What do George Weigel, Robert Royal, Jimmy Aiken and any number of other “conservative” Catholic commentators have in common?
Each has felt compelled, at some point or another, to mount a defense of Pope Francis in light of the confusion caused by his “new genre of papal speech that’s deliberately informal and not concerned with precision,” by resorting to the admittedly indisputable fact, “well he said he’s a ‘son of the church!’” (See interview with Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J.)
Even Archbishop Chaput felt the need to play the “son of the Church” card when he was accused of being overly critical of the pope.
“Is there a discontinuity between the leadership of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, and the new kind of leadership of Francis? I think no,” the archbishop said in an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer.
“Francis keeps saying he is a son of the church, which means he’s not going to abandon the church’s teachings.”
Most recently, Aiken went to bat for Francis on his National Catholic Register blog after the pope referred to the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes as a “parable,” and this on the heels of having said in his Angelus address on June 2nd:
“This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity.”
“We also know that, despite the way he phrases himself,” Aiken writes, “particularly when speaking off the cuff (as he often does), that he’s a fundamentally orthodox man—a ‘son of the Church’ as he puts it.”
Well then, that settles it! Nothing to see here folks.
Isn’t this rather like a defense attorney arguing before a jury that his client cannot possibly be guilty of embezzlement because, after all, “he said he’s committed to the American Institute of CPA’s Professional Code of Conduct!”
Maybe I’m just a tough nut to crack (or just a nut period), but count me unpersuaded.
An effective communication approach must effectively communicate: otherwise the approach needs to be changed.
well, each one of us is a son of the Church since his Baptism and Confirmation. but not each one of us is Pope. so perhaps for being a Pope something more is required than being a “simple” son of the Church.
rosa, italy
One must be clear and concise to be understood. Simple.
Being AMBIGUOUS is positively the wrong approach, and has only caused confusion, misunderstanding, and uncertainty as to what is meant by the Pope’s words. He has he given so many writers ample to write about trying to explain his meaning. This could have been avoided by a clear and precise way of speaking, and sticking to Church teaching. This should be common sense… Unraveling his words has given many a full time job.
During school studies, teachers would explain a writer or poet’s meaning–this should not be called for with our Pope, who wants to be so “simple” and “humble” that even the uneducated can understand him.
This just goes from bad to worse. I’ve heard the ‘sharing not a miracle’ thing before from liberal priests at Mass… Now the Pope says the same thing??? *Yawn* This is getting very boring.
I missed the one about the multiplication of the loaves and fishes! Mercy!
I would have thought the crowds would have had no reason to follow Jesus (as they did after that miracle) looking for free eats if they knew they’d been fed by mooching a morsel from their neighbours’ hampers.
Is this another instance of Jesus ‘pretending’? , i.e. “In the Gospel, Jesus does not become angry, but pretends to when the disciples do not understand ” – Pope Francis November 29, 2013 as quoted on Vatican Radio website http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=751058
“We also know that, despite the way he phrases himself,” Aiken writes, “particularly when speaking off the cuff (as he often does), that he’s a fundamentally orthodox man—a ‘son of the Church’ as he puts it.”
Instead of continuously having to explain Francis’ phrases, I have a better idea for these folks. It would appear to me that these neo-cons and assorted lackeys should provide the bishop of Rome with a adjutant who would walk behind His Humbleness and whisper in his ear “Respice post te, hominem memento te”.
PS A remedial crash course in Catholic theology would also help.
About time someone scrutinized the “son of the Church” card.
Thanks Mr. V. You made my day.
There is an instructive posting on The Remnant today along the same ‘Son of the Church’ line, Mr. Verrecchio. Titled ” Was Mary Tempted to Doubt God?” the article elaborates on a statement the Pope made on December 31, 2013 concerning the possible doubt of the Virgin Mary at the very foot of the Cross.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/121-was-mary-tempted-to-doubt-god
@Shaun,
This ‘natural explanation’ for all of Christ’s miracles view, i.e. essentially a ministry based on trickery, was the essence of the pronouncements of the liberal Scottish theologian, William Barclay, to name just one.
“Catholics” denying Our Lord’s miracles is standard modernist fare.
Interestingly, the impious heretic Henry VIII of England also considered himself a son of the Church (although he may never have used those exact words, he did foolishly consider himself a Catholic till the end of his life – see Hilaire Belloc “How the reformation happened”). Bergoglio is himself cunningly using the “son of the Church” tag as a smokescreen to cover his own impiety.
Whatever will “son of the church” mean to a warped mind such as that of Bergoglio?
*********
“And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. ” Luke 16:8
Me thinks, that the ‘son’ of the Church, Francis……..has spent too much of his life praying with, and learning ‘error’ from the heretics, the Jews, the infidels, the atheists and every ‘stripe’………..the ‘balloon masses’ have only contributed to his ‘ignorance of what is ‘sacred’ and ‘holy’……. which is not loved, not protected but almost ‘mocked’……Miserere!……also, .reading too much into the VERY confusing writings of the conciliar popes. This son of the Church, might no longer know the Catholic Faith, for sure he cannot teach it……Miserere!
This is exactly what I meant about the demonic confusion, division amongst Catholics (even poor Francis) who have wasted all their ‘talents’ on the false ‘spirit of the new conciliar church’……’new spring time’ in the church…….. imagine such, as if the church was evolving in accordance with ‘the whims’ of ‘men’ of every century (for a true Catholic this is then a ‘dead of the winter’……SIBERIA in the holy Church)….. their ‘new evangelization’ is doomed to fail……HOW CAN ‘ERROR’ TEACH…. TRUTH???
O, let us rejoice……..Let us count our ‘blessed Rosaries’. What a blessing from ‘heaven’ this holy Crusade is for all Catholics, who love the Holy Church, the Holy Tradition of 2000 years ‘young’, because ‘Truth’ was the same then, and is ‘now’ and FOREVER!
May the ‘remnant’ of the true sons of the holy Faith, by the ‘grace’ of God be blessed with fearless faith…… For Heaven’s Sake!………
Lord, send us a holy Pope, who loves Thy Truth Only!
Lord send us many holy priests and many religious vocations!
Our Lady of the holy Rosary, ora pro nobis!
Saint Michael the Archangel, ora pro nobis!
Archbishop Lefebvre, a ‘true son’ of the Holy Church, ora pro nobis!
Halina:
Love your comments and appreciate the Truth you bring.
There is one item we vehemently (and respectfully) disagree with and have been stating as such every since the death of John Paul II. It is simple: we are begging the Lord for NO MORE VICARS!
We kept saying after Benedict’s resignation that if Catholics prayed for another vicar, the Lord would give them what they want. And He has — not by the Holy Spirit but by letting the modernists cardinals elect the disaster called Francis.
So we ask all in this New Year to plead with Christ our King: enough ‘deputies.’ We need the Sheriff to ride in on His White Horse and clean house as the High Priest He is!
Steve, I am praying with you…..
I have already spoken on this issue and will say it again. There is a lot of things the Pope has done and said and that is to be expected. He himself said in one interview that he is naïve and unrestrained. But that said I am getting sick and tired of the name calling on this blog site, and these remarks almost border on the schismatic and yes sorry to say the vacant seat people who call him by his last name rather than by his proper title. You all most keep several things in mind about Francis. He was not personally involved with Vatican II HD was ordained in the new rites of 1970 and so forth. I am getting tired of all the talk about him being a Modernist which I doubt but what about you Integrals? What are you all doing to improve the situation but complain and call names. Remember what our Lord says Not everyone who calls me Lord will enter the kingdom. Also remember Mother Vogel’s warning about attacking priests from Jesus Himself in the late 1930’s We shall be judged by every idle word we say.
It is not that you are ‘a tough nut to crack’. Mr. Bergoglio is not trustworthy. It would be fool hardy to trust him. The miracle of the loaves and the fishes is a true event, not a parable. This man is a mason, and does not engender trust or belief.
Sheena,
Are you also sick and tired of The Bishop of Rome saying things that border on heresy? I suggest you write the Pope, oops, he prefers to be called The Bishop of Rome, a letter telling him how sick and tired you are of it.
You want some confusion from Franky ? Here you are:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/12/31/vatican-invites-tony-blair-to-peace-talks-on-syria/
Tony Blair is as bad as Obama is said to be – arguably far worse. Unlike Obama, he converted to Catholicism (supposedly). And his record on life issues is much worse than Mandela’s. Judge for yourselves.
http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/tony-blair-is-undermining-faith-of.html
http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/tony-blairs-memoirs-reveal-that.html
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/spuc.criticises.blairs.endorsement.of.embryonic.stem.cell.research/7791.htm
Bliar is a warmonger & a deceiver, and he has opposed Catholic teaching on bio-ethics since he was received as well as before. Just the kind of man the Vatican & the US bishops get on well with. It is impossible to take the Vatican, or the US bishops, seriously when they are on such good terms with this man. When push comes to shove, it seems Catholic doctrine on bio-ethics is not that important after all. That at least is the message being sent.
http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/vatican-newspaper-should-not-have-given.html
http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/help-stop-tony-blair-speaking-at-major.html
He said he is a son of the church therefore he is.
Ipse dixit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Roman politician Marcus Tullius Cicero coined the phrase Ipse dixit, which translates from the Latin as “He, himself, said it.”
Ipse dixit, Latin for “He, himself, said it,” is a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.[1] It is also called “the bare assertion fallacy.”
Ipse dixit denies that an issue is debatable. In other words, “that’s just the way it is.”[2]
The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting it as a fait accompli (“That’s just how it is”[3]) distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: “The most basic way to distort an issue is to deny that it exists.
““We also know that, despite the way he phrases himself,” Aiken writes, “particularly when speaking off the cuff (as he often does), that he’s a fundamentally orthodox man—a ‘son of the Church’ as he puts it.””
## Either one is orthodox – or, one is not orthodox. There is no such thing in Catholicism as being “fundamentally orthodox”. Any more than there is such a thing being fundamentally pregnant, or fundamentally not a rapist, or fundamentally alive. If he is not orthodox, he has no business taking the position of Pope. I can just see St.Pius V, St.Pius X, or Venerable Pius XII approving of the state of being “fundamentally orthodox”. Orthodoxy is an absolute state, not one that allows of degrees or percentages or parts.
This must sound terribly uncharitable. I’m very easy-going in most things – but not in this. Being Catholic is too important for imprecise thinking like that quoted to be tolerable.
“Mary, it’s George (Bailey). Don’t you know me? What’s happened to us?” Translation: “It’s me Jorge, Don’t you know me? I’m a son of the Church!” LOL
Sheena………..’there is a lot of things the Pope has done and said that is to be expected’……’you are simply fooling yourself’…..that is not Catholic.
And another thing, if the Pope admits that he is naive and unrestrained………he should not speak at all……for he cannot even trust himself. If, such is true……and of course it is, then who should listen to him, if not those who are ignorant, and those who put him on the Chair of Peter for their own intentions. The Holy Spirit is so merciful in these evil times, that those who know their holy faith, by the grace of God…….could discern, what is from God and what is from ‘men’.
Why are you so sick of hearing ‘truth’? The only conclusion is, you are not a lover of ‘truth’……..no sympathy for you, I turn my sympathy to those who have been fighting ‘blindness’ of so many, and have been persecuted for defending TRUTH. Truth cannot be a LIE. It’s just too bad, if ‘lie’ hates ‘truth. Jesus did not die fo ‘lie’…….the ‘lay people’ have an obligation from the holy Church to defend the holy faith, as the faithful have done for centuries. What are the faithful to do, if they no longer hear ‘truth’ from the Highest Authority? When they see so many Protestant Catholics invading our Churches, our family members who are Protestants, our neighbours who are Protestants……yet, they accuse me in their stupidity, that I am not a Catholic!
So, we do not get sick like weaklings, instead, we get stronger and bolder…….we pray and count our Rosaries…… Would you like to join the Rosary Crusade, it really might do you a wealth of good. Turn your frustrations against the enemies of your God given holy faith……do not be
counted for one of the persecutors of Catholics. Yes, we all shall be judged……if, His truth’ was not in our hearts.
If, you are still so sick……quit reading this blog.
To what do you attribute the Pope’s lack of clarity and ambiguity to? Jesuits are for the most part very educated men who are precise in this thinking and their ability to express themselves. Surely the Pope knows he is causing confusion among the faithful while he is celebrated by the abortionists and sodomists. And why the silence from Cardinal Arinze and from Pope Benedict as to what is going on? Don’t they have any responsibility to the faithful.
“I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman” former US President Clinton. You can talk and talk and talk and talk…say all you want about “who you are”…but actions and your other words tell the opposite. God bless~
Bosco said:
“@Shaun,
This ‘natural explanation’ for all of Christ’s miracles view, i.e. essentially a ministry based on trickery,”
THE
GOSPEL
NARRATIVES
For neurotic-psychotic
“Attached” to the old
We’ll allow a few hirelings
To take care your fold.
No need for the shepherds
Who seem so much keener
They’ll tempt you with dreams
Of pastures much greener
And say not to mimic
Past tolerant-barters
So heads were cut off
Who could dialogue with martyrs?
The shepherds tell fables
‘Bout a man hated, hailed
Like you just “attached”
Don’t believe He was nailed!
The only way to stop this is to call the pope an anti-Semite.
I mean saying that getting Jews to share food is a miracle….if that ain’t anti-Semitic, I don’t know what is.
Hey, it’s worth a try
The miracle in question is the only miracle, outside of the resurrection, to be mentioned in all four gospels. The only miracle from Christ’s ministry that the Gospels have in common. The common people were so impressed by this that they wanted to declare Him king.
This was no groovy woodstock sharing kind of event. It was an absolutely unbelievable miracle that everyone recognized. The sharing label is simply an effort to water down the divinity of Christ. They say that the 10 Lepers did not have actual leprosy, that the demonically possessed were mentally ill, that the blind man, and other were isolated events, if they ever happened since they were not even “confirmed” in the other gospels, and so on. All in an effort to make Christ a man, a nice guy and good teacher, yes, but a man all the same. Some even go to the length of saying the Sea of Galilee was frozen when Jesus walked on it (while omitting the concomitant miracle of the Apostles sailing over ice!?).
Desperate attempts to explain away the profound changes that this “man,” born in poverty, in an oppressed backwater of the Empire, could somehow make such an impact in a mere three years of preaching, which never involved contact with the movers and shakers of Rome, and culminated in His ignoble execution. The impacts continue to reverberate, one of which was celebrated when we hung up our new calendars yesterday, the first day of the year of Our Lord, 2014.
They’ll never give up, but I do wonder why the Pope seems to join in so often. If we will be judged by every idle word we say, then both I and Pope Francis had better button our lips.
Paul
Folks, the true modernist will deny supernatural miracles AND consider himself a true “son of the Church.”
They justify it in their minds, even believe it themselves. Read Pope Saint Pius X’s Pacendi to try to wrap your mind around Modernism.
I fear its well beyond time for assuming Pope Francis is not a modernist. The question is, just how modernist is his thinking. And if it is a worst case scenario, that he really doesn’t believe in, not just this miracle, but also doesn’t believe in the actual physical resurrection of Our Lord, then God help us.
We are in dark times.
This article appeared in the Times of Malta yesterday. I couldn’t find the article outside of the pay wall, so I had to use a reprint from another blog. The reason that I am posting this article is that the question is beginning to be asked in very wide circles.
http://www.mysecretatheistblog.com/2014/01/maltese-journalist-asks-is-pope-closet.html.
All I can say is that Francis needs your prayers.
And a call to arms!
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/01/a-reflection-regarding-cardinal-burke.html
Looking for courageous Cardinals. Please pick up the courtesy phone. Courageous Cardinals, please pick up the courtesy phone and call your favorite journalist.
I love Jimmy Akin’s three step process to understand Pope Francis. Just three easy steps to become a con catholic!
Sheena,
Maybe you don’t realise it but the internet is the only place left whereTraditional Catholics have a voice now. I agree that sometimes people go over the top with disrespecting the Pope. But, if Catholics want to live authentically, thet cannot ignore what is happening in Rome, in the Vatican – from the Pope. You may not realise it, but I can assure you it is the case as I live in Italy, but since Benedict’s abdication , there has been no official teaching from the Pope or the Vatican in protest to the pending “homophobia” bill that they are pushing for like crazy now that there is complete silence from the hierarchy. I’m not talking about the Pope’s homilies from Santa Marta regarding these matters – but the non-negotiables have become a non-issue now . It’s very bad.
And that is only one serious CHANGE since Pope Francis’ election.
I heard a priest ( An old Franciscan,in good faith, I’m sure) say the other day that Francis was dismanling everything – and he thought it was just great. Oh yes he was thrilled ….and saw no contradiction between Francis and Benedict – theur approach was simply different.
Come on – I am reminded of the paralyzing spell cast over King Theodon in the Lord of the Rings ….practically all of the hierarchy have fallen under it. Their thinking is in paralysis. Are we supposed to ignore that, just shut up and pray for them? No way! That would be joining in the madness…
We have 2000 years of Revelation in Scripture, Tradition and the pre – council Magisterium to count on and measure our thinking – this has nothing to do with personal opinions…what we think, feel and like or a false nostalgia…
Quite frankly,I am tired of Modernists who have destroyed our Cahtolic identity everywhere in the world. Maybe you could have a look at Pascendi Dominici Gregis by St. Pius X – where he describes the Modernists – and how to identify them – maybe that will help you see people who “complain” about what’s happening are just trying to be faithful Catholics. And the blogsphere is practically the only platform we have…
As for myself, I will have no more of the man.invented post-conciliar novelties.
God bless, Sheena.
Barbara
Oops sorry about all the typing errors…I have difficulty in scrolling up and down in the comment box to check for them – is it my computer or do others have the same difficulty?
As always, thanks so much Mr. V!
Barbara
Our Holy Father is our Holy Father and he is the Vicar of Christ no matter what he may say in a sermon or an interview; and he has universal authority over everyone – even the disobedient priests in the sspx schism are, under pain of sin, required to obey the decisions he takes.
That is Catholic Tradition.
Why be so scandalised by what he does and says?
Such was the love for him that The Boston Red Sox Fans loved Manny Ramirez and they made excuses for him whenever he committed some faux pas or didn’t show-up in time for a game.
Are we Catholics incapable of loving Our Pope as much as sports fans loved a baseball player?
If the Pope is reported to have said something untoward or if he says something that causes you to be skeptical, smile and take it in stride and say to those scandalised, it is just Bergy being Bergy. He is our lovable Christian Dad.
Our Pope really is quite lovable and he has a world of charm and the faithful in his flock are flocking to his Wednesday Audiences and whereas one had to arrive at 9:00 to get a seat for Pope Benedict’s Audience one now has to get there earlier and earlier to hear the Pope – it has gone from June – “arrive by 8:00 to get a seat” to, in October – “arrive by 7:00 to get a seat.”
Kudos to those like Mr Akin who uses the cloak of contextualising what was said to cover the putative doctrinal nakedness of his Father. That is an action that will always be blessed whereas courting a curse are the Chams who condemn their Father publicly.
And, of course, it is only the natural and loving response to consider Our Father a loyal son of the Church.
Consider speaking more often to our Queen Mom in Heaven about any fears you may have about her son’s vicar;; and especially do so if what our Holy Father says is experienced by you as an attack on your Faith for no good can come from attacking the Pope.
That is just what the Devil desires; internal dissensions and publicly attacks on THE SOLE OFFICE OF DIVINE CONSTITUTION.
Noe and Sem and Japeth; The Cloak of Covering or the Condemnation of Cham
God and Evil is set before us.
It is either the Cloak of covering for the Pope or the Dagger of condemnation – the stab in the back.
Cloaks and Daggers. All of this is deadly serious.
Perhaps it is time that this Pope start to discern the spirits. As we now, confusion can not come from God as he is will never contradict himself or his Most Holy Word. To take one of Christ’s greatest miracles and downplay it to just a “parable” does the whole Catholic Church and humanity a grave disservice. Will the Most Holy Eucharist be his next agenda where he will proclaim to the world that Christ is only “symbolically represented” and is available for all to consume? I will be watching him closely this year for certain as it appears with every speech or comment there is error. Again, discern the spirits.
Dear Not Spartacus,
Does the term popalotry ring a bell?
BTW. You still haven’t responded to Jimmy’s question.
A gentle reminder from the “O’ schism, where is thy sting?” post:
“## A completely hypothetical case:
If a Pope commanded a priest to rape a child, the priest would sin by refusing to obey that Papal command, correct ? He would be obliged to obey the Pope and rape the child, would he ? By your reasoning, the answer is apparently “Yes” to both questions.
The question is a serious one, not a trap or joke.
Jimmy December 30, 2013 8:00 am
The question was directed to I am not Spartacus”
BTW, read an article recently that suggested Pope Francis knew he would be elected before this actual conclave. He was runner up in the last conclave. You would think that he might have better prepared himself for this role knowing well in advance. Or, perhaps there an actual air of all of this being “staged”. He changed Holy Thursday Mass schedule around (I for one was looking forward to the broadcast of it), washing inmates feet, having Amanda a young girl in jail bake the Eucharistic bread (seems a bit unusual), not wearing the Papal Red shoes, not Living at the Vatican, etc. Is it curious to anyone else that the cameras were right there when he paid his hotel bill? Just saying. Yeah….more and more seems every move staged and calculated.
Excellent blog entry, Louie
To: I am not Spartacus. It is more a matter or “smoke and mirrors” in this Pontiffs case. He should be “Sitting” in the seat of Peter. He is not just a “Son of God” he is going to be held accountable for far more than just that. He has the ultimate responsibility of giving the TRUE WORD to the flock. Yes, yes we must care for the poor indeed, but Catholics have been doing that for centuries anyway and not because we were told to by the Vicar. For instance, there would not be hospitals as we know them here in the USA if not for Catholic organizations starting them. “Give a man a fish and he will eat for day, teach him how to fish. I am sure Jesus did both on the day of that MIRACLE as we all know he was known to make fishers of men.
“The truth will make you free!”…..Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Liberalism, that has basically infiltrated every level of the hierarchy in the holy Church (top to bottom)……has for its purpose to destroy the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as much over the individual as over the ‘city’. Liberalism is the soul of All revolutions……..
“IT IS YOUR HOUR, AND THE POWER OF DARKNESS”……Saint Luke 22:53
Bishop Gaume (1877) wrote some lines on the Revolution, which seem to completely characterize Liberalism itself:
…..If, tearing away its mask, you ask it (of the Revolution): it will say to you, “I am not what is thought. Many people speak of me, and very few know me. I am neither carbonarism, nor rioting, nor the change from monarchy to republic, nor the substitution of one dynasty for another, nor the temporary disturbance of the public order. I am not the howlings of the Jacobins, nor the furies of la Montagne, nor the battle of the barricades, nor looting, nor arson, nor the agrarian law, nor the guillotine, nor the drownings. I am not Marat, or Robespierre, or Babeuf or Mazzini, or Kossuth. These men are my sons they are not I. These things are my works, they are not I. These men and these things are transitory facts, and I am a ‘permanent state.’
…….’I am the hatred of all order which man has not established and in which he is not king and God all together. I am the proclamation of the rights of man without care for the rights of God. I am the foundation of the religious and social state upon THE WILL OF MAN INSTEAD OF THE WILL OF GOD! I AM GOD DETHRONED AND MAN IN HIS PLACE. THIS IS WHY I AM CALLED REVOLUTION, THAT IS TO SAY, OVERTHROW…….”
Our Father, Thy Kingdom come! Long live Christ the King!
Holy Ghost, fill the hearts of Thy faithful! O Mary, be our Queen, we belong to Thee!…..
Saint Michael the Archangel, ora pro nobis!
Character is not revealed when life shows its best side, but when it shows its worst.
Ven. Fulton J. Sheen,
Thoughts for Daily Living, p. 81
“To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth,
is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.
In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind.”
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae
“They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer,
and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects
to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.”
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae
“It is better that the truth be known than that scandal be covered up.”
St. Augustine
“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men,
when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope St. Felix III
“When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste,
and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world
the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed
everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations
between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist,
man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although
he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe
a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God’ ” (II. Thess. ii., 2).
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi
“If the faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public.”
St. Thomas Aquinas
“The greatest obstacle in the apostolate of the Church is the timidity or rather the cowardice of the faithful.”
Pope St. Pius X
“When lies have been accepted for some time, the truth always astounds with an air of novelty.”
St. Clement of Alexandria
From the Stigmatist, Julie Jahenny:
On November 27, 1902 and May 10, 1904, Our Lord and Our Lady announced the conspiracy to invent the “New Mass”:
“I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas and under the influence of the enemy of souls a MASS that contains words that are ODIOUS in My sight. When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the test, it will be (these texts) that will be celebrated in this SECOND period … The FIRST period is (the one) of my priesthood which exists since Me. The SECOND is (the one) of the persecution when the ENEMIES of the Faith and of Holy Religion (will impose their formulas) in the book of the second celebration … These infamous spirits are those who crucified Me and are awaiting the kingdom of THE NEW MESSIAH.”
Dear Bosco, Thanks for the link to the Remnant article. Mr. Verrecchio, I am so grateful for your work, it gives me strength.
…from Cajetan…….“Christ instituted St. Peter NOT as His successor, but as His ‘vicar”—which is why the institution of the papacy took place the day after the Resurrection, and was carried out by Christ, immortal from then on, living forever. A supreme Head (Jesus Christ), who will live forever HAS NO successor. At the limit, He may have a ‘vicar’. And HE remains the Master, whatever the wanderings of HIS ‘vicar’. Only this Supreme Head would be able to depose His ‘vicar’ and exclude him from the Mystical Body, and nothing in Revelation authorizes us to believe that Christ would have decided to take such an exceptional measure in order to protect His Church from the contamination of modernism. Rather, we have reason to believe that Divine Providence will NOT allow such contamination to the point of the extinction of the Church. The Gospel does NOT say the gates of hell will not attack the Church; it says precisely that whatever the virulence of their attack, the gates of hell will not prevail.
St. Robert Bellarmine:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, Opera omnia, Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. 1, p. 418).
Dear S.Armaticus. Papolatry was created by a writer for the Remnant, I am drawing a blank on his name. In any event, the author of the term never was able to illustrate how it was those who obeyed the Pope worshipped him. It was rather like the false charge refuted by Saint Augustine. He asked those who claimed we Catholics worshipped Mary to cite any words of any Mass proving the false charge.
Nobody could prove that false claim then and nobody can prove the false claim now that to obey the Pope is an act of worship. But, go ahead, produce the Missal wherein such an act is accomplished.
If you think a Pope can order the rape of a person you need to reorder your Haldol
Dear Halina. The Abbe Gaume, what did he write about Papal authority? In Vol Two (beginning p. 244) or his Four Volume, “Catechism of Perseverance” he wrote; “By submission to our Holy Father the Pope.” There is no society without authority on one side and obedience on the other….By Gates of Hell we understand that infernal powers, schisms, heresies, scandals…The good Abbe goes on for page after page in perfect consonance with Tradition, a Tradition abandoned by the sspx and those who succor it.
They are about the work of division and dissension and opposing the authority of Rome, busying their own selves asking hypothetical questions about Popes ordering the raping of women and other diabolical l delusions in an effort to justify their perfidy.
Dear Halina. Hogwash. That quote from St Robert Bellarmine was, LONG AGO refuted by those faithful to the Pope. I”ll go fetch it and post it but, really, that old claim is so lame it ought arrive in a wheelchair
http://tinyurl.com/kpl87bo
scroll down to sept 23 entry
Now, no matter how many times these quotes are refuted, they are simply recycled as gospel. One would think that, after awhile, those using these quotes would tire of being revealed as dupes of the schism but no..
Their dogged determination to be used is reminiscent of the behavior of the abused and beaten wife
I am not Spartacus:
Best line from the movie: “Heartbreak Ridge”: Clint Eastwood to his obnoxious CO: “Sir, you’re starting to bore the a#% off me.”
If you read Pascendi, you will have to conclude that Pope Bergoglio is a Modernist heretic. Therefore the issue is not whether anyone here is in schism by breaking from Rome; the issue is if the Roman Pontiff has broken from Catholic dogma. If it’s any comfort to you, Paul VI and John Paul Subito have preceded him in this enterprise of articulating material heresy.
How you choose to respond to this 50 year crisis is your own business. Comboxes are not the proper venue for theological discussion — there is room only for the obnoxious sound bites and lengthy out-of-context quotes with which you daily harangue us.
You offer nothing new to any well informed Catholic. Therefore, please find a new soapbox.
Thank you.
Sean
Even a sede recognises the misuse of Bellarmine.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=67&catname=10
IANS:
Here’s the money quote from your citation of traditionalmass.org:
(4)” Bellarmine teaches in the next chapter of his work (30) that a heretical pope automatically loses his authority.”
Bellarmine does not fit into their meme because they don’t consider the See of Rome being legitimately occupied since 1958.
As I said: you offer nothing new to well-informed Catholics.
Dear Sean. Interesting advice about theological discussions from one who has publicly identified three Popes as heretics and what is, according to you, proper or not proper combox conduct.
I understand you think your own self a well-informed Catholic but your personal opinions are neither sane or normative.
What will you do when Pope Blessed John Paul II is formally raised to the altars? You will have to say that the Catholic Church has failed; you will have to say that Jesus either failed His promises or that He was a liar. You have no other options.
O, and I have read Pascendi but I do not from the multiple readings of it have to agree with your personal judgments of the Pope.
You judge the Pope a heretic. I do not. Yet you think your personal opinion is authoritative and that I must discover a way to respond to the crisis your have identified.
The crisis of Faith is yours and you have failed miserably in your response to it.
Go to Confession a.s.a.p.
Good Sean, well said. Sorry Mr. Spartacus – it’s a shame I used to enjoy your comments – but this is a confusing time indeed for Catholics.
Dear Sean. Um, no kidding; that is what sedes wrongfully conclude but the purpose of the link was not to agree with their insane claims that we haven’t had a Pope since Pope Pius XII, the purpose of the link was to cite another source about the meaning of that constantly misused Bellarmine quote
Dear Barbara. Thanks for the kind words about some of my words and I am sorry my words no longer appeal to you but, cut me some slack, all you have had to do is read my tiresome rhetoric whereas I have to live as IANS 24/7/365.
IANS
Yawn…………………
IANS:
One can easily identify material heresy. I do not judge the Pope in regard to formal heresy. That’s above my pay grade.
Spartacus: You think you are so clever, you rejoice to find ‘error’, and to prove to yourself how ‘learned’ you are, all because you are very proud man………. all because of your hatred towards SSPX. You who is blindly defending your truth, that is mudded with error, and delusion. You claim to be a member of the FSSP…..too bad, because you represent them very badly………not All are enemies of the SSPX, many in the Spirit of the Holy Ghost pray to be true servants of God, of the Holy Church…..united as a Church Militant…..Capish! These consecrated to God Catholics, Our Lord Jesus Christ knows each one by name.
Without any scruples you are determined to spread your poison against SSPX……..as far as the infidels and the Jews…..who hate Catholics. This is why few years ago those bold Jews demanded of Benedict XVI……..”It is them or us!” ……meaning the SSPX. You happen to be on the side of ‘Modernists’. Your passion is hatred of SSPX, and you will not stop till ALL blogs read and agree with your ‘hate’. I have read your comments over some time on different blogs……your heart is a ‘cold stone’. I will keep you in my prayers, you really need for all of us to pray for you and your ‘likes’, that God will bless you and your ‘likes’ with His Grace to ‘love’ and pray that All Catholics will be ONE united in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. “Lord save us, lest we all perish!’
This is the wrath of God upon us. We Catholics have become the devils ‘peons’……..we are fighting one another, while the enemy WITHIN is devastating, demolition style the ‘Truth’, clapping their ‘blood stained’ hands, smiling to heretics and what have you stripe……FEAR OF GOD is for those who count their Rosaries…….’I am god’, ‘I am man’ ‘I fear Obama, the Rabbi, the Sultan, the atheist……..I hate Traditionals who always proclaim ‘doom’ on our ‘wisdom’ ……….SUCH PRIDE….while souls are being thrown to hell by hundreds daily (I am afraid to think of more……Miserere!)……… Not for long. God has overcome the world!
The ‘likes’ of them are…….. as sly as a ‘fox’………proud as a ‘serpent’ ……..high-minded as a ‘Pharisee’………their wisdom is A HOGWASH!’
Let us rejoice and count our Blessed Beads……..for Heaven’s Sake!
Dear Not Spartacus:
I re-asked Jimmy’s hypothetical question, which was as follows:
If a Pope commanded a priest to rape a child, the priest would sin by refusing to obey that Papal command, correct ? He would be obliged to obey the Pope and rape the child, would he ? By your reasoning, the answer is apparently “Yes” to both questions.
The question is a serious one, not a trap or joke.
Jimmy December 30, 2013 8:00 am
The question was directed to I am not Spartacus”
And your answer was:
If you think a Pope can order the rape of a person you need to reorder your Haldol.
I guess if you can’t dazzle them with your (un)intellectual footwork, baffle them with your “modernist answer avoiding” bullsh*t.
But the one that I particularly like is the following:
“That quote from St Robert Bellarmine was, LONG AGO refuted by those faithful to the Pope. I”ll go fetch it and post it but, really, that old claim is so lame it ought arrive in a wheelchair.”
So if I understand you correctly, now it’s Robert Bellarmine against the “faithful to the Pope” modernists. Nice…….
Tell me, is that the best you modernists can do?
Dear Sean. You are at least honest when you describe several Popes as heretics; wrong, wildly wrong, but honest
Dear Halina. I have never described my own self as clever and it is true I hate a schism; I thought that was one sign of orthodoxy.
I understand the sspx schism does not like having its lies and misdeeds exposed but I have never considered the feelings of those who describe the Pope as the AntiChrist or who counsel their followers to miss Mass if they can’t make it to their services nor do I appreciate how they use pamphlets to lie about the Canonical Opinions of others even after those Canonists wrote public letters asking them to stop lying about them.
There is no good that can come from a schism
Dear S armmaticus. Absurd attacks masquerading as hypotheticals are a waste of time. And if you do think a Pope would order another to rape a child you are mentally ill
Spartacus in God’s Name….what good came out from these Conciliar Popes? WHAT?
What are we to think when these same popes have been praying in the Synagogues with those who ‘hate’ Jesus Christ……for the coming of their Messiah? Who is then my LORD?
The craziest heresy of all, circulating thru the establishment of the blind is…..that the Pope can do anything! O Really! He is NOT the Supreme Head, he is His vicar….he is in charge only on matters of the Magisterium of the Church that was delivered to us thru the Apostles. The Pope received the Holy Ghost to GUARD and to FAITHFULLY interpret the Deposit of Faith. After that, the POPE IS NOT INFALLIBLE………!
Volumes have been written regarding the evils that have devastated Catholic souls……..their victims are ‘legions’
Stupidity and blindness is aggravating as heck………St. Michael, ora pro nobis!
All the words will not bring a change. Often we get the leaders we deserve. Consider the POTUS. The majority of Americans want their sins, they want them tolerated, legalized, promoted and then vanquish anyone who is not in line with the exaltation of sin. Abortion, perversion…all these things are protected now.
My friends, this is the dawn of the coming new age of martyrs. We cannot even depend on the Pope to stand up for truth!!! But he is still Pope; God help us. But even a Pope must answer to God as do we all.
I cannot change what is happening in the Church with the persecution of the most faithful of Catholics (think of the powerful, prayerful, penitential, and faithful Franciscans of the Immaculate) but in my own small sphere I must live the faith which I do know. I have had to forego a medical career rather than ignore my conscience on ethical issues. Yes, I miss my good paycheck but what does it behoove a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? That was a little martyrdom.
My heart weeps over the confusion and the loss of souls but it is my own soul that I must save and also seek the salvation of my dear ones. Let us all stay close to the sacraments!
Dear Halina These Popes you decry are they who control the Ark of Salvation and have authority of the Sacramental System owing to their Universal Jurisdiction.
But, you seem to have abandoned the Barque of Peter and made a shipwreck of your Faith; that is, it is you who have lost the Faith.
Jesus did not lie; His promises are trustworthy
Spartacus…..IF, all was up to these Popes…….and their whims…….their destructive minds………WOE! We would all be Protestants Today.
The Ark of Salvation is in the Sacred Hands. Thanks Be To God! Holy Ghost is Guarding the Deposit of Faith!……..Carefully, guiding the faithful to persevere, reminding that……the Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail……..even with Francis.
Imagine for a moment, if we were all left on their mercy ALONE, what a hell on earth this would be for all Catholics……St. Michael, ora pro nobis!
Spartacus, go and have a cup of hot camomile tea……it will do you good.
Jesus Christ is the Life, the Way, the Truth!
Dear Not Spartacus,
Please don’t let your emotions get the better of you.
Your response was on the temperamental side. And according to Curly Howard, temperamental is 5% temper, and 95% ……..
PS but, but…. Not Spartacus.
Jimmy stated that his question was “a serious one, not a trap or joke.” So why can’t you take what Jimmy said at face value. Kind of like, say a modernist who claims that what Francis says is orthodox since Francis said he is a “son of the Church”. Isn’t what is good for me, also good for the?
BTW, you still haven’t answered Jimmy’s question.
Well. That escalated quickly.
Sheena and Spartacus,
as someone here already pointed out, this place is a hospital for the wounded. If one is perfectly healthy and content, why hang out in the emergency room? To watch the freak show?
Rather than feeling compelled to police this comment section, and make yourselves ‘feel good’ by engaging with those who will NEVER accept your making light of their daily struggle to keep the Faith in these very troubled times – and thus add fuel to the fire – how about finding another hobby, like going to a hospice for cancer patients and upbraiding them for not embracing scientology.
Since you are so zealous for the pontiff’s honor, and respect him SO much,
then you need to look deep inside of yourselves and ask a very pertinent question, if you have the real integrity necessary:
What would Francis do?
A further observation.
Spartacus, you are very much like St. Peter when he attempted to correct Our Lord: Far be it from you. Lord, that this should happen to you.
And what was Our Lord’s response to His own appointed vicar?
Get thee behind me Satan.
To refuse to want to face the fact that the body of Christ is currently being tortured is indeed to be in league with the vicar of Christ at that period of his tenure.
God bless your confessing Our Lord, Magdalene. Our Lord will confess you before His Father in Heaven.
Dear S.Armaticus. 🙂 One can never go wrong inciting one of the greatest actors of our generation;
Upon being introduced to a wealthy woman, the trio responded sequentially;
Moe; Enchanted
Larry Enthralled
Curly: Embalmed
Dear Leo. I am about done with this particular emergency ward but I did want to try and convince others that the sspx is not a cure for whatever it is that ails them, but, rather a poison that’ll, ineluctably, lead to spiritual death.
Dear Spartcus,
I shouldn’t worry overmuch, although that is profoundly gracious of you (of course).
I think we’ll be just fine.
Good bye, then.
Not Spartacus said: “I am about done with this particular emergency ward…” Thanks for the parting thought, but I think we will be just fine.
On an aside, I for one always look to find something good in everyone, including modernists. Here I see a healthy appreciation for the Three Stooges, and in my humble opinion, it is a positive sign. My only hope is that your understanding of the artistic magnum opus given humanity by Moe, Larry and Curly (ok, and Shemp) is a bit more orthodox than your understanding of the Catholic Faith. Please keep in mind that there can only be one correct answer, and 1900 years of Catholic Tradition CAN NOT BE WRONG.
Thank God Arbp. Lefebvre didn’t just roll over and do nothing in the 70s.
Dear S. Armaticus. What the Stooges were to entertainment is what The SSPX is to Catholicism; that is, both represent farce and mayhem.
The SSPX would not recognise Tradition if it were a fish and Moe slapped them in the face with it.
The SSPX specialises in opposing Tradition by refusing Communion with the local Bishop and the Pope.
The SSPX is the new faux face of Catholicsm; it is the blackguardism of schism in white face and it is but a novel fad in its praxis.
Not one of the members of the SSPX schism has ever dropped to their left knee and kissed the ring of the real Bishop who holds Jurisdiction; they and their followers are complete and total frauds; and, yes, they are as funny and absurd as the Three Stooges.
Not Spartacus’
I see you got the Stooges wrong also.
Oh well, I guess it’s par for the course.
BTW, still haven’t answered Jimmy’s question.
Not Spartacus, just got an idea. How about a N.O Three Stooges Mass?
What’cha say?
Haven’t seen one of those.
Could start a new tradition.
ABL started a new Tradition by declaring a transitional Missal, the 1962 Roman Missal, the Mass of all time. Stick with transition as Tradition; that is the best y’alll can do.
Petiit Ecclesia, no Communion with the Pope, Vagus suspended a divinis priests, Vagus Bishops (all of which are directly condemned by Trent) and you identify as a DSaint he who sigend every single Document of Vatican Two which y’all now completely reject.
Ws ABL a heretic when he signed those documents and was he a man of his words when he signed them or was he a man of his word when he repudiated his signatures and lied about not signing those docuemnts.
Was he a man of his word when he signed the protocol with Rome or was he a man of his word when he repudiated his word and signature?
Was he a man of his word when he agreed to open his seminary on an experimental basis but then broke his promise and refused the order to shut it down?
As far as I can determine his word could be trusted only insofar as he got what he wanted and when he made an agreement and signed his name to that agreement he felt at liberty to break his word depending on the circumstances.
He was to ecclesiastical promises what Mickey Rooney was to wedding vows
Protocol of 5 May 1988 between the Holy See and the Priestly Society of St. Pius X
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Text of the agreement signed at Rome during the meeting between His Eminence Josef Cardinal Ratzinger and His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Archbishop renounced the protocol before proceeding with episcopal consecrations on 30 June 1988 in the absence of a pontifical mandate and against the wishes of the Supreme Pontiff.
+++++++++++++++++
[Original: French]
I. Text of the Doctrinal Declaration
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by me:
1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.
2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.
3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
II. Juridical Questions
Keeping in mind the fact that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has been conceived for 18 years as a society of common life – and after studying the propositions formulated by His Excellency Marcel Lefebvre and of the conclusions of the Apostolic Visitation carried out by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon – the most suitable canonical form is that of a Society of apostolic life.
1. Society of apostolic life
This is a solution which is possible under canon law, and it has the advantage of allowing the insertion of lay people into the clerical Society of apostolic life (for example, cooperating Brothers).
According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, canons 731-746, this Society enjoys full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate clerics, and can assure the common life of its members.
In the proper Statutes, with flexibility and inventive possibility with respect to the known models of these Societies of apostolic life, a certain exemption is foreseen with regard to the diocesan bishops (cf. can 591) in matters having to do with public worship, the cura animarum (care of souls) and other apostolic activities, keeping in mind canons 679-683.
As for jurisdiction with regard to the faithful who have recourse to the priests of the Society, it will be conferred on these priests either by the local Ordinaries or by the Apostolic See.
2. The Roman Commission
A commission to coordinate relations with the different Dicasteries and diocesan bishops, as well as to resolve eventual problems and disputes, will be constituted through the care of the Holy See, and will be empowered with the necessary faculties to deal with the questions indicated above (for example, implantation of a place of worship, at the request of the faithful, where there is no house of the Society, ad mentem can. 683, par. 2)
This commission will be composed of a President, a Vice-President and five members, of whom two will be from the Society.
Among other things it would have the function of exercising vigilance and lending assistance to consolidate the work of reconciliation and to regulate questions relative to the religious communities having a juridical or moral bond with the Society.
3. Condition of Persons Connected to the Society
3.1 The members of the clerical Society of apostolic life (priests and cooperating lay brothers) are governed by the Statutes of the Society of Pontifical Right.
3.2 The oblates, both male and female, whether they have taken private vows or not, and the members of the Third Order connected to the Society, all belong to an Association of the faithful connected with the Society according to the terms of Canon 303, and collaborate with it.
3.3 The sisters (that is, the Congregation founded by Mons. Lefebvre) who make public vows; they constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and autonomy, even if a certain type of bond is envisaged for the unity of its spirituality with the Superior of the Society. This Congregation – at least at the beginning – would be dependent on the Roman commission, instead of the Congregation for Religious.
3.4 The members of the community living according to the rule of various religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and who are morally bound to the Society; these are to be given, case by case, a particular statute which will regulate their relations with their respective Orders.
3.5 The priests who, as individuals, are morally connected to the Society, will receive a personal statute taking into account their aspirations and, at the same time, the obligations deriving from their incardination. The other particular case of the same nature will be examined and resolved by the Roman commission.
As for the lay people who request the pastoral assistance of the communities of the Society: they will remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, but – notably by reason of the liturgical rites of the communities of the Society – they will be able to turn to them for the administration of the sacraments (for the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Marriage, the usual notifications must still be given to their proper parish priest; (cf. can 878, 896, 1122).
Note: The particular complexity of two questions must be kept in mind:
1. The question of the reception by lay people of the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Marriage in the communities of the Society.
2. The question of the communities which practice the rule of this or that religious institute without belonging to it. It will be in the competence of the Roman commission to resolve these problems.
4. Ordinations
For ordinations, two phases must be distinguished:
4.1 Immediately:
For the ordinations scheduled to take place in the immediate future, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if they were unable, another bishop accepted by him will be authorized.
4.2 After the erection of the Society of apostolic life:
4.2.1 In so far as possible, and within the judgement of the Superior General, the normal path is to be followed: to send dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the Society.
4.2.2 In light of the particular situation of the Society (cf. infra): the ordination of a member of the Society as a bishop, who, among other responsibilities, would also be able to proceed with ordinations.
5. The Problem of the Bishop
5.1 On the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its erection as a Society of apostolic life of pontifical right, and the approval of its Statutes by the Holy Father.
5.2 But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop seems useful. This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from among the members of the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop as a rule is not the Superior General of the Society. But it seems opportune that he be a member of the Roman commission.
6. Particular Problems
(to be resolved by decree or declaration)
– Lifting of the suspensio a divinis on Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensation from the irregularities incurred by the fact of the ordinations.
– Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.
– Provision for an “amnesty” and an accord for the houses and places of worship erected – or used – by the Society, until now without the authorization of the bishops.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Mgr Marcel Lefebvre
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, Mgr Lefebvfre gets every single thing he asked for and he signed his name to the agreement and then he reneges on the agreement and does not abide by his word and his signature.
And that is the man you entrust your soul to; amasing.
Talk about diabolical delusion
Not Spartacus said: “So, Mgr Lefebvfre gets every single thing he asked for and he signed his name to the agreement and then he reneges on the agreement and does not abide by his word and his signature.”
And because Archbishop Lefebvre did not sign, we have the Eclessia Dei Commission, Summorum Pontificum and the wide spread of the LTM throughout the Roman Catholic Church.
I know which side of this trade I want be on!
Not Spartacus,
Just for the record.
Is the above tract an example of the “new” cooperation between you and the Church Militant’s Mr. Carroll?
And if the above answer is in the positive, then I would just like to remind Mr. Carroll of a Vorterx episode that aired about a couple of months ago, titled “The Empire Strikes Back”.
And my observation is, do you and Mr. Voris really want to pick this fight in light of the Catholic Answers experience?
Closing I would just like to remind all of the seven beatitude and suggest that we all reflect on this. Just to remind:
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”
God Bless,
S.Armaticus
Pope Francis has what many of us suffer from: “Vatican II speak.”
“Not one of the members of the SSPX schism has ever dropped to their left knee and kissed the ring of the real Bishop who holds Jurisdiction; they and their followers are complete and total frauds; and, yes, they are as funny and absurd as the Three Stooges.”
________________________
It is ironic that if a member of the SSPX ever gave this traditional sign of episcopal respect to a modern bishop that they would receive in return either condescending looks, an attempt to raise them to their feet, and/or a brief catechesis on why such medieval ritual is outdated and inappropriate for the People of God who share (in their own way) in the mission of the Church, along with the hierarchy. The reality is that this model of ecclesial submission and its symbolism is unknown to most modern churchmen who would not recognize it as Catholic upon first seeing it performed either by a member of the SSPX or others. In your comment, you assume that the SSPX member (who belongs to a group that you consider ignorant of Tradition) would be aware of this ritual and yet withhold it from their local Ordinary due to their stubbornness and pride. Yet, interestingly enough, it is often their local Ordinary who is ignorant of this aspect of Tradition (along with other traditions that were replaced long before they were ordained), while the members of the SSPX are taught these traditions from their youth.