How does fallen man escape the wrath of God?
Pope Francis’ answer to that question is so preposterous that even Michael Voris appears to have had enough.
Pope Francis: Doctor of Dialogue
April 17, 2015
163 Comments
Dear Louie
finale perfetto !
============
We posted a comment near the end of your last blog -wondering how Michael Voris will take the news that Pope Francis just praised the Leadership Conference of Women Religious last Thursday, in a meeting the MSM described as one in which the Vatican:
” abruptly ended its takeover of the main leadership group of American nuns .. allowing Pope Francis to put to rest a confrontation started by his predecessor that had created an uproar ..”
__
The nuns were “deeply heartened” by the Pope’s “appreciation” for the lives and ministry of Catholic sisters”. (Does that include their determination to make abortion and contraceptives more easily available to poor women? We wonder)
__
(Rorate Caeli reported the words of the the Secretary, Abp of the Congregation for Religious days ago in Rome, who said about the identity of religious:
“A consecrated life, a life in God but inserted in the ecclesial family, in the church — inserted in the world.” “NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE WORLD, but inserted in continuity,” he said.
Yes, Louie. THIS is what happens when Dialogue replaces Teaching.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/leadership-conference-of-women.htmlThe =======
St. John tells us in Chapter 15 of his Gospel, that Jesus said:
[18] “If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.
[19] If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [20] Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. “
Bravo Louie!!
Dialogue,Dialogue,Dialogue …with view to Teach,Teach,Teach
“Nevertheless there are examples of successful dialogue by Catholics, the most famous being Saint Paul’s encounter with the Athenian philosophers in the Areopagus. Saint Luke’s account of this event is well-known (Acts 17:16-34). But what’s important for our purposes is the way Paul engaged the Athenians.
Paul didn’t start by citing the Hebrew canon, let alone preaching Christ crucified. Instead he pointed to a reference point—an altar to “an unknown God”—acceptable to all parties to the conversation. Paul then quoted well-known Stoic sayings to further the discussion. In doing so, he established his credentials as someone who took seriously powerful reference-points for the educated Greek mind.
The point of Paul’s exercise was to dispose his audience to listen to what he had to say. As Acts tells us, Paul eventually worked his way around to speaking about the resurrected Christ. At this point of the conversation, many of Paul’s listeners mocked him. Others brushed Paul off with a polite “we’ll-get-back-to-you.” Yet some of Paul’s listeners in Athens continued listening and eventually became Christians. Even more importantly, Paul set the stage for on-going exchanges between Christianity and Antiquity that continue yielding fruit to this very day.
This, however, wasn’t the only feature of the early Christian dialogue with Greece and Rome. It also involved explaining, by word and deed, the Church’s conviction that many pagan beliefs and practices were absurd, evil, or both. Among others, these included actions such as abortion and infanticide, the pagan view of women as essentially unequal to men, and the ancient world’s cosmology of gods and goddesses.
In other words, the Catholic way of dialogue has never implied abandoning key tenets of Catholic faith and morals. The objective is to listen to and talk with others in order to promote the truth that Catholics believe is definitively revealed by Christ and entrusted to His Church. Sometimes this means Catholics must question their listeners’ beliefs—albeit in a respectful way and after finding a common starting-point for discussion.
In the sixteenth century, Jesuit giants such as Matteo Ricci travelled to what was truly the periphery of the world then known to Europeans. Ricci immediately understood that the civilization he encountered in China was a highly sophisticated society. He consequently mastered the Chinese language and devoted considerable energy to exploring Chinese literature and philosophy. Much of this involved conversing with erudite Confucian scholars.
Yet Ricci never lost sight of the ultimate point of such dialogue. Ricci’s famous book, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven¸ certainly underlined parallels between Catholicism and Confucianism. But Ricci’s book wasn’t just an exercise in comparative philosophy. Its purpose was to open Chinese minds to the possibility that the completeness of truth is found in Catholicism.”
Samuel Gregg
Question?
Perhaps it’s not a case of either Teaching or Dialogue, but the great Catholic Both…And…
Both Dialogue, And Teaching
So grateful to God for real Catholic men like you, Louie!
THE
GOSPEL
NARRATIVES
For neurotic-psychotic
“Attached” to the old
We give you a hireling
To take care your fold.
No need for the shepherds
Who seem so much keener
They’ll tempt you with dreams
Of pastures much greener
And say not to mimic
Past tolerant-barters
So heads were cut off,
Who could DIALOGUE with martyrs?
The shepherds tell fables
Bout a man hated, hailed,
Like you, just “attached”…
Don’t believe He was nailed!
Dear Louie,
Timing in life. So exquisitely nice. Bravissimo.
Ever mindful,
The post Vatican II church means dialogue in a different way than the examples you posted
Dialogue in the modernist sense means being “mutually enriched” with no end goal of conversion in right. In fact conversion is anamatha to these modern churchmen.
Looks like Michael Voris may need surgery to remove the foot from his mouth. He should learn his lesson. If he sounds too Catholic, Bergoglio will eventually disagree with him. His “damage control” team had better switch gears!!
I agree with Mike (comment above): “Timing is everything”. Classic!
In sight, not in right. Sorry for the typo above.
As already mentioned, the behaviour of Saint Paul with his evangelisation was not an act of dialogue but an act of teaching. Utilising reference points is not alien to teaching methods, so why it’s used exclusively for dialogue methods is questionable. Nevertheless, to reinforce Charles statement, the purpose of dialogue from Vatican II onwards is that the Church participates in dialogue as so the she herself could learn. That of course violates the principle that the Church is full and complete which means no dialogue is necessary, only teaching is necessary.
Sorry, Craig’s statement.
So, no wrath of God on unrepented sodomites, no wrath of God on unrepented heretics, but the Wrath of God descends upon those who insist on teaching?
Let’s get medieval and pedantic. The word “dialogue” ultimately comes from the Greek prefix “dia” and the noun “logos”, the prefix meaning “through” or “across”, and the word “logos”, meaning a whole bunch of things, like “story”, “legend”, “word”, but also “speech” and “law”. The pagan philosopher Heraclitus gave it a special meaning, but ultimately St. John raised that noun to heights beyond compare likening it in the upper case to the second person of the Holy Trinity, our Blessed Lord Himself, Jesus Christ, the Logos, as the “true light.” Or as we commonly profess: “light from light, true God from true God…etc..” But the modern VII usage of the word “logos” through the word “dialogue” is a significant diminution of that rich, mystical, spiritual and universal meaning of that word “logos”. In fact, it may be said to be heretical insofar as it isolates its meaning to “speech”, and to “human speech” at best, and not to “absolute truth” or “eternal law” or “divine speech” (i.e. the sacraments). I agree with Mr. V.: the prelates advancing VII church in it’s obsession with ecumenism pervert the mission of the church. Ironically, given the etymology of the word “dialogue”, Bergoglio and his ilk neither speak “from”, nor “in”, nor “for” the Logos. And, if this is true, how could the former ever speak “ex catedra”?
Can someone point me to the source for those words from the pope? Priceless.
Bullwinkle (Michael Voris): Hey Rocky (Louie) , watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Rocky (Louie): Again ! That trick never works.
Bullwinkle (Michael Voris): Nuthin up ma sleeve….Presto!
Lion (Pope Francis): Grrrrrrr
Bullwinkle (Michael Voris): No doubt about it. I gotta get me another hat.
Bingo!
hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it b so DOOG that we now have a pope who YLLUF understands the pressing DEEN for more EUGOLAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of course i meself made a LUFREDNOW vid about this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa4cOvMuAXc
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Mass has ended, go forth and dialogue.
Dear Ever mindful,
Two things:
1. We are sure that our current Pope and many other Church leaders are not directing people to dialoge with the intention of converting them, which is why the “teaching” part of your suggestion is for the most part banned as a lack of charity and an affront to Faith in the Holy Spirit’s “new” wishes.
___
As you may recall, Francis reassured the Evangelicals who came to the Vatican “I’m not out to convert any of you”. He’s on video saying “No, No, No, we don’t proselytyze!” while shaking a finger. He says the Jews don’t need to be converted, as they have an intact covenant with God. He told children to thank their parents for whatever Faith they were given, and read their Qa’rans. Examples abound unfortunately. This false ecumenism of today shows no fidelity to the Mandate of Christ to teach and Baptize all nations.
___
2. The article you quoted claims the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci
“never lost sight of the ultimate point of such dialogue.”
History records that Dominicans and Franciscans in 1645 protested to Rome over his decision to allow converts to Catholocism to continue Chinese (Confucian) anscestry worship, which Rome subsequently forbade. That controversy continued through several papacies until Benedict XIV ordered no more talk of it. It caused China to cut off missionary relations with the Vatican. Ricci may have been well-intended and still seeking conversions, but seems to have been willing to pollute the Faith with pagan rituals to achieve that.
___
In 1939, Pius XII reversed the prohibition, approving instructions of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith- regarding civic rites and respects shown pictures of the dead and tablets bearing their names and claiming: ” “It is well known that in the Far East certain ceremonies formerly connected with pagan rites involve nothing more TODAY, (due to changes brought about by time in customs and ideas), than a sense of civic respect toward ancestors, love be of country and courtesy in social contacts.”
___
(Though our sources online may be inadequate to determine this, we have reason to wonder about the accuracy of his facts in that decision. Current descriptions of these practices say nothing about it now being considered mere respect, and instead claim strong beliefs are still held (This may be a cultural difference between east and West, we can’t be sure) . It may be that he opened the door to the same type of pagan “inculturation” promoted at VII.
Chinese Ascestor Worship/Veneration:
___
–“To ensure the ancestors’ continued well-being and positive disposition towards the living and sometimes to ask for special favors or assistance:
-Ancestor worship begins at the funeral. Necessities-toothbrush, comb, towel, shoes, water, or even a computer are placed in the coffin or burned as a sacrifice.
-After the funeral, an altar is set up in the kins’ home, where daily or twice daily offerings are made to the deceased to provide for their welfare in the afterlife. –The deceased’s favorite foods, fruits, vegetables wine, and small sums of money, are placed on the altar in bowls or burned in front of the altar.
— (The money is usually symbolic pieces of paper called “spirit money,”). Statues representing servants are also placed on or near the altar.
-= After 49 days (Buddhist time for judgment) the home altar is taken down, the ancestors are believed TO DWELL IN COMMEMORATIVE TABLETS– pieces of wood inscribed with the name and dates of the deceased. They are kept in a small shrine at home and in the clan ancestral temple. Incense is lit before the tablets daily and offerings of food and prostrations are presented twice a month.
=======
If these pagan beliefs were no longer part of the practices, we ask why the following was necessary:
In August 1963 in TAIPEI, FORMOSA The Bishops issued formal instructions to the clergy regarding Catholic participation in traditional Chinese rites and ceremonies. A joint statement signed by Thomas Cardinal Tien, S.V.D., Apostolic Administrator of the Taipei archdiocese, and other Bishops laid down five rules:
1. Catholics invited to the banquet which follows Pai-Pai may attend if they do not enter the pagan temple. (Pai-Pai is a pagan religious rite honouring a local god to which all friends and relatives of the person giving it are invited.)
2. TABLETS bearing the names of deceased persons may be set out, but without the use of the term “Lingwei,” WHICH MEANS THE LOCATION OF THE SOUL.
3. Bows or prostrations before these tablets or the coffins of the deceased are permitted.
4. Catholics may place fruit or other food before the tablets of the dead or before graves.
5. The offering of paper money or the burning of it is prohibited.
=====
In 1935 and 1936 Pope Pius Xl had also allowed “purely civic” honours to be paid to Confucius and permitted civic respect to be shown the dead at pagan funerals in both Japan and Manchuria. http://www.religionfacts.com/chinese_religion/practices/ancestor_worship.htm
=====
BTW, Matteo Ricci’s process for canonization was started in 1984, stalled for 25 years, and recently restarted, and said to be complete.. 🙂 🙂
Dear Alarico,
1. He’s been accused of speaking like a Catholic at least often enough to frustrate our efforts to convince people to beware of him. .
2. If he is the Pope and in personal error, then to accomplish what you ask, he would simply have to promulgate something and declare that he was speaking “ex cathedra”. Then, according to Church teaching, that promulgation would be protected by the Holy Spirit from containing anything false .
If he is not the Pope, we hope the Hierarchy who have the Faith will take action to declare that fact, and soon, for all our sakes.
I just laughed out loud for about 30 seconds straight.
To all,
Apologies for the length of the above–should have linked more.
Another home run.
–
“A truth does not remain true in people’s minds and hearts unless it is lived. If a truth remains purely theoretical, and is actually contradicted in practice, before long it is the false practice which dictates what is true.” Bishop Donald sanborn. http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-4-popes-against-the-modern-errors-episode-3-diuturnum-illud/
–
Bergoglio’s essence is anti-Catholic. It is the essence of revolutionism (covered in the above link). Revolutionism was and remains condemned by the Church. It is obscuritantist-anti-philosophy of Mob-Rule. The man who instructed the youth, to ‘Make a Mess’, is ruled by the spirit of Mob-Rule, which is not the Holy Ghost. It is just another ‘group-mind’, the real source of which is satan and his cohorts. Does Bergoglio really believe he is the ‘Pope’. Or is he just exploiting our belief?
Dialogue began in the Garden of Eden between Eve and the serpent. Luther was a master of dialogue; he dialogued entire books out of the canon of the Bible. The dialogue with lies one sits through in most Parishes of a Sunday is like a spiritual usury. Indebting the immortal souls of millions to a phantasm they think is ‘charity’ because that’s what the sheep, conferring with the shepherds conferring with satan, agree upon.
‘Logos’. The Word, made Flesh – of whom St John spoke.
Point well made. Thank you
Cardinal Walter Kasper “…”today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”
Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005:And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?.. this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”
ROFL !!! Try as I may, I couldn’t hear all the words properly, but that video is the funniest, most humorous thing I’ve seen in a long time! My funny bone is cracked from laughing you hilarious egit! 🙂
Oh no! Now CMTV will pull the video from their site stating that they unintentionally approached that Vortex from a “journalistic” position and therefore gave the wrong impression of criticizing the Pope! But no need to fear, CMTV did not say that the Pope shouldn’t promote the falsity of “dialogue”, but rather the unfaithful, cowardly, naive bishops should not. Big difference (or is it?).
Louie, I believe that your video may just be checkmate Michael! (Unless of course it’s somehow clarified by CMTV the the “dialogue” that the Pope is talking about is completely different to the “dialogue” of the bishops mentioned in the Vortex)
Dear Ock,
Thanks for those two quotes– we’d not seen them before. They contain the essential words of this false ecumenical thinking we’ve been battling for 50+years:
=====
“today we no longer understand..” “…the sense of a RETURN”…to being Catholics…”
=====
Unfortunately for the speakers, (and those who believe their words ) they’re a direct contrast to what Pius XI wrote in (par. 10) Mortalium Animos:
___
“The Union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting A RETURN TO the One, True Church of Christ, of those who are separated from it, for in the past, they have unhappily left it. “.
how dare u laugh at me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but the real q b: when r u going 2 EVOLVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TROG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“We control the seminaries, the academic departments of theology, the catechetical and liturgical institutions, the publishing houses, the magazines that matter and the chanceries. Most of the bishops are now on our side and those that aren’t have been neutralized. Anybody who wants a future in the hierarchy or the Catholic academy has no choice but to co-operate.” ― Fr. Hans Küng, expert theological advisor to members of the Second Vatican Council. Fr. Hans Küng ,”worthy” recipient of the Freemasons’ lifetime achievement award
Was Mike Voris aware of Francis’ pronouncement regarding dialogue on April 15 when he made the “Vortex” show? It seems Voris keeps saying things wherein he criticizes the bishops directly that would apply just as well to the Bishop of Rome.
My take (I sincerely hope I am dead wrong though) is, when the sin-nod this year comes around in fall, Voris will blame the “evil bishops” for guiding the proceedings to their evil conclusion and praise Francis for the “canonization” of the venerable parents of St Therese of Lisieux.
me thinks Mike Voris is an Opus Dei shill ??? But could be wrong ???
What does this even mean? Please explain.
Dear James,
ock will have to explain his reasons for the Opus Dei connection,
but a shill is defined as:
“a plant or a stooge– a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.”
I’m not up on my Opus Dei conspiracy theories. That’s why I asked.
1) Vat. Banking Scandel http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/110bev06-29-2009.htm
2} Vortex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjIKZxfY6D4
Hans Kung
Hans Kung, known for a lifetime of dissent on issues including sexuality, and infallibility; in recent years, promoted and published a book on, assisted suicide. He says his Parkinson’s disease is blinding him and making him unable to write anymore. At some point he plans to travel to Switzerland to procure assistance in taking his own life, not wanting to end like JPII.
While finishing his memoirs, he wrote to Pope Francis to ask permission to reprint his warm message to Kung, hand-written in Spanish, thanking Kung for his latest book and assuring him he would be delighted to read it.
___
Another novel beatification on our horizons?
“On September 1, 2008 Michael Voris partnered with RealCatholicTV.com, which is owned by Marc Brammer (a business developer for Moody’s) who lives in South Bend, Indiana and is a member of Opus Dei.”
Voris was also told to remove the name “Catholic” from his operation by the Archdiocese. So I don’t get where you are attempting to go with all this.
Bravo Louie. You’re right that Voris summed it up succinctly as well. It is painful to watch MV. Great delivery of excellent copy…..except MV ignores the proverbial “elephant in the room” aka Pope Francis. By the end of October even MV will not be able to deny the obvious. When the lights go on, MV will emerge from his coma with a zealous vengeance. If so, He will be a formidable ally.
I believe the Vortex was on the 14th and Francis’ comments were on the 15th.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/opus_dei.htm
Dear Louie and all,
Some of these recent comments were giving us a feeling of “deja vu”, and we know why. We took a look at last year’s comments and see that before the first October Synod on the Family, there were similar discussions about Michael Voris and speculation that he would “HAVE” to wake up soon because of the damage this Pope is doing. While reading some of them, we came across this post last February on “Harvesting” by a priest, which motivated us to stop and dedicate a Rosary to the intention of all Catholic Clergy struggling with this burden– as this good priest apparently was, and hopefully is still. We urge everyone, as Louie often reminds us, to pray and make sacrifices for them. It’s too easy to feel sorry for our own situations and frustrations, and forget the hell on earth they are living through.
Here’s the post of Father Robert Mann SCJ of February 27:
“Dear Louie, I have great respect for Michael Voris and have enjoyed many a program on CMTV including your own series on the documents of Vatican II. I think any truly faithful and devout Catholic instinctively recoils from criticism of the Holy Father, especially in the public arena, but it is difficult to see how one can remain silent in the face of continuous public utterances from the Pope that clearly undermine the content and force of Catholic teaching. As a priest trying to uphold the Catholic Faith in a city parish the sense of abandonment by the bishops is tough enough to bear but when the Pope also utters statements that are ambiguous and directly undermine the Faith the sense of abandonment by the Shepherds is powerfully reinforced and endorses the disastrous strategy that has been adopted since Vatican 2.
Like yourself, Louie, I have seen many who I once counted as friends distance themselves from me because of the promotion of the traditional liturgy, and for seeking to defend the sacraments and promote proper reception of holy communion, have been lambasted by parishioners and been the subject of complaints to diocesan authorities. There was a time when we could look to the See of Peter to uphold our cause but that view is now obscured and the confusion and darkness enveloping the Catholic world is causing great tribulation. Of course, I believe that Christ will be true to his promise never to abandon the Church but I can see no earthly sign as to how she will be rescued from the grip of this apostasy, yet I know that God in his mysterious providence will bring it about in His own good time and in a way known only to Him.
=========
God Bless you Father, with perseverance to the end.
Opus Dei takes a vow never to criticize the pope —- in a cult-like mentality.
It is similar to the way the Legionaries of Christ took their cult-like vows never to criticize their superiors. Ironically (or rather, hypocritically), Michael Voris had a excellent Vortex condemning actions of Fr. Joshua Morris (a former Legionaries of Christ priest) who refused to condemn the heterodox actions of his (Morris’) new superior, Cardinal Dolan. He reported that Fr. Morris had been formed using a mind control that “brainwashed” him into believing that he must simply submit to his new “leader.” Morris wrote a book called The Way of Serenity, and Voris was reporting this as well. I cannot find this episode of the Vortex now, or I would post it for you.
Opus Dei is basically a mind-control cult similar to Legionaries of Christ.
I’m sorry. My last comment was in response to JamesTheLesser. I was unable to get it UNDERNEATH your last comment.
Brilliant video once again, Louie.
Thank you!
That’s very interesting. It helps to make a lot more sense of the some of this religion of ‘blind’ obedience that renders God’s due unto Caesar without blinking.
–
It’s ‘Good Shepherd Sunday’, and the Gospel is about hearing the True Shepherd’s voice in order that we be ‘one fold with one shepherd’. But the ‘wolf catcheth and scattereth the sheep…and the hireling hath no care for the sheep.’
Montini – paul the sixth – conducted ‘dialogue masses’ when he was Secretariat of State. The book ‘Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI’ is back in print. You can read all about the revolution through dialogue (which really just means consulting satan) that Montini and his cohorts was responsible for.
–
http://sggresources.org/products/work-of-human-hands-by-rev-anthony-cekada
Amen
Very interesting. Thanks for the info.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/080205
With the approval of his good friend Pius XII, no doubt. Pius XII also made him Archbishop of Milan presenting him “as his personal gift to Milan”.
Popes Pius XII and Paul VI were close friends?
Dear Salvemur, Peter Lamb, and all,
We were strongly reminded of your usual criticisms of the N.O. today, during the homily of Mass, and your referring to Fr. Cekada’s book on the N.O., made it nearly impossible for us not to mention this here.
___
The priest gave an otherwise rather good talk on the meaning of sacrifice, but then brought up St. Francis as an example of one “who loved animals so much that he had forbidden his friars from having pets, and yet “couldn’t resist” keeping a few sheep as pets of his own”, even allowing one of them to come into Church, and go up to the Altar of Our Lady, (where, this homilist then claimed it would genuflect and bleat responses during the prayers, as if having human understanding. He then went on to quote an author he had read, about sacrifice, adding that the man was a Protestant.
____
We’re not going to trick you by asking what you think of that, and waiting for the (understandable) response –that it is proof of the corrupt N.O. modernist, VII mentality which permeates the post Conciliar Church.
____
We don’t believe in “accidents” when it comes to things like this. Ironically being too ill to leave home to attend Mass today, we decided to follow Peter Lamb’s example, and, for the first time, watched St. Gertrude the Great’s livestreamed 9:AM High Mass. The Celebrant was a white haired, elderly priest wearing a red skull cap– being our first time watching, we don’t know his name or position with Fr. Cekada’s parish there.
____
We’ve experienced this sort of thing at N.O. Masses in the past, so we were really only shocked because it was coming from a group so reputed to be AGAINST these type of ‘abuses”. Ordinarily, we would have a talk after Mass with a homilist who cites Protestants, pointing out the potential harm of leading Catholics to read their other works, and be led astray, so that it is better on the whole, not to bring mention them. We can’t remember the line he quoted, but we’re sure it didn’t add anything that significant to the point he was making.
___
The stuff about St. Francis, is what we’ve seen used to justify bringing animals into the Church. One N.O. priest in a nearby Diocese gives his dog free run of the vestibule, and the occasional run up to the Sanctuary elicits chuckles from his doting congregation. We hadn’t hear of this “miraculous” pet sheep before today, so we’re wondering if the story is even true, while being very aware of the negative side effects, and additional perception of St. Francis as a lax, animal-doting environmentalist priest.
___
Any thoughts on this?
p.s. Correction to be more accurate, St. Francis would be portrayed as a lax, animal-doting environmentalist DEACON, as he was never ordained a Priest.
Oh, that we could have more valiant priests like Father Robert Mann comment on this blog!
No – quite the contrary!
His “promotion” to the archbishopric of Milan was anything but!
Pius XII did not even make Montini a cardinal, which the see of Milan always had!
Also – Pius XII refused to allow Montini to head the secretariat of state, handling the role directly himself.
very interesting…..Pew Research Center 2013…..Belief In God Essential To Morality
http://henrymakow.com/2015/01/post-35.html (notice Israel)
Dear Indignus,
LOL! I have just finished listening to the exact same sermon of Bishop Dolan at the 11h30 (my time 17h30) mass from St. Gertrudes. You got him completely wrong. He just mentioned in passing that he had liked a remark made by a protestant about “exercising his spiritual muscle.” That’s not quoting Protestants to lead Catholics astray! Have a heart. : He was just liking a little expression used by a protestant. I often like good expressions I hear from all sorts of people.
Bishop Dolan is a great devotee of St. Francis of Assisi and often tells little stories about him. They are not articles of faith! You could easily check up on that one about the sheep. 🙂 He said that St. Francis had a great respect for animals as creatures made by God. His Lordship does most certainly NOT perceive St. Francis as “a lax animal-doting environmentalist priest.” You can listen to the sermon again, if you like, at the 5:45 pm mass (your time.) How did you like the new organ? St. Gertrude’s is a sedevacantist parish, so you will hear plenty against the NO there – aka The TRUTH. Please, I beg you, to virtually attend mass there again next Sunday with a relaxed, open mind, not looking for fault. You have just assisted virtually at the pure Tridentine Mass (not indult) that our fathers and their fathers assisted at, all their lives. If you made a spiritual Communion, you received the “reality” of the Sacrament. Read the Bishop’s news letter for interest and to get a feel of St. Gertrude’s. When I die, they have promised to say a Requiem memorial Mass there which my family, scattered around the world, can virtually assist at, live. If you had heard the children of St. Gertrude’s school singing at the Pontifical High Masses at Easter, you would have thought you were in heaven listening to Angels singing the praises of the Lord! What you see and hear at St. Gertrude’s is the real thing. Please don’t lightly laugh it off. 🙂
That’s what the sources on Wikipedia suggest. Who knows?
http://sggscandal.com/
Sedevacantism is not Catholic, do not attend Sedevacantist Churches.
From sheep to worms…
“Even towards little worms he glowed with exceeding love, because he had read that word concerning the Saviour, “I am a worm, and no man.” Wherefore he used to pick them up in the way and put them in a safe place, that they might not be crushed by the feet of passers by.”
Thomas of Celano
James,
What is the point of your post? I presume it is simply to denigrate St. Gertrude’s? What does a school fight have to do with any of us? Are we invited to pass judgement on an incident we know nothing about and which has nothing to do with us, or religion?
A sweeping statement Christopher. Care to elaborate?
Maybe the site is funded by an Opus Dei!
LOL !!!
Now you made me laugh! 🙂
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sedevacantism-dead-end-error-3434
I find it very interesting how some so called traditionalists wish to sugar coat PiusXII ‘s cooperation with not opening the doors to modernists with regards to the liturgy. With all his modernist appointments and acceptance of changing the Easter liturgy how is it that even sedevacantists and Novus Ordo Watch hold him up so highly. I also find it intersting how these same people gloss over the issue of NFP and ignore the parallel to his opening the doors to to contraception through supporting NFP. As the Tradition In action website says , “PiusXII was a vacillating Pope” who spoke out of two sides of his mouth. His writings in one paragragh will give you the impression that he is repeating the traditional teachings of the Church and then in further paragraphs or other speaches he says something different. Read his letter to the Italian miswives on contraception. In one paragraph he says one can’t separate the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory from the unity of the couple and then in another he says one can for economic, genetic, social or psycological reasons. From everything I have read I can’t help but conclude that his arms were not being that terribly twisted or forced to do so. Maybe he felt overwhelmed. Who knows. It sure appears to me that his pontificate was the one that opened the floodgates to the destruction of the Catholic Church and the crisis we find ourselves in today.
Dear Peter,
1. We have to disagree with your claim: “You got him completely wrong”, and also with the implication (“have a heart”) that we’re being too hard on him.
__
We didn’t say he was “quoting Protestants TO lead Catholics astray. His quote was obviously harmless in itself, but his pointing out where it CAME from, isn’t, and you should not be so lax, in our opinion. When a Bishop or priest so casually informs a congregation of Catholics, that he reads Protestant writers, giving them no caveats like “don’t try this yourself at home without my level of theological training”, it’s an unspoken green light to imitate him. Your attitude about this seems one of -“oh come on, what’s the harm here?”, “lighten up”. What’s next, labelling us “rigid ideologists”, (like Pope Francis does)? LOL 🙂 🙂
___
We can sense your admiration for him, but we speak from far too much soul-endangering experience with this issue, regarding more than a few friends and relatives who got the exact same idea from clergy over the last 50 years, that reading protestant ideas on their own, was no kind of threat to their faith, and moreover was recommended as good ecumenical education. Many slipped into indifferentism and then out of the Church, including some from home-schooled families we know, who experienced this tragedy with their own children.
___
This good Bishop could have said, “I recently read somewhere… and then quote the line with no mention of Protestants. We can only conclude that he doesn’t see the danger. But HOW can that be, when bringing Protestant thoughts into the Church and the Faith is the PRIME objection of sedevacantists, to all things VII and N.O.? His primary role is to safeguard and pass on the Faith.
=======
2. We didn’t say Bishop Dolan sees St. Francis as a “lax animal-doting environmentalist”, as you suggest. Such stories as his -about a Saint bringing an animal into the Church, and up to an altar of Our Lady during prayers, are used by those who perceive St. Francis that way, and use it to excuse further abuses of the Sacred places.
Good Example: St. Ignatius of Antioch Parish in Ohio, had a web page we saw a few years ago (now removed) with photos of the two donkeys they had at the Communion Rail on Palm Sunday, to give it that “real” feeling. We kid you not.
=======
3. We’re not sedevacantist, and so would really not be interested in virtually or otherwise attending Mass there regularly. We have a TLM within driving distance, that is well done and, like us, under the authority of the local Bishop–but apparently its priests are not unaware of what’s going on in the Church today.
They haven’t held back with their criticism of error, and we all know to whom they are referring when they denouce things that come “even from Rome”.
-We only “stopped in” for a look today, as we said, due to illness which we hope will be gone by next Sunday.
========
4. We would point out to you that we’re part of the generation that learnded that heard way, that doing anything with a “relaxed and open mind, without looking for fault” is extremely dangerous to one’s spiritual health these days. It’s why so many N.O. abuses went unchecked for so long. “No.” Thank you.
___
5. We don’t see much difference between the indult TLM and the one you watch using the earlier Missal, but that’s likely more noticeable with the prayers over time and for those more familiar with the TLM than we are.
6. We firmly believe we receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord at every Mass we attend, and have all our lives–obviously disagreeing with your beliefs on that matter. May Our Lord clarify these things for those sincerely seeking His will today, as many here appear to be doing. ( no converts for you in our house) 🙂 🙂
God Bless.
@ JamesTheLess
“Maybe the site is funded by an Opus Dei!”
We’re STILL laughing. 🙂 🙂
Dear Ever mindful,
We feel a similar affection for worms. We pick them up off the sidewalk after heavy rains. They make great fish bait! 🙂 🙂
eHDsysSngdoo
http://youtu.be/b1v5t0xbcUo
lol !!! I’ll get you for that one.
🙂
Dear Christopher,
The first article is no longer available. The second is a huge amount of waffle, irrelevant to the discussion. Any relevant points he alludes to have already been refuted in our discussions. In my humble opinion it is a very weak article. SSPX are schismatics as per definition. Nothing they say should be listened to by a Catholic just as one would not give ear to a heretic. One can not arrive at the truth by departing from error.
SSPX are not schismatic, this has been repeatedly affirmed by Cardinals, Bishops and Pope Benedict XVI. Even Argentina at the insistence of Archbishop Poli (?) have acknowledge the validity of the SSPX. Then again you probably do not recognise their authority just like the Orthodox Schismatic and the Old Catholics (which make up an amount of Sedevacantist apparently).
Sedevacantism however is actually Schismatic (deliberate refusal to acknowledge the current Pope) and is Heretical (Gallicanism-Sedevacantism).
James,
Wiki accepts postings from Opus Dei & Jesuits, ( and it’s maintained by Masons).
The Gertrude the Great crowd are a split from a split from a split from a split… if that is not schism, then what is?
Dear Christopher,
I have just listened to the video recommended by john6. It is excellent and demolishes the position adopted by the SSPX and NO utterly, with numerous Magisterial quotes. Please view it and you will never listen to, or consider the SSPX again. However, the views expressed in this video regarding baptism of desire and extra ecclesiam nulla salus est are not correct, so ignore those.
Peter, the Dimond bro completely misrepresents John Salza’s article in that video. That deception alone is enough to discredit it.
Dear Indignus,
You persist in misquoting the poor Bishop!
“When a Bishop or priest so casually informs a congregation of Catholics, that he reads Protestant writers …”
He never said a single word to INFORM anybody that he READS PROTESTANT WRITERS! He never said that. You are putting words into his mouth! You really are making a range of mountains out of a little mole hill. You admit his repetition of what he HEARD a protestant say was harmless. Can no expression be apt, or be repeated because it was uttered by a protestant? Neither did he say ANYTHING about the faithful reading protestant ideas. He said nothing that could reasonably be related to protestant ideas.
“We can only conclude that he doesn’t see the danger. But HOW can that be, when bringing Protestant thoughts into the Church and the Faith is the PRIME objection of sedevacantists, to all things VII and N.O.?”
The mind boggles! How you can get all this out of an innocent aside that he liked the expression of a protestant regarding his spiritual muscle I simply can’t imagine. Where the protestant thoughts are in this, heaven only knows.
Our Lord was born in a stable WITH ANIMALS PRESENT. The Church has a Mass every year when animals are brought into the Church to be blessed! St. Francis loved animals. So do I. Do you really think that St. Francis would do anything that would “abuse holy places”? That a story about a saint’s love for a sheep might have “the negative side effects, and additional perception of St. Francis as a lax, animal-doting environmentalist priest.” I don’t think there is ANY danger of that! Not even a snowball’s chance in a hot place.
Approaching something with an open mind promotes objectivity that’s all. If one is determined to find fault, one will usually succeed.
That you ignore Sacramental theology and believe that you receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord at every mass you attend? Well, that’s your perogative. I’d rather go with what the Church teaches about Sacraments with altered proper forms. I’m sorry, but I think you have been a bit unfair on this one. 🙂
Christopher I felt as you did not even two years ago. You can not, and never will, be able to reconcile denouncing the words of a man as heretical, like the r&r’s do, who is supposed to be a valid pope. It CANT take place and is surely against the Catholic Faith. Catholic dogma does not allow that stance. The SSPX is out to lunch. At least the lost FSSP still obey the heretic, as they blindly march as he orders them to like any other NO group.
I would seriously LOVE to hear Mr Salza attempt to debate the Diamond Bros. live.
Catholic Dogma doesn’t allow any wiggle room to judge a Pope without the lose of Faith. It’s not up to any of us. To think God would allow any Joe blow to make this decision of who is and who isn’t the Pope defies reason.
It would end like any other Dimond debate. The Dimond would become frustrated that his position was crumbling and then charity would go out the window, insults would be hurled and exasperation would cause him to exclaim that it was a waste of time, then he would hang up.
@James the Lesser: That is completely, totally, and irrevocably false. I remind you that you will have to give an account of every word you utter so I ask that you stop spreading, I hate to say it, LIES. St. Paul corrected St. Peter when he was Pope, so your statement isn’t even biblical.
–
In any case, I demand that you provide a citation to authority to support your position. In the absence of the ability to do so, I ask that you retract your statement.
Since my statement didn’t line up under yours, this is the statement I object to:
–
“Catholic Dogma doesn’t allow any wiggle room to judge a Pope without the lose of Faith. It’s not up to any of us. To think God would allow any Joe blow to make this decision of who is and who isn’t the Pope defies reason.”
JamesTheLesser,
(Again, I am trying to link this to your above link, but having difficulties.)
Your link about the Legioaries of Christ (Renew America link) was from 2008, written before the full investigation of Fr. Marciel Maciel was complete. If you look at more recent articles, you will now see a different (unfortunately, darker) picture.
What if Francis tells you tomorrow that hell does not exist? What stance do you take at that point? Is that the sort of BLATANT heresy that you are waiting for, as the “mild” heresy obviously isnt doing the trick? Im not a joe blow….im a guy with a brain who has a decent knowledge of his Faith. You are whistling past the graveyard.
Ive listened to many a Dimond debate…..when do the Dimonds ever not give a person every chance to answer and defend their position? Ive yet to hear the Dimonds crumble….but Id be more than happy to hear a debate in which they did if you could provide a link. Im not trying to cause discord….Id seriously like to hear an intelligent debate between the two sides.
Pius XII was on his death bed while all this was happening. Montini betrayed Pius XII on several accounts during the later part of Pius XII reign when he was ill – mysteriously some say. Not the least of which being a communist collaborator. Remember Pius XII had an automatic excommunication for known communists. Once Roncalli came along that excommunication was lifted. Twenty years later, Wojtyla is excommunicting the SSPX.
Again, ‘Work of Human Hands’, is meticulously footnoted.
–
The book is discussed here:
–
http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/?s=work+of+human+hands
Pius XII trusted Montini who betrayed him by collaborating with communists – all this while priests were being executed in Soviet States. When Pius discovered this betrayal (he had worked hard to protect the Church under Soviet persecution), it was, apparently a quite a blow, as betrayal and treachery always is.
PS. The above is directly from the testamony of Alice von Hildebrand (her husband was the courageous Dietrich who petitioned VII Rome to ‘its face’ about the destruction of the liturgy.)
–
http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/church_crisis_von_hildebrand.htm
Pius XII was no modernist – he was not a heretic. WWII imposed into the heart of the Vatican forces that had never previously had access – one of the fringe benefits of Freemasonic constructed warfare. Was Pius too trusting? But he was no modernist. It was he who condemned such things as reducing the altar to a table, suppressing private devotions on the part of those attending, eliminating black vestments, and using crosses that do not show a crucified, but rather a resurrected Christ.
–
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM
I watched a video of a NO mass a dog was given ‘holy communion’ as well as the humans.
And that picture is very dark indeed:
–
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/490-forcing-the-hand-of-god-is-santo-subito-a-good-idea
We don’t judge the person, we judge the content of his words and deeds. If it equals heretic, he is ‘outside’ the Church no matter who fails to make a ‘formal’ declaration.
sedevacantism is Catholicism, specifically an authentic Catholic response to a false religion.
Anastasia,
–
As Our Lord says, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
During the glorious pontificate of Pius XII the Church was undergoing virile and energetic growth throughout the whole world. Vocations were plentiful, large numbers of protestants were converting to the one true church in many countries (unlike the opposite process of today) and the church was generally undergoing growth throughout the world.
–
Pius XII was, in short, a great and holy pontiff who safely guided the barque of Peter through some of the most turbulent times in the history of the church.
Rich (& others on this thread),
–
The Dimond brothers hold to the ludicrous and insane idea that Our Lady of Fatima’s promise that “an era of peace will be granted to the world” has already been fulfilled.
–
In addition, they (outrageously & heretically) deny Our Lady’s role as “Co-redemptrix”. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix/#.VTSb7RuJhMs
–
They also hold to the heresy that denies the Church’s teaching on baptism of desire.
–
I am not going to take lessons on DOCTRINE from heretics thank you very much.
–
I need say nothing else to prove the “soundness” of their intellectual rigor.
Oh really?! So YOU get to depose a Pope? This is in fact what what we were are talking about. Please tell me which Dogma says that YOU have the right to make a judgement that the Pope is a heretic and therefore deposed. Entire Catholic teaching says a Pope can be judged by no one and is above even a council. But somewhere there is a teaching that says YOU can perform the act. Tell me, do you also get to be inquisitor at his trial? Do you get to announce the anathema? I will retract nothing. You sir, point me to where you any such teaching exists.
I can’t believe you’re defending the Dimonds. Seriously.
Rich, I can’t post under your comment. Catholic dogma says it is impossible for a Pope to bind the universal Church to error using infallibility. If that happens the bishops won’t be calling me to figure out what to do.
Yes. Indeed. But the Priest in the article was not “brainwashed” into blind obedience. That’s why I get so sick of generalizations and blanket statements.
I find your replies not convincing. It is evident in Cekadas book on Work of Human Hands that he so much wants us to believe in PiusXII when he says, ” And Pastor Angelicus? At this point in our narrative, we can see the direction the liturgical changes are taking- and it is away from the magnificient ideals for the liturgy that Pius XII himself enunciated in Mediator Dei. Did the “Angelic Pastor” himself see this? If he did, why didn’t he do something to stop it?
First there was the character of Pius XII. While he was absolutely impeccaple when it came to doctrine and theory, he seemed to lack the common sense necessary for making sound practical judgements. He was too credulous, too easily “wowed” by the appearance of great intellectual abilities, too much a man with his head in the clouds. ……
This lack of practical judgement, I think, blinded Pius XII to the disconnect between the teaching of Mediator Dei and the liturgical changes he permitted to be introduced during his reign. His adoption of “policy control concession,” fit neatly into the longterm agenda that the leaders of the Liturgical Movement had already laid out.” and …Bugnini and company pulled the wool over the eyes of the Sngelic Pastor.”
I can’t but help but conclude that Cekada sounds a lot like Michael Voris when it comes to his defense of a questionable and uncomfortable vacillating pope. This I beleive is what happens when one puts oneself in a corner for misguided beleifs on popes .
P.S. Notice Paul rebuked Peter and yet he was still Pope. Was Peter suddenly outside the Church? Did the Christians being scandalized suddenly get to judge, hey! You’re heretic and therefore no longer head of the Church? NO!
Paul pointed out his ERROR and Peter recanted. But don’t even afford Popes the benefit of error, you claim they are pernicious!!
Also, I love the guilt trip/scare tactic of “giving an account for what I say” What about you hypocrite? You’re the one making Christ a liar and Vatican I void.
Anastasia,
–
What exactly are the quotes from Fr Cekada’s book from your reply above to my comment? It is not clear at all where his quotes start/end.
Our Lord informs us that in the last days the true Faith would hardly be found on the earth. He tells us that “in the holy place” itself there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15), and a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24).
Chill out !!! just try to be the best Catholic you can be !!!
Will not watch the video, sorry. You have judged the video to contain erroneous information regarding Baptism and Salvation. Are they heretical, schismatic for holding contrary information? Have they broken from the schism to make their own schism? Can you not see the blatant absurdity of yourselves all becoming usurping little popes?
Saint Peter once denied Christ three times, he then repented and died a Saint, he is still regarded as the first Pope and did not lose his office. John XXII did not lose his office either, since he even like Pope Liberius repented of their errors and were Popes till their death. Therefore it’s safe to assume Pope Francis’ heretical statements are not Formal declarations. His recent praise of Vatican II as being Good for the Church still acknowledges a Church for it to supposedly be Good for.
Catholicism needs a Magisterium. Sedevacantism is basically a schism and a heresy.
And when Saint Peter denied Christ to the persecutors? That which Christ Himself foretold Saint Peter of doing?
Exactly, if Saint Peter one day woke up and thought that there is no Hell would he have lost his Office at that very moment of thought?
@James the Lesser: By divine law a manifest heretic places himself outside the Church. A manifest heretic who happens to occupy office with jurisdiction loses that jurisdiction – according to the majority position advocated by St. Robert Bellarmine – when his heresy becomes manifest. St. Robert Bellarmine’s position – known as ipso facto deposition – is reflected in a papal bull (Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio) and Canon Law (Canon 188).
–
A heresy that is manifest does not require judgment – just acknowledgment. That is why no decree is required in the majority position advocated by St. Robert Bellarmine – by advocating heresy in the external forum, the heretic himself is already judged by God as outside the Church that the Almighty himself established.
–
The essence of your position is that you are conferring jurisdiction to someone who already lost jurisdiction by his own actions. You are, in essence arrogating to yourself the authority to ignore a judgment already made by the Almighty himself who has ruled the heretic outside the Church.
Dear Peter,
On your first point about what the Bishop said:
We thought we heard him say he got the quote from a Protestant author he had been reading. We have no way to check back on that, as it was a livestream video. You claim he only said he HEARD the quote, so there’s no use arguing about it.
___
-The casual mention of heretics as sources of quotes in homilies was a big part of the errors of the last 50 years, that we think clergy need to be more aware of to avoid repeating them– especially when the Mass has “viewers” on the internet. We don’t see that as a minor thing.
____
Regarding animals in Church. We love animals, too, having had many large and small pets over the years-especially when our family was younger. We object to their being brought into Churches, because we’ve seen abuses such as we’ve mentioned, (and more), and feel it makes the Church appear more of a meeting hall filled with novel distractions, than a place of formal and personal prayer and worship of God.
__
You say the Bishop likes to tell stories of Francis. We don’t know if this one is “legend” or true. We’d likely be the old crochety couple in the pews, muttering against it, even if we were there witnessing Francis himself doing it in the past. We like the Church to stay formal and reverent, and animals distract from prayer and Worship. 🙂 🙂
Because there are so many abuses today, which CLAIM to be just imitating Francis, and THEY have not yet been eradicated, it just struck us as odd to hear a story about bringing animals into a Church–from a TLM priest.
====
Relax, we weren’t trying to lynch him for it.
🙂 🙂
Cyprian,
Infallible statements would make your arguments more believable. Not one fallible man and a dubious bull written for political reasons. BTW, did you know that Pius IV repented on his death bed for making the Papacy look foolish with his abuses of power?
Speaking of “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15) standing “in the holy place”
as ock speaks about above, what do you think of this as a “plausible hypothesis”:
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/02/26/plausible-hypothesis-on-what-exactly-the-abomination-of-desolation-might-be/
The Bull is Ex Cathedra.
JamesTheLesser,
Could you please provide a link with the info about Pope Saint Pius V repenting on his deathbed? I am interested in learning about that.
Thank you.
Part of the deposit of Faith?
@James The Lesser:
–
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata: “2. Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: […] c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic. It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, 3I6)
Not Pius V. Paul IV. It was one of the articles on sedevacantism by James Larson. Don’t recall which one.
http://www.waragainstbeing.com
Cypran: http://scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf deals with the issues regarding the Papal Bull.
Thank you.
Question ????? It is clearly stated at the Council of Florence in the Bull Cantate Domino by Pope Eugene IV that these words must be present for Transubstaniation.”For this is my Body; for this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament, the MYSTERY OF FAITH, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” This was reiterated by The Council oF Trent & numerous Popes who stated that any deviation in the forms solemnly established by the Council of Florence invalidates the sacrament giving the strength of infallibility to this sacramental formula. In the N.O Mass these words were put in a completely different context, in what is now called a memorial acclamation, which reads: “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died. Christ is Risen, and Christ will come again.” Do these words of acclamation have anything to do with the previous context, in which the mystery of faith referred straightforwardly to the transubstantiation. My question is could this omission of the sacramental formula invalidate the Mass or create doubt? Does it conform to matter, form and intention needed for a sacrament to be valid ? HELP !!!!
p.s. to Peter,
The Sacramental Theology you claim we’re ignoring, is of particular interest to Cardinal Burke, who has expressed the same point of view we have, a number of times. He’s someone we trust for advice on such matters. Obviously you’ve put your trust in those who see things differently than he does, whose opinions you likewise respect. With all the confusion today, we see no reason to insult one another with words that imply carelessness or lack of intelligence or will to know the truth. It’s more conducive to respectful conversations.
(Don’t dare use the word “dialogue” on THIS post)
🙂 🙂
That article doesn’t deal with issues regarding the Papal Bull, it positively distorts the Papal Bull-
–
Pope Paul IV:
–
” those [prelates, including the Pope, who were heretics from prior to their elevation] thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
–
John Salza:
–
A heretical Pope can only be deposed by a prior Pope who had already judged the succeeding Pope as a heretic prior to the elevation of the succeeding Pope. How would that work? How would the now-dead Pope who judged the succeeding Pope as a heretic enforce his judgment, by a ouija board? Earth to John Salza: If a prior Pope had already judged a succeeding Pope as heretic prior to his elevation, there would be no need for Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio since a KNOWN heretic ALREADY excommunicated by the Church FOR HERESY could not be elevated to the papacy.
–
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio paragraph 6 covers the situation where it becomes known after his elevation that a Papal claimant was a heretic from prior to his elevation. In other words, the prior heresy of the papal claimant was not known (manifest) at the time of his elevation.
–
The citation I provided was to a renowned pre VII canonist. John Salza isn’t even a canon lawyer, never mind a renowned and published canonist. Your citation to John Salza who has the temerity to misconstrue the Bull is no credit to your critical thinking ability. Cite one canonist (John Salza is not a canonist) who has adopted John Salza’s theory and then maybe I might take you seriously.
Part of the deposit of the Faith that:
1) It reiterates that anyone who formally denies any part of the Church Teaching which is necessary for Salvation cannot be part of the Church and guilty of Heresy/Schism.
This can be compared to Scripture in which the crowds departed from the Revelation of Christ that His Body must be consumed, which the Apostles were questioned and they accepted. Further it can be compared to the Parable of the Wheat and the Chaff, the Mustard Seed, Winning the Race, Working out Salvation in fear and trembling, the narrow path, and finally those who say Lord, Lord but they are told to depart.
2) A Protestant ‘bishop’ such as Tony Palmer cannot hold any Ecclesiastical Offices since he is not Catholic, just as any non-Catholic cannot hold any Ecclesiastical Office since those in question do not have any authority that stems from Christ Himself with the appointing of Apostles. So too that those who ‘formally’ declare contra the Church cannot simply shepherd over the Faithful hence why the Apostolic Hierarchy have that authority to declare who is Heretical.
3) Papal Infallibility reinforces the Bull as it does not run contrary to Tradition. The argument of the authority of binding (Excommunication) can also give authority to the Bull as it is the automatic excommunication of those who have detracted from the Faith.
Those are a few arguments anyway, the Magisterium needs to clarify if it is part of the Deposit of Faith, but I cannot see why not in theory.
As noted above, John Salaza refutes the Sedevacantist position using the Bull in question, it should be an interesting read.
Ah! Gotcha…. Makes sense. Thanks.
If you wish to adhere to personal insults in a discussion, I will simply just not respond.
As to your criticism of Salsa, he raises the question of who on earth has the authority to declare a person a heretic in the first place. The Bull automatically condemns any Heretic or Schismatic from office, yes. But how do you have the authority to label a person as such before hand? Salza’s argument is simply that the Hierarchy has that responsibility. So if Pope Pius XII declared Montini as a Heretic, Pope Paul VI’s election would be invalid. As to how it would work, it would be simple. A Cardinal is required to become a Pope, the Pope appoints Cardinals. One Cardinal is Heretical by the Decree of the Pope. The Cardinals elect that Pope as the successor. The Bull declares the election null and void.
Cypran: ‘there would be no need for Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio since a KNOWN heretic ALREADY excommunicated by the Church FOR HERESY could not be elevated to the papacy.’
–
Of course a known heretic could not be elevated to the Papacy, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio even states that. It’s a reaffirming of Tradition, the teaching is nothing new. Again, Salza raises the issue of the authority of who can declare a man a Heretic, and interestingly you cite Canon Law yet make no reference to Salza’s references to the Canon Law 1917.
–
Cypran: ‘Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio paragraph 6 covers the situation where it becomes known after his elevation that a Papal claimant was a heretic from prior to his elevation. ‘
–
Salza covered that paragraph. To be known after elevation to be a Heretic is also to be known prior to elevation to be a Heretic. The condition is on the validity by the unknowing. Bishop X classes Priest Y as a heretic. Bishop X passes away. Priest Y unknown of his heresy by Pope Z is appointed Bishop and a Cardinal. Pope Z passes away, Priest Y who is Bishop Y and Cardinal Y becomes Pope Y. It is discovered that Pope Y was a heretic and unrepenting prior to his elevation to the Papacy, thus there’s argument of a null election.
–
Salza’s interpretation makes sense.
http://youtu.be/Ur1OlGrTU7s
Watch from 32mins
Also echaristic miracles
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/BuenosAires1.pdf
Pope Paul IV:
–
” those [prelates, including the Pope, who were heretics from prior to their elevation] thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
–
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata: “2. Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: […] c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic. It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, 3I6)
–
Christopher’s paraphrase of Salza’s argument;
–
“Of course a known heretic could not be elevated to the Papacy, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio even states that. It’s a reaffirming of Tradition, the teaching is nothing new. Again, Salza raises the issue of the authority of who can DECLARE a man a Heretic, and interestingly you cite Canon Law yet make no reference to Salza’s references to the Canon Law 1917.”
–
Pope Paul IV and the canonist Conte a Coronata both say in so many words that a declaration IS NOT NECESSARY. Your paraphrase of Salza indicates that a declaration by authority IS NECESSARY. Salza is flat-out contradicting a Pope’s judgment in this regard.
–
Finally, much of the Bull was covered in debates last summer where it became clear that Salza had not properly parsed and understood the language in paragraph 6. Paragraph 6, on its face, does not require any sort of court proceeding, sentence or declaration to become operative. The provisions of paragraph 6 and 7 become applicable when, as set forth in paragraph 6, “that if ever at any time it shall APPEAR that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy”.
–
Provisions 6 and 7 are triggered when it APPEARS that a Cardinal or Pontiff “prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.”
–
On its face, paragraph 6 does NOT require that a Cardinal or Pontiff have been JUDGED or DECLARED to be a heretic for its provisions to be triggered; rather, the provisions of 6 and 7 are triggered when it merely APPEARS that a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff “has deviated from the faith or fallen into some heresy”. By requiring a judgment or declaration, Salza is reading into paragraph 6 a requirement that simply is not there.
Here is paragraph 6 trimmed down to make the provisions relevant to this discussion more clear:
–
“6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]
–
that if ever at any time it shall appear that . . . even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as . . . Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
–
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
. . .
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
–
It is clear that when the non-relevant portions of paragraph 6 are removed that John Salza is directly contradicting Pope Paul IV by requiring a declaration.
p.p.s to Peter Lamb,
If you were to substitute any true definition of Protestant, for the actual word, it may demonstrate why it is perceived by us as no little matter.
—
Would it not widen eyes to hear him say,
“I heard a clever line from a denier of the truths of our Faith, the other day, than says……”
Or
I liked this line that I heard from a believer in heresy;…
======
Does that help? 🙂 🙂
Just to complete what the Bull permits the laity to do in such an event, paragraph 7 spells it out:
–
“7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-
–
that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
. . .
(ii) the laity;
. . .
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).”
–
Thus on its face, the laity are permitted to withdraw their obedience from the apparently heretical pontiff at any time after the heresy of the pontiff becomes apparent [no need to wait for a declaration] and to avoid him, but the laity are also warned of the need to return to obedience as soon as a true Pope is elected. My position goes no further than this. I do not arrogate to myself the authority to declare someone a heretic as if I was speaking for the Church, or more outlandishly, to suppose that I could elect a new Pope. Note also this provision does NOT authorize the “recognize and resist” position; rather it only authorizes the “recognize, withdraw obedience and avoid” position.
Thank You john very informative
The Mysterium Fidei is not part of the form of words of consecration.
Its more complicated than that. The movement of the phrase “mysterium fidei” from the formula of consecration in the TLM to just prior to the memorial acclimation in the NO can be interpreted as a “new” understanding of the mass that significantly downplays, if not denies, the real presence. Remember, in the TLM “mysterium fidei” is recited during a time in the Mass when traditionally it is thought that Our Lord becomes present under the appearance of bread and wine. So many simple Catholics would believe the mystery of faith is that Our Lord becomes present. Now, in the NO the recitation of the words is moved from the consecration formula to “memorial” acclimations, e.g., “We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection, until you come again.” Now, hasn’t our Lord just come again through transubstantiation? Why are we saying a formula that seems to emphasize the mystery isn’t that Our Lord has just become present on the Altar, but rather that He will come again in the eschaton? Wouldn’t simple Catholics aware of this change conclude that the real mystery is that Our Lord will come again in the eschaton?
–
If there is any doubt keep in mind that some wanted the memorial acclimation to be “My Lord and My God” which in context would comport very well with tradition. But Paul VI wanted a “mass” that could be understood one way if you were a protestant (no transubstantiation) and another way if you were overly credulous, I mean Catholic, so such a tradition-preserving acclimation was rejected.
Thank you Lynda and Cyprian I was under the mistaken impression that Christ actually used the words mystery of faith as he did “for many”
Well, it might be better to stop making them too.
Sedevacantism exist because they follow the Magisterium and not those who contradict it.
–
http://www.traditionalmass.org/
–
This site lays out very clearly the sedevacantist ‘position’, which is simply keeping the Faith and praying for a Pope who will.
Anastasia. Given the practical and applied attacks on the Faith – Her Doctrines, Worship and Disciplines by everyone wearing the white cassock following the death of Pius XII, it seems disingenuous to attack the Papacy of Pius XII because the wolves were settling in. What of the ‘santo subito’ of JPII ‘the Great’ who presided over the Novus Ordo pederasty and homosexualisation boom town of the parishes and seminaries? The appellation the ‘Great’ should have ‘scandaliser’ after it, for Assisi alone, even before one considers the breathtaking corruption of Faith and Morals under during his long wearing of the white cassock.
–
Yet here’s a conversation about the ‘inappropriateness’ of ‘angelic’ applied to a Pope that led the Church through WWII, converted the Cheif Rabbi of Rome to Catholicism through his charity, and fought tooth and nail against the Communist invasion of the Faith.
Dear Cyprian,
Thank you for your very lucid exposition of what I have been trying to get across all this time. My computer was down, so I could not join the fray. You have spelled it out beyond all reasonable dispute. Actually all the debate among the theologians (St Robert, etc.) is superceded by and encapsulated in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which is infallible Magisterium and the last word on the matter:
1. Loss of Office is AUTOMATIC.
2. NO DECLARATION is NECESSARY. (Formal declaration is desirable in the interest of good governance, if possible, but occurs AFTER loss of Office has already occurred automatically.)
_
I think some commentators fail to appreciate the difference between an OCCULT heretic and a MANIFEST heretic. An occult heretic is one who keeps his heresy secret to himself. He commits a mortal sin and cuts himself off from the mystical body in the “internal forum”, but he hypocritically still pretends to profess the Faith in public, i.e. in the “external forum”. Such a Pope REMAINS Pope. He is a Pope in a state of mortal sin, just as he would be if he had committed any other mortal sin – murder, adultery etc.
If this Pope makes his heresy public, i.e. manifest, and persists in his heresy formally and pertinaciously, then he severs his bond with the mystical body in the external forum also and falls from Office automatically.
That’s an important difference between an occult and a manifest heretic.
_
James,
When Our Lord said ” thou art Peter and upon this rock I will …” he announced his INTENTION of making St. Peter Pope, but He only MADE him Pope after the Resurrection, when Our Lord said to him “… feed my sheep …” i.e. St. Peter was made Pope AFTER he had denied Christ and had repented for doing so. When he denied Christ, he was not yet Pope.
Dear Indignus,
Please never doubt that I respect you and greatly admire your sincere and faithful love of our Faith because I do.
However, objectively a host is consecrated, or it is not. That depends on the validity of the Consecration. That depends on the validity of the Priest and the intention, form and matter he employed to confect the Sacrament. If any of the aforementioned are invalid, then also is the Consecration. The Magisterium has determined the essential form of the Sacrament. If the essential form is altered, the sacrament is invalid. Nowhere in any of this is room left for opinions, be they of Cardinals, or anybody else.
🙂 🙂 (One for each of you.)
‘declaration IS NOT NECESSARY.’
–
Sorry, but nowhere in the Bull are those conditions set out. Canon Law 1917 reinforces that for example on that the Pope alone can only judge Cardinals ( (1557, par. 12). The only capacity for anyone lesser is to instruct them on their errors, with no authority to claim they are heretical. St. Athanasius did not even do that. St. Paul did not do it to Pope St. Peter.
–
‘Provisions 6 and 7 are triggered when it APPEARS that a Cardinal or Pontiff “prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.”’
–
‘deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:’, that says nothing either of appearance nor of declaration. It only governs should X fall away into Heresy, become a Heathen etc., prior to their election, it would be invalid and they automatically lose the office they never had in the first place. No more or less.
–
John XXII, Liberius, would have simply ceased to be Popes despite being recognised unto their deaths as Popes. As soon as their own tongue might betray them they lose the Office. Historically, such an outcome has never happened.
–
‘prior to his promotion or his elevation…(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.’
–
That is of course in conjunction with with them found to be guilty of Heresy beforehand thus automatically making the elevation invalid which is not being contested. But who has the authority to declare an individual an Heretic? Only the Pope can judge a Cardinal by the 1917 Canon (1557, par. 12). The laity only have the authority in so much as to challenge their words, not to make a declaration upon their state further reinforced by Canon 1558.
–
It is simply a different head of the same coin which the Neo-Catholics share. Sedevacantist say the Pope cannot err, so there is no Pope because there is error and the Neo-Catholics say the Pope cannot err, so everything the Pope says is right.
–
‘My position goes no further than this. I do not arrogate to myself the authority to declare someone a heretic’
–
Not for the Church, no, but it’s still a violation of Canon Law to make such judgement on a Cardinal to his state rather than to rebuke his words as necessary.
–
Peter Lamb, your argument about St. Peter was referenced in Douay Rheim commentary, I understand ‘Feed my Sheep’ is the promises of Matthew fullfilled. Thank you for the clarification and as such I withdraw the denial comparisons.
–
James’ argument on rebukement and St. Peter’s error still stands.
Dear Indignus,
Apropos animals in Church:
I enjoy reading old posts and their comments. I have just read “Peace Dove Investigation” of 27 Jan., 2014 in the comments upon which Lynda gives a link to a description of the Miracle of the Doves:
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/historyPilgrimStatue.html
Like Lynda, I had tears in my eyes after reading the description of the celebrations in Lisbon and the doves. I did not know about this miracle before. How wonderful it must have been to live in a Catholic country in the good old Catholic days!!!
Dear Christopher,
One must keep in mind the distinction between Divine Law and Canon Law. The former is immutable. The latter serves to maintain proper order and good governance in the Church and is therefore mutable.
The automatic fall from Office without declaration being necessary, as infallibly taught by Pope Paul IV in Cum Ex 6. i-vi, occurs in terms of Divine Law and relates to the SIN of heresy. The fall from Office, without declaration, is a fait accompli. Canon Law does not come into play here in any way at all.
The declaration you desire can obviously only come AFTER the heretic has committed the sin manifestly, formally and pertinaciously and has already fallen from Office. A formal declaration of the CRIME of heresy, in terms of Canon Law, is desirable for good governance only. Seriously, can you see the NO Cardinals getting together to declare Francis a heretic? Remember the Pope is sovereign and can only be judged by God. No man can JUDGE the Pope, no not even Cardinals, or a Council. A formal declaration by the proper officials of the Church merely serves to acknowledge the fall and propagate that fact – they serve not as judges.
What you say about whom may judge whom in terms of Canon Law is correct. As Cyprian has so clearly pointed out, I as a layman can canonically judge nobody and you are correct in affirming that in terms of Canon Law. But I and any other lay Catholic can recognise heresy against Catholic Doctrine, if we have been taught the Faith. I cannot JUDGE Francis to be a heretic, but I can certainly KNOW him to be one. It is my DUTY then to let him and all he teaches be anathema, to warn all the other sheep I can and ,as you say, rebuke his words as roundly as possible.
A TRUE Pope cannot teach error. The Holy Ghost will not, nor ever has, allowed that to happen. Without that Devine Protection, no human could teach the Faith infallibly. It is therefore indisputable that if a “pope” teaches anything contrary to established Doctrine, he CANNOT be a true Pope. That is simple logic.
Schizophrenia?
In Hoc Signo Vince,
Sorry about not correcting the proper placement of the first set of quotation marks. If you have a copy of the book “Work of Human Hands” the quote is from page 64 beginning with the very top first sentence. My quotes in my comment box start at “And Pastor Angelicus?…., and then the quote ends at “Angelic Pastor”. I spelt Angelic Pastor wrongly in my response. I spelt it with an “s”.
I hope this helps.
Dear Salvamur,
Thank you for pointing out the good that PiusXII did during his pontificate. This is good to hear but it doesn’t mean that we should sugar coat just exactly where the floodgates were opened after all the hard work done by Saint PiusX in his Pacendi encyclical to fight modernism and PiusXI ‘s hard work against contraception and the redefining of the primary purpose of marriage in his encyclical Casti Connubii.
Last comment.
–
‘Divine Law and Canon Law. The former is immutable.’
–
And as argued, the Divine Law makes no reference whether the Heresy is Formal or Material, but it is however safe to assume it refers to the Material. Else even an Occult Heresy classes as violation of the Bull.
–
‘The latter serves to maintain proper order and good governance in the Church and is therefore mutable.’
–
And yet you cannot judge a Cardinal, that by Canon Law is reserved to the Pontiff. The Canon Lawyers will have been fully aware of Vatican I and most certainly aware of Trent, Pope Pius IV and V.
–
‘The automatic fall from Office without declaration being necessary, as infallibly taught by Pope Paul IV in Cum Ex 6. i-vi, occurs in terms of Divine Law and relates to the SIN of heresy. The fall from Office, without declaration, is a fait accompli. Canon Law does not come into play here in any way at all.’
–
It also emphasis Prior, which you seem to be ignoring. It’s basically stating if they were found to be Heretical prior to election/elevation, it’s null and void and they cannot hold Office and any Office they claim to hold must be removed from them. It speaks nothing of Material Heresy, period.
–
‘The declaration you desire can obviously only come AFTER the heretic has committed the sin manifestly, formally and pertinaciously and has already fallen from Office.’
–
By your own argument of Occult Heresy, what on earth is the difference? By your argument, if he mentions nothing of heresy, but thinks heresy he’s safe. But if he speaks openly (declaring heresy) he then loses Office. There is really no difference there between the distinctions by you and Canon Lawyer Father Hesse’s Formal and Material Heresy, except full acknowledgment of being in Heresy and deliberately favouring it over Church Teaching.
–
‘A formal declaration of the CRIME of heresy, in terms of Canon Law, is desirable for good governance only.’
–
Again, the Bull makes no distinctions, and the requirement of Formal Heresy cannot be ruled out and is a safe assumption.
–
‘No man can JUDGE the Pope, no not even Cardinals, or a Council.’
–
Then you stand guilty of Judging a Pope as not being a Pope.
–
‘A formal declaration by the proper officials of the Church merely serves to acknowledge the fall and propagate that fact – they serve not as judges.’
–
That is what exactly Salza has said:
–
‘However, the same Code of Canon Law also determines how we know a cleric has publicly defected from the Faith and lost his office as a result of the defection: The Church tells us. Thus, ecclesiastical law follows Our Lord’s directive: “tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17). While the person in Matthew 18 was publicly suspected of a transgression, Jesus tells us to treat him as excommunicated only after the Church judges the matter.’
–
‘What you say about whom may judge whom in terms of Canon Law is correct. As Cyprian has so clearly pointed out, I as a layman can canonically judge nobody and you are correct in affirming that in terms of Canon Law. But I and any other lay Catholic can recognise heresy against Catholic Doctrine, if we have been taught the Faith. I cannot JUDGE Francis to be a heretic, but I can certainly KNOW him to be one. It is my DUTY then to let him and all he teaches be anathema, to warn all the other sheep I can and ,as you say, rebuke his words as roundly as possible.’
–
Yes, you must rebuke it, but by all means you simply cannot make a formal declaration, only the Church itself can, just as a successor can make the reference alone. To cast him as not the Pope is a judgement which, by your argument and Salza’s, is usurping a Judgment only the Church can make, you only have the authority in so far as to resist and rebuke just like St. Athanasius, Bellarmine.
–
‘A TRUE Pope cannot teach error. The Holy Ghost will not, nor ever has, allowed that to happen.’
–
And the ‘Neo-Catholics’ are saying the exact same thing as you, that everything the Pope says is infallible so Church Teaching can change by them. You both share something in common, and perhaps it’s an heretical interpretation of Papal Infallibility. The Church has not nor never has taught that the Pope is infallible every second of his Office. He is only infallible by Ordinary Magisterium when in continuity with Tradition, Extraordinary through Ex Cathedra.
–
‘It is therefore indisputable that if a “pope” teaches anything contrary to established Doctrine, he CANNOT be a true Pope. That is simple logic.’
–
Then the teaching is simply not infallible and is private opinion which is at best material which by the arguments shown do not guarantee a separation UNLESS a formal declaration is made. The Church decides on the matter, not you or Cypran. Your duty is to be aware of any heresy, combat it and pray for the Pope just like Saint Athanasius.
Anastasia,
–
Fr Cekada’s sarcastic criticism of Pius XII, making fun of St Malachy’s description of the pope as “Pastor Angelicus” is utterly deplorable & even puerile.
–
While Fr Cekada may have many valid and true points to make in his book “work of human hands” – I find it interesting how he likes to belittle devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, basically denying that Russia needs to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in order for world peace to ensue!
–
Take a look at the shocking statements he made in the links provided here:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B740_Cekada.html
@Christopher and Peter Lamb: I started a topic in the forum that includes a lengthy refutation of Christopher’s arguments. Since we are supposed to direct lengthy off-topic comments to the forum, I suggest that we continue the debate in the forum.
Dear Christopher,
My fingers are wearing down too. 🙂 I’m gonna number my comments to correspond to your paragraphs, from top to bottom, in the interest of brevity:
1.a. “… the Divine Law makes no reference whether the Heresy is Formal or Material, but it is however safe to assume it refers to the Material.”
No. Incorrect. “Material” heresy implies neither guilt, nor sin against Faith. The person states heresy in ignorance of the fact.
1.b. ” … even an Occult Heresy classes as violation of the Bull.”
No. The heretic keeps his heresy secret. Nobody else knows about it. Still in union in the external forum.
2. ” … you cannot judge a Cardinal, that by Canon Law is reserved to the Pontiff.”
Correct. I never said any layman could.
3. “It speaks nothing of Material Heresy, period”
Correct. Material heresy is not a sin. The bull refers to manifest, formal, notorious, pertinacious heresy. You were a heretic before election? Yes. Your election is null and void. You became a heretic after being elected? Yes. You have automatically fallen from Office without further declaration.
4.”By your own argument of Occult Heresy, what on earth is the difference?”
Huge difference.
Occult heresy = loss of unity ONLY in internal forum = mortal sin, but still attached to Mystical Body.
Formal, manifest heretic = loss of unity in both internal AND external forums = severed from Mystical Body.
5.a. ” By your argument, if he mentions nothing of heresy, but thinks heresy he’s safe.”
No he is not safe – he has committed a mortal sin, but only he and God know that. He is still united in the external forum i.e. acts as a Catholic in good standing and professes the Faith in public. Nobody else knows he is a heretic.
5.b. “But if he speaks openly (declaring heresy) he then loses Office.”
Correct. He is now a formal, manifest heretic and severed from the Church in both forums.
5.c. “There is really no difference there between the distinctions by you and Canon Lawyer Father Hesse’s Formal and Material Heresy, except [Formal heresy is] full acknowledgment of being in Heresy and deliberately favouring it over Church Teaching.” [and Material heresy is speaking heresy in ignorance of the fact that one is speaking heresy.]
Correct. You have got it.
6. “Again, the Bull makes no distinctions, and the requirement of Formal Heresy cannot be ruled out and is a safe assumption.”
It is. The heresy must be formal, manifest,notorious and pertinacious.
7.”Then you stand guilty of Judging a Pope as not being a Pope.”
I do not. Neither I, nor any man, can JUDGE a Pope – ONLY God can. I can KNOW that he is a heretic when he teaches what is contrary to Catholic doctrine as is known from Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.
8. “Our Lord’s directive: “tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17).”
Is this man possibly a material heretic? So he must be clearly informed of what the Faith teaches in regard to what he is saying. If after being informed that what he is saying is heresy and he persists in that heresy, then he must be anathemised – exactly as Pope Paul IV also says.
The Vicar of Christ has now further explained that Office is lost automatically and without further declaration being necessary.
9.” … you only have the authority in so far as to resist and rebuke just like St. Athanasius, Bellarmine.”
Correct.
10. “The Church has not nor never has taught that the Pope is infallible every second of his Office. He is only infallible by Ordinary Magisterium when in continuity with Tradition, Extraordinary through Ex Cathedra.”
Correct, but only when teaching on faith, or morals and under prescribed conditions.
11. “Then the teaching is simply not infallible and is private opinion which is at best material which by the arguments shown do not guarantee a separation UNLESS a formal declaration is made.”
Incorrect. We are not interested in the Pope’s private opinions and they are certainly not infallible. We only submit to what he teaches infallibly i.e what he, as Pope teaches concerning faith and morals to the whole Universal Church, either when defining dogma solemnly ex Cathedra, or by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
OK Cyprian, but how do we do that? Can one’s comments simply be transferred there? I simply have not got the petrol to one-finger type it all out again! 🙂
@Peter Lamb: Just highlight your entire comment cut it, and paste it in a new comment under the forum topic. Mr. V set up the forum for this specific purpose, and he prefers that when disputes get off-topic, lengthy, and many times repetitive, we direct them to the forum. There are many issues that are raised by this Bull, for example, do the arguments about the supposed misinterpretation of the bull by certain traditionalists really make sense in view of the historical context of the Bull, etc. All these can eventually be covered in a single topic, so we should respect Mr. V’s wishes in this regard and direct our comments to the forum.
Judging from all the fanciful opinions and novelties being articulated by certain “types” throughout this site, both liturgically and doctrinally, it is self-evident that an astonishing broad-spectrum of those who claim membership in the Mystical Body, ranging from deluded neo-con “Catholic” Answers devotees to feverish Dimond Brothers sede-minions, are completely queer for that bankrupt fantasy of modernism known as evolution and its equally satanic conjoined twin, heliocentrism (neither of which are compatible with Catholic Truth).