Yesterday, the Society of St. Pius X posted a most noteworthy article entitled, What are Theological Notes?
Now, I’m not so vain as to imagine that this article was directly motivated by my public criticism of Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize’s treatment of Francis and Amoris Laetitia, but it does at least appear to be an attempt at providing a counterpoint argument.
This latest from the SSPX sets the stage thus:
“Truth is always true. Theology however, sees different degrees of truth according to the way we get to know this truth and according to the degree of certainty … That is the reason why, if a Catholic – Pope included – is wrong, it does not follow automatically that what he said is an heresy. The following article may help to be more prudent in making a judgment in today’s confusion.”
The article goes on to list “Levels of Certainty in Theology” numbered 1 through 11, beginning with the most certain, and the censures that correspond to each denial thereof.
I would encourage you to read the article in its fullness as it does provide some very timely and useful information.
Here, we will examine the degree to which this article provides a meaningful defense of Fr. Gleize’s conclusions concerning Amoris Laetitia and its humble author, and likewise, a valid criticism of my own conclusions.
In order to do so, we need only make note of two of the eleven theological notes:
- “Dogmas,” which provide the highest degree of certainty, and therefore invite the gravest of censures (heresy) in response to contradictory propositions.
The article further explains:
“Dogmas are truths which the Church declares to have been revealed directly by God. Our belief in dogmas is founded first of all on the authority of God, Who reveals them: therefore they are of divine faith, fides divina. Since the Church teaches us these dogmas are contained in Revelation, our certainty is also founded on the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides catholica). If a truth has, moreover, been solemnly defined by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, it is de fide definita.”
This designation, in my estimation, plainly applies to certain of those truths contradicted in Amoris Laetitia, while the SSPX (via Fr. Gleize) imagines that the offending portions of the exhortation more properly fall around midway on the list of theological gravity:
- “Promoting Heresy,” a censure that concerns “propositions [that] might not be directly in contradiction with a dogma but lead to a practical denial or abandonment of it.”
The article maintains:
“This note of promoting heresy could be applied to many teachings today which are presented as pastoral propositions or sociological reflections rather than a formal teaching about truths of Faith.”
*IMPORTANT: This is a rather obvious attempt to justify the Society’s conclusions, even though it is not presented as such.
Specifically, in the infamous Part 5 of his series, Fr. Gleize wrote:
Does the Pope Intend to Affirm or Deny?
Chapter Eight of Amoris laetitia is defined, like the others, by the fundamental intention assigned by the Pope to the whole text of the Exhortation, which is “to gather the contributions of the two recent Synods on the family, while adding other considerations as an aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral practice” (paragraph no. 4). Therefore we find here neither more nor less than matter for reflection, dialogue and practice. That is not material for clear-cut denial or calling into question (dogma).
Please forgive my harshness, but this is pure nonsense.
The theological notes under discussion concern “propositions;” they DO NOT concern the intentions of the “proposer” (in this case, Francis).
This most recent article posted by the SSPX cites as a source, “the explanations given by Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1952).”
So, let’s see what Dr. Ott had to say about the matter of “fundamental intentions” in his opus magnum on Catholic dogma, shall we:
“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)
Did you get that?
The theological note assigned to a given text (in the present case, certain of the propositions set forth in Amoris Laetitia) is an objective matter.
In other words, the content of the text is “defined” not “by the fundamental intention assigned by the Pope” (as Fr. Gleize states), but rather “on the objective sense of the text” relative to truths of varying certainty; themselves considered objectively.
Where intention does come into play is in determining whether a given heresy is “material” (mistakenly proposed in ignorance of defined truth) or “formal” (obstinately adhered to in the face of correction).
This, however, is NOT what we are discussing. We (Fr. Gleize, the Society, and yours truly) are strictly discussing the propositions contained in Amoris Laetitia.
At this, I will not rehash all of the arguments stated in previous posts on this matter, but I will make note of just one:
In Amoris Laetitia, Francis states:
“Conscience can … recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it [ADULTERY!] is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.” (cf Paragraph 303)
Sacred Scripture, by stark contrast, tells us:
“Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man.” (James 13:1)
The Council of Trent states:
“If any one saith … that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself… let him be anathema.” (cf Session VI, Chapter XVI, Canon VI)
Now, you tell me, dear reader:
– Do the abovementioned citations from Sacred Scripture and the Council of Trent qualify as “Dogma” as described in theological note number 1; i.e., does “God never wills evil” qualify as a teaching fides divina, fides catholica, and de fide definite?
– Does the proposition set forth in Amoris Laetitia stating that “God Himself asks” us to persist in the intrinsically evil act of adultery contradict said teaching and therefore justly incur the theological censure of heresy against divine faith?
If you answered “YES” to both questions, congratulations; you have been blessed with both prudence and sensus Catholicus in spite of the present crisis in the Church.
If you answered “NO” to either one or both of these questions, may the Lord who never tires of seeking His lost sheep carry you safely back into the fold.
The SSPX is done for.
One of the hallmarks of Modernism is doublespeak. Am I imagining things or are these statements coming from the SSPX a good sampling of doublespeak? There is a saying: “If you’re in a hole, stop digging.” Good advice for the SSPX. I always thought that Truth coming to us by Sacred Scripture was Absolute. Thanks for these insights, Louie.
Huh? I just love hyperbole.
Another great piece. Well done Louie.
No matter how grievous a heresy promoted by anyone may be, the SSPX is bound to follow Archbishop Lefebvre’s lack of courage in calling a spade a spade.
In fact, think back to JPII’s persistent common worship with heretics for example. According to an article written by John Salza in Catholic Family News (Feb. 2014), this seemed to Lefebvre to be “the most problematic of the Pope’s MANY OFFENSES AGAINST CATHOLIC TEACHING AND PRAXIS. (My emphasis). He goes on to state: “In regard to the Pope’s worship with the Jews, Lefebvre expressed his Catholic astonishment: ‘And most recently, the Pope has been into the synagogue of the Jews in Rome. How can the pope pray with the enemies of Jesus Christ? These Jews know and say and believe that they are the successors of the Jews that killed Jesus Christ, and they continue to fight against Jesus Christ everywhere in the world. At the end of the Pope’s visit, the Jews sang a ‘hymn’ that included the line ‘I believe with all my heart in the coming of the Messiah’, meaning they refuse Jesus as the Messiah, and the Pope had given permission for this denial of Christ to be sung in his presence, and he listened, with head bowed!” In the footnote to this statement, Salza adds: “The Archbishop also grieved over John Paul II’s participation in pagan rituals in Africa and India.”
If Lefebvre would only be “grieved” by the “many offenses against Catholic teaching and practice” and persistent sin against God and the First Commandment through displays of idolatry and public humiliation of Jesus Christ by JPII (and continued with Benedict XVI and Francis), why does anyone think the SSPX would have the courage to call Francis a heretic?
Fr Gleize: “Chapter Eight of Amoris laetitia is defined, like the others, by the fundamental intention assigned by the Pope to the whole text of the Exhortation”
This is exactly the same way Fr Themann explained away that rather uncomfortable statement by +Fellay in 2012 that the New Mass was ‘legitimately promulgated’. Fr Themann said that the statement by +Fellay must be interpreted by what was in +Fellay’s head, ie: his intention (whatever that was).
Dr. Ludwig Ott: “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.”
Same goes for contract law, you can’t use ‘what was in your head’ as a defence for objecting to what was written in the contract you have signed.
The rot began in 2012. It’s good to see Louie is waking up to it.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“(…)if sometimes, you are overcome by feelings of discouragement, by feelings of being rent inside – nearly of despair at the sight of the Church torn and suffering, struck from all sides; if these feelings invade your soul, know that Our Lord is with you, provided that you keep the words that Our Lord gave us, that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us.
And it is by these sacrifices that one day the enemy will be driven away from the Church and that the Church will again discover her splendor. It will no longer be undermined by persons who desire its disappearance, or who desire its destruction.
And so today we must all pray together. We must pray, in particular, that God will drive away the enemies from the Church in order that the church may again give the graces which the faithful need and which the world needs for its salvation.”
Bp. Fellay accepts 95% of Vatican II since 2001. http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f032ht_ExpulsionReply.htm
The way in which the SSPX is being denigrated here is quite sad.
There used to be a time when their main opponents were the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd who hated everything traditional.
But now, they have a newer and more bitter enemy – people who will never be satisfied even if Bishop Fellay is the next Pope and a Syllabus of Errors on the “spirit of Vatican II” is promulgated by him.
It’s a sad reminder that the most futile deaths in combat are those from friendly fire – but this goes beyond friendly fire and into fragging and fratricide.
@Professor Q….thank you.
Once doubt (a snare of the devil), thru some cracks enters the heart and mind of a man (especially Catholic)……blindness and pride, has not limit.
As the Irish say when it is raining “It is a good day to save your soul.”
Good morning Professor Q,
As objectively understood, what you are indeed lamenting here is not what you suggest that it is, as you intone with your opening salvo, “The way in which the SSPX is being denigrated here is quite sad.” Your lamentation is rather misplaced, as there is no ad hominem assault against the SSPX offered by Louie or the responders in this box. What Louie is doing from an ipso-facto foundation, is defending the SSPX that he appears to love, from one of her own. He is “admonishing the sin”, while loving “the sinner”. Louie has very pointedly gone after the text of Fr Gleize and he has done so in a very incisive and perspicacious capacity, allowing the light to shine on Fr. Gleize’s language, as he places it next to authentic Magisterial teaching (Council of Trent and Holy Scripture).
Your sentiments are indeed misplaced Professor Q. You aught be defending the SSPX against one of its conferrers, who is using semantics in an attempt to deconstruct the brutal reality of the literal attack of the Gospels of Jesus Christ, by the man who purports to be His Vicar. It is exquisitely difficult to understand, at least in my finite capacity, to see anything that could be more grave, proffered by a “pope”. So called Pope Francis made his intentions very clear in his first “encyclical”, released only months after that dreadful day, the 13th of March, 2013. In “Evangelii Guadium”, Jorge Bergoglio as Francis, had this to say,
“I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation…
More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe…”
And so, the “pope”, who with the instrument of an “encyclical”, the very nascent salvo of his now infamous “pontificate”, stakes the very claim that he literally “dreams” of “transforming everything” that is the Holy Mother Church of our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, as God Himself. This shakes the heavens and the earth in its degree of bellicose commitment to undermine the very Bride of Christ, by the man whom is given the singular charge of defending Her from such metaphorical rape. And Fr. Gleize attempts to defend this man, Jorge Bergoglio, as it relates to the suggestion that what Jorge intends to do is somehow only in a sense of “promoting heresy”. Louie was charitable indeed in his assessment of Fr. Gleize. May Almighty God have mercy on His One, True Church is this darkest of times. In caritas.
Prof Q, we love the SSPX. That is why we are trying to warn them of the trap being laid for it by the Modernists in Rome. We don’t want them to suffer the fate of the FSSP. We are all on the side of tradition but see differing strategies to oppose and resist. What we lack is leadership. Until the SSPX realizes they are the last line of defense for Catholicism and stop trying to make peace with heretical Rome, the confusion will continue. It is very possible that the only true priests and bishops left in this word are SSPX and other independent trads. Modernist Rome may have destroyed its priesthood and other sacraments with its ambigious new rites of ordination.
Many of us who visit this website owe a great deal to the SSPX. Their churches/chapels are filled with Catholics who have either discovered Tradition (true Catholicism) through their priests or have gratefully returned to the faith of their youth thinking it had been lost forever. The sentiments coming from Louie’s articles and the comments of the visitors, in most cases, do not represent animosity toward the SSPX. There is little I could add to Tom A’s comment above which I agree with wholeheartedly. Personally, I have always felt that no matter how bad things got in Modernist Rome, the SSPX would be there as a safety net and a safe haven. If the SSPX is absorbed into the New Order establishment regardless of “the deal”, this priestly society could never again stand apart from what most of us recognize as a pseudo-church. Please pray for Bishop Fellay. Roman wolves may be waiting for him.
I have heard the analogy : “The Church is supposed to be a hospital for sinners!” thrown about a lot lately. Gettin’ pretty tired of it, actually.
.
It is very common today to hear the Church described as a “hospital for sinners” not a “museum for saints.” The former analogy is misleading and I think it is entirely upside down. The Church IS a museum for Saints. We are all called to be Saints, NOT sinners. In a museum, only the best is on display, the best are carefully kept and shown permanently so they can be admired and emulated. If an artwork needs repair, it is taken down out of sight to the back room of the restoration department and patched up. Then the restored and preserved artwork is brought back out and put back up with the rest . The artworks are always there, kept in prime condition for the whole world to see. The hospital analogy is weak because only sick people go to a hospital, and, when they do get better they leave! Sick people in a hospital (supposed to be sinners in a Church) are not inspiring, nobody wants to be sick, stay sick, or be seen sick. The whole “Church s a hospital for sinners” analogy just gives people an easy excuse for not striving for the holiness to be a saint, the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. I would say, yes – the Church is a museum for saints, saints who are at home and who belong on display so that they can be a light to the world. Does one put a lamp under a basket?
What “in caritas” and Tom A. said. We are all suffering, trying to make sense of where the barque is headed.
I think that this
“Conscience can … recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it [ADULTERY!] is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.” (cf Paragraph 303)”
Refers to invincible ignorance, an erroneous and inculpable judgment of conscience that can occur even if someone knows very well the doctrine.
Invincible ignorance can very well apply to that part, even Cardinal Caffarra recognized that (even if he said that the paragraph 303 can be interpreted ambiguosly).
Thank God for S.S.P.V. !!!!!
I mean that someone can BELIEVE, with a certain moral security, that what he is doing is what Gof is asking to him/her, but this doesn’t mean that God really asks someone to commit adultery, it means that someone can unculpably believe that his/her situations is acceptable before God, because of complex circumstances, and that an invincibky erroneous judgment of conscience can esist is recognized by the Catholic Church.
So, Louie, the paragraph 303 doesn’t contradict the Tridentine Canons.
Greetings from Italy.
I mean that someone can BELIEVE, with a certain moral security, that what he is doing is what God is asking to him/her, but this doesn’t mean that God really asks someone to commit adultery, it means that someone can unculpably believe that his/her situations is acceptable before God, because of complex circumstances, and that an invincibly erroneous judgment of conscience can esist is recognized by the Catholic Church.
So, Louie, the paragraph 303 doesn’t contradict the Tridentine Canons.
Greetings from Italy.
Dear all,
Thank you for your replies.
I suppose this is simply an area where we need to agree on a difference of opinions.
I am as concerned as you as to where the barque is headed, but I am not yet ready to give up hope in either the Church or the SSPX. To do so would be to turn our backs on the millions of Catholics who live outside (the former) Western Christendom, who have no contact with the Catholic faith outside the “official” Church, and who try to lead faithful lives. To simply dismiss these as “Novus Ordoists” is a lamentable oversimplification. Should we dismiss, say, Cardinal Sarah in this fashion? Or the brave Indian bishop (I forget his name, pardon me) who demanded a ban on the blasphemous “Da Vinci Code”?
As for the SSPX, it is noteworthy that they are engaged in missionary efforts in these very territories, and are trying to work with the official Church where this is possible. This is perfectly comprehensible when we remember that Lefebvre began his career as a missionary in Africa. I see little such missionary effort in those who are ready to “stick a fork” into the SSPX, which is illogical.
I, for one, think that the reconciliation between the SSPX and the Church – whenever it happens, and under whatever circumstances – will be a source of good fruit.
Praying for all of you. Please pray for me as well.
Eh….rhe fssp has survived for years. The sspx will be fine (Im speaking financially of course). If you mean taken seriously as a bastion of the Catholic Faith, then maybe.
How can confirmed Catholics, no less the supposed Pope of the Catholic Church….not to mention almost all of the clergy….be “invincibly ignorant” on this matter?
They are fully culpable….they are just being lazy and selfish (which is basically what all adultery always comes down to).
I fully believe that this premise is purely of the devil. This isnt invincible ignorance….this is vincible rejection of the Faith by people who put themselves before God. No offense to you my friend, but the excuse-making for those who reject God is getting out of control. We need to stand behind what we know as faithful Catholics and reject the excuse-makers (heret
Getting down to brass tacks: If the Society accepts “reconciliation” with conciliar Rome, will the Society also accept the decrees of the marriage tribunals of “Pope” Francis? I’m trying to figure out how the Society reconciles their prior statements regarding the legitimacy of the marriage tribunals of the conciliar church, Amoris Laetitia, and the further changes made in annulment procedures by “Pope” Francis in his apostolic letters regarding the same. Are we to assume that the Society believes that the apostolic letters of Pope Francis regarding annulment procedures alleviates the deficiencies identified by the Society in the procedures instituted by “Pope” “Saint” John Paul II?
–
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/legitimacy_and_status_of_our_tribunals.htm
–
If anyone assumes that this is merely an academic question, will the society allow a person whose marriage was annulled by the conciliar church and whose annulment appears to be doubtful under the norms in place prior to those instituted by the conciliar church to be married to a faithful Society communicant who has never been married? One wonders.
Well, you are The Judge, apparently, so if You say that every person in an objective situation of mortal sin is guilty of actual (mortal) sin, i think i should trust You, my Lord.
Dear St. Cyprian,
I think you should address this question to a particularly vocal blogger by the name of “Vox Cantoris”. =)
How can a poor woman, after having divorced from an husband who violated and betrayed her, think that she is an abomination before God because she has found someone who loves her and that raises her children, when she cannot raise them on her own?
Of course, i think that she is absolutely guilty of actual mortal sin even if she knows that leaving her new “husband” would make her unable to raise her children.
Of course, she is a “damned walking on earth”. Who decided that? You, My Lord “Rich”, anche considering that You are The Lord and The Judge, i guess i should trust you on this matter.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1857,1860,1862,1735,2283,2355.
Goodbye and praise be to Rich, the ultimate Judge.
It seems, that as when the Devil tempted Christ when He was fasting in the desert, the devil suggested turning the stones into bread. This temptation is like Francis’s conjecture for the sinner, somehow meeting The Lord halfway. Somehow the sinner comes to repent, but with an imperfect contrition. Or does he come, spiritual life in turmoil, but the on going sinfulness is a barrier to receiving sanctifying grace. By communicating he actually heaps more sin on his soul and leave worse for wear, then when he arrived.
What would a Pontiff want to do with that scenario, unless to encourage erosion of the faithful? In other words, the ends would justify the means. This is what the High Priest said, at the false trial. Better one man dies, than an entire nation.
No I am afraid the blue print was set out in John 23rd time, the incumbent is merely drilling more holes in the hull of the Barque of Peter, having turned off the pumps. The grounding is just a matter of time now.
The die was caste, the great Archbishop together with Ottiavani and a handful, saw the poison pills, and called the son of perdition Paul the 6th out. JP 2 another traitor to the Faith, showman like Francis, bathes in his milk of humility – Cleopatra would be impressed.
I hope Fellay walks away from the final temptation. Lets pray that he gets the grace to stand firm, stay on track, his fruits will bear him out.
No need for the condescension. I speak only with common sense reality.
Is your first paragraph actually a serious question? Why is it so hard to obey Catholic teaching? Was it ever said that it would be easy? Like our “pope” you throw out human weakness and try to justify mortal sin by it. Im not “god” or a “judge”…im just not that stupid.
Also….dont quote the CCC of jp2 to me. This is a traditional site. Quote an actual Catholic catechism. When you quote v2 garbage I stop listening.
The false tribunals have no power to annul anything. All of their annulments are false.
As is always the case though, if you believe that the v2 religion has validity then you will continue to be confused and you will continue to bang your head against the wall trying to figure out “how this can be”.
Reject v2….its really that simple.
Bp fellay is long down the wide road. He isnt going to suddenly wake up….thats now how humans operate. He is fully on board with those who this site have been fighting against for years. Im probably the dumbest guy who posts on this site….and I saw it coming for years now.
NOT how humans operate.
Maximus, for starters, the poor woman can go to her local NO diocese and get an annulment. They are handing them out free of charge now, no questions asked.
If the SSPX believes that modernist rome and the V2 NO sect is the true Catholic Church, then they cannot resist. Opps, yes they can.
The mission of the SSPX was to preserve the Catholic priesthood. So far they have. I believe the good Archbishop once said that when Rome returned to the Catholic faith, then reconcilliation would simply become a reality. Well, Rome has not only not returned to the Catholic faith, it has moved even farther from it. To strike any kind of deal with Rome now is suicide. It is time to face reality folks. Rome is no longer Catholic. This shouldnt be a shock. Our Lady said that Rome would lose the faith. Lets move on and stop looking back. Trad Bishops, Elect a new Pope already!
. . . and the Devil rubs his hands in glee.
Matthew 22:43-45 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but it finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ When it comes, it finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So will it be also with this evil generation.”
Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Danger! If you allow for one sin you allow for them all….
Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
Jesus of Nazareth
Mark 10:122-12
.
Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Jesus of Nazareth
Mark 10:11-12
Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe,and not according to Christ.
I am reminded of the story of Gideon from the Book of Judges. He first had an army of 22,000 to face 135,000. But God knew the hearts of many of them where defeatists and they didnt trust the Lord so Gideon sent them home until he was left with 300 warriors. So it may be now. I hope the SSPX has not lost heart.
They do….but those useless NO “do-over” papers are no better before God than If you or I granted the annulment. I get your point though.
Yes Rich, the real goal has never been “mercy.” All this push to allievate guilt has as its ultimate goal the normalization of sodomy. This way they can bugger without guilt. Its always been the modernist goal. All modernists promote sex without consequences.
Good afternoon, Maximus Decimus Meridius “from Italy”,
Are you actually suggesting that a baptized Christian, who has with certitude received the seeds of the Virtues and Sanctifying Grace by the Holy Ghost in the act of the Sacrament, unless those same gifts are freely rejected by someone baptized at the age of reason, can in your words, “that someone can BELIEVE, with a certain moral security, that what he is doing is what God is asking to him/her…” ? And further, you trump up your proposition with your following comment, “it means that someone can unculpably believe that his/her situations is acceptable before God, because of complex circumstances, and that an invincibly erroneous judgment of conscience can esist is recognized by the Catholic Church.”
You are developing a rhetoric that is clearly incompatible with the authentic teaching of Holy Mother Church. Your argument does, as it only can, implode under its own weight. It is completely antithetical to the teaching of Holy Church to have a capacity to be, (sic) “unculpable”, in your words, when you have been baptized and received the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. If you argue to the contrary, then you as “pope” Francis, are utterly denying the Reality of Grace, that ineffable Gift which flows from the Redemption of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, which allows us, as He commanded, to “Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” Culpability can be diminished possibly but literally only God Himself knows this about any human person, as only He penetrates the heart of His creature.
These so called, “complex circumstances” that you speak of are objectively known as “mortal sin”, that which separates the soul from God for all eternity, should that soul die in that state. Any baptized Catholic who claims not to know that adultery is mortal sin, is willfully blind, as that is what occurs to the mind, when the soul is in the state of mortal sin, the intellect becomes blinded, as God’s grace is withdrawn by virtue of the free will assent of the person to sin mortally. That same soul is one valid confession away from no longer being blind, by the way. The confessor will inform the person of their perpetual state of adultery which they are choosing to remain in, for instance, and there no longer remains any possible excuse for not knowing. In caritas.
Good afternoon Professor Q,
As this rests res ipsa loquitur, you persist in your error of suggesting that Louie is, as you say, “to ‘ “stick a fork” ‘ into the SSPX”. Since when Professor Q, is a critical evaluation of someone’s language, edifying then what they are indeed communicating, as that same language is being unpacked, an attack of that person or whatever group (SSPX here) that person belongs to? Yours’ is a purely emotive appeal to the reason which Louie proffers eloquently here. If you are indeed, a professor, it is expected of an academic to use the intellective powers given them by Almighty God and not fall into a subjective and emotive accusation, in this specific case of yours’, that Louie is somehow approaching Fr. Gleize and/or the SSPX, with an attack by virtue of the ad hominem. This is purely fallacious, as his argument also rests as res ipsa loquitur. As you continue to suggest that Fr Gleize and/or the SSPX are being attacked, while at once you purport your concern for all the poor blinded souls to whom the SSPX may appeal for truth, you abandon your same concern (read as premise), as you allow such absurdity to be proffered by Fr. Gleize and consider an objective critique of him as an attack on the SSPX itself, rather than on the argument of one of its members. This approach of yours’, indeed fully as it does utterly, undermines the same “mission” of the SSPX that you suggest is so vital, by allowing absurd propositions by one of its members, Fr. Gleize, to go unnoticed or equivocated. Absurd Professor Q.
Truth is hard, Professor Q, as Truth is a divine Person, and Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, admonished us with, “You think I came to bring peace. I came to bring the sword”, as it is in division that the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. We must never forget that act of our Blessed Lord in the Gospel of John, chapter 6, where He freely permitted “most of His disciples” to leave Him, with only the Twelve remaining, as they rejected His teaching as being “too hard”. In caritas.
The 6th commandment:“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:27-28)
I’m not getting it. What’s so difficult to get?
Spoken simply to the simple by the One and Only God. You know the One Who made us and keeps us breathing for now.
Maybe I’m too simple to understand all this complexity involved. Thank Goodness for that. Thank God also for the confessional and for Perfect Contrition too back us up until we can get there in a reasonable amount of time. What more can we ask of Him who was nailed to the Cross for our sins… All for us. Lord have mercy on us all, sinners.
You either get or you don’t.
I’ve heard that the late writer, Michael Davies, debated SSPX priests on certain subjects in a publication. Does anyone remember any details about this?
2 Thess 2:10 “because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying”
This adulterous man does not love her. How can he? She feels pressure by him to continue her sexual relation or else he will leave her and she would than loose her worldly security. Sex for her and him is no more than a commodity in exchange for his financial and emotional help. This is prostitution not love.
It seems to me as though the Society wants to take the place of papal mouthpieces such as Fr Lombardi as well as Francis defenders such as Catholic Answers who will say and do anything to avoid pointing out the elephant in the room. I’ve also noticed that other apostolates, such as The Remnant and OnePeterFive, are not providing such analysis of the current negotiations and orientation of the Society. I understand that they have not expressed support for the merger but they certainly have not critiqued clerics like Fr Gleize and Fr Schmidberger who seem to have forgotten that the Church is in crisis and that the apostasy starts from the top!
That’s great! Well said.
And that is where a Pope would step in with all the authority of Christ and teach those in ignorance the truth.
Francis doesn’t do this, but instead keeps people believing falsehoods and performing gravely immoral acts – because he’s not the pope.
Wisdom 1:6 For wisdom is a kindly spirit, but will not free blasphemers from the guilt of their words; because God is witness of their inmost feelings, and a true observer of their hearts, and a hearer of their tongues.
Wisdom 10:8 :
“For because they passed wisdom by, they not only were hindered from recognizing the good, but also left for humankind a reminder of their folly, so that their failures could never go unnoticed.”
A more apt description of Vatican II I cannot find!
Sometimes thinking simple is the best way to think….Catholicism isnt supposed to be THAT complicated. If you’re thinking simply than join the club because I am too.
And that includes the top of the Society.
ACT told us we need advanced degrees to understand the nuances of what is and what isnt Catholic.
Pope Honorius didn’t step in with all the authority of Christ and teach those in ignorance the truth. Instead, he imposed silence on those who were defending the truth and confirmed the heretical Patriarch of Constantinople in his heresy. I guess he wasn’t the Pope either. You sedevacantist heretics need to study history.
In caritas: Isn’t Maximus simply exposing what the actual, in real life, consequences are when exposed to a half-century of lies and half-truths?
He simply pulled out the trump card of the Modernist’s, using the words of one of its most passionate leaders and defenders, who don’t really believe the Word of God and who are experts in twisting the Truth for their advantage.
Yet, he does have a point. If one has grown up under the shadow of the lies and half-truths of Vatican II, their religious formation has been that of Modernism. Modernism is not Catholicism. But those growing up in its wake are still taught to trust those in authority while the authorities have transformed the Catholic out of Catholicism and into Modernism. So they can be said to be “invincibly ignorant” of the Truth because they have never been taught the Truth. How can the seed of virtue and gifts of the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament of Baptism be fruitful if one is constantly exposed to lies?
Dear “In caritas”, I agree with your comment, but just a minor correction concerning your Latin “name”, in charity:
“Deus CARITAS est et qui manet IN CARITATE in Deo manet et Deus in eo” (1 John 4;16, Vulgata). In caritate.
It’s not that I necessarily disagree with the analysis of the position offered by Louie and the other critics of the SSPX (suggested by the published position of Fr, Gleize), but for those individuals who are now voicing their lack of confidence in the SSPX because of its presumed position on the pope (that he may not be declared a heretic or an anti-pope for not recanting Amoris Laetitia), are you now suggesting that there is some other organizations Catholics may confidently turn to for a faithful representation of Catholic teaching?
Of course, if these recent articles and comments on the SSPX and Amoris Laetitia have been nothing more than an interesting and ongoing academic discussion of conflicting points of view on a singular (and very complex) ecclesial issue wherein sincere Catholics embrace differing points of view, then say so. But that’s not how I’ve been reading the articles and the comments on this topic. A common sense reading of this ongoing topic would be that the action by the SSPX (as expressed by Fr. Gleize) has truly left the Church rudderless––except for this site, of course, /sarc/.
If he was a heretic he couldnt have been Pope. Maybe that is why he was anathemized by true Popes.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia has a good summation of the Honorius controversy.
Good Sunday afternoon Katherine,
Your question is well founded. The answer must remain the same. There is no possibility for “inculpable ignorance” in the baptized, as grace infinitely trumps ignorance. It was our Blessed Dominus Deus Who commanded the necessity of having “the faith of a child” to make it into the Kingdom of God. With the faith of a child, the grace is freely received and the intellective lights necessary to make the journey through this valley of darkness are superabundantly provided. The Decalogue remains as it is. “Thou Shalt not Commit Adultery”. There are no caveats. There are no “special circumstances”. There is no such being as, “too difficult a situation”. All of those propositions deny grace, that which is both freely given and completely undeserved, by the Son of God, as God Himself, to each perfectly miserable human creature, by virtue of His Singularly Holy Sacrifice of the Cross. All any Catholic needs to know remains in the authentic Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, just “one click away” in this time of utter darkness. The vice of sloth is not, as a vice never can be, a requisite for the claim of, “inculpable ignorance”, which of course is only the purview of Almighty God, knowing whether any human person is inculpably ignorant, as He alone penetrates the heart. We can speak only of that which is taught by the Holy Church objectively, as inculpable ignorance remains a subjective reality. “Inculpable ignorance” gets no one to heaven, as I’m all but sure that you understand. “I Am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me.”
In closing, Saint Paul had this to say in his letter to the Romans, chapter 1: 18-32, only quoting a small part of that section. “The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God nor give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes….” In caritas.
Now you deny that Honorius was a true Pope? Name anyone before Vatican II who claimed Honorius lost his office for heresy.
Thank you Ursula,
I love Latin as the Sacred language of Holy Mother Church, rich in its immanent meaning, a foundational language, and yet I know not much of it. In caritate.
Thats my point, if he was a heretic, he wasnt Pope. You cannot have an heretical Pope. He would lose his office by Divine Law. So he was either not a heretic and Pope or he was a heretic and lost his office. Obviously he did not defend the faith as he should have and for that he was condemned by the next Popes. I believe his bones were dug up, vested, and he was “excommunicated” but I do not believe even a Pope can excommunicate a dead man since he was already judged by God.
I would like to know where you read that sedevacantism is a heresy. Sedevacantism is simply a dispute as to who truly sits on the papal throne. There have been several times in history that the question was in doubt. This current mess will one day be cleared up when a Pope who isnt a Modernist sits on the Chair of Peter again.
You are clearly correct and Fr. Gleize is clearly wrong. So my question is why. Not to underestimate your intellect but is Fr. Gleize a mental midget. I find this difficult to believe and therefore I suspect that he is being dishonest. I’m in SSPX and I grow more and more apprehensive about the dishonesty I’m hearing from the hierarchy. Nothing good in dishonesty regardless of end goal.
I am too because the Truth is simple. This is sophistry, overly complicating things in order to tell a big fat whopping lie.
Good Sunday evening In caritas,
It is a joy reading your posts. Small catechisms and beautifully written.
I hope you know I was playing devil’s advocate. I believe we know how entrenched the lies of Satan are in the minds and hearts of so many today where only this temporal life rather than working towards eternal life in Heaven is the only real concern.
I pray that Maximus returns to read your reply to me as he/she said goodbye.
ACT has a degree from S&S U. He’s their most famous student.
There’s more to Honorius than that. To compare him to Francis displays a need for you to study the issue in
more depth.
See what Saint Paul says in Galatians 4:22-31, March 26th epistle reading :
He makes an analogy between the two sons of Abraham as between the Jew and the Christian: Saint Paul equates the sons of the bondwoman ” to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” i.e. the Jews, as opposed to the sons of the free woman, the children of promise, who are the Christians. He then states:
.
“Cast out the bond-woman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman SHALL NOT BE HEIR with the son of the free woman. So then brethren we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom where with Christ has made us free.”
.
Christians are sons of the promise, as Isaac was, says Saint Paul. Therefore it can hardly be said that the Old Covenant with the Jews has not been broken. Christians are heirs to the sonship, and the Jews of the Old Covenant are not.
.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for your average Scripture-illiterate Catholic clergy to point out this fraud of Vatican II in his homilies. My priest today also didn’t bother either mentioning the denial by the “Pope” of Jesus’ miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fishes in John 6 :1-15. They just do not care about Scripture at all, it seems to me, even at “traditional” parishes, who fail to expound on Scripture and instead jump straight into their philosophy, theology, social justice campaign twaddles, and begging for more money.
Michael F Poulin
“think that she is an abomination before God because she has found someone who loves her and that raises her children, when she cannot raise them on her own?” What kind of man would sleep with someone’s wife? Are you serious? This is a Catholic blog. Yes no one can judge that Francis/Bergoglio knows the Church teaching on 6th and 9th commandment or his concept God is the One who would teach people to do evil. That is subjective. We only focus the objective truth. That objectively he is a heretic and an apostate. Read some works of St. Thomas, invincible ignorance only applies if one can not find the truth after he did his best to study the issue. So after reading the Dubia can he look up the Catechism of the Catholic Church (let’s say he doesn’t have Catechism of Trent or anything before Vatican II) and find CCC 1650 condemns his teachings?
“The false tribunals have no power to annul anything. All of their annulments are false. ” How about those that no trail needed. Like lack of form?
“I’m in SSPX and I grow more and more apprehensive about the dishonesty I’m hearing from the hierarchy” Do you hear your priests condemn Vatican II clearly in their sermons?
So was Honorius a true Pope or not? Is this something two sedevacantist heretics can agree on? Papal Subject? Tom A?
And Tom, Honorius was condemned as a hHERETIC by at least 2 councils. According to the sedevecantist errors you hold, that must be he was not a true Pope, right?
There is a very good reason that theologians and canonists employ necessary distinctions that may seem “complicated” to the unlearned. Ignorance of these distinctions will lead people to false conclusions. That is why complicated questions are left to trained men who have a grasp of these sciences. Simpletons only demonstrate their rashness and ignorance by jumping to conclusions on complicated matters.
Absolutely. Only two weeks ago the SSPX priest referred to the teachings that grew out of the Second Vatican Council as “another religion”. He couldn’t be more right.
Like the trained theologians and liturgists who gave us Vatican 2 and the NO? No thanks. I’ll stick with simpletons rather than risk my eternal salvation with “learned” heretics.
You maybe want to see what St Bellarmine said regarding Pope Honorius. He said he wasnt a heretic.
You obviously do not know the meaning of the word heretic if you call sedevacantists heretics. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Honorius was not a heretic. The topic was hotly debated in the time before Vatican I. The protestants and Gallicans both tried to use the Honorius controversy against Papal Infallibility. They were not successful then so why are you bringing it up again, unless of course you are still trying to prove that a Pope can be a heretic in order to justify your disobedience to a heretic you think is Pope.
Excellent post IC.
This is the devil’s own work init? Confusion. Keep everyone arguing amongst themselves, nitpicking every detail, endlessly analyzing every controversy until at last the whole edifice is “torn into a thousand pieces and scattered to the wind”.
Tom, you said a pope who falls into heresy loses his office by divine law. There is no divine law that says any such thing. That is one of the errors spread by the sedevacantist heretics. If you deny it, cite the divine law directly.
A heretic cannot be a Catholic (Pius XII Mystici Corpris) and a Catholic by reason has to be Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus reaffirms the Catholic teaching that no man and no Council can judge a Pope. Therefore reason again shows us that a Pope is only judged by God.
Tom A. Just as I suspected. you couldn’t cite anything in *divine law* that says a pope automatically loses his office if he falls into heresy. That’s because it doesn’t exist. So please stop spreading this sedevacantist error so that others are not deceived by it as you were.
And i didn’t ask for you private interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi. If I wanted a heretic to give me his interpretation of that encyclical, I would have consulted my Protestant neighbor. Pius XI never said a Pope automatically loses his office if he falls into heresy, your false interpretation not withstanding.