Yesterday, the Society of St. Pius X published an article, Some Timely Reminders About the Magisterium, offering what it described as “a brief synthesis on the magisterium of the Church” in light of the unprecedented scourge on humanity known as Francis and his Love Letter to Satan, Amoris Laetitia.
The article is well worth reading in that it provides a good explanation of the Church’s teaching office, how it is properly exercised, and why it was given to her by Christ.
The unfortunate part of the article, however, is that it more or less repeats the much-criticized initial reaction of Cardinal Burke to Amoris Laetitia; namely, that the document is “non-magisterial” and is simply a “personal reflection” on the part of its humble author.
Readers may recall that Cardinal Burke even went so far as to compare the manner in which Amoris Laetitia should be received to the consideration one might give to the 1967 book, “The Pope Speaks: Dialogues of Paul VI with Jean Guitton.”
The Society’s article makes a similar argument, but appears to go even further by suggesting that Amoris Laetitia is comparable to one of Francis’ many media interviews:
All the more, when the Roman Pontiff presents orientations or exhortations of a practical or pastoral nature such as Amoris Laetitia, or delivers personal and private reflections to any media outlet whatsoever, we do not observe the exercise of the power of the magisterium.
First, I must say that I see an unintended pitfall here:
One may very well read this to say that the “pastoral nature” of a given text, in this case Amoris Laetitia, is enough to render it non-magisterial. This clearly is not true, and it may lead one to believe that the argument so often put forth by the Kasperians in the lead up to the Synod is valid; namely, that doctrinal and pastoral matters can be separated (i.e., one is magisterium, the other is not).
To the extent that the central point being made in the article is that Amoris Laetitia offers nothing that is binding on the faithful, fair enough. What the article ends up doing, however, is adding confusion on top of confusion.
After defining “the object of the magisterium” – namely, the doctrine of Christ – the article states:
… as soon as the pope or bishops approach a matter beyond the limits of this teaching and transmission of the doctrine of Christ that they must faithfully dispense in virtue of the mandate they have received from Our Lord Himself, there is no proper exercise of the power of the magisterium.
For example, this is true of certain speeches or allocutions from the end of Pope Pius XII’s pontificate dealing with very diverse subjects, such as European transports or hunting.
This is true enough, but let’s not lose sight of a few key facts that are not in dispute:
First, the matter being approached in Amoris Laetitia (e.g., marriage, family, mortal sin, adultery, man’s capacity for abiding by the Divine Law, etc.) absolutely pertains to “the object of the magisterium.”
The explanation and the examples given from the pontificate of Pius XII apply rather well to the Envirocyclical Laudato Si’, but certainly not to Amoris Laetitia.
Secondly, Francis and his henchmen have been exceedingly clear about the way in which Amoris Laetitia is to be viewed according to the intent of its author.
In the August 23, 2016 edition of L’Osservatore Romano (the contents of which are vetted by the Holy See), professor of ecclesiology Fr. Salvador Pie-Ninot defended Amoris Laetitia as an example of the “ordinary magisterium” to which all members of the church should respond with “the basic attitude of sincere acceptance and practical implementation.” (See CNS article.)
And then there are the words of Francis himself, who in January 2015 said:
Look, I wrote an encyclical—true enough, it was by four hands [with Benedict XVI]—and an apostolic exhortation. I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium.
Clearly, he intends the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, as magisterium; every bit as much as Evangelii Gaudium.
Lastly, it is worth repeating that the form in which Amoris Laetitia was issued is that of an “Apostolic Exhortation” – an official instrument that was addressed to the entire Church.
Equating it to a book or a mere private reflection given to a media outlet just doesn’t stand up to reason, in my opinion; much less does it seem very helpful in clearing up whatever confusion still exists surrounding the contents of the document.
As I read this latest article on Amoris Laetitia, I could not help but think of Fr. Jean Michel Gleize’s series of articles on the exhortation wherein he cited Francis’ apparent lack of intent to do anything more than put forth “considerations as an aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral practice” (cf. AL 4) as grounds for concluding that the text is not properly heretical.
At the time, Fr. Gleize’s conclusion was confirmed to be the “official position” of the Society on the matter.
Since then, however, Bishop Fellay has affixed his signature to the “Filial Correction,” a text that goes much further by stating that “several passages of Amoris laetitia, in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions of Your Holiness, serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.”
In this, the Correction is highlighting two separate things – the document itself, and the words and deeds of its author which serve to reveal the way in which he intends for it to be understood.
NB: It is the passages of AL themselves about which the Correctio states, “serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.” This is made plain elsewhere in the text when it speaks of “the heresies and errors” present in “Amoris laetitia in its natural and obvious sense.”
Clearly, “propagating heresy” and “favoring heresy” are two very different things; the former being the charge to which Bishop Fellay recently added his signature.
My sincere hope is that this latest article from the Society is not being offered with an eye toward taking a step backward and reaffirming the claims made by Fr. Gleize.
In any case, rather than simply dismissing the text as a non-magisterial reflection (just as one may reasonably do with a book or an interview), wouldn’t it be far more helpful to simply and plainly state the obvious?
Amoris Laetitia is a dangerous, error-ridden, heretical and blasphemous text in its objective sense.
“In deciding the meaning of a text the Church does not pronounce judgment on the subjective intention of the author, but on the objective sense of the text.” (Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)
If we but bear well in mind that what truly matters is “the objective sense of the text,” which in the case of Amoris Laetitia is perfectly plain, then it should be clear that arguments about whether or not Francis has, or intends to, produce what may be defined as “magisterium” or not are rather useless.
In the end, Amoris Laetitia isn’t binding, and it cannot be considered the proper exercise of the Church’s teaching office, for one reason and one reason alone: Because it’s laden with heresy.
As such, the faithful shouldn’t be encouraged, even by way of suggestion, to simply dismiss the text like just another reflection from Francis the Loquacious; rather, every member of Holy Church should be encouraged to firmly condemn the poisonous screed while declaring of its author loudly and clearly, Let him be anathema!
In the latest edition of Catholic Family News, Brian McCall wrote an article regarding the discord within the SSPX clergy and laity which is preventing the SSPX from growing. Apparently, many SSPX priests and parishioners are leaving because they don’t trust Bp. Fellay to stand firm and fight Modernist Rome. I think your article may have pinpointed the reason for this distrust. Bp. Fellay must stop giving Francis “a pass” simply because he is confused. For many, the SSPX was the first line of defense against the V2 N.O. “church”. Not any more! The SSPX cannot survive if their clergy and members continue to leave. Is this Modernist Rome’s way of crushing the SSPX?
How are we suppose to know whats magesterial? I am sick of V2 and NO defenders always throwing out, “well its not magesterial” or “he didnt speak ex cathedra.” Stop giving these modernist heretics an excuse. The answer is simple, they are not Catholic.
The Pharisees legacy is alive and well in our time. Everyone’s looking for loopholes and use the law and letter, jot and tittle, to worm their way out of responsibility or to justify laxity.
Francis is guilty with regards to laxity for adultery.
The SSPX, Burke and co. are guilty with regards to laxity for correcting him and defending the Chuch from heresy and one who is clearly suspect of heresy.
For years they’ve tolerated rank and file lay employees, priests, bishops and cardinals who are openly flouting their heresies. If they wouldn’t budge to stop them, would they to stop a Pope? Assuming he even is the Pope…
Nobody in this affair looks good.
Politics is the new religion. Lawyer terminology is the dialogue of the so-called conservative wing. They can ‘dialogue’ just as good as the liberal wing.
This is the SSPX ‘dialogue’ where they refuse to call a spade a spade.
But considering 99.9% of the members of the Church are in the grip of the heliocentric heresy, this doubt is what leads everyone by the nose to ask and overcomplicate when the Pope is speaking like the Pope and when he’s speaking magisterially or not and what facilities of the Church speak authoritatively or not.
All of this goes back to the Galileo affair where suddenly clear Papal-backed defined heresies following the logic of what was established under dogmatic councils, has to be reinterpreted in light of the modern world and the circumstances and shifting occult knowledge of man whose god is Relativity.
Such error and disorientation is held by Trads, SSPXers, Sedevacantists, everyone. One day the world woke up and found itself Copernican and Neitzchean.
Will Christ find faith on Earth when He returns?
At this point I wouldn’t even trust myself to fulfil that criteria 100%, save for the full grace of God, an astonishing privilege granted only to the Queen of Heaven. May God have mercy on us.
Well, the ‘Pope’ by typical modernist stealth has issued an official document to the Church that gave the green light to those who say what is impermissible is now morally permissible—the practical destruction of Catholic marriage and many sacraments—this has sent shockwaves throughout the world and has cast the die for the Vatican II Church’s final destruction as an institution. If that is not a major act of the Ordinary Magisterium, I would not know what would be one.
Like some have posted on other sites, what “hill is one left to die on??” if the end of marriage itself can be dismissed as just another silly innovation from that crazy uncle in Rome. How many hills should faithful Catholics have already died on in order to prevent the ecclesial monstrosity that is Aggiornamento Catholicism from getting to this point in time? The point of its final, irrevocable manifestation as an apostate religion.
The implied ecclesial Docetism of the “recognize but don’t resist” i.e. the “Stockholm syndrome is a Catholic virtue” crowd is alarming. They effectively no longer have an ordinary magisterium. Right now, they do not have any semblance of a functioning Church. If you don’t agree with the indissolubility of marriage, well, that’s your personal opion—-the ‘Pope’ has given us options.
How are they any different than the Bergolio denouncers like myself? What is the difference between a practical sedevancantist and a self-identifying one? Only the now massive intellectual dishonesty of the former’s position.
Duh, Francis actually said as much right at the beginning of Amoris Incontinentia. Looks like the SSPX actually cracked it open for the first time. It’s “Cardinal Bergoglio’s Self-Help Book for Married Couples” and not magisterial teaching of any sort.
Also, the “Kasper solution” is actually 1800 years old. Not that that makes it right (it’s an abomination) but it’s certainly not a sign of the end times and the fall of the Church either.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101614.htm
(scroll down to section #23 for the relevant part.)
The funny thing is that certain people (the R&R crowd) are DECIDING FOR THEMSELVES what is and what is not magisterial, even when the man who THEY call pope is telling them, point blank…THIS IS MAGISTERIAL. How can you question a true pope on the magisterium, when HE, the POPE, says its magisterial?
Its getting comical at this point. A true pope cannot deliver magisterial teaching that is incorrect. If something such as AL is set forth magisterially by the pope then you HAVE to abide by it; if said teaching rejects Catholic known teaching than the person issuing it (in this case the moron Bergoglio) is NOT Catholic and therefore NOT pope and therefore THE SEAT IS VACANT. This is something that any well formed 13 year old Catholic would understand. TRUE popes cannot teach universal error. Enough already with the hoop jumping nonsense. Lets simply face facts.
So basically we simple Catholics have to figure out when a pope universally speaks the truth and when he universally decides to talk nonsense? Yeah, Im sure thats what Christ intended to do….just confuse everyone; basically an “everyone for himself” mentality. Yeah, that makes sense.
Gal 1;8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
So it is possible that someone, from whom you would least expect it, could preach a gospel other than the one we have received.
In these unfortunate times, whether we have no pope or an antipope or a bad pope, by our sensus Catholicus, through grace and continuous study and prayer, we have to measure what are being told against what has been revealed.
By God’s permissive will, we now have the shepherds we deserve.
Domine, miserere nobis!
Then you had the “Resistance” movement lead by Bp Williamson who fought against Fellays direction and now you have the Resistance of the Resistance who claim that Williamson has lost his way because he’s promoting the idea of possible good that can come from the Novus Ordo amongst other things. What is clear is that the SSPX is not following the blueprint left by Abp Lefebvre and that is why you have the faithful saying “who can we rely upon now.” In my opinion Bp Fellay must either stand down as superior or not be voted at the next ballot. But the question is “is there another who can truly lead the army for Christ?”
All old errors make a comeback but modernism has brought them all together in a plasma called the (evil) spirit of Vatican II. Modernists are experts at promoting error under a thin veil of orthodoxy which satisfies the conservatives but gives the green light of destruction to progressives.
As easy as it sounds, Archbishop Lefebvre never bought the sede vacante argument, no matter what Fr. Cekada says. ABL let the pope’s be, prayed for them, taught his seminarians the truth and wore himself out confirming children and adults around the world.
Saying there is no pope solves NOTHING. A sede has to follow the faith like anyone else; the same faith that Catholics have believed for 2,000 years. The only advantage I see of being a sede is that he can say, ” I am right and everyone else is wrong”. Hmmm, is that why THEY are not growing?
Professor Q–What you say is ridiculous. But let’s say you are right. Is Bergoglio’s self-help book for married couples leading them to heaven or hell?
Prof Q is as happy as a clam in mud with his Archbishop of Canterbury religion. Where prelates merely give suggestions and never impose Christian morality on anyone.
With all due respect Fr. Monk, if you can demonstrate why the modernist regime occupying the Church heirarchy (4th Century Arian style) can be considered the Catholic Church than I will cede or (is it sede) your argument to recognize the modernist apostate Pope as legit. The modernist Church does not even possess a Single Mark of the True Church and if you can demonstrate that Lumen Gentium did not in fact effect what it signified in reducing the Catholic Church to a mere remnant “subsisting” within the larger apostate institutions, you will convert me today.
One way to test the validity of an argument or stance is to carry out it’s effect to it’s logical extreme end. It seems to me that if you take the stance that this document can be written off as non magisterial, then it is conceivable that, unless an ex Cathedra pronouncement is made, a Pope could go through his entire pontificate (years and years) and contradict Catholic teaching in 100% of everything he says or writes, and we would just have to shrug our shoulders and say that every communication from the Pope in his entire pontificate was non magisterial. This doesn’t seem right.
You are correct, Soobs. Under the “non magesterial” argument, we have had a Council, a new mass, and 50 plus years of one error after another from 6 different “popes.” Yet folks like Prof Q, the Remnant, and even SSPX, tell us that because they have “surmised” that none of this is “magesterial”, we are free to simply ignore it all and carry on while it magically sorts itself out. They have in fact, destroyed the entire purpose of the papacy in order to avoid making the conclusion that something very terrible happened in 1958.
Amen !
This is basically what St Vincent of Lerins advised also !
A very good priest told me the same thing years ago after we went through MANY disordered pastors.
In one church…
#1 made wrestling videos with parish boys in rectory basement with hx porn stars.
#2 Sodomite who raped little boys and was found dead from AIDS on his kitchen floor when the police finally went to arrest him. Many victims committed suicide including a ten year old boy .
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/snapsurvivorsnetwork/victims-of-john-danilak-who-did-not-survive-t3233.html
#3 A cross dresser Bi Ritual priest who cleaned out the parish bank accounts, denied the Real Presence in a homily and now is a secretary for a Bishop.
Prior to that a long time pastor in the local RC Church who slipped his pedophile 5 grand from the collection plate after staving off parental complaints for ten years. The perp, Fr Florencio Tumang is still wanted by the FBI and our pastor died doing his time of community service in a parish down south.
Before him we had a sodomite pastor who collected antiques and after break in of the rectory by a man he befriended who accordingly was propositioned, they had to put bars on the rectory windows which have since been removed.
Tried an SSPX chapel but after three months we left with suspicions .Later we were privately told by three young men, one a former sspx Deacon, that few of them felt comfortable going to Confession with the pastor who was a close friend to Urrutigoity Ensey and Marshall Roberts.
Other families also left after growing tensions about the priest’s sexual preferences , preaching and personality traits.
Cafeteria Catholic?
No, we have just become used to dodging bullets and bombs. Could we change our local pastors even after complaining to Bishops ? No, they had to be discovered by Local law enforcement suspected of committing crime before anything was done , despite other decent priests and parishioners complaining to the Bishops for months and or years.
Availability of the TLM was limited to one parish run by another hx, Another widely praised “traditional pastor” , also a homosexual . Took awhile but altar boys started alerting their parents to what rectory staff and teachers at the parochial school also confirmed.
So what can a sincere Catholic do? Pray the Rosary and avoid what they know to be perverse in both Spirit and body.
Even if it could somehow be proved with certitude that the NO was valid and even pleasing to God, I could not participate and expose my family to all the filthy sodomites that now inhabit NO V2 sect.
Tom – how right you are! We are now LIVING the “Diabolical disorientation” foretold by Our Blessed Mother. We would do well to listen to:-
* St Paul who warned us that even if an angel from Heaven changed one iota of Holy Scripture or established Church teaching , let him be Anathema.
* Pope St. Felix III “Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it.”
* Pope Pius IX “Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church.”
* Pope Leo XIII “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.”
* Pope Pius X [1] “The church has no right whatever, to touch the institution and form of the Sacraments.” [2] “Attempting to reconcile our Faith with the modern mentality leads not only to a weakening of that Faith , but to its total destruction” [3] For Catholics, nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicaea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics to deride ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties, of some kind, or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church.”
* Our Lady of La Salette: ” The Church will be in eclipse…..Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”
* St Ambrose “Even heretics appear to possess Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ. Still, anyone who does not confess everything that pertains to Christ does , in fact, deny Christ.”
* St Catherine of Sienna: “We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence,”
* St Cyprian: : To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church.
To obey a bad pope is to disobey the Holy Spirit. Even sheep who love their shepherd have the sense to avoid the wolf like the plague!
We must support each other against the diabolically cunning Luciferians.
God bless you my friend. Pax vobiscum
Jbomb
The resistance has a few problems, but nothing to compare with the SSPX who has been bought lock stock and barrel by the novus ordo Church, and the anti pope Francis. Its time we start supporting the handful that still want to maintain the faith. That is unless you want to become a Sedevacantist. The devil don’t care about them because they are no worry to him! Ask yourself who is the most persecuted?
You are correct Tom. The resistors destroy it more totally than any sede…for they destroy its very essence and purpose.
Yes, let us take this to a logical conclusion. We must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. This is part of the magisterium. So please Mr. Soobs, and all of the forum experts, show me one thing that Pope Francis has commanded me to follow and I will willingly subject my soul or take up the cause and denounce him.
John314–You are speaking only for yourself without any thought of others who are being led astray.
You are to believe that we worship the same merciful God as the muslims do. Do you believe that John314? You are to believe that there are elements of salvation outside the Catholic faith. Do you believe that john 314?
I’m asking for a command of even a definitive statement from Pope Francis, not a qualified statement, policy objective, or suggestion.
Instead you go back to Vatican II. What does Francis say about it?
–
“Moreover, the pope [Pope Francis] himself told the SSPX [Society of St. Pius X] that they did not—and Pope Francis acted quite rightly in this—have to subscribe to all non-dogmatic documents of the Second Vatican Council in order to be fully reintegrated in the Church. ”
–
Also from Bishop Schneider:
–
When asked about the Second Vatican Council, Schneider showed that “the Council was primarily – as repeatedly stated even by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI – a pastoral council; not a doctrinal or dogmatic council;” and he added “so it was the intention of the Church not to give with its documents a definitive teaching.” Schneider continues: “And so when there is no definitive teaching, there can be some development of these issues still, or even some corrections. And this is normal.”
–
https://onepeterfive.com/coming-asphyxiating-rubble/
–
This is pretty clear. No command.
So you believe praxis and theology can be seperated. As long as they dont change the words, they can pretty much do as they want?
No I do not. They like to work through signs and symbols and doublespeak. That’s why they insist on the Novus Ordo liturgy. But do I have to believe and follow all that they do and say–absolutely not. YOU are the one who keeps insisting that I have to believe and follow all of this garbage because I take Francis as Pope. No, I do not…and neither does the SSPX.
Dear Semper Fidelis, I should have known better than to weigh in on this “topic”. I really don’t have the foggiest idea of where and how to answer your challenge. BUT, the good news is that I don’t have to. That the marks are increasingly in eclipse is pretty evident. I simply go back to Archbishop Lefebvre; he was a theologian/historian, apostolic delegate and a witness to the collapse of the Catholic Church before, during and AFER the Council. That he did not reach your conclusion makes me tremble to think I could. He was the saint given for our times to help us with this very issue. A lot of heat has been generated around this debate and enough quotes to keep us busy for a lifetime, but not much light. Probably because the light has already been given.
ABL said our fight is not about doctrine, but charity. That was his hallmark: patient, prayerful and forgiving to a heroic degree.
I appreciate these debates and have learned much from the articles AND comments. But, I also know how much prayer fed by study and penance, is the daily task that our Lord has waiting for me. Hopefully my charity will grow and will be a witness on “the day of visitation”.
Dear FatherMonk,
Archbishop Lefebvre held an internal contradiction. “Saints” do not hold internal contradictions in matters deFide, as that is an objective as existential manifestation of holding the, “operation of error”, of which Saint Paul communicates inerrantly in 2 Thess 2. Thanks be to God that He alone allowed for the good from the works of the Archbishop, in allowing for the transmission of the true Sacraments of Holy Mother Church into our time. That goodness, which Almighty God alone brings from the privation of the due good, does not somehow “sanctify” the acts of the Archbishop. To be as simple, clear, and concise as possible, the so called “Second Vatican Council” teaches objective error as heresy in “Lumen Gentium”–16, period and end. The Catholic Church CANNOT hold nor teach heresy, period and end. As “Lumen Gentium” teaches heresy, it cannot be a Council of the Catholic Church, which cannot teach, as to be “pastoral” is to give guidance, which is to teach, heresy, period and end. As the so called “Second Vatican Council” cannot be a Council of the Catholic Church, the so called “popes” who teach it and hold it as heretical teaching to be from the “Catholic Church”, simply CANNOT be “Popes” of the Catholic Church. This is clear as pristine and rudimentary right reason, the result of which causes the Wrath of Almighty God to come upon His created cosmos for the blasphemy of this church of the Antichrist, masquerading as the Church of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, for He commanded that there would come the time when wolves will be dressed as sheep and they will be ravenous destroyers of Truth.
The Archbishop held the internal contradiction that although the “Council”, in his own professed belief, evidenced a different religion, which held a different faith, which taught a different gospel with a different catechesis, and had a false mass, etc., the “pope” was both the “pope” of this false church and also the Pope of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This places an affront to the Thomistic law of non-contradiction the likes of which rocks the entire cosmos. The Pope cannot both be the Pope of the Catholic Church and not be the Pope of the Catholic Church, at the same time, and under the same respect, and the “same respect” in this context is what indeed the Catholic Church, as established by the Son of God made Man, indeed IS, period and end. I pray this helps. In caritas.
John314, then what do we need a pope for if we can choose what we consider binding and what we can believe. Your reasoning does terrible violence to unity of faith. The conciliar church has taught a different religion for the last 60 years or so. You seem to think this is ok as long as nothing was issued as binding. If they have been promoting error for 60 years, you are also doing terrible violence to the Indefectibility of the Church. The pope in union with vast majority of his bishops is promoting a false religion on a daily basis. You may not think you have been forced to accept their “garbage.” If they were all popes and bishops then you are blaspheming Holy Mother Church when you say its valid ministers are propagating “garbage.” We expect Holy Mother Church to provide us with the means of salvation not for “garbage.”
In Caritas, the greatest “internal contradiction” of all time that any Pope EVER held goes back to the 1850’s Pope that declared there was NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH while in the very next sentence he openly admits his own “internal contradiction” by using the phrase “on the other hand” and than declares that there IS SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH or the exact opposite of that which he just declared in preceding sentence and that’s precisely why the words “on the other hand” which mean, on the CONTRARY to what he just said are used. Its clearly written in black and white for anyone and everyone to see unless they hopelessly decide to engage in the same type of ridiculous “taking out of context” argument that Pope France and all the post conciliar VII Pope defenders use.
Good Saturday evening johnjobilbee,
The document about which you allude to in your writing, time and again, is an Encyclical promulgated by Blessed Pope Pius IX as,
“QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE (On Promotion Of False Doctrines)
Pope Pius IX
Encyclical Promulgated on 10 August 1863
As an Encyclical of Holy Mother Church, it is as it only can ever be, part of Her Authoritative teaching by the Vicar of Christ in union with his Bishops, as he rests in the Chair of Saint Peter, which is given the charism of “Ecclesiastical infallibility” by the Holy Ghost, such that the Deposit of Faith remains ever free of error, unto the end of time. To suggestive otherwise, is in and of itself Modernist quo Modernist gibberish, which does take eternal souls to their final disposition in hell, as the summation of all prior heresies. There are only ever 2 choices when reading an authentic Papal Encyclical, as it relates to the Church’s teaching on Faith and Morals, submit with one’s free will assent or resist/deny and in that metaphysical act, invoke schism upon one’s person, as one places an affront to Charity, period and end.
In “Quanto Conficiamur Moerore”, Blessed Pope Pius IX said this:
“7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”[11]”
Contrary to what you repeatedly suggest johnjobilbee, Blessed Pius IX does not contradict himself, as a true Holy Roman Pontiff simply cannot do this, when teaching on Faith and Morals, and this by Divine command, as if he could hold within himself an internal contradiction, then the gates of hell would have prevailed in the early Church, if She had simply been left to the immanent power of man, not to err, period and end.
Blessed Pius IX was very clear on who was included in his proclamation of “invincible ignorance”. It is as important to know, what he DID NOT say, as it is to know, what he did indeed say, which to quote him now is this:
” There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.”
He was speaking of those who are, “…observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts…” In that act of following the Divine Law as “Natural Law”, which is inscribed on every human person’s heart, Blessed Pope Pius IX proclaimed that they are thus, “…ready to obey God, they live honest lives…”. Consequent to this zeal for knowing God and His Law, while at once they follow it, as they are “ready to obey God,…”. Because of this, they are able to attain eternal life, not by virtue of their following the Natural/Divine Law, but as Pope Pius IX proclaimed, “…by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.”, as of course not even one who holds the One True Faith gets to Heaven by their works alone, as these works are necessary but infinitely insufficient for salvation.
Now johnjobilbee, for that which Blessed Pope Pius IX did NOT command, in his proclamation of “invincible ignorance”. He DID NOT say that a Mohammedan gets to Heaven through Islam, nor did he say an ethnic Jew gets to Heaven through the false Judaic religion, nor did he say the Christian heretic gets to Heaven through their willful embrace of heresy, nor did he say that the pagan gets to Heaven by virtue of their idolatry, nor the atheistic by virtue of their deeming themselves as God, etc. His was a very pristinely clear as distinct command, which only involves someone not exposed to the One True Faith, do to no fault of their own, thus “invincible” by its nature. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear In Caritas, thank you and maybe it’s just over my head, but no it doesn’t help, bottom line for me and you even admit it, is that and regardless of how it happens which is irrelevant to my point anyway, he still says there IS salvation outside of the Church. Again. Bottom line. Contradiction. But I still think he was the Pope.
I’m starting to feel like the SSPX is promoting heresy with it’s teaching on the Magisterium. It’s certainly not the traditional view on the Papacy. Not feeling too comfortable choosing one heresy in order to dodge a bunch of heresies. The sedevacantists could be wrong but I don’t see where they are promoting any particular heresy. Maybe they aren’t actually wrong.
Thanks, Melanie. That’s exactly how I feel. The SSPX-“it ain’t what it used to be!”
Good Monday morning my2cents,
As the SSPX holds an “internal contradiction” and has since conceived in the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre, who originated the Society, as he held the same internal contradiction, the Society can only eventually implode under its own weight of metaphysical error which it must, as all error can only and always, eventually do. This, because as Almighty God establishes Absolute diction as Truth in diction and as Truth Himself, and not contra-Truth, as “contradiction”, that which is in opposition to the Logos, if you will. In reality as Truth, the Society, “is today that which it has always been”, and in reality as deception, it has somehow just recently changed. That understood, the Society is where the valid Sacraments are received by the Baptized, which Christ our Lord Himself established as, the “Sacraments”, because all things Good are created by Him alone ex nihilo, as the uncreated-Creator of all else that simply Is.
What He alone has done, as only He brings the good, as Goodness Himself, from the privation of the due good, is to allow the True Sacraments to be brought forth in time unto this time, the time of the Great Apostasy, where all but all of the Baptized the world over, either accept the church of the Antichrist—which while all dressed up Catholic in the externals is devoid of all things Christ Jesus (aka: valid Sacraments) as the abomination of desolation—or they accept heresy as Truth, so called “protestantism”. “Protestantism” was simply a vehicle by which the Powers and Principalities of Darkness could manufacture a deception, whereby man believed himself to be worshipping God as God commands, while at once he is worshipping Almighty God in accordance with his own will and in his own likeness and image as man thus, which indeed is the very seed, as the wellspring of the paradigmatic construction, of the actual, “religion of man”, itself. We now have what all but all people of the world see as the so called, “Catholic Church”, as prepared since 1958 when it found its nascent genesis, as the very epicenter of what has been referred to as the, “One Word Religion”. May Almighty God allow the continued reception of His grace of perseverance for all those paltry few who hold the One True Faith. I pray this helps. In caritas.
The sedes may indeed be correct. But we cannot justify what they teach, since they are not Popes, and cannot proclaim jurisdiction in saying that the Pope is a heretic, and therefore he cannot be pope. The Pope is a heretic, but he is still Pope. I’m not going to argue with the Pharisedes about it, so if any sede responds to this, I won’t pay any attention, since they’re basically nuts.
It’s true that the SSPX isn’t what it used to be. Archbishop Lefebvre realized after the 1988 episcopal consecrations that it would be useless to “dialogue” with Rome until Rome returned to the Faith. Before that, he thought it might be prudent to talk with them. He only lived for another 2 and 1/2 years after the consecrations.
My hope is that Bp. Fellay will not be re-elected SG of the SSPX. Unfortunately, he has appointed priests who are loyal to him, who will vote in the election next year. I’ll be praying Rosaries for the intention that he not be re-elected, and that a stalwart defender of the Faith will be appointed instead.
Caimbeul–I was told that after 12 years as Superior General, Bp. Fellay cannot seek re-election. Does any one know if this is true?
No, I’ve not heard that at all, but it’s possible that after 12 years, Bp. Fellay cannot be re-elected. I would think that this info would have shown up on one of the Resistance sites, though, if true, and I haven’t seen anything. It would certainly be a blessing if he could not be re-elected. I mean no disrespect toward Bp. Fellay, but he shouldn’t be SG of the SSPX.
I don’t know if anyone here attends an SSPX chapel, but I do. The Mass at the chapel I attend has changed a bit in that the Faithful are now required to stand during the Agnus Dei, which is an odd innovation.
Thanks, Caimbuel. I agree it would be much better if Bp. Fellay is replaced, hopefully, by another Bishop who would not be so friendly to Rome. There have been other innovations in SSPX chapels which have caused concern and disputes among the parishioners such as the Dialogue Mass. There is definitely something going on and it is not good. Will the SSPX fall in line with the new procedures for marriage, requesting the local Bishop to provide a N.O. priest to perform the ceremony and be the witness in the exchanging of vows? Is the SSPX caving in?