“Proselytism is solemn nonsense; it makes no sense.”
So said Pope Francis ten months ago in response to the atheist Eugenio Scalfari’s suggestion that the Holy Father may want him to convert to Catholicism. (Imagine… a pope wanting an atheist to embrace the one true faith!)
“Proselytism,” as I wrote shortly thereafter, is nothing more than actively seeking proselytes (also known as converts); i.e., it is the very mission of the Church.
At this, the papal defenders leapt into action, claiming that Pope Francis simply meant to condemn “forced conversions,” and “unethical means.”
Fast forward to the present day…
In his recent (and thoroughly embarrassing) “Top 10 Secrets to Happiness,” Pope Francis provided absolute clarity on the matter.
Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs. We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you,’ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing.
When Pope Francis speaks of “proselytizing,” he isn’t talking about resorting to strong arm tactics in order to affect a conversion; rather, he is referring to nothing more insidious than persuading those in error to embrace the truth, especially in matters religious!
The mission of the Church demands that her members, in particular those in the sacred hierarchy, do precisely this.
The pre-conciliar papal magisterium is filled with exhortations to this end, but one need look no further than Sacred Scripture to remove all doubt:
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Tim 4:1-4)
Nothing could be clearer: In order to carry out the mission given by Our Blessed Lord, “Go, teach the nations everything whatsoever that I commanded,” the Church must persuade others to accept the life giving truth that has been entrusted to her.
Look, Pope Francis isn’t the first pope to treat the mission of the Church as if it’s little more than a humanitarian exercise; he’s just the most audacious. He is, after all, the Generalissimo of the conciliar revolution; i.e., the days of pretense and nuance are most certainly over.
Nearly one year ago to the day, CNS reported this jewel of papal wisdom:
“Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest.”
If nothing else, Jorge is consistent!
At the root of the problem lies the false notion, one evidently embraced by all of the post-conciliar popes, that the Church “grows by attraction, not proselytizing.” Thus has the Church in our day been reduced to competing with the heathens and the heretics to see who can perform more “random acts of kindness.”
Proponents of this error have embraced a false dichotomy that pits the passive luring of converts by way of godly example against actively seeking converts by way of preaching and teaching.
Yes, it is true; the world will know that we are disciples of Christ Jesus by our love, and this can be very attractive. The Lord, however, said it thus:
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)
To Francis’ manner of thinking, “loving one another” is apparently little more than tolerating the false beliefs of others; i.e., to “live and let live,” which just so happens to be Bergoglio Beatitude item #1 of 10.
How conveniently he seems to have forgotten that to love as Jesus loved necessarily includes a willingness to “rebuke, exhort and convince” (to persuade) those who live in darkness and error, most especially religious error.
And what shall we say about a pope who thinks and acts otherwise?
If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Thanks for linking all the important quotes together.
Now, I have a question: is a man who holds such a doctrine even capable of being elected to the office of the Successor of St. Peter?
Read what His Holiness, Pope Paul IV said definitively about the matter in His decree: Cum ex Apostolatus officio…
If the CEO of the Pepsi Corporation said in an interview that Coca Cola, Royal Cola and every other kind of cola are all as good as Pepsi and, therefore, there is no reason to drink Pepsi Cola, he would be fired! Isn’t that what Bergoglio is saying? He is leading the church in to an “I’m OK–You’re OK” papacy. I don’t think this is why Our Lord suffered His passion and died on the Cross for us. According to Bergoglio, we should just “Live and Let Live”. He is a disaster. Thank you, Roman Watcher, for the link. Bergoglio was elected because the vast majority of Cardinals who voted are either just as bad or living in “La La Land”.
And not only cardinals:
” I have planted, Apollo watered: but God gave the increase.
Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth: but God that giveth the increase.”
Ultimately, it is God Who will soften the hardened heart…the modern heart paradoxically that hardens itself to direct proselytisation
Perhaps our Holy Father displays a hidden wisdom…
You seem a compassionate soul. But true compassion does not consist in the long run, of allowing sin to take root and grow, especially in the Family of God.
This is not wisdom we are seeing, in the behavior of our Holy Father. How we wish it were, for his sake as well as for those he so neglects in his duty as watchman..
Catholic answers posted this teaching on the subject, which may help you understand what is at stake:
” sadly not many Catholics remember what is taught by our one true church when we are confronted by sin in our friends, relations and in all the means of communication in to-days world. The seven Spiritual works of Mercy have been quoted but the Catechism of the Catholic Church also teaches that we can share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways.
1. By council.
2. By command.
3. By consent.
4. By provocation.
5. By praise or flattery.
6. By concealment.
7. By being a partner to the sin.
8. BY SILENCE.
9. By defending the ill done.
It is number eight: By saying nothing, that is at the crux of this debate. This is a command by the Catholic Church and not a suggestion that we can take or leave.
We were all reminded of this command when the Epistle read at the mass celebrating the Memorial Mass of St. John Vianney on 4th August each year which is taken from Ezekiel.
In the Epistle from Ezekiel 3:16-31, we are told by Almighty God that if we fail to inform a sinner of his wrongdoings we will be condemned along with the sinner. If we do comply and instruct the sinner and make them aware of their offence and they take no notice, then he will be condemned and we will be saved.
If we fail to instruct the sinner, we will suffer condemnation also.
There are other passages in Scripture that reiterates this teaching of the Church.
It is a great gift and a privilege granted by the Almighty that we as members of the one true faith beleive in the same teaching the world over.
Sadly, how many politicians here in the UK and in the USA and CINO’s (Catholics in name only) have failed to act on this command, to admonnish the sinner and will stand naked at the final tribunal and will be condemmed to eternal punishment for thier lack of charity toward their brothers and sisters while on earth.
One final comment, be prepaired to be very unpopular and be in turn be castigated by a great part of mankind to-day when acting on the Almighty’s command.
God bless you all in the USA.
Regarding “the notion evidently embraced by all of the post-conciliar popes, that the Church grows by attraction, not proselytizing.”
By any quantitative measure (number of priest, brothers, nuns, parishes, mass per parishes, number attending mass, number of conversions, etc.) clearly the Church is not an “attraction”; rather it is shrinking.
The Archbishop of Dublin constantly attacks the Deposit of Faith and the moral law – and those who uphold same. He refuses to fight evil. He even permitted the Catholic hospitals of his diocese to agree to implement legislation that provides for the intentional killing of babies in utero in certain circumstances. I do not recognise the “religion” that he espouses but it is clearly opposed to the Catholic Faith. It is relativist, materialist, progressive, indifferentist – and in conformity with the enemies of the Faith in very many areas of life. He refuses to guard the sanctity of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament by permitting public enemies of the Faith and promoters of intrinsic evil to commit sacrilege against Our Lord and Saviour. Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle . . .
These 10 principles are an evil manifesto standing in clear opposition to the Faith and the moral law. They represent a new false “religion” and are amoral and materialist – a rejection not only of direct Revelation but the revelation of our God-created human nature. Laurence England of the blog That the Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill highlights their anti-Christian character by juxtaposing them with Christ’s principles of “happiness” – The Beatitudes. The contrast underlines the objective evil being spread by Pope Francis.
“shrinking” is an extreme understatement. The Church has collapsed on all measurements and especially in terms of the baptised (including priests and bishops!) that assent to the whole content of the Deposit of the Faith, and the objective, unchangeable moral law. The policy of actively miseducating the people in the Faith and morals, and subverting the Faith and morals through denigration of the Holy Mass, etc., has had the natural and probable consequence of mass loss of faith and morals, and explicit or implicit rejection of same. Pope Francis knows the results of what he and other bishops have been doing for decades – and has made it clear he is pleased with those results, as he continues to do as he has done in Argentina.
‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you’ – oh, the horror!
And to add insult to injury these people are absolutely *constantly* speaking as if it is *only* they who understand Christ, as the curse and spit upon not only traditional Catholics but really the entirely nineteen centuries of pre-conciliar Catholicism (known to conciliar worshippers as pre-Catholicism).
It might seem ironic that Louie chose the “itching ears” passage to illustrate Francis’ grave error – it has been opined that he, and the other post-conciliar popes, are exactly the “teachers” cursed with “itching ears” (those seeking and enthralled by novelty, rather than the sound teaching of the Deposit of Faith) that Scripture speaks of.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
I ran across an article from the Irish Times covering the same event. I quote:
“[Archbishop] Martin said his immediate response [to the traditional priest] was that it was the curate whose security was being upset and he was not the only one ‘upset by the way Pope Francis speaks about some things. There are those who say that he is a communist because of his concern for the poor and his trenchant criticism of some aspects of today’s market economy’. However, the archbishop concluded that the problem was ‘with us, with all of us. We all fall into the temptation of reading Pope Francis superficially and selectively’. For his part Dr Martin was ‘more enthused by the realism of Pope Francis than the fear and insecurity of that curate’. […] The pope had ‘the courage to break away from accepted traditions and thought patterns, while most of us are trapped in traditions without often fully realizing it. One of the reasons for this is that perhaps over the years we have come to have a very conformist and closed Catholicism’.”
In bygone days, if you broke away from “accepted tradition and thought patterns”, you were threatened with excommunication. Today, you’re praised as being “courageous”. Disorientation indeed.
Even a formal heretic retains his public office until and unless deposed by the Church – no individual may declare him opposed. This is the teaching even of St. Bellarmine, the sedevacantist go-to theologian.
Of course, none of us are able to determine with moral certainly if Bergoglio is a formal heretic or not either.
Why are so many apparently not satisfied by just holding the opinion that Francis is a bad pope, and instead wish to declare him no pope at all? The Church has never worked that way.
What is clear is that the Pope has said many things which on their face contradict the Deposit of Faith or morals. He appears to have done this for many years prior to becoming pope. It doesn’t seem plausible that he does not have the knowledge or will sufficient to make him personally culpable. Of course, due process is required to make a formal authoritative finding; and we’ve already had this discussion. I’ll just repeat that if a pope were to purport to make a solemn infallible magisterial declaration that consisted of objective error, he could not be a valid pope.
A heretic is no longer Catholic. It’s that simple. “Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.) ‘…AND IF ANY ONE HOLDS TO A SINGLE ONE OF THESE HE IS NOT CATHOLIC.’
“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The above teachings admit that Bergoglio is, therefore, not Catholic. Now, unless a non-Catholic can be the vicar of Christ, Bergoglio, who spouts heresy left right and centre, is not Catholic.
p.s.s. and does anyone really believe themselves when they say that one raised in the authentic Faith, who then adopted the faith of Newchurch which constantly contradicts authentic faith is ‘ignorant’ of his contradiction/heresy?
Just when you think you’re dreaming, PF wakes you up with his latest “feel good” puff ball. This is new low (for now) for Pope Francis. Even the “Jesuits” have to be embarrassed by his ongoing nonsense which admittedly they are expert at creating, teaching and dispensing. PF demeans the term “Vicar of Christ” and gives new meaning to “banal” and “shallow”. Somehow I just can’t picture Jesus, Mary, Joseph or any Saint proclaiming the #1 secret to happiness is…(drum roll)….”Live and Let Live”. That visual just doesn’t compute with Christ on the Cross and Mary at the foot of it….saying…”Live and Let Live” aka “Can’t we all just get along?”…It’s shallow beyond decency.
RE: ‘solemn nonsense’ – Consider what was said to a stunned Calvinist preacher (who did not believe in the Real Presence) during the famed 16th century exorcism of Nicola Aubrey with the Blessed Sacrament: “…A servant of Christ, indeed!” said Satan, with a sneer. “What! I tell you, you are worse than I am. I believe, and you do not want to believe…”
the demon has a point – Protestants deny the real presence, yet Bergoglio (who does also ‘what’s the harm in a little bread and wine’, whilst encouraging an adulterous to go to ‘communion’), encourages this anti-Real-Presence religion (anti-Christ’s Presnce) and even apologizes to the anti-Real-Presence (anti-Christ’s Presence) religions.
You question supposes a much too strict criterion. Most Catholic Faithful have only the formation they received as children in catechism class. And since there is no grave obligation for the laity to read papal encyclicals, simply to hear the Sunday homily and follow the guide of their clergy, even those who recognize that the new way is not faithful to Christ, have no way to find the right one, since it is part of the Catholic faith that the laity should follow their own pastors. Yet, despite the limitations of their state, a great deal of the laity know and openly profess that the new way is wrong. They just pray and hope that the clergy come around. And as a matter of fact, slowly, the younger clergy are coming around. I can recall 40 years ago, the newly ordained priests were very liberal, but now the same are much more conservative than their elders; and many clergy are speaking in private and at times openly about the excesses of Bergoglio with disapproval. If you add to this the great number of catholics who do not practice their faith, in the sense that they no longer attend the NO, you have a great silent majority of the faithful who reject the new way. I recall once even running into a homeless man on the street, who when I asked why he did not go to mass any more, and that for 40 years, he said,”Because they got rid of the old mass in Latin, the true Mass!” And this man had barely an elementary school education. I was astounded at his clarity of mind on religious matters. So I would fraternally urge you not to condemn the majority of catholics. They definitely do not want the new way, and they are disgusted at Bergoglio.
I didn’t “condemn the majority of catholics.” I preempted a common response by some commenters who declare that one claiming the see of Peter could be so ignorant in the Faith as to be innocent of the heresies he teaches – ludicrous.
We live in a largely ‘literate’ age. An age where the Faith is proclaimed faithfully and perveted vigorously by various clergy/catechists claiming to be its (the Catholic Faith’s) advocates daily. To say that the average person claiming to be Catholic has no further obligation than to swallow what comes out of the mouth of the most obvious ‘advocate’ or the most proximate ‘advocate’ suggests that scripture, the lives of the saints, the encyclicals of authentic Popes (now available to most anyone), the history of the Church and Her Creed even, are secondary to what comes out of the mouths of the loudest or most proximate so-called ‘catholic cleric/catechist’. It also supposes that God never gives anyone the grace to know the difference between Truth and lies, and that He would have us languish in a no-mans land of impoverished knowledge. (but at the same time you laud the guy who abstains from the new mass – one doen’t seem to follow the other – (at least if I’m reading it correctly)
Becoming the disciples of those who teach a false doctrine is not what any Catholic is called to do, period.
p.s. the above comment in response to ‘roman watcher’.
Given your initial query in comment #1 – I thought that it would be clear that responses were pertaining in general to a claimant of the See of Peter and not claimants to ‘catholicism’ in general.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Why are so many apparently not satisfied by just holding the opinion that Francis is a bad pope, and instead wish to declare him no pope at all? The Church has never worked that way. Agreed we have to do that, BUT
Answer: The “Church” (referring only to those sinful men in her in positions of authority)has never done so much to destroy our childrens’ souls.
We are seeing the results of their gross neglect, sinful ideas, and all the things we are not allowed to call heresy and abominations. Our families are being destroyed, our neighborhoods, our local churches are closed, our nation is crumbling, our world is pagan. That’s why so many are no longer satisfied with jus saying we have a bad pope. We want to do something to change all this after a lifetime of it.
We know our hands are somewhat tied. But for our part, we’ve decided now to start fasting and praying like Queen Esther told her people to do, and then start making appointments with bishops and writing letters BEFORE this October meltdown meeting takes place, to as many as we can reach.
They may ignore us, but at least we will have tried to do something.
August 2014 issue of Catholic Family news FRONT PAGE lists 3 major issues of concern this month, and we intend to start with 2 of those and study the 3rd.:
in our own words:
1. Allowing (mortally)- sinful reception of the Eucharist.
2. baptizing children of parents living in unrepentant mortally sinful lifestyles.
Both attack the heart of the Church. The first is really obvious. The second is more insidious. Infant Baptism is a farce if you teach the child till the age of reason that sin is a lifestyle okay with God by example. This is another example of false compassion that disregards the reasons for Church laws.
It’s another way to bring down the walls that keep the Pagans from entering the Church.
They need to be forced to use the doors. And the Church has to close them until they repent of their sins. They need to exhort more, for the sake of the children, not destroy everything the Church stands for, and remove all the safeguards, because they give up on changing the hardened hearts of the parents.
Thanks for the clarification, Salvemur…..and no, I did misconstrue the context….I thought you were referring to all Catholics…
Re Dublin’s Archbishop, this is not his first rodeo,, but those who protested present us all with a GREAT example of CATHOLIC ACTION as follows…
The invitation to known homosexual activist, Fr Timothy Radcliffe to address a conference in Dublin, .. latest evidence of the archbishop’s support for the homosexual rights movements. All the .. calls for the organisers to withdraw the invitation, were ignored – by Archbishop Martin.
The Legion of Saint Joseph was responsible for the Rosary protest at Father Timothy Radcliffe’s talk at the Divine Mercy Conference in Dublin.
“We are a group of lay people who are fed up of the wishy-washy talk from the majority of priests and bishops. Father Radcliffe has expressed views which are repugnant to Catholic moral teaching e.g. that civil unions are acceptable.”
“We call on His Grace Archbishop Martin of Dublin, in whose diocese this conference took place, to state in unequivocal terms the constant teaching of the Church, that civil unions are not acceptable nor any other legal instrument which encourages or condones unnatural lifestyles.”
“We call on other Catholics attached to the unchanging teaching of the Church to make their voices heard and to resist as much as they can, even publicly against those who would undermine the doctrine given to us by Saint Patrick.” .
Our comment: Perhaps the more public the problems, the greater the unity among true Catholics can become. Groups like this are leading the way.
God Bless them!
We agree that this is one of the major issues,(although that’s losing meaning as we are swamped by them)
However, one example of why the numbers are becoming less meaningful, is the sudden increase in the number of “faithful” in Rome, including the number of volunteers at Charitable organizations—so many, it is reported that they had to turn some away.
If Pope Francis and the rest of the hierarchy were teaching Catholic principles to the many who flock to them because of their charisma and laxity and de-emphasis of regulations, then we could hope for some meaningful improvement in the state of their souls and in society in general as a result of their associations.
But without that, all you have is a larger social group gathering to “do good”, and assuage their consciences, lulling themselves into believing they are on the right path, while continuing to contracept, abort children, skip Mass, cohabitate etc.
This was brought out years ago by interviews done among many of the youth gathered in Paris for World Youth day, who spoke to the press of their love of Pope John Paul II, yet freely and unashamedly expressed their total disregard for Church laws. The detachment was due to Popolatry, similar to what they would give to “Madonna” years ago–not (The Blessed Mother, the singer.)
Dear Roman Watcher,
Thanks for the link and the good news from the Emerald Isle.
Slowly we will right the barque of St. Peter.
“Incrementalism” powered by Romanita; an idea whose time has come. 🙂
Dear Indignus famulus
Thank your for your kind and absolutely true reflection and feedback.
I would raise the question : Is it possible to reflect on what the Holy Father Pope Francis says ( mindful that we often get inaccurate out of context translations ) and divide our opinion into the categories
A) Well said! Perfectly true!
B) I have some difficulty with this teaching…Is this a subtle example of the great Catholic “Both…And”, as in I know Both what traditional Catholic teaching says (Go and make disciples of all men ), And ( Perhaps it’s not always the best to bang on the door of a stranger shouting JESUS LOVES YOU !!! )
Is there a danger of self-righteously slipping into Detraction and Calumny??
Is it not possible to raise valid reasoned counter arguments,but resist the thin ice of ad hominem attacks?
These are simple reflections of a kindergarten Catholic soul
I for one, though I see value in mocking the errors he propounds, do not agree that it is morally upright to mock the man. Some bloggers are excellent at point out the errors he promotes (cf. http://mundabor.wordpress.com/ ), but are content, nay, think it is proper and sufficient to mock the man.
As catholics we must act in such a way as to preserve respect for the office even when the one who holds the office is not personally worthy of respect.
Therefore, I agree that there is a danger. I find very distasteful the ironic mockery at such sites as Rorate Caeli, which for example cite the words regarding the institution of the 10 commandments, as they are had in scripture, and then quote Bergoglio’s 10 rules of life. Very poor taste and certainly not a Catholic way to act, in my opinion.
Rather, we should point out the errors, and strive together to move the whole Catholic world into declaring that this man does not have faith, was invalidly elected, and never intended to take up the Petrine Mission in the sense Christ established it: which requires faith and the preaching of the Faith as unnegotiable truths and solemn duties…
Simply to mock the man, might satifsy a misplaced anger, but righteous anger never looses its proper object; it directs itself at what offends God and employs the means that have always been affrimed in the Church for the solution.
Mocking someone, especially in public, is often a mortal sin of disrespect or against charity.
Roman Watcher, thank you for your participation here. Your contributions are greatly appreciated.
@ Roman Watcher: On the finer points you are making about how those more knowledgeable should behave both towards deviating clergy and less knowledgeable laity, if you recall, can you point out sources for this knowledge? This is in no way to question the advice you are giving; I am asking just so those who are interested in reading in greater detail how to practically handle situations involving these categories of catholics can educate themselves.
Follow the general principles on Fraternal Correction:
and read what St. Thomas Aquinas says on the matter:
Then it should be obvious how to act, in regards to knowledgeable clergy and ignorant laity…or vice versa….
Dear Ever Mindful,
(For the longer reply please see our new Forum under
Pope Francis Speaks, sub-Title: Pope Francis Speaks and Acts)
God Bless you. You’re words remind us of our own before we knew enough about what is going on.
You might try comparing the difference between what you propose as simple charity/ avoidance of sinful calumny etc., and what you find in postings, to the degree of openness with which you would greet and treat a new neighbor as a young mother, week after week, up until the moment you caught him trying to molest your 3 year old. Ask yourself it his actions would then not justify a sudden,radical change in your degreee of friendliness and future suspicion, and why? And what would true charity consist of then?
Short answer, you instinctively and actually recognized grave evildoing, endangering a helpless innocent. We’re not talking of vengeange or hatred, simply duty and natural desire to protect. And notice we never mentioned his motive(s) at all–no judgment of the state of his soul, or demeanor.
So how would you justifiably speak of him to your neighbors who have small children, after that, if he remained where he was, unfettered in any way?
We wonder how much you know about all that this Pope has said and done, and how familiar you are with the 2000+ years of Church teachings he has been attacking openly, with no attempt to conceal it?
(Please see the Forum for the rest)….
Dear Roman Watcher,
We’d call that perfection, but that might scandalize- as idolatry.
Ditto to Matthew’s praise and thanks 🙂
and Thanks be to God.
Dublin and all the dioceses of Ireland have been in an awful state for a very long time. It was at the annual Divine Mercy Conference that the Dominican, Fr Radcliffe was lauded as the main speaker. The Divine Mercy is a very popular devotion among practising Catholics in Ireland, but most have been and continue to be badly catechised. The majority of Catholics in Ireland have no idea of how far from faith and morals is what they are being given by most bishops and priests. Orthodox Catholics are constantly maligned by Archbishop Martin to his associates in secular Media, academia and politics.
“A heretic is not Catholic. It’s that simple.” Salvemur, I have to say that your reply makes me think you have never read a single thing I’ve offered in response to you. Yes, of course, heretics are dangerous, and formal heretics are damned – we know that. This isn’t the issue.
Most salient points – in a nutshell:
No individual is capable of determining of whether a pontiff is a pertinacious heretic *for the purpose of him losing his public office*.
Even if a person somehow had moral certainty that an elected pope is a formal heretic – has sinned against the faith and is cut off from the soul of the Church – EVERY THEOLOGIAN WHO EVER SPOKE ON THE MATTER, INCLUDING BELLARMINE, STILL DECLARED THAT A JUDGEMENT FROM THE CHURCH IS NECESSARY for that person to lose his public office. Does this mean that we could potentially have the seemingly silly situation of a man who is not even really Catholic holding the office of supreme pontiff? Yes. Because only God can judge internals, and because the good of the Church requires that the faithful know who pope.
Should have faithful have declared Peter a heretic and thus no pope for denying the dogma that gentiles and Jews are one in Christ? Who’s to say that any Catholic who decided this was wrong in his personal judgement?
And on & on. If what the sedes preach were true, we’d have had nothing but anarchy in the Church from the beginning. (AGAIN: This doesn’t mean that this crisis isn’t worse that previous ones: It is. This doesn’t mean that Francis isn’t, probably, the worst/most dangerous pope ever: I think he is.)
As usual, when you post a link from the anonymous* mudslinger(s) at novusordowatch, I’ll post the rebuttal I penned to one of their pieces of screed – somewhat representative of the whole as it is:
* Their anonymity is relevant considering the volume of their ad hominem attacks against good & faithful Catholic Traditionalists.
“read a single thing I’ve offered in response to you” – you’re right, I don’t anymore – because they hash out the same arguments all of which the sedevacantist arguments I supply (which I don’t hold any expectation that anyone should read it – but feel I should at least offer up the source of the opposing argument) have refuted using canon law, tradition and the very same quotes from the same saints, so what would be the point in continuing to do the same thing (read the same arguments and same facts) over and over again expecting a different result?
no probs – helps me to take the time to make myself a little better understood (possibly!)
Your position (correct me if I’m wrong) is that it is possible for a claimant to the chair of Peter to be heretic his words and deeds, but never declared formal heretic (at least not while he is living). To me this is like saying we can have no reasonable expectation that someone who grew up in a shoelace factory which founded ‘how to tie your shoelaces’ schools the world over, would ever have sufficient knowledge of how to tie his shoelaces. It just doesn’t make sense. We both know the Church made provisions for when a claimant to the throne should be found a formal heretic, and the Church teaches that such a one ceases to be Catholic in his heresy. I take it niether of us are canon lawyers, but it has been said that those Catholics who approach canon law from the position of secular law are already disadvantaged because of their default approach to ‘law. At any rate – the sedevancantist arguments do not diverge from Tradition – a false teacher has no authority in the Church – simple.
p.s. to Ever mindful,
We cut that off for brevity here, and hope that didn’t make it appear as some kind of abrupt brush-off /criticism. We actually posted some good examples in the Forum, just in case you aren’t aware of what’s been going on.
God Bless You
I didn’t imply “anymore”; rather, it seems to me that you never read them to begin with – and I don’t say that simply because you appear to disagree, but because neither you nor the links you ever post ever speak to them.
I’m repeating myself ad infinitum here, but here goes, one more time: the issue isn’t at all whether or not “a false teacher has no authority in the Church – simple” – it’s who has the authority in ecclesiastical law to declare a pontiff a “false teacher” – formal heretic – and depose him from his office. He isn’t deposed from his office even if he is a formal heretic – which neither of us can determine with moral certainty – unless & until the Church deposes him. NO THEOLOGIAN – EVER – INCLUDING BELLARMINE – has taught otherwise.
The soul(s) who write at novusordowatch are very clearly consumed with bitterness and rake their claws at faithful Traditional Catholics on a constant basis – I urge you to stay away from their writings for the good of your soul.
I don’t know where this will end up — I hope after your excellent post on the spiritual works of mercy. I cut and pasted a part of it and sent it to a family member whom I correct about wearing immodest clothing. I usually get a nasty response, so maybe the email I sent will be a source of grace. Thank you for posting it.
Thank you for your comment. I realize that the Faith is being robbed from us and I want to do everything by the grace of God to live it and to preserve it for others. I had reservations about Pope Francis and now I understand why I now do since reading many websites. What I am hoping to do is to seek God more, learn more about the Faith, and to live it out more, starting today. Pope Francis is not encouraging people to seek God and His Church.
Dear Little Silent Crusader,
I offer my prayers and encouragement to you on your journey. May God bless you and keep you always in His tender, loving care.