By the time readers reach the end of this post, they may find it difficult to believe that I really do not like “I told you so” articles, but the truth is, I don’t – especially when the predictions-come-true are devastating to souls.
Be that as it may…
In April 2016, just weeks after Amoris Laetitia was published, National Catholic Distorter reported that Hans Küng had sent a letter to Francis requesting his approval “to give room to a free, unprejudiced and open-ended discussion on the problem of infallibility.”
A jubilant Küng said that Francis had responded in the affirmative with a letter of his own, “setting no restrictions on a free discussion on the dogma of infallibility.”
As I pointed out in a post shortly thereafter (Amoris Laetitia: A seminal moment is at hand), the language being used in this case is very telling; the assessment of both Bergoglio and Küng being that “infallibility” and “dogma” are “problems” to be solved.
Thus was it already perfectly clear to readers of this space that Amoris Laetitia (which itself plainly denies several dogmas of the faith) was just the beginning; a document that if allowed to stand would mean that absolutely, positively nothing would be safe under Bergoglio – not the priesthood, not the liturgy, not even Sacred Scripture. Nothing.
Indeed, modernists-in-white who operate from this standpoint have been running the show in Rome from the time of the Council on forward, but none prior to Francis has exhibited a similar willingness to actually proceed scorched-earth-style as if no part of the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine is beyond their reforming reach.
As I wrote at the time, given that nearly three weeks had passed since Amoris Laetitia was published and the most noteworthy reaction from a bishop to date was Burke’s anemic call for an “authentic interpretation,” Bergoglio had every reason to feel emboldened.
Here I go again…
Well prior to Amoris Laetitia, it was perfectly plain to akaCatholic readers that the outcome was already settled; it would be something very similar to the Kasper proposal.
With this in mind, I suggested that the real point of intrigue was not so much the events of the then-upcoming Synod, but rather concerned the way in which allegedly faithful churchmen would react once the “God of Surprises” formally pronounced his will.
Now here we are, some two years after Amoris Laetitia, and still not one bishop or cardinal has done anything of note to protect the flock from the Bergoglian wolf, which at this point requires ridding the sheepfold of his menacing presence.
Sure, some of them have taken part in any number of admonishments and corrections – which, very importantly, served to expose the true nature of Francis’ heresy – but these have been rendered practically pointless given that none of them have demonstrated a willingness to take the next crucial step.
At present, even the most outspoken of the bishops is very much like a pathetic parent who warns a wayward child, “I’m going to count to ten, and then…” but “then” never happens; even as the rotten kid continues to wreak havoc.
In the case of Francis, given the utter lack of consequences, there is every reason to believe that the Bergoglian assault against Catholic doctrine and those who uphold it will only multiply in intensity for the foreseeable future.
Look, the neo-conservative bishops are who we thought they were; i.e., no one really expected anything more from these men, but where are the “traditional” shepherds?
More specifically, where is the Society of St. Pius X?
It seems that they have all but left the battlefield, or perhaps they have convinced themselves that the Bergoglian crisis isn’t their battle. Either way, it appears that they have gone A.W.O.L.
Seriously, where is Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, or so-called “resistance” leader, Bishop Richard Williamson, for that matter?
I haven’t heard one relevant whimper from any of them in many months; that is, relevant to the veritable hostage situation in Rome.
Tell me, has any one of these defenders of Catholic tradition proclaimed the obvious and somehow I missed it – namely, the indisputable fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has, of his own doing, separated himself from the Mystical Body of Christ after having publicly condemned himself in the face of multiple admonishments, and must therefore be to us as a heathen and publican? (cf Titus 3, Matthew 18)
Yes, I can hear it now…
But what is the point? If a formal declaration isn’t made ‘by the Church,’ yada, yada…
The point of doing so is plain, and it’s the same reason that I feel so compelled:
To proclaim the truth, even when inconvenient and costly, is to proclaim Christ; i.e., it is their solemn duty.
We have long since reached the point where silence can no more be excused as prudence; rather, it is cowardice and ultimately complicity.
And please, don’t kid yourself with any “lesser of two evils” nonsense; as if avoiding schism is a valid argument. Schism already exists!
Furthermore, proclaiming the truth is never evil. Sitting passively while a man posing as pope sets about attacking the Holy Catholic Church and leading souls directly to Hell, on the other hand, is always evil.
I was present that day in October of 2013 – more than two years before Amoris Laetitia – when Bishop Fellay exclaimed of Francis from the pulpit, and with a palpable degree of righteous anger:
“What we have before us is a genuine modernist!”
Where is that Catholic conviction now that Bergolgio’s modernism has been set forth in official “papal” texts and has even been enshrined in the AAS?
Asked another way, what precisely has happened in the ensuing four-and-a-half years to quell Bishop Fellay’s conviction – even as the “genuine modernist” has only doubled-down on his heresies and has initiated new attacks against the immutable truths of the Faith?
In conclusion, while Amoris Laetitia is disastrous in its own right, the bigger issue (not the biggest – that distinction belongs to Vatican Council II and Fatima) continues to be just what I said even before it was published – and that is the way in which faithful persons, most especially those in the sacred hierarchy, react to it.
Truth or consequences is more than just the name of an old American television game show; it’s a non-negotiable demand of justice, and it applies equally to the liars and to those who fail in their duty to oppose them.
Thus far, the lack of an appropriate response on the part of bishops to Francis’ clear defection from the Faith (if he ever had it) – especially among the “defenders of Catholic tradition” – has invited nothing but more death and destruction for souls.
Francis has proven that he has deaf ears when it comes to the cries of the truly faithful. At this point, it is obvious that the hero-prelates of neo-conservatism do as well.
One wonders, are any among the aforementioned “traditional” bishops any less deaf?
If so, let their voices be heard and soon, lest they too face some truly dreadful consequences.
And Louie, my God, my God, a man who cared NOT AT ALL a helpless child was being forced to die to appease the gods of death, the evil and demonic regime of Great Britain. He speaks forcefully and his will is DONE, unless it pertains to a matter of a most vulnerable baby and his valiant parents, fighting to simply provide him care, then, this master of words, indeed, this man who can barely contain his verbal overflow, suddenly he can only emit some weak vanilla platitudes, about the “master of life”, which as someone pointed out, sounds more like Allah than Christ, but doesn’t this make sense!
Our little captain is gone, but behind him will rise Alfie’s Army, who will be committed to the cause of life in a new and vigorous way, because he lived, and because his father and his mother fought so valiantly for him.
As far as the SSPX and other clergy are concerned, they have proven their own irrelevance. I understand the witnessing of the destruction of the Church is to some completely intolerable, and many need to find men who will assure them that all is well, and look, here we are at Mass on Sunday and the ground is still firm under our feet, but this is false, the ground is not firm, we are in fact dreaming, deluded, these men are only smoke and vapor. They have nothing to give us. We need meat, and these men have not only not given us meat, they have pretended they do not hear our cry, because to hear us would perhaps mean their own comfort seat might be disrupted, and that cannot be!
I’m a simple Catholic, not vastly informed or educated in Catholic theology.
I have Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and they shall not take Him from me. I will cling to Him until He decides the day is my last and then I’ll go home out of this vale of real tears, where children are murdered and parents must watch and thank the murderers or else. This world is godless and serves another master, and I have no further delusions about most of the men in my church and the world. If they are silent in the face of the obvious demonic takeover of our faith, then they are whitewashed sepulchers to me and I have no use for them. What we needed was to be warned, we needed a Cardinal or bishop to stop avoiding the words that were needed, to connect “Bergolio” to “heretic” and “anathema”. They did not.
No heroes are coming, save Christ. It’s ok, we can make it without them. He will not abandon us nor leave us, and has promised to be with us to the end of the world. If He chooses a man to rise up, that will be wonderful. If He does not, we will just hang on and suffer along with Christ and be victorious in the end anyway, like Alfie is today. God be praised!
Louie, your analogy regarding a parent correcting a child with no consequences is perfect. Regarding the SSPX, when I first became involved about 20 years ago, the word was stay away from the N.O. They are not Catholic! So what changed? The N.O. got worse and the SSPX now praises every little thing a “bishop” or “cardinal” does that looks “catholic”. When the “pope” says and does questionable things, the poor man is merely confused. Fellay is thrilled when the Vatican gives them permission to hear confessions and be present at the Sacrament of Matrimony witnessed by a N.O. priest who hears the vows while the SSPX priests looks on and is allowed to celebrate the TLM. Whose in charge here? The SSPX lost its vision and mission and the parishioners who felt they found a “safe haven” for Tradition have been betrayed. July is the election for a new Superior General. Will things change. Wait and see as we pray.
Dear Evangeline, how can I thank you [and the wonderful Louie] for you post. I don’t weep often, but your words encapsulated all my own feelings so well that they opened floodgates – literally! God bless you. I think the Holy Spirit is at work with the AKA “team” here.
This pope is the continuation of what Paul VI had in mind. If you can stand to read it, Fr. Luigi Villa has it outlined in this post here:
https://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Letter_to_Cardinals.pdf
Dear Faithful, why are we so wrapped up with making sure we do not mention the “A” word for Francis, when as a number of credible Traditional studies have clearly shown the Church’s explanation that a man in the shoes of Peter may fall into public heresy and “REMOVE HIMSELF” from the Catholic Church and thus a NON-CATHOLIC pretending to be Pope. Immediately folks go into the “sede bomb shelter” when it seems there is a true Pope in plain sight…HIS NAME IS POPE BENEDICT XVI.
Remember what Fr. Hesse said about Our Lady of La Salette? [1846] Our Lady warned of the coming of “two worm ridden Popes”. Well, looking across all the Holy Fathers since Pius IX there certainly are candidates starting with John XXIII but it seems more plausible that She refers to two popes alive at the same time. Let’s follow God’s providential model. Did not many of the Saints and Church Fathers explain that Holy Mother Church must follow the same path as Her Divine Bridegroom? Were not there two worm ridden pontiffs at the time of Our Lord’s Passion and Death?
1. Holy Mother Church is in Her greatest passion and shall cry out like Her Divine Bridegroom…”Father, into Thy Hands I commend My Spirit”. Pope Benedict even said that the Church will be going underground (kind of a sepulchre).
2. There were two pontiffs at the time of our Lord’s Passion and Death, right?
3. So, might there be two worm ridden pontiffs at this time of Holy Mother Church’s visible death before Her Great Easter?
What is disappointing with the Traditional Bishops, as Louie points out, is their comfort around the fire of “stay away from appearing sede” (while the Church is being scourged and condemned) when in fact they should be studying (their responsibility) what the Church Fathers said about the matter of a pope who separates himself from the Church and the likelihood that Benedict never left the shoes of Peter. Our Lord has a way to pull these bishops away from a warm fire just as He did for Peter.
We must continually have these remaining bishops in our prayers and penances before the SHTF moment, time is short.
Our Lady of La Salette, pray for us!
Patrick
Umm Pat, Benedict has fallen into the same heresy as Francis.
Bp. Fellay is too worried about making a “deal” with the Modernists. He will never denounce Bergoglio, no matter what he says or does.
You have to go to the sedevacantist bishops for a true “resistance” to Bergoglio. Bp. Sanborn, Bp. Dolan, Bp. Pivarunas.
Perfectly stated Evangeline, I could not possibly agree with you more. And thank you Mr. Verrecchio. You’re right; to sit passively through this, is evil. I don’t know how they live with themselves right now. It’s shameful.
I had a brief interlude in the SSPX also. a friend also followed us in and she stayed a little longer. After we exited ( with more than solid reasons) my friend called very upset. In confession the priest asked where the rest of her adult children went to Mass. she told him to the local NO parish. He replied ,”It would be preferable if they went to Black Masses. “………That did not sit well with her. Two years later she discovered that her three oldest daughters refused to go to the SSPX chapel because when she had the priest over for dinner ,the eldest daughter’s husband age 24 had his rear end patted by the priest when they were out of the sight of the rest of the family. He told his wife, she her sisters and they decided not to tell their mother because she was so happy she found what she thought was a reverent TLM.
The truth came out by accident when I was discussing my own serious questions about this same priest and my friend’s daughter ( now lawyer) asked who we were speaking of. “Oh that pervert”, was her comment, which is when her mother questioned her further and discovered why her oldest children stopped going there.
Now I am reading others in the SSPX are becoming “enlightened” almost twenty years later on CathInfo.
Great post Evangeline ! I concur.
This article is basically what my son and I, two avowed sede’s, talk about a few times a week. The main difference though is that we dont worry or care about what the SSPX (or the FSSP for that matter) are doing (they are both lost for different reasons)….we just scratch our heads at how so many people still get behind them. The FSSP was a joke from day 1, but the SSPX, at least, had good intentions (though they went about things in a totally un-Catholic way). If the SSPX had kept to the straight and narrow, despite their initial wrongdoings (spitting on a church that they still considered the Catholic Church) they’d be a powerful sede voice by now. BUT they didnt do that.
…….and of course another wonderfully written piece by you , Louie.
And your link above is of course why Fr Malachi Martin wrote “Windswept House” and why Steve Brady of RCF along with Cardinal Gagnon an others confirmed with Bernadin’s victim “Agnes” and flew to Rome to give testimony to the truth of what happened to her as a child.
This is why Fr Kuntz was murdered as he delved deeper into the evil circles of clerics with call ins on his Catholic radio program. Why RCF offices were broken into and burglarized and why nothing was ever done to correct the Church of Darkness that Bl Emmerick asked us to pray God would remove from Rome.
We are certainly in the midst of chastisement.
A continuing theme: We are to believe that a true Pope is the proximate rule of faith and the visible sign of unity. I think this teaching must be understood as reflecting an ontological, living reality. If this Catholic truth is really understood as an ontological reality then it would seem it imposes a solemn duty upon the men who rule the Church to ensure that the Church always is governed by a true Pope – otherwise the Church will be deprived of its proximate rule of faith and visible sign of unity to the great harm of the faithful.
–
How confident are my fellow readers that the hierarchy really believes that the Church can only be governed by a Catholic, and that a true Pope is the proximate rule of faith and the visible sign of unity? How has the experiment of accepting a Pope who is in no way a Catholic and by his manifest apostasy deprives the Church of its proximate rule of faith and visible sign of unity worked out? The hierarchy certainly doesn’t act like they either believe any of these truths, or are bothered by the consequences of their lack of belief, do they?
–
The next question is a frightening question – if the putative Pope is best understood as a mirror reflecting the utter faithlessness of the hierarchy, why are we even remaining in communion with them? I ask myself this question when week after week at my diocesan latin mass I expect to hear a sermon denouncing the apostate “Pope” and the hierarchy that facilitates him. It would seem that even parish priests are grievously sinning at this point by not warning the sheep of the false gospel he is promoting. At what point does it become our duty to avoid these apostates, hirelings, or cowards? At what point do we sin by not doing so?
St Cyprian ,
You ask , ” At what point…. ?”
For me 1963 was a turning point when our Parish pastor was teaching our religion class in parochial school and keeping us up to date with what was up for discussion during Vatican Two. Then in 1978 when our parish Masses had morphed into entertainment shows for the pew people.
As an avid reader I wanted to know what M Martin was referring to in the back of his book , “The Keys of This Blood” . He named it the “Superforce” , known by Prelates within the Vatican. By chance we met and later I was invited to a dinner and had the opportunity to meet and speak privately with Cardinal Gagnon.
This is a very important link posted by a commentator above. I urge everyone to read it because from what I have read and have had been personally informed of, it is all true.
https://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Letter_to_Cardinals.pdf
Rich–There was a time I thought Fellay could (or would) be another St. Athanasius. Of course, those thoughts are down the drain. He and his fellow bishops could have led the charge to save Our Lord’s Church. So sad–so very sad!
I was an SSPX adherent myself after I got away from the novus ordo insanity. The SSPX led me to my sedevacantist stance….I thank them for that.
However, the entire premise of the SSPX is simply the rebellion of the Catholic Church. Turning your back on a false church and turning your back on what you believe is the Catholic Church, are two entirely different kettles of fish.
The SSPX did the wrong thing for the right reason….if that makes any sense.
Loving Our Lord Jesus in the in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar and enduring these blasphemies against Him leaves a soul bereft. I have been accused of being a Donatist but it is not the sins of the priests I simply protest. It is the changing of the words of Ordination and Consecration and the definite Improper Intentions of men seeking the Sacrament of Holy Orders.We know this is true from the testimonies of Bella Dodd and the subsequent results we have all witnessed in the New Order of the Mass. It is said that actions speak louder than words and the actions and cover ups by the hierarchy cry to heaven for vengeance.
Our only weapon is the Rosary. May God Have Mercy on Us.
For me, the biggest clue that the SSPX is going in the wrong direction, is that they now refer to the N.O. “church” as the “official church”, not the postconciliar “church” as they did before the betrayal. How could the pseudo-church be “official”?
Official means “something derived from proper authority”. Anything that goes against the will of Christ, cannot be proper or have any legitimate authority.
“It seems that they have all but left the battlefield, or perhaps they have convinced themselves that the Bergoglian crisis isn’t their battle. Either way, it appears that they have gone A.W.O.L.”
That’s because the R&R folks are too busy attacking “the problem” of sedevacantism.
Now! The fact you even asked the question shows that you need to flee from the conciliar church.
If the SSPX were doing their job, Francis would “excommunicate” the lot of them. Instead, he gives them quasi faculties.
sweep–I often wonder if Cardinal Spellman (said to be a homosexual) was one of the prelates recruited by Dodd or others. You seem to have a lot of inside info, but you don’t have to answer this if you don’t feel it is appropriate. Thanks.
He definitely could have been 2 Cents, because by the time Dodd fessed up she admitted many were already in positions of power.
Obedience ,while put in place as a security for fidelity ,is a double edged sword. Now it is used as a shackle control on righteous chaste men in the priesthood.God bless the men who stepped up for all the right reasons at the risk of being forced out . I recall one elderly priest kicked out decades ago from his Diocese in NH because he refused to administer the Body and Blood of Our Savior into unconsecrated hands. He floated around to independent chapels and what became of him I do not know.
Hands off the SSPX. They are quietly working to preserve the Faith. If not for them many would have nowhere to turn. They, at least, are in union with Rome which counts for a whole helluva lot. They know what’s up with Bergoglio and are watching the implosion of Nuchurch from afar. They are being shrewd in a way pleasing to Our Lord and Our Lady.
“I ask myself this question when week after week at my diocesan latin mass I expect to hear a sermon denouncing the apostate “Pope” and the hierarchy that facilitates him.”
Because the diocesan TLM is really about the smells and bells of the traditional mass, not Traditional Catholic doctrine that should go along with it.
Akita–I pray you are right. However, when that explosion occurs, I hope they are not so close to blow up with them.
They, the SSPX, are different from Burke, Sample, etc. inasmuch as they recognize the evil of Vatican II and its rotten fruits. Burke, Sample, and others who simply like the TLM, but cling to the intrinsic evils propagated by Vatican II, remain company men, and are doomed to ultimate failure.
We can only pray that the Barque of Peter is righted soon and our Lady crushes the head of that slimey serpent soon. Please, Holy Mary, hear our prayer!
I must be missing something here, but it’s news to me that there were any pontiffs at the time of Our Lord’s Passion and Death, let alone “two worm-ridden ones”, unless one would be the Roman Pontifex Maximus, a pagan priest. Perhaps you could explain?
Thats their problem Akita, “they are in union with Rome.” I am not in union with Rome since Rome has adopted a new faith. Have you adopted the new faith?
Akita, if you have not adopted the new faith, how on earth can you be in union with those who have? Do you not see this glaring contradiction?
Tom A – The SSPX can be or become anyone of following at this point:
1. Controlled Opposition
2. Fabian strategists playing the waiting game waiting for the Conciliar Church “to fall” (Bergoglio and Co. will ultimately turn the NO Church into just another decrepit Mainline Protestant sect selling off properties) and then they will go full Sede and “unite the trad clans.” SSPX will swoop in to pick up the pieces of what is left of the Vatican institution.
3. Effeminate neo-conservatives just happy to be on their SSPX plantation for the foreseeable future and hoping that through the imminent deaths of the baby boomer generation in the College, a number of former FSSP clergy become Cardinals and eventually V2/ Novus Ordo Missae become dead letters.
Any other possibilities/scenarios to conjecture from their contradictory stance?
At least in union with Rome, huh? This Rome, the one trying to bring transcendental meditation to children around the world? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVCQJl1XVmg That does count for a Hell of a lot. They’re shrewd alright, and we’ll find out someday whether it’s pleasing to Our Lord and Our Lady but I seriously doubt it, it’s pretty creepy. No Heaven, Purgatory or Hell… mortal sin does not separate us from the friendship of God and may please Him…a little bread and wine do no harm….Muhammedens should be welcomed to overthrow every Christian nation for Allah…and our very stressed out children should practice TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION. On what planet are you and SSPX Catholic? That’s your Pope, your Rome, that’s not mine. I’m Catholic and I don’t know why there’s no Pope but you won’t catch me calling that evil, sacrilegious, sodomite, pagan, occult freak show, Rome or the Catholic Church or the Pope or the Magisterium. You’re certainly not alone, but I don’t know what the heck you people are smoking. And btw, they’ll have a helluva lot more to answer for than Burke, Sample, etc. inasmuch as they profess to recognize the evil of Vatican II…Frankly, I don’t find them to very honest.
It is more important to the SSPX etal to be “in union with Rome”….even if that means being in union with Apostate Rome.
Remember, anything, but sedevacantism.
I believe you covered them all. Now lets handicap the race. Right now they are firmly entrenched in option 1 with a good possibility of moving over to 3. Option 2 is a stretch.
Sic Semper Sede Vacante. That’s their motto.
The diocesan TLM is the Trad Ghetto. They find places to isolate the “contagion.”
As 2cents mentioned already, July is the election for a new Superior General. If that is a “safe pick”, then Option 1 wins and we can expect to get nothing but handwringing from them when Jorge rolls out the “deaconesses”.
Sirach 21:26 A fool will peep through the window into the house: but he that is well taught will stand without.
Oh puleeze, Melanie, of course not in union with all the evil going on in Rome, but with the Chair of Peter. Jesus didn’t promise every pope would be a good man but he did give us the office of the pope. Bergoglio has probably excommunicated himself but we still have Benedict.
I am just sick of those who appear to understand the harm being done to souls “strategizing,” which I believe many are, when what they are called to is just to speak the truth, refute heretical ideas with clarity, and not worry about earthly consequences and trust God to take care of that part. If God is on one’s side, what is there to worry about.
Well, when it comes down to it, they aren’t in union with the chair of Peter. Benedict: “As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.” But, I guess as long as the excommunicated Bergoglio dangles that Canonical status he’s not a heretic just one leaning towards heresy. That’s got to be ironic, selling out the truth for canonical status. Oh yes, that’s shrewd, wise as a serpent, right? Okay, is what it is.
For the first time in my long life, I agree with Herr Hans Kueng: Amoris Laetitia is not infallible!
Yes, the real purpose of Ratzinger’s Summorum Pontificum.
Lenny B. I can’t say this with absolute certainty, but I have read that the “pick” must be approved by the Vatican. If that is true, the pick will not be a “safe pick”. If the SSPX is allowing the Vatican to have the final say, then all is lost as far as the SSPX is concerned. Time will tell.
We still have Benedict? What a consolation!
Benedict who went out of his way to make sure rabid pederasts whose Bishops pleaded with him to defrock perverted clerics he insisted they just move around.
Benedict who knew what Maciel was and continued to drag his feet before forcing him to retire to a posh home in Jacksonville Florida for a life of “penance and prayer” poolside with one of his concubines. Maciel ,who even refused Extreme Unction on his deathbed , kicked out his co conspirator priests, and preferred one of his double life girlfriends and daughter at his bedside.
This ONLY after his life of lies became an internationally known scandal. Thank you Benedict !
Yes we still have Benedict Akita, he followed the antichrist Koran kissing “saint”.
God have mercy on these unworthy men who turned their mitered heads while the lambs of their flock were being sodomized and molested by their fellow wolves in sheep’s clothing.
God have mercy on the blind sheep who refuse to recognize their Faithless sheep herders whom Jesus said it would have been better had they been never born.
Have any on them been Catholic? Are they Catholic now?
2 cents, the implosion already occurred .
It makes not a whit of difference what the SSPX does or doesn’t do.
Our priest told us at Mass today that we should not criticize Pope Francis because he is inspired by the Holy Spirit in his communications. On the other hand, we could argue that Papal statements that contradict the Holy Spirit mean the speaker is not the the real Pope.
A correction should be made: This is incorrect to say “so-called ‘resistance’ leader, Bishop Richard Williamson” as 1.) the Resistance is not an organization without a specific leader, but a loose association of like minded individuals and groups. 2). Bishop Williams has said he is not the leader of any group but only an advisor for those who ask his advice or help. 3). Bishop Foure would be the most likely leader as he leads the SAJM, and he added a statute that the SAJM will not make any deal of any kind until the Pope returns to Tradition.
dowd-If that isn’t double speak, then I don’t know what is. Modernism at its best.
Yes Akita , we have Benedict.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/04/critical-observations-on-joseph.html
Akita, the Barque of Peter is righted. It can never capsize. It is indefectible. You are confusing the confusion inherent with the conciliar false church with the Catholic Church.
This made me really laugh Mr G ! Knowing first hand who in the so called “Resistance” preached Williamson speak , your statement is a confirmation for me that the glories of Hitler and sodomy go hand in hand per his “advice”.
The pink swastika must still be alive and breathing.
It’s listing. Not capsized. It’s visible with the SSPX resisting Vatican II. You walk into an SSPX Chapel and there is the red lamp and Bergoglio’s picture, proof they are in union with Rome. They recognize the state of emergency and are proceeding accordingly. Not cutting themselves off saying there is no pope.
In union with Francis, enemy of Christ who declared, amongst other blasphemies and heresies, that Christ made himself the Devil, thereby telling us whose vicar he really is. And you think that’s a good thing?
In union with Francis, enemy of Christ, who declared, amongst other blasphemies and heresies, that Christ made himself the Devil, thereby telling us whose vicar he really is. And you think that’s a good thing?
Dear Sweep,
Please stop laughing and show proof of your innuendo/charges. Whatever you may hold as a personal opinion about him, please acknowledge that Bishop Williamson is a true Roman Catholic Bishop consecrated to the Roman Catholic Rite by Archbishop Lefebvre. He is one of the few prelates who could elect a true Roman Catholic pope one day.
“Tell me, has any one of these defenders of Catholic tradition proclaimed the obvious and somehow I missed it – namely, the indisputable fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has, of his own doing, separated himself from the Mystical Body of Christ after having publicly condemned himself in the face of multiple admonishments, and must therefore be to us as a heathen and publican? (cf Titus 3, Matthew 18)”
Not sure what ‘ worse, the ignorance or the arrogance of lay sede-vacantist apologists. The “admonishment” needed for the loss of office is a “formal correction” such as Burke has been discussing. That has not yet taken place.
“yet”….LOL
So, as long as one hangs up a picture of Jorge, then one is in union with the Pope.
Mmmkay.
I do not know where you see the part about “Hitler” and “pink swastika” from what I have written. You may want to have a technician check your computer for computer viruses!
Ignatio, do you actually believe that any “conservative” Novus Ordite Cardinal such as Burke, Brandmüller, or Bishop Athanasius Schneider, are actually going to do anything besides wring their hands and roll their eyes at the hereies of Bergoglio?
Ignatio, cross out Bergolio’s name in your last post and you can add any or all of the conciliar fake popes names into it and it would still be quite appropriate. Bergolio’s heresies are no worse than Ratzingers or Montinis or Wojtylas. Please read Pascendi so you can have a working definition of Modernism.
Look up the Nazi Paul Touvier Case . Paul Touvier a member of the Nazi Malice who personally murdered people in France lived off a stipend from the Chealiers de Notre Dame members of the sspx for forty years . Finally he was tracked down hiding in an Nice SSPX Monastery in Nice and arrested . I heard Hitler praised as a savior of Catholic Art right from Hewko’s lips at the pulpit.
I am well aware of Jewish Masonry and the writings of the Talmud nevertheless, allying oneself with Hitler and his butchers is not Catholic !
Fr Angles is another disgusting liar. The list of relics he left to St Mary’s College in Kansas were taken down off the Angelus on the Internet .One reason is because he claimed to have in his collection the skull of St Thomas More. It was sent to the saint’s descendants in the UK who were quite surprised with the information. I also have friends who said they heard Angles claim his parents purchased Hitler’s mercedes at auction and he also proudly stated they were friends with Hitler’s filmographer Leni Riefenstahl . The sspx priests I knew were infected with pro nazi thought, going so far as to dress commando boys groups like the Nazi Malice and the youth group mirrored the Nazi Youth.
Promoting evil in an effort to discredit another evil is not Catholic and never was Catholic whether they say the TLM or not.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com'/news/bishop_williamson_apologizes_for_imprudent_holocaust_remarks
I have friends who lived in St Mary’s and saw the Hitler fans up close and personal. Does this mindset come from Williamson and Angles? i heard praises of Hitler’s deeds myself…
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX1.htm
coastalfarm,
Just in case you missed it ,there have been plenty of “real Bishops” who have made serious errors . Quite a few were /are Freemasons. Some are Marxist Communists and a few think the Nazis did right and were wrongly accused of too many gruesome murders.
Mr G, Maybe you just need to read a little more.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/catholic-sspx-resistance-uk-harbours-clergy-accused-sexual-abuse-richard-williamson
TomA, I agree with you that Bergoglio is no worse than Ratzinger and Wotyla. I find the reaction of the Catholic world to Bergoglio as surprising as the lack of reaction to Ratzinger and JP II. What has Bergoglio done that’s worse than Assisi?
–
And I’ve read Pascendi many times and understand it quite well.
ThomasR. Probably not, but time will tell. That fact of the matter is, without two formal corrections he will remain the pope. That is not a point of dispute, and it hasn’t happened with Francis. For now we are stuck with him. He’s the punishment sent by God to prove the elect, and to sift the wheat from the chaff. Those who him as pope prove themselves to be the chaff, and cannot be saved.
“We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface.
Ignatio, so you submit to this Popes heretical teachings per Pope Bonifaces decree?
Nope. I submit to the pope, but reject his teachings that are against the faith, just as the saints and doctors of the Church said I should do. I realize sedevacantists don’t believe we should do what these saints and doctor of the Church teach, but knowledgeable Catholics do.
Thanks to Bergoglio, the SSPX is “just fine”:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/04/ask-father-can-i-teach-at-an-sspx-school/
I guess before Bergoglio, the SSPX was just make believe, pretending to hear confessions and officiating at the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Thank you “pope” francis for making us a legitimate priestly society.
Attrition: I have been grasping at an idea to understand the thought processes of recognize and resisters like Ignatio. I believe they come at the pope-heretic conundrum motivated by attrition. Above all things they fear hell – I dare say even more than loving Our Lord. They know that the faithful must submit to a true Pope under penalty of grave sin so NO MATTER WHAT A PUTATIVE POPE DOES THEY WILL SUBMIT TO HIM. Can it be any more clear? They have not moved beyond attrition.
–
I can cite Popes, Cardinals, Saints and canonists who instruct me that I can withdraw my obedience from an heretical Pope and these recognize-and-resisters mired in attrition will call me a heretic. Ignatio, in case you didn’t know IT IS HERETICAL TO ADVOCATE THAT YOU CAN RESIST A TRUE POPE IN HIS TEACHING CAPACITY. You remind me of that lost soul so-called “Catholic Thinker” who espoused heresy on this very web site when he argued that a body of the Church subordinate to the Pope could try the Pope for heresy while still Pope. It was pointed out to him that Vatican I foreclosed this possibility WITHOUT EXCEPTION and he argued that a minority position of theologians survived Vatican I’s dogmatic proclamation. I was so shocked at his effrontery I couldn’t even call him out for his heresy at the time. It still bothers me to this day that he argued for heresy!
–
Do you really think Our Lord is measuring our faithfulness by our submission to a disciple of Satan? I most certainly do not! Ecce homo! This man stated “Proselytism is the strongest VENOM against the path of ecumenism” – essentially implying that the great commission of Our Lord is diabolical and advancing that false and satanic commission of ecumenism!
Knowledgeable Catholic aka Ignatio, have you checked out the teaching on Papal Infallibility? Sedes submit to Popes that are Infallible which means there can never be a reason for the Saints and Doctors to “reject” a Pope’s “teachings against the faith.” By definition, a real honest to goodness successor of St. Peter cannot teach against the faith. Heretic Antipopes, not so much. No submission to them just avoidance, as St. Paul writes to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment” (Titus 3:10-11).
I have read those awhile ago, but your original response to my original comment did not have anything to do with the 3 points I mentioned, so I did not see the direct connection in the topics you mentioned.
Ignatio – “Nope. I submit to the pope, but reject his teachings that are against the faith,”
So then that makes you the pope? You have the authority to sift his magisterium and determine what is authentic Catholic teaching and what isn’t?
Louie, thank you for the article. Yet – I always wonder how soon the text turns its blade against SSPX, and it seems each article a step sooner than the one a week before. Interesting.
Then the discussion as often as not slips into blaming, blundering, accusing SSPX of all the wrongs done or un-prevented by themselves and by everybody else.
The discussion of the forum following this very article does not even pretend to discuss the horrors of Bergoglio the Antichrist and his precursors with their minions – no, rather the focus of the day is on – why to name it – the SSPX.
It does not seem to matter that SSPX is a “brotherhood“, and nobody mentions any longer that the main aim of SSPX is to continue with the Traditional Latin Mass. That they do not have any centralized program on competing or combating the Modernists, or the NOM, or on saving the whole world – even the huge traditional Church delayed 15 centuries to reach the continents over the ocean.
Also, as is a human fallen nature, individual people err and fall, then some of the fallen raise again. The SSPX priests are people quite similar to us, and while in some places you may have met decaying sorts of themselves (and do not forget – also of ourselves), in other places they are a shining light in the dark. In my place SSPX is great, and strict, and independent as any order can be.
M.R.-“great, strict and independent” — That’s the way the SSPX used to be. Now they want to part of the “official” church in Rome. Why?
“horrors of Bergoglio, the Anti-Christ” – stay away, stay away, stay away!!!!!
As in the first millenium is as it is today. Whenever politics ,which is the Beast of this world co mingles with the Kingdom of God ,which is the Church , the Beast brings out the devil and his minions.
The Beast is thriving in the Vatican with Borgoglio. If the SSPX had remained focused on preserving the Mass and the Sacraments and ignored the politics of this world past and present , the Society would never disintegrate into the vortex.
Ignatio, how do you submit to a Pope but not his teachings?
M.R., – As my2cents said it best earlier: “There was a time I thought Fellay could (or would) be another St. Athanasius. Of course, those thoughts are down the drain. He and his fellow bishops could have led the charge to save Our Lord’s Church. So sad–so very sad!” This VISCERAL hope/ache can best be understood by listening to another Sede pleading for (Fellay the Bruce) to seize what should rightly be that of every True Catholic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2oJhWi5SQ4
Funny how posters get angry when they are not agreed with and then request links . When you provide them ,the end result is they complain to the blog host after THEY are the ones who bring the topic like SSPX up.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sodomy-scandal-in-post-falls-id-sspx-immaculate-conception-academy/285/
My2cents, in our remote place somewhere in Europe the changes usually arrive with much delay, thust the news that some of SSPX want to be recognized by parts of the scandalous Church come here only as a remote thunder, but we still live a different reality, in the traditional one. Perhaps we do not advertise it so as not to have us focused or because that has been the style of our survival for the last couple of centuries….
LennyB: “Knowledgeable Catholic aka Ignatio, have you checked out the teaching on Papal Infallibility? Sedes submit to Popes that are Infallible which means there can never be a reason for the Saints and Doctors to “reject” a Pope’s “teachings against the faith.” By definition, a real honest to goodness successor of St. Peter cannot teach against the faith.”
–
With a comment as ignorant as that, it is no wonder that you were deceived by the sede-vacantist heretics. Do yourself a favor and read the book “The Gift of Infallibility.” It contains the entire four hour speech given to the conciliar fathers by Bishop Gasser during Vatican I. He provided the Church’s official explanation of what is meant by papal infallibility. As coincidence would have it, I re-read half of the book yesterday. Your comment shows that you have no idea what is meant by papal infallibility and when it applies – just like nearly all the other sede-vacantis heretics. I’m starting to think you sede-vacantist clowns are more ignorance than the average Novus Ordo.
ThomasR: “’Nope. I submit to the pope, but reject his teachings that are against the faith’, So then that makes you the pope? You have the authority to sift his magisterium and determine what is authentic Catholic teaching and what isn’t?”
–
Do you have the authority to sift the popes and determine which are real popes and which are not? If you think you do, produce the magisterial document, or at least a teaching from any approved theologian, who supports this supposed right of yours.
–
And you are also “guilty” of sifting what the pope teaches to determine if it is “authentic Catholic teaching” or not. When you conclude that it’s not, instead of rejecting the teaching (as the saints and doctors say to do), you reject the pope himself which no one says you have the right to do.
Sad to see that the commenters here, over the past year, seem to have whipped themselves into a frenzy and moved through stages of Bennyvacantism, Sedevacantism, and are now reaching the Omnivacantist or Home Alone or whatever you want to call it fringe position and some are predicting the end of the world. Why not just join the Dimond brothers or “TradCatKnight” at that point? If you’re going to be crazy, you might as well go all the way.
Or, you know, return to sanity and go back to attending Mass.
Those are the “logical” steps one takes when they fall for the errors spewed forth by the sede-vacantist heretics. Like Modernism, sede-vacantism is rooted in pride, ignorance and curiosity (the same three causes mentioned by Pius X is Pascendi).
Their curiosity, which they feed continuously, eventually leads in an addition to the problems in the Church. They complain about it, but deep down they love it. Their ignorance causes them to easily embrace the laughable errors of the sede-vacantist heretics. Finally, in their pride they imagine themselves to be the smartest ones on the block (or in the Church) and end by making rash judgments. Before the know it, they are outside the Church and on the board road to destruction.
–
They then come to blogs such as this to be feed their addition, quite their conscience, and confirm themselves in errors. But it is not a surprise to see this, for “there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.”
Ignatio: With a comment as ignorant as that, it is no wonder that you were deceived by the sede-vacantist heretics.
Ignorant? Agreed and a Sinner. Deceived? Heretic? If I am so, then you have an obligation to help and correct me. Since you have read half of the “The Gift of Infallibility”, you should be able to explain why the following is heresy and how it has deceived me:
“The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.”
(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago)
The Church teaches that a true Pope is a proximate and living rule of faith – in fact, a true Pope is THE proximate and living rule of faith because of his primacy. Anyone who proposes that a true Pope is capable of teaching error in his magisterial authority does NOT believe that the Pope is the proximate and living rule of faith in contradiction to what the Church teaches us to believe. This has to be so because as soon as the Pope teaches error he is no longer any kind of rule of faith, never mind a proximate and living rule of faith.
–
The fact that the person who occupies the papal seat is no longer the proximate and living rule of faith in the Church Militant means the person is NO LONGER POPE but merely a usurper. Our Lord in His Providence explained to us how we should view these things – e.g., the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, and salt which has lost its savor is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot. The Office of the Papacy was established by Our Lord as a BLESSING TO THE FAITHFUL, not a stumbling block!!! The Papacy is an aid, not a hindrance!!! To be somewhat simplistic about it, the only thing an occupier of the Papal Office has to do to hold on to the Office is to remain a reliable rule of faith. As soon as the occupier begins to teach error in his magisterial authority, he is no longer a blessing but a stumbling block! I no longer recognize his voice as that of my shepherd and I avoid him for the wolf he is.
–
When viewed from this perspective, anyone who claims that he rejects some teaching of the Pope but still nonetheless claims to still submit to the Pope is not being truthful with himself. When you reject some teaching of the Pope you reject him as your proximate and living rule of faith. He is no longer “Pope” for you since you deny the necessity to adhere to the teaching of one who is taught by the Church to be your “proximate and living rule of faith”.
–
So to those like Ignatio you are a practical sedevacantist because you admit that you reject teachings of Pope Francis. When you admit that you reject his teachings, you also admit that you reject Pope Francis as your proximate and living rule of faith. He is no longer “Pope” for you because he is not your proximate and living rule of faith.
Amen
Blunder and Ignatio, your pope has said Amoris Latitea is magesterial. Do you assent? Yes or No?
Pfft….but they still have his picture on the wall at their church/chapel! Obviously they “submit” to him.
This is a perfect example of how ignorance leads to sede-vacantism.
–
St. Cyprian: The Church teaches that a true Pope is a proximate and living rule of faith – in fact, a true Pope is THE proximate and living rule of faith because of his primacy.
–
Comment: The pope is the proximate rule of faith because when he DEFINES a doctrine it must be believed by faith, since such definitions are, per se, infallible.
–
St. Cyprian: Anyone who proposes that a true Pope is CAPABLE of teaching error in his magisterial authority does NOT believe that the Pope is the proximate and living rule of faith in contradiction to what the Church teaches us to believe.
–
Comment: Here we see how ignorance results in error. A pope is not infallible when he simply teaches authoritatively. He is infallible when he teaches with his supreme authority with the intention of defining a dogma for the entire Church. From The Gift of Infallibility:
“The gift (of infallibility) pertains to the Pontiff as a public person, i.e., as Bishop of Rome and visible head of the Church, and only when he is defining a matter of faith or morals to the entire Church. This gift, furthermore DOES NOT FLOW DIRECTLY FROM THE POPE’S AUTHORTITY AS POPE, FOR THEN HE WOULD ALWAYS BE EXERCISING THE GIFT, but comes from a special divine assistance given to him when, IN ACT, he is fulfilling his role as supreme teacher in a definitively binding manner.”
–
Only the infallible teachings of a pope require the assent of faith, since only those are guaranteed to be free from error. Therefore, as said above, when the Church says the pope is the rule of faith, it means his definitive teaching must be assented to by faith
–
St. Cyprian: When viewed from this perspective, anyone who claims that he rejects some teaching of the Pope but still nonetheless claims to still submit to the Pope is not being truthful with himself. When you reject some teaching of the Pope you reject him as your proximate and living rule of faith. He is no longer “Pope” for you since you deny the necessity to adhere to the teaching of one who is taught by the Church to be your “proximate and living rule of faith. So to those like Ignatio you are a practical sedevacantist because you admit that you reject teachings of Pope Francis”.
–
Comment: This comment is a perfect example of how ignorance of Catholic doctrine (papal infallibility) and ignorance of Catholic terminology (the pope is “proximate rule of faith”) leads straight to sede-vacantism. Please learn the BASICS of your faith before pontificating on the internet. You can begin by reading The Gift of Infallibility. There you will find the correct understanding of infallibility and purge yourself of you sede-vacantist errors.
Ignatio,
I found your counter-argument against St. Cyprian in a more concise format: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHqgHFcmAOc
LennyB: “Since you have read half of the “The Gift of Infallibility”, you should be able to explain [1] why the following is heresy and [2] how it has deceived me: ‘The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church’. ”
Comment: To answer your first question, the quotation is not heretical. The answer to your second is that you have been deceived by drawing the conclusion that, because of what Bishop Purcell wrote, you are justified in judging that a pope is a heretic and declaring on your own authority that he is no longer the pope. Bishop Purcell never said that was permissible.
And the book from which the quotation from Purcell is taken is not a theological book. It is his reflections on and account of what happened during Vatican I. So, you are taking a quotation from an historical book (which leaves many unanswered questions) and using it to justify an action that the quotation does not support.
If you read theological books (not historical books), that discuss the subject of papal heresy at length, you will not find a single one that says your actions are justified.
On the contrary, what you will find only the Church (not you) can declare the see vacant, and that before the Church does so, the pope must continued to be obeyed in a licit commands.
Here is a recent quotation from Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, the former rector of the Gregorian, who holds a PhD in canon law,and has studied the last thousand years of canonical commentary on how a pope can lose his office.
Father Ghirlanda: “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; IN THE SECOND AND IN THE THIRD FROM THE MOMENT OF THE DECLARATION ON THE PART OF THE CARDINALS; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation.”
Do you accept the teaching of this renowned canonist that the papal office becomes vacant for heresy when the Cardinal issue a declaration (which he bases on his study of 1000 years of canonical tradition)? Or will you instead persist in your error based on your misinterpretation of a quotation from an historical book – a quotation that DOES NOT SAY a Catholic can declare that a pope has lost his office if he personally judges him to be a heretic?
Cyprian: “I can cite Popes, Cardinals, Saints and canonists who instruct me that I can withdraw my obedience from an heretical Pope and these recognize-and-resisters mired in attrition will call me a heretic.”
Comment: Show us a quotation that says you can declare that the pope has lost his office if you personally think he’s a heretic.
The Pope’s teaching on marriage touched faith and morals and was declared by him to be an exercise of his magisterium. Essentially Our Lord taught that marriage is indissoluble and “Pope” Francis by the sum total of his teachings and Law (e.g., his two letters on annulments) teaches that marriage is dissoluble, and in the process calls into question a whole host of related teachings on moral theology, e.g, the role of catholic conscience, the proper disposition required for receipt of the sacraments, etc. When you reject his teachings on these matters, you are rejecting his teaching on faith and morals. He is no longer your proximate and living rule of faith. In addition, by rejecting them when he considers them to be an exercise of his magisterium, you commit mortal sin.
–
Further, a good argument can be made that the sum total of his actions on marriage and related issues and the fact that they were directed to the universal Church mean they should be viewed as an exercise of his extraordinary magisterium since it was his apparent intention to bind the universal Church to them.
–
Do you deny that his teachings and laws on marriage touch faith and morals? Do you deny that his teachings were directed to the universal Church? Do you deny that he considers them to be an exercise of his magisterium?
–
In addition, it is clear from the thrust of your arguments that you do not believe that religious assent is owed to his teachings that are nor proclaimed in an extraordinary manner. This is incorrect.
–
Further, it is clear that you deny the primacy of the Papacy in that you believe that recourse can be had to a superior authority (e.g., your private judgment) on judgments of faith and morals made by the Pope with which you disagree. Although one may argue that a Papal teaching was not proclaimed in a manner that requires the highest level of assent, you still require JURISDICTION on the matter to conclude that the teaching can be reviewed and rejected. Vatican I declared:
–
“Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”
–
If Vatican I declared that it was improper to appeal Papal judgments to an ecumenical council, do you think the Church fathers thought it appropriate to appeal a Papal judgment to a lay person’s private judgment? To make it completely obvious for you, Vatican I accorded supreme and absolute jurisdiction on these matters in the Papacy, and preserved ABSOLUTELY NO JURISDICTION WHATSOEVER in any subordinate body of the Church – whether that body be an Ecumenical Council or a recognize-and-resist layperson. You, Ignatio, have no jurisdiction to review and reject a judgment of the Apostolic See.
–
The problem you have Ignatio is that you do not believe that the Apostolic See is preserved from blemish. Again I quote Vatican I:
–
“Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
–
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”
Nice try, but I responded to his errors with doctrinal arguments. If you disagreed with what I wrote, provide a doctrinal response. Posting a childish video in response to doctrinal arguments is not the way to persuade serious Catholics.
Ignatio you are mired in attrition!!! I claim that I can cite Popes, Cardinals, Saints and Canonists who teach that I can withdraw my obedience from an heretical Pope and instead of focusing on that, you immediately change the question to “by what authority do you declare the see vacant”?
–
I think a normal person would be relieved that there is support that he can withdraw his obedience from a heretic!!! Instead, you focus on Pope Boniface that the faithful must submit to the Pope to infinity NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES OR DENIES!!! Even when a putative Pope is teaching heresy! Even when a putative Pope is causing schism!
–
I accord you the dignity that you are making your arguments in good faith because the alternative is worse: You know that many of the faithful are still motivated by attrition – mainly the fear of hell instead of Charity the love of the Almighty – and you are formulating your arguments to appeal to that fear!
Cyprian: Further, a good argument can be made that the sum total of his actions on marriage and related issues and the fact that they were directed to the universal Church mean they should be viewed as an exercise of his extraordinary magisterium since it was his apparent intention to bind the universal Church to them.
–
Comment: A good argument CANNOT be made if you have a correct understanding papal infallibility. Infallibility is tied to single definitive act, not a multitude of non-definitive acts, and the intention of the single act to define must be “manifest” not merely “implied”. You would know this if you studied the topic.
–
Cyprian: Do you deny that his teachings and laws on marriage touch faith and morals? Do you deny that his teachings were directed to the universal Church? Do you deny that he considers them to be an exercise of his magisterium?
–
Comment: I don’t deny any of that, but those three conditions do not suffice for the teaching to be infallible. It is not the “exercise of his Magisterium” that guarantees a teaching is without error. It has to be the specific exercise of define a doctrine, with the clear intention to define. But don’t take my word for it. Here is the Church’s official and authoritative explanation of papal infallibility, as delivered by Bishop Gasser to the fathers of Vatican I before their vote:
–
Bishop Gasser: “Second, not just any manner of proposing the doctrine is sufficient even when he is exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher. Rather, there is required the manifest intention of defining a doctrine … as one that must be held by the universal Church. This last point [clear intention to define] is indeed something intrinsic to every dogmatic definition that is taught by the supreme pastor and teacher of the universal Church, and which is to be held by the universal Church.”
–
Cyprian: In addition, it is clear from the thrust of your arguments that you do not believe that religious assent is owed to his teachings that are nor proclaimed in an extraordinary manner. This is incorrect.
–
Comment: That’s a false accusation, which is likely rooted in your ignorance of a point of doctrine. I never denied that religious assent is owed to non-infallible teachings. But what you apparently don’t know is that “religious assent” is not absolute. It permits of exceptions. The level of assent corresponds to the degree of certitude of the doctrine taught. Doctrines infallibly proposed require the absolute assent of faith. Doctrines taught authoritatively, not not infallibly, only require a religious assent, due to the possibility that the doctrine is erroneous. The possibility of error explains why the “religious assent” owed to non-infallible teachings is not absolute, but permits of exceptions.
–
The following is taken from Praelectiones Dogmaticae (1898) by Christian Pesch:
–
“Since the religious assent referred to is not based on a metaphysical certainty, but only a moral and general one, it does not exclude all suspicion of error. For this reason, as soon as there arises sufficient motives for doubt, the assent will be prudently suspended: nevertheless, as long as such motives for doubt do not arise, the authority of the Congregations is sufficient to oblige one to assent. The same principles apply without difficulty to the declarations which the Supreme Pontiff emits without involving his supreme authority, as well as the decisions of the other ecclesiastical superiors who are not infallible.”
–
Here’s one more from Theologiae Dogmaticae Manual, published in 1933:
–
“These non infallible acts of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff do not oblige one to believe, and do not postulate an absolute and definitive subjection. But it behooves one to adhere with a religious and internal assent to such decisions, since they constitute acts of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, and are founded upon solid natural and supernatural reasons. The obligation to adhere to them can only begin to terminate … [if] after a repeated and very diligent analysis of all the arguments, [one] arrives at the conviction that an error has been introduced into the decision.”
–
More quotations concerning this point can be found in Arnaldo De Silveira’s book “Can the Documents of the Magisterium of the Church Contains Errors”, and his earlier book “Theological hypothesis of a heretical pope”.
–
Cyprian: Further, it is clear that you deny the primacy of the Papacy in that you believe that recourse can be had to a superior authority (e.g., your private judgment) on judgments of faith and morals made by the Pope with which you disagree.”
–
Comment: Two false charges in one sentence. I do not deny the primacy of the Papacy and do not believe recourse can be had to superior authority, since the pope is the supreme authority on earth. However, if the Church has infallibly defined a doctrine that is later denied by non-infallible act of a future pope, Catholics must continue to adhere to the infallibly defined truth, and reject the non-infallible teaching that contradicts it. Doing so is not relying on “private judgment” to determine what is true, but on the infallible judgment of the Church.
–
Cyprian: Although one may argue that a Papal teaching was not proclaimed in a manner that requires the highest level of assent, you still require JURISDICTION on the matter to conclude that the teaching can be reviewed and rejected.
–
Comment: What? No jurisdiction is required for a Catholic to adhere to an infallibly defined doctrine and to reject a doctrine that is contrary to it. The teaching of Vatican I that says “they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff,” is referring to the error which holds that the JUDGMENTS of a pope can be appealing to a council, as to a higher authority, as the heretic Nestorius did.
–
I would also challenge to you produce a formal judgment of Francis that is erroneous. Not a statement that is erroneous, or seems erroneous, but a clear JUDGMENT that is erroneous – and “judgment” is understood as a formal papal judgment that is intended to settle a point of dispute.
–
Cyprian: “The problem you have Ignatio is that you do not believe that the Apostolic See is preserved from blemish. Again I quote Vatican I: “Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
–
Comment: Nope, the problem resides with you, since you clearly don’t understand what the Church means when it teaches that the “See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error.” It doesn’t mean a pope cannot err. It means the DEFINITIVE teachings of the Apostolic See are free from any “blemish” BECAUSE of the gift of infallibility. If you bothered to read the context you would know this. The quote is taken from chapter four of Pastor Aeternus, which is titled “On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff.” It is the infallible teachings of a pope that are without blemish. That’s what the statement means.
–
Cyprian: Vatican I: “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”
–
Comment: This is from the same chapter of Pastor Aeternus. The “gift of truth and never failing faith of Peter” applies to his successor when he is defining a doctrine. That’s what it means, and that’s why, immediately after the quotation you cited, the Council defines the conditions for infallibility.
–
“…With the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that WHEN the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he DEFINES A DOCTRINE concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”
–
It is when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra, for the entire Church, that he possess “the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter” that guarantees that the teaching is infallibly true, and therefore “without blemish.”
I truly appreciate your reply (although you throw the “I” word around a bit much). Nevertheless, I respect the points by Ghirlanda you put forward as I want to learn with the learned.
Ignatio: “IN THE SECOND AND IN THE THIRD FROM THE MOMENT OF THE DECLARATION ON THE PART OF THE CARDINALS;”
LB: What if all of the Cardinals are Modernists, Semi-Modernists, Arians or Semi Arians, etc., themselves?
Ignatio: Do you accept the teaching of this renowned canonist that the papal office becomes vacant for heresy when the Cardinal issue a declaration (which he bases on his study of 1000 years of canonical tradition)?
LB: I do. However, as my question indicates, that formal declaration may never come from the Cardinals as they themselves could also be Arians or Semi-Arians as well. Also I agree with the following:
Ignatio: “Infallibility is tied to single definitive act, not a multitude of non-definitive acts, and the intention of the single act to define must be “manifest” not merely “implied”.
LB: The issue is not whether or not I can depose/declare a Pope as a heretic/schismatic, it is whether I can honestly say there is in fact another entity known as the Novus Ordo Church that is and was not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church in 1958. And if I can, then the “visible” Church is not to be found in the Vatican institution.
All of sudden Ignatio magicly metamorphed from an apparent middle schooler to a doctor of theology – that was quite some trick! And is fundamentally dishonest to boot! So the never-failing faith of the true successors of St. Peter can be set at a lie when day-after-day a heretic “Pope” denies eventually every dogmatic teaching of the Church! I believe you have mixed things up – the never-failing faith of true successors of St. Peter is the condition for infallibility – it is gifted to them and accords them the ability to exercise the charism of infallibility.
–
Don’t repeat this portion of your argument in the future:
–
“Two false charges in one sentence. I do not deny the primacy of the Papacy and do not believe recourse can be had to superior authority, since the pope is the supreme authority on earth. However, IF THE CHURCH HAS INFALLIBLY DEFINED A DOCTRINE THAT IS LATER DENIED BY NON-INFALLIBLE ACT OF A FUTURE POPE, Catholics must continue to adhere to the infallibly defined truth, and reject the non-infallible teaching that contradicts it. Doing so is not relying on “private judgment” to determine what is true, but on the infallible judgment of the Church.” (My emphasis added)
–
What kind of Pope denies an “infallibly defined doctrine” of the Church and remains Pope? NO POPE AT ALL. A true Pope doesn’t deny an infallibly defined doctrine of the Church. You apparently believe that one who does so can command my obedience. I can cite two Popes who authorize me to withdraw my obedience in such circumstances. Who are you to contradict them?
Ignatio:
It is a common misconception these days to believe that the only time a Pope is infallible is with regard to an Ex Cathedra pronouncement. If that is true, then how can the faithful be as “little children” in believing whatever the Pope and the Church teaches? If that were true, then we each must be expected to become little “theologians”, deciding for ourselves whether or not what something the Pope teaches is true or or not. This is false and therefore a lie. You are wrong, as this is not at all what the Church actually teaches regarding the Papacy. The Pope cannot teach error nor can he ever lose his personal faith.
St. Cyprian: Ignatio you are mired in attrition!!! I claim that I can cite Popes, Cardinals, Saints and Canonists who teach that I can withdraw my obedience from an heretical Pope and instead of focusing on that, you immediately change the question to “by what authority do you declare the see vacant”?
–
Comment: That’s because I agree it is permissible to withdrawing obedience from a heretic pope (secundum quid, not simpliciter), since the natural right of self defense can nullify the obligation to obey. Withdrawing obedience from a heretic pope secundum quid is one thing. Saying he is no longer pope due to heresy is another. The former is permitted, the latter is not. That’s why I said “Show us a quotation that says you can declare pope has lost his office if you personally think he’s a heretic.” I’m still waiting for it.
–
St. Cyprian: I think a normal person would be relieved that there is support that he can withdraw his obedience from a heretic!!! Instead, you focus on Pope Boniface that the faithful must submit to the Pope to infinity NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES OR DENIES!!!
–
Comment: I mentioned Pope Boniface’s teaching because it is a dogma of the faith that subjection to the pope is necessary for salvation. But there are distinctions concerning the manner and degree of subjection necessary for salvation. These distinctions show why the R&R position is correct and the sede-vacantist position is not.
–
The subjection to the pope that’s necessary for salvation simpliciter (absolutely) requires that we remain in communion with him, and acknowledge that he is head of the Church, with supreme authority and the other prerogatives of the office. This manner of subjection is necessary for salvation because without it a person ceases to be a member of the Church (Canon751), and outside the Church there is no salvation.
–
If we speak of the subjection to the pope in the sense of OBEDIENCE to his commands, the subjection necessary for salvation is not simpliciter (absolute) secundum quid (with qualification). This is evident from the fact that it is possible for a Pope to command something against the law of God, yet our obedience God’s law is absolute. Our obedience to the pope is only simpliciter when the possibility of error is removed, which is to say, when he acts infallibly. If he is not engaging his infallibility, our submission to the Pope is only secundum quid, as Cardinal De Torquemada explains:
–
Cardinal De Torquemada: “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: “One ought to obey God rather than man;” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed.”
–
The bull of Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus says the Roman Pontiff can be contradicted if he deviates from the faith: “the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of authority over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, MAY NONETHELESS BE CONTRADICTED IF HE BE FOUND TO HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH.”
–
It is evidence that Paul IV is not referring to a pope who was invalidly elected due to heresy (a point he discusses later) but to a validly elected true pope. This is evident since a non-pope is not “the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ”, nor does a non-pope “hold the fullness of authority over peoples and kingdoms.”
–
Paul IV makes the clear distinction between recognizing that the person is the Roman Pontiff and possesses “the fullness of authority over peoples” (which is necessary for salvatin simplicitur), and resisting the pope in the EXERCISE of his authority. This is a classical distinction, and was used by St. Thomas to explain St. Paul’s “resisting” Peter “to his face” for endangering the faith.
–
St. Thomas explains: “The Apostle opposed Peter in the EXERCISE of authority, NOT IN HIS AUTHORITY OF RULING. Therefore from the foregoing … subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, so they will not fear to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.”
–
These quotations and many others prove that obedience to a pope is not absolute, but is necessary secundum quid, while the dogma of Pope Boniface shows that subjection to Pope in the first sense discussed is necessary simpliciter.
–
This principle establishes why it is not forbidden to withdraw obedience from a heretical pope (sacundum quid), when it becomes necessary as a means of self defense.
–
What is not permitted, and what no pope, saint or doctor of the Church has ever taught, is that a Catholics who personally JUDGE the pope to be heretic (Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur) can proclaim that he is no longer pope. Not only does this logically and necessarily cut them off from communion with the Pope and from the subjection that to him that is necessary for salvation simpliciter, but the act it is strictly forbidden by an infallible decree of a general council, which declares:
–
“This holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself FROM COMMUNION WITH his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch. … If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod … he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.”
–
Rejecting what that decree TEACHES is a mortal sin against the faith, and DOING what the decree forbids cuts a person off from the Church – at least when their patriarch happens to be the Pope.
–
And to anticipate an objection, nowhere does the decree make an exception for the crime of heresy, as though the council means a lay person cannot separate from his Patriarch for a crime he knows him to have committed UNLESS the crime happens to be heresy, which is how the sede-vacantists have tried to spin it.
–
St. Cyprian: I accord you the dignity that you are making your arguments in good faith because the alternative is worse: You know that many of the faithful are still motivated by attrition – mainly the fear of hell instead of Charity the love of the Almighty – and you are formulating your arguments to appeal to that fear!
–
Comment: My position isn’t based on fear, but on a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine. Your position, however, SHOULD provoke fear in anyone who claims to be Catholic since it entails the rejection of a teaching of a Conciliar decree, as well as an act that the teaching forbids. The former makes you a heretic, the latter a schismatic. If that doesn’t cause you fear, you’re worse off than I thought.
The only time a Pope’s teachings are guaranteed to be free from error is when he is defining a doctrine for the entire Church, since only then is the charism of infallibility operative. Infallibility is engaged ONLY when the specific ACT of defining doctrine is taking placed, not before or after.
–
And the Church has never taught that a pope is unable to lose his personal faith. Here is one quote of many affirming that he can. It is from St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church.
Francis de Sales: “Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; OR BE ALTOGETHER A HERETIC, as perhaps Honorius was.”
–
The book from which that quotation was taken was thoroughly reviewed prior to his canonization and found to be without error.
–
If you want to believe a pope cannot lose his faith, that’s fine, but the Church has never taught such a thing and the majority of theologians over the past 2000 years disagree with you.
St. Cyprian: So the never-failing faith of the true successors of St. Peter can be set at a lie when day-after-day a heretic “Pope” denies eventually every dogmatic teaching of the Church! I believe you have mixed things up – the never-failing faith of true successors of St. Peter is the condition for infallibility – it is gifted to them and accords them the ability to exercise the charism of infallibility.”
–
Comment: You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by “the unfailing faith of St. Peter” as it applies to a successor of St. Peter. Simply put, it prevents the possibility of error when a pope exercise the office of Peter while meeting the conditions set down by Vatican I. Infallible protection from error is engaged ONLY when the pope performs a specific act that meets the required conditions. What this means is that the unfailing faith of Peter will not prevent a pope from denying “every dogmatic teaching of the Church”. It will only prevent him from error during an act in which the conditions are being met.
–
Your statement that “the never-failing faith of true successors of St. Peter is THE CONDITION for infallibility” is a denial of the teaching of Vatican I.
–
Here is the explanation of papal infallibility found in the Original Catholic Encyclopedia:
–
“Explanation of papal infallibility
–
“The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, WHEN HE SPEAKS EX CATHEDRA — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — IS, BY REASON OF THE DIVINE ASSISTANCE PROMISED TO HIM IN BLESSED PETER, POSSESSED OF THAT INFALLIBILITY with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in DEFINING doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Denzinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that: …
• infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but ONLY to his ex cathedra teaching; and the CONDITIONS required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
–
1 The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
–
2 Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
–
3 Further it MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY EVIDENT that he intends to TEACH WITH all the FULLNESS AND FINALITY OF HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an ABSOLUTELY FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE WAY, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
–
4 Finally for an ex cathedra DECISION IT MUST BE CLEAR THAT THE POPE INTENDS TO BIND THE WHOLE CHURCH. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.”
–
Comment: Those are the conditions required for papal infallibility according to the infallible definition of Vatican I. This is not merely a theological opinion but a dogma of the faith that you are bound to accept.
–
How ironic would it be if you, who pontificate about the need to accept the judgments of the Apostolic see, denied this infallible dogma.
Amoris Latitea fits the bill. Bergolio even said its magesterial. So assent. Communion in the NO sect can now be given to public adulterers. It is settled.
When I said that the never-failing faith gifted to true successors of St. Peter was set at a lie by accepting “Pope” Francis as a true successor of St Peter it should have been clear to anyone of good faith what I meant – POPE FRANCIS CONTRADICTS IN HIS SPEECH, WRITINGS AND ACTIONS ARTICLES OF THE FAITH. You continually seek to restrict the discussion to the exercise of his supposed magisterial authority. The fact that he professes heresy means he has no magisterial authority to exercise since he is not a successor to St. Peter! The gift of “never-failing faith” is only gifted to successors of St. Peter!
–
He is purportedly gifted with “never-failing faith” but he continually contradicts articles of the faith. You apparently believe that one who is gifted with “never-failing faith” can continually contradict the faith and still be understood to have received that gift. How does that work? Even though the person professes heresy and apostasy we are to believe that he has been gifted with “never-failing faith”? It doesn’t work that way because a heretic or apostate is not a legitimate successor of St. Peter and the gift of “never-failing faith” does not apply to him! Review the teaching on who may be elevated to the Papacy, and who may maintain the office once elevated! Heretics and apostates cannot be elevated to the Office, and if it is, in fact, possible for a true Pope to profess heresy or apostasy after elevation, then such a one would be deposed by divine law.
–
Further, you contested that I did not properly understand infallibility. A negative aspect of infallibility concerns universal disciplinary laws. Universal disciplinary laws have been argued to be infallible to the extent that they touch dogmas of the faith. For instance, it would be expected that the two Motu Propios directed to the universal Church by “Pope” Francis regarding annulment would reflect an orthodox understanding of Catholic marriage and to the extent they explain the nature of Catholic marriage they would be infallible.
–
Instead, the Motu Propios when setting forth procedures for annulments teach that Catholic marriages can “irretrievably fail” apparently due to post-nuptial exigencies. Exactly where one would expect an orthodox understanding of Catholic marriage necessary to demonstrate infallibility a heretical understanding of Catholic marriage is set forth – that Catholic marriage is dissoluble. What kind of “Pope” promulgates universal disciplinary laws that would be expected to be infallible in the negative sense that applies to universal disciplinary laws but are in fact heretical because they reflect an heretical understanding of the dogma they touch?
Can a heretic or apostate be elevated to the Papacy? Does a true Pope who professes heresy or apostasy after elevation maintain his office?
Amoris Latitea fits what bill? Surely you don’t mean the infallible bill, right?
.
Not only does infallibility NOT cover an ENTIRE document in which a doctrine is defined (but only the sentence or two that consists in the definition), AL does not contain any definitions.
Clueless.
Catholics are not only required to give assent to “infallible” teachings.
No, I mean AL fits the magesterial bill. Infaillability has nothing to do with you assenting to your pope. You assent to his magesterial teachings. AL is the direction the Church is going and your pope has made it quite clear that the matter is no longer open for discussion. But you neo caths keep resisting your pope just like the gallicans of old.
Regarding my argument about the expected infallibility of the universal disciplinary laws of the Church, and how this involves the Motu Proprios of “Pope” Francis:
–
This citation contains a discussion of the issue by Rev. Sylvester Berry:
–
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/02/disciplinary-infallibility-of-church.html
–
The most relevant portion by Rev. Berry states thus:
–
“d) Disciplinary Matters . . . Such laws and precepts are necessarily subject to the infallible authority of the Church, because of their intimate connection with the doctrines of faith and morals. For example, the law prescribing Communion under one species presupposes the doctrine that Our Lord is present whole and entire under either form, and the laws concerning the exposition of them is licit. HENCE, IN MAKING LAWS, THE CHURCH IMPLICITLY PASSES A TWOFOLD JUDGMENT – ONE OF DOCTRINE, THE OTHER OF PRUDENCE; SHE JUDGES THAT THE LAW IS NOT OPPOSED TO ANY REVEALED TRUTH AND THAT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WILL ASSIST AND GUIDE THE FAITHFUL IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR CHRISTIAN DUTIES. THE CHURCH IS NECESSARILY INFALLIBLE IN THIS DOCTRINAL JUDGMENT, FOR IF SHE WERE NOT, THE FAITHFUL MIGHT BE LED INTO ERROR AT ANY TIME.” (My emphasis added)
–
Hence, in examining a universal disciplinary law of the Church, we would expect to the extent that it touches a revealed truth it reflects an orthodox understanding of the revealed truth and does not contradict the revealed truth because the teaching of the Church is that this is a secondary aspect of infallibility.
Now applying the teaching of the Church presented by Rev. Berry to the particular situation of the Motu Propios promulgated to the Church regarding annulment, a discussion of the Motu Propios appears here:
–
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351147bdc4.html?eng=y
–
This citation is to an article entitled “New Annulment Procedures. A Jurist Demolishes the Reform of Pope Francis” The article presents a discussion of the subject by “Professor Danilo Castellano, one of the leading experts on the subject. He judges the reform as ‘contradictory and inconsistent.'”
–
In the discussion of the reforms, the participants discuss two canons that appear in the Motu Propios. The canons discuss the “irreparable failure” of Catholic Marriage, and the participants stated the following regarding the canons:
–
“Q: The new canons 1675 and 1361, for the Eastern and Western Codes, say that ‘the judge, before accepting the case, must have the certainty that the MARRIAGE HAS IRREPARABLY FAILED, IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REESTABLISH CONJUGAL COEXISTENCE.’ Is there not the danger of unduly equating the failure of a marriage with nullity?
–
A: READING THE NEW CANONS CITED, ONE IS LEFT DISCONCERTED: THE NULL MARRIAGE IS NOT A FAILED MARRIAGE. NULLITY IS A DECLARATION OF THE NON-EXISTENCE OF A MARRIAGE. THE FAILED MARRIAGE IS NOT NULL IN AND OF ITSELF. The canons cited are contradictory even with respect to the preamble of the motu proprio ‘Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus.’
–
Q: And moreover: if the failure stems from the free will of the spouses, can an external human power decide what in the inner conscience of the persons has failed?
–
A: EVEN IF THE FAILURE OF THE MARRIAGE IS DUE TO THE DECISIONS OF THE SPOUSES, IT CANNOT BE DECLARED NULL BY ANYONE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT NULL. NOT EVEN THE POPE HAS THIS POWER. ON THE CONTRARY, IF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FAILURE RESTS WITH THE SPOUSES, IT SHOULD REPRESENT AN ADDITIONAL FACTOR IN NOT FACILITATING SHORTCUTS FOR LIBERATING THEM FROM FREELY ASSUMED MORAL OBLIGATIONS. The failure is a fact of conscience only under the profile of moral responsibility. It has no significance under other aspects and cannot be invoked for declarations of nullity or for the annulment of marriage.” (My emphasis added)
–
Thus my argument that the Motu Propios of “Pope Francis” are unexpectedly heretical in a manner that the Church teaches we should expect them to be infallible. The Motu Propios touch or concern a revealed truth of the Catholic Faith – that Catholic marriage is indissoluble – and contradict that truth by suggesting that Catholic marriages can ”irreparably fail” in a manner not related to nullity and that Catholic marriages can be dissolved for this reason.
–
The Rev. Berry taught that to the extent that a universal law touches a revealed truth it is infallible. Referring back to the discussion of Rev. Berry he stated: “HENCE, IN MAKING LAWS, THE CHURCH IMPLICITLY PASSES A TWOFOLD JUDGMENT – ONE OF DOCTRINE, THE OTHER OF PRUDENCE; SHE JUDGES THAT THE LAW IS NOT OPPOSED TO ANY REVEALED TRUTH AND THAT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WILL ASSIST AND GUIDE THE FAITHFUL IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR CHRISTIAN DUTIES. THE CHURCH IS NECESSARILY INFALLIBLE IN THIS DOCTRINAL JUDGMENT, FOR IF SHE WERE NOT, THE FAITHFUL MIGHT BE LED INTO ERROR AT ANY TIME.”
–
How exactly is the doctrinal judgment made by “Pope” Francis that Catholic marriage can “irreparably fail” separate and apart from grounds for nullity an example of the “secondary aspect of the infallibility of the Church”? It isn’t. The Church teaches that the Church CANNOT DO WHAT HAPPENED HERE. It cannot contradict a revealed truth in a universal disciplinary law. What are we to conclude from that fact? That the Church erred and is not infallible in this secondary aspect? That the entity which promulgated these laws is a counterfeit? That the person who has usurped the Chair of St. Peter is an heretic and apostate and should not be expected to promulgate orthodox laws that are infallible in this secondary aspect?
Infallibility extends to disciplines by preventing a universally disciplinary law from contradicting a revealed truth. Nothing in the canons you cited contradicts this. You are reading into them what they do not say, as we will see.
Here is the question you posted from the article, which contains the canons:
–
“Question: The new canons 1675 and 1361, for the Eastern and Western Codes, say that ‘the judge, before accepting the case, must have the certainty that the MARRIAGE HAS IRREPARABLY FAILED, IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REESTABLISH CONJUGAL COEXISTENCE.’ Is there not the danger of unduly equating the failure of a marriage with nullity?”
–
Comment: In reply, Danilo Castellano essentially saying that a “failed” marriage has nothing to do with whether or not the marriage was null. That’s true, but from a practical perspective, whether or not a “marriage has irreparably failed, in such a way that it is impossible to reestablish conjugal coexistence”, is something the judge should know (with a reasonable degree of certainty) before “accepting the case”.
–
Why? Because if a putative marriage can be saved (if the couple can reconcile) in most cases any doubts concerning validity can be removed by a renewal of the marriage vows. Read in this light the canons make perfect sense, and in no way do they “unduly equate the failure of a marriage with nullity,” to answer the question that was posed.
–
Regarding the second Q&A you provided. The canons quoted above do not say, or even suggest, that the “failure” of a putative marriage, resulting from the free will of the couple, relates in any way to the validity of the matrimonial bond or to whether it can be “dissolved”. The canon(s) are simply a procedural norm for a judge to follow. Nothing more.
–
St. Cyprian: “Thus my argument that the Motu Propios of “Pope Francis” are unexpectedly heretical in a manner that the Church teaches we should expect them to be infallible. The Motu Propios touch or concern a revealed truth of the Catholic Faith – that Catholic marriage is indissoluble – and contradict that truth BY SUGGESTING THAT CATHOLIC MARRIAGES CAN ”IRREPARABLY FAIL” in a manner not related to nullity AND THAT CATHOLIC MARRIAGES CAN BE DISSOLVED FOR THIS REASON.”
–
Comment: You drew that false conclusion based on someone’s commentary on a canon, when the canon says no such thing. All the canon says is that a judge must be sure the putative marriage has “irreparably failed” before accepting the case. And the term “irreparably failed” does not mean the marriage bond can be dissolved. The meaning of the term is given in the canon – namely, “that it is impossible to reestablish conjugal coexistence.” Nowhere do the canons you cited say a sacramental marriage bond can be “dissolved” if the putative marriage has “irreparably failed”.
–
You assertion that these canons contradict disciplinary infallibility is perhaps the most idiotic thing you’ve said so far.
–
Lastly, I’m glad you read the short excerpt from Fr. Berry’s book that you found on the internet, but I would recommend that you purchase the actual book and study it. Doing so will help you see through many of your errors and heresies. It’s available on Amazon. I’ve had the book for years and quote from it regularly to refute the errors and heresies of sedevacantists such as yourself.
Tom A: “No, I mean AL fits the magesterial bill. Infaillability has nothing to do with you assenting to your pope. You assent to his magesterial teachings.”
–
These discussion go in circles. Of course infallibility has something to do with the assent given to a teaching.
A teaching that has been infallibly proposed requires an unconditional assent of of faith, corresponding to the infallible certitude that the teaching is true. Those teaching that have not been proposed infallibly require the CONDITIONAL assent of religious obedience – conditional due to the fact that error is possible.
–
Now, since you believe it is necessary to either assent to everything the pope teaches, no matter how novel it is, or else proclaim that he is not the pope, if you lived at the time John XXII was teaching and defending a serious error against the faith, what would your response have been?
Ignatio, I think you are smart enough to realize the difference between a Pope’s opinion (John 22) and a pope’s official teaching (AL). If there was any confusion as to the assent required to AL, Francis, in a moment of actual clarity, settled the issue when he declared his position on divorced and remarried as magesterial. There is nothing left to oppose on this issue if Bergolio is Pope. He settled the issue after many people publically made known their disagreements with AL. I am sure he was briefed and read himself all the conservative arguments. Yet by his apostolic authority that you believe he has, he settled the issue for you and all the conservatives. So now you have nothing more to say on the subject other than to assent and teach it yourself. If you cant do that then your duty is to at least not publically oppose his magesterial teaching.
He can have his Pope and follow him, too.