A number of readers have asked me to comment on a recent article written for the Remnant by John Salza concerning the status of the man known as Francis.
More than one person has even suggested that Mr. Salza is referring directly to me when he writes:
Unfortunately, those who are looking for a simple, quick and easy explanation for the current crisis are often deceived by these tactics, including even former traditional Catholics who have recently departed from the Church by becoming Pope Francis rejecters.
I’m not so sure this refers to me; after all, John should know that I’ve been consistent in pointing out that there are no “quick and easy” answers to the present situation.
Readers may recall what I wrote in the first installment of my exchange with Robert Siscoe on this topic:
I do not claim to have a definitive answer; much less do I propose to have the authority to enforce my observations.
As Robert himself wrote:
The Church has never taught how or when Christ would sever the bond uniting the man to the office. All we have are theologian opinions, which vary greatly.
Robert even provided (on his own website) the following footnote:
No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romana impedita, ie., in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history. (Original Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol III, p. 339)
In reading Mr. Salza’s article, one might get the impression, decidedly false, that the matter under discussion is perfectly cut-and-dry. It is not.
The tenor of his commentary even seems to imply that one must either agree with his conclusions or else render oneself a “former traditional Catholic who has departed from the Church.”
In reality, Mr. Salza’s conclusions have no more weight; indeed far less weight, than the aforementioned “theologian opinions, which vary greatly.”
With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at the article.
Before we get into the article itself, I must address a statement made in the introduction provided by Michael Matt as it is truly astonishing:
Even in Amoris: Which dogma has Francis officially and unequivocally denied? Name one! You see the problem? One cannot be a public and pertinacious heretic by default, weakness, innuendo or ambiguity.
Name one? Mr. Matt’s longtime collaborator, Christopher Ferrara, can name at least seven! So, yeah, Mike, I see the problem!
It seems that Mr. Matt would do well to read the Filial Correction that was signed by Mr. Ferrara; a document that outlines “seven heretical propositions” in the text, while stating:
These propositions [in Amoris Laetitia] all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.
Those “truths” are otherwise known as dogmas, folks.
Little surprises me these days, but I must admit that I find it truly amazing that anyone – much less a leading voice in the so-called “traditional movement” – is willing to say no more of Amoris Laetitia than it is weak and ambiguous.
Now, on to the article itself…
Mr. Salza sets the stage as follows:
Who is the latest authority that the Sedevacantists are quoting to support their position? Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke. You read that correctly. The Cardinal of the Conciliar Church who recognizes that Francis is the true Pope. The Cardinal who says Pope Francis did not cross the line into heresy with Amoris Laetitia. The Cardinal who the Sedevacantists accuse of being a traitorous Modernist. That Cardinal Burke. You can’t make this stuff up.
Point well taken: Cardinal Burke is hardly the most reliable commentator on this topic (much less is he a friend of Fatima, but I digress). That does not mean, however, that he is unable to offer anything of value.
If we’re going parse his words in search of any nuggets of truth therein (in this case, as found in his December 2016 interview with Catholic World Report), at the very least we must do so accurately and completely.
Unfortunately, as we will see, Mr. Salza’s treatment misses that mark on a number points.
Mr. Salza is referring to a number of specific exchanges between Cardinal Burke and the CWR interviewer; first and foremost, the following:
CWR: Some people are saying that the pope could separate himself from communion with the Church. Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?
Cardinal Burke: If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.”
Mr. Salza observes:
They [certain Sedevacantists and Francis-rejecters ] don’t seem to be embarrassed by the fact that Cardinal Burke went on to say in the same interview that it is the College of Cardinals, and not vigilante Sedevacantists, that judges whether the Pope “formally professed heresy.”
At this, a couple of very important clarifications are in order. Pay close attention.
First, Cardinal Burke did not say that the College of Cardinals “judges whether the Pope formally professed heresy.”
Indeed, no one, not even the entire episcopate as a whole, has the authority to judge the pope. The CWR question very specifically concerns whether or not a pope can “legitimately be declared in schism or heresy.”
“Judging” vs. “declaring” – two very different things.
Secondly, even as he accuses those whom he believes have conveniently overlooked certain parts of Cardinal Burke’s answer, Mr. Salza doesn’t directly address one of his most critically important statements:
“It’s automatic.”
Given that Cardinal Burke believes that “it’s automatic” that a pope who formally professes heresy “would cease, by that act, to be the Pope,” it is obvious that he understands (and correctly so) that the role played by the College of Cardinals is secondary, or comes after the fact of his ceasing to be pope.
We’ll return to this important point momentarily.
Mr. Salza went on to write:
The Cardinal states that the Pope would have to “formally profess heresy” before he would lose his office. With this statement, the Cardinal is properly noting the distinction between the material element of heresy (the proposition itself which directly contradicts a truth infallibly proposed for belief by the Church) and the formal element (which is pertinacity – the willful and conscious rejection of such a truth) – both of which must be proven before the Pope would be found guilty of “formally professing heresy.”
In this, there is nothing objectionable other than the fact that the words, “found guilty” come dangerously close to suggesting that the pope himself is judged.
The legitimate questions it invites concern what is involved in the process of “proving.”
On this note, I ask you:
Does anyone really believe that Jorge Bergoglio – after numerous public challenges to confirm the true faith, some of which have come from members of the College of Cardinals – is somehow unconscious of his heresy; i.e., he is simply confused or mistaken with regard to Catholic doctrine?
Unlike Mr. Salza, I will not take it upon myself to state that those who disagree with my conclusion (namely, that he is not unconscious) have “departed from the Church,” but I will say that one must abandon reason in order to imagine that Francis has not separated himself from the Body of Christ by his heresy.
Recall the words of St. Paul, stated so emphatically and with repetition:
There are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:7-9)
Notice that St. Paul does not suggest that the faithful must pretend not to believe their ears when they hear a false gospel, as if it is above their pay grade to recognize the perversion as such; rather, he tells us let those who would pervert the gospel of Christ be anathema!
Does Jorge Bergoglio pervert the gospel of Christ and publicly so?
Yes.
Is there every reason to conclude that he does so willfully and consciously, and not simply by ignorance of Church teaching? [NOTE: This question is discussed in great detail in my exchanges with Robert Siscoe on these pages. I will not repeat those arguments here, but rather invite those interested to search for those posts.]
Certainly.
If St. Paul’s words – divinely inspired words, mind you – mean anything, they mean that Francis is anathema.
And what does it mean for one to be “anathema”?
In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. (1917 Catholic Encyclopedia)
Can one who is excluded from the society of the faithful be the head of said society?
Not only does Catholic common sense provide the answer; sense of the most common variety tells us.
Does this mean that nothing remains to be done about the scourge on the Church known as Francis by those in authority?
Absolutely not.
One of the arguments offered by Mr. Salza in particular, I believe, is of great value in helping us come to grips with the crucial role played in this case by those in authority. He writes:
Note that when theologians say it is “the act” of the Pope himself that causes the loss of office (as Cardinal Burke does), they are referring to the act being the dispositive cause, not the efficient cause. [1]
The footnote reads:
The formally heretical act of the Pope causes him to lose the Pontificate dispositively, but it is Christ Himself who deposes the Pope authoritatively and formally. Hence, the act of the Pope is the dispositive cause, while the act of Christ removing his jurisdiction is the efficient cause that results in the loss of the pontificate formally. This is another distinction that the Sedevacantists and Francis-rejecters have failed to make.
Mr. Salza clarifies his position further, stating:
Only upon the declaration of the Church does Christ – the Efficient Cause – act by formally disjoining the man from the Pontificate.
First, note very well that this latter statement (“only upon the declaration…”) is irreconcilable with the statement made by Cardinal Burke: “It’s automatic.”
In my exchanges with Robert Siscoe, he suggested that the relationship between the dispositive cause and the efficient cause concerning a pope’s loss of office can be clarified by examining the same with regard to the way in which a man receives the office.
I agree wholeheartedly.
The “dispositive cause” refers to that which disposes the man to either become pope, or by contrast, to lose the office of pope; with the efficient cause (i.e., that which actually makes it happen) being an action of Christ.
With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at how a man is made pope:
In the conclave, a man receives the required votes. Christ does not, however, immediately join him to the pontificate (efficient); rather, He awaits an act of the man himself (dispositive) – that act being the man’s acceptance of the office.
Should he decline to accept the Office of Peter, he remains as he was. If he does accept, Christ makes him the pope at that very moment.
Now pay very close attention:
All that has been done so far is done in secret. There is no doubt whatsoever, however, that the Church has a pope at this point; even before the white smoke arises from the Sistine Chapel, the cardinals pledge their fidelity to the new pope.
Next comes the formal declaration, Habemus Papam; informing both the faithful and the world at large that “we have a pope.”
NB: Habemus Papam is simply a declaration; it is neither the dispositive nor the efficient cause, and even before it takes place, the man is most certainly the pope.
Now, let’s consider how this process may be applied to a pope who loses his office due to formal heresy; in this case using the example of Francis. (I am setting aside the entirely valid questions that remain concerning the resignation of Benedict XVI as asked by men far holier and far more intelligent than I.)
Dispositive Cause:
It is my view that Francis has been sufficiently and publicly admonished and warned about his heresies by men in authority, and in a way that exceeds what is envisioned by the most praiseworthy of theologians; most notably by way of the Dubia issued by four members of the College of Cardinals.
- This process is comparable to that which takes place in a conclave up to the point when a man receives the required votes; an action carried out by men in authority.
Francis has been given more than ample opportunity to reject his heresies in favor of certain “truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith,” to quote the Filial Correction once more.
- This is comparable to asking the man elected in conclave “do you accept the Office of Peter?” In this case, Francis is being asked, “Do you accept what Catholics must believe?”
As the Filial Correction documents very well, Francis has answered; not only by his failure to formally and directly respond to the numerous public challenges he has faced (the Dubia first and foremost), but by manifold words and deeds.
In other words, to the question, will you accept this invitation to reject your heresies and thus retain your membership in the society of the faithful, and likewise your office, Francis has responded in the negative.
Efficient Cause:
If the process of being made pope applies as well to the loss of office, it seems clear to me that we have reached the point where Francis, in light of the Church’s actions and his responses to them (note, plural in both cases), has disposed himself for Christ, the Efficient Cause, to remove from him the Office of Peter.
If so, as Cardinal Burke said, “It’s automatic.”
What remains to be done is comparable to the Habemus Papam; a declaration by those in authority in the Church making it known to all, after the fact, that Francis is not the pope.
In spite of so many of these steps being comparable, there is one very important difference; all that has taken place thus far with respect to the dispositive cause of Francis losing the pontificate has happened in full view of the faithful.
Apparently, Mr. Salza believes that we, the faithful, must pretend not to have noticed; as if we mustn’t believe “our lying eyes” until such time as a declaration is made.
St. Paul, if his Epistle to the Ephesians is worth the paper it is written on, would seem to disagree.
I will conclude by addressing just a handful of other troubling portions of Mr. Salza’s article.
In reference to the following from the CWR interview:
CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?
Cardinal Burke: It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.
Mr. Salza states:
There you have it. According to Cardinal burke himself, whether the Pope formally professed heresy must be determined and declared by the College of Cardinals…
Note well that Mr. Salza added the word “determine” here, but neither the question nor the Cardinal’s answer touch on anything other than the declaration.
From here, Mr. Salza once again turns to the CWR interview:
CWR: Just to clarify again, are you saying that Pope Francis is in heresy or is close to it?
Cardinal Burke: No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy. I have never said that. Neither have I stated that he is close to being in heresy.”
Mr. Salza observes:
As we can see, the Cardinal who explains that only the College of Cardinals can judge the Pope a heretic, also maintains that Pope Francis is not even close to being in heresy. [Emphasis in original]
First, note well that Cardinal Burke simply stated that he has never said (publicly) that Francis is in heresy or close to it. That’s it; nothing more.
He did not say that he does not “believe” that Amoris Laetitia contains heresy. In charity, one should assume that he does believe as much. In any event, Mr. Salza is reading into his statement.
Much more importantly, Mr. Salza’s choice of words is once again most unfortunate:
“…only the College of Cardinals can judge the Pope a heretic…”
I am fairly certain that this is just a moment of sloppiness as Mr. Salza will likely be the first to confirm the fact that no one actually “judges” the pope.
If he means to say, as it appears he does, that only the College of Cardinals can judge what constitutes heresy in a given papal pronouncement, and furthermore, whether or not it is formal; I must disagree.
The Church has professed the true faith with great clarity over the course of many centuries; even pronouncing numerous times “let him be anathema,” for example, in the great General Councils, like Trent.
The Church, our Mother and Teacher, has done so in order that the faithful may be well-equipped to determine what is, and what is not, a perversion of the gospel.
In other words, those in authority have already spoken loudly and clearly with respect to the truths that are rejected in Amoris Laetitia.
As for whether or not the heresies of Francis are “formal,” Mr. Salza is free to argue, if he so wishes, that Francis has yet to reveal himself as pertinacious, and therefore must be viewed, in spite of so many indications to the contrary, as a man who is simply mistaken, ignorant, or somehow unconscious of his heresy.
What he does not have license to do is to convict those who don’t find his arguments compelling as “former traditional Catholics;” much less is he qualified to declare that such persons “have departed from the Church.”
Perhaps he will feel compelled, in charity, to circle back with some clarifications of his own in a future article.
Better still, let’s pray that God will rectify this terrible situation soon, bringing all of good will together once more under the one banner of Christ of the King.
Excellent analysis, as usual. However, unless I am splitting hairs a bit too finely, you may be over looking another difference:
CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?
Cardinal Burke: It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.
Mr. Salza states:
There you have it. According to Cardinal burke himself, whether the Pope formally professed heresy must be determined and declared by the College of Cardinals…
As I read this, Cardinal Burke explicitly stated that “members” of the College of Cardinals can make the declaration. This wording implies to me that it would not require the full and entire College, but only a subset of it. Mr. Salza’s comment implies that it would require all members.
Dear Louie,
–
I offer here, from St. Bellarmine, what I think is pertinent to the argument Mr. Salza makes when he brings up the fact that Cardinals elect the Pope and then falsely concludes that only Cardinals can determine the loss of the Papal office. This is related to the argument of Cajetan’s that Bellarmine was refuting: that since God worked with man to create the Pontiff, then God likewise works with man to depose the Pontiff.
–
Here is what Bellarmine has to say about this.
–
“Next, what Cajetan says in the second place, that a heretical Pope who is truly Pope can be deposed by the Church, and from its authority seems no less false than the first. For, if the Church deposes a Pope against his will, certainly it is over the Pope. … for one to be deposed from the pontificate against his will is without a doubt a penalty; therefore, the Church deposing a Pope against his will, without a doubt punished him; but to punish is for a superior and a judge. … Furthermore, the example of Cajetan does not avail on electors, who have the power of applying the pontificate to a certain person, and still does not have power of the Pope. For while a thing is made, the action is exercised over the matter of the thing that is going to be, not over a composite which does not yet exist, but while a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over a composite; as is certain from natural things. Therefore, when Cardinals create the Pontiff, they exercise their authority not over the Pontiff, because he does not yet exist; but over the matter, that is, over the person whom they dispose in a certain measure through election, that he might receive the form of the pontificate from God; but if they depose the Pope, they necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person provided with pontifical dignity, which is to say, over the Pontiff.”
–
God bless.
It appears that Mr. Salza puts much faith in the statements of Cardinal Burke. I wonder if Mr. Salza attends Mass celebrated by priests of the SSPX on a regular basis or even occasionally. If so, he is disregarding Cardinal Burke’s statement that attending a N.O. “mess” is better than being associated with the schismatic SSPX in any way. Perhaps, Cardinal Burke’s expertise in these matters should not be taken too seriously. In any event, it is quite certain that the Traditional Catholic movement is not unified. The perverted Modernist establishment known as the Novus Ordo “church” must be very happy about that. Nothing is more delightful than witnessing your adversaries argue among themselves rendering them quite useless. A good example of that is Bishop Fellay’s response that “Cardinal Burke’s statement was stupid, but he is still not our enemy”. WOW! That’s tellin’ him!!
Its as well the correspondent does not have any powers to determine who is in the Sheepfold and who has left it. Whats clearer, by his own Bergoglian statements, is that there is more likely a hireling as Head Shepherd, by comparison to the last Saint Pope Pius X. His everything under a big tent theory, is a novel as Adultery abandoned. Or perhaps thats the “final scene for his followers”- how could any soul be annihilated on any grounds, sinful or otherwise. How does Mr Salza interpret that tent dwelling future deemed our final reward.?
Cardinals are not the product of Apostolic Tradition, but merely of man-made, medieval, Italian politics. They have no supernatural powers—the college is purely a political construct. True Catholic Bishops therefore in groups or even as individuals possess the authority to declare him non-papam as they did with Honorius.
I wondered about that very point, GratefulTrad. Evidently Cardinal Burke replied “members” and not “the members”.
Cardinal Burke’s reply, i.e.: “It would have to be ‘members of the College of Cardinals'” is not the same distinction as Salza’s draws: “As we can see, the Cardinal who explains that only ‘the College of Cardinals…'”
Big difference.
It seems you make the mistake of assuming that simple, objective agreement with some particular statement implies wholesale dedication to an individual – but, then again, Salza isn’t even doing *that* much here – he’s just pointing out that using Cd. Burke as a sede apologist is nonsensical and disingenuous. Or did you just read Louie’s rebuttal and not what he’s disagreeing with?
—
I think Mr. Salza takes Cd. Burke’s statements for what they are – and he makes quite clear that he disagrees with his eminence on serious issues even in the piece under question (for example, he believes AL contains material heresy – again, noted in the very article under question – while Cd. Burke does not).
—
(Bp. Fellay put it best regarding the silly “controversy” over Burke’s recent statements about the Society (which ought to have been a surprise to nobody: “What Cardinal Burke Said is Stupid but he is Not Our Enemy.” )
—
Salza does attend an SSPX chapel, yes. I know this because I attend the same one, though he’s been going quite a bit longer than me & my family.
“Cardinals are not the product of Apostolic Tradition, but merely of man-made, medieval, Italian politics.” – Hmm, I read the same thing on fundamentalist Protestant websites. Do you not believe the Holy Ghost guides the Church even in the large?
—
“True Catholic Bishops therefore in groups or even as individuals possess the authority to declare him non-papam as they did with Honorius.” Individual bishops can decide that the man elected by the Church as pope, and accepted by the Church as pope – making his papacy a dogmatic fact – can decide the man is not really the pope, and make it so. That’s the best thing I’ve read in a while.
—
Does this mean that if there was some bishop who lived in the last five centuries who believed that Pius V was not pope, due to some canonical impediment, the dogmas of Trent are actually null? Because, that’s what you’re saying.
—
But, if that’s true, there’s rather no point in being a Traditionalist, because in the end there’s no Tradition, and no dogma.
You missed the point completely and totally. All St. Bellarmine is saying here is that the Church does not judge a supreme pontiff, which is something undoubtedly true and that Salza & Siscoe have always agreed wtih. Rather, a pontiff judges himself by remaining obstinate in heresy after ecclesiastical warnings.
—
Here is something St. Bellarmine said in his refutation of the Second Opinion:
—
“For jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, ***he is not removed by God unless it is through men.***”
—
The Second Opinion – the ones all the sedes hid at least before True Or False Pope came out – is, in fact, the sede opinion – it is the opinion that a pope loses his office through the *sin* of heresy. That is, of course, what all the major sedes maintain or have maintained in the past (they’re shifty as required by circumstances).
—
But St. Bellarmine – who was the farthest thing from a sede sympathizer like every other saint or doctor – points out here that the notion of individuals judging ecclesiastical office is nonsense. If there is no declaration from the men that elected him, the pope is still the pope.
Excellent point, Salsa has certainly put a spin on the Cardinals words. I found his article rather disturbing. But can now better understand why the late John Venneri was upset with Fr Gruner. Surely Matt and Chris are at odds on this one. It would be interesting If Chris made an apperance on this one.
32nd degree “ex”-Mason. Don’t trust ’em.
Here’s my rebuttal to the rebuttal.
—
As a preliminary, I will state that, to his credit, Louie remains affable and polite despite rather serious disagreements (unlike, frankly, the vast majority of outright sedes and the “pseudo-sedes” (my term) who reject Francis as pope).
—
“I do not claim to have a definitive answer; much less do I propose to have the authority to enforce my observations.”
—
That seems a bit of a dodge, or at least a missing of the point: You claim to have a definitive answer on the question of *whether or not it’s legitimate for an individual to decide that the man elected by & accepted by the Church as pope is not really the pope*. That’s an answer to a question, and one I would argue does, in fact, put one in conflict with the Church (the Fourth Council of Constantinople most directly).
—
That the Church has never proscribed an official process for stripping a pontiff of his office hurts, not helps, your position: If there’s no official process, there’s no way it can be done, and the aforementioned council’s anathema against separating from a bishop without a judgement *from the Church* are certainly operative at this point. More importantly, though, *every single theologian who ever taught on the subject taught that at the very least there has to be a judgement from the Church of manifest heresy before a pontiff can possible be deposed, either “automatically” (after that judgement) or after yet another judgement *from the Church.
—
Salza doesn’t at all suggest that the entire matter is “cut & dry” – he and Siscoe make clear in their book that there is *no official process for the deposition of a pope* – but what IS cut & dry is whether or not individuals get to decide who’s really a bishop or who’s really a pope. They don’t – that’s completely cut & dried, historically and theologically.
—
“In reality, Mr. Salza’s conclusions have no more weight; indeed far less weight, than the aforementioned ‘theologian opinions, which vary greatly.'” This is another case of missing the point: ALL of the theologians who have spoken on the subject agree that popes don’t magically fall from office due to a sin in the private forum or as judged by individuals. Salza never asserted anything more than the bare minimum that *all* the theologians agree on. (Anyone who actually believes, for example, that St. Bellarmine supported the sede position of individual judgment has imbibed sede propaganda. St. Bellarmine taught the same thing they all did: The Church must at the least make a declaration of manifest heresy, forcing a pontiff to judge himself, before he is subject to deposition.)
—
“These propositions [in Amoris Laetitia] all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.” Contradicting a dogma and denying it are not the same thing. While I acknowledge that the approach & language of Matt and Ferrara are not identical, the truth is that they both believe essentially the same thing about AL, which is pretty apparent from their conversations and collaboration – but this seems to have escaped you, Louie.
—
The stuff about judging vs. declaration of self-judgement is semantic hair-splitting. Anybody who had read “True or False Pope” would be aware of that.
—
“Given that Cardinal Burke believes that “it’s automatic” that a pope who formally professes heresy “would cease, by that act, to be the Pope,” it is obvious that he understands (and correctly so) that the role played by the College of Cardinals is secondary, or comes after the fact of his ceasing to be pope.”
—
No, Louie, you have completely missed the point. You are playing the game all the sedevacantists play: Completely ignoring *who decides* whether a pontiff is *pertinaciously expressing* heresy, or not. Cd. Burke was asked, and answered, that question, yet you left it out of your rebuttal (at this point anyway):
—
“CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?
—
Cardinal Burke: It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.”
—
Later, you say: “Given that Cardinal Burke believes that “it’s automatic” that a pope who formally professes heresy “would cease, by that act, to be the Pope,” it is obvious that he understands (and correctly so) that the role played by the College of Cardinals is secondary, or comes after the fact of his ceasing to be pope..”
—
Cd. Burke was asked *who judges* the pope to be pertinacious in heresy, and answered “the College of Cardinals.” You have twisted this into two completely separate topics. It is ridiculous to assert that Cd. Burke was *actually* saying that a pope somehow magically loses his office as soon as he utters manifest heresy (according to whom?) and that the judgement of the Church is only “after the face of his ceasing to be pope,” when Cd. Burke was responding to that very question – *who decides* the manifest heresy that predisposes a pope for deposition.
—
This sort of clear and entirely obvious twisting of meaning is what demonstrates that sedevacantism is a matter of will over intellect.
—
“Does anyone really believe that Jorge Bergoglio – after numerous public challenges to confirm the true faith, some of which have come from members of the College of Cardinals – is somehow unconscious of his heresy…”
—
Another missing of the point. Has Francis answered the Dubia directly? The true, objective, indisputable answer is “no” – yet you deny that he thrives on ambiguity? Our judgements of whether or not he is absolutely manifest in heresy are irrelevant!
—
Has it occurred to you that precisely this kind of ambiguity, that prevents a self-judgment of manifest heresy, thus keeping a pope in office, is exactly how the devil could most perfect co-opt the papacy?
—
Following this is more private judgement. Now, private judgement is entirely valid and useful in the internal forum – what we listen to, whom we trust – but it doesn’t control ecclesiastical office. The Church has placed an anathema on those who would use their own judgement *of the soul* to separate themselves from their bishop, much less the pastor of the Universal Church.
—
“First, note very well that this latter statement (“only upon the declaration…”) is irreconcilable with the statement made by Cardinal Burke: “It’s automatic.””
—
That is automatic *after* the *declaration* of manifest heresy *by the Church*, *not* automatic based on some individual’s judgement. That is what St. Bellarmine & Suarez taught (this is the so-called Jesuit Position) and something you would understand if you read his works in whole, or read Cd. Burke’s interview, or talked with Cd. Burke, who recognizes Francis as pope and doesn’t believe anything close to what you’re selling here.
—
“All that has been done so far is done in secret. There is no doubt whatsoever, however, that the Church has a pope at this point; even before the white smoke arises from the Sistine Chapel, the cardinals pledge their fidelity to the new pope.”
—
Not really. Surely you are aware of dogmatic facts, and how they relate to the papacy – there has been a great deal of discussion of this topic in your space here over the past year or two. So, you are aware that the unanimous teaching of the theologians is that a papacy becomes a dogmatic *fact* when the new pope *is accepted by a moral unanimity of the episcopate*. This is something that occurs only after his election has been publicly announced to the Church. At the least, when Christ binds a man to the form of a papacy – which is really what “makes a pope” – is not necessarily when the smoke rises.
—
I’m going to cut this short at this point (partly in the interest of time, I must admit).
—
Effective opposition to Francis can only be made when the reality that, yes, he’s actually the pope is faced. To deny this *dogmatic fact* is indeed to exit the Church, as formal unity with Peter is necessary for salvation. That’s dogma. And all dogma are given to us by popes, directly or indirectly. If you think you can decide who’s pope and who’s not, in opposition to what the Church says, you get to pick your dogma as well, in effect – like it or not.
Phew !!!!!! can one Dogma have precedence over another Dogma ???? Im getting a headache !!!!
I’d suggest you read it again, ock, perhaps after your headache subsides.
You should list your private & public sins and mistakes, throughout life, and we can then make a determination regarding whether we should trust you.
—
Or, we could just be a little smarter and more ethical than that, and listen to the Church, which forbids subjective judgement.
—
“St. Peter denied Christ three times – don’t trust him.” Now where have I heard that?
Comparing Mr. Salza to St. Peter. That’s rich.
No wonder people get headaches with Amoris Laetitia being analyzed ad nauseam, The fact of the matter is that 7 heresies within it have been declared and accepted by most thinking Catholics. The fact that Pope Francis steadfastly refuses to clarify or indeed answer the many questioners proves that as in law – his silence means assent.
Secondly Our Lady of La Salette; Our Lady of Fatima; and many Saints and holy men and women foretold that what would happen in our Church today – and here we are in the thick of it.
My last point is that heresies abound quite independently of A.L. For instance all the sickening lauding of Martin Luther and welcoming Lutherans, Anglicans , Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all into the Catholic Church and delighting in the gifts they gave us from the Reformation! And what about his statement “There is no God. There is a God – but there is no Catholic God.”
………sorry I got cut off. I’ll continue if I may – He made that statement about there NOT being a Catholic God but yesterday’s first reading from Isaiah 45, I 4-6 tells us plainly “Thus the Lord said to His anointed ……………………………………I call you by your name, I surname you, though you do not know me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no god. I arm you though you do not know me, so that all may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is no-one besides me: I am the Lord , AND THERE IS NO OTHER.”
I understood that to change the words and meaning of Holy Scripture was formal heresy? And this is only one example.
We all need to be careful about the amount of spin coming from the mouths of people like Salsa who pronounce excommunication on good Catholics who have minds of their own. This is what Our Lady of Fatima was talking about when she said we would face “Diabolical disorientation” from Apostates and bad leaders in our Church – from the top. Satan really is the master of deceit, lies and particularly half truths twisted to suit his agenda.
Semper Fi,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI
Honorius was not condemned by any ecclesial body while he reigned. And the Council that attempted to condemn him (after his death) did not have authority to do so. It was left up to the Pope to ratify the councils documents. The Pope at the time did not agree with the council on this point and lessened the condemnation. Your last sentence is simply false. Councils and College of Cardinals have no power over a Pope.
Athanatius against the world in an earlier epoch he was right becuase he had the faith. If Catholic Bishops have no authority to declare a Pope to have lost his office via manifest heresy and thereby to be sedevacantist than you sure don’t my friend. A dozen succeeding popes upheld their anathematization. Has Tom A gone all Salza on me?
You forgot one small detail in your analysis: Objective Reality.
Thank you dear Louie for your clear take on things and thank you to the commenters at this blog who are very knowledgeable.While I’m not a sede, I certainly appreciate their knowledge along with those who share my views about the VII papacies, that said and with all due respect to Mr Siscoe as well as MRs Matt and Ferrara, their opinions do not sway me one iota when it comes to anything pertaining to Jorge Bergoglio. I may not be highly educated or articulate but I can certainly use my Catholic good common sense to see that Bergoglio is not canonically elected, that BVXI is still the pontiff and I haven’t left the one TRUE FAITH one inch for holding that belief. Our Divine Savior is the Judgeof the soul, but I am allowed to make a moral judgement and Bergoglio has separated himself from the True Faith in his preposterous proclamations. I don’t need or want an entourage in this life, I’m following Our Immaculate Mothers instructions and placing my hope and faith in God. We mustn’t fret, we must obey and stay in the state of grace and die to self, (the die to self part is one heck of a struggle for this poor sinner). Our Queen has given us the means and we must use them. Debating is exhilarating for those who are proficient at it but it can also bring such unnecessary discord. What we all need is a heaping helping of humility ….along with a hearty prayer life.
Then Athanatius was truly and irrevocably excommunicated in his lifetime and died a schismatic, certainly since the last time was upheld by Liberius. Therefore we need a commission to strip him of his sainthood and title of Doctor of the Church. What solemn and utter nonesense. Go back to NCR—you seemed to have taken a wrong turn. Francis is no more Pooe than Miley Cyrus. He is a manifest heretic and thereby not even a member of the RCC. This is obvious to anyone with a brain in 2017.
Paul youve never read Bellarmine. Just cut and paste Salza’s bs. You can’t even get the concept of ipso facto through your head.
Paul Folbrecht’s Pope is “for display purposes only”…..and you know what? He likes it that way.
Dear Paul Folbrecht–Referring to Cardinal Burke’s statement re SSPX as a silly “controversy” is ridiculous. In the Catholic world, when Cardinal Burke speaks “everybody listens”. His words were an insult to every SSPX priest and all who attend their chapels. As Superior General, +Fellay has a duty and obligation to stand up for his priests in the strongest terms possible. Burke is supposed to be a “friend to Tradition” (only if that Tradition is under the umbrella of the N.O. pseudo-church apparently). I have heard that Fellay’s tenure as Superior General ends in July of 2018. Hopefully, the next Bishop who takes his place will be much, much stronger and dismisses any thoughts of reconciliation. Modernist Rome is not Catholic. Stay away.
If the Catholic Church were reduced to a single orthodox bishop….then yes than man would have the power to declare the Pope deposed via heresy. Your armies of modernist drones dressed in purple and scarlet simply don’t factor into that formula.
“If Catholics faithful to Tradition were reduced to a mere handful, they would still be the true Church of Jesus Christ”. Saint Athanatius
If the Holy Ghost guided the Cardinals as you say, why have them at all? Why this voting nonsense, is God a democrat? How did the Church manage 1000 years without them?? Of course it’s a man made institution. If the Holy Ghost “picks” apostolic successors then why did the first Apostlic successor have to draw straws?? Heresy.
Ultimately men chose Popes not God. We pray for holy, faithful men but that is the most we can do.
I posted this yesterday on the Remnant’s website dealing with an article written by Mr. Michael Matt regarding Mr. Salza:
And, then there is the remaining question of whether or not Bergoglio was a pertinacious heretic as a priest, bishop, and cardinal, prior to his election. It is well known that he was exactly that while cardinal-archbishop of Buenos Aires. With that said, the authors of “True or False Pope” never addressed the issue of Pope St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, nor do they address the principle of Non-Contradiction when it comes to the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church (including past popes) who taught that a known heretic can never be validly elected pope. Can anyone honestly say at this point that the College of Cardinals did not know who Bergoglio was? If not, why not? Then, there is the issue of the St. Gallen Mafia and their role in Bergoglio’s election. Until these issues receive a hearing from the College of Cardinals (mmmm, the Dubia Cardinals), Catholics will remain confused, divided, and unsure of whether or not Francis is really the pope or if it is actually Benedict (due to a coerced resignation). Catholics have a right to know from their shepherds wearing red. I, for one, can most certainly use established facts and corroborated evidence in a logical manner to make a personal judgment about all of this. However, we will never get to the bottom of all of these questions and their consequences without a formal, public, fraternal correction by Cardinal Burke. So, my only question to Cardinal Burke is: How much longer must we wait? The lay faithful who composed the Filial Correction lead the way. Is it not supposed to be the other way around? The Faithful of Holy Mother Church have done all the foundational work for Cardinal Burke and his supporting brother cardinals. Enough is enough! The Church is hemorrhaging members at an alarming rate. It is time for Cardinal Burke to act- and now!
And, while we’re at it, how about Cardinal Sarah? Pretty please.
Semper Fi, read Pastor Aeternus. No one may judge a true Pope. No one needs to declare the See vacant for it to objectively become vacant. And, no, I will never go all Salza on you or anyone. Sedevacantism merely recognizes the objective truth of the matter. Bergolio cannot be Pope because he is an objective heretic. No one needs to declare it to make it a fact. Any declaration by anyone whatsover is simply for the purposes of edification and not disposition. When a Pope dies, the See is vacant at the moment of death. Not when the coroner declares death or when the Church announces it to the world. Same principle applies if a Pope is a public heretic. He ceases being Pope without any need of declaration.
Do we have any cardinals/bishops who are not de facto material heretics? For example, does anyone know of a single one who accepts the Church’s teaching on geocentrism, in spite of the fact that modern science cannot disprove it.
Are you aware that’s actually a fake quote?
It’s not in the source document. It was invented. That is demonstrated in the book True Or False Pope.
It’s actually the common theological opinion, if not de fide, that once the Church has achieved moral unanimity She cannot be reduced to a “tiny remnant,” more or less.
People understandably get emotional when confronted with the shocking unfaithfulness we see from the hierarchy today. Surely this crisis is the worst the Church has ever seen. However, all of this “he’s lost his office” stuff is based on theological misunderstandings (or sheer will). Membership in the Church is not predicated on faith or any other internal virtue.
Keep in mind that *real* bishops will be judged, and punished, far more harshly than costumed imposters. Perhaps that helps.
Are you familiar with the concept of an analogy?
—
Either obey the Church’s maxim not to judge internals, and not to hold past mistakes/sins against someone, or don’t, perhaps. Just be consistent.
You’re certainly welcome to your take on that. I can’t presume to be able to judge Bp. Fellay in the practical realm or regarding anything else, really.
—
I found Cd. Burke’s comments to be a slap in the face and a letdown, but got over it pretty quickly. Bigger fish.
You’ve got some serious holes in your chain of logic regarding St. Athanasius. Excommunication does not mean damnation, and it’s completely possible that Liberius – a real pope – made a poor juridical decision. It’s also entirely possible it was coerced, as many maintain. Finally, is your point actually to argue that Liberius was *not* a pope? That’s a new one, I must admit!
—
As for Francis not being a “even member of the RCC” (an acronym one really only comes across out of fundamentalist anti-Catholics, incidentally), you contradict every real theologian who spoke on the general matter, all of whom taught & recognized that manifest heresy is something determined *by the Church*, not by individuals.
—
Your post is yet another example of the emotionalism that drives the position you’ve embraced. Mudslinging, personal insults, and shouts of “heresy!” with no theological backing are the meat of it.
—
Francis’ judgment for what he’s doing to the Church will be far more severe, given that he *is* the pope – that’s a dogmatic fact, FWIW.
Where to start?
—
The Church has both divine and human elements. That is dogma.
—
It is generally recognized that the Holy Ghost guides the Church in the large. To refer to her major institutions as “man-made” belies a lack of faith in Christ’s promise to be with the Church until the end of time, it seems to me, and, again, is exactly the type of language anti-Catholics gravitate to.
—
Men are involved in the election of a pontiff, clearly (they select the man who is bound to the form of the papacy, which is a divine action). While we must believe the Holy Ghost guides the Church in the large, at the least, it’s also clear He does not pick popes directly and it’s abundantly clear, historically, that we don’t always get good popes by any stretch. Good popes & bad popes are popes.
I’m no expert on any of this, but it seems odd to me that it would be left to members of a man-made class (i.e., cardinals) to make this decision. The cardinals elect the pope as a matter of historical expedience, but there is no necessity that this is the way things be done because, among other things, there is no divine mandate that there be cardinals in the first place.
It would make more sense to me if some entity within the Divinely-arranged hierarchical scheme had a role to play in such an important affair.
Anyway, I’d like to see someone with more insight than me discuss this issue or explain why this role falls to the cardinals alone.
So much usless confusion for a simple matter. If a Pope falls into heresy he loses his office. If he was an heretic prior to his election, his election is invalid. These are ontological objective facts that need no declaration. They just are. Men may be unaware of these facts and if so are bound by their conscience to assent to his teachings. Other men may be aware of these facts are are duty bound to resist and warn others. Recognize and Resisters disobey their conscience on both fronts. First they disobey he whom they claim as Pope and then advise others to do likewise.
Tom, then we are in agreement. I never meant that by some declaration it was made so. It is the nuclear option for Bishops in response to a de facto takeover of the papacy by heresy. Therefore, such a one, loses his office, ipso facto. The orthodox bishops however, need to make this publicly known for the good of the faithful.
Wrong. You arguments are irrational, being born of emotion. There is no greater irrationality than to propose that an overt apostate possesses continues to de facto possess papacy and that cardinals/bishops are therefore required to juridically remove him (via some power they certainly do not possess canonically or otherwise) before the claimant to the papacy can be determined to have lost said claim . The “sin of heresy” removes one from membership in the Catholic Church—ipso facto. Read Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis for starters. Read any of the Church Fathers. And for your own sake, read Bellarmine, for the first time in your life.
Membership is not predicated on faith? You are done…I don’t waste time arguing with ignoramuses.
The Holy Ghost most definitely does not guide the monstrosity that is the Aggiornamento abomination. You fail by fundamentally conflating the two.
The Catholic Church is a “city set on a hilltop”….most everyone, believer or not, knows what she has historically taught. To say that a man who denies basic dogmas, and who wishes to delete the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 9th commandments, plus the practical application of most sacraments, is still somehow possessing the both the magisterial authority and the office of Pope, is simply beyond any ‘Chestertonian’ common sense. Good luck following your apostate into the new religion. To the secular corporatists like Paul and all the other assorted riff raff ‘theologians’, good luck even following your own inner ‘logic’ as you descend into self-defeating and subjective Protestantism, picking and choosing, what your pope teaches on ‘faith’ and ‘morals’ all the while teaching your kids that this madhouse religion called ‘modernism’ –which keeps moving the goal posts year after year (soon they won’t even be on the field anymore) is really the Catholic Faith–gosh darn it….yes truly it is….we just don’t agree with the ever growing list of abominations. The modernists are really still the incarnate reality of the Catholic Church–fully endowed with authority—oh except we like to “recognize but resist” so we can act like self-assured, bloviating dissenters, but still keep our little Catholic Costco membership cards. Really…..good luck with all of that. You’re kids are really going to grow up as strong Catholics. Let’s chat in ten years, shall we?
Dear Theresa – you have just encapsulated everything I was thinking after reading all these posts and feeling that a migraine was about to strike and finish my day. Your words immediately affected my whole outlook because they perfectly clarified what I feel and what is important right now; God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and our Blessed Mother. God bless you , my friend sometimes the Holy Spirit uses us to help others; today in his infinite wisdom, I think he chose you. Thank you.
You are correct, the Cardinals lack any canonical authority to do so….they are simply there to elect a new pope.
I noticed this immediately upon reading it. I agree with you it does not say only “the college…” but identifies “members of…” This is no way means that the entire College would have to make it official. I wonder if four is enough…or even two who remain? All the more reason for a formal declaration.
George Soros bragged, that he “is the Pope’s boss, now.” It appears that his boast became a self-fulfilling prophecy in the Francis pontificate.
God has both active will and permissive will. If Bergoglio had anything to do with the Holy Ghost’s will, it most certainly was permissive. In this case He permitted the Church to have an apostate, the ultimate modernist, presumably to demonstrate just how far the visible Church has strayed and/or as a test to demonstrate just who remains faithful to the Church of Christ.
“George Soros could not have imagined a more perfect partner on the world stage, one he has been searching for his entire career: a major religious leader pontificating as the moral authority for the environmental, borderless countries, mass migration, and pro-Islamic movements.”
Paul, how much is Salza paying you to come on here and waste our time? Your master just solemnly excommunicated scores of people who reject the Heresiarch Bergolio, and here you are pontificating about not judging internals–when in fact–we are judging externals.
Paul F.–Thanks for your response. Burke has proven his loyalty to the Vatican 2 sect. That’s a pretty Big Fish in my book. You can’t be both a True Catholic and a Novus Ordo Catholic at the same time. We now know Burke is a chameleon. That’s a lot more than a slap in the face and he should be considered “the enemy”. I don’t judge Bp. Fellay, but I do judge his actions or lack thereof.
You pretty much cut to the chase and summed it up. If the effusive actions, statements, pronouncements, orders and encyclicals spewing forth from “Pope Francis” are not evidence of a heretical and/or apostate mindset then I am a Buddhist Monk. We are called to resist him/them to the best of our ability. Ignore them, him, his sodomite cabal and go to the BVM, Prayer, Rosary, all things Tradition and the Dogmas of the One True Faith.
John Salsa a 33 degree mason who is now an arm chair theologian, As one very
intelligent and Holy Prelate once said.
http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Ad-hominem-attacks.jpg
https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAchAAAAJGI5NGQ1ZDJlLTIxYzYtNGQyOC04ZWNlLWU2M2YzOWQ5NWFkMw.jpg
Dear Theresa,
Fantastic reflection here. Simply “brilliant” in your “littleness.”
Thank you for the clarity.
God bless you!
–
Louie, I wish everyone could see things with your clarity.
Thank you.
Paul Folbrecht writes: ..the Church has never proscribed an OFFICIAL process for stripping a pontiff of his office…If there’s no OFFICIAL process. THERE’S NO WAY IT CAN BE DONE. A big IF but IF this statement’s true than what’s the point of even debating this any longer.
But this is just poppycock. Let’s review:
1. Francis has openly left the Church by heresy. That’s how it works.
2. There is no divine or canon law that says the pope must be issued an ecclesiastical warning to establish pertinacity. Ecclesiastical warnings concern the penal code. [1] Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code and canon law is clear that it is the superior who issues warnings [as seen in the footnote]. Popes don’t fall under the penal code because…
3. The first or primatial see is subject to no ones judgment, canon 1556. The Pope has God alone as his superior.
Salza is full of nonsense.
The experts have told us specifically how a pope relinquishes his office. See “Canon 188.4 and Defection of Faith – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part III)”
Salza concludes: “We also affirm with them that a Pope would lose his office for ‘formally professing heresy,’ only if it is according to the judgment of the Church, and certainly not according to the judgment of private individuals. This is not only the teaching of the Church and all her theologians, but common sense – a natural virtue that is often missing among those who have been so scandalized by the crisis.”
Salza still doesn’t understand what formally professing heresy means even when the Church authorities tell him. The Vatican 2 popes have consistently and repeatedly taught heresy after heresy but according to Salza, they aren’t really heretics until they are warned by cardinals who agree with those very heresies, and who have no authority to warn a Pope anyway.
In fact, Salza, Matt, etc., believe the pope can believe, teach, and promote any and every heresy under the sun and he will continue to be pope until “the church” says, “hey, we’re warning you, you’re teaching heresy” and then declares he’s not the Pope. As though the Pope were obliged to listen to what the cardinals tell him!
Sedevacantists simply understand that Francis isn’t Pope because he doesn’t have a Catholic bone in his body. I submit that the real masterstroke of Satan is the counterfeit Catholic Church and how the likes of Michael Matt and John Salza keep defending it with utter foolishness.
Footnote:
[1] “When does contumacy exist? The Code, can. 2242, §2, distinguishes between a censure ferendae and a censure latae sententia. The former requires a canonical admonition. Hence the ecclesiastical superior must, according to can. 2143, issue a formal warning…” (Rev. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Law, The Penal Code, book V, p. 117)
Excellent post. Thank you. Matt, Salza et al somehow view the Church like a corporation, with the Cardinals as somehow being like a board of directors that can fire a Pope if the shareholders are angry. It is a nonsensical position. Recognize and resist is also the most blatantly fabricated excuse for ignoring papal authority ever devised. They take one episode where Saint Peter merely visited with his Jewish friends at a dinner gathering, (likely unknowingly) offending Saint Paul and his Gentile converts. Saint Paul blows a gasket and confronts him. The matter is resolved. They stretch this tiny episode out into an elaborate and new ecclesiology in the most egregious manner–saying that Popes can, by nature, be public “material” heretics and Catholics can resist them as Saint Paul did Peter–picking and choosing what to believe on faith, morals, and discipline. What unbelievable rubbish on many counts. They normalize the heresy of the modernists while promoting a destructive, purely existentialist view of the papacy and the Church.
I do not know how anyone who professes to profess the Catholic faith can justify disobedience to the Pope. No Pope anywhere at any time in any form has ever said that his subjects had any right whatsoever to resist his commands. Sure, some theologians may have pondered this option, but it never made it into any official Church document (pre V2). In fact, just the opposite has been taught by the Popes. This is the main reason why my time as an adherent to the RR position was very brief (maybe a couple months). It is too glaring a contradiction. Yes, sedevacantism presents its own challenges as to explaining the state of the Church, but it does not lead to a contradiction.
Dearest GMU, Semper Fidelis, and Tom A, good Wednesday morning,
Thank you for your clarity expressed, with your authentic as intuitive Catholic insight—the sensus fidelis. We are indeed living the Great Apostasy, the prophetic time when all but all of the Baptized believe the lie as the Truth. The reception of this understanding, by this perfectly miserable creature now writing, and for all those as yourselves, the few indeed that there seem to be left in this world, requires as it must and as it only can, the reception of the grace of perseverance until the end. May Almighty God continue to allow the reception of His authentic mercy for all those who truly love Him.
John Salsa may profess to have left the Gnostic Sect but it is clear that he, as well as the entire cohort of the so called “Recognize and Resist” cadre of Modernists, are receiving the “operation of error”, which must occur, as prophesied by Saint Paul in 2 Thess 2. This operation of error is sent by Almighty God and it is therefore a Supernatural operation, which is then indefectible, as a punishment for the embrace of iniquity and all its “pleasures” of the flesh, in lieu of the love of God and a zeal for Him alone, as Truth and Love Himself. These sophists as they clearly are, as this thing speaks as res ipsa loquitur, defile the Holy Catholic Faith, polluting it with their own intellective machinations, professing contradiction after contradiction, as though contradiction is, or could ever be anywhere in the cosmos, Catholic in Truth. Their hubris, as is existentially evident from the likes of Paul Folbrecht, betrays them, as those who have no love for the Truth, rather an inverted love of self, malignant from its essence.
Salsa and Siscoe are charlatans, as is evident from their 700 page diatribe, “True or False Pope”, specifically to be found on page 19 of their screed. On page 19, they actually as literally subjugate the word which the holy Vatican Council of the 19th century used to conjoin the Holy Roman Pontiff to the Church until the end of time, and that word which the Council used is “SHOULD”. The Modernists Salsa and Siscoe, in true Modernist fashion, then change the meaning of the Pope in union with his Bishops at the Vatican Council, by replacing the word of the Council, which again is “SHOULD”, with the word of the Modernists Siscoe and Salsa own choosing, which is the word, “WILL”. This changes the mind of the Pope in union with his Bishops from using the conjunctive form of “SHOULD”, to the injunctive form of “WILL”, which transforms the meaning of the Will of God in His Council, to the will of men in Siscoe and Salsa, which is what they had to do, in order to develop the entire 700 page diatribe, arguing that the Pope must remain with Christ’s Church, until the end of time. The Council did not say that, as it could not say that, as if it did, it would place an internal contradiction into Holy Mother Church, which cannot happen with divine certitude from Christ Himself. For all those with eyes which see and ears which hear, the doctrine of 2 Thess 2 verse 7, prophesied the time when the Holy Father would be, “taken out of the way”, such that the mystery of iniquity could then and only then, bring forth the person of the Antichrist. Period and end. I pray this helps. In caritas.
“Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist”
“The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic World. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church”
–
Pope Paul VI’s October 13, 1977 address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Fatima Apparitions
He would know. He held the door open.
Was Paul VI bragging or complaining?
I like this line: “Name one? Mr. Matt’s longtime collaborator, Christopher Ferrara, can name at least seven! So, yeah, Mike, I see the problem!”
I have to admit that I was struck by the same thought when I read that. I, too, have been surprised by the seeming “flip-flops” in official (and non-official) statements by many people I greatly respect, from Cardinals to editors, over the past year and a half… I think that a lot of (good) people are genuinely afraid, and that makes speaking consistently (or “coolly”, or even “rationally”) very difficult… Our Lady help us!
I am “done”, eh? 🙂 And I was going to let you have the last word – and will, in most cases.
—
If you believe that membership in the Catholic Church – that is, being united to the Body – is predicated upon having Faith, or any other supernatural virtue, you would not just be in the minority of theologians, you’d have essentially your own camp.
—
But I don’t think you know what membership means. I don’t think you understand the distinction between the Body and the Soul of the Church, or have any inkling of any of the associated theology, actually. What you do have is very strong opinions and a lot of subjective judgement, which you’re happy to spread publicly – though not with your real name.
—
Have a nice day.
Tradprofessor, I think you’re on to something there indeed.
If the sin of heresy removes one from the Church – and thus, certainly, from ecclesiastical office – then there is no dogma and there is no Church.
—
That is because all dogma are ratified by a pope, either directly or indirectly, and what you are saying is that no one can possibly know which popes – elected by and accepted by the Catholic Church – are really popes. If the *sin* – which lies in the internal forum – separates one from the Body, and thus from office, any pope could have been a secret heretic, and thus an anti-pope.
—
If, for example, this was the case with Pius V, then the dogma of Trent are null & void.
—
That is why not only all respectable theologians, but even most sedevacantists, acknowledge (at least some of the time!) that the *sin* of heresy is unrelated to ecclesiastical office (and, more broadly, Church membership).
—
More read, less caffeine, my friend. Please.
You’ve apparently got the charism of infallibility – are you, perhaps, the pope?
It is also a product of trying to defend the indefensible. Any collaboration with the V2 NO sect will lead to a soul compromising at least one doctrine of the faith.
Good evening Paul,
Actually, what I hold is the Catholic Faith, as is apparently foreign to you, and not a Gnostic personal rendition, as the perversion which you profess, made possible only by the “operation of error” as you receive it, believing the lie as the Truth, and this thing itself speaks, for all those with eyes which see. Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, left us His Church, as His Mystical Body and spotless Bride, free of any iota of error until the end of time, as only He could command. To suggest that any true Holy Roman Pontiff can hold and teach heresy, which is for him to profess anything and anywhere in opposition to the One True Faith, that has ever been defined and taught previously as deFide, is to place an affront to the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, while at once it defies the command of Jesus the Christ, as God Himself. To believe such an act as to be possible by a true Pope as Pope, is to defy the teaching of the Holy Catholic Faith, as it is to defy the command of Jesus the Christ, period and end.
And now the doctrinal proof set, Paul. Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, established as the Word of God, His command that His Church would prevail until the end of time, untouched by the gates of hell, and as thus untouched by any iota of error until the end of time, in Matthew 16:18. You, as the rest of your cadre in the so called, “Recognize and Resist” Modernist’s club, focus exclusively on the “subject” of Christ’s command in Matthew 16:18, as Peter, while at once you are blinded to the “object” of Christ’s command in Matthew 16:18, which is His Holy Catholic Church. Thus, you errantly believe that the “object” of His command, His Holy Catholic Church, somehow matters not within the understanding of just who the Holy Roman Pontiff is, or in contradistinction, who he simply cannot be. What you and your ilk errantly accomplish then, is to play this hubristic, intellective game of focusing on the man who claims to be the Pope as Peter’s Successor, while at once you are perfectly blinded to the reality that these so called “Popes” since the false “Vatican II” council, are binding themselves to a church which is NOT Catholic. All of your energy as deception is focused on the “proof” of the pope as Pope, while you are blinded to the reality as Truth, that the church of these popes, is not the Church of Jesus the Christ, as Church, and therefore Roncalli through Bergoglio may call themselves “pope” but each of them is not the Holy Roman Pope, simply because the church to which they adhere is not the Catholic Church.
We know with divine certitude that Peter’s faith CANNOT fail, as Christ Jesus commanded that into being in Luke 22: 31,32, and to quote now the chapter and verse:
“And the Lord said: Simon, Simon behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
As these so called “conciliar popes” have all lost the Faith, if they ever held it, and as thus they are apostates, we know with divine certitude, as from the Mouth of Jesus the Christ in Luke 22: 31,32, that none of these men could possibly be His Vicar. We know with ontological certitude that they have lost the Faith, if they ever held it, as they embrace and hold the so called “Second Vatican Council” as the teaching of Holy Catholic Church and demand submission to it, as they submit to it, while at once it teaches manifest heresy. If even one heretical belief is present in a council’s teaching, as a true Council is from the Roman Pontiff in union with his Bishops, defining and/or teaching the Catholic Faith, and as thus it carries the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility from the Holy Ghost protecting it from any iota of error, we know then with ontological certitude, by virtue of the presence of any error, that it cannot be the Catholic Church which is teaching it, period and end. Look to “Lumen Gentium 16” for that heretical error Paul. The so called, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, “Lumen Gentium”, teaches heresy at point 16, period and end. The entire edifice of the so called “Second Vatican Council” thus falls, just as the diatribe, “True or False Pope”, by your friend and fellow Gnostic, John Salza, implodes under its own weight of his lie on page 19, period and end.
The Truth is hard Paul, but He is a divine Person as the Son of God made Man, and He commanded that He did not come to bring peace, rather the sword, as it is in division that the Truth springs forth and is plainly seen. You and your cadre of Modernists all dressed up in the ontological accidentals of Tradition betray the Holy Catholic Faith, as you receive the operation of error, to believe the lie as the Truth. Receive this admonishment in charity as it is offered in charity, as we are commanded by our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, to love the other as He has loved us, thus yearning for the salvation of the other as much as our very own. I pray this helps. In caritas.
You knew we are speaking her of publicly manifest sin, and the public rejection of the Catholic Faith, not some internal pietism speculation. Paul, the sanctimonious. The guy who gets offended by the term Roman Catholic Church or its acronym. Please spare us our International Correspondence School education.
Paul F thinks its 1570 or 1947 and we have Catholic running Rome. We are the ones attacking the Faith. The entire Michael Matt/Salza ect position is quite frankly despicable, because they in fact know themselves that Bergolio is indeed a pernicious heretic and an apostate, yet they condemn us for saying so. They dare throw around the terms “infallible” when they damn well know the man is openly attacking the Catholic Faith. They know that the Cardinals could at any time, enact their legalistic scenario and declare the pope deposed—but even if that would happen, would we get an apology for their calumny and detraction of Faithful Catholics for calling the sky blue? For slandering and condemning us at every opportunity with their own “infallible judgement” that none of us are members of the Bride of Christ–the height of sanctimonious, novus ordo-infected arrogance? The fact they choose to simply ignore objective facts, the tide of history, and the epoch we living in completely discredits them as serious Catholic thinkers. They cling to the fantasy land of the ‘recognize and resist’ mindset–even with an apostate like Bergolio. I predict ever more defections, including Christopher Ferrara as time passes. You can’t issue a filial correction to the Pope without having serious problems with his papacy. I don’t think Matt, et al, will never change…..their apostolate will implode both intellectually and spiritually as their position beings to collapse under the weight of its own error—-that a public apostate can be Christ’s Vicar. Even with an overt apostate and yes—antichrist like Bergolio sitting on the throne of Peter, Matt et al cannot grasp the fundamental realities of the current crisis. I wrote off Berogolio three years ago –I know his ilk and his deeply held convictions. Every statement and action the man has said and done in the interim has only vindicated my assessment. He is a modern Henry VIII style meglomaniac and his descent into madness and recklessness will only increase over time, mark my words. They will all be left disgraced and discredited.
In the real world of real people, not pettifogging theologians, Pope Francis’ “heresies”, ambiguities or whatever you wish to call them is having a profoundly sinful effect. One can argue all they want whether Pope Francis has crossed the heretic line but there is no question he has already had a massive negative effect. Basically, Pope Francis has abrogated the 6th Commandment.
Great points GMU. Furthermore Canon 188.4 only requires that the heresy be public, not formal for a member if the Church, including the Pope as per the footnotes. They elevate the speculations of a few 16th century theologians to the level of dogma while ignoring Paul IV, whose papal bull was cited by Canon Law itself. Furthermore this papal bull was solemnly re-affirmed by the Motu Proprio of Pope Saint Pius V in 1566. They obsess over the formal point when it is immaterial.
Your absolutely right. Red flag – Salsa is in no position to announce or promote excommunication on anyone in the church, he is not a leader, but a another layperson with a personal opinion. I’m seeing the Protestants spin method of sola scriptoria (one form of diabolitical disorientation ) being practiced more and more each day on cannon law, papal encyclicals and what ever comes out of the mouths of popes n bishops and saints. What ever it takes to strike division. It worked well for the Protestants. The devil is on a roll, but his creativity is lacking. Some can see it while others are waking up , still there are others who get trapped in his mine game in an attempt to shut our reason and logic down. This is what I see attempted in Salsas article, weither its mere ignorance or sinister on Salsas part only Almighty God can determine it.
Sadly your role model Salsa judged all those who question Pope Francis errors n false teachings yes I said it (false teachings) and thus has excommunicated and defined those on such a stand as ex Catholics, what is St Peters stand on that ?
I’ll tell ya, he said we are called to judge objectively, not subjectively, and only those inside the church not outside the church.
So if Salsas article is not to be judged, then I guess what you are are suggesting is that either his article is an expression of subjective writing of his inner most heart or he is outside of the church?
It’s extremely important that, we have to learn the differences regarding catholic judgement, the sacred divine teachings are doing all the judgement for us, and we are obligated to simply follow it. Simple as that.
For example: Perhaps Salsa believes he is practicing charity, but there is a lot of perhaps, as we don’t know and are not obligated to judge Him as a person so we don’t know and can’t determine such things as it falls under the subjective intentions which according to the Holy Spirit, Our Lord handing down the the church and the apostles, this is off limits. But that’s not the subject here, it’s what he wrote which is objective ( external words and actions) this is the same for the pope. And according to saints and past popes we can resist such errors even from a pope. It’s objective ( external ) judgement on what the say and do. And according to cannon law we are bound to make our leaders accountable. It’s our souls put at risk here. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, is not of Gods making its of mans making. But here’s the monkey wrench, where does Salsas authority come from to announce excommunicate of any other catholic ? He’s not the pope. Only a pope can do that. And Francis has done no such thing, even if he did who’s gonna fall for it, if by the rejecting of Francis false teachings is the basis of such a excommunication? He didn’t bind any catholic to obey it. So he can’t do such a thing, it would be yet another abuse of power and authority.
The problem with the resisters is that they understand the end game. When the Church is restored, the next True Pope will have to declare the whole conciliar church an abomination and declare all conciliar popes as anti popes. There no way around it. Then Matt et al will look like fools because the sedes will have right all along and it will comfirmed by a True Pope. No True Pope can give any approval of V2 of the NO. He will have to declare them null ans void as he will have to declare all their ordinations and sacraments. So Matt et al will continue to profess this status quo of perpetual resistance. They have painted themselves in a corner with no way out but going sede and their pride will never allow them to admit they were wrong.
Good Sunday afternoon Tom A,
There cannot be another, “next True Pope”, my dear friend in Christ Jesus. This is the end of the line. Certainly not because this miserable creature as me writing says so but because the Holy Writ does. Look again to 2 Thess 2. What is it that Saint Paul inerrantly prophesies will happen, after what he proclaims in verse 7 as, “he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.”? He, in his very next words proclaims, “And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming,…”. You see Tom A, as Saint Paul wrote his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, it was in response to the disciples’ errant thinking that the Antichrist, as the person of, was already present in their Apostolic time, as in their very midst. He allowed for their knowing, as also for ours’, that the son of perdition as the man of sin, was not there then but the Mystery of Iniquity was present in their age, as it is now, and until the end of time. Saint Paul established the 3 part condition which would be required first before the Son of Man would return for His Final Judgment and as thus, the consummation of the world. First, the Great Apostasy would occur, as “the revolt”. This Apostasy of all apostasies would occur as a result of the reception of the “operation of error”, writ large by the Baptized, to believe the lie as Truth. This supernatural operation is sent by Almighty God to all those who consent to iniquity, such that they may be judged accordingly, as the result of their free will assent into sin, in lieu of Truth, for which they have no love, as they reject Him as Truth Himself. Secondly, as “he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.”, can only be the Holy Roman Pontiff, as no other “he” in the cosmos then or now, can fit that description, we know that in order for the “man of sin be revealed”, the Holy Roman Pontiff must be “taken out of the way”. This is simply right reason, in accordance with divine revelation, to understand that it was the Vicar of Christ who sat in the Chair of Saint Peter, as the only human power allowed for by divine design and intervention, that could “hold” the Mystery of Iniquity, in the angelic person of Satan, from bringing forth the person of the Antichrist, until it was his time. In verse 6, Saint Paul proclaims, “And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.” We know with the divine certitude of the Holy Writ as divine revelation, that the person of the Antichrist must one day come, about that there can be no question. As Christ Jesus admonished His disciples for not knowing the “signs of the times”, He admonishes us in the same way, commanding us thus to know precisely the times we are in.
Thirdly, the man of sin, as the person of the Antichrist, is revealed. This all establishes the time for the Second Coming of the Son of God made Man, as God Himself, for the consummation of the world. The Truth is hard Tom A but He is a divine Person, Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, Who commanded that He came not to bring peace but the sword. Receiving the vice as the sin of cowardice, it would seem, plays a substantial role in this servile rejection of the reality as Truth, that the Chair of Saint Peter is now vacant and has been since the first apostate, Roncalli, captured the Chair of Saint Peter, but only in its temporal edifice, and thus the masquerade began. Any other ideological position causes any human person who holds it, that is he who holds, “any other position”, to reject some deFide teaching of Holy Mother Church, and as thus places him outside the Church in the schism of heresy, while at once in this time, more likely into apostasy, by reception of the operation of error to believe the lie. To believe the lie as the Truth, is to be in apostasy, as the Truth is Jesus Christ, Who is the Head as Truth of His Mystical Body and Bride, Holy Mother Church. As the lie is opposed to Truth, one who holds it is opposed to Jesus Christ as Truth Himself, and as thus he is opposed to the Faith, which is His gift freely given and completely undeserved. If one is opposed to the Faith, he is an apostate. Period and end. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Indeed Kellyann. What I cannot stomach is the rank hypocrisy, particularly when Salza’s entire approach is based on the “private judgement” of Cardinals…..a small number of self- appointed judges in an “imperfect council” who have no authority to warn or much less judge a superior….since if Pope remains validly constituted, he remains above all judgement. So basically someone like myself who deals in reality, whereby Bergolio is in fact a notorious “public” heretic (all that is required in either version of Canon Law 188.4 1917 or 1983 is “PUBLIC” not “FORMAL” heresy and as stated by BOTH—the heretical cleric is thereby ipso facto or in the new version of Canon Law #194—“by the law itself” automatically desposed—yet I am anathema for conforming to the principles enacted in Canon Law while also being merely “one step ahead” of Salza’s own erroneous process by seeing Bergolio as a usurper and apostate. Rank hypocrisy. See the modern Vatican II code which Salza accepts…..an “imperfect council” does not meet the definition of a “competent authority” and is thereby illegal. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PP.HTM
Perfect explanation! Just found your blog and love it.
Ha! Folbrecht was teaching precisely what Bellarmine taught – that membership in the Church is not predicated on internal faith – and for that you called him an ignoramus? You comments revealed who is the true ignoramus.
” I may not be highly educated or articulate but I can certainly use my Catholic good common sense to see that Bergoglio is not canonically elected, that BVXI is still the pontiff .”
Sorry, but “common sense” can’t tell you whether a pope has been canonically elected or if a pope who resigned is still pope. It may be able to tell you if a pope is a good or bad pope, but not a valid pope.
The way you know if pope has been validly elected is if his election is accepted by the entire Church. As soon as that happens, and it was immediate with Francis, you are bound to accept him as pope as a matter of faith. If you fail to do so, you commit a mortal sin against the faith, and appealing to you alleged “common sense” won’t is no excuse you.
GMU: “Ecclesiastical warnings concern the penal code. [1] Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code and canon law is clear that it is the superior who issues warnings [as seen in the footnote]. Popes don’t fall under the penal code because…”
.
JPeters: The problem with argument is that penal code requiring warnings is based on Divine Law (Titus 3:10), and divine law applies to all.
.
GMU: “The first or primatial see is subject to no ones judgment, canon 1556. The Pope has God alone as his superior.”
.
JPeter: If you think canon 1556 means a pope can’t be judged for heresy, you need to back up your interpretation with a magisterial statement. Suffice it to say that your fellow SV apologists don’t agree with you.
.
When Chris Ferrara’s interpreted “the first see is judged by no one” as meaning a pope who falls into heresy can’t be judged, Fr. Cekada wrote:
.
Fr. Cekada: “ANY FIRST-YEAR CANON LAW STUDENT KNOWS THAT IT SAYS NO SUCH THING. The maxim “the First See is judged by no one” is incorporated into the Code of Canon Law as canon 1556. The canon appears in Book IV (Ecclesiastical Trials), Part I (Trials), Section 1 (Trials in General), Title 1 (The Competent Forum), which prescribes which ecclesiastical courts have jurisdiction to try which types of cases. … the maxim itself merely means that there is no ecclesiastical tribunal before which one could summon the pope or to which one could appeal the pope’s final JUDICIAL DECISION. …
.
“One of the canonical sources for the maxim, the Decree of Gratian (ca. 1150) [i.e., Si Papa], reads as follows: ‘Whose sins [the pope’s] no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for he shall judge all and is to be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith [nisi deprehendatur a fide devius].” (Decree, I, dist. 60 (sic), ch. 6.) If anything, one can conclude from this the very opposite of what Mr. Ferrara maintains: DEFECTION FROM THE FAITH IS THE ONE SIN OF A POPE WE ARE PERMITTED TO JUDGE.
.
“Papal Teaching: In two of his coronation sermons, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) — considered one of the greatest canonists of his time — explained how a pope who falls into the sin of heresy is “judged.” ‘Without faith it is impossible to please God.… To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church.”
.
Even your SV apologists admit that “the first see is judged by no one” does NOT mean the Church is forbidden to judge papal heresy.
“There cannot be another, “next True Pope”, my dear friend in Christ Jesus. This is the end of the line.”
Translation: “The gates of hell have prevailed. The devil won and our Lord was proven to be a liar.”
“The scriptural teaching of the mass conversion of the Jews, as interpreted by the universal consent of the Fathers, is therefore also false.”
In Caritas provides a perfect case study in the effects of the SV heresy: loss of faith and despair.
In Caritas: “Salsa and Siscoe are charlatans, as is evident from their 700 page diatribe, “True or False Pope”, specifically to be found on page 19 of their screed. On page 19, they actually as literally subjugate the word which the holy Vatican Council of the 19th century used to conjoin the Holy Roman Pontiff to the Church until the end of time, and that word which the Council used is “SHOULD”. The Modernists Salsa and Siscoe, in true Modernist fashion, then change the meaning of the Pope in union with his Bishops at the Vatican Council, by replacing the word of the Council, which again is “SHOULD”, with the word of the Modernists Siscoe and Salsa own choosing, which is the word, “WILL”.”
.
JPeters. I just read through page 19 in Salza and Siscoe’s book and this argument of “In Caritas” is entirely specious, which is not surprising. I suspect that he/she hasn’t even looked into it, but is simply repeating what he/she read online.
Saying Christ instituted that Peter SHOULD HAVE perpetual successors in the primacy, has always been interpreted as meaning Peter WILL HAVE perpetual successors in the primacy. That is how the Church’s theologians have always interpreted the dogma. All you have to do is flip to page 21 of Salza and Siscoe’s book to see how the Church’s theologians have interpreted the teaching.
.
They provide a citation from The Church of Christ, by Fr. E. Sylvester, which interprets SHOULD HAVE as meaning “the Church MUST EVER HAVE a custodian, a supreme law-giver and judge, if she is to continue as Christ founded her.” Saying the Church “MUST EVER HAVE” a supreme law-giver is the same as saying it “WILL HAVE” a supreme law-giver, which is how Salza and Siscoe interpreted it. They also quote Van Noort who says “it is A FACT beyond question that the Church CAN NEVER FAIL to have a successor to Peter.” “Can never fail to have” is the same as saying “will have”. Here is one more quote they provide from Van Noort:
Van Noort: “Since Christ decreed that Peter SHOULD HAVE a never-ending line of successors in the primacy, there MUST ALWAYS HAVE been a time and there MUST STILL BE someone in the Church who wields the primacy.”
Are you, In Caritas, going to accuse Van Noort and Fr. Berry of being a charlatans for interpreting Vatican I exactly as do Salza and Siscoe? If not explains, why, since both of these theologians uses words or phrases at least as strong as WILL HAVE to explain what Vatican I meant by the word SHOULD HAVE. And, needless to say, both of their books have nihil obstats and imprimaturs.
.
Let this be a lesson to you: next time do you homework before declaring people charlatans and modernists. And don’t forget to confess your mortal sin of public slander before going to communion.
Good Monday afternoon JPeters,
As can only be the case, for someone as yourself who holds the “operation of error” to believe the lie as the Truth, you simply reach into your entrails as the only other place you can go, while at once fully suppressing your intellective power, yielding your passions then to the ordinate position, where Almighty God deemed the human intellect to be, as He created them, man and woman, in His own divine likeness and image, as pure Intellect and Will Himself. As that which is rightly reasoned to then logically follow, are your perfectly absurd comments as, “SV heresy”. You then proffer that to believe the See of Peter to be vacant, is to hold “heresy”. To hold heresy is to either hold a belief contrary to the Faith or to deny a deFide teaching of the Faith. Every time an Holy Roman Pontiff dies, the See is Vacant and as thus according to your disordered ideology, every Catholic who accepts the See to be Vacant, and as thus accepts that the Pontiff has indeed died as an objective reality, is holding an heresy. You hold internal contradiction, as you only can JPeters, as your reception of the “operation of error”, speaks then as it only can, as res ipsa loquitur. Nowhere is there a teaching from Holy Mother Church that there is a “time limit” placed on the See of Peter being objectively vacant.
The church which you hold as being the Catholic Church JPeters has indeed fallen to the gates of hell and that is precisely why it cannot be the Catholic Church. The faux council of so called “Vatican II” is faux precisely because it teaches heresy and as it teaches heresy, the Prince of this world is the author of that council, not Christ Jesus. Our Blessed Lord commanded that Peter’s faith, as the rock upon which Christ chose to build His Church, simply CANNOT fail in Luke 22: 31,32, period and end. As all of the so called “conciliar popes” hold and teach heresy in their so called “second vatican council”, they teach in opposition to the Faith, which is heresy, therefore they CANNOT be Popes of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, period and end, as to suggest otherwise places a direct affront to the command of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ in the Gospel of Saint Luke 22: 31,32. The sophomoric argument that the so called “second vatican council” was a “pastoral council” and as thus did not pronounce anything dogmatic holds no weight whatsoever against the argument that it was purported to be an “Ecumenical Council”, which is the Pope in union with his Bishops, defining AND/OR TEACHING the Faith. This is nothing more than a logical straw-man, the argument that “VCII” was “only pastoral”, as to be pastoral is to “give guidance”, which is to teach. If the “second vatican council” was a true council of Holy Mother Church, it would have been given the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility by the Holy Ghost, to protect the deposit of Faith from any errors in Ecclesial teaching as is given only to the true Holy Roman Pontiff in union with his Bishops, when defining and/or teaching on matters deFide and Morality, period and end. We need only one example, one as one, in the teaching of the entire “VCII”, to cause its entire edifice to fall. Look to “Lumen Gentium”, the so called, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, at point 16 to find pure heresy, and as such it CANNOT be a Council of Christ’s Church.
In closing JPeters, if you are serious about your own eternal salvation, use your intellective power and go to the heart of my response to Tom A, which is 2 Thess 2. Address the three criteria which Saint Paul inerrantly placed into the Holy Writ, under the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost thus, as divine revelation of Holy Mother Church. Enlighten all who may read here, just whom Saint Paul was speaking of in verse 7, as the third person pronoun, “he”, who held then 2,000 years ago the mystery of iniquity and would hold the mystery of iniquity until it was his time, the “man of sin” as the “son of perdition”, from being “revealed”. The singular condition that Saint Paul inerrantly spoke of to finally allow for the mystery of iniquity to bring forth and reveal the person of the Antichrist, as found in verse 7 of 2 Thess 2 was that, “he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way”. Then and only then, as “he” is “taken out of the way”, as Saint Paul proclaimed in verse 8 of 2 Thess 2, can the Antichrist be revealed as the, “wicked one shall be revealed”. I pray this helps. In caritas.
In Caritas: “as yourself who holds the “operation of error” to believe the lie as the Truth.”
.
JPeters: “Nope, it is you who holds the operation of error to believe the lie as the Truth, as we will see below.
.
In Caritas: “your perfectly absurd comments as, “SV heresy”. You then proffer that to believe the See of Peter to be vacant, is to hold “heresy”. To hold heresy is to either hold a belief contrary to the Faith or to deny a deFide teaching of the Faith. Every time an Holy Roman Pontiff dies, the See is Vacant and as thus according to your disordered ideology, every Catholic who accepts the See to be Vacant, and as thus accepts that the Pontiff has indeed died as an objective reality, is holding an heresy.”
.
JPeters: Not surprisingly, you jumped to a false conclusion. I never said it is heresy to hold that the Chair of Peter can be vacant. The reason your sect is heretical is because it denies articles of faith, such as the indefectibility of the Church.
.
In Caritas: You hold internal contradiction … . Nowhere is there a teaching from Holy Mother Church that there is a “time limit” placed on the See of Peter being objectively vacant.
.
JPeters: Never said there was. But there is a teaching that says the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. That’s the teaching that you deny, as we will see now.
.
In Caritas: The church which you hold as being the Catholic Church JPeters has indeed fallen to the gates of hell and that is precisely why it cannot be the Catholic Church.
.
JPeters: But the Church I hold to be the Catholic Church is the same entity – the same visible institution – that existed before the election of John XXIII. The hierarchy and membership of the Church were the same the day before John XXIII was elected as it was the day after he was elected. The visible continuity cannot be denied, since it is one and the same visible Church
.
If the visible Church that existed at the time of Pius XII became a false Church when it elected John XXIII, as you claim, the promise of Christ (“the gates of hell shall not prevail”) would have been broken, since the Divine promise applies to the visible Church, as such. Listen to Cardinal Billot: “The Church of Christ, by the revelation and institution of Christ himself, is essentially visible; and THIS VISIBLE CHURCH IS THE CHURCH TO WHICH HIS PROMISES PERTAIN; PROMISES, NAMELY, THAT SHE WOULD BE PERENNIAL AND INDEFECTIBLE…”
.
When Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail, He meant the visible Church, as such, will never be overcome by heresy, and/or will never become a false Church, which is exactly what you claim occurred. That’s one of the reasons your position is heretical.
.
You also deny the indefectibility of the Church by claiming that the entire Church followed a false pope – John XXIII. On the contrary, the fact that the entire Church recognized John XXIII as Pope proves that he was the true Pope, as Cardinal Billot explains: “the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO LOOK FAR FOR THE PROOF OF THIS, BUT WE FIND IT IMMEDIATELY IN THE PROMISE AND THE INFALLIBLE PROVIDENCE OF CHRIST: ‘THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.”
.
In Caritas: The faux council of so called “Vatican II” is faux precisely because it teaches heresy and as it teaches heresy, the Prince of this world is the author of that council, not Christ Jesus.
.
JPeters: But you and your fellow SV’s also teach heresy by holding a position that is contrary to the Church’s indefectibility, and by claiming that the true Church is a false Church.
.
In Caritas: As all of the so called “conciliar popes” hold and teach heresy in their so called “second vatican council”, they teach in opposition to the Faith, which is heresy, therefore they CANNOT be Popes of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, period and end, as to suggest otherwise places a direct affront to the command of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ in the Gospel of Saint Luke 22: 31,32.
.
JPeters: And I am not aware of any explicit heresies in Vatican II. There are errors and ambiguities, but no direct heresies. Vatican II was a trial that God permitted, and He allowed it without any of His promises being violated.
.
In Caritas: The sophomoric argument that the so called “second vatican council” was a “pastoral council” and as thus did not pronounce anything dogmatic holds no weight whatsoever against the argument that it was purported to be an “Ecumenical Council”, which is the Pope in union with his Bishops, defining AND/OR TEACHING the Faith. This is nothing more than a logical straw-man, the argument that “VCII” was “only pastoral”, as to be pastoral is to “give guidance”, which is to teach. IF THE “SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL” WAS A TRUE COUNCIL OF HOLY MOTHER CHURCH, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CHARISM OF ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY BY THE HOLY GHOST, to protect the deposit of Faith from any errors in Ecclesial teaching as is given only to the true Holy Roman Pontiff in union with his Bishops, when defining and/or teaching on matters deFide and Morality, period and end. We need only one example, one as one, in the teaching of the entire “VCII”, to cause its entire edifice to fall. Look to “Lumen Gentium”, the so called, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, at point 16 to find pure heresy, and as such it CANNOT be a Council of Christ’s Church.
.
JPeters: You don’t know what you are talking about. Infallibility only applies when the Church teaches definitively and that did not happen during Vatican II. Van Noort explains that only the DEFINITIONS of a council are infallible:
.
“The Church’s rulers are infallible not in any and every exercise of their teaching power; BUT ONLY WHEN, USING ALL THE FULLNESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY, THEY CLEARLY INTEND TO BIND EVERYONE TO ABSOLUTE ASSENT OR, AS COMMON PARLANCE PUTS IT, WHEN THEY ‘DEFINE’ SOMETHING in matters pertaining to the Christian religion. That is why all theologians distinguish IN THE DOGMATIC DECREES OF THE COUNCILS or of the popes between those things set forth therein by way of definition and those used simply by way of illustration or argumentation. For the intention of binding all affects only the definition…And if in some particular instances the intention of giving a definitive decision were not made sufficiently clear, then no one would be held by virtue of such definitions, to give the assent of faith: a doubtful law is no law at all.”
.
The errors and ambiguities in Vatican II fall into the category of “doubtful laws,” which neither bind nor are protected by the Church’s infallibility. I would suggest that you study the teaching of the Church and avoid the errors and heresies found on SV websites.
.
If you think LG 16 contains a heresy, quote the document directly, and then quote the defined dogma that it directly contradicts.
.
In Caritas: In closing JPeters, if you are serious about your own eternal salvation, use your intellective power and go to the heart of my response to Tom A, which is 2 Thess 2. Address the three criteria which Saint Paul inerrantly placed into the Holy Writ, under the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost thus, as divine revelation of Holy Mother Church. Enlighten all who may read here, just whom Saint Paul was speaking of in verse 7, as the third person pronoun, “he”, who held then 2,000 years ago the mystery of iniquity and would hold the mystery of iniquity until it was his time, the “man of sin” as the “son of perdition”, from being “revealed”. The singular condition that Saint Paul inerrantly spoke of to finally allow for the mystery of iniquity to bring forth and reveal the person of the Antichrist, as found in verse 7 of 2 Thess 2 was that, “he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way”. Then and only then, as “he” is “taken out of the way”, as Saint Paul proclaimed in verse 8 of 2 Thess 2, can the Antichrist be revealed as the, “wicked one shall be revealed”. I pray this helps. In caritas.”
.
JPeters: Rather than relying on your private interpretation of Scripture, like a Protestant, you should learn and accept the teaching of the Church- specifically the Church’s teaching on indefectibility and infallibility. If you did so, you will realize that your SV position is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church and your understanding of infallibility is false. I pray this helps. JPeters.
Hello, In Caritas
I may be misunderstanding your post, but it seems you are disagreeing with who “he” represents in the Comprehensive Catholic Commentary (Douay – Rheims) by Rev. Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock.
“That is, let each one remain in the faith which he has received of us, and let him not permit himself to be deceived by any discourse, as coming from us. Or rather, let those who shall then be in the world keep their faith, remaining firm in their faith and attachment to the Church of Christ, until antichrist, that man of iniquity, shall be taken away.”
Again, I may be misreading Rev. Haydock’s explanation, but it appears he mean ‘until the antichrist is taken away’.
Looking forward to your response, as always.
God bless,
Dennis
JPeters,
Can you please explain to me why it matters if Vatican II taught something infallibly or not? I don’t recall any person in the entire history of the Church to be in manifest heresy only when they taught something infallibly. I don’t remember Fr. Luther claiming infallibility but yet he was/is a heretic.
–
My point is this: if a new teaching is against a previously defined teaching of the Church, then it does not matter how it was taught or if it was said in one way as opposed to another. The only thing that matters is if it is in error when pertaining to a defined teaching on faith and morals. If it is in error, then it can’t be from the Catholic Church. This is the crux of the matter.
–
I think Louie has provided examples of how Vatican II’s teachings directly contradict previous teachings of the Catholic Church.
–
God bless.
Hi Pigg,
.
Answers below.
.
Pigg: JPeters, Can you please explain to me why it matters if Vatican II taught something infallibly or not? I don’t recall any person in the entire history of the Church to be in manifest heresy only when they taught something infallibly. I don’t remember Fr. Luther claiming infallibility but yet he was/is a heretic.
.
JPeters: I think you are missing the point, but I appreciate the opportunity to respond. The reason for stating that Vatican II did not engage the Church’s infallibly, is to refute the argument of the SV’s who claim that the errors in the document are opposed to Church’s infallibility. This first error is then used as the basis for the second – namely, that since Vatican II did what is supposedly impossible it proves that Paul VI was not the pope. This line of argument is shown to be false by proving that infallibility was never engaged during the council. As you can see, the argument pertains to infallibility, not to whether an individual person is a heretic.
.
Pigg: My point is this: if a new teaching is against a previously defined teaching of the Church, then it does not matter how it was taught or if it was said in one way as opposed to another. The only thing that matters is if it is in error when pertaining to a defined teaching on faith and morals. IF IT IS IN ERROR, THEN IT CAN’T BE FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.
.
And that is the crux of your error. What you are essentially arguing is that the Church is infallible when it meets the conditions for infallibility, and it is also infallible when it DOES NOT meet the conditions for infallibility.
.
A closer examination reveals that your error is rooted in a misunderstanding of the *conditions* for infallibility. After making a distinction between an undefined doctrine and a defined one, you limit the condition to the DOCTRINE that is being taught, irrespective of the manner in which it is TAUGHT. That is your mistaken. To flesh it out, let’s compare your *condition* for infallibility to the conditions set down by the Church.
.
Infallibility is the immunity from the possibility of error. The Church teaches that four conditions must be present for infallibility to be engaged and the possibility of error to be avoided. One condition pertains to the DOCTRINE itself, and three pertain to the manner in which the doctrine is TAUGHT. Here are the conditions: 1) The Pope must intend to teach definitively, 2) using his supreme authority, 3) a doctrine of faith or morals, 3) to be accepted by the universal Church. The conditions apply when a Pope teaches alone or at a council with the other bishops.
.
Your condition for infallibility is limited to the DOCTRINE alone. You say that it is impossible (infallibly so) for the Pope to teach a doctrine contrary to what has already been defined, even if he DOES NOT intend to bind the Church definitively to the teaching. That may be how you understanding infallibility, but it is not how the Church understands it. The Church has four conditions, and your condition is not one of them.
.
When we are told that the Church cannot teach error, we must understand it as the Church herself understands it. The Church cannot err in her definitive teachings. If a teaching is not definitive, error is possible.
.
The possibility of error is confirmed by the level of assent that Catholics are required to give to various teaching of the Church. We only give the unconditional “assent of faith” to teachings that have been infallibly taught. Those that have not been taught infallibly are only owed a “religious assent,” which is NOT unconditional. The reason religious assent is a conditional level of assent is precisely because the doctrine itself is not infallibly true, and may require a revision in the future.
.
Pigg: I think Louie has provided examples of how Vatican II’s teachings directly contradict previous teachings of the Catholic Church.
.
JPeters: I am happy to take a close look at any teaching from Vatican II and will give my honest assessment. But one thing is certain: UNLIKE MOST TRADS, I do not accept something as true simply because I hear it repeated ad nauseam in trad circles. If you think Vatican II contains explicit heresies, as opposed to errors, ambiguities and bad theology, quote it and let’s take a look.
Good Wednesday morning pigg0214,
Your sensus fidelium speaks as the Church speaks. The errors of JPeters are evidence that he does not hold the Faith, rather he holds the “operation of error”, as spoken of inerrantly by Saint Paul in 2 Thess 2; the same error that would be the cause of “a revolt” from God, as the Great Apostasy, which we now find ourselves in the midst of. JPeters’ religion is a gnostic religion but not the Religion given us by the Son of God and it maybe that he doesn’t even know it. The philosophical query which you pose is valid as your conclusion is true. When a true Pope teaches in union with his Bishops on anything which TOUCHES Faith or Morality, the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility is given by the Holy Ghost Himself, to protect Holy Mother Church from any error in Her teaching the sheep.
Follow the diabolically disoriented logic of JPeters to its conclusion. According to his gnosis, a true Holy Roman Pontiff could meet in union with his true Bishops today, define a dogma, and according to JPeters gnostic formula, THEY would CAUSE the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility to be invoked, which is in perfect contradistinction to the reality as Truth, that the Holy Ghost offers this charism in accordance with His Holy and perfect Will, not in accordance with that of His perfectly miserable creatures, as Pope and Bishops. If that reality as Truth was not the case, then the true Holy Roman Pontiff, in union with his true Bishops, could simply error in deciding when this gnostic charism of infallibility that JPeters speaks of, should be invoked, and as thus they would potentially teach error because they didn’t know when to invoke the charism. This is evidence of the “religion of man”, not the Religion of God.
Also, by the divine command of the Son of God made Man, in Luke 22: 31,32, Peter simply CANNOT ever loose the Faith, period and end. For a true Pope to ever teach anything which in anyway contradicts the deposit of Faith, that is to teach anything in opposition to the deposit of Faith, would mean precisely that he had lost the Faith, as he would then be teaching heresy, which is in opposition to the Faith. To suggest otherwise, is to place an affront to God’s own command, which He gave inerrantly in the Holy Writ and thus it is doctrine. From the Douay-Rheims copy:
“And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
For JPeters to suggest that a true Pope can gather in union with his true Bishops and teach anything that is contrary to that which has already been established as Truth in dogma of the Holy Catholic Church is simply a lie. These “errors” that he speaks of in the false council of vatican II, the council from the mind of Lucifer and not God, are heresies, as an error in Truth is opposed to the Truth, as there is only the One Truth and then there is the lie as error, which is heresy, as properly understood. Let us draw JPeters gnostic religion to its logical conclusion again. According to him and his cadre of “R and R” gnostic charlatans, as the Modernists which they are and they may not even know it, a true Pope in union with his true Bishops could gather in union today, define a dogma, and then next week they could teach contrary to that same dogma and that would be “okay” in the religion of JPeters, because they weren’t “formally teaching or defining” that next week, because they didn’t invoke their own gnostic formula of infallibility. The whole ideological scheme of the “R and R” Modernists club is based in the pride of man and the cowardice of man, to manufacture their own gnostic religion, which is what Modernism is, to satisfy their desires and not to glorify Almighty God as He alone commands His glory to be, in His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Notice that “In Caritas” does not cite a single authority to support her (has to be a female) non-Catholic view of infallibility. It is no surprise that someone as ignorance of basic Catholic doctrine as her would so easily be led out of the Church and into a non-Catholic sect.
.
Let us listen to Fr. E. Sylvester Berry explain the four *conditions* required from conciliar infallibility.
.
Fr. Berry: “Certain CONDITIONS are necessary for the exercise of infallible teaching authority by the bishops assembled in council, namely: 1) the council must be summoned by the Roman Pontiff, or at least with his consent and approval… 2) The council must be truly ecumenical by celebration, i.e., the whole body of bishops must be represented. … 3) BISHOPS ASSEMBLED IN A COUNCIL ARE INFALLIBLE ONLY WHEN EXERCISING SUPREME AUTHORITY AS TEACHERS OF FAITH OR MORALS BY A DEFINITE AND IRREVOCABLE DECREE THAT A DOCTRINE IS REVEALED, and, therefore, to be accepted by every member of the Church. But since the bishops need not intend such an irrevocable decision at all times, IT IS NECESSARY THAT AN INFALLIBLE DEFINITION BE SO WORDED AS TO INDICATE CLEARLY ITS DEFINITIVE CHARACTER.”
.
Notice how Fr. Berry’s explanation is identical to that of Van Noort, cited earlier, as well as my explanatin. A council is only infallible when it teaches by a BY A DEFINITE AND IRREVOCABLE DECREE, and the definitive character must be clearly indicated. And also notice how Fr. Berry’s Catholic view of conciliar infallibility differs from the false SV notion of infallibility that In Caritas has embraced.
.
Truly, In Caritas belongs to an entirely different religion – one that teaches an entirely different doctrine of infallibility. She has no idea that infallibility is engaged only when the required conditions are met, which never happened during Vatican II
.
Hopefully one day she will be given the grace to enter the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, but it seems highly unlikely at this time.
JPeters,
I believe you are missing the point. Forget about infallibility and whether Vatican II invoked it or not. The point is that a “council of the Church” taught things contrary to defined articles of faith. Again, heresy does not require one to be speaking infallibly so it does not matter if Vatican II was infallible or not. You are well aware of the teachings of Vatican II and how they conflict, so don’t play stupid. Hell, the SSPX do exist for a reason, don’t they? The errors of Vatican II are heretical by their nature regardless of it teaching infallibly. In fact, I would agree it did not teach infallibly but that is beside the point.
God bless.
Pigg,
.
Answers below
.
Pigg: JPeters, I believe you are missing the point. Forget about infallibility and whether Vatican II invoked it or not.
.
JPeters: Okay, we will set that issue aside, but the reason it was important to demonstrate that Vatican II did not invoke infallibility was to refute the errors of those ignorant ones, such as In Caritas, who mistakenly believe the errors of the council violated the Church’s infallibility and therefore PROVE that Paul VI could not have been a true Pope. This is a very common error amongst the SV heretics. It is rooted in the false SV doctrine of infallibility, which has nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.
.
Pigg: The point is that a “council of the Church” taught things contrary to defined articles of faith. Again, heresy does not require one to be speaking infallibly so it does not matter if Vatican II was infallible or not. You are well aware of the teachings of Vatican II and how they conflict, so don’t play stupid.
.
JPeters: Are you just parroting what you have been told – that Vatican II contains heresies – or have you actually looked into it yourself? I am personally not aware of any teaching of Vatican II that directly contradicts a defined dogma. If you are, all you have to do is quote the defined dogma and then quote the teaching of Vatican II that contradicts it. Maybe you can do so, maybe not. All I am saying is that I am not aware of any true heresies in the documents, and only a fool would concede the point without being provided with proof.
.
And you should know that if you have to explain what a teaching of Vatican II means (or what you think it means) in order to show that there is a contradiction between it and a defined dogma, the error in question will not qualify heresy. The contradiction between the defined dogma and the error has to be clear and direct. If it requires additional steps of reasoning to demonstrate that there is a contradiction between the two, the error is only qualified as “erroneous in theology,” not heresy. I believe that is the case with most, if not all the errors of Vatican II, but maybe I’m wrong. Bring forth your best Vatican II “heresy” and I’ll comment on it.
JPeters,
I prefer to let this debate end here. There are volumes of material written on the errors of VII and I am not going to regurgitate them here. You and most others reading these comments are well aware of them. I enjoy reading your comments. They are very thought provoking and challenging. I am sure we will converse again.
God bless.
Pigg: “JPeters, I prefer to let this debate end here. There are volumes of material written on the errors of VII and I am not going to regurgitate them here. You and most others reading these comments are well aware of them. I enjoy reading your comments. They are very thought provoking and challenging. I am sure we will converse again. God bless.”
JPeters: Thanks Pigg, I have also enjoyed our discussions.
.
I just want to add that I was entirely sincere when I said I am unaware of any heresies in Vatican II. There are errors, ambiguities, and misleading statement that give the impression of saying what they don’t actually say, but I am not aware of any direct heresies.
.
I would also caution you not to believe something just because you hear in in Trad circles. Many Trads are unbalanced individuals who know just enough to be dangerous. If you don’t believe me, just read In Caritas’ posts. 🙂
Pigg, I would also avoid people who revert to ad hominem attacks.
Good Thursday morning JPeters,
Your gnostic sophistry simply betrays you again, while in the cacophony of your language, all those with eyes which see and ears which hear, see you as the emperor who simply stands before us, naked of the Truth. In your utter absence of charity and with a diabolical hubris, you now claim to deem my sexuality, and of course you are wrong, just as your sophistry allows for all those who truly hold the One, True, Faith, to understand you for who you are, as you freely will to be, as do we all freely will who we are in act. There is no love which can be found in your ad hominem attack, as the attack of the character of the person is a specific evil, as the privation of the due good of the other in our midst, which does not evidence your willing them to achieve the Beatific Vision, as much as we yearn for the Beatific Vision to be our very own eternal destiny, our final end. That same end which Almighty God as our Creator uncreated, the First Cause uncaused, the Prime Mover unmoved, and as Love Himself as Deus Caritas Est, Wills for each of His miserable human creatures, with me as the first. For as Almighty God, as He hung from His Holy Cross commanded, love thy neighbor as I have loved you, while dying there in utter agony, hanging from the Wood. This is the infinite as perfect example which He established for us, that which rests in perfect as infinite contradistinction to the ad hominem attack of the other in our midst.
Be forewarned then JPeters, yours’ is an animus that speaks of the diabolical and not as Christ Jesus, Who is Truth Himself. You do not as you cannot hold the Faith, that gift from Truth Himself, which speaks lovingly and gently, yet ever firmly in Truth and Charity. Christ our Lord and our God as King, told us in the Gospel of Saint John, chapter 14, how it would be in this time. He let us know that the “ruler of this world is coming” but he has no power over Me. Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives, do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. As you defer to your purported “experts” as theologians JPeters, they are mere miserable mortal creatures, as am I and as are you. In your intellective blindness, you intone that these are the men that will assist in our salvation, as though they will yield it for us. The purpose of the Catholic theologian is to offer mere opinion to the true Holy Roman Pontiff and his true Bishops, as his opinion remains as fallible as yours’ and mine, and indeed as even the Holy Roman Pontiff’s, when he acts in his capacity as theologian, as did the holy Pope John XXII, when he erred. The great chasm which separates his error from that of all the “conciliar popes”, who are the minions of Lucifer and not the Servants of God as true Pope, is that he did not place an affront to the Truth, the deposit of Faith, as they all have and do, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur for those with ears which hear, that they cannot be the true Vicars of Christ Jesus in this darkened world. This is the mere fact which you remain utterly blinded to as you pervert the teaching of the Church and suggest that it is Her which teaches this perversion. As Christ Jesus our Lord and our God commanded in Luke 22: 31,32, Peter as Pope can NEVER lose the Faith, period and end. What that means JPeters, as to be as pristinely clear as is possible for me to be, Peter as Pope can NEVER teach anywhere or at any time ANYTHING which opposes the Deposit of Faith, period and end, as if he did, he would evidence his own personal loss of the Faith, as heresy which is in opposition to Truth as Faith. He cannot do this in a sermon, a private letter, a public speech as dignitary, etc., etc., as this charism of never loosing the Faith was commanded as to his very person, from the Son of God made Man. Why is it, do you think, that Jesus the Christ commanded that His sheep hear His voice and He knows them, and they follow Him? For those with eyes which do see and ears which do hear, it means precisely what Christ deemed it to mean. His sheep know His voice and He commanded that His Vicar CANNOT lose his personal faith, and thus we are assured then by divine command, that when His true Vicar speaks, it simply CANNOT evidence opposition to the Deposit of Faith, anywhere or at anytime, as Christ Jesus placed no limits on this, His charism for His true Vicar.
Know in reality as Truth, in contradistinction to reality as deception, that the ad hominem attack also speaks to the perfect inability of the one who hurls it, to reach into their intellective power and find “right reason”, that which only comes from our participation in the Mind of God Himself, as the Angelic Doctor taught in his Summa Theologiae. That language which finds its wellspring in the entrails of the miserable human creature does not, as it cannot, find its wellspring in the Mind of God, rather indeed it is from the mind of the Prince of this world, who is hatred as manifest evil incarnate.
As you JPeters, display your pride again for all those with eyes which do see and ears which do hear, in this time of the Great Apostasy, there is to be found in your very own language construction, and as properly understood therefore, from your own immanence, while at once you spew the ad hominem, never addressing the essence of the argument which is proffered by the other in truth, an hubris which indeed does reflect the spirit of the diabolical himself.
I pray this helps JPeters, as I will for you, as I will for myself, the Beatific Vision into all eternity. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
In Caritas,
.
Answers below.
.
In Caritas: “you now claim to deem my sexuality, and of course you are wrong”.
.
JPeters: You’re not a female? You sure sound like one.
.
In Caritas: There is no love which can be found in your ad hominem attack.
.
JPeters: This from the person who said “yours’ is an animus that speaks of the diabolical … you remain utterly blinded to as you pervert the teaching of the Church and suggest … As you JPeters, display your pride again for all those with eyes which do see and ears which do hear.”
.
What do your ad hominem attacks tell us about you, and from whence do they originate? You provided the answer: “Know in reality as Truth, in contradistinction to reality as deception, that THE AD HOMINEM ATTACK ALSO SPEAKS TO THE PERFECT INABILITY OF THE ONE WHO HURLS IT, TO REACH INTO THEIR INTELLECTIVE POWER AND FIND “RIGHT REASON” … That language which finds its wellspring in the entrails of the miserable human [comes] from the mind of the Prince of this world, who is hatred as manifest evil incarnate.”
.
By condemning ad hominem attacks in the same post in which you unleashed a tirade of them, you condemned yourself, “”for by thy own words thou shalt be justified, and by thy own words thou shalt be condemned” (Mt. 12:37).
.
You even attacked the theologians I cited who contradict your false understanding of conciliar infallibility. Here is your ad hominem attack against them: “As you defer to your purported ‘experts’ as theologians JPeters, they ARE MERE MISERABLE MORTAL CREATURES …”. How do you know they weren’t holy men, or even saints? What is certain is that they were trained theologians who, unlike you, knew what they were talking about. What is also certain is that their books were approved by the Church before Vatican II, and were used in seminaries to train priests. Their teaching concerning infallibility is simply an explanation of the Church’s teaching. You would know this if you studied approved pre-Vatican II sources, rather than learning the “faith” from SV websites. What you don’t seem to realize, but which is becoming more clear, is that SV is a different religion with a different set of doctrines. You are professing SV doctrines, backed up by nothing, while I am professing Catholic doctrines, backed up by authoritative citations. We will never agree as long as you continue to hold the SV religion, with its false doctrines, and I continue to hold the Catholic religion, with its true doctrines.
.
Regarding your claim that “the unfailing faith of Peter” means the Pope can’t lose the faith, that may be a SV doctrine, but the Catholic Church has NEVER interpreted it to mean that, nor has any Catholic theologian that I am aware of ever interpreted that way. (Some have held that a Pope can’t lose the faith, but I don’t know of any who based in on an interpretation of that passage).
.
You will never extirpate yourself from heresy unless you first abandon the erroneous SV doctrines you have embraced. Only then will it be possible for you to accept the Catholic Faith and enter the Church. I pray that God gives you this extraordinary grace and that you have the humility to cooperate with it.
Jpeters, you ask us sedes to come back to the Catholic Church, but you never tell is which one. The one before V2 or the one after V2? See you never answer the issues. You only attack those who ask the question. Which Church and magesterium do you wish InCaritas and myself to assent to? That is the contradiction that no one can ever answer. Simply claiming the Church is the same in essence pre and prior V2 is not a valid answer. Objectively it is clear that we now have a new and different teaching. So please tell us which Church you want us to return to. And don’t just say the “Catholic Church.” Because if you do and cannot make a distinction between the Church pre and prior to V2, then you will objectively and externally demonstrate once again that you exist with a contradiction that cannot be settled. Now if you can make the distinction and tell us that you want us to join the Novus Ordo Church, then you will have to convince me why. For the last 50 years the Novus Ordo Church has taught that it doesnt matter what religion one holds, be good and recycle and you will be saved. If that’s the case then I’ll await my salvation where I am. Finally, if you ask us to join the Church as it was prior to the disasters of V2, well, I am already there. I await your answer. Which Church do you want me to come back to, Jpeters?
Hi Tom
.
Answers below.
.
TomA: Jpeters, you ask us sedes to come back to the Catholic Church, but you never tell is which one. The one before V2 or the one after V2? See you never answer the issues.
.
JPeters: If you want an answer, all you have to do is ask. The Catholic Church before Vatican II is the same Catholic Church that has exists after Vatican II, just as the Church before the Arian crisis was the same Church that suffered during the crisis. The true Church cannot defect.
.
What is the Church? The Church is a divinely established, visible society of men with a governing authority. It is not possible for that visible society to transform into a false Church without the gates of hell prevailing. The SV doctrine, therefore, which claims that the visible society, along with its hierarchy, defected and became a false Church is a heresy.
.
TomA: You only attack those who ask the question.
.
JPeters: I never attack people for asking questions.
.
TomA: Which Church and magesterium do you wish InCaritas and myself to assent to? That is the contradiction that no one can ever answer.
.
JPeters: I want you to join the Catholic Church that was established by Christ, since in that Church alone will you find salvation.
.
TomA: Simply claiming the Church is the same in essence pre and prior [post] V2 is not a valid answer.
.
JPeters: That the Catholic Church today, headed by Pope Francis, is the true Church can be proven in a positive way and in a negative way. The positive way is by showing that it is the only Church that possesses all four marks (the SV sects have none). The negative way is by explaining what the Church is, and what is meant by the promise of indefectibility.
.
TomA: “Objectively it is clear that we now have a new and different teaching.”
.
JPeters: No dogma has been changed. They’re all still on the books and they are adhered to by many within the Church, such as myself and everyone I associate with. There is certainly confusion, as there was during the Arian crisis, but this is to be expected from time to time, since the Church is run by sinful men. If you read the history of the Church, you will find periods in which the Church appeared to be lost, but it always recovered and came out stronger than ever.
.
TomA: For the last 50 years the Novus Ordo Church has taught that it doesn’t matter what religion one holds, be good and recycle and you will be saved. If that’s the case then I’ll await my salvation where I am.
.
JPeters: Are you really going to base your salvation on what the Modernists teach, when you know it is wrong?
.
It is true that churchmen have taught (or implied) such things, but that doesn’t make it a teaching of the Church. If a belief and teaching of a majority of the members of the hierarchy constituted a “teaching of the Church,” it would mean “the Church taught” that Christ was not God during the Arian crisis, and “the Church taught” that episcopal ordinal is only valid when it was licit, which is what was held by almost all (including the pope) in the 10th century, but which no one believes today. Just because something is held and taught by a majority of the members of the hierarchy at a certain time, does not make it an official teaching of the Church.
.
TomA: Finally, if you ask us to join the Church as it was prior to the disasters of V2, well, I am already there.
.
JPeters: No you’re not. The Church prior to Vatican II had a pope, a College of Cardinals, and bishops in union with the Pope in ever Catholic diocese throughout the world. You sect has no pope, no College of Cardinals, and no bishops in union with the Pope. You belong to a sect without a legitimate hierarchy and without divine authority, and authority and a legitimate hierarchy are one of the characteristics that the true Church will always possess.
.
We are living through a trial that God has permitted to sift the wheat from the chaff. If we become so disgusted with the trial that we leave the Church for a “happy” Protestant sect, or for a more dignified and serious Eastern Orthodox sect, or for one of the SV sects, we failed the test.
Good Thursday afternoon JPeters,
As there is simply nothing new under the sun, it holds true that given enough rope, the gnostic will hang himself as Judas Iscariot, with his very own sophistry. Your intellective power is so utterly darkened that you do not even know what the ad hominem attack, OF THE HUMAN PERSON, indeed is. In reality as Truth, resting in the perfect as infinite diametrical position, from your reality as deception, which is the wellspring of your perverse dialectic, the eminent Catholic theologian and/or true Saint of Holy Mother Church, would be the first perfectly miserable human creature to edify the reality as Truth, that he is–with the Angelic Doctor–the General Doctor of the true Church as the first–a perfectly miserable creature this side the veil. The Saint knows this with divine certitude, as he knows that all things truly good come from Almighty God alone, with the holy Saint as God’s instrument for His good, giving the only thing that he, the infinitely lesser creature, from his immanence has to give, and that in the reflection of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, his fiat, period and end. Nothing more and nothing less than his fiat. And so unlike that which speaks from you as res ipsa loquitur JPeters, mine is not an attack of the person, rather addressing the person’s objective argument. As has already been written, your animus as your vitriolic and jingoistic attack of the other, who happens to disagree with your utterly chaotic arguments, as proffered by you to be true, itself speaks volumes of the person that you freely choose to be in your act, as properly understood metaphysically. This reality as Truth I yield, as the perfectly miserable creature that I am, from the Mouth of the Divine Himself, Jesus the Christ, when He commanded in the holy Gospel of Matthew 7: 14-23 (the Douay-Rheims copy)
“How narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! 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.” Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.”
You had the opportunity to correct your hubristic ad hominem attack on the “feminine”, which Almighty God created in His divine likeness and image as He did the masculine. Rather than submit to that reality as Truth, you had this to say in your response to me, “JPeters: You’re not a female? You sure sound like one.” And so what is your point about the feminine JPeters? Do you despise the feminine as you despise anyone who attempts to correct your gnostic rearrangement of the One True Faith? Your “fruits” are self-evident. Wake up man, before you draw your last breath and die outside the One True Church of Jesus Christ.
As Tom A pristinely clarifies for you in his comment below JPeters, you never actually posit any sense of the One True Faith, as the sensus fidelis, in anything you say. Your arguments are tangential at best, in an attempt to distract and divert from the reality as Truth. They are riddled with conjecture and false supposition, always with the barrel of your gun aimed at the person of Peter and his infallibility in defining with his Bishops. You never address the reality as Truth that if Peter defined infallibly today and placed an affront to that dogma tomorrow, as long as he did not apply this gnostic formula of infallibility of which you speak, as you misinterpret what the Church teaches of the charism, that would somehow be “okay”, and then the Gnostics as yourself are then left to pick and choose, as you rearrange the Church of Jesus Christ into your own likeness and image. Again JPeters, do you really believe that the OPINIONS of theologians are the Catholic Faith, because that is the frame of reference for your arguments? Not divine revelation as doctrine and not authentic Magisterial teaching.
Lastly JPeters, you wrote this:
“Regarding your claim that “the unfailing faith of Peter” means the Pope can’t lose the faith, that may be a SV doctrine, but the Catholic Church has NEVER interpreted it to mean that, nor has any Catholic theologian that I am aware of ever interpreted that way. (Some have held that a Pope can’t lose the faith, but I don’t know of any who based in on an interpretation of that passage).”
Again, in your characteristic gnostic sophistry, you literally as actually profane the command of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, in the holy Gospel of Luke 22: 31,32. From the Douay-Rheims copy: “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
Firstly, I do not know what an “SV” website is. Please list a few so that I can take a gander. Another example of your hubristic persona JPeters. In reality as Truth, you didn’t even know my sexuality as you somehow deemed it to be from your immanence, as objectively it was wrongly reasoned, and now you also claim to know purported websites that I frequent in accordance with your perverse perception of reality in deception. Those are your fruits JPeters. Ad hominem attacks are ALWAYS unfounded in reality as Truth, as to attack the other is not of God, Who is the Author of Reality as Truth. Rather they find their wellspring in the mind of Satan. Finally then JPeters, as the Son of God commanded, “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:”, just what is it that you purport the Son of God made Man to be commanding when He clearly as pristinely said, “…that thy faith fail not:”? You already answered this rhetorical query when you said this: “Regarding your claim that the unfailing faith of Peter” means the Pope can’t lose the faith.” Once again, in your now so characteristic sophistry, you are actually as literally claiming that when Jesus the Christ commands, “…that thy faith fail not” His command as God Himself, means that it will somehow fail. And again in your jingoistic style, you claim that it is my claim that Peter’s faith fail not, when it is not a perfectly miserable human claim at all, rather it is a command by the Son of God. You do not hold the Faith JPeters, rather a gnostic perversion as the “religion of man”. Know this JPeters, it matters not one iota of one iota whether perfectly miserable me or you somehow, “never agree”. The “agreement” of two holding the “operation of error” will take them both to hell everyday and all day until the end of time. What is perfectly clear is that one position holds the lie as Truth and the other holds the Truth, as the positions are diametrically opposed, one based in reality as deception and the other in reality as Truth, as there is One Reality in Truth. May Almighty God have mercy on you and on me. In caritas.
Sedes are not a sect because as you correctly pointed out, we have no Pope, no College of Cardinals, and no Bishops with authority. But we hold and profess the Catholic faith taught by the Church for centuries. You have your Pope (which you resist and oppose and correct and ignore), and all the trappings and offices of a Church, but you have it at a great cost. You had to sell out the faith to keep those structures. You also never clearly answered which Church (which by the way is another modernist tactic). And finally here’s a sample of the contradiction you have to hold to keep your pope:
JPeters: It is true that churchmen have taught (or implied) such things, but that doesn’t make it a teaching of the Church.
Well Jpeters, that sums up why we will never convince each other. In that statement, I see protestantism. I see the whole contradiction of the NO sect and the RR crowd. If I have to second guess what the Church teaches me, then there is no need of a Pope or a Church. Its every man for themselves. We become our own magesteriums. We no longer need a teaching magesterium because we have to sift whatever they tell us anyway. If it isnt a teaching of the Church then why are they teaching it and why isnt the one who had the Authority of Christ not putting a stop to the false teaching?
In Caritas: Finally then JPeters, as the Son of God commanded, “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:”, just what is it that you purport the Son of God made Man to be commanding when He clearly as pristinely said, “…that thy faith fail not:”? You already answered this rhetorical query when you said this: “Regarding your claim that the unfailing faith of Peter” means the Pope can’t lose the faith.” Once again, in your now so characteristic sophistry, YOU ARE ACTUALLY AS LITERALLY CLAIMING THAT WHEN JESUS THE CHRIST COMMANDS, “…THAT THY FAITH FAIL NOT” HIS COMMAND AS GOD HIMSELF, MEANS THAT IT WILL SOMEHOW FAIL. And again in your jingoistic style, you claim that it is my claim that Peter’s faith fail not, when it is not a perfectly miserable human claim at all, rather it is a command by the Son of God. You do not hold the Faith JPeters, rather a gnostic perversion as the “religion of man”.
.
JPeters: You could spare yourself some embarrassment by paying closer attention to what you read before commenting. Allow me to clear up your confusion by explaining why the “unfailing faith of Peter” does not mean a Pope CANNOT lose his personal faith.
.
Your error is rooted in a failure to distinguishing between the person of Peter and that of his successors. Telling Peter that his personal faith will not fail DOES NOT MEAN the personal faith one of his successors (a Pope) cannot fail. How, then, does this promise of Christ apply to one of Peter’s successors?
.
The “unfailing faith of Peter” MEANS a Pope cannot fail in the faith when he is exercising Peter’s office by defining a doctrine. In other words, it means the ex-cathedra pronouncements of a Pope are protected by infallibility and therefore guaranteed to be free from error. That’s how “the unfailing faith of Peter” applies to a Pope. It has nothing to do with his personal faith.
.
But don’t take my word for it. Here is John of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s explanation of “the unfailing faith of Peter,” as it applies to a pope.
.
John of St. Thomas: “The authority of the papacy is not founded upon the personal faith of any individual (…). The fact that THE POPE cannot fail in this faith MEANS that, EVEN IF HE WERE PERSONALLY A HERETIC, YET INSOFAR AS HE TEACHES EX CATHEDRA HE CANNOT TEACH ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE FAITH.”
.
The promise of unfailing faith of Peter has nothing to do with a Pope’s personal faith. It only means a Pope cannot err when he defines a doctrine.
.
Next let us hear the explanation of St. Alphonsus. After discussing the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy as a private person, and losing the faith, the Doctor of the Church wrote:
.
St. Alphonsus: “We said: if the Pope fall into heresy as a private person, because the Pope AS POPE, that is to say, teaching the whole Church ex-cathedra cannot teach an error against Faith, BECAUSE CHRIST’S PROMISE CANNOT FAIL.”
.
Once again we see that Christ’s promise of “unfailing faith” means a pope cannot error when he “teaches the whole Church ex-cathedra. It does not mean a Pope cannot lose the faith personally.
As usual, you quote theologians and never actual Popes when diacussing the Papacy. So lets see what Pius IX had to say on this subject in Nostis Et Nobiscum, 1849:
16. All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.
Now tell me with a straight face that anyone can ever apply this to Bergolio.
JPeters, you and others have perverted the authoritative papal teachings on the Papacy by utilizing various quotes from theologians past to construct a false picture of a Pope who only teaches truth in very very limited circumstances (ie ex cathedra). You have given men the false notion that they are free to decide for themselves which papal teachings they will adhere to and which ones they will reject. Even Luther realized that it was madness to allow the laity this freedom and after a brief period of unrestraint, he with the aid of the temporal powers, returned to a strict demand of theological assent.
Dearest Tom A,
And so JPeters parlays this claim as he opined to you above:
“JPeters: No dogma has been changed. They’re all still on the books and they are adhered to by many within the Church, such as myself and everyone I associate with. There is certainly confusion, as there was during the Arian crisis, but this is to be expected from time to time, since the Church is run by sinful men. If you read the history of the Church, you will find periods in which the Church appeared to be lost, but it always recovered and came out stronger than ever.”
At JPeters behest, please now examine the heresy as heresy which the Luciferian council of so called vatican II taught, as to be pastoral is to give guidance, which is to teach. As any human person who holds the One True Faith within his deepest interiority understands with divine certitude, through that same divine light of Faith, that gift both freely given by the Holy Ghost and completely undeserved by the miserable human creature, as in Matthew 16:18, when the Church defines OR TEACHES on Dogma and Morality it carries the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, as given not by the formulae of men which is gnostic from its essence, but by the divine Act of the Holy Ghost, protecting Christ’s Mystical Body, His spotless Bride the Church, from any iota of any iota of error. JPeters is perfectly blinded to the reality as Truth that if the true Pope with his true Bishops TAUGHT at any time in union, ANY IOTA OF ANYTHING, which places an affront to that which has been previously defined and rests then in the authentic Magisterium, they simply cannot be the prelates of the One, True Church, because if they were, then the gates of hell indeed prevailed against Christ’s Church, which we know is perfectly as infinitely impossible, because Almighty God gives that Reality as Truth its being in Matthew 16:18. Further, as already demonstrated in his hubris, as he is in the reception of the “operation of error” in lieu of Truth, he is perfectly blinded to the command of Jesus the Christ in Luke 22: 31,32, as he literally as actually intones that what Christ meant in His command that he gave unto the very person of Peter that, “thy faith fail not”, somehow means that his faith can fail, which is the signature of the Modernist quo Modernist in his diabolically disoriented attempt to literally change being as being.
This is the dialectic of Hegel from hell, whereby the Modernist deems that “being” somehow begets “non-being”, which then begets “becoming”, which is the “synthesis” of Hegel’s dialectic, as properly understood ontologically. This literally as actually suggests that man has within his power the creative Act of Almighty God, Who alone holds within His Being as Pure Intellect and Will, the pre-determinates of created being as Primal Matter and Substantial Form. Primal Matter and Substantial Form are the “first principles” through which the human creature can “see” God in His exclusive Creative Act, ex nihilo. Primal Matter and Substantial Form are not in themselves extant, as they have no being, rather they exist within the Intellect and Will of God. All heresy finds its very wellspring in this very understanding of “first principles”, which again are not in themselves extant and as thus untouchable by God’s perfectly miserable human creature. What JPeters remains blinded to in his reality as deception, is that when he claims that the true Pontiff in union with his true Bishops can somehow create this charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, deeming it to occur from their creaturely immanence and when they will it, by virtue of a linguistic formula, is to suggest that the creature contains within himself those “first principles” of ontology, which is itself an ontological absurdity. It can only be that the Holy Ghost Wills the charism ex nihilo when it is to occur in accordance with His most Holy, Perfect, and infinite Will, period and end. What the creature then does, in the persons of the true Pontiff in union with his true Bishops, is to make the Will of the Holy Ghost extant in His charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, by offering the language of dogmatic formulation.
Any Catholic who holds the One True Faith knows that if there is found to be any iota of heresy within that which is masquerading as a Council of Holy Mother Church, whereby a purported Pontiff is defining and/or TEACHING (read as “pastoral council”) in union with his purported Bishops, that it simply CANNOT be, with divine certitude, a Council of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. As if that could occur within a true Council of the Catholic Church, then Her indefectibility has been breached and that is ontologically impossible by the divine command of Christ Jesus. The so called “Second Vatican Council” teaches heresy as heresy in Lumen Gentium, the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”. It does this at point 16, which reads:
“Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways. There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9:4-5): in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom. 11:29-29) (sic). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day…”
Now to unpack the heresy. “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator…the Moslems:..” The Catholic Church teaches now and unto the end of time as indefectibly that the singular, as only, as one, “plan of salvation”, includes the Catholic Church as the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation, as “extra ecclesia nulla salus”, deFide. Let’s distill it down now to its fundamental subject and object. The subject is the “plan of salvation” whose object is “the Moslems”. This so called “Second Vatican Council” then teaches, as it is “pastoral”, in its “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”–“Lumen Gentium”, that the object of Christ’s plan of salvation through His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, IS THE MOSLEMS. This satanic statement is unutterably stunning as it is breathtaking. It only gets worse in the second half. This second vatican council of Lucifer then commands: “…,and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day…”. This demonstrates the hubris of Lucifer himself: “…,and together with us…”, with “us” as those who “hold the Catholic Faith”. This council from hell develops conjecture abridged with the logical fallacy of the non-sequitur, the likes of which causes the cosmos to shudder, in the fear of the Righteous Wrath of Almighty God. “…,and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,…”. The summa and summit of heresy is to be found in this last piece. “…together with us”, means together with those who hold the One, True, Catholic Faith. It also means together with the Catholic Church thus. Together with the Catholic Church, the Moslems, “adore the one, merciful God,…”. Just who is the god which the Moslems adore? Their god is a singular deity devoid of divine Persons. How is it then that the Catholic Church adores the “…one, merciful God…”, together with the Moslems, who objectively adore a singular god, devoid of divine and Triune Personhood? They simply do not as they cannot, with divine certitude. Our Blessed Lord and Savior, our Redeemer and King of the Cosmos, which He created ex nihilo, tells us about the final disposition of those who deny Him as “I AM”. Jesus the Christ commanded that—He who denies Me, I will deny before my Father and He also commanded–Anyone who denies Me, denies the One Who sent Me. As the Moslems deny Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God as God Himself, subjugating Him Who simply Is, to the level of mere creature as “prophet” and in fact a lesser prophet than the satanic “Mohammad”, they will be denied by Christ on their day of Particular Judgment, as they deny Him and by His command thus, deny the Father Who sent Him. So what god is left for the Moslems to adore but a singular god as Lucifer.
It should be pristinely as patently evident to anyone who holds the One True Faith, free of the operation of error thus, that the Catholic Church cannot speak of such evil as the privation of the due good, period and end. The Catholic Church CANNOT deny Almighty God Himself in His Triune Godhead, period and end. This “Second Vatican Council” from the bowels of hell itself, denies the Triune Godhead through their ipso facto proclamation of Almighty God in His Three Divine Persons, Who as One Intellect and One Will in Himself, and as Truth and Love Himself, as Deus Caritas Est, to be a singular god, the same god which those who hold a Satanic religion espouse. Enough said. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Good Thursday evening JPeters,
Your most recent commentary bespeaks your abysmal grasp of Thomistic metaphysics and the ontological reality as Truth, which the proper understanding illumines, all powered by the reception of God’s grace, that gift both freely given and completely undeserved. I believe that it was Pope Saint Pius X who proclaimed that when the scholastic metaphysical method of Saint Thomas was not properly applied, the danger was “grave” to the souls then lost in the conundrum of improper philosophical inquiry. Thomistic metaphysics renders itself unto the service of Catholic Theology at the behest of Theology, as properly understood. Without the proper light of scholastic ontology, the theology is always in error, as Pope Saint Pius X intoned. In the colloquial expression as secular vernacular, “garbage in, garbage out”.
Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, commanded in Luke 22: 31,32 that “thy faith fail not” unto the person of Peter, yes. Who is “Peter”? Further, who is “Peter” within the context of the Holy Writ as it was placed in time, for a time, and for all time, and unto the end of time, by the Act of the Holy Ghost Himself? “Peter” in his human person is indeed indistinguishable from his Holy Office, when true Peter is willed there by true leaders of the Church of Rome, as Cardinals in conclave, and he freely accepts the Chair. How is this properly understood ontologically? “Peter” in the person of his Successor as Pope, as was the first “Peter” as Peter and as “Pope” is/was the metaphysical “matter” of the Holy Office of the Pope. The Holy Office of the Pope itself is the metaphysical “form” of the Papacy. As matter and form are not in themselves extant, any singular Successor of Peter in his person as the metaphysical matter of the Holy Office of Pope, is indistinguishable from the next Successor in his person, and again his Successor, as the metaphysical matter of the Papacy, which is, the Papacy, the metaphysical form of the Holy Office of Pope. When Jesus the Christ commanded that “Peter” would not lose the Faith in his person, he commanded that the metaphysical “form” of the Papacy would never lose the Faith. As the “matter” (Peter and his Successors in their persons) is not extant without its proper form, and here the “form” is the Office of the Vicar of Christ which Jesus the Christ commanded would not lose the Faith, as the person of Peter’s Successor as Pope, he cannot lose the Faith. The metaphysical “form” of the Papal Office does not exist in itself either, as “form” in and of itself is not extant, until it is informed in matter, the matter here being the persons of Peter and his Successors.
In analogy, just as the matter, which exists in metaphysical potency, of the cow does not change when we consume the cow and yet the previous form of the cow, which was informed in the matter of the cow, that same cow’s matter now transferred into the human person, is now placed into act by the form of the human person, and that form itself of the human person, is now informed in the matter that was previously in the form of the cow.
In closing JPeters, the human person who is the Successor of Saint Peter, time immemorial, is indistinguishable from Peter himself as the Holy Roman Pontiff, period and end. When Jesus the Christ commanded that Peter will not lose his faith, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, in his very person, He in an ipso facto understanding and as properly understood ontologically, commanded that same reality to each of His Successors in their very persons, as their very persons are indistinguishable as the metaphysical matter of the Papacy, whose metaphysical form as the Vicar of Christ and informed in its matter, who is the person of the Successor, was commanded by Christ never to lose the Faith. I pray this helps. In caritas.
I would like to just add what St. Bellarmine wrote on this so that JPeters and InCaritas can both comment on it.
–
St. Bellarmine:
3) Therefore, the true exposition is that the Lord asked for two privileges for Peter. One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith.
–
The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. From these privileges, we see that the first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.
–
God bless.
Hello Dennis,
I pray this communication finds you in the Peace of Christ Jesus, which is not of this world. Sorry the response is 4 days after the request. Please read 2 Thess 2 from the Douay-Rheims copy of the Holy Writ and discern it. Certainly, the Antichrist, “shall be taken away”, as you quote Rev. Fr. Haydock to have said, and he will be by the divine Act of the Son of God, as he will be killed by the Spirit of His mouth. Let’s look to what Saint Paul said first in 2 Thess 2, verse 7:
“For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.”
You see Dennis, this is an entirely different context than what you quote Rev. Fr. Haydock to have said. Here, Saint Paul is speaking of the third person, masculine, pronoun, “he”, and, “he”, as the one, “who now holdeth”, and further that “he”, “do hold”, until that same, “he”, be, “taken out of the way”. The, “he”, who Saint Paul speaks inerrantly of, is the same, “he”, who holds the mystery of iniquity from bringing forth the “son of perdition”, the “man of sin”, as the person of the Antichrist, until it is his (the Antichrist’s) time. When it is his time to be brought into the world, it can only occur, this bringing forth of him into the world as his existential manifestation, because the Holy Roman Pontiff as, “he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way”, is indeed gone, as “he” has been, “taken out of the way”.
If we examine this prophesy of Saint Paul from the positive, we see that because, “he”, the Holy Roman Pontiff, has been present, that is the true Holy Roman Pontiff, the last of which was Pope Pius XII who died in 1958, the mystery of iniquity, already present in the Apostolic Age of Saint Paul as he says so, was prevented from bringing forth the person of the Antichrist, until now, which the Holy Writ commanded would some day come. Saint Paul would not have known that it would be 2,000 years after his time, that, “he”, the Holy Roman Pontiff, would ultimately be “taken out of the way.”. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Quas Primas, extract from para. 22
–
As a result of these men grew not only in their devotion to the Mother of God as an ever-present advocate, but also in their love of her as a mother bequeathed to them by their Redeemer. Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.
Good Friday afternoon pigg0214,
I pray this day finds you in the Peace of Christ Jesus. I have already, in response to JPeters, with the development of the Thomistic understanding of the Papacy, suggested what I believe Saint Thomas Aquinas would say. That which is fully in accord with his metaphysics, and which I believe (if memory is in my service) also to be that which Pope Saint Pius X declared, to be the essential method of understanding, that is Thomistic metaphysics properly understood and applied, which leads then into the proper knowing of the Faith, in cooperation with the divine Light of Grace. It is the Thomistic metaphysical method which, at the behest of Catholic (the only true) Theology, lends its service to that same Theology, as without that method of philosophical inquiry as properly applied, the errors which result then from the Catholic Theology, then as theology, are “grave”, according to the Pope and Saint.
Firstly, we who hold the true Catholic Faith, know with divine certitude that the Holy Writ was written in time, for a time, and for all time, unto the end of time, as if that were not true, it would be in accordance with the blasphemous, “historical critical”, method of the heretics, suggesting that Almighty God is a Deity Who remains apart from His Creation, as the Gnostic, Naturalistic, and Luciferian religion of Freemasonry holds, and then that “Naturalism” holds fast on its “evolutionary” course, unto the human creature’s very own perfection as deification in apotheosis, to become God, in accordance with the Luciferian ideology of Tielhard de Chardin and his “Omega Point”. This ideology of course blasphemes God as it patently denies the Incarnation and as thus the very divinity of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, as God Himself, and His glorious Redemption, through His Death, Resurrection, and Ascension into Heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father.
Please read thus, what was written to JPeters and Tom A yesterday evening for my application. I believe that the Angelic and General Doctor of Holy Mother Church, would say that both “privileges” apply as to Peter, as also unto his Successors and then as also in their persons, as their persons are the metaphysical matter in union as one, with the metaphysical form as the Papal Office. This metaphysical development does, as it must, touch the very foundational, “first principles”, as the Angelic Doctor called them, of being, which in and of themselves do not have “being”, as they exist not in time and space or apart from time and space, as extant realities, but they exist exclusively in the Mind of God, as part and parcel if you will, with His exclusive creative Authority as the Creator–uncreated, the Prime Mover–unmoved, and the First Cause–uncaused. As neither the Prime Matter nor the Substantial Form have being each unto themselves, they cannot exist in and of themselves. As they cannot exist in and of themselves, they have no meaning apart, one from the other. As they have no meaning apart, from one as to the other, as pre-determinates of being, one from the other, their only meaning as “being”, exists when given being, and as thus as brought into being, by Being Himself. That is why all heresies begin in this place which touches, as closely as our miserable and finite creaturely intellects can encounter, the actual Creative Act of Almighty God, ex nihilo. Lastly then, when Christ Jesus commanded that Peter’s faith fail not, that same command as an ipso facto reality as Truth, from Truth Himself, had to be applied to Peter’s Successors as Pope. I pray this helps. God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.
You’re also then….can’t even read the post where I said we are NOT addressing interior faith but manifest apostasy. You don’t understand Saint Bellarmine because youve never read any of his books jusr another dime suit Novus Ordo theologue.
“I may not be highly educated or articulate…..” stopped reading there.
Tom A: “Sedes are not a sect because as you correctly pointed out, we have no Pope, no College of Cardinals, and no Bishops with authority. But we hold and profess the Catholic faith taught by the Church for centuries.”
.
JPeters: Nope, SV’s don’t hold the faith taught by the Church for centuries, but even if you did, “faith alone” does not suffice for salvation. You also have to belong to the Catholic Church – the one that DOES have divine authority – to be saved. If simply holding the true faith sufficed, schismatics could be saved.
In Carita: “Good Thursday evening JPeters,
Your most recent commentary bespeaks your abysmal grasp of Thomistic metaphysics and the ontological reality as Truth…”
.
JPeters: I’ve been studying Metaphysics for many moons and understand it far better than you, as is evidenced by the egregious errors you made in your post.
.
And your pride is also on full display for all to see as you completely disregard the teaching of a doctor of the Church and one of the greatest Thomists of the 17th Century, in favor of your private interpretation of Luke 22.
.
I’ll unpack your metaphysical errors and respond to them at length when I have time.
Hello Pigg,
.
Thank you for providing the citation from Bellarmine, which confirms exactly what I have been saying.
.
Peter personally received two privileges by virtue of our Lord’s words, as recorded in Luke 22: one is that his personal faith would not fail. The other is that he, as Pope, would never error when he teaches in matters of faith. The former privilege was for him alone, and the latter extended to his successors.
.
Vatican I defined the conditions for when this second privilege (which we call Papal Infallibility) applies to one of his successors. Simply put, it applies when a Pope uses his full authority to define a doctrine to be held by the entire Church. This is how the Church has always understood the way in which Luke 22 applies to one of Peter’s successors.
.
Thank you for taking the time to cite Bellarmine, whose teaching is identical to that of St. Alphonsus and John of St. Thomas.
.
God bless,
Tom A: “JPeters, you and others have perverted the authoritative papal teachings on the Papacy by utilizing various quotes from theologians past to construct a false picture of a Pope who only teaches truth in very very limited circumstances (ie ex cathedra).”
.
Wrong again. I cited authoritative teachings to refute the false idea of papal infallibility that is taught by member of your heretical sect. And I never said the Pope “only teaches truth in very limited circumstances.” On the contrary, in the history of the Church the Popes ALMOST ALWAYS teach the truth. But they are only GUARANTEED to teach without error “in very limited circumstances.” See the difference?
Good Saturday afternoon JPeters,
The “second vatican council” teaches heresy as was proved above and as you have thus far ignored. Site for us JPeters evidence of a true Holy Roman Pontiff teaching heresy anywhere in any sermon, letter, or Encyclical, etc. during his Pontificate. The post conciliar “popes” embrace and teach heresy and require members of their Modernist church of the Antichrist to submit to it. The Successors of Saint Peter as true Popes cannot lose their personal faith as Pope, as if they could, the gates of hell would have prevailed against Christ’s Mystical Body, His spotless Bride the Church, likely in the very early Church. There is no reason to believe that this would not have happened in the very early years of the Church, if it were true that the Pope as Pope can lose his personal faith. Once again JPeters, you evidence a malignant sophistry, based in conjecture and constructed through your favorite tactic of siting theologians, as though what they teach is our very means of salvation, and this logical straw man of yours’ is masquerading as the Catholic Faith. According to your dialectic, the only reason that a mere miserable human creature as true Pope has not taught heresy, apart from the gnostic formula which you suggest the Pope and his Bishops in union with him themselves invoke, from their immanence when defining or teaching, and over the past 2,000 years no less until 1958 when the last true Holy Roman Pontiff died, is not because of the charism Jesus the Christ commanded in Luke 22: 31,32, to Peter and His Successors as Pope but it is because of the “power” which the miserable human creature as true Pope holds within himself, not to teach heresy. That JPeters is not the Catholic Faith and is tantamount to the very denial of grace itself. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Jpeters is so out to lunch he doesn’t even know what his own religion teaches. Where have you been—-where on earth do you get this dictrine? A total faux novus ordo adherent who has neither a foot in the old or the new religion. Saying there is “no salvation” outside the Lumen Gentium version of the “Church” goes against the foundational ethos and tesching of that self same false, man-subverted religion. You cannot find a single Cardinal Much less a POPE in Rome who would teach that. You sir are a raving, deluded, self-appointed judge for a religion that does not even exist, even on your own terms. A pure study in Intrllectual dishonesty. Heres a challenge you go find a singke official document from the Conciliar Magisterium teaching no salvation outside the Church……good luck buddy.
Sorry for my typos iPads are terrible for typing….
Good Sunday afternoon JPeters,
Now you’re going “somewhere” in you dialectic. So please enlighten all of us with your gnostic sophistry once again, as a follow up to your response to Tom A. You wrote this: “On the contrary, in the history of the Church the Popes ALMOST ALWAYS teach the truth. But they are only GUARANTEED to teach without error “in very limited circumstances.” See the difference?”
Please then, if you will JPeters, show us how, when, and where “…the Popes ALMOST ALWAYS [but not always then in your gnosis] teach the truth. Your metaphysics here should be rather interesting, if you know what I mean? And as the corollary to your religion of man, posing as Catholic, One, Holy, Apostolic, and True, you then opined, “But they are only GUARANTEED to teach without error “in very limited circumstances.” See the difference?” No JPeters I for one cannot “See the difference?”, so please enlighten me. To help you get started, consider then, just “who” it is that provides a “charism of infallibility'” not ALWAYS but “ALMOST ALWAYS”? What god does such a thing, whereby considered from within the deepest interiority of the very being of that gnostic statement of yours, is contained a perfect contradiction, and as thus the perfect placement of an affront to the law of non-contradiction itself, whereby in your religion a “charism of infallibility” is given an on and off switch, which places a contradiction, in your religion, in the very Mind of God Himself, whereby your god JPeters is going to protect the Deposit of Faith not ALWAYS as the One True God of course does, rather only “ALMOST ALWAYS”. Yours’ is a changing god JPeters and not the Most Blessed and Holy Triune Godhead. Since you fancy yourself as a student of metaphysics for many moons, or some such statement which you posited into your conjecture previously, please help us see your metaphysics. You are claiming then JPeters, that true Popes, “ALMOST ALWAYS [but not always then by inductive reasoning] teach the truth.” So what is it JPeters that these purported as by you, “true Popes”, teach when they don’t “ALMOST ALWAYS teach the truth.” Is their “charism” somehow lifted when they “ALMOST ALWAYS” but then again not always, teach the truth? Who provides their failing “charism”? You aren’t suggesting now that they “ALMOST ALWAYS”, but not always, teach the truth under their own power, by invoking their own immanent “charism”, now are you? A kind of “charism”, from their immanence, that “ALMOST ALWAYS” works, but then again, not always does it work? As you posit to be true in your gnostic religion of man then JPeters, that the true Popes “…are only GUARANTEED to teach without error “in very limited circumstances.” See the difference?”, where is it that your particular, “…very limited circumstances”, “charism of infallibility”, rests ontologically and as thus properly understood then metaphysically, in the being of the true Papacy with the Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ? Does that, “on and off” gnostic charism, which you suggest the true Holy Roman Pontiff has, rest in the metaphysical “matter” or in the metaphysical “form” of the Holy Roman Pontiff’s Chair, as the Vicar of Christ? Your response is eagerly awaited. I pray that the operation of error to believe the lie as though it is the Truth, is removed, such that you can leave your apostasy and hold the Catholic Faith. In caritas.
JPeters has demonstrated the essential difference between his faith and the Catholic faith. In his faith, the Pope can teach error and its up to the laity to sift and discern which teaching they will assent to and which teaching they will resist. In the Catholic faith, the magisterium teaches truth and Her subjects assent.
Good Monday morning JPeters,
Your sophistry is malignant and it does precede you. You wrote this:
“They provide a citation from The Church of Christ, by Fr. E. Sylvester, which interprets SHOULD HAVE as meaning ‘ “the Church MUST EVER HAVE a custodian, a supreme law-giver and judge, if she is to continue as Christ founded her.” ‘ ”
The part that you conveniently exclude from your rhetoric, offers the full meaning of the quote which you draw from here, and it is this last part which closes Fr. Sylvester’s statement, at least as you quote it to be: ‘ “…if she is to continue as Christ founded her.” ‘ You see, JPeters, when the actual meaning is understood of this theologian, the entire understanding is as it was intended to be, which is as follows: In the Will of Christ our Lord and Savior, as evidenced through His Church, in the infallible teaching of the only true Vatican Council, it is fully in accordance WITH the Will of God, that Peter remain in this world, as the Vicar of Christ, until the end of time. That is the true meaning of, ‘ “…if she is to continue AS CHRIST FOUNDED HER. He did NOT say, “IF SHE IS TO CONTINUE” at all, rather what he did say was, “…AS CHRIST FOUNDED HER”.
For you and you kindred charlatans, Siscoe and Salza, to draw your gnostic meaning from this theologian speaks volumes again of who you are, JPeters, as Christ our Lord commanded, by their fruits you will KNOW them. By the way, Christ Jesus did NOT say, by their fruits you SHOULD know them. He used the injunctive form, “will”, which is contrary to the Vatican Council, which used the conjunctive form, “should”. “Will” no more means the same thing as “should”, than “injunctive” means the same thing as “conjunctive”. Your fruits are rotten, JPeters, as are the fruits of Siscoe and Salza. You attempt to invoke your will upon Christ’s Church, bending the very firm and fixed doctrine and dogma to your own liking. The Truth is hard but His name is Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, Who commanded that He came not to bring peace but the sword, as it is in division that the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. I pray you see this admonition as the admonition which it is in the peace of Christ. In caritas.
Tom,
Let’s test your theory. Pope John XXII taught that the souls will not enter into the beatific vision until after the resurrection of the Body. Do you accept that papal teaching? If not, you are guilty of resisting the teaching of a pope, which you claim not to do.
Pigg,
Do you have a link to, or source for, this quote from Bellarmine:
St. Bellarmine: “Therefore, the true exposition is that the Lord asked for two privileges for Peter. One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith.
–
“The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. From these privileges, we see that the first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.”
Thanks
Good Monday evening JPeters,
What precisely is this “test” about which you write to Tom A?, who clearly stated this, “In the Catholic faith, the magisterium teaches truth and Her subjects assent.” Once again JPeters, your intellective blindness is revealed. Tom A properly identified that, “…the Magisterium teaches Truth…”. When the holy Pope John XXII erred, he erred in his capacity as theologian, and he certainly did not “teach” against anything in the Deposit of Faith, the Universal Magisterium. This is the reality as Truth versus deception, because the dogma of the Saints seeing the Beatific Vision after their Particular Judgment did not yet exist, therefore it did not have metaphysical “being”, and further then it could not be heretical for him to pose a question or to posit an intellective opinion, apart from that which did not yet exist, therefore did not have being, as dogmatic reality. Pope John XXII did not therefore “teach” contrary to the Deposit of Faith, as it existed in his time as Pontiff. For a layman to disagree with a Pope’s theological opinion, if he were to know just what it was, would not place an affront to charity, because that is not the authoritative “teaching” of the Holy Roman Pontiff on Faith and Morality, as it cannot be when the dogma does not yet exist, rather it is the Holy Roman Pontiff discerning as theologian, regarding the eventual dogmatic reality. The dissent of opinion from the Holy Roman Pontiff, acting in his capacity as theologian, may actually assist in yielding the eventual and proper dogma, as that is the role of the theologian. There cannot be pain of schism, as there is no affront to charity, when the dogma does not yet exist and therefore it is not an ontological reality. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear JPeters,
The extract was taken from De Controversiis, On the Roman Pontiff, Vol. II, Book IV, Chapter III, page 154, bottom of page, translation by Ryan Grant. I will note that I do believe Bellarmine did lean towards the first privilege being passed also to Peter’s successors. He spoke briefly on this in chapter VI, On the Pope as a Particular Person, page 169. I had mentioned previously in another comment that Bellarmine also said that this position was “more probable”. I will dig it up if need be. St. Bellarmine clearly understood that the Papacy did affect the matter of the person by making it a composite, ontologically, thus the simple man the electors elected to the Papacy can’t judge him once his is Pope. He spoke about this in his response to Cajetan concerning opinion IV.
–
Page 309
“Therefore, when Cardinals create the Pontiff, they exercise their authority not over the Pontiff, because he does not yet exist; but over the matter, that is, over the person whom they dispose in a certain measure through election, that he might receive the form of the pontificate from God; but if they depose the Pope, they necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person provided with pontifical dignity, which is to say, over the Pontiff.”
–
With this, I do believe In Caritas may be in good company with Bellarmine on his side.
–
God bless.
Jpeters, it does amaze me how you and other “resisters” are so eager to pick up all the papal calumny that the protestants have tossed out there over the centuries, in order to keep your papal heretics seated. You have destroyed the papacy to keep a pope. So sad. Bergolio is trying his utmost best each and every day to prove to the world that he isn’t Catholic and you just won’t believe him. I guess he will try again with another “new” mass. Maybe this time you will get it. Maybe.
Pigg: Dear JPeters, The extract was taken from De Controversiis, On the Roman Pontiff, Vol. II, Book IV, Chapter III, page 154, bottom of page, translation by Ryan Grant.
.
JPeters: Thanks. I think I have it as an e-book.
.
Pigg: I will note that I do believe Bellarmine did lean towards the first privilege being passed also to Peter’s successors. He spoke briefly on this in chapter VI, On the Pope as a Particular Person, page 169. I had mentioned previously in another comment that Bellarmine also said that this position was “more probable”.
.
JPeters: He held to the opinion that a pope could not lose the faith, but it was not due to Our Lord’s words to Peter in Luke 22. At least I have never seen Bellarmine claim that is what he based his opinion on, and it directly contradicts what he said in the citation you provided.
.
Pigg: St. Bellarmine clearly understood that the Papacy did affect the matter of the person by making it a composite, ontologically, thus the simple man the electors elected to the Papacy can’t judge him once his is Pope. He spoke about this in his response to Cajetan concerning opinion IV.
.
JPeters: I am familiar with Cajetan’s argument and what Bellarmine says in his attempted refutation, but in no way does Bellarmine imply what In Caritas thinks. I will briefly respond to In Caritas’s argument by making the necessary metaphysical distinctions. There’s more I could say, but I only have time for this quick reply. Follow along.
.
The person of the pope is the matter of the Papacy. The pontifical office is the form of the papacy. This is the part that In Caritas has right. When the matter (man) is joined to the form (pontifical office) you have a pope.
.
But what In Caritas does not understand is that the INDIVIDUAL PERSON, AS SUCH, WHO IS THE POPE also has a matter and form of his own, just as the Pontifical office (even when there is no pope), has a matter and form of its own.
.
The matter of the pontifical office is the diocese of Rome. The form of the pontifical office is the universal jurisdiction that is inherent in the office. The jurisdiction (form) remains in a state of potency until the office is filled and exercised.
.
The matter of the individual person who is the pope is his body. The form of the person of the pope is his soul. Just as you have a matter and form (and body and soul), so too does each and every Pope. This fact is obvious, and it is what refutes In Carita’s argument, as we will see.
.
When a person is elected Pope, he retains his individual body (matter) and his individual soul (form). What this proves is that he is not the same one and the same ACTUAL person as the other popes. Pius X was not the same PERSON as Leo XIII, or Pius IX or St. Peter. They are all distinct persons, with their own body and soul. That should be obvious. But according to In Caritas’ idiocy, the singular person of the pope is always the same – St. Peter is the same person as Pius X, and Leo XIII, and all the other popes throughout history. The 260+ popes were all one and the same person.
.
Here is what In Caritas wrote: “any singular Successor of Peter IN HIS PERSON as the metaphysical matter of the Holy Office of Pope, is indistinguishable from the next Successor IN HIS PERSON”. That is absurd.
.
The reason In Caritas makes such an egregious error (claiming that all the popes are indistinguishable PERSONS) is because he fails to distinguish between the matter and form of the papacy, and the matter and form of the person who is the pope. Based on this error, he concludes that every pope is one and the same PERSON, and then concludes that because Peter could not lose his PERSONAL faith neither can any other Pope, SINCE THEY ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE IN THEIR PERSON. This idiocy only confirms my earlier comment that In Caritas knows just enough to be dangerous.
.
The small gain of true in his error is that all the Popes are one and same “JURIDICAL person” (they all possess the same jurisdiction) but they are not one and the same ACTUAL person. If they were truly “indistinguishable” in the ACTUAL person, as In Caritas claims, they would all LOOK the same.
.
The truth is that Peter and his successors are all distinct persons, and only to the person of Peter did Christ’s promise of unfailing faith applied PERSONALLY – that is, to his PERSONAL faith. It applies to Peter’s successors only when they are acting as the same JURIDICAL person as Peter by defining a doctrine for the universal Church
.
There’s a lot more I could say but this is the answer to In Caritas’ error.
Let John XXII rest in peace. Quit acting like the fundamentalists you folks keep accusing us of being. He never taught heresy in any official documents, unlike your man-god Bergolio, especially on a Catholic fundamental like divorce and remarriage.
Furthermore he didn’t impose a heretical “mass” on the faithful like Paul VI. Since the Catholic Church is indefectable, this proves in an of itself that the Vatican II regime is not the Catholic Church. My First Communion itself in the Vatican II religion was INVALID due to invalid matter. (Flaky Bishop who did not care about people using bread sweetened with honey ect which they termed “Passover Bread”.
The Catholic Church cannot give invalid sacraments, another death knell to your cult of man church and your bizarre attempt to cntl+p EENS Catholic Dogma on to it, when in fact your religion teaches no such thing.
Good Tuesday morning JPeters,
If you are willing, as I am, we can begin to work through the metaphysics of the Papacy together, without attack and counter, as the fine movements are ethereal slices of reality as Truth, and are without compare in their necessity of rightly reasoning, and as thus participating in the Mind of God Himself—the only wellspring of right reason in His created cosmos, ex nihilo. If we get this right, the opportunity to see the errors of the VCII church, as the so called, “post conciliar church”, are also without compare. To accomplish this, we will by the very nature of what it is that we will be attempting to accomplish together, you and me, have to lay down our “arms” and move together into the understanding of the metaphysics of the Vicar of Christ, who is the Pope, a unique reality within the entire cosmos in Truth, and unto itself, in the same sense as the dual natures of Christ our Lord and our God Himself, as both divine Person and human being. It is from that very understanding that the ontology of the Chair of Saint Peter, as the Vicar of Christ flows. In the process, we have the opportunity for much joy and indeed to participate in the work of the assistance of the salvation of the soul of the other, our greatest potential this side the veil for our love of the other in our midst. I pray you discern this request. In caritas.
In Caritas: “If you are willing, as I am, we can begin to work through the metaphysics of the Papacy together, without attack and counter…”
.
JPeters: Sounds good to me. I only attack those who attack me first, so if you refrain, I will too.
Tom A: “Jpeters, it does amaze me how you and other “resisters” are so eager to pick up all the papal calumny that the protestants have tossed out there over the centuries, in order to keep your papal heretics seated.”
.
JPeters: Tom, it is not “papal calumny” to point out these historical cases. We are living in extraordinary times, in the midst of an ecclesiastical crisis that seem to be reaching the limit of what God can permit. Because of this, it is prudent to study other extraordinary time from the past 2000 years, since these serve as a precedent, not only by showing us what is possible, but how Catholics at the time reacted. This is one of the ways God draws good out of the evil that he permits.
.
If you study the history of the papacy and the unusual and even scandalous events that have occurred over the past 2000 years, what you realize is that what we are facing today differ quantitatively but not qualitatively. In other words, what has occurred here and there throughout history is now happening all at once with a greater frequency. But the difference is not so much qualitative (the degree of error or evil), as it is quantitative (the frequency with which it is occurring).
.
The SV’s are the one who distort history by treating the popes as if they are demigods who can do no wrong. That mentality is a recipe for disaster today.
Good Wednesday morning JPeters,
Now to begin our perfectly miserable creaturely attempt at understanding the Holy Roman Papacy, in all of its proper divine Light and glory, as we struggle to properly apply the metaphysics of the Angelic and General Doctor of our Holy Mother, The One True Church, founded for us and for our salvation by the Son of God made Man, as God Himself. This can be accomplished in Truth, only by the reception of His grace, that divine Light which perfects our miserably fallen natures, as the infinitely lesser human creatures that we are, as we are allowed to participate in the very Mind of God Himself, the Singular wellspring of right reason in His created cosmos, ex nihilo.
The Holy Roman Papacy must be understood as it indeed is, in its proper light, and not as we may believe it to be, as that is the proper ontological epistemology. That understood, we know as in the Deposit of Faith, that Christ our Lord and our God has two natures, One divine and One human. Within that knowing is the reality as Truth that while He has two natures, each retaining its own properties, as they are held within one Person, Who is divine in Himself, those two natures in One divine Person, are also One in substance, as Being Himself. Therefore, the essence of Christ Jesus is divine, thus infinitely incapable of sin and error, both natures then united in His divinity, as He is divine in His Person. We then know this union of God and Man, two natures, One divine, One human, each holding its own properties as such, yet both in One Person, sharing One divine Substance in perfect as infinite hypostasis.
From that ontological epistemology, then flows in reflection, the proper ontological epistemology of the Vicar of Christ, as the Holy Roman Pontiff in Succession, over time and space. The metaphysical matter of the Papacy is the man who is properly elected and through his free will assent, accepts the divine office as his own. It is the man in his wholeness as man, which is both his matter and his form, who first freely accepts the Chair of Saint Peter, and then in that free will assent and in that very moment, he offers himself as the metaphysical matter of the Papacy, in his same wholeness as man, as matter does not change as the form which accepts it and which is then informed in that same matter. Thus, as man, he is composed of, as are all human creatures, both metaphysical matter and form. It is then, his totality as man, both his matter and form, which are then united as the metaphysical matter, which with the metaphysical form of the Papacy, will become in union then, the Vicar of Christ in this world, as the Holy Roman Pontiff. Lastly for now, in the reflection of the hypostatic union of Christ as True God and True Man, is the hypostatic union of the man in his wholeness and as he is then the metaphysical matter of the Papacy, in union with the metaphysical form of the Papacy, to become the Vicar of Christ in this world. As Christ Jesus our Lord and our God is in the hypostatic union as God and Man, having two metaphysical forms thus, One pure form as Pure Spirit, God, and the other as human form, informed by human matter, as Man.
Please contemplate and discern this JPeters. If you find errors as you will point them out, please edify them properly such that we can discern together the one Truth. I pray we move each and together, in the Will of God. In caritas.
The Chair of Saint Peter as the Vicar of Christ in this world, is an ontological reality apart from any other, as literally understood, in the entire cosmos, which God created, ex nihilo, for the sole purpose of His perfectly miserable human creatures’ salvation.
Good morning again JPeters,
That last paragraph is repeating from above and somehow? entered in again at the end. Please disregard it. In caritas.
Good Thursday morning JPeters,
Continuing on then in the proper ontological epistemology of the Holy Roman Papacy. As neither Primal Matter nor Substantial Form are extant in and of themselves and as thus neither has being, each apart from the other, we do know with metaphysical certitude, that which the Angelic Doctor–through the divine Light of grace–provided Holy Mother Church, that these are the very “instruments” which exist in the Mind of God alone, His “first principles” as pre-determinates of “being”, of creation itself. We know Almighty God as the Creator–uncreated, the Primemover–unmoved, and the First Cause–uncaused, as the Singular One Who holds these “first principles” of being within Himself as Being Himself, as pure Intellect and Will.
We do know that the man properly elected and then only after giving his own free will assent, is the metaphysical matter of the Vicar of Christ Jesus, as this is the only proper ontological understanding which can be rightly reasoned, in accordance with the metaphysical laws of Motion and Non-Contradiction. We know that he is the matter of the Vicar of Christ as “man”, because as creature he is “man”, which as “man” we also know that he is a composite of both metaphysical matter and form in perfect union, as are all men. As the matter of “man” informs the form of “man”, the matter holds the metaphysical “accidentals” (a total of 9 as St. Thomas Aquinas taught) of “man”, our physical creatureliness, while the form is his very “person”. In his “person”, man is spiritual, in like kind to the angelic persons and the Divine Persons, as pure spirits. The “person” of “man” as his metaphysical form, holds those realities of “man” which are not of the material world: the intellect, will, memory, and imagination, as the very “soul” of “man”, his human personhood. However, “man” is not “man” without his flesh, his metaphysical matter. These two realities, the metaphysical matter and the form of “man” are once again not separable, as to separate them, the matter from the form, takes “man” as creature back into the Mind of God, as the pre-determinates of being, which are not extant, as they are Almighty God’s “first principles” thus, and as “first principles” “man” does not exist as “man” in extant reality. As Almighty God in His Triune Godhead created “man” in His own divine likeness and image, “man” is thus both “spirit” in the likeness and image of God, and flesh, as “man” is a “material” creature in union with his spirit, his soul. Let’s stop here for now. In caritas.
In Caritas, I just skimmed your comments and should have time to respond later today or tomorrow morning.
In Caritas: “Good Wednesday morning JPeters, Now to begin our perfectly miserable creaturely attempt at understanding the Holy Roman Papacy, in all of its proper divine Light and glory, as we struggle to properly apply the metaphysics of the Angelic and General Doctor…”
.
JPeters: Looking forward to it!
.
IN Caritas: “THE HOLY ROMAN PAPACY MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS IT INDEED IS … Christ our Lord and our God has two natures, One divine and One human. … within one Person … From that ontological epistemology, THEN FLOWS IN REFLECTION, the proper ontological epistemology of the Vicar of Christ…
.
JPeters: I believe it is a mistake to begin by comparing the person of Jesus and the Vicar of Christ (the person of the Pope). I will explain why later. I also don’t believe the Vicar of Christ (the person of the Pope) is a “reflection” of the person of Christ. The two persons are infinitely distinct.
.
Jesus is a DIVINE Person with two natures (human and Divine), and he is the PHYSICAL head of the Church.
.
The person of the pope is a HUMAN person with one nature (human), and he is the MORAL head of the Church (this is an important point). Like all men, the pope has the possibility of possessing a second nature by participation (i.e., grace) but the second nature is in no way necessary for him to be pope. If it were, a pope who fell into mortal sin would cease to be pope.
.
In Caritas: “The metaphysical matter of the Papacy is the man who is properly elected …. It is the man in his wholeness as man, which is both his matter and his form [i.e., body and soul]”
.
JPeters: Agreed.
.
In Caritas: “Thus, as man, he is composed of, as are all human creatures, both metaphysical matter and form. It is then, his totality as man, both his matter and form, which are then united as the metaphysical matter, which, with the metaphysical form of the Papacy, will become in union then, the Vicar of Christ in this world, as the Holy Roman Pontiff.
.
JPeters: Yes, the “whole man” (matter and form) is the metaphysical MATTER of the Vicar of Christ.
.
The “whole Pontificate” (matter and form) is the metaphysical FORM of the Vicar of Christ. What is the matter and form of the Pontificate? The MATTER is the diocese of Rome and the FORM is the universal jurisdiction over the entire Church.
.
To summarize: When the whole man (soul and body) is elected as Bishops of Rome (the diocese of Rome being the MATTER of the Pontificate) and receives universal jurisdiction by Christ (jurisdiction being FORM of the Pontificate), the person becomes the Vicar of Christ.
.
In Caritas: “Lastly for now, in the reflection of the hypostatic union of Christ as True God and True Man, IS THE HYPOSTATIC UNION OF THE MAN IN HIS WHOLENESS AND AS HE IS THEN THE METAPHYSICAL MATTER OF THE PAPACY, in union with the metaphysical form of the Papacy, to become the Vicar of Christ in this world.
.
JPeter: Nope. This is where you are veering off course. The “hypostatic union” is the union of the two natures of Christ in the One Divine Person. This mode of union has nothing in common with that which exists between the person who is pope (matter) and the Pontificate (form).
.
The mode of union that exists between the diocese of Rome and the Vicar of Christ is similar to that which exists with other patriarchal sees, and the Patriarch who resides in them. The difference is that the Pope’s jurisdiction is universal and comes directly from Christ, whereas that of the Patriarchs is limited and is dependent upon the implicit or explicit appointment of the Pope.
.
I will conclude by saying you are erring by attempting to understand the papacy in light of the Person of Christ and the hypostatic union.
.
More to follow.
In Caritas: “Good Thursday morning JPeters, Continuing on then in the proper ontological epistemology of the Holy Roman Papacy. As NEITHER PRIMAL MATTER NOR SUBSTANTIAL FORM ARE EXTANT IN AND OF THEMSELVES and as thus neither has being, each apart from the other…”
.
JPeters: I’ve got to stop here. It is true that Prime Matter does not exists in itself, since it is a “purely passive POTENCY,” but it is not true to say that a substantial form cannot have being apart from matter.
.
This is proven from the fact that “separated souls” (dead people) continue to exist when their substantial form is separated from the matter (body). It is true that the substantial form is, in a sense, incomplete without its matter, but it nevertheless continues to exist IN REALITY (and not just in the mind of God, as you say later).
.
Second, just to clarify, Prime Matter has nothing to do with the matter of the Papacy. The MATTER of the Papacy is a substantial form (soul) united to “secondary matter” (body). In other words, it is a living person.
.
Prime Matter is nothing but a passive potency. It is the IDEA of matter existing without a form. Since matter does not exist without a form IN REALITY, neither does Prime Matter. Here’s another way to explain it.
.
Let say you eat a banana. Now, the matter of the banana becomes part of your matter (your body), when it is digested. Prime Matter is the IDEA of the “stuff” that WAS the banana and BECAME part of you. But since the material “stuff” was either part of the matter of the banana, or part of the matter of your body, it never existed IN REALITY as Prime Matter. It was always Secondary Matter, which is matter united to a form. It was either united to the form of the banana or united to your form.
.
Now, the “matter” that becomes a Pope is never Prime Matter. It is always Secondary Matter, since only an actual living human person (body and soul) is the possible matter for the Pontificate.
.
In Caritas: “We do know that the man properly elected and then only after giving his own free will assent, is the metaphysical matter of the Vicar of Christ Jesus.
.
JPeters: Agreed.
.
In Caritas: “As the matter of “man” informs the form of “man”, the matter holds the metaphysical “accidentals” (a total of 9 as St. Thomas Aquinas taught) of “man”…
.
JPeters: I’m not trying to pick this apart, but the MATTER does not inform the FORM of man. The form (soul) informs the matter. But you are correct that there are 9 accidents, according to St. Thomas.
.
In Caritas: “In his “person”, man is spiritual, in like kind to the angelic persons and the Divine Persons, as pure spirits.”
.
JPeters: Again, I’m not trying to pick this apart but the “person” of man is not a spirit, or merely “spiritual”.
.
His soul is a spirit, but his PERSON is both matter and form – body and soul. (See St. Thomas, Summa, Pt I, q. 75, a. 4, reply 2). Here is a citation from Christian Philosophy by Louis de Poissy:
.
“And as the single substance that results from the union of soul and body constitutes an individual of a rational nature, we must conclude that the union constitutes not only a substantial unity, but also a personal unity. The PERSON is, therefore, not the body alone, not the soul alone, BUT THE SOUL UNITED TO THE BODY.”
.
This is why we refer to dead people in heaven, hell or purgatory, as “souls” not as “persons”. This is basic Thomistic metaphysics.
.
In Caritas: “The “person” of “man” as his metaphysical form, holds those realities of “man” WHICH ARE NOT OF THE MATERIAL WORLD: the intellect, will, memory, and imagination, AS THE VERY “SOUL” OF “MAN”, HIS HUMAN PERSONHOOD.
.
JPeters: As shown above, this is incorrect. The person of man – the human person – is a body/soul composite.
.
In Caritas: “These two realities, the metaphysical matter and the form of “man” are once again not separable, as TO SEPARATE THEM, THE MATTER FROM THE FORM, TAKES “MAN” AS CREATURE BACK INTO THE MIND OF GOD, AS THE PRE-DETERMINATES OF BEING, WHICH ARE NOT EXTANT…
.
JPeters: Once again, this is demonstrably false. If a soul separated from the body ceased to exist, or only existed in the mind of God, there would be no souls in hell or purgatory, and only two in heaven – namely, the Blessed Mother and Jesus (unless there are others in heaven who have their bodies, as some believe).
.
In Caritas: Let’s stop here for now. In caritas.
.
JPeters: Let’s do. No offense, but so far you have laid a foundation of sand, and demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of metaphysics.
Hello JPeters,
Good to have your comments, as we test the Metaphysics, which as it only can as it does, and as thus at the very behest of Theology, serve that same Theology, as its very proper foundation in Truth. Again, in the spirit of getting the Metaphysics correct, we must as we disagree, provide the “proof” as best we can, of the reason for the disagreement, as to simply “deem” disagreement, is not Metaphysics nor is it Theology. As you know, metaphysics as the science of all sciences, is by its very nature thus, tedious. In example, to quote you now:
“IN Caritas: “THE HOLY ROMAN PAPACY MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS IT INDEED IS … Christ our Lord and our God has two natures, One divine and One human. … within one Person … From that ontological epistemology, THEN FLOWS IN REFLECTION, the proper ontological epistemology of the Vicar of Christ…
.
JPeters: I believe it is a mistake to begin by comparing the person of Jesus and the Vicar of Christ (the person of the Pope). I will explain why later. I also don’t believe the Vicar of Christ (the person of the Pope) is a “reflection” of the person of Christ. The two persons are infinitely distinct.
I disagree with your conclusion, JPeters, that the Vicar of Christ IS NOT a reflection of the Person of Christ in His hypostatic union of both His Divine and human natures. As your final comment, “The two persons are infinitely distinct”, of course is correct, as Deus Caritas Est, as Love Himself is infinitely apart from His miserable creatures, while at once He commands us to love Him first with all our heart, all our mind, and all our strength, and then to love “the other”, “as I have loved you”. Almighty God is Goodness Himself and as He simply Is all of the divine Attributes which flow from Him, we miserable human creatures can only ever be, in “reflection”, of the Goodness which He simply Is. In that understanding, Christ our Lord and our God commanded us to, “Love your neighbor AS I have loved you. That command in reality as Truth, is consistent with the reality as Truth, that the Vicar of Christ exists in being, as the Person of Christ in this world, His Vicar, in reflection of Him, Who Is the divine Head of His Church. Since the human creature, as the angelic, is infinitely incapable of the Creative Act, all we are capable of is our “reflection” of the Act of the One Who Simply Is, that which we can only reflect. Further, by knowing in the metaphysical sense, that the person of the Pope as man, is the very matter of the Papacy, which as the form of the Papacy is divine, the Holy Roman Pontiff as man, as he is the matter of the Papacy, comes into union with, that which is divine as the form of the Papacy, in his very “being”, as Holy Roman Pontiff. This of course does not mean that the Pontiff is then, in his totality as man a divine being, as the human person and as the man who is the matter of the divine Chair of Saint Peter, rather what it does mean, is that the man as Pontiff is fully in accordance with and in the very capacity of, what Christ Jesus commanded into being, as for His Holy Roman Pontiff, in the divine form of the Papacy, which is informed in the matter of the man, as Pope. Lastly, the hypostatic union of Christ Jesus in His two natures is the reality as Truth that Christ as God is pure Form as pure Spirit, and Christ as Man is both matter and form. The Holy Roman Pontiff as man exists in matter and form, as does Christ as Man, and the Holy Roman Pontiff is also in union with the divine Form of the Papacy, in the being of Holy Roman Pontiff. The reflection is exact. God bless you. In caritas.
Good Saturday afternoon JPeters,
Let us please now, if you will, test your hypothesis of precisely, “what”, “person”, means and, “who”, a “person”, indeed is. This will be tedious, again by virtue of the precise nature of scholastic metaphysics. You wrote the following in response to my distinction between “what” man “is” and “who” his “person” is.
“In Caritas: “In his “person”, man is spiritual, in like kind to the angelic persons and the Divine Persons, as pure spirits.”
.
JPeters: Again, I’m not trying to pick this apart but the “person” of man is not a spirit, or merely “spiritual”.
.
His soul is a spirit, but his PERSON is both matter and form – body and soul.
This is why we refer to dead people in heaven, hell or purgatory, as “souls” not as “persons”. This is basic Thomistic metaphysics.
.
In Caritas: “The “person” of “man” as his metaphysical form, holds those realities of “man” WHICH ARE NOT OF THE MATERIAL WORLD: the intellect, will, memory, and imagination, AS THE VERY “SOUL” OF “MAN”, HIS HUMAN PERSONHOOD.
.
JPeters: As shown above, this is incorrect. The person of man – the human person – is a body/soul composite.
We begin our epistemology of , “person”, with the divine “Persons”, in His Triune Personhood as Almighty God. As Almighty God is Pure Spirit in His metaphysical Form and also in Relatio as divine Persons, and as His angelic creature is also pure spirit and as thus, pure metaphysical form in his substantial existence, and also then pure form in his angelic personhood, we know then that the metaphysical epistemology of , “person”, is pure form, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect, which here is the respect of “person”. Here, the law of non-contradiction applied to “person”, simply commands that the “who” and “what” of a “person” simply cannot both be and not be. The “who” and “what” of a person must remain precisely as exactly, the “who” and “what” of a “person”, whether we are talking about the divine Person, the angelic person, or the human person, as “person” is “person”. In that understanding, we can briefly address what metaphysical “matter” is and what matter does. The matter of man allows firstly for his very existence in time and space, as it “extends” him into the temporal reality, and also allows him to reproduce within that same reality. Matter per se, has nothing to do with man as a “person” but it is part and parcel with the human creature as “man” in his nature, who is both of the flesh (matter) and a person (form). Christ Jesus our Lord, as you well know, has two natures, One human and One divine, in His hypostatic union. The human nature of Jesus the Christ, for instance, has no separate existence in itself, apart from the Eternal Word, and therefore is not His Person, as His human nature simply “is not” His Person. This is because, at the essence of what it is to be a “person”, is to be an “intelligent substance” which is “not communicable”. Matter, by its very nature is communicable, as it is transmittable from one to the other, and as thus by virtue of its very nature as “matter”, it is communicable. To be a “person” is to be an utterly unique creature in the cosmos and by the very nature of being utterly unique as “person”, the person is not communicable.
When a man dies as “man”, it simply is not, as it cannot be, his “person” that dies, as his “person” is eternal from the moment of his creation as “man”. This is precisely why what you wrote above and will now be quoted again, is in error. What you wrote is:
“JPeters: Again, I’m not trying to pick this apart but the “person” of man is not a spirit, or merely “spiritual”.
.
His soul is a spirit, but his PERSON is both matter and form – body and soul.
This is why we refer to dead people in heaven, hell or purgatory, as “souls” not as “persons”. This is basic Thomistic metaphysics.”
If what you wrote about “person” was true JPeters, and that is, a “person” exists both as “body and soul”, then the “person” dies along with the physical body, which simply is not true, as the “person” of “man” imparts the utter uniqueness of man, and man is utterly NOT unique in his “matter” (aka: his body), rather he is utterly unique in his “person”, which is NON-COMMUNICABLE, as “matter”, IS COMMUNICABLE, by its very nature as matter, which communicates itself in the reproductive act. As to be a “person” is to be the metaphysical “form” of man and NOT his “matter” (aka: his body) is to be an entirely unique creature in the cosmos, as “form” imparts perfect as infinite “uniqueness” with the example of the angelic person existing as both pure form and as a pure species unto himself in that pure form of existence, as to be a “person” as “person” is to be incommunicable and also eternal from the moment of creation. Again, we know that to be a “person”, is to be in the “form” of man and not in the matter of man, as man. The “person” gives uniqueness to the intellect, the imagination, the memory, the will, and the soul of man as each is a unique being in all of God’s creation. As the “person” (form) is immaterial, it must be apart from the body in its matter as body, as matter is not form, which is immaterial, therefore as “person” is immaterial (as it is incommunicable), it is form, and therefore as form it cannot die but lives on into eternity. It is the body of the human person which dies and disintegrates as matter, not the person which is the form. I pray this helps. In caritas.
So people have to read this 3 days long dialogue about soul, body and persons between j peters and in caritas to be able to figure out whether theres a pope or not and that’s if they can even understand what either guy’s talking about?
Good early Sunday morning johnjobilbee,
We live in the most precarious time that this world has ever known. Danger is imminent, first and foremost as that which yearns to destroy our eternal souls and then that which also wants to take our earthly lives. It is the reality as Truth that we do not have an Holy Roman Pontiff in this world, and that is precisely why, as it is the singular reason why, the Mystery of Iniquity has the fullest power that Almighty God has ever allowed or will ever allow for him, in the existential now. 2 Thess 2 holds the key, johnjobilbee. Please don’t get bogged down in the metaphysics. It is tedious and it is not for everyone. Almighty God’s Will be done. It is not what we know that gets us to Heaven, rather how completely we love, as a perfectly miserable reflection of the One Who Is Love, as Deus Caritas Est. Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, commanded that only those with the faith as a child’s will get to Heaven. Love in faith johnjobilbee. The grace and peace of God the Father of our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, be with you and yours’. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Good early Tuesday morning JPeters,
Continuing on, now then with the metaphysics of the Holy Roman Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ Jesus in this wretched world. It was of utter import to first properly develop the metaphysics of the “who” and “what” is a, “person”, such that the metaphysics of the Holy Roman Pontiff, as an human person in his nature as man, as he is the metaphysical “matter” of the Holy Roman Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ, can be properly understood ontologically. As we know, each and every created person both human and angelic, in the cosmos and in the Heavens, is infinitely unique, as by the very nature of his “person”, which is incommunicable, and as created in the divine likeness and image of God, as pure Intellect and Will.
What we know then also and with ontological certitude, is that as a man in his person, the Holy Roman Pontiff is infinitely unique and therefore each Successor of Saint Peter is unique in his intellect, memory, imagination, will, and his soul. He is his own person thus and at once along with his body as his own matter, he forms then in his nature as man, the metaphysical matter of the Holy Roman Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ. In his own person as man, he remains fully capable of receiving God’s grace for his personal sanctification and he is also perfectly capable of rejecting God’s grace, that gift both freely given and completely undeserved. In the acceptance of God’s grace he is then personally capable of attaining Sainthood and in the rejection of God’s grace, he is also personally capable of spending an eternity in hell.
What must be understood though and this understanding with the divine certitude of the command of the Logos, the Eternal Word, the Son of God made true Man, as the Redeemer of this wretched world and as Christ the King, is that as Holy Roman Pontiff, the mere miserable and mortal man and only him as the singular, “he”, in the created cosmos, is united in metaphysical “being” with the divine, metaphysical “form” of the Successor of Saint Peter as the Vicar of Christ, and he alone is then the Holy Roman Pontiff.
To seal His Church from ever committing error in Her teaching of the Holy Faith and Morality, so as to keep His spotless Bride pure in Her Dogma, Christ Jesus commanded into being, with the first Holy Roman Pontiff as Peter, the charism of which Saint Luke wrote in his Holy Gospel, chapter 22: 31,32, whereby the Son of God placed into being ex nihilo, the command that as to Peter, as Holy Roman Pontiff and not unto his person, “thy faith fail not”. Christ Jesus placed the being of the charism of never losing the faith into the form of the Papacy, that which is divine and singular in the cosmos, as no other man in the cosmos before nor since, has been given this charism of not losing his personal faith except the Holy Roman Pontiff. It is only rightly reasoned thus, that as this charism must be passed unto each Successor of Peter, to protect the Deposit of Faith from any iota of error in its teaching, it was placed not unto the person of Peter as man but unto the divine Office of the Papacy, thus unto the form of the Papacy, and not unto the matter of the Papacy, as unto the man who is the Pope. If Christ would have placed the charism of not losing his personal faith into the matter of the Papacy, then the charism would have ended with the death of Peter and the Holy Church’s Deposit of Faith would have been utterly vulnerable to the wiles of Lucifer, as the Prince of this world, whose cunning is beyond our capacity to imagine.
In this way alone, can the charism pass unto each Successor, and in the moment of his free will acceptance of the Chair of Saint Peter, and only after valid election by the leaders of the Church of Rome, as the Cardinals in Conclave. As the sole as final arbiter of Truth in this world, Christ protected Peter and his Successors from ever losing their faith, as if they could lose their personal faith, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against Christ’s Church, as the integrity of the Truth would have been left to mere miserable fallen creatures as man and his fallen immanence.
What this means practically, is that the Holy Roman Pontiff, in his person, can sin mortally and can certainly go to hell. In that understanding though, while he can go to hell for all manner of sin, he cannot go to hell for committing the mortal sin of heresy, as heresy is in opposition to the Faith, and he cannot lose his personal faith as commanded by God. In Truth this is all very simple and very necessary for Christ’s Church to have preserved Her Faith in teaching, as well as Her Morality.
Finally for now, we know with ontological certitude thus, that the popes including and since Roncalli as so called, “John XXIII”, simply could not be, nor can they be the true Popes of Holy Mother Church, as the so called, “second vatican council”, teaches heresy and as proven above in this discussion, in “Lumen Gentium”–16. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church CANNOT teach heresy in the development of Her Dogma, nor can She teach heresy as to oppose any teaching which has already been dogmatically developed or understood to be, as in the Creed with Almighty God existing as Three Divine Persons in One God. Thus in Truth, these post conciliar popes simply cannot be popes, as they embrace personally and teach the heresy of “vatican two”, which cannot be the Catholic Church, thus they cannot be popes of the Catholic Church, as that creature beast thing from hell, called the “conciliar church”, is NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, with metaphysical certitude. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Good Tuesday morning JPeters,
In reviewing your critique of the statement which you quote me as making, I now stand corrected, and as you write it above and to quote you now:
“Here is what In Caritas wrote: ‘ “any singular Successor of Peter IN HIS PERSON as the metaphysical matter of the Holy Office of Pope, is indistinguishable from the next Successor IN HIS PERSON ” ‘ “.
As I stand corrected, allow me to clarify: “In his very person”, each Holy Roman Pontiff is indeed infinitely unique, as is each and every “person”, angelic or human, which Almighty God has created in His own divine likeness and image. What I should have said is, as the “matter” of the Papacy, each and every man who is elevated to the Chair of Saint Peter, is the same, that is, “as he provides the matter of the Papacy”, but “in his person” his own infinitely unique “form”, he remains infinitely unique. God bless you. In caritas.
In Caritas: “Let us please now, if you will, test your hypothesis of precisely, “what”, “person”, means and, “who”, a “person”, indeed is. … The “person” of “man” as his metaphysical form, holds those realities of “man” WHICH ARE NOT OF THE MATERIAL WORLD: the intellect, will, memory, and imagination, AS THE VERY “SOUL” OF “MAN”, HIS HUMAN PERSONHOOD.
.
JPeters: That is not correct. The HUMAN “person” is not the form (soul) alone. A human person is a body/soul composite. What you don’t realize i that the union of body and soul results in a third substance, which is the person. I already provided a reference to the Summa and a citation from Poissy’s Christian Philosophy (1989) to back up this VERY BASIC point. Here is a longer quote:
Christian Philosophy: “In living composites the soul is the substantial form of the body; that is, the soul is so united to the body that through it the body receives and possesses subsistence and life, and that FROM THE UNION OF THESE TWO PRINCIPLES THERE RESULTS A SINGLE SUBSTANCE. So it is with man. From the union of his body and soul, from their intimate compenetration, there results A THIRD SUBSTANCE which is neither body alone, nor soul alone, nor a simple contact or mixture of the two, as in a mixture of silver and gold. Still the soul in this union does not lose its own essence: although united to the body in unity of substance, it nevertheless remains distinct from the body; and since it performs certain acts independently of the body, it follows that it preserves its spiritual nature intact. The union of soul and body does not, then, mean a confusion of the two, but requires only that they complete each other. And AS THE SINGLE SUBSTANCE THAT RESULTS FROM THE UNION OF SOUL AND BODY CONSTITUTES AN INDIVIDUAL OF A RATIONAL NATURE, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE UNION CONSTITUTES NOT ONLY A SUBSTANTIAL UNITY, BUT ALSO A PERSONAL UNITY. The person is, therefore, not the body alone, not the soul alone, but the soul united to the body
.
As we will see, your error is a result of your equating the “person” of an immaterial being with the person of a being that was created by God as a body/soul composite.
.
In Caritas: “We begin our epistemology of “person”, with the divine “Persons”, in His Triune Personhood as Almighty God. As Almighty God is Pure Spirit in His metaphysical Form and also in Relatio as divine Persons, and as His angelic creature is also pure spirit and as thus, pure metaphysical form in his substantial existence, and also then pure form in his angelic personhood, WE KNOW THEN THAT THE METAPHYSICAL EPISTEMOLOGY OF , “PERSON”, IS PURE FORM…”.
.
JPeters: There’s your error. God and the angels are IMMATERIAL beings, not a body/soul composite, as man is. As such, their form alone suffices for their Person. Not so with man.
.
In Caritas: “Here, the law of non-contradiction applied to “person”, simply commands that the “who” and “what” of a “person” simply cannot both be and not be.
.
JPeters: There is no contradiction in saying the person of an immaterial being (God or the Angels) consists in their form alone, while the person man, who was created by God as a body/soul composite, consists in the union of matter and form, body and soul (the “third substance”).
.
In Caritas: “The “who” and “what” of a person must remain precisely as exactly, the “who” and “what” of a “person”, whether we are talking about the divine Person, the angelic person, or the human person, as “person” is “person”.
.
JPeters: You are all over the place. “What” pertains to the nature of the thing; “who” pertains to the individual. The nature of God and the angles is pure spirit (form alone). The nature of man – his quiddity or “whatness” – is a body/soul composite; not spirit alone.
.
In Caritas: “When a man dies as “man”, it simply is not, as it cannot be, his “person” that dies, as his “person” is eternal from the moment of his creation as “man”.
.
JPeters: Nope. When the soul separates from the body, the THIRD SUBSTANCE recedes to a state of potency and the “person” dies. The soul, which is immortal, continues to exist, awaiting the resurrection of the Body on the last day. At the resurrection, the body and soul will again unite to produce the “third substance,” which is the human person.
.
What is clear from your posts is that you either have no formal training in metaphysics, or are a beginner who is delving into mattes far beyond your capacity. You use metaphysical terms, but lack a basic understanding of the subject matter. What’s worse (and indicative of intellectual pride), is that you have persisted in your error concerning the human person, even after I provided the reference to the Summa and the citation from Louis Poissy’s highly respected book, Christian Philosophy. Unfortunately, this sort of intellectual pride is what I almost always encounter when dealing with a SV’s.
.
Since you lack even a basic understanding of metaphysics, and refuse to accept authoritative teachings from approved sources, it is evident that continuing this discussion will be a complete waste of my time.
Good Thursday afternoon JPeters,
Thank you for edifying in your explanation, that which I incorrectly understood, from the text you quoted, which I do not have access to. My error was in thinking of the “incommunicability” of the “person” as an utterly unique creature in the created cosmos, as meaning that because his “matter” is communicable, that his “person” could not include his “matter”. I was errantly thinking of the “person” as somehow subsisting in the “matter” of the “person”, when indeed the “person” as you say, is a “composite” of his matter and form, at his essence, which remains as it only can, “incommunicable” as “intelligent substance”, in act as human person.
If we could then, let us address the argument posed days ago now, regarding the heresy taught in the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, as “Lumen Gentium”–16. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
Good Saturday evening JPeters,
Upon further investigation, the first metaphysical position which I held is the correct one. Your position is in error. There is no “third substance” as you say. The result of the perfect union of the universal potential, as metaphysical matter, as a Thomistic “first principle” without esse and as thus in the Mind of God alone, as His Creative Act, which matter is then informed in the form of man, is then the esse of man, not this “third substance”, rather his very existence, which gives him metaphysical potential, in esse. This term that you use, “third principle”, is some novel idea from the post-modern genre of Thomism, it would seem. Perhaps it would help if you would use your own intellective operation applied to actual Thomism, instead of relying upon your post-modern, purported, “experts”. Seek the Angelic and General Doctor of the Church in his own work and think.
The reality as Truth, is that the human person has immortality in his person, which uniquely identifies him as a singular creation of Almighty God in the cosmos, perfectly unlike anyone else, as his own particular corpus and soul with his proper nature. Man does not have immortality in his “humanity” as “man” however, as he does in his “person”, which is immortal. In his “humanity”, man dies but his “person” lives on into eternity. The “person” of “man”, uniquely as specifically, identifies precisely just “who” he is, in his soul, as his substantial form. I pray this helps. In caritas.
I would like to make this one observation.
–
Could JPeters’ position be what John XXII may have believed, which led him, at first, to think incorrectly about those who died having to wait until the General Judgment in order to see the Beatific Vision? It would make sense, since the “person” is no such thing in act, but only in potency when apart from his body, according to JPeters and his source. A person who only exists in potency cannot truly be said to be a real person, thus incapable of adoration of God in act.
God bless.
Good Wednesday afternoon pigg0214,
Always my pleasure communicating with you. It would seem that at the foundation of JPeters’ error is his belief that “person” can somehow be something “different” in esse, when in analogy, the Divine Persons and the angelic persons are used to understand and contemplate indeed who and what (the quiddity) it is to be a, “person”. In reality as Truth, apart from divine Revelation, that is the only as singular mode of intellective power which the human person possesses, this side the veil, which is to “reason in analogy”. His fundamental error there is to believe that “person” in itself as “person”, can mean one thing in the spiritual realm and another thing in the temporal, which in itself is an ontological absurdity, as it embraces contradiction, as placing an affront then to the Thomistic law of non-contradiction.
An attempt now at the proper metaphysics. As “person”, in and of itself, is not in metaphysical “act” as you say, “person” is “being or metaphysical substance, in esse”, which is “potency”. Your logic follows precisely in the order of properly understood Thomistic metaphysics. You leaped, if you will, beyond one step in the metaphysical progression but concluded correctly. “Person” itself, is again, “being in esse”. What the Angelic Doctor taught of the angelic creature, and in order to understand that simply because the angel is pure form, that this does not intone that he is “pure act”, as is Almighty God alone, Pure Act, is that the metaphysical potency of the angel as creature is his “esse”, and the metaphysical act is his “substance or being”, existing in pure metaphysical form. Whereas Almighty God IS Pure Form in esse, whereby His Form is identical to His Substance, as Being Himself. The angelic creature then in esse as pure form, is infinitely understood in his esse, as he has no matter in which to “determine him” as to, “confine him”, into time and space by extension, while at once he is a perfectly as infinitely known, finite creature, as all creatures, in his being. Therefore, when the “human person” dies, it is the “human” as “man” who dies. As you well know pigg0214, the metaphysical matter of man as his corpus, then disintegrates, which causes the physical body as metaphysical “matter”, which is expressed in the 9 Thomistic “Accidentals”, to then take on lesser forms in esse, awaiting the Day of Final Judgment, to once and in fine’, be joined to the form as the soul in esse.
Lastly then, it is the metaphysical form of the human person as his soul and together in esse thus, as person, which achieves the Beatific Vision in the moment in which God deems, such that then and as in that same moment, and as the angelic persons do, this “person” of man in his form as soul (which completes his “being” as metaphysical potency in “esse”, and as moved into “act” by his form as soul), then adores the One True God in Three Divine Persons and into eternity. Amen. Alleluia. Thanks be to God and all praise, honor, and glory to Him alone. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Hello again pigg0214,
Upon reviewing what was written above, there is one error that I find needing correction. Above I wrote that God’s, “Form is identical to His Substance”, which should read as, God’s Esse is identical to His Substance.