Last week I published a post, the title to which posed the question, “Is Francis a heretic?”
That question, one apparently being asked in ever widening circles, is making the neo-Catholics very uncomfortable, and for good reason.
You see, the man in papal whites is a demigod in the conciliar Church, and for its followers, that man can’t possibly be a heretic.
Why not?
Well, because the framework for the entire house of cards is constructed of that particular man’s interpretation of modern day Rome’s magna carta – the voluminous text of Vatican Council II.
If he’s capable of peddling heresy, then what assurance do the members of the conciliar Church have that they’re dwelling in the bulwark of truth?
None, and it would seem, at least on a gut level, they know it.
In the present case, if the pope is in grave error on something as fundamentally important as Holy Communion, then everything else just might come tumbling down – ecumenism, religious liberty, the Novus Ordo Missae – and then what?
One might be forced to look to tradition to determine what is Catholic and what is not.
Oh, horror of horrors!
In any case, highlighted in the aforementioned post was an eminently lame attempt on the part of conciliar apologist Jeffrey Mirus to defend Francis’ Hell bent determination to invite to Holy Communion those who persist in a state of manifest grave sin.
Recently, Tim Staples at Catholic Answers took a similar stab at it.
You can watch Staples’ tortured attempt to defend Francis in the video below. It runs about 9 minutes, but be forewarned – it’s painful to witness a man struggle so mightily. It is embarrassing, really, and I say this with sincere compassion.
To illustrate the supposed soundness of Francis’ position, Staples proposes a scenario:
A poor, innocent woman with a couple of kids, whose husband up and walks out on the family leaving them destitute.
She has no job. She can’t raise her children. She goes into another marriage kind of in a desperate situation. She marries outside the Church. Now you got three more children come along; now you got five kids, and she has kind of a reversion back to her faith and here she is.
She wants to get right with God and the Church, but wait for it… wait for it…
The new live-in lover threatens to “drop her like a sack of potatoes” if she doesn’t continue accommodating his sexual urges, and so what’s a lady to do?
I mean, the shorties gotta eat, right?
Staples continues:
Yes, on the objective level, what she needs to do, the right thing, you can’t continue conjugal relations if you’re going to receive sacraments, but there’s so much pressure on her…
While Staples acknowledges that John Paul II (in Familiaris Consortio – 84) plainly insists that being in the objective state of mortal sin alone “means you cannot receive sacraments, period,” he then goes on to contend that “the key” to making sense of Francis’ contrary position is this:
“But that is not a doctrinal statement; that is a matter of prudence.”
Once again, we see the papalotry of the conciliarists on display, and the “reasoning” goes something like this:
Yes, the man who was pope said X, but the man in white that we currently idolize says Y. Therefore, Y is the current answer, and since neither man can fail, much less can they contradict one another, it must be a matter of papal prudence!
Here’s the real deal:
While John Paul II (or “the Great” as Staples calls him) had many faults, on this point he was exceedingly clear:
“The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.” (FC 84)
Get that?
This teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with prudence, much less particular circumstances; it’s a practice based upon Sacred Scripture – the inspired word of God – and the consistent tradition of the Catholic Church.
As such, no man has the authority to change it – not even a pope.
Staples then comes to the very heart of his error when he says:
What Pope Francis is saying, and theologically he is correct, on the objective level it is possible, a pastor can discern that this woman, in that case, is not in mortal sin.
Wrong. Theologically this is incorrect, and on a most basic point: Only God can discern such things.
Are you seeing a trend?
“A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.” – The future Pope Pius XII commenting on the messages of Our Lady of Fatima
That’s the punchline to this entire heretical debacle.
Francis and company have plainly succumbed to the temptation to believe that man has become God. Oh, they didn’t introduce this idea into the very heart of the Church – the Council did that. As I said previously, such is a central feature of modern day Rome.
Francis is simply taking the conciliar revolution to its logical end, and with staggering swiftness at that.
In the present case, he is applying the fundamental conciliar principle – that man has become God – in a grave and unprecedented way; one that demands a response.
Thus are the neo-Catholics so very uneasy…
Elsewhere in his defense of Francis, Staples says:
You can have a situation where people are objectively in a state of grave sin but because of extenuating circumstances, fear for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that fear is a mitigating factor that can reduce culpability.
Note to Mr. Staples: The Church isn’t in the culpability business; she’s in the objective truth business.
Staples, however, believes that a pastor “in the internal forum can discern that this person [who is persisting in adultery] is not actually committing mortal sin.”
No, a pastor most certainly cannot do such a thing, and Staples need look no further than the Catechism that he cited to discover as much.
Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. (CCC 1861, emphasis added)
One of the more likely reasons why Staples finds himself so thoroughly confused is that the post-conciliar merchants of make-believe mercy, like Francis, frequently cite the necessity of entrusting sinners to the judgment of God, but only insofar as doing so might suggest clemency.
The problem is; Our Lord’s right to judge the hearts of men cuts both ways, and its exclusive.
Ours – meaning, the Church and her sacred pastors – is to judge objective offenses alone and to address them accordingly. Indeed, this is all that mere human beings, including the pope, are capable of judging.
Yes, but the priest is given the authority to absolve us of our sins, in the name and in the Person of Christ, in the sacrament of Confession!
Ah, but then there’s that pesky little requirement called a “purpose of amendment” – the same that Francis bemoans as the fruit of “a certain scrupulosity concealed beneath a zeal for fidelity to the truth” on the part of “some priests.” (cf Amoris Laetitia footnote 364, which goes hand-in-hand with the infamous footnote 351)
In the present case, we are not speaking of penitents, but rather of those who intend to persist in their sin. As for culpability, this is God’s domain alone, and this is a crucial point.
Even the dreadful Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes gets this right:
God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone. GS 28
This is a genuine no-win proposition for intransigent neo-Catholics; for others (and may it please God to move Tim Staples to be among them), it just might serve as the impetus for conversion:
Does God forbid us to make judgments concerning the internal guilt of another or not?
The answer is clear. It always has been.
Pope St. Pius X, in his Encyclical, On the Doctrines of the Modernists, also cites this most basic of theological truths:
We number such men [the modernists] among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge… (Pascendi 3)
Or consider the following from St. Augustine:
For in reference to such matters as can be done with a good and single and noble intention, although they may also be done with an intention the reverse of good, those parties wished, howbeit they were [mere] men, to pronounce judgment upon the secrets of the heart, of which God alone is Judge. (Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Book II, Chapter 18)
In spite of the utter simplicity of the matter, in charity, it must be said that Staples seems genuinely flummoxed.
In other words, while it is obvious enough that he is dead wrong, let’s not make the same error he is making by thinking we can judge the secrets of his heart. Rather, let us presume his sincerity and pray for him.
Staples tells us that Francis is simply “building upon” Familiaris Consortio 84.
According to him, John Paul II said that “while being in that state, divorced and remarried outside the Church, would preclude you from receiving Communion, he said we have to make a distinction between cases…”
Yes, John Paul II did so speak; specifically saying:
Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. (cf FC 84)
This is just common sense, folks. It’s not a crack in the door to Holy Communion for those who intend to persist in grave sin.
John Paul II is merely suggesting that the pastor must guide the victim differently than the perpetrator – the one unto forgiveness, the other unto repentance, all while leading both along the way of sanctity.
That’s it. Nothing more.
In no way whatsoever is he suggesting that a mere man – in this case, a pastor – is able to declare the mortal sin of adultery simply venial. Staples insists otherwise.
In his confusion, he overlooks the fact that just two paragraphs later we find in FC 84:
“However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture…”
How is it that a convert from sola scriptura Protestantism is able to discount the authority of Sacred Scripture with such ease?
The answer: It is evidence of the diabolical power that lies behind the papal idolatry that we’ve been discussing; a hallmark of the conciliar Church wherein even God must defer to the “prudence” of His creatures.
And this, my friends, is precisely the reason we find ourselves in this fearful situation at this very moment:
The day is at hand when the civilized world is openly denying the Divine prerogatives, and even the Church is behaving as if man has become God.
Just as Our Lady warned us.
“The new live-in lover threatens to “drop her like a sack of potatoes” if she doesn’t continue accommodating his sexual urges, and so what’s a lady to do?”
So prostitution is OK? What a world.
Posted this on previous thread, figured many of you have moved on ?
Sorry for posting something unrelated to this topic, but I think its very important that people see this. 1st video is from you tube of very recent hillary speech in NC which I thought was probably a hoax? To my surprise, when I looked at the c-span release of hillarys speech in NC, I was shocked !!! This stuff can be down by a process called blue screening. Look at the cell phones of the people they are not even recording the same scene ??? Something very scary going on ???? Who is she waving to????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCP3HIhQgLI
https://www.c-span.org/video/?415316-1/hillary-clinton-campaigns-greensboro-north-carolina.
Louie please accept my apology for stepping on your topic, thought it important for people to see this !!!
The pope must speak in conformity with Sacred Scripture and Sacred
Tradition, as he has been given no authority to act outside the authority
given him by Christ. The pope is the Vicar of
Christ, as such must act in conformity with the commands of Christ.
Mr. V. a thousand thanks, for such an excellent post on this vital topic.
ock, I don’t agree that your video is an unrelated topic. We’re in the middle of a time of great distress of biblical proportions, which Our Lord warned would bring deception capable of overcoming even the elect, if that were possible.
Hillary is central figure in this, and idolizes Jorge Bergoglio. He’s criticizing Trump while he promotes her social agenda (carefully denouncing abortion, but praising everything else) pounding the drum that Catholics must put the poor first.
There’s an old saying, “Birds of a feather, flock together”.
Time will tell if the video you’ve posted is a hoax or not, as she does have enemies who wouldn’t be above that. But here’s one that’s been verified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“… if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this. At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: ‘What have you done with your episcopate? What have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?’ I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words: ‘You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.”
(Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 163).
This is exactly what marriage, as defined by the secular world has, underneath it all, absolutely come down to. The laws governing and protecting today’s so called ‘marriages’ are really no different or greater than a law that attempts to govern and police so called ‘just dues’ for any consensual sexual activity. The new legislation for marriage is really nothing more than legislation for prostitution, just like you said. These idiot judges have never asked the most glaringly important question and that is ” Just what is it about sexual activity between two people that warrants the tax payers protection and governance?” If these legislators had any intelligence or depth of thinking they would know that because sexual activity’s potentiality and primary purpose is the grand mission of bringing souls into the world for God’s glory and that this soul is of the most infinite value to Our Lord they would have to finally get and admit that any sexual act that is sodomitical and for self serving, man centered reasons other than the procreation and education of children for God’s glory in a monogamous relationship for life does not qualify for any protection whatsoever under the law. Rapists are to be jailed and punished and stopped. Men who hold women with ultimatums in regards to sex must be stopped and these women have to stand up against them. It is their duty and THIS IS for the sake and wellbeing of her soul, his soul and very importantly for the soul of her vulnerable children that have only her to depend on to protect them in God’s truths.
Yup. Everything is a matter of prudence because there is nothing-not one single thing-dogmatic or a practice of the Church that will not be transformed to reflect (1) Modernism, (2) Ecumenism, and (3) Masonry/Secularist/Materialist/Relativist anti-Catholic/Catholic Church culture.
Have you ever asked why so many ex-Protestants are now the scholars, theologians, and other “experts” and media voices for the Conciliar church after joining after Vatican II?
Sorry ock but I consider it an occasion of probable sin if I read or listen to anything in regard to Hillary and therefore, must avoid.
Also, the enemies of my enemies are my friends.
Thats pretty good advice Catherine !!!!
Thank you for reminding me of CCC 1861. Because this must be applied to our current pope, as well. Guilty! (Although I do pray for his conversion every day.)
No matter how diabolical his acts and language seem, we cannot for sure, know his heart. There is always the possibility that his upbringing, education, life experiences, etc. make him believe he is serving God.
Personally, I can’t see how… but then again, I’m not God.
The believers of the “spirit” of Vatican II, or the spirit of contradiction, confusion, ambiguity, dissent, disunity, and of the world, seem to be committed to jump through any hoop, make the most ridiculous statements, and bow down to the masters of deception no matter what the issue.
Yes, I have noticed that the majority of apologists selling books today are ex-protestants. Maybe because it is easy to sell books, movies and tapes to the un-catechized who are starving for answers of any kind, and the gullible are not too discerning, as people are generally not being catechized at Mass by their priests and bishops during homilies, and some of them actually do a fair job at apologetics – a field that was largely abandoned after VII.
,
Which reminds me – maybe they should re-name “Catholic Answers” to “Current Answers”
Michael F Poulin
“Catholic Answers” is now more appropriately “Catholic Contortions”
Ock,
From the “It’s on the internet so it’s gotta be true” file: The camera makes the flag stripes look a lot closer than they are…angles & perspectives get confusing.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/hillary-clinton-greensboro-north-carolina-rally-photos-returns-after-pneumonia-pictures-health-speech-how-is-she-protests-crowd-pics/
Check the first photo for the full shot…
P.S. I’veno idea what heavy.com is— I was just looking for a picture of the event.
That’s my biggest beef. The hierarchy keeps throwing banquets for the worst of them:
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/09/21/catholic-charities-to-host-pro-abortion-hillary-clinton-at-annual-fundraising-dinner/
This is why I like reading this blog. I don’t feel like I’m losing my mind as much, when I see that others feel the same way about all this LUNACY everywhere I look. And it reminds me to turn to God and His holy ones, more often.
🙂
I couldn’t even listen to the entire 9 minutes!
God help us!
How long as it been since the post conciliar “church” has allowed communion in the hand and Eucharistic ministers? How long has it been since Holy Communion was received kneeling to show our adoration and humility toward Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament? Why are we so surprised that Holy Communion should be allowed for remarried divorced Catholics? It’s only another insult to Our Lord. Do you think it will end here? It’s not really about Francis and his heresies. It’s about the entire pseudo-church after the Second Vatican Council. Does it make any sense to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic? This latest insult is only the tip of the iceberg.
While we’re in this mess, I believe we need to call on all the Saints and the Suffering souls in purgatory to help us more than ever.
Padre Pio’s feastday is tomorrow, and I heard his heart has been transported to Boston for a celebration. (They cut people’s hearts out for relics? ) Anyway, his foundation says he used to tell people
“Send me your guardian angel with any prayer requests you have, and I’ll do what I can for you.” I think he’s a friendly. 🙂
St. Pio, pray for us, and help us keep the Faith.
And another call for correction: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-philosopher-pope-must-revoke-objectively-heretical-statements-to-avoid
If only he would say that the Cardinals must “correct or remove”.
St. Maria Goretti….pray for us.
I have been in visual, audio buisness for 27 yrs and have published many videos on internet and stripes on the American flag are RED. Will say no more about it out of respect for Louies website which is most important !!!
The Communist have long targeted the Catholic Church for subversion by the likes of Bella Dodd and Saul Alinsky. Liberation Theology is a creation of the KGB and Alinsky was a pal of Paul VI !!!http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f062_Scenario.htm Remember Our Ladys warnings about the errors of Russia !!!
Wordy wordy wordy …this guy is physically sweating and moving around so much trying to wrestle this into some kind of Catholic…sense-impossible…sex outside of marriage is mortal sin….period. You do not have to be a religious genius to know this. No Holy Eucharist if you persist in mortal sin. This is basic Truth. Every Catholic dummy should know this…sad and demonic that we have to contemplate this. Similarly we contemplate abortion – is it a baby or not? Is a boy a girl and a girl a boy? Basic natural laws. Just another reminder of the times we are in. Stupid -stupids we are. We deserve ourselves. We and our “fine” intellect are our best punishment.
Basic Truths are subject to the eye of the Almighty Beholder!
I mean if he just said that it would have been a lot easier for the guy. No, instead he went on for 9 minutes or so sweating it out.
We’ve come to accept that we have to figure out everything this Pope Francis says..why? He says what he says…Have they no respect for that? He’s clarified by not clarifying. Or even HAS clarified in this case as Louie has pointed out. Why must they insist that he clarify. Have they no respect…after all he “is” the Pope. Let his yes mean yes and his no mean no. He says “YES” to Holy Communion to those who persist in mortal sin. Why can’t they just get that?
Aside from threatened and ongoing schism and division, here is a sample of what the modernists hoped would happen since well before the synods:
FROM THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF THE PHILLIPINES:
“After collective discernment, your bishops will come up with more concrete guidelines on the implementation of the Apostolic Exhortation. But MERCY CANNOT WAIT. Mercy should not wait. Even now, bishops and priests must open welcoming arms to those who have kept themselves out of the Church because of a sense of guilt and of shame. The laity must do no less. ….. let us go out to meet them, AS THE POPE URGES US TO DO, AND ASSURE THEM THAT AT THE TABLE OF SINNERS AT WHICH THE ALL-HOLY LORD OFFERS HIMSELF AS FOOD FOR THE WRETCHED, THERE IS ALWAYS ROOM…O res mirabilis manducat Dominum pauper, servus et humilis…O wonderful reality that the poor, the slave and the lowly should partake of the Lord. THIS IS A DISPOSITION OF MERCY, an openness of heart and of spirit that
NEEDS NO LAW,
AWAITS NO GUIDELINES,
NOR BIDES NO PROMPTING.
IT CAN AND SHOULD HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY”.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-approved-newspaper-exhortation-allows-holy-communion-for-remarried
We all know what really can and should happen immediately to this Babylon that has fallen and become the haunt of every filthy bird and beast -crucifying Our Lord in the Holy Sacrament. But I pray for conversions before it is too late to save the souls I’m working to save. Mary, hammer of heretics, pray for us.
‘Maybe they should re-name “Catholic Answers” to “Current Answers.”
Exactly. After all, Francis wants to “make a mess” and that is one of the few things he has said that isn’t ambiguous.
However, Michael, the poor Catholic is being catechized, just not in the Catholic religion.
Obviously, this is not the case. However, are you unaware that as far as Tradition (with both a capital T and a small t) goes, neither are off the table for review and discussion and change, change, change? The Conciliar church, reflecting and adopting the principles and “values” (errors and demonic-inspired) of the modern world has no use for anything of the past if it can’t be used to serve one of their purposes and, of course, their primary objective is to eliminate anything that might offend the “separated brethren” and the enemy of Christ.
Who else can they honor but one of their own?
Your moniker says it all. Help Us Lord.
We know that God will not abandon those who love Him and persevere in remaining faithful to what He has revealed to be true and necessary for our salvation. It is with that knowledge that helps me to suffer the lunacy which surrounds us and it actually gives me the opportunity to grow in my faith and love and offer up my vale of tears to Him in reparation of my own sins.
Holy Mary, Mother of God.
Pray for me a sinner, now and at the hour of my death.
I cannot say I’m surprised at all. I came of age prior to Vatican II and out of a Protestant sect and knew immediately that the Novus Ordo was an abomination and have been trying to warn others of the diabolical machinations that gave us this Council, as have many others. Mostly to no avail. Until Francis, who if his heresies and mockeries of the faith might be the last hurrah so to speak and serve to convert one single person to the true Catholic faith, it might be worth it to God that one less person is on the road to perdition.
The bishops are referring to the Novus Ordo which is in itself, an abomination. They can’t really make it any worse no matter what they change.
Our Lord Jesus Christ said that it is out of the heart that the mouth speaks. People seem to forget this. Just a thought.
I have to disagree. They CAN and ARE making it worse, by allowing mortal sinners of every kind to be summoned and welcomed to receive the Eucharist with them, in addition to all the other abuses that are mentioned so often. Sacrilege is Sacrilege, and personally I would defend the Eucharist no matter where it was when I saw someone desecrating it–be it an N.O. Church or on the street outside of one- anywhere. It’s Our Lord. I know there are arguments for it not even being confected at the N.O., but I don’t agree with those, and would not presume such in defending Our Lord. Even if we don’t go to N.O. parishes, we have a duty to fight this, I think.
Hasn’t the entire discussion here by Mr. V regarding what Francis and the modernists are doing regarding the Eucharist, been referring primarily to the N.O. as well?
They CAN make it worse (and probably will!) . They can’t make it BETTER. … Unless they throw the entire concoction down the drain.
Yes, we have a duty to fight against the desecration, blasphemy, and sacrilege of the Lord any where it occurs.
There have been many who have written that changing the words of the Consecration in the N.O. make it invalid. If there is no valid Consecration, how is Jesus Really Present? If He isn’t Really Present, the bread and wine remain bread and wine. Surveys have shown that the majority of Catholics who attend the N.O. do not believe Jesus is Really Present in the Eucharist. Isn’t this a form of sacrilege? Beyond that, isn’t it a sacrilege for any of us to partake in Communion when we have not confessed our mortal or venial sins, done penance and performed some kind of reparation?
The N.O. certainly was not valid for the 16 years where the very word “many”, spoken by Christ Himself at the Last Supper was changed to “all” in the rubics, while it still eliminates the words “mystery of faith” within the Consecration placing them outside of it. Does this still make the Consecration invalid? There are different opinions. Yet, the crux of the matter remains. The N.O. is a reorientation away from God and towards man. It is an invention of man by committee. If Jesus is Really Present after the change in the words of Consecration, and is pleased by this liturgy that worships man above Him, He is more merciful than any of us can imagine.
Thinking about it again, I will say the N.O. is a liturgical abomination. It is, in itself, sacrilegious. By allowing the divorced and remarried participation in a liturgical abomination and sacrilege only adds an additional degree of abomination and sacrilege within it, so I guess you could argue that it can be made worse.
Yes, of course.