Does communion between the Church of Christ and the many thousands of heretical communities still exist? Pope John Paul II said it does, but what did the popes who preceded him have to say?
The modern ecumenical heresy
Comments (150)
Comments are closed.
+JMJ+
I’ve reposted this video on my blog.
It should be noted that there are degrees in heresy that are dependent upon the level of authority attached to the teaching.
Communion itself is also a tricky concept (caveat: sitting in armchair) in that a properly baptised person cannot efface the mark to a degree to fully sever the relationship with the Church. That is why canon law makes exceptions for protestants to marry ‘outside the Church’.
P^3
Rorate Caeli just published a translation of Roberto de Mattei’s recent article “The Reconciler”, and it complements Louie’s video here quite well. For example, de Mattei writes:
–
“What slows down the debate [regarding the true nature of Vatican II] is the reverential metas that every Catholic rightly holds towards the supreme ecclesiastical authorities. This reverential respect, however, cannot reach the point of deforming historical and theological truth.”
–
That is exactly what has happened to many in the Neo-Catholic camp. It’s time for people to face the historical facts: Vatican II was subverted by Modernism, and Modernists are in control of huge swaths of the Vineyard.
Sometimes I’m a bit confused -if a Pope has the authority to “bind and loose” who do we follow when the two so clearly disagree? My only recourse, I guess, is to find out what the Church has always taught to decide, right? And if one Pope (or Council) says something that is clearly opposite, am I bound by the “new and improved” teaching? or am I bound by the “old” teaching? Since I received Baptism in 1961 perhaps I’ll stick to the teaching in force at that time…-Mike
How very true it is that we have been trying to put our finger on the basic premise of the errors with which we are daily accosted. For some 50 years we have put our finger on thousands of contradicting and conflictive issue that have risen since Vatican II. Yet, we all know that the heresies that bombard the Church have existed before the council. We continue to point out with that searching finger, every document, encyclical, and Pope for over a hundred years to at last find the first cause of the predicament that we see the Church in today. The truth of the matter is that dogma is seldom the cause division. Yes, with corruption we have errors. Vatican II was not interested in errors and correcting them. “Let him be anathema!” Vatican II’s issue was the development of doctrine beyond what was held in the past. The problem we face is not of dogma but of politics. The pulse we feel is only the symptom of a sick heart beating out error. It is modernism that eats away at the fabric of truth. Modernism is not a doctrine that is mistaken, but destruction of the absolute nature of truth. Ever since the Reformation, truth has become relative and that goes in religion as well. Modernism teaches that all truth is relative and developmental in time. So we find the new theology not as a contradiction of the past, but rather a development of the doctrines of the past. Which means all doctrine is changeable. “Lamentabili Sane Exitu” is the syllabus of errors from the Holy Office in 1907 under Pius X. It is hard to believe that the 65 condemned propositions of modernism became much of the foundation of Vatican II. Modernism is but the tool of politics for the enemies of the Church inspired by Satan himself. We may become disoriented with all the information swirling around us about the causes, but it is the root that we need to attack. Anyone for a new syllabus of errors for our time? At least we might have something concrete to debate. Yeah, I know, don’t hold your breath.
Catch number #65: 65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.
We’ve been trying to consider all that’s happened in the Church since the time of Fatima, and wondering what other’s think about the motivation (s) behind it all. We know holy people find fulfillment in pleasing God, and even on a more human level they might find more joy in saving lots of souls.
____
So what are the thinks that motivate the Church Revolutionaries?
Is it generally thought to be delusional or diabolic disorientation–just working for goals that are meaningless really, for the sake of change?
Is it for power to control a large organization and lots of people?
____
A genuine belief that it will really do souls the most good, doesn’t seem realistic. So in that category, a genuine believe that it will do good by what?
Any ideas?
‘Whoever would recede in the least degree… from doctrine is outside the Church’. And yet we are expected to accept Bergoglio’s ‘forget about the teachings’, teaching. Which, sadly, most ‘Catholics’ seem more than happy to do. What is so clear is that most Catholics think nothing of the fact that the leaders of Vatican II not only ‘recede’ from the Magisterium, but overturn it. They don’t care. If you point out the crime, they don’t care. The issue of the indissolubility of marriage is the last specifically Catholic thing about the Vatican II church, and this seems set to change in October, and they don’t care. God is merciful, we don’t need to care.
p.s. The fact is that the battle for the Catholic Faith is lost within the chaos of the Novus Ordo. Roncalli initiated a new faith, Montini established it, Wojtyla promulgated it with bells on. He participated in liturgical abominations in the name of VII. The VII/Novus Ordo Religion teaches that false worship is now salvific – and that it is an act of charity for a supposed Catholic to recognise that salvation is found outside the Testament of Christ’s Blood. Excuse me, is this not blasphemy? Traditional Church teaches that it is a mortal sin for Catholics to worship with non-Catholics and that the Testament of Christ’s Blood is the only covenant by which one can be saved; the Novus Ordo church seeks to conflate and confuse True religon and false religions, True worship and false worship by participating in each others liturgy – liturgies that deny transubstantiation, and religious communities that deny Catholic Dogma and Doctrine).
–
Some Catholics ask this simple question. Is Vatican II Catholicism or not? Either Yes, or No. It is impossible that the Catholic Church promote false teaching, disciplines and liturgy ‘universally’. The changes of VII and Novus Ordo promulgate new liturgy, new disciplines and new teachings. Are they false? Does Vatican II contradict Tradition (its Doctrine, Discipline and liturgy) in a substantial manner? VII consecrated Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, Collegiality and Modernism (the relativising of Truth). ‘Ecumensim’ was condemned by Pope Pius XI, religious liberty condemned by Pope Pius IX, the new ecclesiology as it is put forth by VII is in opposition to the ecclesiology that preceeded it.
–
What are the results of Vatican II? There is no unity of Faith (sifting or outright ignoring doctrine and dogma is taught from the pulpits and from Rome) and therefore no Catholicity (unity of belief (regarding Dogma, Doctrine, Disicpline and Liturgy). VII’s fruits are DIY liturgy, no Holiness, no unity of government – opinionism from Bishop to Bishop and so-called ‘pope’ to so-called ‘pope’ is prescribed.
–
No Catholic can hold the position that a substantial distortion of the faith comes from Christ (or His visible head, that being the pope as this denies the protection of the Holy Ghost). If changes introduced by the Roman Heirarchy after 1958 represent a substantial change in doctrine, discipline, and litrugical practice receding away from Roman Catholicism, they have no authority.
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/syllogism-of-sedevacantism.htm
This is a very important question and has been raised before on this Web site. This was my humble attempt at an answer then.
What Louie is talking about here is a very important task – to retrace our steps in order to return to the right path. A fleeting news headline was generated recently – “Pope goes to confession”. A pastor who truly believed in the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance would knuckle down and pursue those who do not have access to it because they reject the Catholic Church which is one and the same thing as the Mystical Body of Christ (Humani Generis, para. 27). And that requires the hard work of proselytism.
What’s the opposite of “solemn nonsense”, common sense?
Pride.
That question was in jest, right? 🙂
Speaking of Common Sense,
Louie and Steve Skojec are two of the bloggers we admire most for their Faith and willingness to work for the good of the Church in calling all souls to join her. Like most who post here, he’s frustrated with what we all see going on today, and is starting a new “project” August .1st, the Feast of St. Peter in Chains
http://blog.steveskojec.com/2014/07/24/announcing-onepeterfive-weve-got-problems-lets-find-answers/
Christ is the Invisible Head of His Church, The Pope, His Vicar of Christ on earth, is the Visible Head. The Visible Head MUST be in conformity with the Invisible Head. The papacies after Pope Pius XII have lost their way. Until the Papacy gets back on track, we can expect all kinds of novelties and everything NOT Catholic. It’s difficult to think this was all an accident—sounds like “A Plan”. Heaven help us!
Powerful weapons: Mass and Daily rosary.
.
Pentecostals tell Francis to “p**s off”
_______
Link over at RC: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/07/since-catholic-leaders-arent-clear.html
_______
Boy, Francis could use another Tony Palmer right about now.
brethren,
I was going to say off topic but not.
“———–The question is being hotly debated on specialist websites and is yet another illustration of Francis’ tendency to break the mould, promising unexpected turns.—–” {I bet.}
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/news/detail/articolo/caserta-caserta-caserta-35454/
All I can think of right now is that poor mother & father of the FFI family and Chair Occupant telling them “soon, soon,” during their audience with him.
I always find it quite funny how Bergoglio constantly gets slammed (and he should be slammed incessantly, no doubt), but Ratzinger….the man who allowed this sickness (Bergoglio) to come into power…is somehow regarded as a good pope. As far as I’m concerned Ratzinger, one of the main men behind the founding of the false v2 church, is immeasurably more responsible for the evil we see today than the dummy Bergoglio can ever be.
Google Ms. Bella Dodd. To say that the destruction of the Church ( in the 20th century) was simply a plan is an understatement.
Rich,
You are absolutely right! “The Plan” was nothing less than the diabolic orientation spoken of by Our Lady of Fatima!! The longer Her warnings go unheeded, the worse things will get. The October Synod will lead the Modern church to a very frightening destination. Pray the rosary–wear your scapular!!!
Dear Rich,
A case in point–
Wickipedia reports that the Jews are now, (since the 21st century–and not since any necessary conversion) considered by the Catholic Church as elder “brothers”, a claim made frequently and publicly by Jewish Rabbi’s which got support when .Pope Benedict XVI said in his book “Jesus of Nazareth” in 2011 –writing “as a private theologian” and not as Pope: ___
” Until God’s plan comes to fruition, the “particular task” of the disciples of Christ is to carry the faith to the Gentiles, not to the Jews.”
____How can a Pope publish a book “NOT AS” the Pope? Is it a gown he removes every night? It’s seems to us another one of those under-handed ploys we’ve seen so often, used to pedal dissent without responsibility.
Only how does even a theologian get away with that? Oh yeah, we forgot, this one was also the Pope at the time, –just not himself when he was writing. So who’s going to censure him?
____
Dear my2cents
There are also 3 more sets of ‘first Fridays and Saturdays’ between now and the 5th-19th October synod AND
–The last of those being the two days (Oct 3rd and 4th) before it opens. And Oct. 4th is the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi
_
who was told in a vision by God, “Francis, go and rebuild My Church”
(of course we shudder to think what the current Pope takes that to mean)
The Visible Head of the Church i.e. the Pope does not have to be in conformity with the Invisible Head i.e. Christ in the majority of what he says and does. We’ve had many doozy Popes in the past. The only time conformity IS necessary is when the Pope speaks authoritatively on faith/morals. The Church is Jesus Christ and the Deposit of Faith left by Him to the Apostles made up of the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If the visible head acts in contradiction to the True and Invisible head, then like St. Athanasius we are to follow Our Lord and the Truth He left us. God bless~
Thanks ox – that was very helpful, and I do appreciate it. -Mike
Well, maybe a bit in jest, but perhaps more like thinking out loud. I and many in my parish who tend toward the traditional, need to know what I do is correct. Seeing the Church in its current state brings me back to 10 years old when my parents got divorced. Of course I loved them both, but how could you choose between one and pick one to live with? Now I have much the same dilemma, which way do I go? I shouldn’t have to make a decision like this, but its being forced upon me. Choose!
Why the need to preach sedevacantism in response to every post of Louie’s? He’s requested that comments stay on-topic once.
—–
Since you did: sedevacantism (which we can define by the position that individual Catholics are able to decide and even required to decide that a canonically-elected pontiff is actually not pope) is an error, or a system of errors. It is a type of over-reaction to this severe crisis of faith.
—–
Here is my own rebuttal to some of the nowatch screed:
—–
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/a-response-to-novus-ordo-watch/
One more link – probably the best single, succinct rebuttal of sedevacantism I know of:
—–
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
—–
I won’t comment further on this topic in this post.
Dear mpoulin,
Quite right. We had been about to respond seriously to your question, but thought it better to check that out first, as so many who post here use sarcasm rather often to make a point.
_
Not being theologians, but a family who found ourselves in the same dilemma you express above concerning the teachings, our solution was to seek the promulgated truth, and stick with it.
___
You may have noticed that these novelties have all been foisted on the Church without making use of her official authority-such as we mentioned regarding Pope Benedict writing “as a theologian” only, and the fact that Vatican II was not declared dogmatic and infallible, but only pastoral.
___
But the best way we found to be certain, was to go back and read the encyclicals of past Popes on all the issues in question. To our relief, we found, as the Bible reminds, “there (really) is nothing new under the sun. And now, when something sounds “brand new” we run to check out what went before. –One reason the internet is a blessing. The old statements are so clear and precise, we find instant relief, and the only alarm comes from realizing how badly in need we are of a Pope who will behave and speak in the same way.
___
Someone posted a comment saying the Pope only has to do that when he acts officially, which is true in a way, but it’s so important that the rest of his life and actions lead the world out of darkness and into the truth, that when he lacks that over-all continuity with the Church in his ideas and actions which aren’t formally declared truth, great harm can be done to a great many souls.
___
That’s why we are so grateful to men like Louie Verrecchio, who use their gifts so publicly, despite the great price they have to continually pay, to help people like us come to a clearer understanding of what’s happening, and link up with one another for sharing ideas, support, and prayer.
We respectfully disagree with your use of the word “necessary”.
While it is true it is necessary for that conformity with Christ when officially promulgating, if his less-official actions follow the bad examples you mention which other Popes have given, he joins them in creating serious scandal, which can lead many souls to damnation. Of course it is not the Church doing that, but many people have difficulty separating the man from his calling, which they shouldn’t really need to do, and in that sense, it is more necessary for him to imitate Christ in ALL he does. God Bless..
@MMC: The aspirational goal of ANY Pope is to be in conformity with Our Lord. After all, the Church belongs to Our Lord, and the Pope is only His servant. The way you stated it makes it sound as if papal conformity with Our Lord is optional. Our Lord spoke exactly to this point twice when he emphasized the servant is not greater than the master in John chapters 13 and 15. John 13: 15 – 17 is reproduced here:
–
“For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.
Amen, amen I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him.
If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them.”
–
Note this also contains an implicit warning to those servants who do not follow the example of the master – they will not be blessed,
–
Further, the way you state it makes it seem that we have no expectation of a faithful Pope meaning we must tolerate a bad Pope. The faithful are in no ways supposed to tolerate a bad Pope – St. Paul set the example when he admonished St. Peter. Further, doctors of the Church have stated that a Pope who deviates from the faith and lapses into heresy can be deposed.
–
The fact that the so-called “faithful” do not follow the example of Eusebius, St. Nicholas, St. Athanasius etc. and confront those corrupting the faith is nothing to be proud of either because it evidences our lukewarmness about the faith:
–
” I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.”
–
So if some among the faithful feel as if they have been cast into outer darkness with the spectacle of an apparently faithless Pope – maybe they feel that way because they are lukewarm about the faith – they have been vomited out of the mouth of Our Lord!
Do you believe that one needs to be a card carrying Catholic to be saved? (Feeneyism)
http://biblicalfalseprophet.com/2014/01/25/bergoglio-chooses-francis-satans-mocking-revenge/
Cyprian and Indignus- Forgive me if my wording in any way supported the idea that a bad Pope was an ok thing. I was reacting to the word “Necessary” in the original post. I agree with you both totally:+) Being a horrid Pope who leads others astray is not a viable option but sadly it has happened in this past and now present. That it CAN happen was my point. That is SHOULD happen is another can of worms…it should never happen for as you aptly point…the Pope serves a Master. God bless~
Dear remnantclergy,
We believe that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Are you asking about belief in things like Baptism of desire? And what is your opinion, if you wouldn’t mind elaborating a bit more?
Catholicism is never contradicted by the objective truth.
I’m not preaching sedevacantism. I’m asking the question, is the Vatican II religion, its doctrines, disciplines and its mass, Catholic? The link lays out the ‘syllogism’ of this investigation. You don’t need to look at the link if you don’t want. To say that asking the question, is Vatican II and its Novus Ordo Religion a substantial change from Roman Catholicism seems rather on topic to me.
@Rich. I know. I figure there’s only so much in ya face betrayal that people can take. Bergoglio is a promulgator of a new religion and so was Ratzinger, and so was Wojtyla and so was Montini and so was Roncalli. The previous popes has resisted this new religion trying to infiltrate Rome, the post ’58 lot were the workers of the iniquity.
Feenyism is simply not Catholic. But neither is the idea that the specific institution Christ established to bring sacramental grace to the world just another choice among many.
–
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Anti-Feeneyite%20Catechism%204.pdf
Lack of the virtues. Habit of sin. Attachment to comfort, pleasure, human respect, worldly power, influence, prestige. Fear of discomfort, being hated, sidelined. All leading to loss of Faith, a point at which God and The Faith are subverted by the adopted false rationales that support their selfish concerns.This in turn leads to contempt for God and the Faith and the Natural Moral Law.
Sometimes, the loss of Faith, and hatred for God and His Holy Church predates training for the priesthood, ordination.
Lack of proper formation contributes to the probability of gradually turning awayfromthe Faith, and adopting false ideologies. Those weak or weakened in character canbe easily misled or intimidated by corrupt superiors.
The pope has more than the magisterial role. He is to be leader in faith and morals at all times. Only a holy man ought to be elected pope. He ought to be an exemplar for bishops, priests and laity, and a great witness to faith and morality.
Yes, the Church was targetted very successfully, but the planned infiltration would not have been so successful but for sin within the Church.
All well put, Lynda: ‘Fear of discomfort, being hated, sidelined. All leading to loss of Faith, a point at which God and The Faith are subverted by the adopted false rationales that support their selfish concerns.’
–
It would be my guess that what I requoted is the lever pushing formerly really quite faithful Catholics away from the Faith and towards becoming apologists for anti-faith (and lets face it, Bergoglio is some sort of antifaith prometheus).
In outward practice, clearly. The content of the Faith, cannot change. Though this is suggested by the adoption of novelties in the liturgy, the widespread failure on the part of the clergy to teach the Faith and morals, etc.
p.s. I meant to say that to say that asking such a question is off topic, is not correct. The question, ‘does the VII and its Novus Ordo religion (doctrines, discipline, liturgy)’ proclaim or distort the True Faith? My knowledge is limited and experiential, but it has depended on the Deposit of Faith protected and proclaimed to the world by the Church from Christ and His Apostolic Body for 2000 years. So I compare and contrast. It’s sort of that simple and that shocking.
Well, I guess if we know the Faith, we can know who is of the Faith. I thought some of the people I know knew the Faith, but recently and not so recently, they have decided to promote what Bergoglio promotes (and he’s just one of a multitude of clegy and laity doing so), thereby suppressing the Faith. I think it would probably just be better to sit on the fence than for someone to go against conscience and jump over it and start to support things that are clearly not of the Faith.
Note well, Our Lord did not say to St. Francis from the cross of San Damiano: Go and rebuild My Church, but rather, God and repair My Church….
Hello everyone! Check out http://www.voiceofcatholicradio.com for latest podcast featuring Brian McCall interview regarding the novelties of Vat2 vs. Tradition. Clearly states that the Vicar of Christ must be in conformity with Our Lord, Invisible Head of His Church. Brian McCall is an outstanding apologist for the True Catholic Church.
Thank you.
It would seem there is a spat of infighting in the body of the Evangelical Alliance. The Italian branch is the same which supported the EU’s ban on crucifixes in Italian schools back in 2010. It has taken a position very much opposed to the Catholic Church in Italy, and it apparently feels betrayed by its American counterpart. For those interested, the following link will take you to an archive of articles by Leonardo de Chirico, a key figure in the Italian Evangelical Alliance, containing his reflections on the ecumenical movement, the Catholic Church and Pope Francis. It’s worth browsing:
–
http://vaticanfiles.org/author/leonardo/
@MMC
Thanks for the clarification. At least the mixup evoked some good food for thought and a consensus about the “time of great distress” we are living through. God Bless..
A good link. McCall’s description of real confession and its contemporary inversion are worth listening alone. The quote about the enemies of the Church working to change the way Cathokics think is right on point – they HAVE changed the way almost everyone claiming to be Catholic thinks. Also the idea that people now base their faith on a personality and his teaching (eg, wojtyla or bergoglio) rather than the sacred deposit of the Faith.
from Bergoglio interview one million two thousand twenty six and a half:
–
— “but the worst [attitude] you can have is that of religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I dialogue with you in order to convert you’, no.”
–
In his local rag, ‘viva’, in which he has “10Suggestions for a Happy Life” – none of which bit her with avoiding eternal damnation. (interview 27 July) don’t think it’s been translated yet – apologies to Catholic thinker, here’s the link:
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/interview-no-11-francis.htm
p.s. excuse the ‘bit her’. I did write ‘bother’, but satans spell ‘correct’ had other ideas.
So what then do they mean by the “new evangelization”? If the “old evangelization” was preaching the gospel and converting non-believers to the Catholic faith, what is the “new evangelization”?
It’s a tangential topic, I’ll give you that. 🙂
—–
As for the assertion that that NOWatch article (like all of them) is not promoting the sede position, I’ll have to disagree.
—–
The issue is just that bringing it into the conversation tends to derail the commenting on any given post. (This is why Catholic forums tend to segregate sede talk to a sub-forum.)
—–
I’ll exercise restraint if you do (and, I’d say you do).
Yes.
—–
I believe Bella Dodd only covers the communist angle.
—–
In the 19th century, the arch-enemy, freemasonry, changed it’s long-term plan from outward destruction of the Church to inward infestation – the Fifth Column.
—–
John Venarri’s excellent booklet on the Alta Vendita and “Athanasius & the Church of Our Times” are two good sources.
Why, of course, it’s dialog. Talking, not “preaching”. To paraphrase Vatican II, believers should dialog with heretics, schismatics, and unbelievers so that *both* can come to a greater version of the truth.
—–
It’s another example of the inversion of the subjective & the objective, with disastrous ends. While it’s true that individual Catholics will not have perfect understanding of Truth, it is also true that only the Catholic Church possesses this Truth in the form of the Deposit of Faith, She only is protected from theological and moral error, and She only provides the means of salvation.
—–
The creation of a “New Evangelization” also begs the question of what, exactly, was wrong with the Old One. The answer, of course, just as with the Mass and everything else, is essentially “absolutely nothing”.
—–
P.S. I know you really knew the answer – I just wanted to talk..
‘new evangelization’ is hegalian modernist-speak for NO-Evangelization – literally. Because the most important person to keep happy is satan sitting in his counting house, counting out his souls.
“But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Cor 13:13)
The entire thrust of the past 50 years has been rooted in those areas concerned with ecumenism and religious freedom. Could there have been any doubt to where these two would lead? It seems like the entire trust of the Church today is to ecumenism (ut unum sint). Everything both inside the Church and in the world has become so grey that nothing is clear. Right-wrong, good-bad, true-false, all have been lost to a concept of existentialism which only counts the circumstance and the feelings. There is very little objective truth if any. There are no absolutes outside of the absolute that there are no absolutes. After so many centuries, and most especially after these past 500 years, it has become obvious that the situation of unity is very bleak indeed. Anyone can come to the conclusion that with the 1,000s of possible sects, all with their own beliefs contrary to all the others that the prayer of Jesus is much less probable than ever before. In fact with each day now it becomes even less possible with the subtraction of moral principles in some ecclesial communities along with the age old dogmatic tenets. So the question, “Where are we going will all of this?” What I see rising from this sea of seeming ecumenism, is the unifying principle that seems to be echoed more than ever. That dogma is not as important as is the “love”. “The greatest of these is love.” The only way out for ecumenism is to put dogma in its place and proclaim our unity under the principle of “love” above all (and that is not the theological virtue). That makes all religions equal and one depending on their “love”. Skip the rest. There are a few tenets employed to hold up a structure that we can recognize as “Christian”. Otherwise if we love, the rest is individual belief and ritual only. Yet, in the end we are still caught in the crag mire of what is “love”. Love is doing what is good, good is what is true, and true comes from faith. Whether human or divine, love follows the same process. The new evangelization is supposed to be a way to revitalize the Catholic faith within the Catholic Church, which is in sore need of reformation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9_vhYpR9xo For those who were there.
“What slows down the debate [regarding the true nature of Vatican II] is the reverential metas that every Catholic rightly holds towards the supreme ecclesiastical authorities. This reverential respect, however, cannot reach the point of deforming historical and theological truth.
## I wouldn’t be caught dead having any “reverence” for the vermin who exercise – or supposedly exercise – “supreme ecclesiastical authorit[y]”.
NuVangelisation is a sham, from top to bottom; like George Weigel’s “Evangelical Catholicism”, which is merely brown-nosing the Pope & idolising the Church by another name. NVism is not new, but about 20 years old; and it consists in nothing but endless blather about evangelisation, when what is needed is evangelism, AKA proselytism, AKA missionary work. And like that sham that is V2, and so many other shams in the CC since then, it is very very very very very expensive. No surprise there 🙁
Give us a bit more time, Jimmy. After just a few more synods, documents, encyclicals, and interviews, we will look just like the other “ecclesial communities” and there will be little need for evangelism either. One might ask just who is proselytizing whom?
Feeneyists believe that only baptized Catholics in the state of grace can be saved. Anyone who is not a baptized Catholic cannot be saved. Such Feeneyism was condemned by Pope Pius XII, which was before Vatican II. It IS possible to be saved through invincible ignorance, however that is less likely to happen. Of course this does not support the wrong inference that whatever ‘church’ you belong to doesn’t really matter (indifferentism). The grace that comes via the Catholic Church is what allows anyone – even a non-Catholic (in invincible ignorance) – to be saved.
@ Lynda and all, re comment # 4 and 9..(and everything since then, pretty much). You wrote:
“Catholicism is never contradicted by the objective truth” and
‘ The pope has more than the magisterial role. He is to be leader in faith and morals at all times. Only a holy man ought to be elected pope. He ought to be an exemplar for bishops, priests and laity, and a great witness to faith and morality.’
____
We aren’t making any formal judgment here, but it’s very worrisome to us, how much your words ring true, and at the same time seem to echo those of Pope Paul IV In 1559 when he issued a Papal Bull – “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio” dealing with the subject and the possibility of a heretic being elected pope, (it is said, because one of the Cardinals was rumored to be a secret Protestant)
___
Although some like Father Hesse argue that its subject matter is “administrative” and cannot therefore be dogmatically pronounced, it seems to us just common sense that this subject matter is instead overwhelmingly related to the spiritual and moral well-being of souls, so we respectfully disagree and believe the current situation demonstrates why Pope Paul’s concerns should not be dismissed as not dogmatic for that reason..
___
We now have a Pope who, prior to being elected, participated in Jewish ceremonies-lighting the candles himself, in public in his Cathedral in Buenos Aires, strictly forbade proselytizing regarding them and others,- spoke against Anglicans joining the Church in their own rite, and advised people to stay in their own religions, to name just a few of the things which gave more than a little “appearance” of his rejection of prior dogmatic teachings. “WE DON’T proselytize, is not just saying “I don’t think we should for personal reasons but I wouldn’t teach that to anyone” Jesus sent the Apostles to proselytize.
___
His actions and words since being elected Pope only added to those “apparent evidences” of heretical beliefs, such as labelling Cardinal Kasper’s heterodox theology as “serene”, and allegedly telling an Argentinian woman, that Fr. Bergoglio says she can receive Communion and continue to live with a man outside the Church. (with no denial of that from the Vatican after it went global and she testified publicly to it on TV shows) IF TRUE, Clear sacrilege and clearly against Church Dogma. Clearly in need of public correction if not true, –at least as much as the clarifications that so quickly appeared saying no Cardinals were mentioned with the Pope’s statements about Bishops and other clerical sexual abuse.
___.
Pope Paul IV solemnly declared:
… We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds…
____
…. to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
____
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
___
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, …(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate….
___
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration,
of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…
____
No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, reintroduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
_____
As we said above, we make no declarations about this, but are very concerned.. Evidence is mounting. And the same things seem to apply to Popes Benedict and John Paul II, and we haven’t begun to study the accusations made against Paul VI or John XXIII to any great extent.
Yet no one seems to argue that this current Pope tops the list.
.. We’d appreciate feedback on this.
____
We’ve never such a powerful public denunciation of a Pope’s lack of leadership by a Catholic, as this one, decrying Pope Francis’ doing nothing but saying a prayer as Christians around the globe are being slaughtered.
—We don’t know if that’s true about him, but his focus does seem more on uniting and apologizing to charismatic Protestants, these days.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3699475490001/judge-jeanine-time-for-pope-francis-to-protect-his-flock/#sp=show-clips
Dear Cyprian. Here is one example of how the new e-vandalization of the Catholic faith works in practice. This quote refers to the work of Matteo Calise to promote the “catholic charismatic renewal movement”:
–
“Matteo also became good friends with Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul gave Matteo a letter introducing him to every Catholic parish around the world. The letter said that Matteo Calisi was given responsibility to re-evangelize the Catholic Church, introduce Catholics to the fullness of the Holy Spirit, help them understand biblical worship, and bring reconciliation between Catholics and other Christians.”
http://www.livingstreams.org/mark-buckleys-reflections/post/an-unexpected-blessing
–
In fact it works very similar to the wreck-ovations of the Catholic Church buildings. Destroy the beautiful and the profound treasures of the Church…. replace it with vulgar and banal pop-culture inspired novel works of …. junk.
The feedback you’ve requested:
—–
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
@rcaamo: Just a simple suggestion – you have good comments – can you make it easier on your readers by using paragraphs?
As traditional Catholics, we value precision. Also, as soldiers in Christ, we have to know what we are fighting, Is anyone willing to provide a definition of the term “new evangelization” that helps fellow Catholics understand why the term is objectively offensive and in fact an insult to those saints and martyrs of the Church who practiced the old evangelization in accordance with the Great Commission instituted by Our Lord?
The New Evangelization calls each of us to deepen our faith, believe in the Gospel message and go forth to proclaim the Gospel. The focus of the New Evangelization calls all Catholics to be evangelized and then go forth to evangelize. In a special way, the New Evangelization is focused on ‘re-proposing’ the Gospel to those who have experienced a crisis of faith.Pope Benedict XVI called for the re-proposing of the Gospel “to those regions awaiting the first evangelization and to those regions where the roots of Christianity are deep but who have experienced a serious crisis of faith due to secularization.”1 The New Evangelization invites each Catholic to renew their relationship with Jesus Christ and his Church.
——————-
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
We think the reasoning behind the Sugenis essay is bogus.
We have no intent to judge the Chair of Peter as vacant, as individuals, but
have put our reasons for our concerns in the Forum on Sede…
Briefly they are that he ignores the first line of the statement before the Pope used the word “heresy”.
And, argues basically that if no one catches or denounces heresy before the Papal election, all is lost. One heretical Pope can pass it on to the Magisterium and infect the general public, and voila, it can go on untouched–citing sensus fidelium as proof no problem exists.
We know that is not true We all do regarding false ecumenism..
p.s. that is in the general forum under Who is a sede…?
Pope Benedict wrote in his book on Jesus of Nazareth, that we are only to go to the gentiles…….Jesus wept over the Jews he leaves out of the “new evangelization.”
Dear roman,
Agreed, so why did you ask the question, was there any doubt in what anyone said?
Dear Lynda,
Reading your first line, we can see ourselves and our struggles in life so clearly, it’s a wonder we have any Faith. Not that we disagree with you.
Sometimes, though, the emptiness that such pursuits result in, can lead people to search for truth. That’s why it’s so important that the Faithful look and listen for opportunities to help those who are searching. There is so much bad advice everywhere.
Dear Cyprian,
Don’t know about a definition, but here is a great example of the result of not having a clear one.
So-called Catholics are out there blogging away, corrupting the young with their versions of the Faith:
http://askcatholicgirl.wordpress.com/
@JTL: “New Evangelization” is a misleading euphemism used to describe activities by agents of Our Lord that fall outside the scope of their agency and, as a result, are illicit. Although the proclamation of the so-called “new evangelization” has been accompanied by statements that make it appear that the goals are orthodox and the same as the “old” (only proper) evangelization of proclaiming the gospel and converting unbelievers to the Catholic faith these statements are window dressing only that are not honored in practice.
——–
For example, practitioners of the “new evangelization” are never actually observed as seeking to convert those outside the Church to the One True Faith; rather, they often are seen as participating in so-called “ecumenical” events that foster religious indifferentism among both the faithful and those who remain outside the Church.
———
For example, practitioners of the “new evangelization” make statements like that quoted by JTL, but then make other statements themselves that are contradictory, or allow others to make contradictory statements without correction. Examples of such statements are:
– with respect to protestant heretics, the Church has rejected the ecumenism of the return;
– in dealings with the Orthodox the Church no longer seeks absorption of the Orthodox;
– the Church has no formal mission for proselytizing the jews;
– proselytizing is solemn nonsense.
———
Observing what the practitioners of the “new evangelization” actually do (instead of listening to their seemingly orthodox words) leads one to believe that what they really mean by it is (1) to proclaim a new, and hence false, gospel to the faithful and (2) to reject proselytizing of nonbelievers and to replace licit and proper proselytism with illicit and unauthorized never-ending dialogue with non-believers about respective beliefs held by the Church and by the non-believers.
———-
These examples of what the practitioners of the so-called “new evangelization” actually do illustrate why they have deviated from the scope of their agency (in Catholic-speak “office”) – (1) they have no authority whatsoever to proclaim a new, non-orthodox gospel to the faithful; and (2) the only mission authorized by Our Lord to non-believers is to seek to convert them – his agents were never authorized to remain in perpetual, fruitless dialogue. With respect to (2), those who remain in perpetual dialogue are actually disregarding instructions given both by Our Lord to depart from (shake the dust off your feet) from those who do not positively respond to the proclamation of the gospel and by St. Paul to avoid heretics after two warnings.
———
It now becomes clear why the faithful should view the so-called “new evangelization” as an insult to the saints and martyrs who faithfully practiced the “old” evangelization because the “new evangelization” has precious little to do with any kind of evangelization properly understood.
Dear Cyprian. Former protestant Scott Hahn (an EWTN favorite) has written a new book about the “new evangelization” and wouldn’t you know it’s all about a “personal relationship with God” according to this review:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/the-new-evangelization
–
I wonder — how many popes prior to VII emphasized the importance of a “personal relationship with God”?
If the most important thing is a “personal relationship with God” then why do we need the Church? Why do we need to go to Mass to receive Communion? Why do we need priests to consecrate the host?
We don’t! The protestants figured that out a long time ago.
So the “new evangelization” is really about the DE-evangelization of Catholics in order to turn them into protestants. And viewed from that perspective it is a HUGE success!
The whole “personal relationship with Christ” idea is a protestant concept. Oh sure you can squeeze a Catholic meaning out of it if you try hard enough. But it just naturally oozes protestantism.
It is all about the “baptism of the spirit” which is not recognized by the pre-VII Church. In fact that concept undermines the whole heirarchical structure of the Church.
Again, the protestants have been saying this for centuries. This is “salvation by faith alone” which brings us back to the dubious theological concept of a “personal relationship with God” which is such a big part of the “new evangelization” according to Scott Hahn….
Dear Michael,
We had gotten a favorable impression of Scott, from many sources, but listening to one of his personal tapes (Lighthouse) regarding his relationship with his father, we got a real surprise. He talked about reading the Scriptures to him as he lay dying, and the fact that he never accepted the Faith, but finished with comments indicating his certainty that his father was in heaven.
___
Isn’t he a theology teacher?
@ML: That’s an example of why “new evangelization” is a euphemism, and why I included the concept of “euphemism” in my proposed definition.
——-
A “euphemism” is defined as “The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive.” So instead of calling what they actually sought to do by an accurate term – the DE-evangelization of the Catholic faithful – they used a euphemism – the so-called “new evangelization” to mask their intentions.
——-
Of course, no one with teaching authority in the Church is authorized to DE-evangelize the faithful, so that is why I included in my proposed definition the concept that agents of Our Lord who practice the so-called “new evangelization” were illicitly operating outside the scope of agency (office). Our Lord certainly didn’t give his teachers the authority to DE-evangelize the faithful.
Dear Indignus Famulus
It appears that what Pope Paul VI solemnly declared regarding a pope proposing heresy – and objectively doing so, prior to elevation to the papacy – is a corollary of the doctrine of the Faith (and necessarily authoritative).
But that is the substantive issue.
Then there is the procedural issue. In a given instance – there must be an ordered, just, transparent, predictable procedure to ascertain the facts of a case. How is this to be done? Is there such a procedure in place? If not, could the facts as envisaged by Pope Paul VI only be formally declared to have occurred in a particular instance by the impugned pope himself (e.g. in response to a significant number of cardinals asserting that the pope had made objectively heretical statements prior to election)? Or by a subsequent pope in an infallible magisterial document?
St. Vincent Ferrer pray for us.
You have been given the ability to read and judge one’s inner intention?
Oxford Online adds to that definition the following element: ” . . . when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing”. I think this element is essential.
If you recall in my immediately-prceeding comment, my examples were all based on actions in the external forum and require no discernment of interior disposition. For example, Pope Francis did say that “proselytism is solemn nonsense.” For example, Popes JP II and BXVI did participate in the Assisi events. If these are examples of the “new evangelization” I stand by my conclusions
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has been calling for a new Syllabus of Errors for a long time.
Sorry, IF, my response at 14. was to your question at 5. and was meant to appear adjacent thereto.
You said New evangelization was a euphemism to mask their intention to DE-evangelize the Catholic Faithful. Intention is an interior disposition. Again, I ask do you have the ability to judge one’s inner intention?
With all the talk about ecumenism and doctrine, the pope has been given a challenge which is a true one. http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/07/27/judge-jeanine-time-pope-francis-protect-his-flock
PPS. Correction Sorry, that was Salza, not Sugenis.
In other words, you claim that, say …Pope Benedict, participating in Assisi…. did it with the direct intention to destroy the Faith of the Catholic Faithful. I want to know how you know this?
@JTL: I’m not trying to damn anyone to Hell, after all. Further, I forgot to add by using the word “new” in “new evangelization”, “new advent”, “new pentecost”, etc. they intended to give the faithful the impression that unheard-of novelties can be inserted into the faith.
Dear Lynda,
Thank you. So, if we understand you correctly, then there is no recourse under the present circumstances, especially if the majority of the Cardinals and Bishops fall into the same heresy, and the faithful as well—as things seem to be right now at least regarding the false ecumenism that doesn’t seek to convert?
___
The other part of our question was what did Paul IV (that’s 4th by the way, not 6th–easy mistake to make ) mean by adding those initial words:
“IF EVER AT ANY TIME IT SHALL APPEAR …..that any Bishop, … his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, HAS DEVIATED FROM THE CATHOLIC FAITH OR FALLEN..” Why did he not say if he had fallen into heresy? It seems the same procedural rules of judging it would have to apply, but perhaps not the same guidelines as determining a heresy?
____
At any rate, with no other formal recourse, and with the “remnant” Faithful being folks like us, it seems to us the best thing we could do is find the remaining faithful Bishops and Cardinals, and let them know the sensus Fideium that still exists and does not include the unfaithful “Catholics” has a united consensus that this false ecumenism is all wrong and contrary to Church teaching.
____
Dear rcaamo
We put thee same link in up above at 3pm, and commented that we’ve never such a powerful public denunciation of a Pope’s lack of leadership by a Catholic, as this one, decrying Pope Francis’ doing nothing but saying a prayer as Christians around the globe are being slaughtered.
—We don’t know if that’s true about him, but his focus does seem more on uniting and apologizing to charismatic Protestants, these days.
@JTL: Do you deny that the Assisi fiasco was objectively gravely scandalous and harmful to the souls of the faithful? Remember, a Buddha was placed atop a tabernacle in one of these spectacles! At the very least, convocation and participation in such an event evidenced callous disregard for the souls of the faithful, don’t you think?
P.S. Please understand that we aren’t pushing sede-vacantism, but we do think there is plenty of reason for people to wonder about the possibility, given the grave situations we are facing today.
____
And just for the sake of argument, what if it were true? We still have no real recourse except to be rescued by the hierarchy who would have to call a council and elect a valid Pope. And how many of them are heretics too?
____
Our Lady of Fatima did say she is our only hope. It appears so.
Everyone seems to be expecting a further calamity in October. The way we see it, we already have a bad enough one now–authority-wise.
____
@Cyprian They were also men that identified “the tyranny of relativism”, “the silent apostasy”, “the culture of death”, etc. So perhaps, some of their “new” approaches were their misguided ways to try and combat these things. I am in no way defending novelties. But these things didn’t pop up in a vacuum. And you seem to be lumping many things together in an attempt to throw the baby out with the bath water. Not only that but you seem to attribute wicked intent to something that could be a misguided approach and the inability to recognize the root cause due to diabolical disorientation.
Dear JamesTheLesser,
What you said just above, we agree is probably the wisest course to take, that is assuming diabolic disorientation. There is little we can do to prove conspiracy without someone confessing it,, and Our Lady told us more than once, through Sister Lucia and at Akita, that it would be the major problem it is now, and it’s why she asked for such intense prayers and sacrifices
___
JUST TO LIGHTEN THING UP A BIT:
There is a site called “Eye of the Tiber” (like a Catholic answer to The Onion)
Some of it’s current postings are:
…POPE FRANCIS APOLOGIZES FOR PRANK VIDEO MESSAGE TO EVANGELLICALS
…WOMEN IN LOVE WITH MARRIED MEN APPEAL TO POPE TO MAKE FIDELITY OPTIONAL
….POPE FRANCIS SNEAKS OUT OF VATICAN AT NIGHT TO HELP POOR FIGHT CRIME
….89 YEAR OLD JOURNALIST WHO RECONSTRUCTED FRANCIS INTERVIEW FROM MEMORY CAN’T FIND HIS TEETH…
…LAST REMAINING CHRISTIAN LIVING IN JERUSALEM, EXCITED ABOUT PAPAL VISIT….
It’s frightening that such men who could proclaim such verities could apparently also deviate from the faith and place themselves outside Catholic communion, isn’t it? Remember, it was a doctor of the church who said that the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.
Well, if you’ve no intent to judge the chair vacant as individuals, you’ll never be sedevacantists.
—–
The most succinct logic chain for me is that if what the sedes propose were accurate, the Church would have been in a constant state of anarchy – or nearly-constant. There have been so many popes that could have been accused of personal heresy that in every such period there would be the claim that he had lost office; Christ would not design His Church like this. Again, that’s not to say that this crisis is not unique and not the *worst* in history – it is. But validly-elected popes are still popes.
—–
A single papal bull cannot make ecclesiastical law for eternity. The theologians, even Bellarmine, the sede go-to guy, agree that in the practical, public forum, this IS a question of ecclesiastical law – period. As I’ve said here many times now, no theologian in the history of the Church ever proposed or validated what the modern sedes attempt to do. No theologian read into this bull what they do.
—–
It’s not a matter at all of “all is lost” if “no one catches” heresy before an election – rather, it’s just a fact that since that pope was validly elected, he is indeed the pope unless deposed by an official action.
—–
Even a formal heretic of a pontiff acting with willful malice cannot change one iota of actual Church teaching – the Holy Ghost cannot allow such a thing, as it would obviously falsify Christ’s promises regarding His Church.
—–
To me, this is evidence that these men are popes. If Francis WASN’T actually pope, he COULD issue any formal, binding, “infallible” doctrinal statements he pleased. He could pretend to solemnly teach error. He could “bind” the Church to the new position that the Church is not the only true religion. It stands to reason that a false pope WOULD do exactly these things. However, none of the post-conciliar popes have tried anything of the sort – rather, they’ve gone out of the way to make everyone aware that their novel teachings are not binding.
—–
I’ll try to find the time to look at your forum topic.
—–
God bless.
For the record that was NOT MY quote, it was the US Bishops, as found in the link.
@IF: Sorry to be a Debbie Downer right after your effort to inject some levity into the proceedings!
Well, yes, in the Gothic period, maybe, when that sort of style was in and budget was low. It’s more likely something like solid black marble these days.
Yes, Lynda, that’s exactly it. Divine Law is higher than ecclesiastical law but also orthogonal to it – the latter cannot be waved-away by individuals, or the Church would be an anarchist’s paradise.
—–
I’m not sure what sort of canon law was in place when this bull was promulgated, actually, but the 1917 code certainly speaks to these things.
IF, please allow me to reproduce my earlier reply (now far up the comments) here.
—–
The most succinct logic chain for me is that if what the sedes propose were accurate, the Church would have been in a constant state of anarchy – or nearly-constant. There have been so many popes that could have been accused of personal heresy that in every such period there would be the claim that he had lost office; Christ would not design His Church like this. Again, that’s not to say that this crisis is not unique and not the *worst* in history – it is. But validly-elected popes are still popes.
—–
A single papal bull cannot make ecclesiastical law for eternity. The theologians, even Bellarmine, the sede go-to guy, agree that in the practical, public forum, this IS a question of ecclesiastical law – period. As I’ve said here many times now, no theologian in the history of the Church ever proposed or validated what the modern sedes attempt to do. No theologian read into this bull what they do.
—–
It’s not a matter at all of “all is lost” if “no one catches” heresy before an election – rather, it’s just a fact that since that pope was validly elected, he is indeed the pope unless deposed by an official action.
—–
Even a formal heretic of a pontiff acting with willful malice cannot change one iota of actual Church teaching – the Holy Ghost cannot allow such a thing, as it would obviously falsify Christ’s promises regarding His Church.
—–
To me, this is evidence that these men are popes. If Francis WASN’T actually pope, he COULD issue any formal, binding, “infallible” doctrinal statements he pleased. He could pretend to solemnly teach error. He could “bind” the Church to the new position that the Church is not the only true religion. It stands to reason that a false pope WOULD do exactly these things. However, none of the post-conciliar popes have tried anything of the sort – rather, they’ve gone out of the way to make everyone aware that their novel teachings are not binding.
—–
I’ll try to find the time to look at your forum topic.
—–
God bless.
—–
P.S. YES – I think Our Lady of Fatima IS our only hope right now. And, incidentally, if what She had to say is true, we have a pope.
Ha Ha!
I’ll be here all week, folks.
If we are not praying for them, how are we innocent in all this?
It’s my belief that the SNL writers that created that recurring skit were not true Writers. They willfully rescinded their office when they created such horrible comedy entirely antithetical to the SNL Spirit. Thus, none of their creations are binding upon fans.
—–
In fact, SNL has not had a true Writer until at least, say – 2002.
Of course I meant SINCE, not “until.
Damn it.
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
Thanks for taking the time to answer us.
It does sound though, as if the Popes words are rendered empty by that reasoning. Why would he phrase things as so permanent, or didn’t he know that no single Pope could bind that way?
It seems Pius V did the same thing in in Quo Primum :
“All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever.”
__
And yet we’ve heard people argue that the TLM can’t be replaced because of those words. So are those people also misinformed?
(Don’t take that the wrong way, we think the TLM stands on it’s own merits as far superior to anything else)
.
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
Thank you. We saw the earlier post and replied up top.
Re Our Lady of Fatima though, if a current Pope were deposed by a council, there are still Cardinals who could elect another, no?
If so, Our Lady’s promise that The Holy Father will Consecrate Russia and it will be “late” would still be as true as when she said it.
___
However, we’re still praying for the end to all Diabolical Disorientation and for Our current Pope-each day–that he do God’s will in all he thinks, says, and does. Still waiting for him to cooperate freely, though.
Good point. Pray your Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be for the holy father every day!
Dear Cyprian,
You could resolve this little dispute by simply inserting the word “seems to intend” before any statements in which actions are being used to imply intentions. That necessary doubt, prevents playing God, and still allows you to put forth an argument using preponderance of evidence.
Dear James The Less
Assisi’s shocking display, and especially the idol on the tabernacle, may not have been intended to destroy faith, but it did the job quite well for a great number of people.
We were among some of those most shocked by it, and hung on to the faith, but many family members deserted just then, and large numbers of Catholics everywhere thought it ushered in a new teaching—and became indifferentists from the example. There is no denying it destroyed plenty.
We agree with your point that we can’t know why they did it, and to us, it seems it was part of a hellish “vision” of unity, based on desire at the expense of reason and truth.
Sorry I must have missed it. This is a moment of truth for the Catholic world. Centuries of the faith are being uprooted by our most ancient brethren. They need us immediately to help with their displacement at least. They need the world to be in shock at the devastation being done to shrines that go back even before Christ. If this call to action on the part of the entire Catholic world and all civilized governments is not righteous enough, then we have lost our sense of humanity, faith, and history. Everything else should take second place now to this mission. The Vatican has certainly failed in this regards up to now.
In this debate, there is often forgotten the theological context of the notion of “Baptism of Desire”. This English term is a poor translation of the Latin theologican term, baptismsus flaminis. This latin term was used by the early Fathers of the Church to indicate that an individual had received the Faith before baptism of water, and this by means of an extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit given him. The flaminis part of the Latin term means “of flame”, and that is a biblical metaphor taken from the incidents when the Holy Spirit descended in flames upon the heads of even the upbaptiszed, as He did at Ephesus. In such cases, it was argued hypotheticallly, that if such a person died without batpism of water and/or without knowledge of the precept to receive baptism of water, thay he would be saved. This hypothesis was based on the theological principal that in Christ salvation was more accessible than before Crist, and since faith and penance worked justification in the sacraments of the Old Law, these would be sufficient in the New. The term, Baptism of Desire, therefore, should never be applied to Protestants or Schismatics who are adults, since all of these have the grave duty, flowing from even the appearance of Christian faith, to follow Christ, believe in the whole of Scripture; and none have lived in a world with out the True Church, the Catholic Church, so none could be morally not responsible for their de facto rejection of the Church.
Second, as St. Alphonsus says, I believe, in his work Homo Apostolicus, there is no moral probability that one who lives outside the Church could persevere in faith and charity and hope, without the Sacraments of the Church; we could rightly and reasonably add, “without the infallible teaching of the Magisterium”. Just look, for example, of the grave heresies against marriage, merit, and morals which proliferate among the Greeks…
Therefore, if you reduce the Catholic doctrine to simple terms, only card-carrying Catholics can be morally certain that salvation is a possibility for them personally. So the teachings of Fr. Feeny, are hardly heresy, at most an over simplification; for he is trying to emphasize that you cannot act on the basis of a hypothetical, but must act on the basis of the promises and explicit precepts of Our Lord and Savior. That is why he was never required by the Holy Office to “recant a heresy”.
Doesn’t Satan have a personal relationship with God?
Dear Roman watcher, Re: “Francis Go and rebuild My House
We do recall seeing it both ways, but it seems more internet sources translate it “rebuild” than repair, which is puzzling. May we ask what your source is, and is this a matter of different publications’ translations, or a common misquote, in your experience? One example:
1. Author’s translation from The Second Life of Saint Francis by Thomas of Celano, VI, 10. (“Francis, Go and rebuild My house”.)
My source is Thomas of Celano’s Latin text….found in several places on the net…
“A single papal bull cannot make ecclesiastical law for eternity.”
If by “eternity” you mean the eternity of God, I agree….that’s ovious, since the Vicar of Christ’s authority is for the Church Militant…
But if you mean by “eternity”, until the end of time, then I ask you, “Why not?”
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
In case it was overlooked, Roman Watcher asked you an (also to us) interesting question just above #29—copied here:
Roman Watcher July 28, 2014 7:51 am
“A single papal bull cannot make ecclesiastical law for eternity.”
If by “eternity” you mean the eternity of God, I agree….that’s ovious, since the Vicar of Christ’s authority is for the Church Militant…
But if you mean by “eternity”, until the end of time, then I ask you, “Why not?”
What say you?
.
Now do you do with a guy like Francis?
_______
Here is his latest assault on Catholicism, in Paraguay.
_______
“Pope Francis Suspends Priestly Ordinations in Paraguay: The Fate of Courageous Local Bishop in the Balance.” is the headline over at the EF blog. Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/07/pope-francis-suspends-priestly.html
_______
Too many ordinations… is not good…. for Francis.
“to loud applause he asked forgiveness for the words and actions of Catholics who have persecuted Pentecostals in the past”
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/07/28/pope_in_caserta_asks_pardon_for_persecution_of_pentecostals/1103572
–
TRANSLATION: bergoglio says sorry for being Catholic — we’re working on that….
–
I’m thoroughly disgusted.
–
Some “private visit”…
–
” [bergoglio] was welcomed by over 200 Evangelicals who had travelled to Caserta from around Italy, as well as from the U.S. and South America ”
–
I feel sick. This is a total betrayal of the Catholic Church.
–
Of course Vatican Radio loves this sort of stuff. They are the Catholic equivalent of NPR. They couldn’t be more socialist/humanist/masonic/anti-Catholic if they tried.
What I meant was that the ecclesiastical law in effect at any time is the canon law *last promulgated*. Subsequent popes are always free to override the law of a previous pontiff. (Note: Quo Primum is a different matter as it’s not merely promulgating ecclesiastical law but stating certain facts of divine law regarding the validity of sacramental Rites.)
—–
The 1917 Code speaks directly to some of the issues raised by Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.
—–
Unlike you guys, I find Mr. Salza’s exposition on this topic to be quite sensible.
—–
“While Sedevacantists answer the question by literally “taking the law into their own hands,” Catholics are required to look to the ecclesiastical law of the Church to resolve the issue. Ecclesiastical law (canon law and other papal legislation) helps to understand the Divine Law in light of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Because Sedevacantists believe Pope
John Paul II was an “anti-pope,” they believe that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (and not the 1983 Code promulgated by John Paul II) is the operative law. Hence, we begin by looking to the 1917 Code”…
—–
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
—–
Note that nobody’s saying that the issues of Divine Law raised by Paul IV’s Bull are not forever valid (being Divine Law) – they are. But the salient point, as always, is that even if a formal heretic pope has lost his office in the private domain, no individual Catholic has the ability to know this with moral certainty and to pronounce him deposed – the Church must do this.
I feel sick too. There’s no doubt we continue to move almost weekly into darker & darker times for the Church. How can we have a pope this bad? How? I ask that question. I do recall one saint’s explanation (paraphrased): “Bad prelates are a punishment for the sins of the world.”
—–
So, do we deserve this?
With respect to Francis’s “apologizing” for imaginary wrongs that the Catholic Church is perceived to have done, what needs to be said is that this type of behavior is actually a psychiatric condition which exhibits itself primary in individuals with a leftist (anti-social) orientation. This condition is referred to as “oikophobia”. The Urban Dictionary defines oikophobia as:
“Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’ ” British philosopher Roger Scruton”
________
Link here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=oikophobia
What is especially egregious is on the other hand his response to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the response to the diocese in Paraguay, and the crisis for OUR brethren in the Middle East.
ATTN: I just opened a thread in the forum on the Paraguayan situation. The first post is my translation of today’s article from Giuseppe Nardi on the recent developments. Judging by comments from around the internet, scales are starting to drop from some eyes because of this, and it is getting some people off the fence. Please comment there with your thoughts.
–
Link: https://akacatholic.com/topic/ciudad-del-este/
Dear Matthew,
Thank you for the link.
With respect to the actions that had to be taken, I quote from your link:
“Bishop Livieres, by contrast, presides over a diocese which, not merely among the dioceses of Paraguay, but even wider afield, stands out positively. Under his crosier the number of seminarians grew from 16 to far above 200. In the majority of the parishes in his diocese, Holy Mass is celebrated according to the Usus Antiquior. “Thus the bishop committed the worst crime which can be committed according to the conciliar dictionary,” writes one commentator on Francisco de la Cigoña’s blog.”
________
Can’t have Catholicism spreading in Bergoglio’s back yard now, can we?
________
Now if they could only find a way to get rid of that pesky SSPX that is spreading Catholicism like wildfire in Argentina. To bad an apostolic visit is out of the question here. Too bad they are not under the EC 😉
Right. Such growth of Catholicism is an embarrassment to Bergoglio’s future apology to the Aztecs.
Yeah. Bergoglio telling the Christians in the Middle East to not upset dialogue with the Muslims was unbelievable and sickening.
….otherwise known as sycophancy (pronounced SICKO-fancy)
aka sucking up.
That is a good idea. The Church ought to issue a posthumous apology on the part of St. Juan Diego as well for attempting to subvert their culture by practicing the Tridentine liturgy in Latin. Surely the Azec religion of human sacrifice was and is a valid path to salvation as well? If not, why not? Who is going to draw those lines?
Yeah… He should apologize for all the cities in North America that were named after Catholic Saints while he’s at it.
The “Better Half”?
—–
http://www.sensusfidei.net/?q=content/papal-%E2%80%9Cdiarchy%E2%80%9D-which-half-infallible-robert-j-siscoe
Dear S. Armaticus,
–
I just added some background information to the situation in Paraguay in the forum post linked to above. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bishop Livieres leaves office over this – and Archbishop Cuquejo is promoted to Cardinal. Viva la revolución!
This is old news, isn’t it? Fr. Paul Kramer presented all of that when he came out saying Pope Francis is an Anti-Pope, and provided the same arguments, along with the St. Francis of Assisi prophecy.
Pope-emeritus Benedict also said, “There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry,”
____
Of course if you follow Paul IV, we have an even worse situation.
Good thing none of us is in charge of making any decisions other than to not imitate their errors, as Jesus taught us.
The substantive issue of whether a pope who holds to heresy can be pope cannot simply be a matter of ecclesiastical law (though the merely procedural law could). It is a necessary corollary of the unchanging Faith. This is what Pope Paul IV referred to – it was not something new, but something always so, implicit, it not explicit.
If a pope supports heresy, does not hold to the whole of the content of the Deposit of Faith, then he is not in communion with the Church, and cannot be pope. This is necessarily true. Showing this in a clear, ordered, authoritative way is another matter.
If such a pope purported to make his heretical opinions the official teaching of the Church, it would be incontrovertible that he was not a valid Vicar of Christ.
That would not be possible as it would contradict the Deposit of Faith regarding the Magisterium.
There appears to have been a whole context and historical background to the bull that Paul IV wrote that gets glossed over and anachronistically applied to today. It may not be out of the realm to say that his motives may have been less than pure. Not to mention the question of whether or not it was infallible. Yet, it’s the only card ultramontanist sedevacantists can pull and wrench out of context. He also wrote a bull saying Jews should be slaves, live in ghettos and wear yellow markers to show that are Jews. Even if we follow Paul IV, his bull that you mentioned would be only a PIECE of the puzzle.
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
To us it’s simply common sense that God would not expect His Church to treat such a serious matter (i.e the protection of His flock from what Pope Paul IV called the Biblical “abomination of desolation”), as if it were a changeable formality and not an unchanging Truth, which He inspired his Vicar to put in writing at that time in the hisory of the Church, in order to head off what we are now living through. The fruits of not doing what he said are very evident right now.
___
The way we see it, any authority, charged with the welfare of others has a prime responsibility to use due prudence in delegating responsibility. No City would hire as Chief of Police, someone with a crimminal record for murder; no parent would knowingly hire a convicted pedophile as a nanny. So it makes sense that a prerequisite for being God’s Vicar on Earth would be Faith free of dissent from any of His teachings–at the very least.
____
In case you’re thinking of St. Peter’s denial, it wasn’t heresy, it was a cowardly man’s lie told repeatedly under duress and for self protection. He didn’t even remember Jesus’ earlier warning about it, until he heard the cock crow the 3rd time, at which point he immediately repented, fully–“he went out and wept bitterly” . He had not denied any truths of the Faith.
If all sinners were ineligable for the Papacy, there would be no one to fill the position, but that doesn’t mean a non-believer will do.
Again, for the sake of anyone who might think otherwise, we’re not saying we’re judging him ourselves, and leave that for a council to do, or for Divine intervention. May the Lord, remove the blinders, or remove the blind, as He wills, in His time. (Soon, please, for our sakes)
Dear IF, please see my Comment at 9.06, on 28th (sometimes my comments don’t appear in the position that I intend them to).
Is there any difference between “deviat[ing] from the Catholic Faith” (presumably the clearly defined, unchangeable, substantive Deposit of Faith – and objectively adhering to a heresy?
@ A Catholic Thinker,
So it doesn’t get missed, we replied to your comment under #35.
God Bless.
Siscoe’s article isn’t really “old news” – it’s in the current edition of The Remnant, which just arrived at our household today.
—–
Siscoe is not taking the position that Fr. Kramer did. Fr. Kramer asserted that Benedict’s resignation was forced, and thus Francis’ election invalid. *However, he recanted that position* after clarification from Pope Emeritus Benedict came forth.
—–
Yes, indeed, we as individuals cannot judge these matters. We CAN judge any & all actions & statements from a pontiff that are not equivocally binding upon us.
I’ve never seen anyone allege that Peter’s denial of Christ was suspect of heresy. It is his refusal to commune with gentile Christians that could sensibly fall into that category. Of course, it isn’t nearly as suspect as heresy as many of the actions of modern pontiffs, but that isn’t really the point – if individual Catholics have the power to determine a) which pontiffs are or are not public heretics and b) that such heretic popes have lost their office, no individual has much ground to discount another’s take on who & who isn’t/wasn’t pope.
—–
There are sedevacantists with websites out there who have gone thru the words & actions of dozens, maybe hundreds of popes, and declared pre-conciliar pontiffs to have been false popes as well – including Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius Xth! (I don’t know why, but if I could hazard a guess it might be because he wasn’t a Feeneyist. Heck, nobody in the Church was a Feeneyist before Feeney.)
—–
I’m never going to play that game. Ever. I don’t need to depose Francis to discount his ruminations as a private theologian, and even some of his “official” actions. That’s the end of the story. For me.
Dear James The Less,
If you can take a quick look at our latest post under #35 above, it explains why we think the idea of no-heresy before election seems like more than a good idea–as if anybody needs proof these days—.
And that’s why we would respond to the one you mention on the Jews with a completely different attitude. It does appear to be a strange opinion, unlike the other one.
–We could easily be wrong about the whole matter, but if there were a vetting process for eligible Cardinals, at least it wouldn’t be so difficult to prevent the worst from happening, as it is right now. Unfortunately, as grandma used to say, it would now be just closing the barn door after the horse got out.
Dear A Catholic Thinker, We think we read it even before this one:
Corriere della Sera, May 28, 2014(…)
That is to say, we discover, that Benedict XVI did not intend to renounce the munus petrinus, nor the office, or the duties, i.e. which Christ Himself attributed to the Head of the Apostles and which has been passed on to his successors. The Pope intended to renounce only the ministerium, which is the exercise and concrete administration of that office
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
Glad to hear you’re not going to personally depose Francis. 🙂
We aren’t suggesting anything like individual judgment–just that the hierarchy needs to do some real vetting before and during a conclave, if we’re ever going to get a Pope who has the True Faith again, short of Divine intervention, and in the meantime, the best we can hope for is enough high-ranking prelates who have the Faith and see what is going on as too damaging to the Church and to souls, to allow it to continue without trying to stop it. (That or the Consecration of Russia-preferably both) .