In follow-up to my last post, for those who as yet still struggle to believe that it’s even possible for Rome to lose the faith, it might be useful to provide some biblical perspective.
In the Second Epistle of St. Paul to St. Timothy, the Apostle provides a warning about the latter days, which he tells us are “dangerous times.”
In the hope that the faithful might recognize them when they come, he provides some detail concerning the behavior of men in those days, saying:
Men shall be lovers of themselves, haughty, proud … they shall be disobedient to parents and lovers of pleasure more than of God…
OK, fair enough, we might say, but surely men such as these have been with us in every age. This being the case, there must be something more to it, otherwise it’s really not much of a warning at all. Right?
Well, if we pay close attention to what follows in the text, we discover that St. Paul is speaking, not so much of humankind in general, but of a very specific group of men of whom he goes on to say:
They have an appearance of godliness but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. For these are the sort that creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.
At this, I think we need to stop for just a moment to address the elephant in the room, and if the gentlemen reading this post aren’t entirely sure exactly what that elephant is, I can assure you the ladies didn’t miss it.
These are the sort that lead captive silly women…
This leads to some questions:
What on earth would prompt St. Paul to say such a thing?
Is he being deliberately provocative?
It’s perplexing; especially when you consider that this Epistle was written toward the end of St. Paul’s life. I mean, you would think he had already been beaten and stoned enough already!
So, what’s going on here?
Is St. Paul just so much a product of the paternalistic culture in which he lived that he just can’t help but denigrate women?
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this is precisely what many, if not most, seminaries were teaching in the decades following the Council, but that’s not the case at all.
In order to understand what St. Paul intends to convey, we have to read his words in the context of all that he has written.
When we do this, it becomes evident that in speaking of “silly women” St. Paul is referring very specifically to those who learn religious truths, as opposed to those who teach them.
Recall that St. Paul had written previously in his First Epistle to Timothy:
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. (1 Tim 2:12)
Now, that should make the ladies feel better, eh?
I admit it, at first glance these quotes sound a whole lot more like the Letters of Archie Bunker to Edith than Sacred Scripture, but once again, context will draw out the true meaning for us.
I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority…
Immediately from here, St. Paul goes about describing the qualifications of those who would be, get this, bishops!
He says that the man who desires the Office of Bishop, desires a good work, and he cautions that such a man should be, “blameless, and prudent, and a teacher.
Now we’re getting somewhere…
So, is St. Paul being deliberately provocative when he says “silly women?”
You bet he is. He’s trying to get our attention. He wants to make sure we don’t miss the point.
And why is doing this?
He already told us: because the latter days are dangerous times! Like a good father, he wants us to recognize that danger when it’s upon us.
Applying what we’ve discussed thus far to the warning that St. Paul is issuing in Second Timothy, it becomes rather clear that he is making a point of calling our attention to those who have the office of teaching, and the way in which they will behave in the latter days; leading their flocks astray in the ways of perdition.
They will have an appearance of godliness … but they must be avoided.
St. Paul describes these wolves in shepherds clothing further, saying that they shall be:
Blasphemers and traitors … stubborn and puffed up … men who resist the truth … men who are corrupted in mind, and reprobate concerning the faith.
He’s talking about members of the sacred hierarchy, and in particular, bishops. Let that sink in for just a moment…
These are dangerous times, indeed.
It’s quite a warning, especially when we consider that it comes, not so much from the pen of St. Paul, as from Almighty God who inspired the text.
St. Paul went on to say that even though these wayward men will ultimately fail, it’s going to be very difficult for those of us who stay true to the faith.
He says:
And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error…
But just like any good father might, St. Paul didn’t stop there; rather, he provided instruction as to how the faithful are to behave in those days, saying:
But continue in those things which you have learned and which have been committed to thee.
St. Paul went on to encourage us to hold fast to Sacred Scripture which is:
Inspired of God, profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, and to instruct in justice … that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
That’s the answer to the all-important question, “What now?”
Look, it’s obvious: Churchmen in our day, up to and including the pope, are “corrupted in mind, and reprobate concerning the faith.” They “have an appearance of godliness, but they must be avoided.”
Our job is to hold fast to the faith that has been handed down through the ages; to stay grounded in the Word of God in Sacred Scripture as proclaimed and explained, in truth, by Holy Mother Church, and I might add that we must encourage others to do the same – including those in the sacred hierarchy.
If we do these things, even though we can well expect to be persecuted, we will be well-equipped for every good work, in spite of these dangerous times in which we live.
So fear not, my friends, for we have this assurance from Almighty God Himself.
All glory, praise and honor to Him – Father, Son and Holy Ghost!
THE
ELEPHANT
IN
THE
LIVING
ROOM
I’m Eucharistic
Minister
At Mass I dress
In style
You act as though
That’s sinister
I lead all down
The aisle.
I see my son
But twice a year
He prays and studies
Hours
In cassock-black
Men laugh and jeer
Though mocking
Just empowers.
I’m Eucharistic
Minister
At Mass I dress
In style
You act as though
That’s sinister
And loyal
I’ll dance awhile.
Empowers him
To pray say yes
Receive and be
Anointed
These other Christs lay hands
And bless
Melchisedech
Appointed.
I’m Eucharistic
Minister
At Mass I dress
In style
You act as though
That’s sinister
Why we’re priests
Rank and file.
Through Masses, rosaries
Teary eyes
If Christ calls all
My boys
They’ll go but not
Support your lies
A meal with lots
Of noise.
I’m Eucharistic
Minister
At Mass I dress
In style
You act as though
That’s sinister
We’re having fun
Just smile.
Three years he’s slaved
Four more to go
Each year he’s
Farther away
And that’s so we
Can learn and know
His life for Christ
He’ll lay.
I’m Eucharistic
Sinister
At Mass I dress
In style
And all can be a minister
Diabolically
Disorienting
To beguile!
Thank you, dear Longskirts, for your sacrifice of your sons for the good of the Church and salvation of souls.
Honestly, I’m almost at the end of my Catholic rope. If God is going to allow the hierarchy to be infested with evil, faithless men, then why even trust it in the first place? At some point, I guess God expects all of us to become de-facto protestants and sift the teachings of the Church because we will reach a point when the infallible ordinary universal magisterium is going to take a permanent vacation. We’re asking for bread and getting stones, but God seems to be cool with that. We’re supposed to trust the church like a mother, yet that mother is going to go all Andrea Yates on us right before the world implodes into a ball of chaos and destruction. Great. I’m just about ready to dust off my King James Bible and go back to the church of What’s Happening Now. Sure, protestantism is thoroughly inconsistent, but Catholicism isn’t looking too logical and coherent these days either.
To help answer the burning question, “What now?”, I offer the following pertinent quotes from a source that received the imprimatur during the reign of Pope St. Pius X – The Catholic Encyclopedia. (The Q & A format and all emphases are mine.)
Question: Is a formal sentence of deposition required to deprive a heretical pope of his office?
Answer: No (according to many theologians).
Source quote:
“A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.”
Question: Had there been any popes who were public heretics prior to the publication of the Encyclopedia?
Answer: No.
Source quote: (as above).
Question: Is the visibility of the Church affected by the fact that a heretical pope ceases to be a member of the Church?
Answer: No.
Source quote:
“[A] heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience”.
Question: May we withdraw our obedience from a pope who is not a heretic?
Answer: No.
Source quote: (as above).
Here comes grumpy old Barbara again. Women should stay home, in the kitchen, barefoot in summer, and pregnant if God wills it. Isn’t that enough? It is if one follows HIS will. The true dignity of woman is in her assigned role done well, in grace.
–
How’s that for putting silly women in their places? I realize what Louie is saying: that St. Paul mentions them as an example – that BISHOPS are supposed to teach etc.
–
But I’m becoming more and more old fashioned as time goes by. We poor women have caused much destruction over the past 100 years – starting with those harridans who clamoured for the vote, through those who clamoured for birth control and divorce, up to those who clamoured for paid work outside the home (and to find themselves!). A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle eh?
–
I’m pulling some chains here, but the destruction of society, and now of Holy Mother Church, is in great part caused by women aping men, and men laying down their masculinity.
–
The effeminate men, from the pope to bishops, to priests, to the man in the pew have been created by women – but they have given up any fight they may have had in them – with hardly a shot being fired.
–
We now can talk about ‘silly women’ and be talking about the Catholic Hierarchy!
But there is a whole tradition available to you. Thousands of hours of reading on line and in books, talks, conferences, workshops, video sermons, audio sermons – the list is almost endless – 2,000 years worth!
–
Set your Catholic meter for 1950 and start.
This has value but can you use some examples from the past 2.5 years? The dry bones of the Catholic Encyclopedia are fine but hard to overlay what Francis is saying.
Dear grumpy Barbara,
“Don’t be dejected and sad, for the joy of the Lord is your strength!”
Nehemiah 8:10
Isn’t this a repost? I vaguely recall reading these (sophomoric) lines before: “Is he being deliberately provocative? It’s perplexing; especially when you consider that this Epistle was written toward the end of St. Paul’s life. I mean, you would think he had already been beaten and stoned enough already! So, what’s going on here? Is St. Paul just so much a product of the paternalistic culture in which he lived that he just can’t help but denigrate women?” All to set up your own predicated-by-current-events, protestant and “(un)authorized-to-teach-by-some (silly)-laywoman” opinion of what St. Paul (the Holy Ghost) means by “silly women”, i.e. they mean effeminate bishops(!) – men who act like girls!
Also on May 13-14 you posted on Fatima “Ignorance of Fatima is Inexcusable”
https://akacatholic.com/ignorance-of-fatima-is-inexcusable/
And yet if anyone wants to prove that Rome can and will lose the faith and its relation to ‘the end times’ one only needs to quote St. John the Evangelist’s Apocalypse. Ignorance of scripture seems far more inexcusable than ignorance of Fatima or Rome’s Fatima deception (when all of Rome’s other lies and deceptions are so blatant anyone can see them) and leads me to conclude that you (along with many others) are engaging in deception and misleading of your own (because this scripture is quite clear what the flock should do when “Rome has lost the faith” which are your words not mine):
“And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities. … Standing afar off for fear of her torments, saying: Alas! alas! that great city Babylon, that mighty city: for in one hour is thy judgment come.” Apocalypse 18:2-5, 10
Somebody once said that God created Adam first
so He wouldn’t have to listen to Eve tell Him how to make Adam.
🙂 🙂
Bold, very bold…
We have had Popes that have fallen into heresy in Church history this is what happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9y3RVqUtc
It’s the great apostasy my friend. That’s all. Double-down on tradition, dig in your heels, and if the whole world, including the pope (or anti-pope, whatever the case may be) wants to take the highway to hell, then you be one of the few souls who don’t.
That’s how I’m dealing with it.
I’m not sure where you’re coming from.
It seems to my layman-guy-in-the-pew eyes that the United States of America is a pretty good candidate for the Whore of Babylon.
I hear you, friend OaTmEaL. Watch, pray, and continue to endure this crucifixion. You’re too smart to go Proddy anyway.
There is a movement afoot called (tentatively) The Benedict Option. A google search will bring up some interesting articles. This is an exploration only, with proponents and critics but it’s very interesting. It’s a way to live in the world but ‘withdraw.’ Not go into the mountains and hide in a cave with no running water or phone….but a way of keeping ‘the world’ at a distance. Anyway worth a look. There are many people who are seeking a proper way to live as real Catholics. I’ll put up some links later.
and funny, very funny.
Hey Barbara, I’d really like a sandwich. Thanks.
and we can only imagine Eve, having lost all her powers and sanctity, driving old Adam nuts by telling him how to plow and reap and how he’s getting sweat all over the furniture!
When God created
Adam and Eve, He said:
I only have two gifts:
One is the art of peeing standing …
And then Adam stepped forward and shouted:
ME!, ME!, ME!,
I would love it please … Lord, please, please!
Look, it will make my life substantially easier.
Eve nodded, and said those things did not matter to her. Then God gave Adam the gift and he began to shout for joy.
He ran through the garden of Eden and used it to wet all the trees and
bushes, ran down the beach making drawings with his pee in the sand …
Well, he would not stop showing off.
God and Eve watched the man crazy with happiness and Eve asked God:
What is the other gift? ‘
God answered:
Eve,….. a brain … and it is for you
Thanks, Barbara. I’ll look into it.
Yes, do post the best links about this.
TWN, you seem to harbor a persistent animus against LV. Kindly explain.
I’m having more trouble finding “the appearance of godliness” than I have believing Rome has lost the faith.
Well we should learn from the period of Pope Honorius who was ex communicated as a heretic after his death. I assume that under Pope Honorius’ rule those who followed the Patriarch of Jerusalem St. Sophronius even he was ex communicated by the Pope would be saved in the end. And those who followed Pope Honorius were Reprobates not the Elects. I would never become a Protestant again. We just need to figure out who is St. Sophronius, St. Maximus of Constantinople of our day.
This is great. Thanks, we surely needed a good laugh with all the awful things we are reading.
–
I came across this when I was doing some reading earlier. It says it all: Bad bishops, priests, the pope have been influenced by Satan, and the result is a punishment.
–
“The most evident mark of God’s anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them.” ——Saint John Eudes
Dear Barbara, I see Wendy Cukierski, a Catholic wife and mother in upstate New York talks about this on her blog. Fr Paul Nicholson seems to be a priest that she supports, though.
Barbara, have you read Denzinger-Bergoglio – a site that has compared various of Pope Francis’s pronouncements to the unchangeable Tradition? They treat of a good number. Obviously, they couldn’t cover everything.
Don’t follow the apostates – a majority of the clergy and religious and lay are in unofficial apostasy.
Excellent analysis.
This reminds me of an article in New Oxford Review going back all the way to, I believe, 2006.
(When NOR published a piece of Fatima-denying idiocy from Kainz at Marquette some years later, I called the editor’s attention to that previous essay, which had a rather different take on the modernist crisis. Their response was nothing to write home about.)
They gots on the robes.
Baltimore to Louie – Rocco’s (Bevilacqua’s water boy) is tweeting Lori’s ‘important’ article on the pope’s encyclical to save the environment/earth:
http://www.catholicreview.org/article/commentary/archbishop-lori/popes-encyclical-sparks-important-discussion
Meanwhile on page 28 of ‘gay life’ see all the Baltimore Catholic Churches (faith communities) who been workin’ for 40 years to liberate gangs of sodomites to surround our houses and rape us to death (Genesis 19 & Judges 19):
http://issuu.com/baltimoregaylife/docs/gaylife_july2015?e=1223151/14205016
“While they were making merry, and refreshing their bodies with meat and drink, after the labour of the journey, the men of that city, sons of Belial, (that is, without yoke,) came and beset the old man’ s house, and began to knock at the door, calling to the master of the house, and saying: Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may abuse him. And the old man went out to them, and said: Do not so, my brethren, do not so wickedly: because this man is come into my lodging, and cease I pray you from this folly. I have a maiden daughter, and this man hath a concubine, I will bring them out to you, and you may humble them, and satisfy your lust: only, I beseech you, commit not this crime against nature on the man. They would not be satisfied with his words; which the man seeing, brought out his concubine to them, and abandoned her to their wickedness: and when they had abused her all the night, they let her go in the morning.
“But the woman, at the dawning of the day, came to the door of the house where her lord lodged, and there fell down. And in the morning the man arose, and opened the door that he might end the journey he had begun: and behold his concubine lay before the door with her hands spread on the threshold. He thinking she was taking her rest, said to her: Arise, and let us be going. But as she made no answer, perceiving she was dead, he took her up, and laid her upon his ass, and returned to his house. And when he was come home he took a sword, and divided the dead body of his wife with her bones into twelve parts, and sent the pieces into all the borders of Israel. And when every one had seen this, they all cried out: There was never such a thing done in Israel from the day that our fathers came up out of Egypt, until this day: give sentence, and decree in common what ought to be done.”
Judges 19:22-30
I do believe Louie has used the joke regarding Paul’s stonings and upsetting the ladies once before, but surely it was worth an encore.
Engaging in Scripture exegesis is hardly “Protestant” in and of itself – major error on your part there. In fact, the Church has official teachings on only a very small subset of Scripture, and, concerning this and related passages, you will find *great* support among saints, doctors, and popes for the basics of what Louie is saying here: that there will be a Great Apostasy that involves the hierarchy.
As for whether we’re in the midst of it (or that “dress rehearsal” we know will precede the final confrontation), Louie is not claiming to know anything with certainly. If the Church were to contradict him in a ruling binding on the faithful (obviously a preposterous notion for multiple reasons, but let’s pretend), you can bet he’d submit, unlike a PROTESTANT.
You’re at the end of your vatican 2 rope. True Catholicism is very consistent. When we make the mistake of trying to fit vatican 2 into Catholicism confusion and hijinks obviously ensue.
“Seek and ye shall find” Normally God uses the hierarchy to guide people to the truth but these are strange times. Rest assured though that God will provide extra grace. One example is the internet. All the Church teaching you will ever need to know in the palm of your hand.
It should be noted that even though the Church does not have many official statements on scripture, she does have many Saints and approved theologians who have wounderful interpretations who are more knowledgeable than ourselves.
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm
I believe I alluded to such.
And it looks like you & I wore damn near the same dress to this party. For a moment I thought I’d posted this.
I believe LV is reading Scripture through prism of his own mind and times to prove his own preconceived notions (same as the modernists he’s always railing against). There is Catholic commentary on the holy Bible. LV is giving some novel interpretation that he just thought up — why is he any more deserving of attention than John Hagee? More, he is teaching that St. Paul was not teaching that women should keep silent in church. Next he will say, St. Paul didn’t say women should cover their heads in church either. Then he indicates that St. Paul would not preach the truth because a gang of women might beat or stone him (I think LV is professing his own discomfort in following the (outdated) commands of God–but the Pope gets no slack). This is the exact quote from LV: “I admit it, at first glance these quotes sound a whole lot more like the Letters of Archie Bunker to Edith than Sacred Scripture, but once again, context will draw out the true meaning for us.” If LV is so traditional and has such a sense of the church and thinks w/the church and lalala, perhaps he could write a post on what the Roman Catholic Church taught was the role of women “until the council.” It wasn’t till the 80s that Catholic girls’ uniforms in Maryland included pants. When Archie Bunker was writing letters to Edith Bunker 60 million babies hadn’t been murdered in the womb in the U.S. Parts of the murdered babies’ bodies weren’t being sold for ‘research’ and the organizations doing it weren’t being subsidized and protected by the government. Parents, the disabled and veterans weren’t being starved to death by their own families, ‘assisted’ suicide wasn’t ‘legal’ and men were not running around parading dressed up like women and marching in gangs dressed in leather carrying whips and chains as they were in Baltimore last weekend celebrating “40 years of pride” (42 years of abortion).
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/gay-in-maryland/bs-md-ci-gay-pride-day-20150725-story.html
I could go on and on, but I will suggest that (silly) Eve was led captive by Satan and she proceeded to lead her husband Adam (who wasn’t afraid of sissy Satan?) into the same captivity. You might also want to contrast Proverbs Chapter 7 vs Chapter 31 foolish vs wise woman and parable of the 10 virgins – five foolish and five wise. God sets a law for sinners in the way. To me a foolish woman (and man) ignores the law God sets for him (or mocks it). Those who love God do his law whether it hurts their pride or not.
If St. Paul tells me there is danger and to avoid these men (before they take me captive like Satan (notice the reference to Pharoh’s (a type of Satan) magicians “Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith” 2 Tim 3:8 which LV leaves out.) — I am going to DO what the holy Bible commands. Reprobates concerning THE FAITH are and always have been considered a danger to souls.
P.S. LV is big on saying Pope Francis and other modernists try to persuade people to come to the faith rather than commanding them under Jesus Christ the King and stating there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. But then in regard to the ‘traditional Latin” mass, he plays the same game they do. Everyone has to be persuaded to come to it and therefore it has to be made as attractive as possible so burden is on priest to have some opera mass (and it’s his fault if people don’t come). Meanwhile, prospective attendees must be told the worship service they are already attending is as good as the ‘traditional’ mass. And if they don’t care to receive Jesus Christ the King on their knees or on the tongue or cover their head for women and wear a dress that falls below the knees w/sleeves over the elbow and neckline no lower than two fingers below the throat and for men suit and tie, they must be accommodated too. The rules must be bent to get as many people to attend as possible. Seems he has one law for Rome and another law for himself.
The current “advertisement” assaulting me on this page:
“Why Priests Abuse Kids. Highly rated analysis and ideas for prevention. By a seminarian/scientist.”
Louie wrote: “He’s talking about members of the sacred hierarchy, and in particular, bishops.” Who is St Paul talking about? Answer – St Paul is talking about heretics and apostates who are no longer members of the ‘sacred heirarchy’ but whom ‘silly women’ take for members of the ‘sacred heirarchy’
–
The evils “rise up against the Church”. Yet it would seem that the above suggests they come FROM the Church – from a ‘Rome (meaning the Church)’ that has ‘lost the faith’ whilst still somehow, being ‘Church’.
–
The ‘bishop’ St Paul had before him as example (an example those of his day could understand and which we can still understand perfectly today) was of Simon the Magician who left a rather thriving gnostic sect (just like Roncalli & Sons give us the thriving Novus Ordo sect based on the ‘silly’ doctrines of VII) which ‘creeps into the house [to] lead…’ To call that which creeps into the house and leads souls astray the ‘sacred heirarchy’ of the Bride of Christ is to declare that the gates of hell have prevailed – it is to say that the good tree of Christ and the evil tree of satan have grafted on to each other.
–
S. Cyprian’s take on 2 Tim. 3: “Let no faithful man, who keepeth in mind our Lord’s and apostle’s admonition, marvel, if he see in latter times proud and stubborn men, enemies of God’s priests, GO OUT OF THE CHURCH TO ATTACK THE SAME, since both our Lord and his apostle have predicted that such things would be.”
–
So, are these men gone ‘out of the Church’ to attack her or are they the ‘sacred heirarchy’ who are attacking the Church whilst still being ‘Church’? This makes the Body of Christ half Christ and half belial.
–
Seems to me St Cyprian’s description matches the VII Council Fathers and their ‘sons’ VII to a tee. In choosing the evil tree of the conciliar Novus Ordo they went ‘out of the Church’ – but not being content to stay away they squat and attack the same.
I pray those ‘in cassock black’ don’t ‘go out of the church to attack the same’ as most who take their cassock and sew it onto the Novus Ordo cloth do by the simple fact that they become one with those with whom they commune = the Novus Ordo.
Why would the “case of Pope Honorious” not be a “case in point”? I’m just wondering what the exception for him is.
Thanks.
Because Honorius’ error is found in a private letter which was not brought against him till 40 odd years after his death. At the First Vatican Council they dragged out every possible attack someone could possibly launch at the dogma of Papal infallibility so that no stone was left unturned and not a single Pope was ever ever ever a ‘manifestly prowling wolf’. The dogmas of the Faith have been defined not all at once, but once defined can never be revoked. No true Pope has ever publicly contradicted defined doctrine – this is because the true Pope is protected by the Holy Ghost. If we call a man a true Pope when he publicly teaches against the faith we are pointing an accusing finger at the Holy Ghost.
–
“St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Billot, along with the vast majority of theologians, held that a Pope could never become a heretic. They were all aware of the case of Honorius..” http://www.novusordowatch.org/sspx_dossier_sede.pdf
Salvemur,
“To call that which creeps into the house and leads souls astray the ‘sacred heirarchy’ of the Bride of Christ is to declare that the gates of hell have prevailed – it is to say that the good tree of Christ and the evil tree of satan have grafted on to each other.”
How very profound! Very, very well said!
This is precisely what clinging to the NO church means.
Salvemur,
“If we call a man a true Pope when he publicly teaches against the faith we are pointing an accusing finger at the Holy Ghost.”
You are hitting the nails on the head, one after another!!!
Dear TWN, You speak some profound truth very powerfully. I presume you are of goodwill and speak with the love of a sister in Christ for Mr Verrechio, our host, and the readers. God bless you.
It is for the bishops or a bishop to try or declare on the question of formal heresy by a pope, though we may all have good reason to believe there is formal heresy. What we need to concentrate on is warning people not to follow what is obviously, necessarily false and evil and in opposition to the Deposit of Faith in faith or morals. We reject all falsehoods and heresies.
With respect, Lynda, this is not what the Church teaches. We have to accept that public defection from the faith puts the one publicly defecting OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Despite the fact that ‘formal’ aspects will eventually be necessary, once there is public defection there is absolutely no permission to continue to enable that enemy by ‘formally’ being in communion with him.
–
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio Paul IV: “We enact, determine, decree and define that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless….Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).” Treat Bergoglio as a “warlock, heathen, publican, heresiarch’ – likewise, Ratzinger, Wojtyla of wretched memory…. Matthew 18 “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican…” These ‘warlocks’ “will not hear the Church”.
–
In other words we have as much ‘right’ to be in communion with these squatters as we would with ‘warlocks, heathens, publicans, heresiarchs’. Likewise we should be treating them as ‘warlocks, heathens, publicans, heresiarchs’.
–
The above teachings of Paul IV are ‘divine law’. If any one reads this comment please take a couple of seconds to really consider what Paul IV was teaching. Pray to neither deceive nor be deceived. That truth is that if we accept deceits we become deceivers.
Dear Salvemur, Of course. But the issue is who gets to definitively declare public defection where a pope denies or doesn’t explicitly admit any intention to go against the Deposit of Faith, and be in public defection. If a pope admits that he is opposing the Deposit of Faith – no problem. If he denies it, it must be proven and declared by someone with authority. There must be justice and the appearance of justice. There must be clarity and predictability and people must be able to know the situation. A pope may be a formal heretic but if he doesn’t admit intent, it must be proved. Otherwise, one is left with chaos and confusion as many people might accuse a pope of formal heresy but may be mistaken or, even if actually correct, it cannot be proven as it ought to be by those with the requisite authority. There is always a presumption of innocence until admission or the onus of proof is discharged. There has to objectivity in such an important matter. I believe Pope Francis is most likely (all signs are) a formal heretic. He speaks material heresy over and over. However, if he denies intent to oppose the Deposit of Faith, I cannot unilaterally declare that he is lying, that he is a formal heretic, and therefore, not the pope in the supernatural realm, as not a member of the Church. I believe it would not be difficult for bishops to act and demand answers/explanations/retractions of material heresies, which, if not sufficient, could lead to a just declaration of formal heresy and a declaration that he is not pope and has not been since the time formal heresy has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have existed. As you know, because of the great apostasy, we have not many bishops who appear to be prepared to take action on the current case. God bless.
Hello. The issue I’ve been addressing isn’t ‘who gets to declare’, but the issue of who we are in communion with. Archbishop Lefebvre made a declaration that wanted both to declare and keep the heretic. That said, at least he broke communion (or had it broken for him) for a sufficient amount of time for the Church in the west to be perpetuated in her Holy Orders. At any rate we have valid Bishops, because of his stand, who have kept and keep the faith unadulterated.
–
In the days of the Arian crisis, St Athanasius and others who knew and ‘cleaved to tradition’ cut off communion with all the bishops who held to that one degree of falsehood. And, unlike today, those Bishops were all undisputedly validly ordained, and the Bishop of Rome was a true pope (despite two pretenders muscling in – one during Liberius’ exile and another just upon his death). Yet, why in the age of the ‘aggiornamento’ when heretical leaders of the Dioceses follow the heretical leaders of the heretical Cardinalate must we suddenly remain in communion with them until some awaited ‘formal hearing’?
–
The faithful are not aquitted of aligning themselves with ‘warlocks, heathens, publicans, heresiarchs’ in our days any more than they were in the days of St Athanasius.
–
If there were a St Athanasius today, he would be laughed out of town or shunned secretly by the everyone but the ‘sedevacantists’.
PS. My why is rhetorical because the Church teaches that we need no formal hearing in order to keep the faith. Thank God.
–
PPS. “Why was Noah the best businessman in the Bible?…He floated his stock while everybody else was being liquidated.”
Father Hesse is probably best heard with regard to viticulture.
By way of example, quoting verbatim from the above talk:
Fr. Hesse says:
“The Pope has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY when he, in virtue of his apostolic authority defines, declares a doctrine, or a final statement to a moral theological question and says that everybody has to believe it for ever.”
This is an imprecise reference to the Solemn Magisterium. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is blandly excluded.
By contrast:
Pope Leo XIII says:
“In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Pope.”
Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae.
Pope Pius IX says:
“… this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity … are bound … to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world … This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.” Pastor Aeternus.
–
Fr. Hesse procedes to give an example of what he said above:
“For example [what] Pope Pius V did with the Holy Roman Missal in 1570. He published what is our missal and he said no future Pope ever may change this Mass or write up a new one. Because he was NOT talking about discipline, or church government, but because he was talking about a little bit more than the Faith itself, he was talking about the foundation of the Faith, he was BINDING HIS SUCCESSOR . The Pope is NOT the supreme head of the Church. That’s the most terrible of our mistakes.” He then moves on to talk about modernism and Pope St. Pius X.
Pope Pius IX says:
“We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord … And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His Resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold … If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema. ”
–
Fr. Hesse clearly does not understand a few basics.
Firstly: When Pope St. Pius V says in Quo Primum:
“Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.”
When Pope Pius V says “in perpetuity” this missal is to be followed, he does NOT mean, as any layman might think, that the Missal may never be changed by any of his successors. In canon law “in perpetuity” means “for an indefinite period”. There is no sell-by date on the ruling, no predetermined period laid down. It’s open ended. One would expect Fr. Hesse to have known this usage and not to have interpreted it like a layman.
Secondly:
No Pope can bind his successors in matters of discipline and governance. Our Lord gave full authority to St. Peter. That authority is passed on to each successive Pope – exactly as St. Peter received it. No Pope has any greater authority than any Pope before, or after him. Each is sovereign. No Pope may add to, or subtract from the Deposit of Faith, but each may change laws of discipline and governance as he deems fit. No Pope may bind his successors in this regard. When Fr. Hesse says: “He published what is our missal and he said no future Pope ever may change this Mass or write up a new one”, he is entirely wrong. Liturgy resolves under discipline and is at any time subject to alteration by the reigning Pope.
Fr. Hesse is better followed on viticulture.
Dear Lynda,
You are still not getting the point. The authority (jurisdiction) of the Pope comes from GOD. GOD gave it and GOD takes it away, when the formal heretic commits the SIN of heresy. This has NOTHING to do with men, canon law, trials, proclamations, proving of guilt, declarations, or anything else to do with men. The man SINS the SIN OF HERESY and is thereby stripped of jurisdiction and even Membership of the Church. We ARE as Catholics fully capable of judging objectively, in the external forum, his pertinacious words and deeds of heresy to be heresy. The man says the Church of Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church and also elsewhere. That is HERESY. He said it – I heard him say it, repeatedly, to the Universal Church, speaking as Pope. I know that “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Est” is Catholic DOGMA. I know that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. I do NOT need a formal declaration by the proper authorities to tell me the man is a heretic. I know he is a heretic because he denies some point of Catholic doctrine pertinaciously. I then let him be anathema, as St. Paul and numerous Popes and Saints have admonished me to do. He is no longer Vicar of Christ. Christ has fired him.
THEN, eventually, man, crime of heresy, canon law, trials, proof of guilt, fair defense etc. come into the picture for reasons of good governance; to inform all Catholics officially; to avoid the chaos and confusion you predict. The proper authorities formally charge him with formal heresy; have a proper trial and if found guilty, depose him and formally declare such deposition to the Universal Church. The heretic is formally ejected from the Chair and a new Pope is elected.
During the interval between committing the sin and the formal deposition, however long that may be, he sits in the Chair, but without any jurisdiction. He is not a Member of the Church. He is not a reigning Pope. He is a heretic. We do NOT cling to heretics!
The law of prayer IS the law of belief. Clearly this means the Mass is more than disipline. Furthuremore why did none of the Popes abrogate the Tridintine Missal when they made slight changes? For a code of cannon law the Popes always abrogated the old code before they made the new.
John XXII?
Yea I thought it funny when I saw your name too.
St Athenatius accused Liberius of signing the simi arian creed but kept communion with him.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi indeed and that’s why nobody has tried to supplant the Tridentine Mass with a novus ordo missae, except the judeo- masons, who have done it in a futile attempt to snuff out the Mass of Tradition, the Canon of which dates from St. Peter himself. No true Pope will ever abrogate the Traditional Mass, because in it we pray what the Church has always believed and always will believe. Our Faith never changes. The NO pray what they believe, together with the protestants – hence they concocted a new “mass”. Makes total sense. Yes, the Mass is very much more than “discipline” and lies at the heart of our Faith, but liturgy RESOLVES under the category of “discipline” in Church governance. Whether the NO actually did, or did not abrogate the Tridentine Mass I’m not sure. I’ve read conflicting statements on this. Others will know more. However, that they tried very hard to give the impression that it had been abrogated, is for sure. Roncalli gave an “indult” for it to be said (with his alterations). If an indult is necessary to say it makes it pretty well suppressed at least.
John xxii made his error prior to it even being defined by the Church, did not teach it as part of the ordinary magisterium, and admitted that he was unsure if he was correct on the matter while inviting anyone with a better understanding to correct him on it.
See Salvemur’s comment above.
Pope Pius IX noted in Quartus Supra that Liberius was falsely accused by the Arians and he had refused to condemn Athanasius of Alexandria. In his encyclical Principi Apostolorum Petro, Pope Benedict XV noted that Pope Liberius went fearlessly into exile in defence of the orthodox faith.
St. Athanasius’ letter to his flock, could have been written for today:
“May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …
“You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
A Critical Thinker
July 28, 2015
St Athenatius accused Liberius of signing the simi arian creed but kept communion with him.”
Is that statement true? Wasn’t St. Athanasius ex communicated by Pope Liberius?
Dear Mr Lamb, I most assuredly do understand the distinctions. I have a critical mind and have generally been competent in objective analysis. However, due to my illness, my ability to think of what I want to say and my ability to articulate it clearly is much reduced. Apologies if I haven’tmade the distinctions clear enough. We all know heretical matter when we hear it and we’ve heard a lot of it from Francis. However, there must be objective certainty when it comes to formal heresy and if a pope does not admit the requisite intent to go against the Deposit of Faith. Neither you nor I are competent (objectively) to provide the proof and make the declaration of formal heresy.
Of course, a person (including a pope) becomes anathema and excommunicated from the Church the moment that he is in formal heresy. God doesn’t need proof – He knows all. And from that moment, a formal heretic who was a pope would no longer be pope. That follows necessarily and I don’t hear anyone arguing against that. So a pope who was a formal heretic where he hadn’t yet admitted intent nor had it yet been proven against him would not be pope in the supernatural realm. However, we don’t have sufficient objective proof of that at the time it occurs even if many individuals believe subjectively that circumstances are such that knowledge and intent are proven. There has to be objective certainty for the earthly Church – and neither you nor I are (objectively) competent to provide that. Yes, a formal heretic is no longer pope from the moment he is in formal heresy but unless the intent has been disclosed by the pope himself or proof to the satisfaction of the competent authority, we cannot know know when a pope has gone into formal heresy. When the competent authority finds and declares same, it would state that pope had gone into formal heresy at least by a specified point of time in the past, and thus find that he had not been pope in the supernatural realm since at least that point in time.
The issue is one of subjectivity versus objectivity. Formal heresy has objective elements that must be objectively satisfied (not to your or my satisfaction even if we could theoretically prove the elements). Luther and other notorious formal heretics made their intent explicit.
I think it is quite clear to the reasonable person that Pope Francis has the requisite intent (and I presume many others thinks so too). If he is a formal heretic he stopped being a Catholic and pope in the supernatural realm from the moment he entered formal heresy. However, it’s not for us to say that this has occurred. If the pope himself conceded it or the competent authority found that it was shown to have occurred, then declaration of the fact would be formally made. Such declaration would always be by necessity made with regard to a situation that had come into existence at some point in the past.
Sorry for my lack of clarity, for my repititiveness. I think Fr Gregory Hesse (may he rest in peace) has explained these issues sufficiently in various of his talks.
Do you want coffee with that?
…and it is his blog after all.
Get a blocker. I don’t see any ads and can slip Louie a few dollars once in a while instead.
Dear Barbara, I cannot block anything (that the site owner permits) on my phone, with my operating system.
I’m just wondering how come laymen, or even non-laymen like the fathers, doctors and saints of the Church have never pronounced or declared anyone a heretic on their own before in Church history when there have been plenty of chances for them to do that.
As Fr Hesse makes it clear, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not just a matter of governance or discipline, but a matter of Faith, as being the foundation of the Faith. It is because of this that Quo Primum is binding on Peter’s Successors with respect to what it holds on the Holy Mass, which is held to be part of the Deposit of Faith.
Lynda, I think you articulated everything well and I believe you are spot on.
St Basil the Great ~
“And if you see your neighbor sinning, do not take only his sin into consideration. Reflect on all he has done – or continues to do – rightly. It is often the case – when your examination goes through every detail, and you do not judge based on partial information – that you will discover that he is better than you. Indeed, not even God examines human beings based on partial information.”
Humility
Not sure what you mean, John. There are screeds of condemnations from ‘fathers, doctors and saints’, against all the individuals who promulgated heresy. Heresies usually are named after the heresiarch who founded them, hence ‘Arian’, ‘Donatist” all the way to ‘Lutheran’.
but they didn’t excommunicate anyone from their positions.
@rich so does that mean that if someone does not believe in the bodily resurection then they aren’t a heretic because it was never defined?
I guess we can’t have an evil hierarchy. Therefore we shall have none……how sad…
@Dan yes my statement is true and yes Liberius did excomunucate him and sign a simi arian creed. That is why Liberius was aloud to return to Rome. Why else would the Asians let him return.
I know. It’s no small matter. Where is the good Catholic argument for equating the ‘creeper into houses’ with the keepers of the Faith? Yet that the ‘creeper into the house’ can be a ‘keeper of the faith’ seems to be a default modernist setting. But who teaches this? The Catholic Church doesn’t. The issue can’t be whether VII and the Novus Ordo are heretical because we know they are – both belong to the Protestant Tradition, not the Catholic Tradition. The code, catechism and council of the conciliarists abound in encouragement to commune with heretics…maybe the simple fact is that the real ‘authority’ that folks look to actually is the heresiarchs, therefore, and not the Popes?
–
At any rate St Athanasius, who cut off communion with heretics is a Saint. Not a Novus Ordo ‘saint’, but a Catholic Saint.
–
“…the fundamental revolutionary premises of conciliarism – the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, interreligious “prayer” services, attacks on the nature of dogmatic truth, a liturgy that is abhorrent in the sight of true God, the Most Blessed Trinity…” Thomas Droleskey, “No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio”.
Yes that person would be a heretic…but thats not comparable to what john xxii did.
An interesting talk by Bishop Pivarunas that covers why Liberius and Honorius were not heretical and also covers briefly the great apostasy – the Rome that has ‘lost the faith’:
–
Cardinal Manning says in the ‘Pope and the Antichris’t: “The writers of the Church tell us that in the end times the city of Rome will probably become apostate from the Church and from the Vicar of Jesus Christ…For what is it that makes Rome sacred other than the presence of the Vicar of Jesus Christ…If the Church of Christ departs from Rome, Rome will be no more in the eyes of God than the Jerusalem of old.” Recounting the writings of the Church Fathers Cardinal Manning summarizes that an ‘apostate’ Rome will ‘drive away the Vicar of Christ’ and return to the paganism of old.
–
The talk also covers infallibilty:
–
‘Primary objects’ of Infallibility are sacred scripture and sacred tradition. ‘Secondary objects’ of infallibility are theological conclusions, dogmatic facts, the general discipline of the Church (in other words when she approves laws and when she approves liturgy). The approval of religious orders, the canonization of saints. This shows that the Novus Ordo heads are not Popes because they promote and approve condemned errors and approve rites that are invalid and/or doubtful.
–
http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-4-from-the-pulpit-episode-42-satan-will-try-to-deceive-even-the-elect-part-3/
It’s not so bad as none. We still have valid sede and SSPX Bishops and Sacraments. We still have traditional Catholics, like all of us and very many more, in whom the Church resides.
OT and not intended to reopen the debate, I came upon the Enchiridion of St. Augustine in my travels and found the following with regard to the devil being good in his existence. I post it just for interest:
Chapter 13. There Can Be No Evil Where There is No Good; And an Evil Man is an Evil Good.
Accordingly, there is nothing of what we call evil, if there be nothing good. But a good which is wholly without evil is a perfect good. A good, on the other hand, which contains evil is a faulty or imperfect good; and there can be no evil where there is no good. From all this we arrive at the curious result: that since every being, so far as it is a being, is good, when we say that a faulty being is an evil being, we just seem to say that what is good is evil, and that nothing but what is good can be evil, seeing that every being is good, and that no evil can exist except in a being. Nothing, then, can be evil except something which is good. And although this, when stated, seems to be a contradiction, yet the strictness of reasoning leaves us no escape from the conclusion. We must, however, beware of incurring the prophetic condemnation: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. And yet our Lord says: An evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth that which is evil. Now, what is evil man but an evil being? For a man is a being. Now, if a man is a good thing because he is a being, what is an evil man but an evil good? Yet, when we accurately distinguish these two things, we find that it is not because he is a man that he is an evil, or because he is wicked that he is a good; but that he is a good because he is a man, and an evil because he is wicked. Whoever, then, says, To be a man is an evil, or, To be wicked is a good, falls under the prophetic denunciation: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil! For he condemns the work of God, which is the man, and praises the defect of man, which is the wickedness. Therefore every being, even if it be a defective one, in so far as it is a being is good, and in so far as it is defective is evil.
–
Chapter 14. Good and Evil are an Exception to the Rule that Contrary Attributes Cannot Be Predicated of the Same Subject. Evil Springs Up in What is Good, and Cannot Exist Except in What is Good.
Accordingly, in the case of these contraries which we call good and evil, the rule of thelogicians, that two contraries cannot be predicated at the same time of the same thing, does not hold. No weather is at the same time dark and bright: no food or drink is at the same time sweet and bitter: no body is at the same time and in the same place black and white: none is at the same time and in the same place deformed and beautiful. And this rule is found to hold in regard to many, indeed nearly all, contraries, that they cannot exist at the same time in any one thing. But although no one can doubt that good and evil are contraries, not only can they exist at the same time, but evil cannot exist without good, or in anything that is not good. Good, however, can exist without evil. For a man or an angel can exist without being wicked; but nothing can be wicked except a man or an angel: and so far as he is a man or an angel, he is good; so far as he is wicked, he is an evil. And these two contraries are so far co-existent, that if good did not exist in what is evil, neither could evil exist; because corruption could not have either a place to dwell in, or a source to spring from, if there were nothing that could be corrupted; and nothing can be corrupted except what is good, for corruption is nothing else but the destruction of good. From what is good, then, evils arose, and except in what is good they do not exist; nor was there any other source from which any evil nature could arise. For if there were, then, in so far as this was a being, it was certainly a good: and a being which was incorruptible would be a great good; and even one which was corruptible must be to some extent a good, for only by corrupting what was good in it could corruption do it harm.
Heady stuff. I wonder when a lesser evil becomes a good? Well, not really.
–
Moral good and metaphysical ‘good’ are not the same thing. I reckon the people who erected this are happy for any distinctions not to be made: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1892-neo-catholics-should-celebrate-satanists-religious-freedom-commit-to-dialogue
Dear Lynda,
There is nothing wrong with your understanding, or other intellectual abilities. The problem is more likely my geriatric misunderstanding. I really hope things are going a bit better for you. I pray for you and de Maria every day.
Now back to business 🙂
“Of course, a person (including a pope) becomes anathema and excommunicated from the Church the moment that he is in formal heresy. God doesn’t need proof – He knows all. And from that moment, a formal heretic who was a pope would no longer be pope. That follows necessarily and I don’t hear anyone arguing against that. So a pope who was a formal heretic where he hadn’t yet admitted intent nor had it yet been proven against him would not be pope in the supernatural realm.”
Amen!!! Halleluja!!! We are agreed!
–
“We all know heretical matter when we hear it …”
Amen!!!
–
“There has to be objective certainty for the earthly Church – and neither you nor I are (objectively) competent to provide that.”
Amen!!!
–
“If he is a formal heretic he stopped being a Catholic and pope in the supernatural realm from the moment he entered formal heresy. However, IT’S NOT FOR US TO SAY THAT THIS HAS OCCURRED.”
Why not?
This is where the confusion enters. No layman has the competent authority to canonically declare the Pope a heretic. That is obvious and any man who claimed otherwise must be a fool. Neither have I, nor any sede ever attempted to do that. However, we sedes are often confronted with the accusation “who are you to declare the Pope a heretic, or depose the Pope?” Well, the point is we do not formally DECLARE the Pope to be a heretic. We can and do KNOW the Pope to be a heretic. As you properly and correctly state, only the proper Church authorities can formally declare the Pope to be a heretic after following the proper canonical procedures. We do not presume to formally declare, or to formally depose. We do claim to be Catholics who know the basics of our Faith. When I know a man to be a heretic because he pertinaciously contradicts the Faith, why on Earth should I not say so and cease to commune with him, submit to him, or recognize him as a true empowered Pope? As St. Francis de Sales says:
“The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else.”
I saw the man shoot his wife. I know, de facto, that he is a murderer. He has not been tried in court yet, so de jure he is not yet a murderer. So it is with our conciliar popes.
Basically I think we are in agreement, but there has been a little area of misunderstanding.
P.S. With regard to how we may know and react to a heretic, please see Cyprian’s comment to Critical Thinker, of 27 July under “Rome has lost the Faith” wherein he refers to St. Robert Bellarmine. I missed this great comment first time around.
@rich. Why is that not comparable? Both truths are planly seen in scripture and tradition. Jesus said to the good theif that he would go to heaven with Jesus that very day. John XXII denied that truth.
Furthuremore the reason why John XXII did not his opinion into an encyclical is that the entire Church was out raged. One Cardinal even wanted to call a council and declare him not to be Pope. He was rebuked and yet he did not retract his heresy for years. With these conciliar popes however only a very small minority disagree with them. Paul VI’s liturgical commity was going to make the new Mass have no mention of sacrifice. When some cardinals heard this they rebuked him. Paul VI lessened and made the new Mass mention sacrifice. Can you say with certainty that these Popes would not retract there heresies if they lived in saner times? If not then give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are ignorant and misguided.
How did he try to teach it as part of the magisterium
LOL…give them the benefit of the doubt that they are ignorant and misguided??? Sorry sir but you cannot possibly be serious with that statement. Regarding them as popes (though I personally could not possibly do such) is one thing, but to blame their complete break with actual Catholic teaching on “ignorance” is too much.
“My dear Martha, you are worried and upset over all these details! There is only one thing worth being concerned about. Mary has discovered it, and it will not be taken away from her.”
Luke 10:42
But sede bishops only have supplied jurisdiction. There is no one with authority in the Church any longer according to the sede theory. So much for the Church as a perfect hierarchical society that cannot die.
@rich. I had a typo. I said he did not put his opinion into an encyclical. It is not particularly important that his statements were not part of the magisterium because they were public .
When you look into the backround of these Popes you will find some very disturbing things in their theological and philosophical up bringings. For instance Paul VI’s mom had signs of many religions on her grave. Some of them did not even go to the seminary for more than a year but we’re taught by modernist tutors.
I wouldnt doubt for a second that their religious formations were possibly faulty…it would make perfect sense. With that said though, at what point do we stop giving these men….none of whom were/are dummies (yes, even Francis) a pass on that? Can a young seminarian possibly get away with the “ignorance” excuse? Nowadays, possibly yes (at least for a while, not for too long though). Can a man in his 70’s who has risen to be POPE get away with it as an excuse? I honestly dont believe so.
@ A Critical Thinker
Supposedly St Bellarmine refuted, case by case, all of the claims of heresy against various popes throughout the ages and concluded that there had never been a heretical pope up to that point. After you commented on John xxii last night I tried in vain to find this writing online but was unable to. If you or anyone else knows what I’m referring to and could provide a link I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
St. Joseph of Cupertino said the same. 🙂
A good film worth a watch story of St JOSEPH CUPERTINO (1h 45mins)
http://youtu.be/g2O8WmVlOUk
“Happy is the house, however, where Mary causes the complaint of Martha.”
Christ or belial? “…if you say that Bergoglio is the pope, you are asserting that his religion is Catholic…” —- To N.O. (become a completely confused and self-contradictory modernist) or not to N.O. “Vatican II, the New Mass, and the new religion, are all both Catholic and non-Catholic, are both acceptable and unacceptable, are something to shun and something to embrace…never to take a clear, permanent and unchanging position concerning Vatican II, the New Mass, and the new religion.” — http://inveritateblog.com/2015/07/29/christ-or-belial/
Especially note the TORCH sticking up from the top of the baphomet’s head, between his ears. This torch has great symbolism and is not worn by mistake:
“But the Illuminati have another well known symbol: the “torch” that, other than showing up between the horns of the Baphomet, in many paintings, pictures and prints glorifies the “spirit” and the “genius” of the French Revolution, that is the same Order of the Illuminati that had been the true soul and the driving force of this Revolution which offers the “torch” to man, to free him from God and from His Law”
You will notice two of these torches worn on Bergoglio’s pallium. They have great significance:
“The Torch, above the Templar Cross, signifies the Supreme
Pontiff of Universal Masonry also called Patriarch of the World. The Templar Cross, deriving its forms from square-based pyramid surmounting a cube, representing the Pyramid, known satanic symbol of the Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria. The torch across the Templar Cross, placed over the heart, indicates the Patriarch of the World, or Patriarch of Freemasonry, or Supreme Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, or Supreme Head of the Illuminati, or better yet “the Second Beast that comes from the earth with two horns like a lamb but speaking the same language of a dragon”, of the Apocalypse of St. John.”
—-
Traditionally, the Papal pallium had 5 red crosses – the vertical arm being longer than the horizontal – which symbolized the 5 Wounds of Christ. Bergoglio’s pallium has 6 TEMPLAR crosses.
The templar cross is constructed from 4 triangles, or pyramids, meeting in a central POINT and has specific Kabalistic meaning. The central point is the Kabalistic Crown which is lucifer in person.
The 6 templar crosses represent:
1. Cult of Phallus. 2. lucifer. 3. Cult of lucifer. 4. Emperor of the World. 5. Patriarch of the World. 6. Cult of Man.
The torch above symbolizes one of the three beasts of the anti-Christ, the masonic Third Trinity i.e. the anti-Christ formed by lucifer, the Emperor of the World and the Patriarch of the World.
Bergoglio does not hate the Catholic Faith – he, like his judeo-masonic conciliar predecessors, LOATHES it, as lucifer loathes Christ.http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Pallio_1_e_2__BXVI__en.pdf
Good comment, thanks.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem reminds us (in today’s reading from the Liturgy of Hours) of some truths that are solid food for the soul, and comfort in every age and circumstance:
–That Scripture informs us the Church is so loved as the Bride of Christ, that Christ gave Himself up for her.
–That she is composed of many virtuous souls, who in both times of glory and dishonor, hold the weapons of righteousness in both right and left hands, and in whom is found wisdom, understanding, self control, justice, mercy, kindness, and invincible patience in persecution.
–That when God granted a time of peace to her, she received her due honor from kings, and men of high station, and from every condition and race of mankind. And while rulers of different nations have limits to their sovereignty, the Holy Catholic Church alone has a power without boundaries, throughout the entire world.
–That for the sake of gaining the kingdom of heaven, we endure all things.
I do wish we could get away from this culture of blaming women. It’s as bad as Voris blaming the SSPX for everything evil in the world today…yes most likely they were responsible for the recent satanic statue unveiling incident in Detroit!
Seriously though we are all part of God’s creation. The battle between the sexes should remain in the secular world. Our gender should not be relevant to the working out of our salvation. Certainly it imposes certain characteristics which we have to work with whilst we are functioning members of the Church Militant, but it does not of itself have an intrinsically good or evil nature. Now back to the housework.
“But some one will say, If the Divine substance is incomprehensible, why then do you discourse of these things? So then, because I cannot drink up all the river, am I not even to take in moderation what is expedient for me? Because with eyes so constituted as mine I cannot take in all the sun, am I not even to look upon it enough to satisfy my wants? Or again, because I have entered into a great garden, and cannot eat all the supply of fruits, would you have me go away altogether hungry?.. I am attempting now to glorify the Lord, but not to describe him, knowing nevertheless that I shall fall short of glorifying God worthily, yet deeming it a work of piety even to attempt it at all.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem
Mystic Monk, black. 😉
@rich. I know what your talking about. I think it is in his book that deals with the heretical pope losing his office. Here is an interesting article that seems to show that John XXII taught his heresy forcfully. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-pope-who-fell-into-heresy-church-that.html?m=1
@ACT
Yup…Im familiar with de Mattei’s article and Fr Cekada’s rebuttal of it.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/de-mattei-tranquilizer.htm
Its a very interesting and debatable issue. I’d love to know exactly why St Bellarmine himself concluded that the pope wasnt a heretic. As a sede I respect Fr Cekada a great deal but Id like further evidence on the matter. John xxii had a problem with ONE matter and the concilliar popes have/had a problem with LOTS of matters….they all opposed Church teaching to some extent. My belief is that john xxii didnt promote his belief as being part of the magisterium while the conciliar popes do and that is why the issues are different….but again, Id like a better understanding of the matter than I currently have.
Demons of hell.
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/07/caution-extremely-disturbing.html
Dear Peter,
Thank you for this post. As gut-wrenching as it is to watch (an abortionist “playing” with a still-living aborted baby) it could very well be a source of instant conversion for people who still let themselves believe the lie that fetuses can be considered non-living tissue.
It’s not Off Topic, either, as one of the more recent major signs that “Rome” has fallen prey to Satan, was its promotion of the idea we put hot-button issues like abortion on the back burner in favor of being more “welcoming” …lest “the Church fall like a house of cards”.
__
One more U.S. Congressman recently spoke up to the President and Senate– about our Nation’s need to re-think its priorities–as they debated the “rights” and “care” of whales and horses, while allowing themselves to remain completely numb to the killing of children in the womb, and the selling of their body parts, “as human organs”. Like many others, he didn’t take it as far as we all know it needs to go, but it’s one more voice speaking truth our Nation needs to hear and accept, while there is still time to repent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bYeLo0fASU&feature=player_embedded
Senator Lakeford – what a fine young man. How I wish he was President. Men like him are our hope.
If you want him for president, it’s Senator Lankford you’ll be promoting, but pray for his conversion, too, according to wicki–he’s a Baptist with a Divinity degree. (yeah, we know what his competition is) He also believes marriage must be between one man and woman; and that being “gay” is “a choice people make to act on their sexual orientation”
You act as if the true Church doesn’t exist anymore and protestantism is the alternative. I agree that the faith does not exist in Bergoglio or almost all of the rest of the magisterium through priests in general. But God gave us Archbishop Lefebvre and other saintly bishops and cardinals, few in number, to provide the repository of Catholicism. It’s there you will find the faith. You’ll recognize it immediately in the Latin Mass and those who faithfully offer that sacrifice. Some time ago I turned my back on the novus ordo never to return. It’s relatively recently that I recognized Bergoglio to no longer be Catholic and, therefore, not likely if at all, to be pope. Look for the signs of what God is telling us in both what is happening to the Church and what has happened to the world since the the false prophets turned its back on Tradition in Vatican II. Tradition is where the Church continues to reside.
He speaks of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass–that’s what I attend. Ah, but what about a “community” sharing a meal around a table, with no emphasis on the same sacrifice as that of Calvary? That’s kind of the point regarding the post Vatican II situation.
I believe TWN “is reading Scripture through prism of his own mind and times to prove his own preconceived notions.”
“What is it that renders death terrible? Sin. We must therefore fear sin, not death.”
St Alphonsus Liguori
He who does not overcome his predominant passion is in great danger of being lost. He who does overcome it will easily conquer all the rest.
St Alphonsus Liguori
Great insight from a great saint!
More from saint of tomorrow’s feast:
–
St. Alphonsus Liguori: “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.”
–
“How to Discern a Heretic: Three Simple Rules from St. Alphonsus Liguori” https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=41&v=_Nda4T1e51U&ab_channel=epikeya
A town near Naples got an Exorcism from the air? Didn’t know they could do that. Can we get them to fly over Rome?
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2015/07/exorcism-by-helicopter.html
“Further, infallibility extends to the “universal” ordinary magisterium in that the Church teaches it cannot and never will ‘universally’ impose error – in other words teachings and disciplnes universally applied are to be trusted as infallible.”
Universal means in all times as well as geographic locations. Hence, the novelties in Vatican 2 are not infallible or universal precisely because they are new. If said novelties, are opposed to Church teaching, must be resisted/rejected.
Very good points!
Thank you for making this important distinction. The ordinary magisterium, or the “authentic” magisterium (another term people will use) is infallible only if it is universal in TIME as well as location — semper ubique. In other words, the Tradition of the Church.
I think it is easier and less liable to be confused and twisted, to say that the pope and bishops are not infallible, rare exceptions notwithstanding.
This mess is entirely the fault of those cretinous pieces of vomit Bad Pope John & Paul VI. No-one else is to blame. They set the ball rolling. Their command & example started the corruption. They raped the Bride of Christ first. Their liberal insanity and utter lack of a sensus Catholicus & atrocious arrogance & monumental hatred of Catholicism is the cause of the decrepitude of the Papacy. There would be no Assisi Abominations, no ecumania, no collapse of the missions, no Protestantising of the Church, but for these men whose treachery makes that of Judas Iscariot look like nothing in comparison. To canonise either of them is comparable to canonising Judas or Hitler. John XXIII is not by any Catholic standard a Saint, & to beatify Paul VI is an even greater mockery of the Church
Well said. It is ridiculous & irrational to define something by what only at times true of it. To emphasise Papal infallibility has the bad result that it fosters the idea that Popes are never mistaken, when in fact they can usually be counted on to act like complete & utter morons. The one good thing about the ghastliness of the last 50 years is that it destroys for ever the stupid fantasy that the Popes are always models of Catholicism, orthodoxy, prudence, wisdom, piety, and virtue. They are no better as human beings than any other bishop, even though they have far more extensive authority. That does not stop them being total wastes of space. Catholicism does not consist in sucking up to the Pope, or in praising every last word they utter or action they perform. Only cowards & flatterers praise or defend Papal folly. Why do they have the title “servant of the servants of God” if they believe they are our lord and masters ?
But Arius, Nestorius, and Luther were all excommunicated for their heresy. Likewise, Simon Magus, or Simon the Magician. Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer (who hugely inspired the Novus Ordo service and was the first CofE Archbishop of Cantebury) were also excommunicated.
You seem to be ignoring that Qouo Primum is a disciplinary action being taken as a result of Trent, and specifically Session 7 Canon 13. There is a reason that quo Primum was in every missal through 1962… Because it was the same Rite. It is also the reason Quo Primum wasn’t in anything from 1965 on, because they weren’t. It is an intellectual sophistry this idea of”forms.” Trent was clear the Roman Rite was no longer in need of development, and that any pastor, including the pope, who held it in such contempt that they thought they should alter it, was to be held anathema.
But by popes, not others in the hierarchy, and certainly not laymen.
Materially not formally. This would be declared after his death, not before. Do we not trust in God’s Providence? He will see to it that a bad/heretically pope is treated to the full justice of the Church after death. This has happened before and will likely happen some years after Francis’ death, and we have a brave, holy pope once more.
Yes, Jimmy. We must also remember Our Dear Father lavishes graces on the man elected as pope. Big responsibilities bring huge waves of grace.
=
Hence the greater the fall when a pope goes bad, and the greater the punishment in Hell.
Gently, gently, my friend. The Courageous Priest said something memorable in a recent post: “we must judge by the fruit of the tree”. Meaning we must not judge Francis (or any other pose) but we can and must judge and discern the fruits these particular trees produced.
–
Much safer since we are going to go before Our Lord Jesus at the particular judgment and account for every word we said or wrote.
Listening to Saints
SEE MY children; the treasure of a Christian is not on the earth, it is in Heaven. Well, our thoughts ought to be where our treasure is. Man has a beautiful office, that of praying and loving. You pray, you love–that is the happiness of man upon the earth. Prayer is nothing else than union with God. When our heart is pure and united to God, we feel within ourselves a joy, a sweetness that inebriates, a light that dazzles us. In this intimate union God and the soul are like two pieces of wax melted together; they cannot be separated. This union of God with His little creature is a most beautiful thing. It is a happiness that we cannot understand.
St John Vianney
Dear Barbara,
I beg to differ. Certainly, in supreme hindsight, we may be better able to judge “by the fruit of the tree.” But by then countless and innumerable damage will have occurred, including so many, many lost souls.
Take Bishop Arius and the Arianism as a supreme example — as so often compared to today’s crisis. Arius lived from 250 AD to 336 AD. Assuming by the age of 50 at 300 AD his heresy was fully in bloom. Notwithstanding the Council of Nicaea in 325, Arianism continued even during the lifetime of Bishop Ulfilas, the missionary who preached and converted the Goths then settled north of the Black Sea, the latter of whom would enter the borders of the Roman Empire in 378 AD as Arians and ultimately would carve out pieces of Western Roman Empire for themselves. The Eastern branch of the Goths, the Ostrogoths ruled over Italy and much of Dalmatia as Arian Christians using their Arianism to distinguish themselves from, and lording themselves over the Catholic Orthodox Romans. This situation ended in a complete disaster with the Greco-Gothic war — wars waged between the Catholic Easter Roman Emperor and the Arian Gothic Kings — that resulted in the utter annihilation of Italy, which was, if one follows the trail, a ‘poisonous fruit’ of the Arianism. From Bishop Arian to the utter annihilation of Italy took a total of roughly 250 years!
No, Barbara, you and I won’t be around to see the ultimate ‘fruits’ of the infiltration and usurpation of modernism into the Church, especially using the vehicle of Vatican II.
But I cannot believe our Infinitely Good Father in Heaven would abandon His children as useless and silent before heresy seen only as a historical processes beyond out control while waiting for its fruits fully to blossom. Therefore, I beg to differ that we cannot, and more importantly, we should not judge heresy until the fruits of it are plainly seen, especially when we have the wherewithal to judge Doctrinal error here and now. Let us not forget that baptized each of us is mysteriously graced as Kings, Priests and Prophets. In recognizing heresy we must exercise our gifts of prophecy and call out doctrinal error at its inception.
The fact that all of these schools of theology have failed in safeguarding and passing on doctrinal purity is disgusting.
I did not make myself clear. We must not judge any person. We must judge actions and words – and the resultant fruits.
–
To write that the pope is a drunk, or a pervert, or to call him names is simply uncharitable, and harsh judgement.
–
We can and do say that what this pope is doing and saying is terribly wrong and will bring many souls into further sin with no repentance. However, does the sinner have no responsibility for his or her actions? Is all the sin in the world the fault of Paul VI, John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, or Pope Francis?
–
Every single person in the entire world is given enough grace by Our Loving Father to be saved. There are no exceptions to this promise.
–
Remember the parable of the Sower? Some seed fell on stony ground and no matter how holy a pope or bishop spreading that seed, it will never penetrate into the rock of pride and sin.
–
Our Lord goes on to say that some ground is more acceptable to the seed than other soil – and Our Judge will adjudicate appropriately for each.
–
Good soil will grow good fruit and bring the entire person to Heaven in spite of bad popes and bishops.
–
The millions of Catholics, and others, who are have tingly ears because they like what Francis and bad bishops say are responsible for each word they speak and action they perform.
–
Francis will bear the heaviest burden at the judgement, but all those who rushed over the cliff after him carry their own burden.
–
Think about this: how is it that YOU have not fallen for this modernist heresy? You might say you are a sedevacantist and are waiting for The Lord to inspire a holy pope – ok, but how does it come about that you don’t believe the crap being pumped out? If you are not a ‘sede’ you might say that you have a good priest, or you could say you are intelligent enough, and have read enough to be able to distinguish good from bad.
–
It’s a grace, my friend. Our Dear Jesus does not promise the same grace to everyone. Pray for those who are stony, or who live among thorns, or who are swayed by every ‘nice’ bishop or priest who comes along. And trust in Our Father, and Our Saviour, and Our Comforter to bring those into Heaven God knows want to come.
Lynda,
I will have to look it up but it is my understanding that in the case of heresy, innocence has to be proven by the guilty precisely because we can only judge externals. By default, he is presumed guilty until he can manifest his intent to prove his innocence.
God bless.
Dear Barbara,
How come the first thing you think of, when wondering who might not fall for modernist heresy, or believe the crap being pumped out, is a sede? A little subconcious Freudian slip? 🙂
CraigV,
It is my understanding that “universal” does not mean “in all times”. I am not sure where you get the idea that it does but it would be helpful to me if you could provide me the Church teaching that makes your case. If Holy Mother Church is perfect and without error, then I am not sure how your position makes sense. Every teaching promulgated by the Ordinary Magisterium to the universal Church at any particular time is protected by the Holy Spirit since a good mother cannot give her children poison or be the cause of their damnation.
God bless.
I still need to look for a more official teaching on the point I made but before doing so, I would just like to make the point via a common scenario.
A man who has been caught “red handed” in the act of killing another is objectively guilty of murder. If fact he will be brought to trial under the premise that a life was taken by him and all evidence shows it was not self defense and a pure and simple murder. Now the question here is not whether the man killed another. In fact, the man will be convicted of murder unless (this is the key) he proves he is insane or incompetent in other ways. Again, the fact that the killing took place is not in question. The only thing that can persuade a court to not convict him of murder is if the interior forum of the guilty can be used to prove he acted incompetently.
The only point I am making here is that a person who should know better is, by default, guilt of heresy unless he proves otherwise. If proof is not offered, then we are required to determine he is a heretic since we can only judge the exterior forum.
Diving into the subjective is not something we mere humans can do, so we cannot say he is innocent or guilty based on unknown things. We are bound to judge on the external ONLY.
The heresies of vatican 2, according to the probable homosexual paul vi, are to be believed and are not up for debate. Where does it say that we are not to adhere to the edicts of vat 2 when we claim that these men are popes? I know full well they werent declared “ex cathedra” but when was it ever said that the church could promote evil as a part of its ordinary magisterium? The lies of vatican 2 are promoted universally and no person can debate that….they are part of the “magesterium” (if you say that vatican 2 is Catholic…..i dont and therefore there is no contradiction my mind)
Following up on my comment I would very much appreciate a piece on the difference between the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium and WHEN the Church has ever said that the ordinary magisterium is not to be believed as infallible (as all of those who honor popes who adhere to the hersies of vatican 2 do). In other words, when has the ordinary magisterium of the Church ever been presented as something we DONT have to believe and can say is in ERROR and how does this coincide with the fact that we HAVE to obey the pope, on all things relating to faith and morals, if is promoted as part of the universal magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary).
I apologize for my typos/missed words/grammatical errors in my previous two posts.
Rich, there are solemn definitions, extraordinary magisterium, decreed ex cathedra by Popes and Popes together with councils which are infallible of course, but they always will be contained, at least implicitly, in the sacred deposit of faith.
The infallible ordinary magisterium must also meet this standard. It must be contained in the deposit of faith. The ordinary magisterium does not get a pass somehow to teach whatever it wants even if it is all the bishops of the world meeting in a council. It would only be considered infallible if it was talking about the deposit of Faith, the Tradition of the Church, or what has been believed always, everywhere, and by all, semper et ubique et ab omnibus.
Now normally one would give the Church the benefit of the doubt on its’ teaching authority where it would be assumed that churchmen have more knowledge of theology and more desire to teach it correctly, and scripture says that they will be judged harshly if they do not (Matthew 18:6).
Yet has St. Alphonsus De Liquori or any other “non-pope” saint in Church history ever officially declared anyone as a heretic and than proceeded to excommunicate them? It would make more sense if you had a quote from a saint specifically pronouncing a person a heretic and excommunicated. Otherwise I figure these quotes of St. Alphonsus are taken out of context.
Dear Rich, This seems like a good explanation of the fallibility of parts of the Ordinary Magisterium:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm
Dittos on this article. What came to mind while reading the section on Grace of State was how this applies to canonizations. In his authentic magisterium (noninfallible ordinary) the pope has the obligation to act with a “high degree of prudence” in “his duty of seeking out the truth by the appropriate means.” By “negligence or ill will” if he fails to do this, he is not protected from teaching error. Throwing out the devils advocate and reducing or eliminating the need for miracles seems to be acts of a very low degree of prudence in the new process of canonization.
The Church (as the world recognizes it, because I will never again for a second believe the vatican 2 church is Catholic) as a whole promotes the edicts of the vatican 2 council….how then is this NOT infallible and how is it that non-sedes “resist” it? Why do so many people truly believe that God would allow HIS TRUE Church to confuse so many people?
Dear John 314, Yes, and God gave us reason and understanding that enables us to recognise when the Deposit of Faith is being opposed.
Why would God allow…? Because it is not really His true Church and God’s true Church is always perfect and impeccable?
Fine. If that is the answer Rich, then why are there certain distinctions and definite limitations on infallibility?
Quit looking at what ‘men’ are doing. Stop even reading this blog. Tune everything out but your sacramental life. Read the Bible, read the Saints, read the Baltimore Catechism. Focus yourself away from what comes from men. Our Lord is the Head of His Church and He will right things in His time. Let everything else fall away. Can you do that? If what is happening is scandalizing you–with reason–then stop allowing yourself to be scandalized and endangering your faith! When you continue to allow your faith to be shaken it is because you have forgotten to trust in Jesus Christ! Trust in Him. you know Him. Go to daily Mass, pray your rosary daily, go to the Tabernacle or Adoration often and spend time in the Real Presence of Our Lord and allow His Peace to embrace you.
Ave Maria!