First, as promised, here is a quick update on my correspondence with Michael Matt regarding whether or not, in light of his #UNITEtheCLANS initiative, he will cease blacklisting writers who contribute to The Catholic Inquisitor. Following is his response:
That out of the way, here we’ll take a closer look at the initiative itself. I’ll cut right to the chase by sharing my conclusions at the outset.
#UNITEtheCLANS is basically two things: First, and of least interest, it is a social media marketing effort. Its objectives are plain enough – to increase attendance at the upcoming Catholic Identity Conference and, more broadly, to generate support for the Remnant apostolate overall.
To be perfectly clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with such an effort, qua marketing. I’ll leave it to others to consider its value in that regard.
The second aspect of the so-called “movement” is of far more interest, and that concerns the degree to which it reflects what Michael Matt sincerely believes and, therefore, what the Remnant truly represents and exists to promote.
So, what gave rise to #UNITEtheCLANS? What does it hope to accomplish? What problem does it intend to address? How exactly does it propose to do so?
The Remnant has generated a lot of material on this initiative. Perhaps the most concise explanation as to what #UNITEtheCLANS is all about was given by Mr. Matt in a recent video that was introduced to Remnant readers as follows:
Hot off the “Unite the Clans” debate of last week’s “Editor’s Desk”, Michael calls for yet another hashtag. This time it’s #ToHellWithVaticanII … Not necessarily to hell with all 16 documents, which nobody reads anyway.
Yes, the Remnant hashtaggery has most certainly been busy! We’ll return to Vatican II and its relationship with #UNITEtheCLANS momentarily. For now, let’s consider how Michael described the movement, beginning at roughly the 13:30 mark:
Maybe it’s just up to us, just the laity, need to unite the clans. And what is this, this idea of uniting the clans? All it is, is really nothing more than all of us doing the right thing, all of us following the dictates of Christian charity. That’s all I’m asking. I don’t think there’s any way we can doubt that this is what God wants. We’re just not in positions to understand all the nuances of all the different arguments all between the various, you know, the factions of traditional Catholicism.
Doing the right thing… So, what is the wrong thing that #UNITEtheCLANS aims to rectify? One may think once more of the aforementioned blacklist, but I digress…
The initiative was launched with the subheading: “The Remnant calls for worldwide support of all traditional Catholic priests.” In this case, it is clear that what is meant by “traditional Catholic priests” are those that offer the Latin Mass.
OK, but how are we being called to support them? The answer isn’t entirely clear. Amid the thousands of words that have been published on the Remnant website in promotion of the initiative, the most concrete calls-to-action that I could find are:
Subscribe to our YouTube channel; Follow Michael Matt on Twitter; Follow The Remnant on Twitter, Follow Michael Matt on Facebook, Donate to our Tax-Exempt Foundation, Register for the Catholic Identity Conference
No surprise here. As mentioned, #UNITEtheCLANS is first and foremost a social media marketing effort. It is also, however, an expression of Michael Matt’s convictions.
At one point, he calls for an end to “circular firing squads” and “anathematizing one another.” In the scope of things, this really isn’t a major problem, and so one may be left to wonder exactly what he has in mind.
It is evident that what he means to say is that we should refrain from criticizing any priest, or group of priests, that offer the Latin Mass. Period.
More specifically, if these men are largely silent regarding the plain truth about Francis and his heresies, if they are unwilling to speak about the grave danger to souls that the Novus Ordo represents, and if they are reticent about criticizing the Almighty Council, these things should be overlooked. Michael declares:
We need to take care of these guys and, as I see it, our insisting that they put their heads on the chopping block just to prove their ‘trad cred’ to you and me is profoundly myopic. The point is this: There’s more than one way to undermine a revolution.
Take care of them, how? Follow The Remnant, Donate to our Tax-Exempt Foundation, Register for the Catholic Identity Conference…
Michael does have a point; the line between prudence and cowardice can sometimes be difficult to discern.
That said, are we to pretend that it is “traditional” to boldly speak of Vatican II as if it is compatible with the Faith, to publicly call on John Paul II as a “Saint,” to openly declare that there is no heresy whatsoever to be found in Amoris Laetitia? In other words, are we to refrain from acknowledging such grave offenses against Christ simply because the priests in question offer the true Mass?
This, apparently, is what Michael Matt believes.
So, what gave rise to this #UNITEtheCLANS initiative; i.e., why now? In short:
The Amazon Synod is the pope’s very own pet project … The Amazon Synod will be, quite literally, the Devil at work.
Michael informed readers that Cardinal Burke – who, rather than issue the “formal act of correction” that he promised many times over, ran scared – said of the Synod’s working document that it is “an apostasy” and it “cannot become the teaching of the Church.”
This awareness is the “act-now-before-it’s-too-late” moment that sparked Michael’s call to unite, “for God’s sake,” as he said.
This naturally leads one to wonder why there has never been, and is no, similar call on his part to #UNITEtheCLANS in opposition to Amoris Laetitia, a text that has already been anointed by Bergoglio as “authentic magisterium,” with its official (and sacrilegious) interpretation even having been entered into the AAS at his direction.
I mean, if it’s not apostasy to declare that the Divine Law is too difficult for some persons to keep and that God Himself wills adultery, then what is?
In part, that Michael Matt isn’t making hay (or hashtags) over this particular apostasy makes perfect sense. You see, Amoris Laetitia is old hat, and remember, #UNITEtheCLANS is a marketing effort. The Amazonian Synod and the growing angst that it is engendering among neo-cons, by contrast, is all the rage today.
So, let’s give Mike credit where credit is due. He’s clever enough to know that if you want to create a viral hashtag, you do it by tapping into the latest hot topic, not yesterday’s news.
It also makes sense given that Michael’s goal is to build the biggest tent possible, and the “clan” known as the Society of St. Pius X is still desperately clinging to the utterly embarrassing proposition that Amoris Laetitia isn’t heretical. Evidently, Michael Matt agrees, saying just last October:
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.
Furthermore, the SSPX (and Burke and Schneider and Mueller) barely even mention that despicable text anymore; they seem to have found their peace with it. So, clearly, building a movement around it wouldn’t be nearly inclusive enough.
More to the point, it makes sense based on Michael Matt’s firmly held beliefs, one of which was summed up rather well when he stated:
Just fifty years after Vatican II, the Catholic Church is ceasing to be Catholic.
Think about this, folks. He is telling us that the institution presently based in Rome under the headship of Jorge Bergoglio – the same that Archbishop Lefebvre identified as a counterfeit church – is the Catholic Church, and what’s more, it is ceasing to be Catholic.
In other words, the indefectible Church is defecting right before our very eyes! Does this sound like Catholic tradition to you?
He tells us, on the one hand, “to Hell with Vatican II,” but then he clarifies by saying that he is specifically referring to “the event,” as if it is little more than a regrettable moment in history. Strangely, he even goes so far as to note that he does not mean to say that all sixteen conciliar documents should be condemned.
Unfortunately, Michael doesn’t tell us which of the sixteen documents, in his view, merit being cherrypicked from the conciliar trash heap and accepted as authentic expressions of Catholic tradition, in spite of the Biblical warning concerning “a little leaven.” I would be interested in knowing which ones he has in mind.
Given that the text of Vatican II neither defined doctrine nor bound the faithful in any way, there is no reason whatsoever to refrain from jettisoning the entire diabolical lot; in fact, the presence of so much poison demands nothing less. That’s the Catholic view of the conciliar text.
On some level, it seems, Michael Matt just might get it. Maybe. He states:
For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the new orientation of the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council has been, quite literally, the Devil at work.
Hello? Setting aside the fact that the real Catholic Church admits of no such thing, this “new orientation” is based on nothing other than the sixteen documents produced by the Council! And yet Michael wants us to embrace some of them, even though he recognizes that they accomplish the work of the Devil?
Why is Michael Matt so all over the place?
The immediate reason is simple: His goal isn’t to defend the Truth whole and entire, it is to #UNITEtheCLANS, and he apparently does not wish to alienate those “clans” that are cut from “full communion” conciliar cloth.
At this, readers may recall the comments that were made by the District Superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter in Germany, Fr. Bernhard Gerstle:
The Fraternity of St. Peter agreed to undertake an impartial study of the documents of the Council and has come to believe that there is no break with earlier magisterial teaching.
So much for to Hell with Vatican II! Fr. Gerstle is either a functional idiot or a shameless sellout, but hey, he represents a “clan,” and by God we mustn’t criticize his dangerous opinions! In this, Fr. Gerstle was contrasting the FSSP with the more rigid SSPX.
Elsewhere, Michael Matt said of the Society’s founder, “Lefebvre’s choice was simple: Novelty, or Tradition.”
Yes, and guess what, that’s our choice as well. Even so, Mr. Matt saw fit to make a special plea for unity to “those among us who truly and in good conscience believe the SSPX to be in schism.”
Seriously? Anyone who truly believes that the SSPX is in schism hasn’t a clue about what schism really is. Such a person has an ill-formed conscience, not a “good” one, and they are only fooling themselves if they self-identify as a “traditionalist.”
Are they fooling Michael Matt too?
Probably not, but he cannot speak this truth because, well, his goal is to #UNITEtheCLANS, and the truth in this case is a stumbling block that stands between potential supporters and the entrance to the Remnant’s big tent.
At this, readers may also recall comments made last November by Fr. Joseph Bisig, Rector of the FSSP’s Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary, who said of the Fraternity’s founding members’ departure from the SSPX:
Our superior [Archbishop Lefebvre] became schismatic. We felt like orphans abandoned by our father.
Fr. Bisig went on to say:
I pray very much for my old, good friends (in the SSPX) to join the Church and to come in without any conditions, but to accept the authority of the living magisterium.
What condescension! Join the Church, as if the SSPX, in spite of their faults, is not to be considered Catholic? That some actually hold this opinion, one supposes, is among the reasons why Michael Matt feels the need to stroke those who, in allegedly “good conscience,” consider the Society schismatic, and that would include Michael Voris and any number of his constituents (i.e., another boatload of potential Remnant supporters).
And where, pray tell, does one find this “living magisterium” that Fr. Bisig thinks we must accept? Well, in the sixteen documents of the Council, of course, and in their official interpretation as provided by men like Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the blasphemous heretic Jorge Bergoglio!
Now you know why men are leaving Fr. Bisig’s seminary crediting “Saint” John Paul II for their vocation.
And this is the kind of thing we should simply overlook in order to unite for some ill-defined common cause? If this isn’t a call to false unity nothing is.
All of this said, Michael Matt’s effort to fill the biggest Remnant tent possible – lies overlooked and Truth be damned – is really just a symptom of a much deeper problem; namely, the plainly observable fact that his convictions have become, or always have been, unmoored from Catholic tradition.
Remember what Michael said about the need for “uniting the clans”:
We’re just not in positions to understand all the nuances of all the different arguments, all between the various, you know, the factions of traditional Catholicism.
Speak for yourself, Mr. Matt! This isn’t rocket science, folks. We have at our disposal nearly two-thousand years of rock solid, immutable Catholic teaching upon which to hang our hats: We have twenty infallible ecumenical councils, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and volumes of dependable papal magisterium. Every individual person of average intelligence over the age of reason with an internet connection is in a fine position to understand whether a given “nuance” is Catholic or not.
Furthermore, this notion that “it’s just up to us, the laity” to right the ship is a joke; that’s not the Barque of Peter.
Jesus Christ established a hierarchical Church, one that is to be ruled by His Vicar on earth, the pope, the same whom “He enriches above all other pastors with the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that he may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it with reverence and devotion” (cf Mystici Corporis 50).
The laity can no more re-establish order in the House of God than a toddler can do so in his childhood home when mom and dad are strung out on crack.
Michael claims, “all I’m asking” is for all of us to “follow the dictates of Christian charity.”
I think he means it. The problem is that he evidently does not hold the traditional Catholic understanding (if you’ll pardon the redundancy) that the first demand of Christian charity is to love God with one’s whole heart, whole soul, and whole mind.
That means honoring and defending the Truth whole and entire, which is none other than the person of Jesus Christ, whose Mystical Body on earth is the Holy Catholic Church, in season and out of season, even if doing so causes one’s numbers of supporters and benefactors to dwindle.
What Michael Matt is really asking is for his readers and others to set aside any and all concern about whether or not the Council is evil; whether or not Bergoglio is even pope, whether or not the SSPX is in schism, whether or not the Novus Ordo is a valid Catholic rite, etc., and all ostensibly in order to “unite” against a Synod that has yet to take place.
I’m not buying it.
This is nothing more than an effort to grow the Remnant enterprise. That wouldn’t be a problem if not for the fact that the Remnant exists for the purpose of promoting the belief system and the worldview of a man who, in spite of any sincere intentions otherwise, does not actually embrace Catholic tradition in its fullness.
This much is plain, based not on conjecture, but on his very own words.
Yes, good content can be found in the Remnant, but so too can content that flies in the face of Catholic tradition. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE to highlight just a handful.)
In conclusion, my advice to readers is to avoid and to warn others about the true nature of this #UNITEtheCLANS nonsense. A far better thing to do – that is, a truly traditional endeavor – is to cease considering yourself a member of any of the “clans” that Michael Matt mentions.
As I’ve written any number of times in the past, I’m not on Team SSPX, though I remain grateful to them for opening my eyes to much in the past. I currently assist at Holy Mass offered by the Fraternity of St. Peter, my only option, but I am not on Team FSSP. I’m not on Team ICK, IPB, or any such thing.
I’m on Team Catholic. Period. End of story.
That’s where all us need to be and where all of us need to stay. Let’s unite there.
I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of the guy in the middle wearing the white getup.
Do not fall prey to despair. This should lift all of our spirits:
Bishop Kevin Vann & Lm. An Bình – In Every Age (Official Music Video)
Wonderful! May the New Springtime continue to blossom.
LOL…it took a little while to figure out the “……that out of the way”….lol. Haven’t read past that yet, but wanted to comment on it.
Like you I am KungFu. I wander from mass centre to mass centre, meet people, do good deeds, get in adventures.
I am not on anyone’s side because nobody is on my side. I am reticent to throw my lot in with any “camp” because I have seen all the players from Bishop Williamson to Fr. Cekada, to Fr. Bisig’s camp create major stumbling blocks, screw up, scandalise and pick unnecessary fights with each other, rather than focus on leading their own small flocks. Everyone today wants to be a media celebrity and have a following.
I’ve seen the SSPX get pretty wacko in the USA, UK and Australia and then come back to its senses when the superior was moved to another location.
Now the “resistance” have left, the SSPX in the UK run by Fr. Robert Brucciani is my cup of tea. Elsewhere in the world you might have a whack-job running it and be better off at the FSSP.
Essentially I’ll attend any TLM where the priest is a red-blooded hetrosexual, holy and there are not too many wackos.
He calls for an end to “circular firing squads” and “anathematizing one another.”
We’ve spent 40 years anathematizing Popes, from JP2 onwards as well as Bishops, Cardinals and various modern day “visionaries”. Anathematizing one another is part of our DNA.
How can I not anathematize Pope Michael I or The Little Pebble or some dogmatic sedevacantist who tells my children they are only going to be saved if they attend his 12 foot by 12 foot “Church” in the back of his garden?
If it wasn’t for the fact that the Vatican and the Novus Ordo church is filled to the brim with apostates, perverts and sexual predators, I could almost define my 40 years as a Traditional Catholic as a series of very bizarre experiences.
If the “clans” wanted to unite, they would have done so on their own without the prodding of Mr. Matt. They can’t unite because they are not in agreement on so many issues. Regardless of sincere intent, its a useless gesture. Prayer is the answer.
“Truth is not made by numbers: numbers do not make the truth. Even if I am alone, and even if I am abandoned by the whole of public opinion, it is all the same to me. I am attached to my catechism, my credo, attached to Tradition which sanctified all the saints in Heaven. What matters is fidelity to our Faith. We should have that conviction and stay calm.” (Fideliter no. 79)
What Mr Matt conveniently forgets is that the so called “clans” were basically united and split because of doctrinal matters. First the SSPX kicked out the sedes and then in 1988 the soft liners went over to the enemy. But seeing how the SSPX is acting these days towards Rome, it looks like another sell out is not too far off. When you add in the issue with NO ordinations, the only place to be 100% sure of your sacraments will be at a sede chapel.
I remember the Catholic Church of the ’40’s and ’50’s. Both the priests and the laity were normal folks. Catholicism was the epitome of normalness. Not so today. The NO is freakish, but I have found that too many of the trad venues are weird as well. I long for Christ’s reinstatement of His Church.
Dear MMF—I’m with you. I long for the Catholic Church of my youth which gave the entire world a moral compass. Where is the morality in the catholic church of today? Certainly not in Rome.
(1) The lack of unity is because of the lack of a true pope.
(2) Don’t be fooled … the SSPX was already compromising with Rome when “The Nine” were expelled. That was back in the early 80’s:
It’s just gotten progressively worse.
Isn’t the existence of the “clans” the futuristic fulfillment of the 7 churches of Asia minor, where Jesus scolds every church except the one blasphemed by the Jews?
Most people go to the traditional Mass of personal convenience and cheer lead for the home team saying the heck with Catholic theology and truth itself.
While Mr. Matt claims the Remnant is forthright, Mr. Verrecchio wrote well again, because he is forthright!
Only a true Roman Pontiff can “unite the clans”.
Not Michael Matt.
The fact that there is a call to unite the clans is proof that Bergoglio cannot be pope. Because as Vatican I says, the Roman Pontiff is the principle of unity. Bergoglio is clearly the principle of disunity.
And agree totally re the Nine. They were expelled not because of their sedevacantism (in fact not all of them were sedevacantist at the time) but because they were a thorn in Archbishop Lefebvre’s side for making a “deal with Rome”.
So which is the church blasphemed by the Jews?
So your ‘cup of tea’ is a to be led by a man who claims, in his district newsletter, to be part of an ’emergency hierarchy’ which somehow avoids being in opposition to the ‘official hierarchy’? This is coming ‘back to its senses’? Surely, it is schismatic nonsense?
Hint: It’s the one that used to “pray for the perfidious Jews” at the close of the Latin Rite Mass.
I know … the Catholic Church. Except Ratio is inferring that it’s none of the traditional “churches” or “clans”. So does he believe the Novus Ordo “church” is that church???
Don’t know. Ratio would have to weigh in on that one. What I DO know is that Jews were h-e-a-v-i-l-y involved (behind the scenes, mostly) in the drafting of the 16 documents, most especially Nostra Aetate and Gaudium et Spes—the latter also notably exhibiting the finger prints of John Paul II. Speaking of JPII, remember how ecstatic the Jewish intelligentsia were over how “brilliant” his inaugural speech to the world was soon after being hustled into the Chair of Peter (turns out it wasn’t so good a fit for His Brilliancy’s backside).
Louie, what does Michael Matt want or expect? There aren’t clan in the traditionalist wing, there are points of view which have some thus far irreconcilable differences. What are we supposed to unite about? Our mutual disdain for Francis? If so, let’s unite also with the increasing number of Novus Ordo attendees who think he is an antipope. I can think of three of those right off hand. No, the plan to unite the clans is close to meaningless.
Like you, after several months of research, study and reading, I recently came to the conclusion that the only ones making any coherent sense in this ongoing, self induced Chastisement, aka the Vat2 Modernist Conciliar Church, are the Sedes. Popes cannot be heretics and Christ’s Catholic Church and true Popes cannot deceive and/or teach error. PERIOD.
There can be no such thing as R&R when it comes to the dogma, doctrines, extraordinary and/or the ordinary universal magisterium. True Popes don’t lie or deceive. The RCC is not a pick and choose, private judgement Church. There is no such thing as “evolving truth, dogma, etc….and all the other Modernist nonsense. Anyone who is serious about the truth, the faith and their own salvation would do well to really look at the Sede position. It is coherent, documented, understandable, clear and most important Catholic…It is centered on the Lord and His Mother…..not on a feel good…”Unite The Clans”…clanging bell…signifying nothing….
One has to note with interest and irony that Matt & Unite the Clans are dead silent on Dr Chojnowski’s Sister Lucy Truth project. It provides irrefutable scientific proof of a fraudulent Sister Lucy imposter from at least 1967 until her death in 2005….Just let that sink in….very slooooowlllly..the site speaks for itself. Combine it with the Heretical Conciliar Church, Popes etc. etc…and “Chastisement” is the only explanation that makes some sense.
This was posted on cathinfo.
Louie says: “I’m on Team Catholic.” He also says, I “assist at Holy Mass offered by the Fraternity of St. Peter.” Yet he criticizes Michael Matt for accepting FSSP priests into the Unite the Clans movement.
Does Louie believe the FSSP and its priest are Catholic? If not, Louie “assists at Holy Mass” at non-Catholic church and worships with heretics every Sunday.
If he does believe the FSSP and its priests are Catholic, and if he is really “on Team Catholic,” as he claims, and not “Team Louie,” as his article suggests, how can he possibly object to MM’s desire to unite with priests of the Catholic religious order that he himself belongs to? Is this a case of rank hypocrisy, spiritual blindness, or diabolical disorientation?
And yet sedes are so disunited, they ban laity going to other sede camp for communion. If sedes are right and all the heretics in Vatican are not even priests, why in the world is there no conclave done by the last few remaining sede bishops? And I hope all sedes on this forum got conditionally re-confirmed if they truly believe their doctrine.
P.S. Plot twist, Thuc line might be invalid so those sedes need to be conditionally re-re-confirmed.
Same quesition for you. If sedes believe those heretics are not priests, why not do everyone a favour and gather sede bishops and send invite to other bishops ordained in the latin rite by valid bishops to join them in electing a new pope? Why has no one (except crazy Palmarians) done this in the last 50 years if you really believe that?
“Ahough it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to
be obeyed and in what not,… it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: “One ought to obey God rather than man”; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not
to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)….” –Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (Turrencremata), Summa de Ecclesia (1489)
I am officially at sea. Not despairing, not leaving…just hopelessly confused. I was born after Vatican II and have attended a TLM only once, when I was 30. I go to church every Sunday and went to Catholic school from kindergarten through college. I KNOW in my gut that Bergoglio is diabolical. Beyond that, at this point, I am sure of nothing. Dear Lord, I beg you to intervene. Please.
The crazy Palmarians aren’t the only ones to have done that. There have been dozens of competing antipopes elected by sedevacantist groups during the past 50 years. The sedevacantists have probably produced more antipopes in past 50 years, than all the heresies combined for the first 1950 years of the Church.
That’s kind of the way I am, utahagen. My feeling is that we Catholics should “unite” in saying, independently or in groups, 15 decades of the Rosary every day. We should be aware that there probably millions of Catholic souls around the world saying the Rosary just at the moment we are saying ours. And as we pray (with confidence), let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to intercede for us with her Divine Son that He will give us the comfort and reassurance that He is with us every step of the way. Let’s trust Him and not give so much attention to the internecine squabbles and strife found in the various trad factions—all of whom desire the restoration of Holy Mother Church. I have no Latin Mass to attend where I am (and given my particular situation). Still, I do what I can and Our Blessed Lord is okay with that. Deo gratias.
They haven’t gotten together because they lack the political will to hold a conclave. That failure of theirs in no way refutes their argument that a heretic cannot be Pope. You are setting up a straw man in order to discredit the sedevacantists. It is indeed a scandal that all these sedevacantists cannot “unite” and hold a conclave. But again, that scandal does not prove their argument wrong.
Are you implying that we take the word of a controversial Cardinal from the 15th Century over the magisterial teachings of Popes and a Council of the 19th and 20th Century? A Pope can err in non essential matters and give evil commands on temporal matters. But a Pope cannot teach heresy and give the faithful evil worship and disciplines. You are purposely failing to draw proper distinctions in order to prop up your Gallican views.
Just curious as to what led you to leave the sede position and embrace the current(?) pope as a valid pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a four-word term which I can find no evidence of Francis’s uttering/writing anywhere, any time.
It’s only the Bishop Kelly group who deny sacraments. None of the others do. I have had priests of both the CMRI and MHT come to where I am and there’s never been a problem. In any case I’ve known of SSPX priests denying sacraments to Resistance laity, so the point you are trying to make is useless.
With regards to Thuc’s episcopal consecrations there is plenty of evidence out there which demonstrates that they are valid, especially those of Bishops Guerard des Lauriers, Carmona and Zamora. Don’t rely on dishonest information by the SSPX on these matters, look into them yourself.
Utahagen, best thing anyone can do is go back and read and study the catechism. Any one published before Vatican II, e.g. the various Baltimores, or My Catholic Faith, or Deharbe’s, or the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Read it slowly and bit by bit. Especially the parts relating to the Church and the Papacy. This will clear any confusion and not only your gut will tell you Bergoglio is diabolical, your head will too, and that it is impossible that someone like him can be the Roman Pontiff. In the meantime we wait and pray for God to grant us a true pope. Then, the “clans” will truly be united.
Not only valid, but Thuc had papal mandate.
Dozens? Please provide support for that.
Remember the good ole days when the Catholic Church consisted of Religious Orders of Priests, Brothers and Nuns who provided the Holy Sacraments, teachers, nurses etc. who sustained the Catholic world and the entire world spiritually and, many times materially, in the Holy Name of Jesus. Now we have “clans” in opposition to each other who are now expected to unite to fix this mess. Good Luck!!
Good grief, we can hardly agree what day it is, let alone get our act together in any meaningful way to address a demon on the seat of Peter.
I don’t fault Michael Matt, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt since as a member of Church Militant he is surely more my brother than most. Due to the relentless assault on the faith we are all trying to be our own little pope and figure out who is in our camp and who isn’t. Confusion reigns, for whatever reason God allows it, confusion reigns. But it won’t forever. As is said here, study Scripture, the pre-Vat catechisms like the Baltimore, and I would say, find a Traditional Latin Mass even if you can only attend once a month! Go, for heaven’s sake, go. It makes all the difference.
I would have joined any effort to frankly, stick it to these usurpers. Remember the Rome posters? I loved it. I would have helped put them up if I could. So any effort to thwart them, annoy them, educate fellow Catholics about them, I’m in. We are not going to get him out. That is up to the Lord and I’m not going to try to take His job. God bless all here, and all trying to sort this out. We need to hang in there and be the pebble in their shoe whenever we can. It will be to our everlasting credit we resisted them and did what we could! Bergolio has clearly noticed. Good.
Pray and annoy, pray and annoy, pray and annoy….
Tom A, controversial why?
Is John of St. Thomas O.P. good? “I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment; indeed, a great confusion in the Church would follow , if it was allowed that the admonition is made by a private man, and that the manifestation of this heresy having been made without being declared by the Church and proclaimed to all, in order that they avoid the Pontiff, that all should be required to avoid; for a heresy of the Pope cannot be public for all the faithful on the report of a few, and this report, not being legal, does not require that all believe it and avoid the Pontiff; and therefore as the Church proclaims him legally elected by legally designating him for all, it is necessary that she deposes him by declaring and proclaiming him as a heretic to be avoided.”
Why was there no ecclesiastical warnings by sede bishops to any conciliar pope? Was Pius XII who put Bugnini in charge of the reform of liturgy, who later destroyed gave us a bastard rite a pope?
Can you tell me why no sede bishops gathered to elect a true pope that would consecrate Russia and end the current crisis?
Apologies, just saw your answer on why. So in the history of Catholic Church where the longest deadlock vote was 1268 to 1271, while we also know Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors, and despite all the wars through the history including wwi and wwii, during which we were able to have the pope, are you telling me there is such irreconcilable difference along sede bishops that they could not turn that “politics” away for the sake of one conclave and elect one pope in last 50 years? Sorry, I cannot believe that.
But Vatican I never said that Peter’s successor would be a heretic. Nor does it ever say what the absolute maximum time there can be between Popes. You bring up a lot of good questions for which there is no answer that I know of. But again, not having an answer to your questions about sedevacantism does not prove that Bergoglio the Apostate is head of the Catholic Church. That proposition is an impossibility. A man cannot be the head of an organization that he does not belong to.
So, did Michael Matt respond to Louie about the blacklisting or not? Did I miss that?
I’d like to post an article from Bishop Gracida’s blog. I tried to post it on The Remnant comment box but it was rejected. I guess Unite the Clans doesn’t include anyone who thinks Benedict might still be the pope instead of Bergoglio.
“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed.”
This is the enmity between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the devil. We see the battle that is raging before our very eyes right here in 2019. It will get worse, much worse. It is a battle between the children and servants of Mary and the children and instruments of Lucifer. Please pray the Rosary.
That picture is witty.
From Adam and Eve’s terrible error to this current mess, reveals that man can not rule, man only flourishes in obedience to Almighty God.
Christ Is King.
(…) “The complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church has been brought about since the Council by the Council. All those who operate in the implementation of this overthrow accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designates it in the letter he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25th, and enter into schism.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
“The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and heretical.”(Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, July 8, 1987)
“It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (September 4, 1987, Ecône)
“I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)
“Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
“The City of Rome is no longer a sacred city. This is evident. They have fallen under the thumb of Masonry, and of those liberal ideas – “two centuries” as Cardinal Ratzinger said – and now they are supplying water for the mill of the revolution against Our Lord Jesus Christ.” (December 13, 1984)
+ Rosalia, you gave it a shot at least—uniting that is. Good to know–no BiP for Matt or Voris, and no examination of the evidence of BiP which has been gathered and explicated. Hmmmmm Vatican I seems pretty clear that the pope is the visible unifying focus for the faithful and Bergoglio is anything but unifying. I wonder what it will take.
@UtaHagen: You might be encouraged by this article: https://abyssum.org/2019/09/14/here-is-the-definitive-article-on-the-subject-of-the-resignation-of-pope-benedict-xvi-it-was-written-by-a-priest-who-wishes-to-remain-anonymous-and-has-therefore-signed-it-with-a-nom-de-plume-bu/#comments
You’re wasting your breath and everyone’s time by quoting John of St. Thomas. St Robert Bellarmine is a canonised saint and was made a Doctor of the Church precisely for his writings concerning the Roman Pontiff. John of St. Thomas is not canonised and is no Doctor of the Church and so, relatively speaking, his opinion on this topic is irrelevant.
One could ask why has there been no ecclesiastical warnings by SSPX bishops to any conciliar pope? Bishop Fellay had an excellent opportunity when he was granted an audience with Ratzinger, but all he could do was put on that silly big grin of his.
And Russia’s been consecrated, by Pius XII. Bergoglio can’t consecrate anything.
Matthew 26:31 (Douay-Rheims copy): “Then Jesus saith to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.” The Catholic, “both/and”, understanding, as the Holy Writ was written in time, for a time, for all time, and unto the end of time, Amen. “…strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.” We live that time again-the signs, for instance, written all over these pages at akaCatholic-, as first Christ Jesus our Lord and our God as Shepherd of His holy Church was struck on His Holy Cross and then His Vicar as His Shepherd on earth was to be struck, as Saint Paul foretold in 2 Thes 2: 7-9, Amen. The prophet Daniel foretold this time as well, and for one instance, Daniel 9:27, and our Blessed Dominus Deus commanded in Matthew 24:15 that, “the abomination of desolation”, “standing in the holy place”, shall be as Daniel foretold. Amen. Luke 18:8, “I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” Matthew 24: 37-39: “And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be.” The, “end of time”, is both an epoch and a moment, that moment, only the Father knows, as Christ our Lord commanded and yet the epoch, He commanded His disciples to know when He walked the earth and unto the end of time. Luke 12: 54-56, “And He said also to the multitudes: When you see a cloud rising from the west, presently you say: A shower is coming: and so it happeneth: And when ye see the south wind blow, you say: There will be heat: and it cometh to pass. You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth: but how is it that you do not discern this time?”
Every would be Catholic, baptized, however, all but all now and since October, 1958, in apostasy from the One true Faith and don’t even know it, has recited the Nicene Credo and yet denies the very words of the Holy and divine Faith that he claims to hold, re: “The Four Marks”: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. When one mark is missing, the Church cannot be found there. When the Apostolic mark is missing, the visible Church is gone from the face of the earth and we know then, that we are in the post-Christian (aka: post-Catholic) epoch of the desolation of Antichrist, the epoch of the, “end of time”. Amen. This is Catholic dogma and cannot be denied at the pain of losing the Catholic Faith and descending then into Hell once the veil is removed, as it rests in the Nicene Credo, the “Four Marks”, without any or all of the four, the Catholic Church founded by Jesus the Christ on the Rock of Peter which He commanded, cannot be found there. The last prophecy left now to be fulfilled thus, is the Second Coming of Jesus the Christ. So many here acknowledge, as their intellects conform to the reality as it is, which is Saint Thomas Aquinas’ definition of “truth”, that the so called, “Second Vatican Council”, is a false council because it teaches heresy. They also acknowledge that not only Jorge Bergoglio is a false pope but that all the would be popes who adhered to a false council must then also be false popes. This is all true, as a pious 12 year old in the state of grace, with a zeal for Truth, must and would know to save his soul. But the understanding stops there and they falsely believe that they can attend a true Gregorian Rite Latin Mass, anywhere on this earth, by any man who claims to be a Roman Catholic Priest, ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop. The stark and utter reality takes us back to the first quote of the Holy Writ that I wrote to you above, “…strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.” There simply cannot be a visible Church on earth without a true Shepherd on earth guiding it infallibly and with the keys to bind and loose. Any Catholic must know this to save his soul and as he professes it, as infallibly understood, in the Nicene Credo, period and end. Amen. No Holy Roman Pontiff, no visible Church. No Pope, no Bishops, no Priests, no Mass, as the most Holy Sacrifice of God to God. Amen. Alleluia. Luther knew this, as he referred to the Holy Sacrifice as the “Popish Mass” and he professed that if we would rid the world of the Pope, we would lose what he believed to be the wretched Mass. This is the perennial teaching of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the “Four Marks”, so that any Catholic would know, with metaphysical certitude, whether he is attending a Catholic Church. The Early Church Fathers, in unanimity, interpreted Daniel’s prophecy as meaning that the prophetic time would come when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would no longer be present on the face of the earth and this would be the time of the reign of the person of Antichrist. Know the 4 lectures of Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, written in about 1861, who would have been infallible in his teaching on the Faith, as having been a true Shepherd in union with his true Vicar of Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. His lectures were titled, “The Present Crisis of the Holy See-Tested by Prophesy”.
Dear mothermostforgiving, you asked a question of me in the combox of the last article. You must first know, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, the infallible Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, upheld later by Pope Saint Pius V in his encyclical, “Inter Multiplices”.
This informs the faithful definitively, as infallibly, and as thus we must give this teaching/discipline, the assent of our faith at the pain of Hell, that and why, all the true Bishops at the false Vatican Council, who assented to its teaching by signing on, and even prior to the council by their assenting to the two false popes who first opened and then sustained the council, not only lost their episcopacy for the rest of each of their natural lives, never being able to ever again hold any ecclesial office, by committing this heresy, but also lost the divine and Catholic Faith, latae sententiae, and it could not be reinstated to them, in the external realm, except by a true as valid, Vicar of Christ Himself, as the crime of heresy has been viewed perennially by the Church as a crime worse than murder, as it has the potential to murder the soul, eternally. Amen. This is the Catholic Faith. Also know, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, the election law of Pope Pius XII, given by him in 1945. It was his governing authority, as the keys to bind and loose, and thus we must assent to it at the pain of schism, thus loosing the divine and Catholic Faith, Amen. This is all very simple in truth as Truth. The utter and sorrowful reality is that all but all are now receiving the, “operation of error to believe lying”, as Saint Paul foretold of this time in 2 Thes 2, Amen. According to Saint Paul, those that receive it, “perish”, if they die with it. Pray the Holy Rosary in filial love of and devotion to, the eternally Virgin Mother of God, Mary most Holy, the destroyer of all heresy. Amen. Alleluia. May Almighty God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.
“I’m on Team Catholic. Period. End of story.” Thank you so much Luigi as this has been the only thing keeping us going thus far as all the traditionalist Catholic priestly societies have failed in some way in keeping true to the authentic Catholic Faith. And if I was on Twitter — #JUSTbeCATHOLIC God Bless you!!!!
The further down the sedevacantist path you travel, the worse it gets. At first glance the quotations and arguments seem conclusive, but as you study the doctrines closer and follow the natural path of questions that the knowledge of each doctrine raises in your mind, you eventually arrive at the inescapable conclusion that the Church has lost its mission and the gates of hell have prevailed. Sedevacantism is a seductive trap. It entices Catholics with superficial arguments, and once the hooks are in drags them down a path that ends in heresy.
If you want to see where sedevacantism ends, read the first chapters of Salza and Sisco’s book True or False Pope. It’s all laid out there. Or read Patrick Henry’s “Petition for Spiritual Help”, which is free online.
“The Four Marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. When one mark is missing, the Church cannot be found there. When the Apostolic mark is missing,THE VISIBLE CHURCH IS GONE FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH” ~ In Charitas
Mothermostforgiving. This is what I was referring to. If you begin with sedevacantism and follow the logical doctrinal path, you will end at the inescapable conclusion that the Church has lost the mark of Apostolicity and come to an end, which of course is heresy. By the time most sedevacantists arrive at this conclusion, they are in too deep to escape. That is what caused Patrick Henry to write is Petition for Spiritual Help.
There is no “further down the sedevacantist path.” There are no other conclusions that can be drawn after one draws the obvious and necessary conclusion that the conciliar heretics cannot be the Catholic Church. Honest sedevacantists propose no doctrines to explain anything other than that heretic in Rome cannot be the Pope. There are sedes with other issues, but then so are there groups in the Novus Ordo establishment with agendas.
Librorum. Here’s a quote from a Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, teaching that Christ will not depose a heretical pope until a council issues a declaration:
St. Alphonsus: “It should first be noted that the superiority of the Pope over the council does not extend to the dubious Pope in the time of a schism when there is a serious doubt about the legitimacy of his election; because then everyone must submit to the council, as defined by the Council of Constance. Then indeed the General Council draws its supreme power directly from Christ, as in times of vacancy of the Apostolic See, as it was well said by St. Antoninus (Summa, p. 3 tit. 23, c. 2 § 6). The same must be said of a pope who would be manifestly and exteriorly heretical (and not only secretly and mentally). However, others argue more accurately that, in this case, the Pope cannot be deprived of his authority by the council as if it were above him, but that he is deposed immediately by Christ, when the CONDITION of this deposition [= the declaration of the council] is carried out AS REQUIRED. (St. Alphonsus, Dissertatio De Romani Pontificis Auctoritate)
FormerSede wrote: “Sedevacantism is a seductive trap. It entices Catholics with superficial arguments, and once the hooks are in drags them down a path that ends in heresy.”
Your vilify sedevacantists but fail to utter a word about the monstrous heresies promulgated by the popes(?) of the Second Vatican Council. Why is that? Do you not see that they were DEMONSTRABLY heretics?
List some of the monstrous heresies you’re referring to, from Paul VI though Francis, and I’ll “utter and word” about them. But be sure to include the solemnly defined dogma that the monstrous heresies DIRECTLY contradicts.
!!!Caution: Diversion Warning!!!
My question was “Do you not see that they were DEMONSTRABLY heretics?” It’s a yes-or-no question.
Demonstrate Apostolic Succession today, as every true Catholic must be able to do now and until the end of time when going to a visible church, and has always been able to do prior October 9, 1958, at the pain of loosing your soul to Hell for false worship, when attending a Church that calls itself, “Catholic”, that it indeed is “Catholic”, as in the Church established by Jesus the Christ, because Apostolic Succession is intact. It doesn’t matter whether it is an SSPX chapel, a “Sede” chapel, a Novus Ordo church, an FSSP church, or any such machination–demonstrate Apostolic Succession-, as you must and at the pain of Hell. Where is Apostolic Succession today, FormerSede? Know what the Vatican Council infallibly teaches, in its 4th and final session, July, 1870:
“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”
A child who has attained the age of reason knows when taught, what the infallible Vatican Council definitively taught when it declared: “..never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors. ” That child who has been taught then forever knows that the Holy Roman Pontiff as the true Vicar of Christ, can never lose his personal faith. Period and end. If the man who dresses the part, claims the part, and everyone else in the world but you believes him, he still remains a non-Catholic, yet alone a false pope in this case, if he holds and teaches heresy, as everyone did/does, since Roncalli. Amen. God bless and keep you. In caritas.
You asked more than one question, didn’t you? In the first question, when you asked why I failed to comment on the “monstrous heresies” promulgated “by the Popes since Vatican II”, you were committing the logical fallacy of Assuming the Consequent, which is the most common error sedevacantists fall into. That’s why I asked for proof of the antecedent, that is, proof of the heresies they promulgated.
With respect to your second question, it is NOT demonstrable that they were legally notorious heretics, and any degree of heresy less than that has no juridical effect in the ecclesiastical forum.
Father Cekada (sedevacantist) : “The Blathering of the Clams”
It’s admonishment also for you, dear Mr. Louie Verrecchio (yes, dear to me).
If you you think V2 is a spoiled fruit -> please start using pre-Vatican2 theology & rules. Then a lot of things starts to make sense & are really simple.
The Quibbling About Heresy And The Decadence Of Sensus Catholicus
What you many not realize is that being personally convinced that the pope is a heretic, based on our sensus catholicus, does not mean he’s not the pope. Heresy that is not legally notorious has no juridical effect.
So, the problem is not that those who KNOW Francis is pope have a deficient sensus catholicus. The problem is that those who believe Francis is a heretic, base on their sensus catholics, think that means he’s not the pope. The more sure they are that he’s a heretic, the more sure they are that he’s not the pope. What they don’t realize is HERESY THAT IS NOT LEGALLY NOTORIOUS HAS NO JURIDICAL EFFECT IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL FORUM.
Spoken like a true conciliarist. A Catholic would have immediately and unambiguously accused these men of the heresies of which they are guilty. But you didn’t do that, and that’s because you’re not a Catholic. Anyone familiar with pre-VII Church teaching knows that the religion of VII cannot possibly be the same as the religion preceding that abomination. Since you brought up a logical fallacy, I’ll bring up the principle of contradiction, the first of the three Laws of Thought and one of the most useful ones in comparing VII teachings against authentic Catholic teaching. You can dodge and equivocate all you want, but everyone will be wise to what you’re doing.
Well the Blessed Mother stated at Fatima that “only she can help you,” referring to herself. And she also said to pray the rosary over and over again, and that all we would have left is the rosary and the brown scapular. So…
Librorum would you mind referencing such a great moment where Pius XII consecrated Russia? And would you care to explain why the Heavens “fooled us” as there was no Triumph of Immaculate Heart or period of Peace that would follow the consecration?
Thanks for that, John314. And that’s what it has all come down to in what appear to be these last days: The Blessed Virgin Mary interceding for us as we pray the Rosary.
Jacobum, yes. 100% yes.
St Alphonsus also said: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
In any case, as I mentioned earlier, St Robert Bellarmine was declared a Doctor of the Church on account of his writings concerning the Roman Pontiff. St Alphonsus was declared a Doctor of the Church on account of his writings on moral theology. So for issues relating to the Roman Pontiff one should consult St Robert Bellarmine, as the Church has made him the authority on this issue.
I am not an expert on Fatima but I do know that Pius XII had a vision of the miracle of the sun in 1950, and consecrated Russia (or “the peoples of Russia”) to the Immaculate Heart in 1952. Regardless of any outcome I certainly don’t believe that heaven fooled us. That would be a blasphemy to say that. In what I have read it is said that the consecration would be done, but it would be done late. The 1950s were pretty late in my opinion. Remember, God said “My ways are not your ways”.
“Sedevacantism is a seductive trap”. What, reading and studying the catechism is a seductive trap??
Salza is a former (?) 32 degree freemason. No Catholic should read anything from him. He should be living quietly in prayer and penance.
It’s ironic that people are recommended to read Patrick Henry’s “Petition for Spiritual Help”, because, apart from being, quite frankly, bizarre (to say the least) he has a lot of stuff on his website that is quite scathing of the SSPX too. He also must have also found out that the further down the SSPX path you travel, the worse it gets. But I wouldn’t touch his stuff with a barge pole.
I’m currently agnostic on the question of whether he’s pope. But I have no doubt that he’s most assuredly a public pertinacious heretic. The evidence of this is copious and continually growing. This is the hard objective reality.
Louie, you’re totally missing Mr. MATT’s point. In fact, you’re words and actions are saying and doing exactly what “Unites the clans” intends to prevent which is to remain silent and don’t attack fellow traditionalists when you have an alternative opinion about the crisis in the church because neither person, blog, social media apostalete, etc…. will be able to fix this crisis nor do they have the solution. One could easily take your article and replace the words “unite the clans” with “the Catholic Inquistor” and you have the same outcome that you present here which is nothing more than a marketing inititive for the Catholic Inquistor by the use of calumny against someone through use of doctrine-overused by Traditionalists since this crisis began causing more fractions of the counter revolution traditional camps and success for the modernist revolution. If you want to be a leader that stands above all and truely help end this crisis then promote the one and only message that has the only solution. Fr Gruner and John Venarri were the only leaders before they were taken from this world and for obvious reason. Both saw the only solution to this crisis and promoted it- The Consecration of Russia and therefore they had to be taken out and God allowed this. The Consecration needs to be the foundation and focus of all the traditional camps and should be the foundation that “Unites the clans” which I suspect Michael Matt will progress to once the clans have been united. After all the Fatima message is the one thing that Unites all of us and all will be resolved once completed- Our Lady’s promise and she doesn’t Lie! Nor will God allow the crisis to be solved by a human using human means alone because to do so makes Our Lady’s message irrelevant and THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
But even if you believe he is a “public pertinacious heretic,” it doesn’t change the fact that his heresy is not legally notorious. If you want to know what is required for a bishop to lose his office, ipso facto, for heresy, look at the historical examples of when it has happened.
Look to the definitive as licitly binding work on how a would be Catholic laymen must view an heretical Bishop. The language is so strong, that even if the ecclesiastic is believed to have, “deviated from”, the holy Catholic Faith, that is enough to demonstrate the violation and the latae sentenciae, excommunication and loss of ecclesial office. Period and end. “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, Pope Paul IV singular Apostolic Constitution, binding now and for all time (http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm). The pathetic as sophomoric argument has been parlayed that it is, “just an act of discipline”, and as thus doesn’t hold authoritative and binding weight. What? Of course the keys to bind and loose hold binding weight, at the pain of schism, thus ex-communication as ipso-facto, latae sentenciae. Further, this Apostolic Constitution was later affirmed by Pope Saint Pius V, as perpetually binding. Amen. Furthermore, Bergoglio is not even a Catholic priest, yet alone a Bishop and Pope, as ordained in the false church and under the false juridical facade thus. In caritas.
In caritas: “The language is so strong, that even if the ecclesiastic is believed to have, “deviated from”, the holy Catholic Faith, that is enough to demonstrate the violation and the latae sentenciae, excommunication and loss of ecclesial office. Period and end. “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, Pope Paul IV singular Apostolic Constitution, binding now and for all time..”
Cum ex Apostolatus is referring to pre-election heresy invalidating an election, not post election heresy causing the loss of office. The penal laws were never enforced and they were eventually derogated when the 1917 Code came into force in May of 1918.
Good evening FormerSede,
You continue to demonstrate, for all eyes that see, what you do not know about the Catholic Faith and the Church’s teaching, immutable as infallible. For one, you demonstrate the reality as truth, that you are not even Catholic, as you openly debate an infallibly closed question about whether a true as Holy Roman Pontiff can lose his personal faith, thus as to whether he could possibly fall into any heresy as Pontiff. That question was open for the Saint and Doctor, as defender of the Papacy, Robert Bellarmine, but certainly, as with metaphysical certitude, that question is no longer open to you or any other miserable human creature, miscreant or otherwise. To quote (emphasis mine) from the only Vatican Council, Session 4, 18 July, 1870, chapter 4:7: “The gift of truth and NEVER-FAILING FAITH was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”
In that understanding, the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, speaks both to an ecclesial office never having been granted, as being both, “null and void”, should it be later found that a Bishop, Cardinal, Archbishop, Patriarch, etc., had deviated from the Faith, committed heresy or schism prior to the elevation to that said office and it also speaks to the loss of said office once granted, if the ecclesiastic deviates from the Faith, commits heresy or schism, and that is found in paragraph 3: a, b, and c. I’ll quote from part.
(i) “each and every member of the following categories – Bishops, Archbishops, patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings, and Emperors – who:
(a) hitherto have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these;
(b) in the FUTURE ALSO shall deviate, or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or provoke or commit either or both of these, or shall be detected or shall confess to have, or shall be convicted of having deviated, or fallen into heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these;
(c) since in this they are rendered more inexcusable than the rest in addition to the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly, entirely, and perpetually deprived off: their Orders and Cathedrals, even Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, the honor of the Cardinalate and the office of any embassy whatsoever, not to mention both active and passive voting rights, all authority, Monasteries, benefices, and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever, or by Apostolic Dispensations to title, charge and administration or otherwise howsoever, and in which or to which they may have any right whatsoever,….”
It goes on to say that they can never, as long as they shall live, ever be restored, returned, reinstated, or rehabilitated to their former status, greater or lesser. They can never again hold any ecclesial office and shall be sequestered to a life in a Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction.
The First Vatican Council does not teach that a Pope is unable to lose his personal faith. You can confirm this by reading any approved commentary on the definition of Papal Infallibility. Listen to what Cardinal Stickler wrote in 1974: “First of all it is necessary to say that the prerogative of infallibility of office does not prevent the pope as a person from sinning and therefore from becoming personally even a heretic. In fact, NO THEOLOGIAN today, even if he accept unconditionally the infallibility of the Roman pontiff, asserts thereby that the pope, speaking in the abstract, cannot personally become a heretic.” (A. Stickler, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 60, No. 3.) Do you really think that “no theologian” would assert that a Pope “cannot personally become a heretic” if the opposite was defined at Vatican I?
According to Tradition, Christ’s promise of unfailing faith conferred upon Peter two distinct promised: that he would never fall into personal heresy, and that he would err when he was defining a doctrine. Only the second was passed on to Peter’s successors. The second promise is what Vatican I defined in Pastor Aeternus. That’s why Christ’s promise of unfailing faith is quoted three paragraphs before the dogmatic definition.
You erred a second time by again claiming that Cum ex Apostolatus teaches that a Pope who loses the faith will fall from the Pontificate. The quotation you provided from Cum ex is not referring to a Pope. Read it again. The section you quoted from (3) is applicable to “Bishops, Archbishops, patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings, and Emperors.” The part that pertains to the Roman Pontiff is in section 6, and it only refers to pre-election heresy, not post election heresy.
Lastly, not only were you wrong twice, but your arguments contradict each other. First you say Vatican I defined that a Pope CANNOT lose the faith, and then you appeal to Cum ex Apostolatus to prove that a Pope who DOES lose the faith falls from office. But if it is impossible for a Pope to lose the faith, as you say, how could the loss of faith ever cause a Pope to fall from office?
O God, come to my assistance; O Lord, make haste to help me.
If a pope were to become a pertinacious heretic, then he would latae sententiae be excommunicated from the Holy Catholic Church. Ergo, he could not possibly hold any office in the hierarchy. So, he would cease to be pope, and would subsequently be anathematized by a council called for that purpose.
Excommunication is part of the Church’s positive law. The Church’s positive law has no coercive power over a pope.
Hence, a pope cannot incur the censure of excommunication.
Another point is that a latae sententiae excommunication does not cause the loss of office for anyone in the Church, unless the offense is first juridically proven and declared.
“The Church’s positive law has no coercive power over a pope.
Hence, a pope cannot incur the censure of excommunication.”
Here’s a quote from Fr. Cekada that confirms it:
Fr. Cekada: “The material Mr. Sparks quotes deals with heresy as a delictum and with the ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) that the heretic incurs. This is mostly irrelevant to the case of a heretical pope. Because he is the supreme legislator and therefore not subject to canon law, a pope cannot commit a true delictum of heresy OR INCUR AN EXCOMMUNICATION.” (Cekada, “Sedevacantism Refuted?”, 2004)
A quote from Fr. Cekada does not prove it. Canon law is the proper vehicle for your proof.
In all sincerity, you demonstrate in the objective realm that you simply cannot hold the Catholic Faith. Now also, you demonstrate an infinitely lesser malady and that is with reading and language comprehension. I never wrote that a true Vicar of Christ can lose his position as Vicar of Christ, period and end. You must read what was written again. What I wrote, is what Pope Paul IV commanded as the Vicar of Christ, holding the keys to bind and loose. What he declared is, that if a man who appeared to ascend the Chair of Peter as the Vicar of Christ in a conclave, was at any later time found to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, committed heresy, or schism PRIOR TO
In all sincerity, you demonstrate in the objective realm that you simply cannot hold the Catholic Faith. Now also, you demonstrate an infinitely lesser malady and that is with reading and language comprehension. I never wrote that a true Vicar of Christ can lose his position as Vicar of Christ, period and end. You must read what was written again. What I wrote, is what Pope Paul IV commanded as the Vicar of Christ, holding the keys to bind and loose. What he declared is, that if a man who appeared to ascend the Chair of Peter as the Vicar of Christ in a conclave, was at any later time (as in no time limit) found to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, committed heresy, or schism PRIOR TO his APPARENT assent into the Chair of Saint Peter, then he was NEVER the Pontiff, period and end. His faux election rendered, “NULL and VOID”, as it never took place. Thus, there’s no Office for him to lose, as he never held the Office in truth. It doesn’t matter whether every would be Catholic in the world thought that he was Pontiff, as the error in their knowledge of the false assent cannot somehow cause remedy for a man who had deviated from the Faith, committed heresy or schism, to be other than who he was, unfit matter for the Office. Period and end.
Now, to demonstrate the object evidence of your inability to comprehend specifically what was written and commanded, with the assent of faith at the pain of Hell, by the Vatican Council in their Fourth Session, 18 July, 1870, and in chapter 4, paragraph 7: “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS SEE
so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”
The Council Fathers even explain WHY the gift of never-failing faith was DIVINELY conferred upon Blessed Peter AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS SEE—-so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by THEM (them, as in 3rd person plural pronoun, not first person, “he”, as in just Saint Peter) from the poisonous food of error….” Amen.
You have the sheer audacity to use the word, “tradition”, in your response to me above, and when you do that, you are defying Holy as infallible Tradition itself, by contradicting specifically what a true Ecumenical Council infallibly taught, in the words written for you yet again above, FormerSede. You are so blind to Truth that you don’t even realize, that when you heretically suggest that a true Vicar of Christ can lose his personal faith, as in assent to heresy, you are suggesting then that he can give something that he does not even possess himself, to the flock of Christ. How does any human do that FormerSede, that is give something they DO NOT POSSESS, to someone else? That which you do not possess, you have not to give. Period and end, as you defy the law of non-contradiction, rendering your position then, utterly absurd, as it has no being in reality. Amen. That is how inane and obscure your position is. If the true Vicar of Christ could lose his personal faith, then he could NOT protect the Deposit of Faith from error, as he would have fallen into error himself, and thus he would have lost the faith himself, therefore, he would not possess it, to give it, to the flock of Christ Jesus, Amen. You see, you CANNOT GIVE THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT POSSESS. A 7 year old knows that. May God have mercy on you and me. In caritas.
In caritas, I’ll bet you 10 Rosary’s that you can’t produce a single quotation from a theological manual published after Vatican I that agrees with your interpretation of Pastor Aeternus. If you can find one, I’ll pray 10 Rosary’s for you; if you can’t, you have to pay 10 for me. Deal?
You said, ” I never wrote that a true Vicar of Christ can LOSE his position as Vicar of Christ, period and end.”
Is that so? Here is what you wrote: “The language is so strong, that even if the ecclesiastic is believed to have, ‘deviated from’, the holy Catholic Faith, that is enough to demonstrate the violation and the latae sentenciae, excommunication and LOSS OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE. Period and end. ‘Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio’, Pope Paul IV singular Apostolic Constitution, binding now and for all time.”
FormerSede, you wrote: “In caritas, I’ll bet you 10 Rosary’s that you can’t produce a single quotation from a theological manual published after Vatican I that agrees with your interpretation of Pastor Aeternus.”
In caritas gave you and opportunity to assent to the truth and this evasion is what you come up with???
“In caritas gave you and opportunity to assent to the truth and this evasion is what you come up with???”
I’m not sure how you missed it, but what I am trying to convey to In caritas is that what he’s asking me to assent to is NOT the truth. Vatican I did not teach that a Pope is unable to fall into personal heresy. In caritas is treating Vatican I the way Protestants do the bible, and interpreting it according to his own private judgment. What’s worse is that you believed his false interpretation and assented to it as the truth.
Compare what you have assented to with the following teaching of Fr. Berry.
Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (1927): “The Council declared the Roman Pontiff personally infallible when speaking officially as head of the universal Church, but LEFT UNTOUCHED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE POPE in his private capacity, or in his official capacity as bishop, primate or patriarch, CAN FALL INTO HERESY OR TEACH HERESY.” (E. Sylvester Berry, S.T.D, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, 1927, ch. XV, Art. 1)
That’s what is taught in every theological manual published after the Council. The question now is whether you will admit that In Caritas’ private interpretation of Vatican I is false, or stubbornly persist in assenting to it.
You even deny the command of our Blessed Lord and Savior: (Douay-Rheims) Matthew 18:3: “Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” As arguably the most brilliant intellect that Almighty God has ever bestowed, upon a mere miserable human creature, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the intellect must first inform the will and then by virtue of the reception of God’s grace alone, does the intellect then choose the good over the privation of the good which is due, in the act. That understood, Holy Church has perennially taught that we do not attain the Beatific Vision based upon what we know, rather how much we love the Truth, Who is the divine Person of the Son of God, made Man. Amen. NO WHERE has, nor could Holy Church teach, that for the purpose of our eternal salvation, each and every miserable human creature, must first consult a “learned” theologian in order to understand the meaning of the teaching of the Church in Her Faith and in Her Morality, such that the theologian then, can lead each into his salvation and the Beatific Vision. What you do here and once again, is objectively demonstrate the reality as it is, that you do not hold the Catholic Faith, as Christ Jesus our Lord commanded that His disciple must FIRST be CONVERTED and then become as a little child to get into Heaven. Amen. The primary role of the theologian of the once visible Church, was to inform the Holy Roman Pontiff on matters concerning the science of Theology, which finds as its hand-maiden, the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical method, first discovered by Aristotle, and then perfected by the Angelic Doctor. Amen. As you do not even know that you do, you are suggesting a particular gnosis possessed by the “learned” theologian and only through the reception of his gnostic design, can we achieve the Beatific Vision. As you construct this heresy, you deny, while at once and again you don’t even know that you do, the infinite power of The Christ’s redemptive grace, which allows the child who has reached the age of reason, to know the Truth, as it enlightens his intellect and moves his will into the free choice of the good. This is the Holy Catholic Faith, FormerSede. Amen.
So that you know now, once and for all, when I write or speak of the true Vicar of Christ, the Holy Roman Pontiff, I do not refer to him in 3rd person as an, “ecclesiastic”, rather I speak of him in his single position in the cosmos, as the only man whom Almighty God the Holy Ghost, has protected from ever loosing his personal faith, and then and only because of that divinely conferred charism of personal protection, is he infinitely capable of guarding the Deposit of Faith, deFide. It is patently clear from what has been written about the Vicar of Christ in the body of what I wrote, that I was not speaking of the Holy Roman Pontiff as an, “ecclesiastic”, for all those who yearn for Truth, as would a 10 year old. In my most miserable attempt to help you see the Truth FormerSede I will, likely now for the last time, quote the INFALLIBE AS IMMUTABLE teaching of the holy Ecumenical Council, as the Vatican Council, the last Council of the once visible Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as it regards the perpetually protected faith of each of the Successors of Blessed Peter, inclusive of him.
“This gift of truth and NEVER-FAILING FAITH was therefore DIVINELY CONFERRED ON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS in THIS SEE so that they might DISCHARGE THEIR EXALTED OFFICE for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be KEPT AWAY BY THEM from the POISONOUS FOOD OF ERROR and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.” Amen. Alleluia. Praised be Jesus the Christ our Lord and our God.
FormerSede: “The First Vatican Council does not teach that a Pope is unable to lose his personal faith.”
Vatican Council 4th Session, 18 July, 1870: “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all,…” Amen.
May the Blessed Virgin enlighten you intellect for your salvation. In caritas.
In caritas: “nor could Holy Church teach, that for the purpose of our eternal salvation, each and every miserable human creature, must first consult a ‘learned’ theologian in order to understand the meaning of the teaching of the Church in Her Faith…”
Couldn’t find a single theologian who agrees with your private interpretation, could you? Why do you think that is? Are you aware that during the official explanation of Pastor Aeternus, which was delivered to the Council fathers before their vote of Papal Infallibility, the deputation de fide explicitly stated that the council WAS NOT teaching that a pope is unable to fall into personal heresy? Do you really believe the official explanation of Pastor Aeternus was wrong? That every bishop at Vatican I who voted on the dogma, and every theologian since then, has not understood its true meaning, and you alone possess the true gnosis? That is a degree of pride that is almost incomprehensible.
If you humble yourself and find out what the Church actually teaches, you will discover that infallibility is not a personal charism. It is not something that the Pope possesses or that benefits him personally. It is a divine assistance that is attached to the teaching OFFICE of St. Peter. An assistance that the Pope only enjoys personally when he is defining a doctrine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pope’s personal faith.
Please do not blaspheme the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, as if by placing the most powerful prayer now in the cosmos, the Most Holy Rosary, on the “roulette table”, and parlaying it as the means of a, “deal”, as though the Holy Rosary is a tool of wager. One who holds the Catholic Faith does not profane that which is sacred. Amen. God have mercy on you.
And you wrote this to mothermostforgiving:
“Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (1927): “The Council declared the Roman Pontiff personally infallible when speaking officially as head of the universal Church, but LEFT UNTOUCHED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE POPE in his private capacity…”
You even placed emphasis on this, ‘ “but LEFT UNTOUCHED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE POPE in his private capacity…” ‘
You demonstrate utter difficulty in discerning the English language before you, ‘ “but LEFT UNTOUCHED THE QUESTION…” ‘
What does that language mean, FormerSede? The Council–, in Fr. Sylvester Berry’s opinion, as he lived in time and wrote in time and in his fallibility as a singular and approved theologian of the Church,– “LEFT UNTOUCHED THE QUESTION”. Allow it now to be unpacked for you. Fr. Berry suggests that in his opinion at the time, 1927 (as you write), that the Council left open for Her later understanding as the Church, the “question”, in his opinion at the time, of personal Papal infallibility. The, “question”, if you will, is only in the mind of Fr. Berry, at the time he wrote, as he clearly makes known by first stating that the Council left this, “question” in his mind, “untouched”. As the Council did not pose the, “question”, that same question arguably did not even exist in the collective Mind of the Council Fathers. Fr. Berry clearly states, according to you, that the Council “left untouched the question”. As it, the “question”, is “untouched” by the Council, in his opinion, he also intones tacitly, that they didn’t pose the question, rather he did. The Council cannot defy the law of non-contradiction. They cannot both “touch” the question and “not touch” the question, at the same time and under the same respect, of what the “question” indeed is.
Further and lastly, you wrote this:
‘ “The Council declared the Roman Pontiff personally infallible…”.’
Fr. Berry, as you suggest, stated, “The Council declared the Roman Pontiff personally infallible…”
Now for the philosophical line of questions, in keeping with the ontology of Saint Thomas. Who is the Roman Pontiff as, “person”, as in, “personally”? Person is synonymous with, “soul”. Ontologically speaking, the “man” is the composite of the “corpus” and the “soul/person”. When the human person dies, the “person” lives on into eternity after first receiving his “personal” judgment, yet the “man” dies, and on the Last Day, is rejoined into eternity as the human person. Amen. The charisms of infallibility and the protection of personal faith, is as Fr. Berry suggests, received into the person, “personal faith”, the substantial being of the Holy Roman Pontiff, as human person, as into his very soul which is his person. Fr. Berry states this, at least as you quote him: ” ‘ “The Council declared the Roman Pontiff personally infallible…”.’
That which is part of the human person’s substantial being, simply is part of his substantial being, as it cannot both “be” and “not be”, in respect to his substantial being, his very person, his soul. No “on and off” switches, as this has no precedent in Church understanding nor Saint Thomas’ teaching, thus. The intellect and will, as operations of the soul, do not have “on and off” switches. The soul contains the operations of the intellect and the will. As the intellect and the will do not somehow ever leave the soul/the person, the charisms of personal infallibility and “divinely conferred” protection of “never-failing faith”, as quoting the Council, cannot somehow ever leave the substantial being of the man, his very soul as his person. Amen. This is an ontological absurdity and that is why the Council never posed this question, Fr. Berry did. As holy Saints and Doctors of Holy Mother Church, have later been proven wrong in their belief, so can a Church approved theologian as a singular theologian. Saint Thomas Aquinas had an errant belief about the Blessed Virgin’s Immaculate Conception, for instance, yet of course this was not defined, deFide until Pope Pius IX, and therefore he committed no heresy, as res ipsa loquitur. Amen. I rest. In Caritas.
Lastly for now, FormerSede,
It is clear that you do not understand what Holy Church teaches regarding anything as ANYTHING said in the machinations of the Council Fathers, as they entertain the theological questions or moral questions placed before them. It matters not what they were instructed in regarding how to view this question or that. All that matters, as in all that is infallible and thus enters into Holy Tradition, is what is ultimately defined by them. How the broth is created and seasoned, as well as cooked, if you may pardon the rough analogy, has absolutely no bearing on how it actually tastes as finished soup. This is the Catholic Faith. Amen. In caritas.
I _love_ that picture. The guy in white is uniting the clans alright. Isn’t that one of
our problems with the current Pope?
Also, uniting the clans; ok, I can get on board with SSPX if I over look a few things. However, Opus Dei is a Trojan horse in the Catholic Church. Their
goal is one religion, and it won’t be traditional Catholicism. It’s the one
religion advocated by the UN, the former Agenda 21 now morphed so
the same thing with a new name and a new, urgent, it seems, time table.
And our man in Rome is marching to their tune. We must obey the United
In caritas: “You demonstrate utter difficulty in discerning the English language before you, ‘but LEFT UNTOUCHED THE QUESTION…’ What does that language mean, FormerSede?”
It means the Council DID NOT teach that a Pope is unable to fall into personal heresy, which is what I’ve been saying all along.
In caritas: “Fr. Berry states this, at least as you quote him: ‘The Council declared the Roman Pontiff personally infallible…’ That which is part of the human person’s substantial being, simply is part of his substantial being…”
Your private interpretation has led you astray again, In caritas. The pope is not infallible as a person. He is “personally infallible when speaking officially as head of the universal Church,” because when he does so the divine assistance attached to his teaching office prevents him from falling into error. He is not personally infallible in the sense that he is infallible as an individual person. The title of Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus was change during the conciliar discussions in order to more accurately reflect this very point, as Cardinal Manning explains:
Cardinal Manning, The True Story of the Vatican Council, Chapeter 5: “We have seen that its title was changed from De Romani Pontificis Infallibilitate (On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff) to De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio (On the Infallible Teaching Office of the Roman Pontiff). The reason of this change was not only for greater accuracy, but because EVEN THE TITLE OF THE DECREE EXCLUDES AT ONCE THE FIGMENT OF A PERSONAL INFALLIBILITY. This, as it is imputed to the supporters of the definition, is a fable. The meaning of the title is explained in the first words of the decree. The magisterium, or teaching office, or doctrinal authority, is contained in the primacy. The supreme ruler is also supreme teacher. The primacy contains two things, the fulness of jurisdiction, and a special assistance in the exercise of it. Now, under jurisdiction is contained the office of teaching. To deliver the law is to teach. The assistance of infallible guidance is attached to the magisterium or teaching office, and the magisterium is contained in the primacy. THE INFALLIBILITY IS THEREFORE ATTACHED TO THE PRIMACY. IT IS NOT A QUALITY INHERENT IN THE PERSON, but an assistance inseparable from the office. IT IS THEREFORE NOT PERSONAL, but official. It is personal only so far as the primacy is borne by a person. The primacy is not held in commission, as the office of Lord Treasurer or of Lord High Admiral. IT IS PERSONAL, THEREFORE, ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THE SUCCESSOR OF S. PETER IS A MAN AND NOT A BODY OF MEN—he is one and not many.”
What this shows is that all your rambling on about the substantial being of a person, etc ., has nothing to do with the true meaning of *personal* infallibility. Infallibility is a divine assistance attached to an office, not a quality inherent in a person.
In caritas: “It is clear that you do not understand what Holy Church teaches regarding anything as ANYTHING said in the machinations of the Council Fathers, as they entertain the theological questions or moral questions placed before them. It matters not what they were instructed in regarding how to view this question or that. All that matters, as in all that is infallible and thus enters into Holy Tradition, is what is ultimately defined by them.”
Amazing. So, you will persist in believing that the council defined that a Pope cannot fall into personal heresy, in spite of the fact that the official explanation from the deputation de fide says the exact opposite, and every theologian after the council disagrees with you? In your current state of pride, In caritas, you are beyond all hope.
“In your current state of pride, In caritas, you are beyond all hope.”
Are you, FormerSede, beyond reflecting on your own “current state of pride”? All of us are infected with that primal sin, and some of us admit it and seek humbly to overcome it. You would do well to pause and consider what you have accused In caritas of. Respectfully, mmf.
It is always of interest, how those who quote the individual theologians of old, as though their opinions are at once timeless and infallible, as to somehow demonstrate today, in this time, when the visible Church has lost its visibility, and as Our Lady of LaSalette forewarned that the Church will be in eclipse while the world is in dismay, and as did Henry Edward Cardinal Manning in 1861, always result in the ad hominem attack, as they as you, utterly lose any capacity to formulate cogent Catholic thought in this time. The “operation of error to believe lying”.
Again, FormerSede, the Church has never definitively declared that the Holy Roman Pontiff does not hold the charism of personal infallibility, in his person, as that would be a contradiction and the Holy Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, cannot hold or teach contradiction. The Vatican Council DID NOT ITSELF DECLARE THAT. Period and end. You proffer only theological speculation on the matter, as you do not think as a Catholic. You can continue to switch and chose any theologian you desire and it simply does not alter that reality as truth. That is a contradiction in terms. He is infallible personally, as precisely what the term, “personal”, means, involving his person. There is only one person, one soul thus, per human person, FormerSede. Before he assents to the Chair of Peter, of his own volition, he can lose his personal faith, as can any other Bishop. Once he freely ascends the Chair of Peter, he freely accepts the reality as truth, that he can never lose his personal faith, as commanded by Christ and as infallibly declared by the Vatican Council, and as noted again and again above, quoting the Council Fathers. Not only is he infallible when he declares/teaches something new on Faith or Morals but he is also infallible whenever he teaches from the Magisterium, on anything that is already in the Deposit of Faith, that he may choose to teach, whenever he may choose to teach it. A 10 year old would understand that, as if he could error when teaching again what was previously held in the Deposit of Faith, the Holy Faith would, in that very moment, be lost to the world and the gates of Hell would have prevailed.
It is an entirely different matter when the Holy Roman Pontiff is acting in his personal capacity as theologian. He can err there, whenever that which he is then opining upon, has not been previously defined and incorporated in the Deposit of Faith, as to err then in his personal capacity as theologian, is NOT to lose the Faith, when the subject is free for theological speculation, hence Honorius I, as Saint Robert Bellarmine has taught. Amen. If a Pope could fall into personal heresy, then he would have personally lost the Catholic Faith. He cannot teach what he does not hold. To suggest that he can teach and protect that which he has personally lost, in his own will, is an ontological absurdity writ large, FormerSede. If the cup is empty, you can’t share the water in it that isn’t there. Your hubris precedes you, as res ipsa loquitur. May God have mercy on you. In caritas.
I’d say it is demonstrative of being exactly the opposite of schismatic. You say nonsense but I say he’s right. Thank you Lord for SSPX. Grant us many more holy priests from this work of devotion to You Lord induced from his zeal for souls. Marcel Lefebvre pray for us.
I’ve been away awhile…when did you start allowing comments again???
The comments are the best part…its like watching pro wrestling….