Tim Staples, who as Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers has a sizable following, is publishing a series of articles on his personal blog entitled, Defending Pope Francis; Parts 1 and 2 of which focus on Amoris Laetitia.
Here, I will offer important points that Mr. Staples overlooked. I’ve invited him to respond to this fraternal correction for the benefit of our readers.
Getting straight to the point, Staples provides his conclusion up front:
Amoris Laetitia, he says, “is packed with solid Catholic doctrine and practical application concerning our Faith.”
The trouble that has been brewing ever since its publication, he believes, is caused mainly by “faulty interpretations of chapter 8.”
He begins by setting the stage as follows:
“So what is the controversy?”
“In a nutshell, Pope Francis made a pastoral and prudential judgment to change the practice of the Church that in the past absolutely, and in every situation, forbade any Catholic who had divorced and remarried outside the Church to receive Holy Communion.”
Actually, the “controversy” concerns quite a bit more than this, but for now Staples should be commended for at least recognizing what many still refuse to acknowledge; namely, the simple fact that Francis did indeed change the immemorial practice of the Church concerning reception of Holy Communion by the civilly divorced and “remarried.”
To those who consider Francis a heretic, Staples objects:
“You can’t be a heretic if you don’t even change or contradict a single definitive Catholic teaching, right? In fact, he did not even change a single law of the Church, notwithstanding all of the accusations to the contrary.”
Be certain to make note of Staples’ working definition of heresy; namely, that which constitutes a change or contradiction of definitive Catholic teaching, as well as his contention that Francis did not change “law.” We will return to these points later.
Staples’ defense of Francis’ move to “change the practice of the Church” begins in earnest with the following:
“The truth is: Pope Francis simply applied what is already the commonly held teaching of the Church—everyone who commits an objectively grave sin is not necessarily culpable of mortal sin—to the particular situation of some exceptional and rare cases among people who have divorced and remarried without having received an annulment. Folks, that does not change law. It applies existing law in a different way.”
Indeed, it is true that one who commits an objectively grave (mortal) sin may not be fully culpable for having done so. The question that remains, however, is who has the faculty to judge who is, and who is not, culpable?
This is where Staples goes off course.
Here, I will simply quote an excerpt from a public appeal issued by Archbishop Tomash Peta, Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider in response to Amoris Laetitia:
“The Church, and specifically the minister of the sacrament of Penance, does not have the faculty to judge on the state of conscience of an individual member of the faithful or on the rectitude of the intention of the conscience, since “ecclesia de occultis non iudicat” (Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The minister of the sacrament of Penance is consequently not the vicar or representative of the Holy Spirit, able to enter with His light in the innermost recesses of the conscience, since God has reserved such access to the conscience strictly to himself: “sacrarium in quo homo solus est cum Deo” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et spes, 16).”
NB: As even the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes makes plain: God has reserved such access to the conscience strictly to Himself.
This being so, the Church does not have the authority to deem anyone among the divorced and civilly remarried inculpable of the objective mortal sin of adultery.
From here, Staples looks for support in the definition of mortal sin itself, which, as he points out, addresses three necessary requirements:
1.Commit an act that is objectively grave.
2. Have knowledge that what he is about to commit is, in fact, a grave sin.
3. Freely engage his will in carrying out that gravely immoral act.
On point #1, all concerned agree that adultery and fornication are objectively grave acts.
As for point #2, ignorance is easily remedied; in fact, it can be dispensed with in the first minute of the “accompaniment” that we hear so much about these days.
That leaves only requirement #3.
On this note, Staples cites the new Catechism in alluding to “duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” as potentially mitigating factors that may weigh on culpability.
As we have already pointed out, however, that judgment is beyond the Church’s capacity.
As such, the Church’s pastoral activity must be guided according that which is objective alone, focusing on what is required of each man by the Law itself, and leaving it to God to act according to the subjective judgments that are His sole prerogative.
Even the Catechism that Staples quotes makes this point:
“Although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.” (cf CCC 1861)
St. Thomas Aquinas, who Staples also cites, said:
“The precepts of the Decalogue embody the intention of the legislator, that is God. Therefore, the precepts of the Decalogue permit no dispensation” (Summa theol. 1-2, q.100, a.8c).
Yes, God may judge one inculpable for having violated the precepts of the Decalogue, but among men there can be no dispensation permitted.
Having overlooked this teaching entirely, Staples insists:
“There is nothing new here, folks. According to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church a person can commit an act involving objectively grave matter, but have his culpability for that sin either reduced to the level of venial sin…”
“We must make proper distinctions. As we saw from the Council of Trent, and from CCC, a Catholic is only impeded from receiving sacraments in the Church, according to divine law, if he is in mortal sin.”
In the interest of space, I will not repeat his citations taken from the Council of Trent and the CCC, but will simply point out that Staples is correct in stating that mortal sin is an impediment to receiving the sacraments “according to divine law.”
In fact, he stresses this point quite emphatically:
“It is the infallible teaching of the Church, and a matter of divine law, that only a mortal sin impedes a validly baptized Catholic from licitly receiving the Eucharist-and I must say again and emphasize-according to divine law. Venial sin does not so impede him.” [Emphasis in original.]
We will focus on “divine law” in a moment, but at this, please forgive the repetition:
Where Staples errs is in assuming that mere men can judge individual cases of objective mortal sin to be some lesser (venial) offense; thus not serving to impede access to the sacraments.
From here, Staples moves on to “a very important objection that deserves an answer;” namely, that concerning Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II, the key portion of which reads in part:
“[T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.” (art. 84)
In reference to this teaching, Staples insists:
“The operative word here is ‘practice.’ There is not even a question as to divine law here … This is a matter of prudential judgment in a juridical matter, not doctrine.”
He tells us:
“Some have argued, ‘But doesn’t Pope St. John Paul say this practice of the Church is based in Scripture? Doesn’t that make it divine law?’”
His answer is no, “not necessarily.”
Staples lets us know that even some people that he “respects greatly” have challenged him by claiming “just because St. John Paul used the term ‘practice’ does not mean this is not a matter of divine law.”
He admits that this is true, but insists that this “practice” is neither doctrine nor divine law.
Now, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Tim Staples has perhaps the utmost respect for the theological opinions of one Cardinal Josef Ratzinger; in particular, those officially set forth in his role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (I suppose we will find out if I assume too much!)
In a 1994 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Ratzinger, with the expressed approval of Pope John Paul II, wrote:
“Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion … Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of this doctrine … [The Church] is concerned to accompany them pastorally and invite them to share in the life of the Church in the measure that is compatible with the dispositions of divine law, from which the Church has no power to dispense.” [Emphasis added.]
NB: This Letter was issued specifically for the purpose of explaining and upholding the aforementioned teaching from Familiaris Consortio (article 84); making it abundantly clear that the “practice” in question pertains not only to “doctrine,” but to “divine law from which the Church has no power to dispense.”
There is more in Tim Staples’ defense of Francis vis-à-vis Amoris Laetitia that merits correction, but at this we have plainly revealed, in a manner that no one of good will can deny, two very serious errors in his presentation;
- Concerning the Church’s inability to judge matters of culpability.
- The true nature of the immemorial “practice” that John Paul II “reaffirmed” in Familiaris Consortio 84.
Let us hope and pray that Mr. Staples, having been corrected, will respond appropriately.
Louie would like to convict Pope Francis without convicting St. JPII because if he convicts JP2 he has to admit that sedevacantism is true and we’ve had no Pope since, at the very least, the promulgation of the new code of canon law.
Louie’s fundamental error is formulated by him in the following paragraph:
“As such, the Church’s pastoral activity must be guided according that which is objective alone, focusing on what is required of each man by the Law itself, and leaving it to God to act according to the subjective judgments that are His sole prerogative.”
Can everyone see the problem? If the above statement is true, than St. JPII erred when he allowed objective heretics and schismatics to receive communion in Canon 844.3 of the new code.
Sorry Louie but you simply can’t condemn Pope Francis without also condemning Pope St. John Paul II. Simple logic tells you this.
Surely Divine Law comes from the Ten Commandments which everyone is supposed to keep – “If you love Me keep My Commandments”. PF is busy rewriting these in response to the NWO Agenda so as to eradicate God from His own Creation. Not even the greatest Theologian, Philosopher etc. can read the mind of God so why do they even try? It has to be that they consider themselves more enlightened than He, the Creator of all the Universe. What pride!
This Marxist/Masonic/Modernist Papacy must end. Cardinal Müller, the four Cardinals & their supporters will have a lot to answer for before God if the formal correction isn’t made promptly. They’ll all be painted with the same PF anti-Catholic brush if they don’t.
Will anyone address scandal? Sin does not only affect the sinner, but the entire body of Christ.
Un-repentant sinners presenting themselves for the Blessed Sacrament is a stumbling block for the rest of the body. It benumbs one’s shock toward sin, and creates apathy for the practice of the faith., and fosters irreverence and contempt.
Catholic Answers has a history of completely ignoring the modernist heresy.
My prediction is that Mr Staples will not have the courage to engage on these pages, and Louie will not be invited on the next Apologetics Cruise.
.
Michael F Poulin
The N.O. pseudo-church does not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. That is why AL is no big deal. Let’s face it!
Maybe I haven’t looked hard enough, but I haven’t yet heard or read about how this discernment process will take place on a practical ground level basis. The supporters of AL keep talking about this discernment process, but what are the criteria for it? Are priests supposed to get trained? Won’t the priest’s disposition, the training, the intelligence, or any other characteristics that differentiate one person from another affect the discernment process? I haven’t heard of one single account of a “remarried couple” going through this process and being either approved or denied. This whole thing seems to me to be like one of those old western movie sets where the buildings look real from the front, but there’s nothing behind them.
I would like to pose a question to Tim and to all who think like him: “what would be the line in the sand for you to then formally recognize and admit that a pope is a heretic?”
With these spin men who always seem to have an explanation for all the post-concilior madness you need to let them state the parameters and then challenge them on their terms, quoting what they said. But even then I suppose they can spin their way out.
Ana, as Ganganelli has just pointed out, you cannot call Francis a heretic without calling every NO V2 prelate a heretic. Those four cardinals that you place so much hope and faith in are just as heretical as Francis.
Exactly! Its either the entire NO V2 sect is heretical or none of them are. It cannot be both.
Staples, like the rest of the cast at “Catholic” Answers, is a total CatholiCuck.
Dear Louie,
It would certainly seem that, that which continues to occur as the only rightly reasoned conclusion of what might be referred to as, the ecclesial analysis under the purported pontificate of Francis, is analogous to an implacable attempt at placing a square peg into a round hole. This approach will only, as it can only, continue to produce derision in an already divided religion, which found its nascent genesis, this division, in 1958. This derision is the natural product of the unceasing cognitive dissonance which can only flow from this wellspring of forcing the intellective consideration that the post-conciliar church is indeed the Catholic Church, as founded by the Son of God, made Man. Taking Our Lady at her word with utter submission and conviction, as she speaks as the singular human person whose Immaculate Heart beats as one with her Sacred Heart, her Beloved Son as the Beloved Son of God, we now again recall a few of her proclamations at LaSalette: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.” “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” “The Church will have a frightful crisis.”
Focusing now on the first of Our Lady’s proclamations, “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”. To lose one’s faith is to lose one’s belief and in this context it is the loss of belief in the Catholic Religion, as the singular true religion. As “religion” is the act of binding oneself to God, to lose the belief (faith) in the Catholic Religion, is to lose one’s affinity to God and thus is to become apostate. “Apostasy a fide” is the voluntary abandonment of the Catholic Religion. Thus understood, Our Lady spoke of the Great Apostasy at LaSalette in 1846 and as she spoke of “Rome” loosing the faith, she spoke of the Apostasy as beginning at the top. When one undergoes apostasy, he then commits himself to some other faith, as there is no spiritual vacuum to be found in God’s cosmos, as we are spiritual beings as well we are also in the flesh. This other faith, as to be found today in its existential praxis by and large, is the post-conciliar catholic church, but for those who have joined some other formal, false religion. This “other faith” as the post-conciliar, catholic church is another religion, as it is another faith (belief), and we know this to be true because Our Lady of LaSalette said that Rome would lose the faith. What the novus ordo Catholic has done, myself included until recent time, is to have made an ipso-facto voluntary assent into another religion, which although it professes itself to be “Catholic”, is devoid of all things Christ Jesus and this speaks as res ipsa loquitur. As the post-conciliar or novus ordo church is devoid of all things Christ Jesus, it is the religion of the Antichrist. The second part, “…and become the seat of the Antichrist”, is breathtaking, as it is in our midst, as “the seat of the Antichrist” speaks to the false religion that “Rome” who has lost the faith, will falsely call the “Catholic Religion”, while it simply cannot be, as Our Lady proclaimed that Rome will lose the faith. As it has lost the faith, it cannot hold the Catholic Religion.
And if this were not enough to convince us from the mouth of the Mother of God, our Mother, there is a recently published book of an interview of Father Gabriele Amorth (died in 2016, may Almighty God rest his soul) by Jose Maria Zavala, entitled, “The Best Kept Secret of Fatima”. At OnePeterFive.com, linked here, https://onepeterfive.com/chief-exorcist-father-amorth-padre-pio-knew-the-third-secret/, find the article of Maike Hickson, where the following quote is drawn from.
‘ “Forgive me for insisting on the Third Secret of Fatima: Did Padre Pio relate it, then, to the loss of faith within the Church?”
Fr. Gabriele furrows his brow and sticks out his chin. He seems very affected.
“Indeed,” he states, “One day Padre Pio said to me very sorrowfully: ‘You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.’” ‘
And so the now great and eminent Saint of Holy Mother Church, Padre Pio, made this prophetic statement in the year, as Fr. Gabriele Amorth recalls, to “…have been about 1960…”. So please, if you bypass at once my assessment and conclusion, as a perfectly miserable human creature this side the veil, as it relates to the novus ordo, aka: post-conciliar, catholic church as being the church of the Antichrist, replete with “popes” since 1958 who are popes of this church and not the Church of the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, made Man, and as thus they have been either anti-Popes or false Popes relative to the Bride of Christ, heed the words of Saint Padre Pio. As he said to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, “It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.” A simple question flows from this statement quoted of Saint Padre Pio. As Satan would, within a very short time, come to rule a false Church from the bosom of the Church, and as Satan can create nothing, rather he can only ape the Creation of Almighty God, as the Great Deceiver and the Liar from the beginning, as the Murderer of Truth that he is, can there exist any possibly greater deception of faith, then that which is to ape the Church of Jesus Christ, while at once proclaiming this aped church to be the Church of Jesus Christ, as it controls the entire temporal edifice of the Universal Church in this world?
Lastly, as Our Lady of LaSalette also proclaimed, “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” and “The Church will have a frightful crisis.”, we must also consider what could possibly be a more frightful crisis for the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, than to wake up one day and recognize that She was a mere tiny remnant of faithful the world over, as She was in eclipse. The True Church in eclipse would be all but invisible to the world and this invisibility could of course only yield utter dismay for that same world who does not see Her because it does not know Her. I pray this helps. In caritas.
I do not place my faith & hope in any man, only God, who works through his consecrated ministers. I am not a Sedevacantist nor a Deist. The CC has lived through many very difficult & long periods in her history & has come through them, which can only be attributed to God keeping His Promise to remain with His Church until the end of time.
Indeed. Louie talks a tough game, but strains at the gnat while swallowing the camel. As such, when he presumes to correct others or defend doctrine, he appears quite silly.
Ultimately, if one tries to defend the legitimacy of the conciliar church in any manner, one will eventually have to compromise one truth or another.
Well Ana, that is the point. God does work through His consecrated ministers. However, Burke et al cannot be His ministers since they are modernist. So why is it, that in every one of your posts, you hang your hopes on some sort of “formal correction” coming from some neo-cath prelates? What exactly do you expect from this “formal correction.”
And to add to this, the Fatima message included a warning to the hierarchy about what happened to King Louis XVI when he did not do the consecration of France. King Louis XVI did not just lose his life but his kingship and authority. If the consecration of Russia was supposed to happen after Pius XII, then it would make sense that the papacy would fall and lose it kingship, if you will, and authority, thus a vacancy.
Please correct me if I am wrong in stating the consecration was to happen after Pius XII.
Exactly right. I’ve seen it put that in defending Francis, Catholics are trashing the doctrine of the Papacy.
Here’s what the new Catechism teaches:
“In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ‘the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained’.”
That is the official teaching of what you called the “N.O. pseudo-church”. The truth is that the Church today still officially teaches the true presence, even if many no longer believe it.
JPeters–“many no longer believe it”—Why? Because what you believe determines how you will worship; how you worship reflects what you believe. The N.O. pseudo-church may “officially” teach the Prue presence, but their behavior teaches otherwise. Do I have to give examples? It’s so obvious. Open your eyes. Vat. 2 has destroyed the belief in the True Presence. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”.
There is video online also refuting Tim Staples’ position https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJPPswQS-7c I call on Louie to do a video maybe 5-6 minutes only on the Blasphemies in AL. We need to keep pounding on AL because unlike other Vatican II documents average person Catholic or not gets it for it opposes natural laws.
I’m confused. The Blessed Virgin Mary said that the Pope, along with all the bishops, will consecrate Russia, but it will be late and then we will witness the triumph of her Immaculate Heart. If the Papacy has been vacant for decades, as some here suggest, then where is this Pope going to come from?
Bingo! You have exposed the Sedevacantist epic fail.
Other than Peter, where have all Popes come from? They are elected by Catholics. That is where the last Pope came from and that is where the next one will come from.
The Popes aren’t just elected by Catholics (which excludes the sede-vacantists, who have fallen away from the Church). They are elected by those whom the law designate as the electors, the Cardinals. If there has been no Pope since Pius XII, there are no longer any lawful electors to elect a Pope.
The truth is that the recent Popes have all been true Popes and the Cardinal they appointed are true Cardinals.
As Our Lady predicted, the Church is in a crisis (“The Church will have a frightful crisis”), it has not become a false Church. If the infiltrators were able to gradually transform the institution of the Church into a false a false Church, the gates of hell would have prevailed against it. Based on the promise of Christ, Catholics know that can never happen, yet the faithless sede-vacantists believe has.
Remember, the case that Louie has been making is that Pope Francis has lost his office, and not the entire Church hierarchy, so the next Pope will come during the next papal election.
Good morning Tom A,
Yes, prior to the College of Cardinals, the Holy Roman Pontiff was selected by the Roman clergy and indeed the Pontiff still is, as the College of Cardinals are considered as the chief of the Roman clergy. The reality has remained ever present and arguably is now existentially manifest in our time, whereby the College of Cardinals has fallen, and in that case the election of the Holy Roman Pontiff falls back onto the Roman Clergy and not upon the bishops assembled in Council. Our Blessed Dominus Deus promised His Church will prevail until the end of time. No worries thus. He also commanded—When the Son of Man returns, will He find any faith left upon the earth? With certitude, we know these cannot be conflicting statements, as Truth Himself is never in conflict. We know there will only be a small remnant Church in our midst when our Lord and our God returns as Infinite Judge. The reality is that the man elevated to the bishopric of Rome, as “The Bishop of Rome”, then becomes the Holy Roman Pontiff of the Universal Church as a de-facto manifestation of the reality of his being selected as The Bishop of Rome. Stated yet one more time, it is not the Holy Roman Pontiff as Chief Pastor who becomes the Bishop of Rome, rather it is The Bishop of Rome who then is annexed as the Holy Roman Pontiff of the Universal Church. It is not the other way around.
JPeters simply does not understand the realities of how Holy Mother Church operates. He remains affected by the diabolical disorientation, while at once he yields the ad hominem attack at the small remnant Church, which he evidently despises as he labels us “faithless sedevacantists”. He is blinded to the reality that knowing the Chair of Peter can be vacant is simply an authentically Catholic understanding. It happens each and every time a Pontiff dies and we await the election of another. It’s just this time we’ve been waiting 18 years since the death of Pope Gregorious XVII, as Cardinal Siri. Our Blessed Lady foretold that not only would Rome lose the faith but it would become the seat of the Antichrist. As being cannot both be and not be at the same time and under the same respect, Rome cannot both be the Seat of the True Church and the seat of the Antichrist at the same time and under the same respect. We must continue to pray, fast, and sacrifice such that Catholics will come to the understanding of the realities as they are and not as how they will them to be. Saint Padre Pio, as Padre Pio, told Father Gabriele Amorth, as I wrote above, that Satan was INTRODUCED into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time would come to rule a false Church. This conversation occurred in 1960, to the best of Fr. Amorth’s recollection. Thus understood, JPeters also denies the conversation between Father Gabriele Amorth, the former chief Vatican exorcist (God rest his beautiful soul), and the great and eminent, now Saint of Holy Mother Church, Padre Pio. A “false Church” can only be a “false Church”. Can we for a moment believe that with the angelic and direct intelligence of God bestowed upon Lucifer, that he would not orchestrate the false Church from within the very bosom of Holy Mother Church as Saint Padre Pio proclaimed? I’ll hang my hat on Saint Padre Pio and pray for JPeters reversion into the True Church of Christ Jesus as His remnant Church. In caritas.
Hello pigg0214,
Please see my response to Tom A below. In caritas.
In Caritas: “JPeters simply does not understand the realities of how Holy Mother Church operates…. He is blinded to the reality that knowing the Chair of Peter can be vacant is simply an authentically Catholic understanding. It happens each and every time a Pontiff dies and we await the election of another. It’s just this time we’ve been waiting 18 years since the death of Pope Gregorious XVII, as Cardinal Siri.”
Poor “In Caritas” is completely ignorant of basic Catholic theology, and thinks the entire Church can recognize a false Pope (John XXIII) as the true Pope, while the real “true Pope” (Pope Siri) is in hiding.
Ignorance is the sure path to sede-vacantism during this time, as “in Caritas'” comments demonstrate. Conversely, knowledge of basic Catholic theology is the cure. But because sede-vacantist ignorance is so often combined with diabolical pride, the cure is nearly impossible.
Dear “in caritas” please spend a little time learning basic Catholic doctrine, rather than embarrassing yourself by Pontificating and spreading your errors in public. And in the meantime, please don’t refer to yourself as a Traditional Catholic. We have enough problems without an ignoramus such as yourself making us look like complete idiots.
Ah! Another fine cameo appearance by the clown GagSpagetthi!
Gag for some reason really really desperately wants people to think Louie really really wants John Paul II to be a saint and a Pope. Despite the countless times that Louie himself has openly criticized and even continues to criticize John Paul II.
I guess Gag really doesn’t even bother to read anything Louie writes. But we knew that all along. He’s only here for a drive-by shooting, but misses the point entirely because he’s shooting at imaginary strawmen targets.
Perhaps the Gag and his sede likeminded supporters ought to consider that Louie is only appealing to ‘St. John Paul II’ here because he is arguing with Tim Staples to highlight Staple’s error. The same way a Catholic can argue with a Protestant about honoring Mary by quoting Martin Luther himself.
But Gag is too wrapped up in his stupid hatred of Louie to get this. That’s because Gag is so stupid as to believe false quotations from Protestants that the Popes believe themselves to be the incarnation of God on Earth. And like the Islamic God, Allah, whom Gag imagines the Catholic God to be, can contradict Himself through the Papacy to change morality entirely. This is why Gag believes Usury and Adultery is a-okay now!
Let us all remind GagFag for the 1000th time now that Louie has no problem condemning both Francis and John Paul II. Which makes his cute little drive-by posts all the funnier!
So In caritas,
Why haven’t you and your remaining Sede buddies gotten together to elect the next pontiff?
Why are you all taking years neglecting your duty, given that the hierarchy has failed?
Why did Sr. Lucia continue to obey ‘false’ Popes and continue to try speaking to them to Consecrate Russia if John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II were not popes? Why didn’t the Queen of Heaven warn her not to bother? Why did she continue to remain obedient to her religious vows to her superiors if they ceased to be Catholic despite their treachery? Why did Padre Pio also do likewise? Where do you find from either of these two that for certain the authority was lost and the Popes ceased to be? Please provide quotations other than allusions to some potential future state where that might be the case? Because it wasn’t during their times and we know such times extended past VII and right up to John Paul II’s death.
Also please tell us. Do you caritas accept
a) The errors of Darwin?
b) The errors of Copernicus?
Because if you believe Popes can never fall to errors, such as the above, point b being strongly condemned by several Papacies, then I have bad news for you…
Good morning JPeters,
You had this to say, “We have enough problems without an ignoramus such as yourself making us look like complete idiots.” It would seem to be, as res ipsa loquitur, that you are doing a quintessential work in proving the case of indeed who you are, without my adding anything to it. JPeters, I am Catholic, plain and simple. What I wrote above is simply authentically Catholic. You didn’t bother to touch upon what was written, rather you simply placed your intellect into the subordinate position to your passions, which is the antithetical understanding of what God has ordered, as He created us in His own divine likeness and image, as pure Intellect and Will. The passions are given us by Almighty God to support and affirm what we know intellectively. The passions are not given us to suppress the intellect and you are demonstrating how that inversion occurs wonderfully well. When an authentically Catholic man knows that he doesn’t know, he admits it, and he then addresses the intellective argument. An authentically Catholic man doesn’t aggressively attack the person who proffers the argument which he either doesn’t understand or disagrees with but cannot proffer an intellective response. We only rightly reason when we participate in the Mind of God (The Angelic Doctor, Summa Theologiae). We wrongly reason when our passions drive us, as is always the case. I pray that you receive the grace of the intellective lights to see His Truth, as Truth Himself, in this darkest of times. None of this is going to be easy or clearly seen JPeters. We are on the Barque with Peter who is now not visible as the True Church is not visible to the world, and as our Blessed Lord Jesus was not visible to the Apostles in the hull of the boat as the tempest mounted. As Our Blessed Lady of LaSalette foretold, “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” You are showing us dismay JPeters, not the Peace of Christ Jesus and His True Church, ever so small as it is. There simply cannot be a Great Apostasy if 1.2 billion Catholics hold the True Faith and Her Religion, as that defies the law of non-contradiction. In caritas.
In Caritas: ” What I wrote above is simply authentically Catholic. You didn’t bother to touch upon what was written, rather you simply placed your intellect into the subordinate position to your passions, ”
I addressed your error by pointing out that it is impossible for the entire Church to follow a false pope (John XXIII) which is what the Siri Theory requires. That intellectual argument alone refutes your position, and it has nothing to do with the passions. I could have spent all day responding to the other points you raised, but that one alone suffices to show that your position is anything but “authentically Catholic”.
If you weren’t ignorant of basic Catholic doctrine you would have been able to see through the error all by yourself.
Good morning Johnno,
It would seem that you have quite a bit of study to do, as you ask these particular questions. Again, Our Lady of LaSalette proclaimed, “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”; “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.”; “The Church will have a frightful crisis.”. What can you suppose that it means when the Mother of God proclaims that, “Rome will lose the faith”? When one loses the faith, they lose the religion, and in this context of Our Lady, it is the One True Faith and the One True Religion which flows from it, that Rome will lose. As Rome has lost the faith, Rome has fallen into apostasy a fide. The Holy Roman Pontiff cannot be in apostasy a fide, as one who has fallen into apostasy has lost the faith, as he has lost the religion, by virtue of free will assent. Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not hold the Catholic Faith, as a child could tell you in his innocence. One who incessantly attacks the Bride of Christ cannot hold the Faith, rather it shows a pertinacious repulsion towards the Holy Church of Christ Jesus. Our Blessed Dominus Deus, Jesus the Christ, commanded His Apostles in Matthew 5:37, “Let your yea be yea and your no be no. Anything else is from the devil.” Amoris Laetitia is from the devil, as any innocent child, once again, could tell you. Our Blessed Lord commanded that only those with the faith of a child will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. As “Rome will lose the Faith”, it simply cannot retain the Holy Roman Pontiff, as where there is no Faith, there is no Holy Roman Pontiff. “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” As the Church is all but invisible to the world in this time, it is in eclipse, which is the total or partial obscuration of one cosmic body by another, in analogy. The Holy Roman Pontiff cannot somehow be visible when the Church he heads as Christ’s Vicar on earth is in eclipse. Rome will “…become the seat of the Antichrist”. Rome cannot both be the Seat of the Church and the seat of the Antichrist, as again, that places an affront to the law of non-contradiction. Thanks be to God for the holy work of the Angelic Doctor. Please pray for us, Saint Thomas Aquinas, that we receive the grace of the intellective lights to see through this darkness.
It remains existentially and quintessentially dangerous to souls to try to fit this square peg of Jorge Mario Bergoglio into the round hole of the Holy Roman Pontiff. What this inane attempt does is to utterly ape the Holy Roman Papacy established by our Lord and God. The one who apes Truth is the Prince of this world and his useful idiot minions. As the now eminent Saint Padre Pio told Father Gabriele Amorth in about 1960, can now only be pristinely clear for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, as he said,
‘ “indeed,” he states, “One day Padre Pio said to me very sorrowfully: ‘You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.’” ‘
Therefore, not only did the Mother of God proclaim that Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist, but now Saint Padre Pio filled in a blank and said that Satan, from the bosom of the Church where he was introduced, would come to rule a false Church. Do you think Johnno, that Satan with his intelligence beyond the human persons’ capacity to even imagine, would ape any other Church than the Church of Christ Jesus, to pull off the greatest deception that the world has heretofore known? A deception that would cause our Lord Jesus Christ to command—When the Son of Man returns, will He find any faith left upon the earth? Our Blessed Lord thus spoke to the Great Apostasy Himself, clearly. This is all quite clear to those with eyes to see, by the reception of the grace of Almighty God alone, as I with certitude am and can only remain a perfectly miserable creature, this side the veil. Johnno, with humility, I suggest you read the works of Don Luigi Villa. Find those that have been translated from Italian to English here, at the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success: http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Our_Lady_of_Good_Success.html
In closing, please remember that there will always be mystery involved, as this side the veil we have the Faith to freely receive, which bridges us to the Truth on the other side. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Hello JPeters,
And so the overwhelming majority of Catholics believed what during the Arian Crisis? And there were how many Shepherds who held the Faith? And so you suppose the Catholic Church is a democracy, where the mob rules? Further, how do you suppose there can be a Great Apostasy if the majority of baptized Catholics are correct about anything authentically Catholic? Your proposition is absurd based upon historical reality and including the words from the mouth of the Eternal Word, no less, as He commanded—When the Son of Man returns, will He find any faith left upon the earth? In caritas.
The issue, of course, isn’t what Louie wants. The issue is the absurdity of undermining John Paul II by calling into question his canonization, which is to undermine an infallible decree of the Church. If the putative Church is the true Church (because Francis is truly Pope), then JPII is a saint whether Louie likes it or not. It renders Catholicism absurd to pretend one can dissent from JPII while being Catholic.
Tom, Gangelnelli and other Catholics who hold the position of Sedevacantism, I don’t think Louie ever said Francis is a manifest heretic only a material heretic. Can you guys help me to figure out the positions of the Sedevacantist I am doing a presentation on it(the parish bulletin changed the topic from “Sedevacantism” to “Errors of Sedevacantism”). It seems to me so far theologically Sedevacantism is more solid than Recognize and Resist, especially on the interpretation of “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium”. Here are my questions:
1) What about the case of Pope Honorius? He was condemned as a heretic by Ecumenical Church Councils in union with Popes. But the Popes and Councils never said he lost his office so it shows a heretic can at the same time be a Pope. I asked Novus Ordo Watch haven’t got an answer yet.
2) Besides Fr. Ott (Catholic Fundamentals) are there any theologians said the teachings of a (valid) Pope in union with all the bishops on matters of faith and moral such as the teachings of an Ecumenical Council are considered “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium” indicated in Vatican I?
3) Who determines if a person is manifested heretic? Is a heretic Ipso Facto outside the Church or Church authority has to determine one is a heretic first than Ipso facto comes in?
Johnno,
You make some good points but I am not sure they are as “solid” as you are asking from “in caritas”. You are basically saying that since so and so did not…then neither will I. You and I cannot even come close to determining why Padre Pio accepted John XXIII and Paul VI as true Popes. I know from my own personal experience that many excuses can be made for pushing off life changing decisions. I have given the “benefit of the doubt” to so many things and then eventually learned that such “benefit of doubt” never really existed or was no longer afforded that luxury, and I was just too weak or scared to accept the objective reality of things. I am not accusing anyone of doing this but pointing it out as a possibility. One can also imagine Padre Pio personally believing the Popes to be heretics but was under the false understanding that a Pope and a heretic can be found in the same person at the same time, thus he was to keep his belief to himself and remain obedient.
Concerning Sr. Lucia, we can say the same. We can also speculate that the Virgin Mary told Lucia that the Popes would be invalid and that she was not to say a word about it. There were secrets to be revealed later, maybe there were some not to be revealed. We also have the theory that the N.O. Lucia is not the same Sr. Lucia. This would also explain the adherence to the VII popes.
My main point here is that we simply can’t accept that an apple is for surfing just because someone before us thought it was. I don’t mean to minimize the question of the papacy by comparing it to the purpose of an apple. I am only trying to say that a person’s perceived acceptance of something should not prevent us from rejecting that same something later if objective reality no longer affords us the benefit of the doubt.
I admit to being on the fence here. I understand both sides of the argument. The biggest issue for me with the R&R position is that they have bought the silly idea that a true Pope can be a heretic. They refuse to accept that a formal heretic consists of one who is in material heresy and is obstinate. The 3 warnings they trumpet are only necessary when pertinacity is not already evident. What PF has done to morality pales in comparison to what Paul VI, PJII, BXVI have done to Ecclesiology and to the nature of the Church of Christ. The only reason more people are speaking out now is because morality hits a larger mass of people. But as Louie is probably finding harder and harder to do these days, one can’t take shots at PF without hitting Paul VI, PJII, and BXVI. Objectively speaking, he carpet bombs the entire N.O. hierarchy.
The future problems the sede position has no answers for is simply a non sequitur. No one of good will denies the obvious because of a future unknown. The question I tend to ponder often as I straddle this fence is, do I lack hope in Christ to keep His promise as His Church is eclipsed or do I simply lack courage to accept what I have already logically concluded. I tend towards being the lion in the Wizard of Oz.
I have read your comments here in the past and value them. I am by no means looking for a confrontational back and forth but I do look forward to any thoughts you have concerning what I have written here.
God bless.
“They are elected by those whom the law designate as the electors, the Cardinals. If there has been no Pope since Pius XII, there are no longer any lawful electors to elect a Pope. ” JPeters, I am not a Sedevacantist but please do not use this argument again in the future, it is not defensible. The representatives from the whole Church can elect a Pope as demonstrated by the Great Western Schism case. Those who elect the Pope to end the situations of three claimants to the Papacy include everyone, besides the Cardinals appointed by Pope Gregory also Cardinals and other bishops appointed by the anti Popes. So no need to use this argument again.
Daniepan, in response to your questions above first, I would like to say that I think ganganelli is anything but a sede. He seems to have assented to the teachings of the last few men who claim to be Pope. He seems to have accepted V2 and the NO. His comments in this forum are refreshing since he exposes the hypocrisy of the RR position of disobeying a Pope and picking and choosing what teachings to accept from the modernist sect. Now onto your issue with Honorius. Here, instead of doing a lot of typing, I would point you to the pre V2 Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
It is a long article but the summation is that after Honorius died, a Council did condemn him for heresy, but the Pope at the time changed it to the fact that Honorius was negligent in combatting heresy. It is important to determine your sources when researching the possibility of heretical Popes. There are many protestant and Gallican sources that historically had much to gain by a promulgating the idea of a faillable Pope. Of course both protestantism and Gallicanism were both officially condemned by many Popes.
Danielpan, in regards to your second question regarding Fr Ott and the magesterium, I dont know. I have not researched that area. I am a simple layman and don’t bother myself about the levels of magesterium. I hear what Francis says, I read what Benedict wrote, and I know what the NO prelates preach from the pulpits. And it isn’t by any stretch of the imagination Catholic. Though Benedict had me fooled for years. Next you ask about who declares who a heretic. I think the universal answer is that the Church can officially declare a heretic a heretic, the objective fact is that the Church simply states the objective fact that so and so is now a heretic. The heretic is the person who actually makes himself a heretic, not the Church. The Church simply recognizes the heretics choice. So take Francis for example. Based in his public statements he is a heretic. Of course what most consider the Church, will never call Francis a heretic since they all accept V2 and NO themselves thus are also heretics. So there is no need for any forma declarations at this point since the True Church is eclipsed by the false on. The True Church still exists and the gates of hell have not prevailed. Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. Sedes are not faithless. We hold to tradition and avoid all things V2 and NO and advise you to do the same thing.
Danielpan,
I will take a shot at your questions but encourage further study on your own. Concerning Louie, he can state his positions if he chooses.
1) What about the case of Pope Honorius? He was condemned as a heretic by Ecumenical Church Councils in union with Popes. But the Popes and Councils never said he lost his office so it shows a heretic can at the same time be a Pope. I asked Novus Ordo Watch haven’t got an answer yet.
St. Bellarmine defends Honorius and argues that a council and pope can error in fact. He bases this argument on the fact that the same council that condemned Honorius was found to be corrupted in other areas by enemies of the Church. Thus, the council condemned Honorius in error, an error in fact based on the testimony of mere man, not in faith or morals. St. Bellarmine had no problem defending Honorius from the heretics’ false accusations, so I see no reason why we should accept the arguments of the heretics now. A true Pope and a true heretic cannot exist in the same person at the same time.
2) Besides Fr. Ott (Catholic Fundamentals) are there any theologians said the teachings of a (valid) Pope in union with all the bishops on matters of faith and moral such as the teachings of an Ecumenical Council are considered “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium” indicated in Vatican I?
The infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium was always taken for granted. Vatican I did not address this directly due to it not being challenged at the time. As you know, the Church addresses most of the heresies as they raise their ugly head. If a Pope, in union with the bishops in council, teaches something on faith and morals to the universal Church, in a propositional form, meaning it is either true or false, then it is infallible. The idea that the Pope in union with the bishops can teach error to the Universal Church is itself an error if we are dealing with faith and/or morals. I would be more comfortable arguing that the Sede position contains no errors since it does not contradict anything concerning Church teaching or logic. It preserves the purity of the papacy and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
3) Who determines if a person is manifested heretic? Is a heretic Ipso Facto outside the Church or Church authority has to determine one is a heretic first than Ipso facto comes in?
A heretic becomes a heretic by the fact itself and no manifest heretic is a member of the Church. No declaration is ever needed by the Church for one to be a formal or manifest heretic. All that is needed is material heresy and obstinacy. However, a person can only judge another to be a manifest or formal heretic by using objective reality, which requires knowledge of the situation. Not everyone comes to learn of something objectively at the same time due to extenuating circumstances. The only purpose a declaration from the Church has is to warn others of what has already happened so they can stay away and also so the Church can formally move on to the election of a new Pontiff, if dealing with a Pope. St. Bellarmine was clear that a person cannot be blamed for separating himself from a Pope who appears to be a heretic by all objective measures. From my studies, a public heretic’s intent is presumed to be ill since one can’t judge the internal forum of another. The perceived heretic must clear his name by manifesting his good intentions and correcting his ways, submitting to the truths of the Church. If this is not done, then pertinacity comes into play and fulfills the final criteria for formal heresy. Depending on the situation and the office this person holds, pertinacity can be proved apart from any warnings. If one truly believes the person may be ignorant or ill-informed, then a warning is necessary to prove to him before a proper judgment can be made by that individual person. For anyone to think that any of the VII Popes are ignorant or ill-informed on what they believe and how it compares to the Church’s perennial teachings, then I would suggest they be counted among the universal skeptics since nothing, so it seems, would convince them otherwise. It has become quite evident, objectively speaking, that the entire Novus Ordo hierarchy believes that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not identical and the same. Benedict himself said that the Vatican II teaching on this had all the intent of distancing itself from the Church teaching that they are one in the same.
As you can see, I offered nothing substantial from the Church Herself. I only offer my own understanding. I simply don’t have the time nor the desire anymore to present quotes from the Church only to have them ignored or reinterpreted in a Modernist way. We will be judged individually, so I suggest you do your due diligence and go where logic and faith lead you, not where your emotions take you.
Heresy is worse than murder. Now to our age that might sound a little strange or an exaggeration, but it is perfectly and exactly true. Because murder only kills the body, but killing the body is not as bad as killing or condemning a soul to hell for all eternity. That is what heresy does.
You see, once a person falls into heresy, he has already committed mortal sin, if he does this knowingly. And if hes not doing this deliberately; once he is corrected but refuses to correct himself, then he falls into mortal sin.
When one person loses the Faith, you might say that he is defenseless, because a sinner, a person in mortal sin, (but not in the sin of heresy), at least has the ability to pray for himself. But a person who loses the Faith, cannot pray for himself since you need Faith to pray.
And so it is that Our Lady says that there are many souls who go to hell, because they have no one to pray for them and make sacrifices for them. They have no one to pray for them, not even themselves. And that is why, as Pope Pius XII points out (it is a great mystery, but nevertheless true) that the number of souls saved depends on how well Catholics cooperate with God’s grace.
That is also why Our Lady at Fatima pleaded with us to pray and make sacrifices for sinners. It is because Our Lady sees us in mortal danger, especially because of this danger to our Faith, that She came to warn us.
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/crknown/toccknown.asp
Oh Johnno boy do try working on your reading comprehension skills. I don’t deny that Louie dislikes SJPII. What I contend is that he doesn’t merely dislike PF, he thinks him a heretic and not a pope due to AL. And it is that where he is fundamentally wrong. You simply can’t hold PF to be a heretic for giving communion to objective “adulterers” while claiming SJPII as a true Pope when it was JPII that allowed objective “heretics” and “schismatics” to receive communion. Do you understand now? Maybe try reading it a couple of times.
Hello Rushintuit,
Wonderfully placed and written. In caritas.
When it comes to the post conciliar Popes, its an all or nothing proposition. They have each in their own way accepted V2 and the NO. To me, as someone who calls themselves Catholic, one has to either accept V2 and the NO church in its entirety as inspired by the Holy Ghost OR reject the whole lot. This in between neo/semi trad position is simply cognitive dissonance and avoidance. The only two positions that hold logically is either the full blown anything goes evolving theology of the V2 NO sect OR the traditional church so its either PF is Pope and you love V2 OR you hold fast to tradition and we have no Pope.