refers to “sacred Pastors.” It does NOT include any explicit reference to the Pope. I ssure you that this omission is not accidental.
The fact is that the canon cannot logically include any such reference, since by inviting the faithful to stand in judgment against the pope under any circumstances whatsoever, the canon would be contradicting the Catholic dogma which upholds that “The pope may be judged by no one.”
I assume this question is directed to me. I am a member of the most ancient of the extant Eastern Christian Churches, namely, the Assyrian Church of the East.
Look to the East. Read church history, and look into the doctrinal claims of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East.
All of them are far closer to the true faith than Catholicism, but in my considered opinion, the Assyrian Church of the East is the One True Church of Christ.
A while ago I came across a very informative discussion of the topic of “judging” the Pope, which agrees with your statement, but further explains what CAN be done without incurring sin, when a Pope appears to be a heretic.
https://ethikapolitika.org/2016/03/29/any-plowman-can-interpret-pascendi-the-remnants-call-for-schism/
The debate is found in the com box of that post, wherein Christopher Ferrara, (I believe) soundly refutes the author’s false assertions, and recommends he read:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/
-“for an intelligent discussion on the teaching of Suarez and Bellarmine on how a Pope might depose himself and merely be declared to have done so by a council of bishops. No one can depose a Pope. The article in question is a serious discussion of the issue”.
Mr. Ferrara goes on to say in part:
“The teaching of doctors the Church, including Bellarmine, is that a Pope who “attempts destroy the Church” (Bellarmine) can not only be opposed by the faithful and his commands impeded, but further (admittedly only a theoretical remedy), a council of cardinals could declare that a Pope who had fallen into heresy had deposed himself.
“…”Suarez thinks that, just like Christ bestows the papacy on the man whom the Church elects, so also Christ takes away the papacy from the man whom the Church convicts
(De fide 10.6.10). *So, if a pope commits the sin of heresy, all the other bishops of the world have the right to try him for the crime of heresy, even against his will (De fide 10.6.7). If they were to convict him, he could be considered deposed from the papacy by Christ, and the Church could elect another pope.*
And more:
“If we assume that the pope could be a formal heretic, Bellarmine thinks Suarez’s opinion is wrong. Suarez allows the bishops to judge the pope. But one of Gratian’s basic rules
is that no one can judge the pope. Sure, Suarez has Christ carrying out the judgment, but it is only because the other bishops of the Church have pronounced the judgment first.
“Instead, Bellarmine adopts the position that Suarez rejected: *the pope loses his office immediately by committing the sin of formal heresy,* because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church. *It’s true that the bishops could still get together and make a declaration that God had deposed the pope, but their declaration would not be a judgment in any real sense, only an acknowledgement of what God had already done. (De Romano Pontifice 2.30)”
I hope you find this information helpful, as I did.
Except for all the convenient places you casually forgot to mention where the obligation to the Pope has limits, or else you might as well Throw out Acts of the Apostles where St. Peter is defied to his face by St. Paul. So, NO, it is not unconditional as you falsely claim it to be.
I don’t know what magical man you imagine the Pope to be, but there’s a difference between resisting an unlawful command, being unable to obey a vague command the requires clarification, and rejecting wholesale the Pope’s authority itself.
The model for the Papacy is founded on the Israelite Kingdom. In place of the King was the Minister with the keys of the kingdom who in the king’s absence had the king’s authority.
When even the King goes nuts, which in the case of Saul, occurred DESPITE BEING GOD’S ANOINTED ONE! David RESISTED Saul without daring to dethrone Saul.
But by all means, run to the Assyrian Church of the East, formerly the Nestorian church who only recently signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejected Nestorianism under John Paul II. See the Common Christological Declaration between the two churches.
And as for the embarrassment of Geocentrism, the only one who should be embarrassed is you because the true Church of Christ upheld what was a fact of creation against the entirety of modernist science which now finds itself looking to escape into multi-universes and other such nonsense to escape the implications that the 16th Century Inquisition and the Pope were correct, and the entire industry of modern man was wrong. God protected His Church from error. While the Assyrian’s rejected Christ’s nature within His Holy Mother.
His Holy Mother appeared at Fatima in the 19th Century and the Sun was moved in the sky by a great miracle, with authority entrusted to the Catholic Church and the Papacy. Why didn’t she show up at the Assyrian Church’s door instead? Not only that, but we were warned ahead of time by The Mother of God, that the Papacy was going to be attacked from within and without. So thanks for proving that the Catholic Church is the True Church by your schismatic words ‘Revisionist Historian.’ Go read about what the Queen of Heaven has said about our times and watch as it unfolds proving to you the authenticity of the true Church of God, whom you are outside of due to your error of imagining the Pope to be God.
The Catholic Church has a heirarchy. From your local priest to the bishop to the Cardinal to the Pope to Christ Himself. The chain of command ultimately goes to the top. Just as one is bound to recognize and obey his Priest, one does so providing the priest is not commanding you contrary to the teachings of his superiors. Likewise too for the Bishop who acts against the Pope. And for the Pope who acts against God. Simple logic that ‘Revisionist Historian’ failed thoroughly to consider because he wanted to play the Pharisee with the letter of the law where it comes to obeying the Pope. Even when those same Popes teach the limitations of their authority. One being that they CANNOT defy the Moral law of God Himself.
Except the current Sedevacantism has been demonstrably countered, and especially devastating that as Geocentrism proves with regards to the sedes, that if the Church supposedly went abrupt as they claimed it would’ve occured when it ceased to fight against Heliocentrism, which means the Church ended a long time ago, which of course they cannot accept.
Go here for more info and peruse it, or ignore it and run away while continuing your slander:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/
But given that you are a schismatic heretic it’s not surprising that you also subscribe to the errors of Protestantism and Sedevacantism too, alongside erroneous atheistic-driven scientism.
So stop drinking the kool-aid and taking from Catholicism from heretics and start learning about Catholicism from Catholics and the Mother of God who hammers fools like you into the dust by continuing to associate with the Church right up to our times through her magnificent prophetic messages, which you would be an idiot to ignore.
If you want to RESIST like Paul did to Peter, please note that Paul didn’t run off to go found his own counter-Church, unlike the Protestant idiots that you take your religious instruction from, nor declared Peter’s position vacant and overthrow him, but also did so within the setting of a council that included Peter and others of the same Church and explained the correct position that Peter was to take. So you can’t just make some nonsense up and do whatever you personally think best according to your own private judgement. You live up to your name ‘Revisionist Historian.’ In fact you don’t even understand history enough to even revision it in any sensible fashion. By simply declaring that the Pope is to be obeyed no matter what you only reveal yourself to be a simpleton.
Except as everyone who actually reads the Vatican Council about the Pope and who judges him notes that the same document emphasizes when the Pope acts infallibly in accord with Sacred Tradition and what he can and cannot do, and thus when all these things are in harmony then the Pope is infallible and he cannot be judged because there is no grounds to judge him at all. But that would require you to read the entirety of Pastor aeternus to know that which clearly you haven’t outside of sound bites and see that the model of the document describes a Pope acting justly, and thus does not deal with a Pope acting contrary which is why theologians continued to debate procedure about the possibility of a Papal heretic and what to do about it long after without controversy.
But because Revisionist Historian, like a Protestant and a Pharisee, only reads de-contextualized passages and hyperliterally, Revisionist Historian, has no idea what he’s talking about, and therefore takes an absolutist stance and this error of his own private judgement naturally leads him to cast himself out of the Church of God.
AKA he’s a member of the former schismatic Church that for years followed the heresy of Nestorius.
Revisionist Historian wants you to look to Nestorius and other errors.
Look to the Mother of God instead of a schismatic who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. She isn’t in his Church, and if she was, a decade ago he’d be telling you that she didn’t carry God within her, just the human portion.
Revisionist Historian apparently knows better than Suarez, who said: “If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should
not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to
justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he
attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation
appropriate to a just defense.” (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)
Prudent obedience, yes. Blind, Church-destroying obedience, no.
Leaving the Catholic Church and becoming a schismatic strikes me as being “irrational and therefore insane”. The only Church established by Christ is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The one you must join if you wish to avoid eternal torment in hell. (- just sayin’ it like it is.) Any other is from the evil one.
Apparently you didn’t read the article Mr. Revisionist. It spells out pretty clear that the Pope specifically did NOT define that stance infallibly.
St. Catherine put up with unfortunate Popes, yet still remained faithful. You on the other hand have not remained faithful, and appear to have become a spiritual child of Judas Iscariot. So sad…
The one mistake that keeps cropping up is people think the “Magisterium” is a source of the Faith. It is not. Scripture and Tradition are the means of transmission of the Faith. The Magisterium is there to serve these two in order to teach all peoples the gospel, and to baptize them. The Magisterium is not a third “source” of the Faith, but is subservient to Scripture and Tradition. This is why a false teaching that is in clear conflict with Scripture and Tradition is to be rejected by the faithful. Arianism for instance was almost fully embraced by the “Magisterium” yet it was rejected by the faithful, leading to its ultimate downfall. Likewise the errors of Vatican II and Modernism will ultimately fall.
We keep hearing about this “Assyrian Church of the East”. Has anyone here actually ever heard of this at all? It sounds like somthing out of Star Trek. Exactly how many of these Assyrian Churches of the East are there outside of the East?
Hey RICH, YOU OUT THERE?
You mentioned 2016. You have been given so much from God. You for some reason, as unworthy as you are, and we all are, have been given to see the corruption etc. etc. of our times within the Catholic Church. You remind me of the favored first disciples of Jesus, given so much, yet overwhelmingly scandalized by the cross. They ran too. They, neither, could be there with Our Lord as He suffered unto His death.I heard one priest talk about Mt. Tabor and how Jesus took those guys up there so that they would be strengthened and to prepare them for the crucifixion he knew He would endure, so that they wouldn’t be scandalized by the Cross.
This priest also compared Our Lady of Good Success to our Mt. Tabor. She came to strengthen us for these times which she prophesied would come….and of course we are living through them. I notice how you’ve never replied to any of my attempts to introduce you to this approved apparition which pertains directly to our times. You can not ignore the facts. We are where we are. She knew it then, she knows it now, and she prepared us for it. This is all happening IN THE CHURCH…otherwise she wouldn’t have bothered. It’s time to come home, stare at the cross and watch as Our Church undergoes It’s own crucifixion. This has nothing to do with us. This is God’s domain. We’ve been warned. So come home and shut up, and stand close to Our Lady as we all “say” we would if we were literally at the crucifixion of Our Lord. Stop trying to have all the answers. Just be where you should be. I am calling you out, Rich man up, and be here. I know somewhere deep down you are, otherwise you would find no interest in something you find so much interest in, yet still identify as “not the Church”. Sorry Rich as mangled as it is, it is the Church, and I will be here with her now and hopefully during Her complete restoration when she will rise up as Our Lady of Good Success said She would. Feel the pain, man. Come on home even if it hurts.
By the way, in case this seems to rough, I only write it because I do respect a lot of what you say. Come on home now.
We don’t have to figure anything out, we just have to be there. Our Lady of Good Success came to strengthen us for these times. She never said, “Run away”. I think she would have mentioned that if she wanted us to run.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“…If Our Lord was still here, what would He say? Would He no longer say these words: “The world hates Me. And the world shall hate you because you love Me and you believe in Me.” Where is this world? Does it exist no longer? It has never been so much in existence as today! Never did Satan have so much influence in our world as today! And all this influence is contrary to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, we must maintain our faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ.
We shall conclude by saying that we must remain faithful. Fidelity must be the mark of the true Catholic. Do they not call us “the faithful”? We are faithful, and being faithful, then we must truly practice the virtue of fidelity. What is fidelity if not to keep our promises, to keep our Faith in what has been taught in the past. Fidelity encompasses the past in itself. There can be no fidelity without something said or agreed upon. One is faithful to his word, and faithful to his Faith.
We want to be faithful to our Faith, to the Faith of all times. No one can change our Faith. We believe that today as well as in the time of Our Lord as well as for the two thousand years in between.
Satan and the world are enraged against Our Lord Jesus Christ, against all those who believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, we see this “within the Church Herself, not only outside the Church. In the very bosom of the Church they want to limit the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They do not want Our Lord Jesus Christ to reign everywhere, in every soul, in every manner, in every domain. For us, we want Our Lord Jesus Christ to reign; He is our King! We just sang it a short while ago: “Tu nobis Victor Rex, miserere! – O, our victorious King, have mercy on us!” May He have mercy on us and help us to be faithful to all He has given us in our holy religion, faithful to the holy Church, faithful to the Sovereign Pontiff, successor of Peter, faithful to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, faithful to the Sacraments, faithful to our Faith, to our Creed, faithful to the Ten Commandments (from which they want to suppress a few articles). Well, today, we promise to be faithful to what the Church has always taught us and to hand down to future generations the Faith which has been handed down to us by our parents, by our priests, by the Church for twenty centuries.
We shall ask this from the Blessed Virgin Mary, “Virgo Fidelis – Virgin most faithful.” She was faithful, she remained with Jesus at the foot of the Cross, she did not run away! She did not abandon Our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, we shall ask of the Blessed Virgin that we be also with her near Our Lord.”
The predictions of this apparition of Our Lady of Good Success are all being verified, especially the infiltration of the clergy. One striking thing about those is the grave suffering predicted for those clergy who would remain faithful, and be unjustly included in the condemnations of those who deserve denunciation.
Also, the corruption of children, morals and sacraments of Marriage and abuse of the Eucharist, are all things that were not happening in that time period, but take center stage today.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-5Bl1gVgS5pE%2FUu6wUNBcOTI%2FAAAAAAAAAlU%2FegGboB45BIU%2Fs1600%2FFoto-11-Cuerpo-incorrupto-Beata-mar%25C3%25ADa-Encarnaci%25C3%25B3n-Rosal.jpg&f=1
This is all very interesting but has everyone forgotten Our Lady of La Salette,”The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” ???? Its really that simple !!!
Solution: Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
The true Magisterium upholds and guards and defends and expounds on the true UNCHANGEABLE deposit of Faith given to the Church through Tradition, which includes Holy Scripture as recognised by the Church Council of 304.
The Church has a Divine origin. My comments were made in that context. There is no need for all of this drama. There is no need to judge the clergy. The Holy Mass and the Sacraments will always be there for us.
Go to an SSPX Chapel if possible. If you can’t do that, go to an ICKSP or FSSP Mass. Pray the Rosary every day. Wear the Brown Scapular. Go to Confession at least once a month. Continue to do what Catholics have always done.
Well said. But to be precise, when a pope has shown himself to be a manifest heretic by ignoring formal warnings from bishops regarding material heresies, an imperfect Council does not judge him but makes a simple finding of fact regarding the manifest, pertinacious heresy and the necessary corollary of loss of office. Then the heretic, former pope can be tried judicially and penalised accordingly. And the procedure for electing a pope, invoked.
That’s true. Don’t waste your time, they refuse to hear the truth – that the Deposit of Faith cannot change, as the truth and God can never change.
Bishop Schneider’s statement on the fundamentally erroneous and scandalous Amoris Laetitia:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.ie/2016/04/official-response-of-bishop-athanasius.html?m=1
Glad you mentioned this, as you may be able to answer a question for me. I’d read a lot about this apparition, and learned it (the appearance) was approved by the Church, but there were faked “messages” circulating about what the seer Melanie had said, so those were put in the “index”. How did you determine which was true? I’m not sure about the following link’s credibility, but it reports the “index” matter, and gives reasons that put the whole thing in doubt. I’d appreciated knowing any clarifications you may have come across, or links to reliable sources on this one.
http://www.unitypublishing.com/prophecy/fake-salette.htm
There are many other prophecies you can read about, but I think these two are pretty safe ??? Matthew 24:15- “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.”
Matthew 24:24-25- “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.”
Agreed. And of course the Scriptures are beyond doubt. I’m not really interested in prophecies other than those certified by the Church, like Fatima, Akita, Quita, Lourdes etc, and had set aside La Salette until you brought it up here–Thought perhaps a word of caution needs to go with it whenever it is mentioned.
Yes, ock.
“Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of antichrist.”
————-Our Lady of LaSalette
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Our_Lady_of_La_Salette.jpg
Great link.
Thank you, Johnno.
I found this Diamond brothers video very interesting ??? any thoughts on it ??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8J-Ae8QPVI
God bless you, you sound a lot like Padre Pio. 🙂
I’m sure it’s in large part my personal failings that result in all the emotions I feel (as do many others, obviously) when I hear more bad news. But in fairness, a lot of it is based on my concern for those who are led into sin and error by falsehood dressed up as truth. I think the faithful know the end of the story is victory for Christ, but we’re in the heat of battle right now, so we need reminders of that. Thanks.
Yes, nothing could be more agonising than living in the midst of an extreme general apostasy and great defiance of God and even the most fundamental natural law. Especially the moral, spiritual and sexual abuse of children and innocents and the moral corruption of not only the lukewarm but those who used to hold to the Faith. Seeing souls turning their backs on God and facing Satan and eternal damnation is horrific. And our Church leaders have abandoned us and at least tacitly colluds with the enemies of God and the Faithful. We offer our indescribable suffering and trauma to God in reparation and for the salvation of endangered souls.
Im here Cortez. My family of 12 has suffered probable irreparable damage thanks in no small part to the FSSP branch of the vat 2 church. You dont get over something like that quickly, if ever. As always though, thank you for being a friend.
Common sense requires this question put to the bishops
” how can you fight the good fight, if you appease that which is to be fought ? ”
Fact : this isn’t about church Politics n governance , this is about the dogma of the faith.
Papal Infallibility only clocks in when the Pope speaks from the Throne of Peter which PF hasn’t done yet. Making AL a Binding Document is a no no, as the Pope cannot change Doctrine and AL undermines the Ten Commandments, particularly the sixth commandment, which no pope has the authority to do and this action must therefore be repudiated.
Cardinal Burke rightly states that the AL footnotes are the opinions of Pope Francis & therefore can be discounted. However, he fails to deal with the fact that since VII Catholics have not been properly catechised & cannot uphold the faith. They believe everything the Pope of the day tells them, including Gradualism in the pastoral sense of accompanying them in their grave sin, as nowhere in AL can be found the need for repentance in order to receive mercy. This is heresy & must be strongly opposed. No Pope or member of the Hierarchy can require you to sin by way of skirting around the Ten Commandments in order for them to appeal to dissidents. The divorced & remarried knew exactly what they were doing but cut themselves off from the Sacraments of their own volition. They & other cohabitants (heterosexual & homosexual) must repent in order to be enabled to worthily receive Holy Communion.