On December 6, Taylor Marshal posted on YouTube an interview of Christopher Ferrara under the title, Is Pope Francis Against Fatima? The two men ended up discussing, however, far more than just this one question. [NOTE: Ferrara’s knowledge of, and insight into, Fatima is considerable and valuable. If for no other reason than that, I encourage readers to view the video.]
During the interview, Marshall expressed something of a mea culpa, alluding to his journey away from conservatism and toward tradition. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he and Ferrara met in the middle, what stood out more starkly to me is what appears to be the latter’s drift toward conservatism.
I’ll pick it up at the 38:00 mark and invite you to watch the video for yourself. Chris Ferrara states:
There’s no such thing as an “authentic Magisterium” versus an inauthentic Magisterium. There’s no such thing as a Magisterium that is ordinary and can make mistakes, and an extraordinary Magisterium that is infallible. No, the Magisterium as such is infallible. It cannot teach an error … so, the Magisterium as such doesn’t lie to us.
This raises an important question.
Q: What if a pope teaches error while insisting – explicitly and publicly, using the instruments of papal authority to do so – that it is, in fact, Magisterial?
This is far more than a merely rhetorical question. As many readers may already be aware, during his recent visit to Thailand, Francis (as he is known) referred to “the eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia” as the “Magisterium of the Church,” and this is not the first time he has insisted as much.
Taylor Marshal, to his credit, asked Mr. Ferrara to comment on Bergoglio making use of the AAS in promoting the implementation of Amoris Laetitia according to the guidelines proposed by the Buenos Aires bishops, doing so explicitly in order to assert that it is “Magisterium.” To which, Mr. Ferrara replied (40:15):
When he publishes that in the AAS and calls it through his Secretary of State ‘authentic Magisterium,’ we have to reject that. It simply can’t be authentic Magisterium.
Ultimately, Mr. Ferrara moved to sweep the entire issue aside saying, “It’s not really a doctrine, it’s a disciplinary permission.” (This, incidentally, was precisely what the Kasperites were saying in the lead up to the Synods on the Family!)
This is some turnabout for Chris Ferrara. Readers may recall that he was among the signatories of the so-called Filial Correction of 2017 that points to the following (among other things) from Amoris Laetitia:
Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it.
Mr. Ferrara added his name to those who stated that this is among those propositions in Amoris Laetitia that “contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.”
Now, he tells us it’s just a matter of disciplinary permission?
Elsewhere in the interview (60:48), however, Mr. Ferrara says:
John Paul II was great on moral theology and it’s precisely the teaching of John Paul II on moral theology that this pope [Francis] seems determined to overturn on the subject of divorce and remarriage in particular.
So, what did JPII teach on this matter?
The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. (Familiaris Consortio 84)
Get that? Based upon Sacred Scripture and tradition. Ferrara himself (40:31) refers to this as what “the bi-millennial tradition of the Church says about people living in adultery.” In other words, this most certainly does pertain to doctrine!
Mr. Ferrara, to his credit, volunteered to bring up (42:58) what he deemed to be an even thornier issue:
Now, more problematical is the contradiction on the death penalty. He had that put into the Catechism. Okay so obviously we can’t be victims of cognitive dissonance.
Not to be a wise guy here, but as every “traditionalist” knows the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated under JPII, and revered by conservatives, is nothing more than a handbook for implementing the errors of Vatican Council II. I find it odd that Mr. Ferrara seems to imagine that Bergoglio’s misuse of the AAS is somehow less problematical than his tinkering with a book that “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) have long known belongs in the trash heap.
In any case, he relates that he finds it more problematical because the Church’s position on the death penalty (36:43) is “based on the words of God Himself in the book of Genesis … and Christ Himself … For 2,000 years the Church taught that for the gravest crimes capital punishment is morally licit.”
In other words, it isn’t just about the “disciplinary permission” given by God to the State to put men to death for certain crimes; it’s about a teaching based on Scripture and tradition; i.e., it concerns doctrine, just like the aforementioned entry into the AAS. This makes his turnabout on Amoris Laetitia opening the way to Communion for those who insist on persisting in manifest grave sin all the more difficult to understand.
So, how does Mr. Ferrara propose (43:23) to resolve this Catechism conundrum?
The only solution to the problem, short of sedevacantism, which I certainly don’t espouse … the other way to resolve the problem otherwise is to say yes, the Pope can make a mistake.
Not very long ago, I wouldn’t have had any difficulty with Ferrara’s claim that we simply need to reject a pope’s insistence that he is teaching Magisterium when we personally conclude that it is erroneous and that he made an unfortunate mistake.
Today, even though my life would be far less complicated if I denied as much, I must admit that there are grave problems with this approach.
Look, folks, if any one thing can be considered the common thread that unites all who credibly claim to be “traditionalist,” it is that we look to Catholic tradition to tell us what to believe and how to behave. As far as I can see, nothing in the tradition of the Church tells me that the faithful have the right to summarily dismiss as erroneous or mistaken any teaching that a given pope insists is Magisterium. On the contrary:
A characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii)
In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae 24)
Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua)
I could provide more of the same, but presumably the point has been made. Pay close attention to the latter citation as it speaks directly to a comment made by Taylor Marshall (43:13) concerning Bergoglio’s stance on the death penalty:
They’re contradictory statements. The prior teaching in the CCC and in the new teaching in the CCC. They can’t both be true.
Ferrara’s solution? Pope Francis made a mistake!
One wonders, therefore, if he believes that Pope Leo XIII also make a mistake when he taught, in keeping with his predecessors, that we are not free to reject the present teaching to hold to the past?
Who do we trust in such matters as these? Or put another way, what is the Catholic way to look at the crisis under discussion?
On the one hand, the Holy Roman Pontiffs warn that we have no right, and in fact we walk on dangerous ground, to pick and choose which papal teachings deserve our obedience. On the other hand, we have Chris Ferrara (who is far from alone in taking this position) encouraging us to simply dismiss as an unfortunate “mistake” even those teachings that the pope insists are part of the Church’s Magisterium.
Again, who do we trust to tell us how to behave?
The problem at hand is much bigger than Bergoglio. As I have written in this space numerous times; he is simply taking Vatican II to its logical conclusion. About the Council, Mr. Ferrara, after pointing out that the Council offered a great deal of social commentary that has nothing whatsoever to do with faith and morals, had this (48:05) to say:
If a Council talks about things that are not doctrinal, we don’t have to believe what the council says.
One presumes that he believes that the converse is also true: If a council talks about things that are doctrinal, we have to believe what the council says.
Just one example should suffice:
The Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [the communities of the schismatics and heretics] as means of salvation. (UR 3)
This most definitely is a doctrinal statement concerning the means of salvation. It was voted upon by an overwhelming majority of the world’s bishops and approved by Paul VI for dissemination to the Universal Church.
Are we to shrug this off also as just some unfortunate mistake that cannot possibly be Magisterium, in spite of the fact that Paul VI said:
The Council helps the faithful, teachers or disciples, to overcome those states of mind – of denial, indifference, doubt, subjectivism, etc. – that are opposed to purity and the strength of faith. It is a great act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium; and whoever adheres to the Council recognizes and honors with this, the Magisterium of the Church. (Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966)
Look, one does well to reject the errors under review here indeed, but one is being less than honest to deny that, from a traditional Catholic perspective, according to venerable popes, the Catholic faithful have no right to summarily dismiss such things if indeed they came to us from a Roman Pontiff.
Finally, another sign of Chris Ferrara’s unfortunate slide toward conservatism took place at the end of the interview. Seeking to encourage those viewers who may be overwhelmed with discouragement (82:54), he said:
Maybe you can’t get to the traditional Mass and you found at least a decent, reverently offered, Novus Ordo. There are certain places where the Novus Ordo is offered facing the altar, and you have a solid priest, who because he’s under a bishop who would destroy him in a minute, can’t introduce the traditional Mass, but he’s doing everything he can to bring back tradition.
I highly doubt that Fr. Michael Rodriguez, who is also affiliated with the new Fatima Center (the one that wants everyone to forget that Fr. Nicholas Gruner considered Francis an anti-pope), would agree that this “solid priest” is “doing everything he can.”
More to the point, I am rather certain that Cardinal Ottaviani, Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Bacci (who collaborated to create the “Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass”) would say that the Novus Ordo, regardless of how reverently it may be offered, is a danger to one’s faith.
I’ve always been inclined to follow the SSPX’s approach of helping individuals who are in the Novus Ordo to find their way out, patiently showing them the reasons why they should do so. As for encouraging people to find an allegedly “decent” Novus Ordo, which in reality is evil? This, in my view, has no place in the effort to promote Catholic tradition.
So, to what are we to attribute Mr. Ferrara’s slow slide toward conservatism?
While one cannot be certain of the cause, it seems to me that this is what happens when one buys into the Big Tent, #UNITEtheCLANS, Low-T “traditionalism” espoused by Michael Matt, with whom Mr. Ferrara has collaborated for many years, eventually – even if neither consciously nor deliberately – compromise will creep in.
It’s true that the idea of the laity having to discern for themselves what magisterial teachings are true is not found anywhere in Catholic tradition, just as the present situation of a professed apostate wearing Peter’s robes teaching the logical conclusion of errors that have been circulated by the last several popes for over 60 years is not found anywhere in Catholic tradition. The Church at large believed that God would never let something like this happen, but they were wrong.
Even if you go the sede route, you’re still relying on your intellect to determine that Francis is not the pope. “The Church” says that he is. If Casti Connubii is to be interpreted to mean that the faithful cannot use their own judgement whatsoever and must be guided by The Church through the Pontiff IN ALL THINGS regarding the faith, then it follows that they must also rely on The Church to tell them who the Pontiff is. This is not the first time that the laity has been confused about who the real pope is. It is the first time that every Bishop has assented to a professed apostate being pope, which contradicts this idea even more.
I propose that it is now evident that Casti Connubii was wrong about the Roman Pontiff being “guided by Jesus Christ” in ALL THINGS concerning the teaching of faith and morals if we are to understand this as extending beyond infallible dogma. I submit the last 60 years as evidence. Epistola Tua was talking about DIRECTIVES, not doctrine. I’m pretty sure that if Pope Leo XIII was around today, he’d be telling us to ignore Jorge’s teaching.
A pope is either speaking infallibly or he’s not. And if he’s not, then he WILL make mistakes. It’s statistically inevitable on a 2000 year timeline. We can be ordered in obedience to promulgate the current mistakes as The Church’s official stance or prevailing theory on a matter, but always with the understanding that we’re not 100% sure yet because it’s not defined yet. Sapientiae Christianae must be understood in this light.
A religious superior cannot validly order a subordinate to believe something contrary to the faith, and the subordinate commits no sin by refusing such an order. The faithful largely rejected John XXII’s erroneous teaching about the beatific vision. I’m not aware of any retrospective assertion that they sinned in doing so.
I do think that more than 3 sources would help. I know you’re still kind of wrestling with this Sapientiae Christianae idea, but take us along for the ride. I always appreciate good research, even if I don’t agree with the analysis.
I’m astounded by Chris Ferrera’s comments about Amoris Laetitia — and I write as someone who has no right to call myself as Trad, as I’ve attended only one TLM, and that was almost 20 years ago. (I am not anti-Trad; it’s just that I am 50 years old and simply haven’t had much exposure to Trad Catholicism. I’ve been considered a “conservative Catholic” by my friends for years, for simply believing the basics of Catholicism and trying to lead a moral life. This wretched papacy has taught me that I am at least orthodox.) I wish Christopher Hitchens, famously an atheist, were still alive, because he would read Amoris Laetitia and make mincemeat of it. There’s just no way to read that document carefully, including its footnotes, and deny that it upends objective morality. Am I wrong here? (That’s a sincere question, not a rhetorical one.)
The CHURCH says he is not the Pope of the Catholic Church. For one, the only Vatican Council of the Holy Roman Catholic Church says so. Francis is the Pope alright, but of something else which is NOT the Catholic Church.
‘ “The Church” says that he[Bergoglio] is[pope].’
The Vatican II church says that he is pope. The Catholic Church does NOT say that. The Vatican II church says that anyone who considers himself Catholic must acknowledge that the manifest heretic Bergoglio is pope and must obey him. The Catholic Church says that such a person is to be completely avoided.
“If Casti Connubii is to be interpreted to mean that the faithful cannot use their own judgement whatsoever and must be guided by The Church through the Pontiff IN ALL THINGS regarding the faith…”
Catholics have, via the internet, the 2000-year-old treasury of Catholic teaching available to them for guidance in this battle zone. They also have the Rosary and the assurance that the Paraclete will come to them if they but have faith.
“…then it follows that they must also rely on The Church to tell them who the Pontiff is.”
It should go without saying that Catholics rely on the Catholic Church, not the Vatican II church.
“There’s no such thing as an “authentic Magisterium” versus an inauthentic Magisterium. There’s no such thing as a Magisterium that is ordinary and can make mistakes, and an extraordinary Magisterium that is infallible. No, the Magisterium as such is infallible. It cannot teach an error … so, the Magisterium as such doesn’t lie to us.”
He had better check Vatican I and II, which pretty well define the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium. They both have a universal and non-universal form. The ordinary universal magisterium is infallible – it is what the Church has always and everywhere taught and believed. The Extraordinary universal is the Pope and bishops in Council, when they define something of faith and morals. The Extraordinary non-universal is papal infallibility, when, and only when, ” in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” The Conciliar documents make mention of degrees of submission, descending from that of faith, which is due dogmatic pronouncements, to religious submission of mind and will, which is due authentic teaching by popes and bishops in their “ordinary non-universal teaching”, their day to day teaching on faith and morals, which is “reversible” and to which assent can be retracted. Of course, all of this teaching pertains only to the faith already handed on through the ordinary universal magisterium, not to anything beyond or apart from it.
In other words, bishops and popes can err, because infallibility, freedom from error, only applies to the ordinary universal and the Extraordinary Universal, and to the pope ONLY when he solemnly DEFINES, ex cathedra, in his role as pope, a matter of faith or morals. So a pope can err in an encyclical, and he can also teach in a pastoral non-infallible way that we should accept with religious submission, but NOT if it contradicts Church teaching.
No, of course, you are not wrong. Natural reason alone tells one that AL is false and an unprecedented attack on marriage, fundamental morals, as well as the promotion of one of the most grave sins within the Faith – deliberate sacrilege of the Blessed Sacrament, in a public and formalised way.
I’m 50 years old too. Born into the institutionalised apostasy and replacement of God with Satan in the institutions of the Church. Have seen you comment here and there over past few years. May God grant us the necessary graces to persevere in these unspeakably-evil times.
A true Pope cannot err in an Encyclical, this is false and grave misconception.
It can’t be The Church in a metaphysical or historical sense; it has to be the visible Church. Otherwise you end up with competing ventriloquist groups all claiming to speak for The Church, all interpreting her archived writings in their own ways. Which is in fact what you have right now in sede circles.
The Church has been driven into the catacombs, i.e. the hearts of the Faithful who await, in faith, the coming of their Blessed Lord.
Lynda, thank you for assuring me I haven’t completely lost my mind. I cannot imagine what Chris Ferrera is thinking. For someone like CF even to passively defend AL rattled me. I have friends who who reflexively say, “Women should be priests”, but they don’t know any better. Yet, I am confident that they particular friends — highly intelligent and educated — were to read AL, they would say honestly that the document just DOESN’T ADD UP. What possibly could be going on with Chris Ferrera?!
On a more positive note, Taylor Marshall has moved dramatically far in a short period of time. Marshall always have been sincere and orthodox, but he’s a fairly recent convert to Catholicism, and is, by temperament, a “Company Many”. As recently as two years ago, he was chiding Catholics who criticized Pope Francis. TODAY, he us predicting that Lefebvre eventually will be canonized! So, let’s pray for TM.
You are free to keep telling yourself that all the way into the abyss. The Law of NON-Contradiction tells us and metaphysically-speaking so, that the Church and the Anti-church cannot be one and the same. The Magisterium is perpetual and is Christ’s Voice, and is anything but ambiguous. Those who “interpret” it wrongly, discount it or set it aside with excuses follow their own will, not Christ’s. The Church remains visible in its faithful members who comprise the Mystical Body of Christ.
The man needs prayers for his soul indeed. TM believes that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics, amongst many other errors. He is an heretic plain and simple, and as such he is not Catholic.
Re: Ferrara et al, a house built on sand will not stand when the wind and rains come. The same goes for the SSPX.
Yes, the Church teaches that encyclicals can contain error, in two ways. The first way would be a teaching that is not on faith and morals, that is not subject to infallibility.
The second way would be the teachings that are not specifically presented as infallible (and are not already part of the faith).
The Church teaches that only those things that a Pope solemnly states to be definitive in an encyclical are infallible papal teaching. That is why JPII was so specific in Evangelium Vitae about abortion. He made a solemn declaration. People went nuts about it.
All other (that is, not solemnly stated as infallible) teachings in encyclicals are either already infallible by virtue of being common universal Church belief or they are reversible non-infallible teaching that we are to respect and honor with submission of mind and will so long as the teaching does not violate Catholic truth. Read Vatican I on infallibility, read Denzinger, read Lumen Gentium, and you will see the concept of “reversible” teaching, teaching that errs in some way (without contradicting revealed truth) and can be retracted later. If it can err theologically, it is not infallible. Infallibility means inerrant. The same document that defines infallibility gives stringent conditions for its exercise.
Francis LIED about Veritatis Splendor’s teaching in AL.
You reference JPII, a manifest heretic and an enemy of the Catholic Church. His entire “pontificate” was antithetical to the teaching of Holy Mother Church—where do we begin? praying with non-Catholics? universal salvation? the Jews are not guilty of Christ’s crucifixion? etc. All of us will be held accountable before Almighty God as to whether we sought the truth diligently. You can tell a tree by its fruit. The Vatican II religion, i.e. what passes today for the Catholic Church as far as the world is concerned, is the rotten fruit of the VII tree. How can you not see that? If you DID see that you would never supportively reference JPII.
Please provide references which prove that the actual Church teaches that Papal Encyclicals can contain error.
Louie let me first say thank you for your clarity of thought and expression. I’m really appreciative of it, especially since there is so little we can find, today. Good commentary as well, all here.
I have to use natural reason as my rationale for rejecting Bergolio. It matters not to me whether he is pope or the Chair is empty, I can’t follow him. From all I know about Catholicism, he is an apostate and a hater of Catholicism and faithful Catholics. If my choice is between the Catholicism I know and a man who talks and acts like an apostate, my choice is clear, I can’t follow him. Scripture says we would know our shepherd’s voice and a false shepherd we would not follow. Scripture says even if an angel from heaven preaches to us a gospel different than the one preached to us we are to consider that angel anathema. Bergolio’s gospel is clearly different, that was the standard, “different”. Do I really need to know more than this? That is also not a rhetorical question but an honest one. I do not believe I need to know more, than this. This is what I am relying on, these two sections of the gospel. Pretty much everything the man says and does is contrary to Catholic teaching and tradition. That seems enough. Bergolio cannot be followed, and as far as we are concerned, the entire church has become the Church of Satan. That is not hyperbole.
The grinning fool Tagle’s appointment has advanced Bergolio’s agenda exponentially. Here is Francis II on steroids. He will finish the job. I cannot see how, barring an act of God, there is any hope for improvement, unless it is hundreds of years from now, and one is hard pressed to imagine this world lasting that long. These are indeed, difficult times for Catholics. May God help us soon. I’m sorry to be so negative. I’m trying to shake myself out of it but it is hard right now. I don’t want to discourage others.
Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII
“20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. ”
I’m awaiting your proof, mparks12.
Regarding the putative Pope’s “teaching” on the death penalty, is the putative Pope “professing” or “erring” when he proclaims a new and alien belief to replace a teaching that is a settled matter, a settled matter THAT HE HIMSELF IS BOUND TO ASSENT TO?
When stated in this manner, I lose all patience with Ferrara and begin to believe he is a charlatan. Ferrara must know that when he suggests that the putative Pope is making a mistake, the mistake that must be understood in the situation is not an INNOCENT MISTAKE in the sense that the Pope actually intended to proclaim the truth of the faith; but a WILLFUL MISTAKE in the sense that the putative Pope BELIEVES IT IS WITHIN HIS POWER TO CHANGE A SETTLED TEACHING OF THE FAITH!!! A willful mistake is no mistake at all!!! It is defection from the faith!!!
Ferrara must know that by taking such a position he is suggesting that the teaching of the Church that a true Pope is proximate rule of faith for the faithful should be understood as NORMATIVE and not DESCRIPTIVE. What use is a Pope if the teaching is only NORMATIVE, meaning that the Pope only aspires to be the proximate rule of faith, and not DESCRIPTIVE, meaning the Pope IS the proximate rule of faith?
Using the applicable terminology in the sense that Ferrara does, it becomes clear that Ferrara will always claim that a Pope can make willful mistakes because the only alternative is sedevacantism!
ANYONE directing someone to a “reverent Novus Ordo” is part of the problem!
The theology is POISON.
I’ve seen Ann Barnhardt tell us to go to NO if that’s all that’s available because “people behaved badly at the Crucifixion, too”, I’ve had my son’s godparents badger me, I’ve had my former NO priest that offered TLM tell me I was in mortal sin for not going, and I’ve had an FSSP priest tell me if I don’t go to TLM I “MUST go to NO because it’s valid”.
Since when is heresy valid, folks?
Here’s what to do when there’s no real Mass offered by a real priest from the real Church: https://novusordowatch.org/now-what/
Good Wednesday morning, St. Cyprian,
It would be much more simple if Chris Ferrara was simply a, “charlatan”. He is an utter nemesis to the Catholic Faith, a powerless as utter fool though, and of course, in his Gnostic faith, yet nemesis to poor vulnerable souls who may actually be seeking the One True Faith. The eternal Hell which awaits that non-Catholic fool, cannot this side the veil be glimpsed by the imaginative power. This all to be understood in the objective realm of being, as the God-Man commanded:
Matt 5:37(Douay-Rheims copy): “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” Matt 7:15-21 (Douay-Rheims copy): “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
May Almighty God have mercy on this miserable as wretched, non-Catholic miscreant as Chris Ferrara, who as Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, simply dresses the part in the metaphysical accidental forms of the Church, while at once, utterly false prophets as dressed in the clothing of sheep, while inwardly they are ravening wolves. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
The Traditional Latin Mass before V2 and the N.O. “mass” created by V2 are worlds apart and can never be reconciled one to the other. To have one foot in the TLM and the other foot in the Novus Ordo makes absolutely no sense. Priests who celebrate both “forms” are Novus Ordo and can never be mistaken as Traditional with a capital T or even a small “t”. It’s like mixing pure undiluted orange juice with manufactured orangeade. In the end, all you have is orangeade. The Catholic FAITH has nothing to do with the “catholic” church invented at the Second Vatican Council.
TM is new to Catholicism and he’s coming along very quickly. Pray for him and be optimistic. He’s one of the good guys, for sure.
Frieza- Thank you for the excellent commentary. You’ve made some good points worthy of consideration and further discussion. I appreciate you considering these questions in light of Louie’s post in a thoughtful manner.
Rather than reiterate your post or write a long epistle of my own I’ll simply say this: I think anyone who would be Catholic at this present time is practically compelled to soberly face the hard questions about the Papacy and the Church you bring up here.
Very good point.
While examining the historical record can shed light on what the nature of the Papacy is, it has little to offer us in the manner of precedent to explain what we have before us now: an apostate who is regarded as Pope and has, for all intents and purposes, no one offering anything in the way of truly challenging him.
To be clear, “Very good point, Frieza”.
Dear All:
A frequent reader of this Forum (who is much grateful to Mr. Verrecchio for sustaining it, despite occasionally vile language) I here often read claims of heresy and damnation (until one changes one’s mind). I keep wondering:
1. Can we call one a heretic because his/her disagreement with Catholic teaching? I thought that a heretic is one who _knowingly_ refuses the truth (Catholicism).
But having a mistaken opinion (or even conviction) doesn’t mean _knowingly_ refusing the truth. Some think that the truth is elsewhere. Others seek it in Catholicism but when Catholic truth is declared to be A by some, B by others, and C by the third — they have little time (or limited mental capacity) to follow up. They may voice a premature opinion. Are they heretic? By the way, what opinion is not premature?
2. Will a baptized person (I mean, validly baptized in a Christian denomination where baptism is still valid) who earnestly seeks the truth be denied salvation because, in a matter he doesn’t even have the intellect to grasp. or the time to figure out, he/she keeps stating mistakes?
You see, I don’t even understand the theory of general relativity. But it is just about a model of the physical word. Is theology simpler? It is the theory of doctrinal abstractions about the interaction of transcendent and earthly reality, sometimes embedded in the legal framework of the church organization (cf. Canon), isn’t it? I sometimes wonder, whether I even get the proper meaning of the words. Yes, I have an understanding — but am I sure I don’t misunderstand some of the words?
I don’t think I have enough time left to read and properly comprehend all 2000 years’ of documents on/about Church teaching…
ps. This post is not an answer to any particular comment. I am not sure how to post without the direct appearance of responding to someone.
It’s very, very distressing, indeed. More and more people, including many I would have looked to for some leadership or example, seem to be compromising with more and more of the evil falsehoods replacing the unchangeable truths of Faith and moral law. The world, the flesh or the Devil himself, one or all seem to be corrupting those who appeared to be steadfast in the Faith (certainly up to, if not for long after, Jorge Bergoglio, heretic’s personation of Pope). Those with public platforms and who have public prestige or economic wealth involved in their speech about the Church and Faith are most at risk and many appear to be succumbing to heresy or compromise with grave evils. Oh Sacred Heart of Jesus, Immaculate Heart of Mary, intercede to bring back souls gone astray and preserve the rest of us in the Eternal Holy Faith. Let us offer up our suffering and weaknesses re fear, despair etc. that we will remain obedient to God’s Holy Will till death. I do pray, because I am weak and cowardly, that our suffering will be shortened in God’s mercy, but let us continually seek the graces necessary to sustain us. Lord, have mercy on me, a weak, struggling sinner that I may rise above the desire to escape this evil world before God decides it is time for my Final Judgment. The blessings of this penitential season of Advent be upon you, dear sister in Christ.
“Consent” that Pius XII speaks of is not assent of faith. It is the “religious submission of mind and will” which we must give to non-infallible statement, and, in the case of reversible teachings, can be retracted.
Denziger 4533: faithful must give “an assent proportionate to the authority that they (successors of Peter and apostles] possess and that they mean to exercise” (ref. LG 35).
In order to be infallible, a pope must (Denziger H3) speak ex cathedra, solemnly, define a doctrine as in accordance with Revelation. If an encyclical does not do that, it is to be accepted with religious assent but not with assent of faith.
And should a pope solemnly define something contrary to Catholic Faith, such as the intrinsic immorality of the death penalty (Francis uses different non-theological words so he can escape saying something false), then he shows he is not pope, or he ceases to be pope. I think the former. But Francis, while teaching much contrary to Catholic doctrine, does it in a slippery sideways manner, using ambivalent language then approving someone else’s interpretation (which contradicts dogma), or by approving practices which contradict Church teaching, or by misrepresenting Church teaching. The best that can be said is that he is ignorant of Catholicism.
A valid (public) marriage between an eligible man and an eligible woman is for life; it is inherently indissoluble. Publicly purporting to end a valid marriage is a mortal sin and a most egregious scandal on several fronts. For a priest or bishop to publicly compromise with the moral evils of divorce or adultery, not to mention the intentional, formalised mass public sacrilege of the Body and Blood of Christ is to adopt heresies in a deliberate, contumacious and manifest way.
A pope, or any Catholic of the age of reason, cannot, objectively, be ignorant of the unchangeable Doctrine of the Catholic Faith to which one assents by an act of one’s will.
Hello mparks12,
What is LG 35 referring to?
Amen.
“I thought that a heretic is one who _knowingly_ refuses the truth (Catholicism).
But having a mistaken opinion (or even conviction) doesn’t mean _knowingly_ refusing the truth.”
One who knowingly refuses is a formal heretic. One who unknowingly refuses is a material heretic. The latter must renounce his heretical position once he is made aware that it is heretical.
Mparks12: You describe the putative Pope as craftily misrepresenting the faith, and then claim that the best that can be said about him is that he is ignorant of the faith. Doesn’t one who craftily contradicts the faith in a “slippery sideways manner” (your words) have to be intimately aware of its content?
–
In view of this jarring reality, how seriously should we take your description of the situation? I view the putative Pope as a thuggish and transparent modernist.
–
Since modernism is a heresy – in fact, the synthesis of all heresies – it has not been difficult for me relying on the Church’s teaching in this area to identify the putative Pope as a modernist and therefore a heretic.
–
What exactly is your stumbling block? You describe the putative Pope as behaving like a textbook modernist, but yet you resist the conclusion that he is a heretic? Do you think the Church teaching in this area is not persuasive or clear? After all, the Church’s teaching in this area was proclaimed by a Pope-Saint.
Lynda, you write: “… cannot be ignorant of … to which one assents by an act of one’s will”
Your “to which… etc.” clause severely (in the word’s mathematical/logical sense) limits one’s responsibility for being ignorant. I am not talking about one who sits on the Papal Throne or wears a bishop’s miter.
I am talking about the common person. Grown up somehow, with some limited understanding of certain things. Novus Ordo or Protestant or pagan … or even traditionalist Catholic. He/she (generally) has no education or intellect to really judge various arguments’ validity. He/she goes with the flow, in one way or the other, and strives within those limits. Praying daily and turning away from blasphemies even apparent to him/her (that particular footnote in AL if he ever reads that, a clown at a Novus Ordo mass, etc.) and being faithful to the death, and to love, etc. is the most his/her person has the capacity/time for. In her/his desire for perfecting faith, he/she may even argue — with many fine or cardinal points missed. OK, then he/she is a material heretic. And perhaps he/she reads this blog but never gets to the end of things (who is right? what authority is above in the hierarchy of statements? etc. ). Perhaps if he/she is lucky (blessed) than he/she even gets incrementally closer to even theological truth — but will never make it there, and never should, strictly speaking, because he/she was not willed by God to be a theologian or a bishop. The world (and the Church) needs carpenters, seamstresses, and bricklayers, too. The parts of the body are different. Are all limbs responsible for their ignorance, and will go to hell if, especially in this age of confusion, argue the wrong way?
mparks12, another miscreant, non-Catholic fool,
You affront the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, you miscreant as imbecilic fool, and of course you don’t even know it, and yet you are fully culpable, as an heretic. You actually as literally wrote this about the man who you purport to be the Vicar of the Christ in this world, you blasphemous fool: “The best that can be said is that he [Jorge Bergoglio as Francis] is ignorant of Catholicism.”. You blaspheme Christ, you miserable fool, and you don’t even know it. Now to edify your blasphemy, find now the infallible teaching of the ONLY as SINGULAR Vatican Council from its Fourth Session, 18 July, 1870, you fool:
“Chapter 4. On the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Roman Pontiff
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”
Now you stand corrected you miserable, miscreant fool. Deny the infallible teaching that Peter in his Successors were given the Charism, as the Gift of the Holy Ghost Himself, of “TRUTH AND NEVER FAILING FAITH”, as indeed you already have denied, and you demonstrate objectively, as with apodictic certitude, that you mparks12, simply DO NOT HOLD THE CATHOLIC FAITH, as you fully contradict it. A man, as the Vicar of Jesus Christ in this world, CANNOT BOTH be given the divine Gift of TRUTH, and at one and the same time be, “ignorant of Catholicism”, you utterly as abysmally ignorant, miscreant fool. That is objectively demonstrative of a contradiction that, if it were possible, would make the demons in Hell blush, you imbecilic fool. You are on your own sure and certain path to an eternity in Hell. Amen. Mince no words, as Blessed Jesus the Christ commands: Let your yea be yea and no be no, anything else is of evil. Amen. Alleluia. I pray you save your wretched soul. In caritas.
The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived at the time Christ walked among us, makes mention of Him and the Church he founded, i.e. Christians. That’s important, especially when one considers the all-encompassing mandate which that Church had from Our Lord. He commissioned Apostles (Bishops), who consecrated other bishops, who ordained priests, etc. My point is that it’s all historical fact, and we have what we need to find the Truth if we but seek it.
To the one who calls himself, “Seeker”,
What you objectively seek, is your own personal eternity in Hell, as you make patently clear in your empty as purely glib gibberish, delivered in your foolish, hierarchical array of pure platitudes, you miserable as miscreant fool. This filth, masquerading as Catholic, is nothing more than your perverse, as immanently and malignantly inverted opinion, your screed. Amen. You affront the very teaching of the Angelic Doctor in his teaching on the free assent of the will and it’s utter and total, as infinite dependence on the reception of God’s grace, you miserable fool. This teaching, as his metaphysical method, accepted into the divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as the singular as only philosophical method allowed for in understanding as properly, the Theological science of Holy Church, and by Popes Leo XIII and Saint Pius X. Amen. Your perverse as inverted argument, tacitly suggests that it is the intellect which gets us to the Beatific Vision, you miserable imbecilic fool, when the perennial teaching of Holy Church, and of course, is that it is the free assent of the will into Truth, which gets us there, you utterly miserable miscreant fool. Now for the evidence of your affront of the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, you miserable wretch. The Angelic Doctor taught that the intellect must first inform the will and then by virtue of the reception of God’s grace alone as singularly, does the will then choose the good over the privation of the good which is due in the act. Amen. You now stand corrected. Reject this and you reject in its totality, the Holy and divine Catholic Faith. Amen. Alleluia. I pray you save your miserable soul. In caritas.
There have always been people (more than now? less than now?) who failed to read Flavius, the church Doctors, etc. Some read a few documents, but not all. And they understand some of what they read, and misunderstand some parts, perhaps. They listen to preachers/lecturers (on this forum and elsewhere) — and understand some of it. (Who understands all?) Then they argue somewhere based on what they think they understand — and don’t get it right, of course. Shall we deem them ripe for Hell, unless they commit to all that they haven’t yet read or intellectually grasped? Not that they are necessarily dumb. But God — through their talents and circumstances — doesn’t intend them to be bishops or church doctors.
Oh’ mmf or is it, Tom A,
Your glib gibberish, as well, is nothing more than your utterly as immanently inverted opinion. You are such an utter fool, that you now masquerade in different monikers, but the utter cacophony of your discordant, dis-harmonic noise as words, remains all the same, recognizable in its hideous nature, as you can run but you cannot hide, you miscreant as imbecilic, non-Catholic fool. It is always about, YOU, and WHAT YOU, have to say, you malignant, self-loving fool. No one in Truth cares what mmf/Tom A opines, as if they would, they too would be on their own sure and certain path to Hell, where they as you, will screech into eternity, in utter cacophony, blasphemies toward Almighty God there, as you do here. Wake up you imbecilic fool, before you draw your last malignant breath and meet the Infinite Judge in your very own Particular Judgment. Time for you is short mmf/Tom A, as it is for us all. Amen. In caritas.
Dear In Caritas.
I know that I am a wretch — more wretch in some ways you don’t see than in the ways you do. You don’t know me, indeed. And, indeed, I know that intellect is not what makes us worthy of heaven. I agree with you.
But I never read St. Thomas Aquinas. And probably never will, because I won’t have the time: I have a full time job, and life is short. Same for Leo XIII. Etc.
Yet, arguing in this global confusion requires knowledge. The knowledge of church teaching — X with his knowledge, Mr. Verrecchio with his, you with yours.
And I can see looking around in my family, among friends, etc. that I am still among those who know “more.”
And I did argue a number of times. And I was attacked a few times by people who knew much better. Who couldn’t forgive that I knew less. As in these posts — we are worried and praying for Taylor Marshall’s salvation because he doesn’t understand things clearly enough…
But isn’t his salvation (and yours, and mine) judge first on a different dimension? Everyone according to the role given to him by God.
Did the babies slaughtered by Herod have the right conviction?
I didn’t mean to stop the discussion. What you talk about — who is right or wrong, what points are valid, the True Church, etc. — is important. I just gave out a sigh about overtones of judging common (non-priestly) people’s eternal fate based purely on mistakes in their arguments. They may believe that they should teach when they shouldn’t. We who deem them hell-worthy believe that we can judge them. Both are mistakes. Or sins, if you will.
I think you make very good points. Some will skin you alive here for not knowing as much as they do, and for not seeing things the way they do. And no doubt, they will appear here soon with a stern admonition for me to say what I said here. I think you know how to handle them.
To Frieza,
–
In charity to you and those who may read you post, I point out that many of your conclusions are brought about by faulty premises and are therefore erroneous (and some heretical).
–
“If Casti Connubii is to be interpreted to mean that the faithful cannot use their own judgement whatsoever and must be guided by The Church through the Pontiff IN ALL THINGS regarding the faith, then it follows that they must also rely on The Church to tell them who the Pontiff is.”
–
Your conclusion does not follow in any way from your premise: A pope stating that the faithful must assent to the teachings on faith and morals of a legitimate pope has no bearing whatsoever on whether the faithful must wait for an official pronouncement from the Church to tell them who the pope is; these are two completely unrelated concepts. Further, we are considering here the particular case of a manifest public apostate and heretic claiming to be pope; you do not take this into account.
–
Your conclusion is erroneous because you do not consider the nature of heresy and apostasy as crimes against Divine Law. In brief, when heresy is publicly manifested by deed, omission, or word, the excommunication (i.e. expulsion from the Body of Christ) is ipso facto (automatic). There are countless magisterial writings that support this, but included below are just two. The latter clearly demonstrates what the Church teaches regarding the papacy: A heretic cannot be considered pope under any circumstances whatsoever, explicitly condemning every conceivable justification for it.
–
[1]”…for men are not bound, or able, to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
[St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30.]
–
[2]”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 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:
(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;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(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.
[Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolic Officio, 15 February, 1559]
“A pope is either speaking infallibly or he’s not. And if he’s not, then he WILL make mistakes. It’s statistically inevitable on a 2000 year timeline.”
–
You are examining this from a purely humanistic standpoint, completely omitting any consideration of God and Divine Providence here. It is also statistically improbable that the Church would survive for 20 centuries as it has—and yet it has—due to God alone, not by the striving of man, but by the Will of Almighty God, Who also promised that Peter and his successors would not fall into error on faith and morals [Matthew 16: 18-19].
–
“I propose that it is now evident that Casti Connubii was wrong about the Roman Pontiff being ‘guided by Jesus Christ’ in ALL THINGS concerning the teaching of faith and morals if we are to understand this as extending beyond infallible dogma.”
–
You have no authority to attempt to judge the teachings of a pope “the supreme judge”, as Vatican I makes explicitly clear:
–
“8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.”
–
To propose that popes can err on matters of faith and morals apart from a very particular set of circumstances, renders the papacy little more than a meaningless figurehead or even a danger to the faith between these rare occasions (something also condemned at Vatican I) and antithetical to Catholicism.
–
“9. So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
–
Vatican I was discussing the primacy of the papacy and concluded that it can be judged by God alone. Consider the anathema above: How could Vatican I bind all Catholics—on pain of excommunication—to the jurisdiction of Peter and his successors regarding all matters of faith, morals, discipline, and government if he was not “in all things that touch upon faith or morals…guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord”?
–
If, as you propose, popes “WILL make mistakes” when not speaking infallibly, this binding anathema would makes no sense and even endanger the faithful. Neither would the majority of the points made throughout Session 4 of Vatican I make any sense either; the entire purpose of God establishing the papal primacy is to preserve the unity of the Church and prevent it from being led into error—which would only work if the popes themselves are protected from falling into error via the Petrine Promise.
–
If your proposal was true, the papacy would be the greatest threat to one’s salvation, since a Catholic is not permitted to judge the teachings or decisions of the popes, yet the teachings of the popes in your proposed scenario could be erroneous or their disciplines injurious to the faith. This would leave faithful Catholics with no recourse to protect their faith from the heretical pontiff except for schism. Thus, faithful Catholics would need to leave the Church (via schism) to preserve the faith and save their souls. Since the logical conclusion of this proposal is nonsensical, it must be false.
–
Not only is your proposal heretical, it would destroy the rock upon which our Lord founded His Church and through which He promised to preserve it from error (and successfully has since AD 33.
“I’m pretty sure that if Pope Leo XIII was around today, he’d be telling us to ignore Jorge’s teaching.”
–
This claim is baseless and ignorant, bordering on calumny. Consider the following quotes from the pope in question:
–
[1]”The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teachings of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium.” [Pope Leo XIII, Statis Cognitum (#9), June 29, 1896.]
–
[2]”If anyone holds to a single heresy, he is not a Catholic.” [Ibid.]
–
[3]“So, with every reason for doubting removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any of those truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy? without thereby separating himself from the Church and in one sweeping act repudiating the entirety of Christian doctrine?… he who dissents in even one point from divinely received truths has most truly cast off the faith completely, since he refuses to revere God as the supreme truth and proper motive of faith.” [Ibid.]
–
[4]”No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” [Ibid, (#15).]
–
Pope Leo XIII clearly believed that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church and that it is ABSURD to imagine that they can have authority in Her since they are outside of Her. You should retract your statement which injures the memory of this pontiff.
–
“The faithful largely rejected John XXII’s erroneous teaching about the beatific vision. I’m not aware of any retrospective assertion that they sinned in doing so.”
–
This instance is often thrown around lightly without any understanding of the nuances of it. First, the topic in question was not yet defined, so there was legitimate room for debate by theologians, such is not the case with the errors of the post-Vatican II anti-popes. Pope John XXII’s opinions on the matter came from writings before he was made pope. He neither attempted to teach his opinion with the authority of his office nor did he ever attempt to impose it on the faithful via the Chair. He merely allowed those competent to discuss the matter to debate it scholastically, clarifying that he was only ever weighing in as a private theologian, not as the successor of Peter. It became apparent from the ensuing controversy that the position he held privately was contrary to the teachings of the Fathers and traditions of the Church. On his deathbed, he recanted of it and the correct position was defined dogmatically by his successor, settling the debate once and for all. This instance has no bearing on what is currently happening with these anti-popes, since Pope John XXII never attempted to impose errors against solemnly defined dogma on the whole Church through the papal office as the anti-popes have done. Never has any pope—even the contemptible ones—attempted to subvert the Church’s Magisterium to justify their defects of character because they were protected by the grace of their office from so doing.
–
Sincerely,
Kyle of Canada
–
Christe Rex: Adveniat regnum Tuum, in corde meum, et a mari usque ad mare. Maria, Regina Caeli, ora pro nobis. Amen.
The “rock” upon which the Church is founded is faith in Jesus.
Peter confessed this faith directly to Him as a spokesperson for all the Apostle, which includes himself. He had esteem among them. That is why Jesus gave him a new name. In no wise however did He grant some some supernatural immunity from either willing or even pronouncing denial of that fundamental faith as what has been come to be called “infallibility”. Nothing points to this. What happened involving Peter’s betrayal only a a few nights later is direct evidence to this point.
Granted, the dogmas which constitutes the deposit of faith we find revealed in Apostolic Tradition Jesus are indeed infallible. But that’s completely different from saying a PERSON is infallible and unable to contradict them either in word or deed. God didn’t either create or later on render us, any of us, socket puppets or automatons. He created us all in His image.
Forgive my typos, BTW
I said NOT.
“In no wise however did He grant some some supernatural immunity from either willing or even pronouncing denial of that fundamental faith as what has been come to be called “infallibility”. Nothing points to this.”
–
NobisQuoquePeccatoribus, the explicit words of Christ clearly teach that He set Peter apart, and, as Christ the King of King’s hand-picked steward, Peter was given a peculiar grace to be protected from teaching error on faith and morals. Consider the following:
–
[Matthew 16: 15-18; emphasis mine.]
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
–
In these verses, Jesus did two things:
I. He explicitly states that He is founding His Church, then adds qualifiers to explain the details of the Church He is founding:
(a) Peter is its leader and its cornerstone (i.e. its source of stability, both doctrinally and in matters of governance);
(b) The “gates of hell” that is, the errors of Satan (i.e. heresy, as the Fathers understood this verse), will not be able to overcome the Church Jesus is founding due to His protection over Peter and his successors (the Catholic Church’s dogmas have remained unchanged since Jesus Himself founded Her in AD 33, faithfully preserved by every pontiff).
II. He explicitly gives His authority to Peter to rule over His Church:
(a) By giving him the power to bind and loose in Jesus’ Name;
(b) By giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”.
–
Jesus was referring to the keys symbolically given to the stewards of the Kingdoms of Israel which indicated that they had the authority of the king to rule in his name while he was absent. The Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judea foretold the coming of Christ the King, who fulfilled their prophesying of His Kingship and Kingdom when He gave Peter (His personally appointed Steward) the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”; after Jesus’ ascension into heaven, Peter and his successors have ruled in Jesus’ Name by His authority until He will come again, just as Jesus commanded.
–
We see this authority manifested in Acts, during the Council of Jerusalem:
[Acts 15: 1-2, 4-7, 12, etc.]
1 And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question.
…
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them.
5 But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
…
12 And all the multitude held their peace;…
–
Here we see:
> There was a dispute in the early Church about whether circumcision and observing the Law of Moses in its entirety was necessary for salvation.
> A Church council was called to settle the matter.
> After much debating and disputing, Peter, the leader and chief authority of the Council, stood up, everyone fell silent, listened to his decision on the matter, and the Council accepted it as final, even those who argued against it. Any who did not were labeled as heretics (Judaizers in this case) and cast out of the Church. (This sect eventually died off, demonstrating that it was not from God.)
–
“What happened involving Peter’s betrayal only a few nights later is direct evidence to this point.”
–
The special protection granted to this office did not begin at the time of the Passion, but after the Resurrection, when Jesus thrice asked Peter if He loved Him and commanded him to “feed My lambs”.
–
“God didn’t either create or later on render us, any of us, socket puppets or automatons.”
–
Catholics condemn Calvinism and the other branches of Protestantism that deny free will. No one is claiming that Christ nullified the free will of Peter and his successors, but only that He would provide the abundance of grace necessary to prevent them from falling into error or teaching it from their office–which is what we have seen historically. Do you deny that Mary was without sin? God forbid!, but the same logic applies here too; it’s not that she was unable theoretically to sin because God removed her free will, but rather that He filled her so abundantly with Himself that she would never dream of abusing her free will in such a manner.
–
In charity,
Kyle of Canada