In early March, I published a post, SSPX offers stunning evaluation of Amoris, Francis, in reference to Part 5 of a series of articles written by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX, entitled, Is Pope Francis Heretical?
To say that I’ve received a great deal of feedback is an understatement.
Ultimately, my criticism of what I see as the Society’s inadequate response to the crisis at hand has cost me some of the financial support that I rely upon to keep this effort going, and perhaps even some friends.
That’s OK. I’m hopeful that God will raise up others in time. He always does.
That said, I would like for you to know that among those who reached out to me in confidence to express their support included certain priests of the Society itself, and for this confirmation I am very grateful.
Among those who strongly disagreed with my assessment of the Society’s position is a man that I am pleased to call a friend. Some of you know him from his articulate comments in the combox here as “A Catholic Thinker.” Let’s call him ACT for short.
ACT posted a strong reply in the comment section of my post on Fr. Gleize’s article. Some of you no doubt read it there.
It occurs to me that this defense of Fr. Gleize’s analysis is perhaps as good as anyone can provide, and for this reason I am posting it here along with my rebuttal.
Now, please bear in mind that ACT (who is an excellent writer) offered the following as a “comment” and not as an article; i.e., it’s not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of the topic at hand in either content or style.
Even so, I believe that what follows will be instructive. It’s a bit lengthy, but those who persevere will no doubt come away with a better understanding of this most pressing matter.
For the sake expedience, you will find ACT’s words (some of which quote me from the original post linked above) in regular type, and my own words in response in boldface.
______________________________________________________
Concerning the first dubia, Louie disagrees that the phrase “in certain cases” has more than one interpretation. Louie seems to be suggesting that because the Church does not judge internals, there are no valid cases at all where the Eucharist may be offered to public sinners (adulterers), and in that he is completely correct, of course (with a caveat below).
However, of course Fr. Gleize is not contesting that point at all (which he makes clear even in what Louie quotes) – rather, Fr. Gleize seems to be stating that it isn’t clear if “in certain cases” is actually referring to people obstinately persisting in public sin, rather than something else entirely.
Fr. Gleize states, “We are dealing here therefore with a doubt (dubium) in the strictest sense of the term, in other words, a passage that can be interpreted in two ways. And this doubt arises precisely thanks to the indefinite expression in the note: ‘in certain cases.’ In order to dispel this doubt, it is essential to indicate clearly what these cases are in which the Church’s sacramental aid proves possible and to state that this is about situations in which the sufficiently enlightened sinners have already decided to abandon the objectively sinful situation.”
The document leaves no room for doubt whatsoever as to the situation being addressed. It concerns “people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together” (AL 297); “the divorced who have entered a new union” (AL 298), etc.
It is equally as clear from the text that it is not discussing those in this group who “have already decided to abandon the objectively sinful situation” (to quote Fr. Gleize).
For example, we know with certainty that it is addressing “those in any ‘irregular’ situation” which (we are told) may be “in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”
Without further sin…
Amoris Laetitia is plainly addressing those who are presently in the sinful situation of persons living together more uxorio with someone other than their lawful spouse.
So, it is clear that Fr. Gleize is questioning exactly what “certain cases” refers to. Note that he has already given his answer to the dubia.
Fr. Gleize writes: “The first dubium poses the question concerning paragraphs 300-305 of Amoris laetitia: is it possible to give absolution and sacramental Communion to divorced-and-remarried persons who live in adultery without repenting? For someone who adheres to Catholic doctrine, the answer is no.”
And yet, Fr. Gleize insists, “It is essential to indicate clearly what these cases are;” namely, cases where the sacraments can be made available to those who persist in the objective state of mortal sin.
As ACT has already acknowledged above, “there are no valid cases at all where the Eucharist may be offered to public sinners (adulterers).”
This being so, why is Fr. Gleize questioning what “these cases are,” when all concerned know that there are none?
In the end, he is introducing “doubt” where it simply does not exist.
As for what Francis might imagine these cases to be, we already know based upon both the content of AL and his approval of the Buenos Aires bishops’ directives (“there are no other interpretations”) – it is those who may not be culpable. More on that momentarily…
In any case, that Francis is proposing that these special cases exist is perfectly plain.
He is dead wrong in this, and Fr. Gleize serves no one by failing to say so; calling this error for what it is – a violation of Divine Law. (See below).
Now I definitely agree that AL seems to be suggesting that “certain cases” refers to those “in an objective situation of sin”, but the document does not state this with complete clarity, which is exactly why bishops have been and continue to interpret it differently. The point of Fr. Gleize’s analysis is to remain completely objective.
AL is not “suggesting” anything; it is perfectly clear. One need only read the article under discussion (AL 305), and better still, the entirety of Chapter Eight.
There is absolutely no room for doubt as to what is meant by “irregular situations” – it clearly refers to the civilly divorced and remarried who are persisting in the grave sin of adultery. To deny this is to deny reality.
My response to Fr. Gleize’s article at this stage was simple enough:
A critical point that Fr. Gleize fails to mention is that while “it is possible” that one who commits an objectively grave sin “may not be subjectively culpable,” the Church does not have the right, or the ability, to render such judgments.
This is no small oversight on Fr. Gleize’s part. Simply acknowledging this one basic doctrine is enough to correct many of the grave errors present in Amoris Laetitia.
So-called “full communion” bishops have done so. Is it too much to expect the Society of St. Pius X to do likewise in stating its official position on the text?
(And here’s the caveat: Louie is missing that the Church does not judge the internal forum, just as individuals do not, but the Church certainly can and does judge public sins in some cases – after all, that’s exactly what the prohibition from the Eucharist for unrepentant public sinners is based on! However, this is unrelated to his arguments.)
Far from missing the point, I’ve stated many times that the Church has not only the ability, but even the duty to judge such public sins. Indeed, I have said over and over again that this objective situation is the only thing the Church is able to judge (as opposed to the subjective matter of culpability).
“Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” (from AL 301)
To which Fr. Gleize proposes: “Two points should be emphasized. The sentence just quoted posits in principle the impossibility of making a universal affirmation. It does not deny the possibility of saying that public sinners are deprived of grace; it only denies the possibility of saying that all public sinners are deprived of it. This denial has always been taught by the Church.””
Louie writes: “Once again, it is to be shocked. Here is what the Council of Trent had to say…”
Louie, you’re contradicting yourself. You noted above that only God judges the internal forum, and Fr. Gleize is saying nothing more than that above. He’s merely noting that none of us know which public sinners are culpable for their sin – and he’s entirely correct that this is in concert with Catholic teaching.
He said nothing more here; he did not in the least indicate that this in itself justifies the heterodox praxis AL seems to allow. He is examining this statement in isolation, and his analysis is completely correct and completely straightforward. How are you shocked by the true statement that not all public sinners are deprived of grace?
You quote Trent regarding the fact that sanctifying grace is lost by mortal sin, as if this is something Fr. Gleize is not cognizant of. Fr. Gleize is merely making the proper distinctions between the objective and subjective, and you are not. Whether or not objectively sinful acts deprive the soul of grace comes down to imputability, of course. This is basic Catholic teaching and all that Fr. Gleize is stating!
(The Church’s laws regarding obstinate public sinners being deprived of the Sacraments is not, of course, based on the internal forum. It is not based on purporting to know the state of their souls, but on prudently taking steps to avoid the *possibility* (likelihood) of desecration of the Eucharist and, the public scandal of allowing those in public sin in the external forum to approach the Sacred Body and Blood.
AL 301 goes well beyond simply “noting that none of us know which public sinners are culpable for their sin.”
The Council of Trent is very clear: The objective reality of mortal sin (including adultery by name) “is to be maintained…”
In other words, the Church and her ministers (and Catholics in general) must maintain that those persisting in adultery “are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”
The Church has always done this. AL 301 even tacitly acknowledges as much: “It can no longer…”
Professing the objective reality of mortal sin concerning those living as husband and wife outside of marriage (again, as the Church has always done) does not amount to a denial that the God who alone judges the internal disposition of souls may hold the individual sinner less than fully culpable.
Rather, it is simply a reflection of the Church’s duty to “teach everything whatsoever…,” in this case, the objective reality of the mortal sin of adultery.
Either the Church has this duty or it doesn’t. Trent is very clear on this point. The Church has always behaved accordingly, and yet AL 301 insists upon the exact opposite – It can no longer simply be maintained…
And worse still, AL 301 even goes so far as to include in this prohibition – in the very next sentence, in fact – those who persist in adultery while “knowing full well the rule.”
For some reason, Fr. Gleize chose to ignore this portion of AL 301 entirely!
Louie writes: “Now we seem to be getting somewhere… The Church’s response to every sinner is to preach, to warn, and to invite to conversion. She does not, however, enter into an examination of culpability as such is the prerogative of God alone!”
And Fr. Gleize is certainly not contradicting that.
In this, I was responding to Fr. Gleize’s comment:
“The help of the sacraments can only come afterward, if and only if the formerly ignorant persons, now instructed as to the seriousness of their state, have decided to make use of the means of conversion, and if they have what is called a firm purpose of amendment. Otherwise the help of the sacraments would be ineffective, and it too would be an objective situation of sin.”
Fr. Gleize is correct, of course, which leads one to once again wonder why he is asking for clarity concerning “certain cases” that the text of AL is at pains to describe as those situations wherein one is not fully culpable for their ongoing adultery.
In the face of this, Fr. Gleize failed to apply the very basic Catholic doctrine that the Church does not, indeed cannot, judge culpability. If only he had done so, a great deal of confusion would have been removed from the minds of many. There is no excuse for such an oversight.
Louie writes: “I find this stunning, to be quite honest. Remember what we are discussing – adultery. ‘The law’ in this case is absolute; it is not open to nuance or ‘prudent application,’ properly speaking: Thou shalt not commit… This formulation is very clear, and Our Lord even further clarified precisely what constitutes adultery.”
By no means does Fr. Gleize give any hint of suggesting that there are occasions where adultery is allowable!
What Louie has missed is that the passage Fr. Gleize was responding to speaks of “rules” – Church law – not the objective morality of acts. And, he does say that the passage “errs”!
Louie writes: “… moral absolutes such as that expressed in the Commandment against adultery do indeed “provide absolutely for all particular situations. Francis states the exact opposite, and that, my friends, is heresy.”
While I’d never defend this disastrous document, again, it isn’t referring to adultery here but to sacramental practice – “rules.”
AL 304 states: “It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.”
Again, Louie is mixing & conflating the objective and subjective, and now sin and canon law as well.
Fr. Gleize says that AL 304 errs by overstressing “the prudent application of the law;” (i.e., how does the law apply to person X as opposed to person Y).
There is no such thing as “prudent application” when it comes to the matter of Communion for unrepentant public adulterers; it is absolute and applies in all cases.
Divine Law and Church Law in this case are so directly related as to form a whole. For reference see the 1994 CDF Letter to Bishops upholding and explaining Familiaris Consortio 84 wherein Cardinal Ratizinger makes it clear that the “practice” under discussion (Church Law) is truly a matter of doctrine and Divine Law.
The effort to separate “adultery” from “sacramental practice” (Divine Law from discipline) has been a key strategy of the Bergoglian party from day one.
I’m afraid that my friend ACT, in a good faith effort to defend the SSPX, is inadvertently coming dangerously close to validating their erroneous claims.
Louie writes: “For reasons that only he can explain, he has chosen to focus on the solitary sentence quoted above while ignoring entirely the one immediately following, which reads: “A subject may know full well the rule [divine law concerning the mortal sin of adultery], yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.” (AL 301)”
I must agree that this omission is unfortunate. This sentence is indeed horrible; to state that persons might be “disallowed” from avoiding sin is indeed preposterous and indeed at least seemingly in conflict with dogma. The same goes for paragraph 303. This is one valid point that Louie makes (anyone who responds to my rebuttal be sure to be aware that I allowed this).
Allowing this is good and appreciated, but what is stated here isn’t nearly enough.
The idea that such statements in AL are only “seemingly in conflict with dogma” serves no purpose.
The dogmas of the Faith are very clear; so too is Amoris Laetitia and its contradiction of the same. Hesitating to condemn the latter for what it is – in places, blasphemy and heresy – is a grave disservice to souls.
However, once again Louie certainly goes much too far in his opinion, apparently unaware that the objective and subjective are being mixed without distinction. Though this clause appears to be impossible to reconcile with Catholic moral dogma – which is why it’s been attacked so savagely by Chris Ferrara and others in the Recognize and Resist camp – whether Francis is pertinacious in heresy (that is, “a heretic,” himself), consciously rejecting the teaching of the Church, is another matter. That’s the question here – it concerns the person of the Pope, not statements in this exhortation.
Not so. Fr. Gleize’s article and my response to it does not concern the person of the pope in a subjective sense (e.g., with respect to pertinacity); it concerns the objective sense of the text of AL.
That is step one: determining if in fact he is teaching heresy.
Louie writes: “If this isn’t enough for one to conclude that Francis is heretical…”
Louie switches from the objective to the subjective without batting an eye, or apparently being unaware that he’s made just the leap. What Louie seems to mean is that the statement is heretical, but then he immediately assigns culpability for obstinate heresy to the person of Francis – in contradiction to the maxim he states himself above. If this isn’t what he meant, the terminology (which is rather critical – the entire point here) is quite sloppy.
Actually, a person as well as a statement can be objectively “heretical” (please see the Catholic Encyclopedia’s treatment of heresy) even if not formally (subjectively) so.
That is the sense in which Fr. Gleize poses the question in the title to his article, and it is the sense in which I used the same terminology.
Fr. Gleize’s analysis is rational and sober. It is the response of a trained theologian – a man who has taught theology in a Traditional Catholic environment for decades. If an objective analysis will not satisfy some, the fault lies not with the document or its author. (I do not intend to make some kind of argument from authority here – these are objective comments regarding the document.)
Again, however, it would have been better to speak (objectively) fully to paragraphs 301 and 303 – but, again, this would, in itself, be quite separate from the question of whether Francis is a heretic, and that based only on examining Amoris Laetitia, which is the scope of this article.
The scope of Fr. Gleize’s article is indeed examining AL for heresy, and for the purpose of answering the question posed in its title, “Is Pope Francis heretical?” These are not “quite separate” matters; they are directly related.
If AL doesn’t contain heretical statements, it cannot be the basis for determining that Francis is heretical. If it does, he can be considered heretical on this basis.
The question of pertinacity and formal heresy only has relevance after one proposes heresy. (NOTE: The Catholic Encyclopedia article linked above refers to this distinction “between formal and material heretics.”)
As Fr. Geize notes early on, “It is different [than use of the word an an insult] with the doctrinal censure ‘heretical’: the latter is a technical expression, part of the terminology to which specialists resort in order to give as precise an evaluation as possible.”
And the doctrinal censure of a person – a subject – is exactly the topic here.
As I suggested: In this process, first things first; namely, assessing the objective sense of the person’s text in order to discover whether or not heresy is present. That is truly the topic at hand here.
It isn’t enough that Fr. Gleize gave the correct answer to every dubia and correctly labels AL ambiguous? It is a fact that the document is ambiguous, just like those of Vatican II regarding other potential errors, just like this entire crisis, which is why there has been so much disagreement regarding its interpretation.
No, it is not nearly enough. AL is not ambiguous in the least; it is very clear on certain crucial points that just so happen to plainly contradict Catholic dogma (as demonstrated in numerous posts in this space).
The article reiterates correct Catholic teaching on each and every point, and, further, indicts AL most seriously. Coming from such a theologian, statements such that the document “errs” and that the criticism of the dubia, which everyone knows is a ferocious slap in the face to the pontiff, is “quite well-founded,” are damning.
Fr. Gleize points out:
– “The help of the sacraments can only come afterward…”
– “The text therefore errs here by omission…”
– “The five dubia are therefore quite well-founded…”
Fr. Gleize has clearly sided entirely against Francis (of course) in regards to the monumental and almost unprecedented step the Dubia cardinals (the “Dubia Brothers” as Louie refers to them) have taken in publicly challenging the pope.
Yet, again, the analysis is sober and rational, and is careful to make the critical distinctions between the objective and the subjective. I can understand that “disgust” might be the reaction of those who have already judged Francis a notorious heretic.
In conclusion, I find it most ironic that Louie drives home the point that, “The Church and her confessors simply do not have the right (or the ability) to weigh matters of imputability,” while proclaiming a judgement on Francis himself regarding his culpability in heresy.
My entire treatment of Fr. Gleize’s unfortunate series is focused on the objective sense of the text of AL; i.e., I remained witin the scope of his article.
As for the question of Francis revealing and judging himself to be pertinacious, my position is fleshed out in great detail in my exchanges with Robert Siscoe in this space where I make it perfectly plain that no one has the ability to judge the pope.
This, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with either Fr. Gleize’s treatment of AL, or my response to it.
In conclusion:
I think it’s fair to say that ACT’s good faith effort to defend Fr. Gleize’s analysis of Amoris Laetitia and its humble author (which represents the official position of the Society of St. Pius X) cannot be bested; i.e., it is about as thorough a defense as one can hope to find.
Now, having considered it closely, I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves just how “sober and rational” it truly is.
Louie Verrecchio: “If AL doesn’t contain heretical statements, it cannot be the basis for determining that Francis is heretical. If it does, HE CAN BE CONSIDERED HERETICAL ON THAT BASIS. The question of pertinacity and formal heresy only has relevance after one proposes heresy. (NOTE: The Catholic Encyclopedia article linked above refers to this distinction “between formal and material heretics.”)”
That is false. If AL contains a heresy, it doesn’t make Francis a material heretic. A material heretic is a baptized non-Catholic who errs in good faith, not a member of the Catholic Church that makes a heretical statement. That is clear from the Encyclopedia article that Louie referenced:
Catholic Encyclopedia: “The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church. Their material severance, however, precludes them from the use of ecclesiastical rights, except the right of being judged according to ecclesiastical law if, by any chance, they are brought before an ecclesiastical court. They are not bound by ecclesiastical laws enacted for the spiritual well-being of its members, e.g. by the Six Commandments of the Church.”
A material heretic is a baptized non Catholic (which is why they are precluded from the use of ecclesiastical rights), not a Catholic who makes a heretical statement.
So if AL contains a heresy, it doesn’t make Francis a heretic in any way, neither formally or materially. Whether he is a heretic or not must be determined independent of any potential heresies contained in AL.
Francis thinks and speaks “in good faith”, with good will? “My sheep hear MY voice.” I don’t hear the Lord’s voice in anything he spouts from his blasphemous mouth. Prelates have no excuse! They’ve had years of training in theology and know what the Church “of the past” teaches full well.
I will likely send Louie a donation, not because I stand where he may at the present moment, but because I truly feel that he IS of good will, and will follow whatever he determines to be the actual Truth of the matter, no matter the cost to himself.
Who said Francis errs in good faith? Re-read what I wrote. What I said is that a material heretic is a baptized non-Catholic (e.g. a Protestant) who errs in good faith, not a baptized Catholic who makes a heretical statement. The point is that Francis cannot be called a material heretic based on heresies contained in AL.
Rome has lost the faith as Our Lady predicted it would. Rome no longer wishes to save souls as they no longer (under PF) show any signs of belief in God or an afterlife – no Hell, no sin, with the exception of ecological remiss, so repentance & therefore Confession is not necessary. Since the time of Moses the Ten Commandments have been upheld by the CC as fundamental to the faith, as well as Scripture & the Great Commission. When the Marxist PF came to power of course that all changed. Having surrounded himself with like-minded people, both clerics & lay, he is having a field day in attempting to re-write the Word of God – after-all no-one had a recorder in those days so they can’t be absolutely sure the Gospel authors got it right, & we now have the Head of the Jesuits inferring there is no devil! Is it any wonder then that we have Amoris Laetitia, a document signed by PF but by all accounts written by his henchman Archbishop Victor Manuel “heal me with your kiss” Fernández, which sets out to debase Holy Matrimony, Penance & the Eucharist all in one go.
It states explicitly the need to accompany people who were married in the CC but then civilly divorced & remarried without an annulment while the first (& only) spouse was still living. It also states that such people can live in grace & that if there were children of the relationship (or of either ‘partner’ prior to the second marriage) that this could be the best they could offer God in such circumstances. Not a mention that they violate the Sixth Commandment & commit sacrilege if they don’t repent & amend their ways prior to receiving the Sacred Host, nor is there any thought given to the original & licit marriage & the children thereof. It also places a huge burden on the priest as to whether or not he agrees to this accompaniment. If he doesn’t & resists they can go to another priest & so on until they find one who will ‘accompany’ them while still unrepentant. It can also mean they can sue those priests who preferred not to ‘accompany’ them & have them dismissed by the Bishop/Vatican.
Fr. Gleize is obviously quite comfortable that Bishop Fellay agrees with his assessment & thereby with the interpretations of Argentina, Malta, Germany, Belgium & several USA Dioceses & that is why he did not formally back the four Cardinals as the SSPX should have done. It seems they caved into pressure that so doing would seriously damage their quest for regularization. In the end it adds to the disunity already prevalent in to-day’s CC. If AL was as lily white as they allege PF would have answered the Dubia before it went public. He knows that by severing practice from dogma he can change the Ten Commandments which are not Church rules but God’s & the very structure of His Church which is loathed by the NWO syndicate to which his Papacy is in thrall.
PF is a heretic & blasphemer & has done untold damage to the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church & must be ‘encouraged’ to vacate the Throne of Peter soonest.
Thanks JPeters –
.
I have seen this opinion elsewhere, however, my use of the label “material heretic” is in keeping with the way in which Fr. Gleize used it in his series:
.
“They say, in effect, that the pope could not become a formal, obstinate heretic, in other words a deliberate, culpable heretic, although he could become a material heretic, through non-culpable ignorance or because of a simple error and not by reason of ill will.” (Part 3 of the series)
.
“The Pope can err to the point of at least material heresy: no theologian disputes that.” (Part 4 of the series)
The Holy Spirit says that a man is defiled by what comes out of his mouth, not by what goes in. Speech is how we communicate our thoughts and beliefs, so I’m not following your logic here.
Actual Church documents and infallible Papal pronouncements say exactly the opposite on this matter, just one major one, and one of many, being Pope Paul IV.
The actual Church teaches us that we may NOT dissent from the Pope, who cannot teach error, infallibly or otherwise, unless he’s a heretic and in that case, he has already lost his office and likely was never eligible in the first place. By disobeying who we believe to be the Pope, we actually sin against our conscience which is bound to obey the (true) Pope.
So, he’s either the Pope, or he is not the Pope. If we find ourselves in the position where we have to analyze everything the man we believe to be the Pope says, compared to Tradition, then we have made ourselves a Pope. We would be better to withdraw our recognition of him as Pope, as the actual Church tells us we can do without penalty of sin. The actual Church also teaches that the Pope cannot be judged, so no declaration or trial is necessary nor can it be possible.
This situation is far more serious with many more implications with respect to our salvation than most people realize.
See Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, numbers 6 & 7.
I misread you here. A material heretic also applies to a baptized Catholic, such as those in the NO who DESIRE to be Catholic and are of good will (which means that they desire Truth and will or would follow it once presented to them), but has been misled to believe in false ecumenism (as I once did – I was in fact, a material heretic).
Louie,
You have my support with prayers and CASH,
; well, credit card, but cash sounds better.
It seems to me that all of this argument about AL and heresy is about the internal subjective forum. I think it has been stated that no Church or no one can judge any internals. Yet that is exactly what AL does and that is exactly what those who are resisting Francis are doing. If we stick to the externals and the objective, we deny communion to divorced and remarried because objectively they are in mortal sin . Likewise, objectively, everyone who supports V2 and the NO is a heretic and to be avoided. All this discussion of the internals is simply confusion. We dont know what is going on inside of Francis. But outside we know not to listen because what we hear is offensive to our Catholic ears. If Francis was Pope, I would have to assent to him. Since I cannot, nor will not, then I have either damned myself or aided my salvation.
This quote is from the Sermon For The Ordinations
Ecône, Switzerland, June 29, 2002
By Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
“(…)In this suppression of the power to offer and to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ is expressed precisely the NEW RELIGION, in which are found the large majority of Catholics, albeit unwillingly, but they are in this NEW RELIGION which consists not only of a NEW WORSHIP, but a NEW DOCTRINE. Thus if you would, dear faithful, in a few words I will describe first of all this NEW DOCTRINE of this NEW RELIGION, and following its NEW WORSHIP.
First of all the NEW DOGMAS, in consequence a NEW DOCTRINE
Firstly sin, which practically doesnt exist any longer since it no longer offends God. We are told that sin does not offend God but harms only the sinner, sin in effect cannot harm the divine nature which is incorruptible. Sin means nothing to God, sin only harms the sinner, causing him to lose the divine life, they concede that, and it equally offends human solidarity. In these conditions sin no longer has the characteristic of offense, of destroying God’s honor, His Glory, His Praise. There is no longer the characteristic of disobeying the law of God. They deny by consequence that God has a right to demand of His creatures, not only praise, but also submission to His divine law, as Saint Ignatius says in his exercises : Man is created to praise, reverence and serve God to save his own soul. Well, praising, reverencing and serving God no longer exists in the NEW RELIGION, since sin no longer destroys the external glory of God, sin only harms man. You can now see how this NEW RELIGION destroys the notion of sin itself, how it destroys God’s glory, how it destroys the notion of sin as the supreme injustice, since it considers only human injustices: but the notion of injustice toward God, of sin against the Justice of God, they do not want anymore.
Next, we are told that by sin human dignity is not lost, man keeps his dignity after sin. Man remains dignified. Man remains friendly and sympathetic. By consequence, this is the justification of ecumenism, of religious liberty. No matter what man does in the religious order, that he honors a false god or by a false worship the true God it does not matter, he keeps his dignity. He is thus worthy of regard and respect and thus we must respect his religion and we must by consequence collaborate with other religions, since human dignity is not damaged by sin. This is a second very serious error, which thus justifies ecumenism and religious liberty. Man is dignified, since he remains sympathetic. Well ! God continues to love the sinner, keeping him in his love and favor. Nothing has changed between God and the sinner. God is presented to us as an unmoved, easy-going Lord who accepts all his children’s fancies. His charity is thus ridiculed. God continues to love the sinner without distinction or precision.
Next we are told, by consequence, that God does not punish sin with a temporal or eternal punishment. Since sin does not offend God, God doesn’t punish. God remains goodness itself. How could God inflict punishments on the sinner ? No, it is man who punishes himself by subjection to the consequences of his faults. And hell, if ever one goes there, is merely exclusion, auto-exclusion of divine love. Therefore hell is no longer a punishment inflicted by God. God no longer has the right to punish. By consequence man is washed clean of the duty of reparation towards God. What we call in our cathechism satisfaction for sin, the sinner must make satisfaction for his sins against the divine justice, satisfaction, the need to expiate his sins to repair the honor of God no longer exists. Man must only repair his spiritual health. However reparing God’s glory, cooperating to relieve the fallen creature from sin, to raise it again, they do not want anymore. You know on the other hand that the beautiful Catholic doctrine of satisfaction is all for the greater glory of God, since the sinful man can recover and give back the glory and praise to God and rebuild his fallen nature, by satisfaction, by the punishment he undergoes voluntarily. However this new doctrine, which no longer wants neither sin, nor expiation and satisfaction, goes much further since it will distort the meaning of sufferance and the Redemptive Passion of our Savior. Thus it will distort the dogma of the Redemption.
It is this central dogma which the modernists have attacked. They will say to us : the sufferings of Our Lord on the Cross were intended only to reveal God’s persevering love, but not to satisfy the divine justice in the place of sinful men. Our Lord on the Cross did not offer to his Father any satisfaction. He only revealed to man the love of God His Father. Thus they go altogether contrary to the dogma of the Precious Blood, this law which God put down in the Old Testament, that without the pouring out of blood there is no remission. They refuse the Blood shed by Our Lord with all its expiatory value, of the forgiveness of sins, considering but a free gift by which the Father sent without any reason His Son to die, simply to reveal the love of the Father. This is the most abominable cruelty : the Father sent His Son to a most abominable death, simply to show His Love. They have distorted, emptied the dogma of the Redemption and they BLASPHEME even the holy Passion of our Savior. To the contrary, our catechism teaches that by His Passion Our Lord offered to His Father a superabundant satisfaction for our innumerable sins, partly because of the dignity of the divine person suffering on the Cross, and also because of the extreme charity and obedience by which Our Lord suffers, and finally because of the extreme pain suffered on the Cross. He was then able to offer to His Father for us, in our place, a superabundant satisfaction, almost infinite. It is beautiful to contemplate the Cross : to see our Salvation, our Redemption, our relief: not only the love of the Father, but firstly the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
In every fashion, we are told in this NEW RELIGION : what good is the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ ? At most it was to reveal the love of the Father but it was not for our salvation, since all are saved anyway. It is certain that by His Incarnation, as stated in the Vatican Council II, in Gaudium et Spes, by His Incarnation the Son of God united Himself in a special way with every man. All men have become Christ-like (christianized) by the incarnation. Therefore all are saved, and that is what Pope John Paul II alludes to in one of his books, that hell is probably empty. All are saved. Thus, you see the anihilation of the dogma of the Redemption, its complete falsification. Sin being suppressed, even God’s justice being suppressed, they suppress the Redemption, the atonement of the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is the NEW RELIGION, the NEW DOGMAS.”(…)
AL cannot be defended by any Catholic.
SSPX has become the modern version of the Juring Priests of ’89 infamy.
S//
I try to follow carefully the arguments of these pages and those who oppose them. To my reading, Louie is nothing but clear and consistent, and the criticism, which he at times so graciously features, usually misses the point.
As Louie shows, it is possible to write clearly on these matters. If modern popes or anti-popes are writing in a way that requires scholarly discussions about what the text really says, then they don’t WANT to be understood. Knowing their own falsehood, they want to be exonerated based on the possibility that they meant something else. But I’m with Louie that despite the author’s purposeful obfuscation, the meaning of AL is actually completely clear. To withdraw support when Louie is continuing to do what he’s always done–and done well–doesn’t make any sense.
Dear Friends,
Instead of debating which label to put on Francis, can’t we all agree that he is a BAD pope simply because he isn’t Catholic? If the SSPX accepts any “regulation” from this papacy, it will be a fatal error IMO. Let’s pray that clear (and aka Catholic!) heads rule! If the SSPX leadership takes the bait, we are all “hooked” and ready for the frying pan!
Hypothetically, if the Pope, say Pius XII, attempted to punch you in the face, would you stand there and let him, or would you resist him and defend yourself?
Resist and defend, of course. But I hope you are not trying to use the hypothetical exercise in order to justify resistance to a valid Pope’s magesterial teaching. If a Pope had recourse to temporal powers and he sent them against me, I would be justified in defending myself with force if necessary. But as you surely understand, we are not talking about temporal issues. We are talking about the legitimacy of Bergolio and post V2 claimants to the papacy.
Well, thats the problem 2cents, you can’t be a Pope unless you are Catholic. We the few trads are sitting in the few remaininf traddie chapels and we are watching the SSPX struggle with this problem. One the one hand, the SSPX correctly identifies the errors and heresies coming from the modern church, yet out of the other side of their mouth they acknowledge those who are uttering these errors and heresies as Catholic. It is a glaring contradiction, one that cannot be swept away by theological historical arguments and invoking cherry picked quotes from medevial Doctors of the Church. Its a simple proposition every Catholic must address. Is the NO V2 sect Catholic? Yes or No? If yes, then assent, if no, then whats to reconcile with?
Tom A–I see your points. However, as far as the world is concerned, Bergoglio is “The Pope”. When Pres. Trump went to the Vatican, did the World say he went to see Jorge Bergoglio who dresses in white and lives in the Vatican? Is the NO V2 sect Catholic? No! I only hope and pray that the SSPX leadership would simply make a very clear statement that they will continue to uphold Tradition and that they are not entertaining any thoughts of “regularizing” until Rome is truly Catholic. Any overtures coming from Bergoglio should be ignored. Thanks for your comment, Tom A/
Good Saturday morning JPeters,
Your read of the “Catholic Encyclopedia” is simply in error. There is a twofold distinction in the first statement which you quote from the encyclopedia as noted here: ‘ “The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church….” ‘. Your interpretation, JPeters, suggests that there is no possibility for a baptized Catholic to fall into material heresy, which is simply a fallacious understanding. Martin Luther was first a “material heretic” as a Catholic priest, who then became a “pertinacious/formal heretic” by virtue of the corrections levied upon him by the Ecclesiastical Authority, which he patently rejected, allowing at once for it to be understood objectively, that he became a formal heretic. That is what the first half of that sentence speaks to, as it relates to placing material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church. That placement under the jurisdiction of the Church simply requires, “valid baptism”, which we know the Protestant may have. In fact, to even hold the possibility of becoming an heretic, one must have received valid baptism, as if they have not received that Sacrament, then they are an infidel and not an heretic. Every Protestant is minimally a “material heretic” in metaphysical matter (and can be a “formal heretic”) but not every “material heretic” is a Protestant in metaphysical form.
The second part of that sentence relates to the question of whether there is “good faith” on the part of the “material heretic”. The question of “good faith” can only be known by Almighty God, unless the person specifically attests to it both objectively and honestly. “Good faith”, as that same Catholic Encyclopedia speaks to, addresses the question of “invincible error” on the part of the material heretic, in the context of this discussion, which when present (known in the internal forum), renders the subject, “guiltless”. A material heretic, whether Catholic or Protestant, severs himself from the Church. All heretics are schismatic but not all those in schism are necessarily heretics as heresy speaks to faith and schism speaks to charity. Heresy is “ice cream” and a particular flavor of that ice cream speaks to whether a material heretic is a Protestant in schism, by his own proclamation, or a Catholic in schism, based upon the material rejection of a point or points of Holy Doctrine. Stated a different way, using the scholastic metaphysics of the Angelic Doctor, “material heresy” speaks to the metaphysical matter of the “material heretic” and whether that person is Catholic or so called, “non-Catholic” Christian or Protestant, speaks to the metaphysical form of the subject in question.
In closing, as Amoris Laetitia contains material heresy, while it is proffered as a formal teaching document of a purported Pontiff (a wholly other argument), that is an ipso-facto declaration of material heresy on the part of “his holiness” Francis and there is simply no other rightly reasoned, logical conclusion. Anything else is an attempt at placing a square peg, one Jorge Mario Bergoglio, into the round hole of authentic Catholic Doctrine. I pray this helps, as I am and can only ever remain, this side the veil, a perfectly miserable human creature. In caritas.
Good Saturday morning Tom A,
You continue to write with clarity in opposition to the canard that Jorge Mario Bergoglio could ever possibly be the Holy Roman Pontiff, which remains ever refreshing to read. As I was not long ago myself lost within the confines of that diabolical novus ordo conundrum, it is now clear, as one finally receives the grace of the intellective light of knowing, that to reject any formal teaching of the Holy Church, places one outside of Her, in the schism of the material or formal heretic. Thus, if Jorge Mario Bergoglio was truly the Holy Roman Pontiff, any rejection of his formal teaching from the Ordinary Magisterium would place the one who rejects any of it into the schism of heresy. As you intone, Tom A, it can only ever remain an utter absurdity for any Catholic in true union with Holy Mother Church, to suggest that authentic Magisterial teaching can be resisted or defended against. This places an utter affront to the metaphysical law of non-contradiction, as being cannot both be and not be at the same time and under the same respect. Therefore, either what Jorge Mario Bergoglio teaches in A. L. is either formal, Ordinary Magisterial teaching or it is not. If it is not, then he cannot be the Holy Roman Pontiff, as if he was, every faithful Catholic in union with Holy Mother Church would have to subjugate his will into the Will of the Church, which only the authentic Holy Roman Pontiff can specifically and publically attest to as the Vicar of Christ on earth. Because A.L. is riddled with heresy and it is proffered as an authentic Magisterial teaching, the one who proffers it can only be an imposter Pope and not the Vicar of Christ Jesus. Enough said. In caritas.
Amen, Tom A. In caritas.
Yes, it is very sad that the world continues to recognize the V2 NO sect as The Catholic Church. It is a practical fact but it cannot be an ontological fact. If the error is ever to be corrected it will be if more Catholics like the SSPX stop withholding their recognition of the V2 NO sect as the true Catholic Church. I hope it isnt a matter of cowardice on the part of the SSPX leadership that precludes them from acting so. I would hate to meet the Great Almighty Just Judge on Judgment Day trying to explain why I was afraid to act.
My 2c: See the YouTube videos: The Pope Speaks YOU Decide; and The Papacy Have the Gates Prevailed .
Of course but just as it is licit to defend the body so must it be justified to defend the soul against a bad Pope (to paraphrase St. Bellarmine). I hope you are not trying to justify blind obedience to everything a Pope teaches or commands.
No, if I were blindly being obedient, I would still be going to the NO fake mass.
Why then does the SSPX want to be organized into an institution that teaches a NEW RELIGION, with NEW DOGMAS, who BLASPHEME the holy Passion of our Savior, which suppresses sin, suppresses God’s justice, suppresses the Redemption, and suppresses the atonement of the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
Exactly what I was thinking, Katherine. Why?
Between “Good morning” and “Enough said” I come away with only one thought. This “holy Roman vicar of Christ on earth must be obeyed to at all times and places forever and ever” “attitude” is what brought in the novus ordo! It is so easy to get on the internet and proclaim from on high that the Pope is a fraud in 2017 but back in 1965-69 very very few were going that way because, as you say, the vicar of Christ on earth must be obeyed! That’s how it was done–by using a false sense of obedience.
“it promotes heresy” –should “it” be “he”?
What bearing does a non-Catholic or an anti-Catholic’s opinion have on how one practices the true, Catholic faith? None whatsoever.
In reality, those who are divorced and remarried without obtaining a valid annulment (the process itself questionable), who are known to be co-habitating, who are contracepting, who practice sodomy , and publicly support divorce, sex outside of marriage, contraception, and sodomy, already partake in the handing out of the merely symbolic bread and wine as a memorial of the Last Supper as Protestants do in the Novus Ordo rite, which isn’t Catholic, in many parishes throughout the world, so it is only a matter of putting on record the approval by their leadership what they already do in practice.
It boggles one’s mind. Recognizing that a new religion was invented and addressing and condemning the errors and heresies of this new religion and refusing to adhere to them, and yet they hope the purveyor’s of anti-Catholicism will recognize them as valid and true Catholics?
Revisiting an article by Father Carota, Traditional Catholic Priest, very relevant to this discussion.
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2017/05/28/pope-francis-not-saving-souls-loosing/
Father Carota–Rest in Eternal Peace!
Francis vs. the teachings of the Catholic Church:
http://francisquotes.com/
https://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/
Francis and just one of his most blasphemous lies:
“Christian life is not a spa therapy to “be at peace until Heaven”, but it calls us to go out into the world to proclaim that ‘JESUS BECAME THE SINNER’ to reconcile men with the Father.”
“True reconciliation for sin means that God in Christ took on our sins and HE BECAME THE SINNER FOR US.”
“When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is your sin and I will sin again’. And Jesus likes that because it was HIS MISSION TO BECOME THE SINNER FOR US, to liberate us.”
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-the-christian-life-proclaims-the-road-to-reco
Perhaps ACT can answer the question. I must say I am glad he is back posting, I have missed his energetic discussions on this topic.
Good Sunday afternoon ACT,
This will be an attempt at properly understanding the conclusion of Fr. Gleize, which you quote above as, it (Amoris Laetitia–A.L.) “promotes heresy”, and as it relates to the question of Fr. Gleize in his title, which you also quote above as, ‘ “Is Pope Francis Heretical?” ‘. This analysis is made by virtue of the application of the Aristotelian-Thomistic, scholastic, metaphysical method of inquiry. By necessity, this is done under the presumption that Fr. Gleize, as a priest and theologian of the SSPX, was properly formed in the scholastic, metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas, as only this method renders proper service to the discipline of theology, in its proper understanding as theology. And this, if my memory serves me, is the essence of what Saint Pope Pius X taught, as he believed it to be the case, that if the Aristotelian-Thomistic method of inquiry was not applied relating to all things Catholic, there was a very distinct reality of having grave error occur in conclusion.
As it relates to the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and as he refers to himself as, “Pope Francis”, this inquiry challenges the integrity of that reality, based upon the conclusion of Fr. Gleize that A. L. “promotes heresy”. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as Pope Francis, has given us the universal Church, by virtue of what he purports to be the Teaching or Ordinary Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, an Apostolic Exhortation entitled, “Amoris Laetitia”. As an Apostolic Exhortation is a teaching document and as A. L. purports to teach the Church about the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, as it relates to its application in the so called, “concrete situations”, which people are purported to find themselves in the midst of, in this modern world, it can only find its wellspring in the Ordinary Magisterium. In actual reality, as we know, the Ordinary Magisterium of Holy Mother Church is protected by the charism of infallibility as given by the Holy Ghost and this in accord with the command of our Blessed Lord Jesus the Christ in Matthew 16:18. With that as the brief background, we are now forced to somehow square the actual reality of the Ordinary Magisterium as being protected by the charism of infallibility with the other actual reality that A. L., “promotes heresy”, in the words of the theologian, Fr. Gleize.
Now, as it relates to the application of the scholastic, metaphysical method of inquiry of St. Thomas Aquinas, to the reality of Jorge Mario Bergoglio who purports himself to be the Holy Roman Pontiff, as “Pope Francis”, we are now faced with an inane attempt at placing the square peg of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the Holy Roman Pontiff who has proffered his Apostolic Exhortation, A. L., into the round hole of authentic, Ordinary Magisterial teaching which carries the charism of Papal Infallibility. I am not a metaphysician by formal degree, rather through self study of the teachings of Drs. Raphael Waters and Dennis Bonnette of the “Aquinas School of Philosophy”. This development is somewhat tedious by virtue of the very nature of metaphysics but not meant to be exhaustive.
As the Angelic Doctor so brilliantly taught us, we find two distinct powers of intellect as located within the ontological substance of the human persons’ soul. One power of intellect is called the “active intellect” and the other, the “passive intellect”. As St. Thomas also taught and as is referred to as the, “Law of Motion”, anything that can undergo motion is moved by something else, but for the “Prime Mover–Unmoved”, the “First Cause—Uncaused”, and the Creature–Uncreated, Who Is Almighty God, as “I am Who Am”. In that understanding, the active intellect extracts the metaphysical “form” of any object, which has being in the material world, leaving the object’s metaphysical “matter” intact, and then presents that same object’s form, which exists now in metaphysical “act”, to the “passive intellect” which was in “potency”, thereby the passive intellect then becomes activated. This activation of the “passive intellect” then allows for the passive intellect to understand or to know just what that object indeed is.
As this metaphysical understanding applies to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as “Pope Francis”, he received the being, “Amoris Laetitia”, into his active intellect, which then presented it to his passive intellect, which then allowed for his understanding of the meaning of the so called, “Apostolic Exhortation”. Saint Thomas also teaches in his “Summa Theologiae”, that the intellect presents its understanding to the operation of the free will, which then makes its assent. Further, he teaches that the choice of the good over the evil (as the privation of the due good) can only be made by virtue of the reception of grace by the human person making the free will assent. That said, it only stands as to be rightly reasoned in conclusion, that as in the belief of Fr. Gleize, Pope Francis “promotes heresy” through A. L., that Pope Francis has not only received A. L. into his passive intellect for his own understanding of it, and then presented it to his free will, but he then has freely chosen to “promote” it, which can only stand as, res ipsa loquitur, as it is an historical, factual reality existing as that same document, “‘Amoris Laetitia”, thus he has indeed “promoted” it. If any human person “promotes” an evil, again metaphysically understood as the “privation of the due good”, he has from a de-facto understanding, first not only received the evil into his intellect but has freely accepted that evil himself, because in order to “promote” it to another, one has to have accepted it themselves as an evil first, before they can indeed promote it. We simply cannot “promote” to another that which we first do not freely accept ourselves, with the singular exception of a deceiver, who purposefully and knowingly promotes something which he does not himself hold in belief and/or praxis. Again, in order to promote an evil, which material heresy is, as the privation of the due good which is truth, one must as one only can, first accept that evil unto himself, as it then becomes part of his very being, before he can then “promote” that evil to another. There is no other way this can happen in truth, as properly understood, ontologically.
In closing then, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio “promotes heresy” in A. L., which is proffered by him as the purported, “Holy Father” as an “Apostolic Exhortation” which carries the charism of infallibility, and as to “promote” heresy one has to first accept it himself, and as to accept material heresy by virtue of the authentic teaching of Holy Mother Church, places one outside of Her in schism, as all heresy does both material or formal, the man Jorge Mario Bergoglio is in schism, and as thus in truth, simply cannot be the Holy Father, as the Holy Father cannot be outside the Church, which Jorge Mario Bergoglio only can be as he is attempting to promote heresy within the Ordinary, Teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, which cannot occur as is commanded by God the Holy Ghost. As this error cannot occur within the teaching of the Church, the argument rests then that Jorge Mario Bergoglio simply cannot be the Pope, as his very own attempt at promoting heresy, places him in schism. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Whether articles are good, bad, or indifferent I do not care any longer. Any these long diatribes by these so-called “authorities” make me ill. It appears that though everyone is, in some way, interested in reading all this rubbish. Personally, I could care less about Bergoglio, his insanity, the “Dubia Brothers” or anything else having to do with the latest Church shenanigans. Have fun, I’m ottta ‘ere.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais sermon in 2015:
“Sixth point, let us reject also the wrong supposition of some of our friends, bad friends, who say the Society of St. Pius X is now in an abnormal situation. Because we are not acknowledged by the church. The Society of St. Pius X must come back to a normal situation and receive a canonical status from Rome. That is wrong! That is false! We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome! We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacrament and the disposition of to obey the pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition. We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome, now! We have not to come back! These people in Rome have to come back, to Tradition. Let us not reverse the reality. We have not to come back. But these Romans have to come back to their Tradition. To the Tradition of the Church. That is my sixth point.
And my seventh point, the last, is that the problem, my dear faithful, is not to search what we could do in Rome. What we could do in the conciliar church! No! The only question is to know what testimony we ought to give today in the church. In front of the church. Publicly in the church. What testimony we ought to give to the church. As true Catholics! As a light on the candlestick and not under the bushel of the Second Vatican Council. What is our duty? It is to bear witness! To bear witness for the Tradition of the Church! It is very simple. As true Catholic faithful. As saintly Christians who strive through their saintliness, first of all, let us continue praying our daily Rosary! The great means given by Our Lady to save our souls and the Church. Now, let us pray our daily Rosary, let us practice the 5 First Saturdays in spirit of expiation of the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us continue our devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Secondly, let us persevere. Keep on, in the true Catholic Faith, in the true catechisms, in the true Catholic Mass, in the true teaching of the Church, in the true Catholic schools. And thirdly, let us persevere, let us keep on striving towards saintliness. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, in the Gospel, “he who shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved!” I would say, he who shall persevere in the Faith til the end of the crisis in the Church, he will save his soul and the Church! Thanks to the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Amen”
Any old woman can love God better than a doctor of theology can.
St Bonaventure
Keeping up with current events – does anyone conclude that recent developments demonstrate that “Pope” Francis is doing more than promoting heresy?:
–
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-maltas-bishops-to-allow-civilly-remarried-divorcees-to-receive-com
–
Following the action of the Maltese bishops reported in the above article, the National Catholic Register reported a new development in April:
–
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-thanks-maltese-bishops-for-amoris-laetitia-guidelines
–
As reported in the National Catholic Register, Cardinal Baldiserri writing on behalf of the “Pope” thanking the Maltese bishops:
–
“On behalf of Pope Francis, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri has reportedly sent a letter to Malta’s bishops to thank them for their guidelines on applying the controversial Chapter 8 of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love).”
In discussing this development, Edward Pentin reported as follows:
–
“The bishops’ document, published Jan. 13 and entitled Criteria for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia, drew strong criticism from some theologians, canon lawyers, and some Vatican officials who argued that it appeared to assert the primacy of conscience over the objective moral truth.
–
The bishops stated in the guidelines that some remarried divorcees can receive Holy Communion after a period of discernment, with an informed and enlightened conscience, and if they are ‘at peace with God.’
Critics said the criteria clearly contradicted previous papal teaching, the Catechism, canon law, and Vatican instruction, stressing that Church teaching clearly forbids allowing Holy Communion for remarried divorcees engaging in sexual relations without an annulment.”
–
Pentin cited to another earlier article that described the conflict between the “guidelines” drafted by the Maltese bishops and the 1994 letter from CDF:
–
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/contradictions-between-maltese-directive-and-cdfs-1994-letter-on-divorced-r
–
Edward Pentin also cited to this article criticizing the “guidelines” drafted by the Maltese bishops:
–
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/the-maltese-disaster/
–
Great comment! My2cents
Simplicity at its best
Who says they do? All the speculation that this is going to happen, even imminently, is from the outside. Thanks again, maryiloveher, for using the SSPX itself as a source for truth and to show the direct line from real Catholicism to today. Reading these responses I’ve lost track of how many angels can sit on the head of the pin. Oh, that’s right. It just doesn’t matter! Material, immaterial, objective, subjective–who cares? The question isn’t whether Bergoglio is a heretic. The issue is the FACT that he is evil, preaching against Christ and all the teachings of the Church on a daily basis. He is evil. I agree with Louie he’s an anti-pope in the context of the history of the church. But I’m beginning to believe he is, indeed, the false prophet…at least. I also have come to the conclusion that the Church as we thought we had seen it hasn’t been the real Church for a very long time. Why is it that +Archbishop Lefebvre and all of maryilove’s citations demonstrate a straight line from the apostolic Church to today, without fracture. The true Church has never changed dogma or liturgy. I’m lucky enough to attend the real Church every Sunday. Thanks, Archbishop for preserving it for me and all of those who are tired of trying to figure out what’s what in the post VII new religion.
There is objectively an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that goes to formal heresy on the part of Pope Francis. Our reason tells us beyond any reasonable doubt that he is a formal heretic and enemy of God and the Holy Faith. We cannot deny the Faith and the many public acts of Francis that are material to the issue; we cannot suspend the action of our God-given knowledge and reason. This is not to substitute our own decision for the fact-determining authority of the bishops. But the bishops have been derelict in their duty to follow procedure and make the necessary finding of fact. Souls are being led away from the One True Faith to mortal sin and Hell. Francis has spent over four years opposing in a most wicked way, the Holy Faith and God’s Law. The failure of the bishops to take action against this evil for the defence of God and His Holy Faith, the good of the True Church and the salvation of souls is to share in that sin. Lord, have mercy. As I’ve said since Francis first took the throne of Peter (visibly), protect all those souls in your care or with whom you have any influence, from his evil in word and deed. Dear Lord, preserve us in the true Faith, and from the evil purveyed by Francis and the many ordained that are leading souls to Hell.
Pearl187, I only say I enjoy debating with him. I certainly do not agree with him nor his opinions. I do find him highly illustrative as to the mindset of the resistance crowd and to the intellectual gymnastics they will stoop to in order to deny even the possibility of sedevacantism.
Tom A–Rumor has it that little baby Jorge was baptized into the Catholic Church. After that, I am stumped!
So much to learn and so little time…. In the last year I am appreciative of all Louie’s articles and the comments, and although I know practically nothing as our family has only been part of the SSPX for less than a year, I have to admit that I get more confused the more I read. If one could break it down to it’s most simplistic understanding, we are at the point where we feel safest to completely ignore all that comes from Rome at this point, regardless of what is written by it or in rebuttal of it. I have learned thus far that destruction by way of duplicity and confusion has been the MO of Rome since VII and today is no exception. How do you trust anything from someone once you know they are untrustworthy? I have to admit that I am also confused as to why the SSPX is even wasting time on trying to explain anything coming from Rome at this point. I am less concerned about Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize’s article than I am about the fact that he felt the need to write it at all. Whether PF is a heretic, or the Pope or a Catholic, or none of the above to me is really immaterial as I cannot trust anything he says anyway, and I get disheartened when I see that what he says and does gets so much attention not just by the world at large but by all of us who know he and his like are to be rejected for fear of losing our eternal souls. Not that this forum isn’t beneficial, it is extremely beneficial, but I am disappointed that this particular article had to even be a point of contention at all.
Linda8264—Excellent comment!
Linda: See this video on what the actual Church and Christ teaches about the Papacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lk7iqIjHIo .
Dear Louie, I am sorry that you have lost support just for your criticism of the SSPX, as one who attends the SSPX chapels daily, I am very disappointed in the blind obedience of my fellow SSPX parishioners to “the leader” that no one can give honest criticism without being punished. It is like being in the Novus Ordo all over again. I will send a donation soon, may God bless you!