We, the children of the Church, were effectively abandoned more than 50 years ago when the Fathers of Vatican Council II collectively silenced the voice of our Holy Mother; leaving us to search for Catholic nourishment on our own as veritable orphans.
Our Lord, however, true to His word, did not abandon us.
He continued, and even now continues, to speak to us in unambiguous tones; imparting the words of everlasting life through the pre-conciliar Magisterium of the Church to those who, by grace, have been endowed with a genuine love for Catholic tradition and the wherewithal to condemn error regardless of cost.
Among those whom the Lord so richly blessed was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
One year ago today, the Society of St. Pius X that he established posted on its website A Passiontide reflection on heresy written by Fr. Frederick William Faber, which begins:
“The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities. Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor, and show no signs of detestation or disgust.”
Just three days after Fr. Faber’s reflection was posted, “Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s” was the “Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, of the Holy Father Francis;” a text that dares to profess, among other things:
– One can no longer say that those who “know full well” the Divine Law concerning adultery and yet freely choose to persist in it “are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” (AL 301)
– In certain situations, one may not be able to uphold the Divine Law concerning adultery. (AL 301)
– Continuing in adultery can at times be “the most generous response which can be given to God.” (AL 303)
If presented with these poisonous propositions one year ago, even as the decision was being made to post Fr. Faber’s reflection, can there be any doubt that the leadership of the Society would have:
– Recognized them as precisely the “polluting of God’s truth” of which Fr. Faber wrote?
– Rejected them for their “excessive hatefulness”?
– Identified them as among the “loathsomest” of sins?
There is much that I do not know, and yet I am supremely confident that, from Bishop Bernard Fellay on down, the Society’s leadership would have spared no effort in condemning the aforementioned false teachings for what they are; heretical.
More so am I convinced that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would have been moved to rent his garments at the sound of such impious words as those found in Amoris Laetitia; the likes of which oppose revealed truth more plainly than anything that ever came out of Rome in his own day.
Even certain defenders of Vatican II, having measured Amoris Laetitia against Sacred Scripture and the infallible doctrine taught by the Council of Trent, have not hesitated to identify the presence of heresy in the text.
And yet the Society hesitates…
In October of 2013, Bishop Fellay declared of Francis:
“What we have before us is a genuine modernist,” with modernism well-understood as the synthesis of all heresies. (Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis)
Bishop Fellay drew this conclusion some two-and-a-half years before Amoris Laetitia.
One wonders, is this somehow less evident today as we stand in its shadow?
In addition to those things noted above, Amoris Laetitia plainly states that Our Lord, at times, asks his children to persist in adultery in violation of the Divine Law – the same that is applicable to all persons, at all times, in all situations. (AL 303)
If the recent article of Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize is any indication, the leadership of the Society disagrees; believing instead that such statements merely “promote heresy;” as if they are simply misleading or open to misunderstanding.
From the “Editor’s note” following the article:
“None of the ambiguous statements in Amoris laetitia constitute ‘a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.’”
Where, one wonders, is the shuddering, the fear, the sense of sacrilege, the signs of detestation or disgust of which Fr. Faber wrote?
The above-mentioned reflection on heresy was written by Fr. Frederick William Faber in the mid-19th century during the reign of Pope Pius IX; the Holy Roman Pontiff who blessed us with the Syllabus of Errors.
Surely, Fr. Faber’s words speak more clearly to the needs of our day than his own, and if truly taken to heart perhaps Fr. Gleize and the Society would look at Amoris Laetitia rather differently.
I pray that this will happen in due time.
I often wondered who Our Lord was referring to when he said, “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.”
Now right away I knew it couldn’t be any kind of agnostic or atheist. I knew it couldn’t be liberal Catholic as they certainly don’t cast out demons in His Name.
Then it hit me. It’s the traditionalists. They certainly do all of those works that Our Lord refers to but they have the grave sin of pride. They think they know better than the Supreme Vicar of Christ on Earth. The very man whom Pope Leo XIII declared and I quote, ” holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty”.
I feel so sorry for trads as so many will burn forever in Hell all for their deadly sin of pride.
And now the verse immediately preceding….which actually explains who the “workers of lawlessness” really are:
Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16* You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
Right after Peter received the keys of the kingdom , guess what happened?
Matthew 1622-23 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”
The Church’s infallibility is limited to dogmatic definitions or revealed truths that have been definitively proposed, held and taught everywhere and for all time concerning faith and morals. If a doctrine has not been extraordinarily defined, or if the teaching in question is novel, there is no divine guarantee that it will be totally free from serious error.
It is possible for a Pope to render an erroneous judgment, misinterpret Scripture and even confirm a person in mortal sin.
The case of Pope Celestine III is one such case where a Pope’s error was even enacted into Canon Law. (A Catholic man had abandoned the faith and his wife, and married another. An archdeacon gave the woman permission to marry again. The first husband returned to the Faith, left the other woman and desired to be reconciled with his first wife, who had by then more children Pope Celestine III judged the woman should remain in her second marriage. All this was contrary to Scripture, confirming the woman in adultery, a serious error that had to be corrected by the succeeding Pope Innocent III).
Let’s play Fill in the Blanks!!!!!:
Name of trads prophesying in Jesus’ name:____________
Name of trads casting out demons:________________
Name of trads performing miracles:______________
Oh we couldn’t come up with any? Sorry – you lose the prize. Johnny – who’s our next contestant?????
The Pope job isn’t a substitute FOR God on earth. He does not TAKE the place of God, he HOLDS the place of the King, Jesus, two very different concepts. The placeholder, (lieutenant in French) , does not take the place, he reserves and preserves, guards, protects and defends what is the King’s. He does not have the authority to abrogate the King’s rules. The King is still Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church is Jesus Christ, not the Pope.
Were you at the 2016 Fatima conference? Or if not, have you listened to the talks online?
Great talk by Father Isaac Relyea. Fastforward to between 11:30-13:00. Father says Pope Francis is destroying the sacrament of penance, that he is leading souls to hell and that the teachings of the pope and of Amoris Laetitia is blasphemy and heresy and that the document is from hell.
Well stated Mpoulin.
What is it with the posts of Ganganelli? He seems to struggle with the distinction between the ‘person of the Pope in Office and the Office itself”
If he understood that negating the Ten Commandments is simply just NOT possible, by pope or layman, perhaps he would not taunt other Catholic who decry what the current incumbent in the Office is trying to do. and its a systematic course of conduct. There’s a plan to their rollout of the Roll Over to Protestant sects.
.Fr Faber hit the nail on the head. These men who have read the Scriptures from cover to cover and then persist in clearly heretical declarations, know exactly what they are doing. They have no defence, let alone a lawyer, which are not allowed on Judgement Day. God have mercy on their souls and te souls of their deceived/deluded supporters.
Recall the disciples were subject to complaint that their efforts to caste out demons – had no success in short. He said they lacked Faith. PF and those other heretics have abandoned what faith they had, and seem to want the rest of us to accompany them, Where? Into the lake of Fire? False Shepherds, they betray themselves.
If you believe that Mr. Bergoglio is the true vicar of Christ, than you are correct. We can not undermine a valid Pope on his non-infallibly defined universal teachings to the Catholic faithful of the world; AL for example (the universal ordinary magisterium). Then again, when we know that a scoundrel like bergoglio cant possibly be a pope (not that he is a bad pope, but simply NOT a pope), than we are free to pay him as little mind as most posters on this site pay you.
mpoulin, there are two opposing stories out there on Celestine III. There’s one on the Remnant and another on Novus Ordo Watch. As usual they have differing conclusions.
Pay no attention to this “Ganganelli'”. He’s been attacking the Faith on Catholic websites for a few years. May he repent and convert. Happy St Patrick’s Day. St Patrick (and God) is being mocked for the most part in Ireland today. May Ireland repent and convert.
@Ganganelli: Isn’t it also conceivable that this passage could refer to Evangelical Protestants, as some of them make much of their “deliverance and exorcism” ministries?
There are many who “promote” the right of a mother to kill her unborn child, yet they themselves have never had an abortion or performed an abortion. Does that mean they are guiltless of this horrible sin? “Promoting” heresy is the same as being a heretic, IMO.
Fr Relyea does not posses the proper understanding of the Papacy if he thinks a Pope can do that to the Church. A communist masonic usurper can do that, but not a Vicar of Christ.
…..I do not know who wrote this….hence, truth does not need a name.
TRADITIONALISTS: We are not ‘those attached to the 1962 Missal.’ We are attached to the one Holy Mother Church, Her hallowed traditions, and the solemnity & divinity of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is the Mass of Saint Peter. We are attached to the sanctity of the universal Latin language, the official language of the Church. We are attached to the catechisms of our pious holy fathers, Our Lady and her wishes, the apostles, saints and martyrs who laid down their lives for Christ. We are attached to silence where silence belongs, receiving the Blessed Sacrament kneeling and on the tongue, to the denouncing of novelties, especially within the Mass. We ARE what the Church WAS!
…..accordingly every faithful Catholic ought to be ‘traditionalist!’
Amen. We are simply Catholics who hold to the whole true Holy Faith as passed down unadulterated (and that includes very very many who have no access to the Holy Mass of All Ages, or even a priest that upholds the UNCHANGEABLE Faith whole and inviolate). In this time of great apostasy the remnant Faithful who keep the One Holy Faith have been abandoned outright by the prelates to the persecutors. Lord, console and strengthen us and give us the graces necessary to persevere and help others return to the Holy Faith.
“We ARE what the Church WAS!”
Rather, aren’t we what the Church IS, has always been and will always be?
Fr. Gleize has exposed the contradictions in the position of the SSPX which has always been that a true pope can be an apostate, a formal heretic, or a non-Catholic and a true Ecumenical Council can promote and demand among the Catholic faithful adherence to heresy, idolatry, blasphemy and sacrilege, while also being disobedient to the primacy of Peter and the ordinary Magisterium.
After all, Paul VI signed off on all of Vatican II’s documents and four more have never abrogated the teachings of Vatican II that the SSPX has objected to. Thus, the SSPX has now been disobedient to five popes, all of whom they claim are true popes. But now, with Francis, their position is increasingly proving to be difficult. What to do? Fr. Gleize provides one answer: simply claim that heresy is not heresy!
….naturally, every Catholic ought to know……..’was’, ‘is’, and always will be till to the end of time. For the ‘gates of hell will not destroy the holy Mother Church’…..as Our Lord promised. The Church is visible, NOT hidden….as the unfortunate ‘sede-vacantists’ despair……Miserere!
…..I hear the gnashing of teeth…..
May God bless the Society of Saint Pius X!
May God’s Will be done!
Our Lady of Fatima pray for us Catholics, especially. For we are truly living in the diabolical disorientation!
Well, that’s perfect. Bergoglio IS a communist, masonic usurper. Oh, and he’s an anti-pope.
I thought trads on a site like this understood the entire concept of “supplied jurisdiction on account of the grave danger to souls.” This was the valid basis for the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. And, unless I missed something, the novus ordo church didn’t improve in faithfulness to the true Church over the years, it has gotten worse. The invocation of supplied jurisdiction is more valid today than it has ever been.
Purely from a secular perspective, if the Society of St. Pius X wants to make a “deal” with Francis, it should take lessons from President Trump’s “The Art of the Deal.” You don’t start by caving in.
“We are not ‘those attached to the 1962 Missal.”
Providence gave Archbishop Lefebvre a remedy for the Novus Ordo, by way of Canon Law. Canon Law is very specific with regards to emergencies in the Church. Canon Law restricted Lefebvre from going further back than the Missal of 1962.
As an individual with no real power, you can do anything you want. You can call yourself anything you want. Just don’t be too surprised to find out that in the end, it was all for nothing!
“They think they know better than the Supreme Vicar of Christ on Earth. The very man whom Pope Leo XIII declared and I quote, ” holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty”.” Are you saying Francis is an anti Pope or are you saying he is not an Apostate to the Catholic Faith? if you answer is the latter then means you are anti Christ.
“I feel so sorry for trads as so many will burn forever in Hell all for their deadly sin of pride” Well you never heard of the term, “Thou shall not judge”? So it doesn’t apply to liberal “Catholics”?
I think he is a Protestant or a Pagan. Is Louie too busy these couple days?
….. Just don’t be too surprised to find out that in the end, it was all for nothing!….
In the end God will sort us all out……
Disagree. Liberal Catholics are the ones who are destroying the faith, right now, it’s not the Trads, surely. Trads are trying to hold the line, hoping for a defense of the Doctrine of the Faith to simply be upheld, liberals are innovators, they haven’t yet heard a heresy they don’t embrace. I can’t imagine what pride you are talking about. We don’t “know better than the Supreme Vicar of Christ on Earth”. We know heresy when we hear it. This is our moral responsibility as Christians with formed consciences. Our responsibility is to Christ, not any man. Not any man.
Good point. The SSPX has already hurt themselves by their actions, or rather, inactions. Now is the time to defend Christ, tomorrow, it could be too late. One might be called off to heaven, Christ could return, Our Lady of Fatima, etc. It is sobering, to find out for all the talk of the SSPX, that it was just that. Talk.
“It is positively amazing the amount of ignorance that can be accumulated in the form of useless facts and passing theories, sociological moods and philosophical fancies.” (Fulton Sheen).
That was what I thought when I was a traditionalist but now I don’t think so. There is a deep rot in traditionalism that bespeaks PRIDE. They not only think they know better than Pope Francis, some think nothing of even condemning pre-Vatican II Popes like Pius XII.
The Church is visible, its just not in Rome or in your average NO parish.
…..You don’t start by caving in…..
Few days ago I came back from Holy Land (Israel…hmmm). Anxiously we were arriving to Bethlehem, where ‘et Verbum Caro Factum Est’…..Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto…….Amen!
Our bus was stopped by the Israeli Police at a check point before entering Palestine, Bethlehem……we had to cross, a 25ft cement wall with the electric wires on top (this one among many walls), where Muslims and Christians live together in no man’s land. With broken hearts we looked around in disbelief. Poverty, misery, no garbage pick up……an abandoned and forgotten by the world humanity…..surrounded by WALL. St. Gabriel Hotel run by the Christians (Catholics), opened it’s door for us with true joy to see Catholic priests, and their brothers and sisters in Christ. The hotel was very nice and clean, making us feel almost embarrassed to stay in such luxury (to compare what the locals lived like). From our windows looking far, all looked beautiful and majestic, but looking down was very sad picture…..
In Israel, there are 60% Jews, 40% Muslims, 1.2% Christians……the rest are Evangelicals and Mormons, who with the Jews are preparing to rebuild the third Temple…..something to ponder about for those who have eyes and SEE!
The pilgrimage was an ‘eye opener’…… Most Americans (Catholics) choose to be clueless…….May the scales fall off!
http://veritasradionetwork.com/reconquest-episode-43-patriotism-and-the-conversion-of-america/ very worth listening to for all Catholics.
Among many things that we have learned, is a true gratitude to the Novus Ordo, for keeping and maintaining the holy places, our Churches. Without many pilgrimages, and millions of dollars that Catholics (yes, Novus Ordo), contribute towards its upkeep (mind you…. for the enemy it would be best if all was just leveled down …..the enemies are legions). Not once you’ll shed a tear in gratitude. The remnant Catholics over there, know nothing about the things that we bicker about, making all kinds of pronouncements, taking authority upon ourselves to judge and prophesize…..under who’s authority?
These remnant Catholics are the true ‘pillars of the Church’, their faith is pure and courageous under the fire, facing persecution every day. What we lack in America is gratitude……and courage to fight the enemy, face on, rather, then hiding behind the computer screens, in basements and caves. Is there a wonder that America a gift from God, baptized by Catholic martyrs, way before the Plymouth Rock …..is still Protestant! Much was given us (Catholics), and much we have squandered…..Miserere!
Remember, Roman Empire was not voted into a Christian Empire but converted into one……by none other then ‘fearless Faith!’ Let us pray for one another (Catholics), that we’ll be ‘one’ as our Lord in agony prayed ‘Father I do not pray for the world, but for those that Thou hast given me (Catholics)’. He saw us all…..in his agony He sweated blood…..”Father, if it be possible……nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou will.”
Let us pray for the persecuted, but not weak, but rather, very courageous Christians in very dangerous lands. Only as ‘one’ ‘united’, we’ll boldly defend, protect our God given inheritance. For the love of God!….For the Glory of God!….for the good of saving souls, especially, our souls.
May God grant us the grace to love one another, as God loves us!
Thank you for putting things in their proper perspective, FromPoland.
Excellent comment Katherine.
The SSPX is still at loggerheads with the Catholic Faith simply because they refuse the universal “Catholic” teachings of a man who they believe is a valid pope. You CANNOT reject the universal teaching of a Vicar of Christ. This idea is fully anti-Catholic. THIS is why the SSPX, as Katherine stated above, is contradictory to the Faith. If a pope is valid then he is to strictly obeyed….if a pope is not valid then he isnt a pope. The SSPX wants it both ways. A valid pope CANNOT teach universal error that would (and is) leading souls to hell. This is impossible.
There is absolutely no point in replying to Ganganelli. He writes absolute garbage. He has no understanding of the crisis in the Church. He constantly defends the indefensible. He condemns all the Catholic people who are defending the faith as handed down by Christ and His Apostles against the novel doctrines that entered into the Church due of a number of the documents of Vatican II: Ecumenism, religious liberty (as opposed to tolerance) and collegiality. These documents have been pronounced as pastoral and are not binding dogmas. Only the perennial dogmas contained within the writings are binding.
Amoris Laetitia is an enormous problem in the Church, if only because many of the bishop’s conferences around the world have decided to allow people living in second “marriages” access to Holy Communion under the guise of mercy. Did these bishops misunderstand the pope’s intentions? And if they did, why does he not say so? There are many cardinals, clergy and laity around the world who are deeply disturbed by these events but, Ganganelli prefers to bash traditional Catholics, who at the end of the day are the type of Catholics that existed prior to the ambiguous, confusing and heterodox teachings from the Vatican Council II. They keep the Faith of the Fathers. It is not a question of denying the validity of the Council, but more of a sifting the wheat from the chaff.
For all of his posturing does Ganganelli condemn the clauses contained in Amoris Laetitia that appear to permit the sacrilege of dispensing Holy Communion to people who are living in a state of public adultery or simply accept it because Pope Francis says so?
When you were a traditionalist?????? All faithful Catholics are traditionalists. Scripture and tradition have equal value. Maybe you are a conciliar Catholic now and so you support the novel and destructive doctrines that are sucking the life out of the Church. I was practicing my faith 20 years before Vatican II. I practice now as I did then. Have you changed for the better?
Ah, Biblical Exegeses by Gag –
“Now right away I knew it couldn’t be any kind of agnostic or atheist.”
Omigosh! You’re a genius!
“I knew it couldn’t be liberal Catholic as they certainly don’t cast out demons in His Name.”
Va! C’est magnifique!
“Then it hit me. It’s the traditionalists.”
Whoa whoa! Aren’t you jumping to conclusions by purposely forgetting somebody else? What about the Vatican II Catholics? You know…? like you!
Isn’t pride believing you or rather mankind are above God Himself!
That’s not what Trads do Gagfoolio! We say the Pope, the Supreme Vicar of Christ on Earth is not above God, and therefore can’t change what God does, but represents only what God says.
But when Vatican II and the VII Popes and the VII Catholics like Gagiggity say that they (The Popes) can change what God said about Usury, Religious Liberty, Adultery, Grace, the Sacraments etc. they are possessed by precisely that – Pride! They call upon Christ to bless their pride. They hold Pride Masses and say it is for accompaniment and Gaganelli is perfectly fine with that, because Mercy you see! Despite that God Himself says “Vengeance is mine”, no no, Gaganello and the Pope Francis say, in their pride, that God is ‘mercy’ and can do anything, like Allah. And Gag and the Francis claim that the Holy Spirit itself is speaking from their lips and moving the Church in a new direction, a direction that only Francis and Lady Gaganelli can hear.
And if you say that Gaganelli and Francis are wrong, then it must be that you are so full of pride! You think you know better than them! You blasted theologians, Scribes, Intellectuals in your ivory towers always going into the doctrines and getting bogged down in details and not feeling with the spirits hashamalabingbongdadong, what do you know?! YOU’RE GOING TO HELL!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!! I’M GANJANELLI!!! I AM THE MOST HUMBLE MAN WHO EVER LIVED!!!! SO I CAN JUDGE YOU BY THE SAME SWEEPING JUDGMENTS I ACCUSE DA TRADS OF DOING TO OTHERS AND DA VATICAN TOO POPES!!! NO NO! THOSE ARE NOT LOGS IN BOTH OF MY EYES!!! THOSE ARE MY FEELERS!!! LIKE ANTS!!! I USE THEM TO FEEEEELLLLL MY FEEEEELLLLIIIINNNGGGSSSS!!!!
Well thanks for finally coming out of the closet about how you really feel Gaganall. We always knew you never had a rational argument to make, so it’s about time you finally just outright stopped and went on the verbal abuse train. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule protesting Donald Trump by crying and rolling on the ground in accompaniment of your feminist friends to come visit us. That was nice of you, much appreciated!
Which was the Trad Church you attended? I’d like to verify the other side of your sob story.
And yes, we do think we know better than Pope Francis… would you have made a boy-lover like Ricca the head of the Vatican Bank? Would you have elevated cardinals known to be involved in sex scandals?
And oh, don’t get me started on the Theology!
Maybe in your new chu… oh, sorry… community center… you get together under a portrait of Pope John Paul II and pray together to Wakantanka and Quetzalcoatl. But I guess us Trads are too proud to do that… maybe if we appreciated Usurious loans like you do we’d probably become more humble by having to pay interest.
O Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer you my prayers, works, joys, and sufferings of this day for all the intentions of your Sacred Heart, in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass throughout the world, for the salvation of souls, the reparation of sins, the REUNION OF ALL CHRISTIANS, and in particular for the intentions of the Holy Father this month. Amen.
You are all missing Ganganelli’s point. He isnt really defending the Novus Ordo church, he is saying that if you think V2 was a valid council and john 23 to frankie the humble were true popes, then you need to assent to the modernist religion because that is what they are authoritatively teaching. By holding to tradition you are withholding your assent to the modernist magesterium. You are in effect being a dissendent Novus ordo “catholic.”
Louie, please dont ban Ganganelli or me or anyone. We can go to the Remnant or 1 Peter 5 if we want groupthink.
Louie, is a possibility that you can switch your current posting method to Disqus? So many up-votes I want to give to many postings on your website!
Alison Weir is not Catholic, but very much aware…….
…14 Your prophets have seen for you
false and deceptive visions;
they have not exposed your iniquity
to restore your fortunes,
but have seen oracles for you
that are false and misleading. …
…22 You invited my enemies from all around
as if for a day of festival. …
Those who hold that “a valid Pope must be strictly obeyed” is a position that is opposed by Scripture and the tradition of the Church.
If the Pope told you to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge , would you do it?
No. And why is that? Because it goes against the commandment “you shall not kill.” The Pope has no right to change Divine Law.
If the Pope ordered the Lord’s Day changed from Sunday to even-numbered Tuesdays, would you do it? No, because the Pope does not have the authority to change what has been taught for all time and everywhere .
Jesus rebuked Peter, a valid Pope, immediately after giving him the keys for an incorrect teaching:
Matthew 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”
Saint Paul had to publicly correct Saint Peter, a valid Pope, for an incorrect teaching:
Galatians 2:11-14 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
So as one can see, the position that “a valid Pope is to be strictly obeyed” is inconsistent with Scripture. .
This isn’t the People’s Temple where we have to drink the poison kool-aid and kill ourselves because a megalomaniac is in charge. Screw that!
MIchael F Poulin
Maybe you should read The Aetas Bugniniana by Fr. John Hunwicke @voxcantor.blogspot.com.
The key lies in Matthew Chapter 24:
Then if any one say to you, Behold, here is the Christ, or here, believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall give great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25Behold, I have told you beforehand. 26 If therefore they say to you, Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth; behold, [he is] in the inner chambers, do not listen to them.
Coupled with Matthew Chapter 7, does this not sound like the complete chaos and apostasy that flowed from the 1960’s? Every kind of charlatan and movement: charistmatics, Eucumenism prayer gatherings, Focolare, Taize, modernist retreats, Popes praying in mosques, Rieki ect, ect that flooded the Conciliar Church? What does Our Lord command—stay true to Tradition. He gives a blanket and uncompromising command to hold steadfast to the Faith as handed down and to not follow any of these innovators. “Do not listen to them”.
What do these people choose to do? They ignore this one command from Our Lord and proceed to get involved in all kinds of heresies. This is why “the many” Catholics are condemned.
Just look at the Charismatic Renewal in itself as being the target. Literally 100+ million Catholics lead out of the Faith in Latin America, the Philippines, Africa, plus the West because of this heresy alone. This heresy began in Pittsburgh PA when a group of poorly Catechized Catholic college kids like Ralph Martin (met him personally and he stayed at my parents home when I was growing up) went off to the Pentecostals in 1967 and received a sacrilegious pseudo-sacrament at the hands of heretics who prayed over them. They then went off to spread this fact throughout the Church based on the heresy that the Holy Spirit couldn’t operate in the Church until John XXIII called for a “New Pentecost”. Of course Paul VI approved it—it was a pillar of the ecumenical church they were trying to build! So according to the, the Spirit, at work within the Protestant sects since 1900 could finally penetrate the RCC. Look at all the ecumenical Charismatic events and talks from the 1970’s saying how God was building a new post-confessional church led by the “Spirit”. If this alone is not the specific reference to Matthew Chapter 7 and the 100 million plus heretics it spawned, I don’t know what is. In fact this passage baffled Catholic theologians for centuries as they couldn’t find a group of people identified as Catholics that were claiming to perform all of these wondrous works, and who would then, mysteriously be condemned by Our Lord because of this. BINGO—then came 1967!
I have mentioned….the rebuilding of the third Temple…..
Doing our pilgrimage we were privileged to have as our ‘guide’ George…..a Catholic born and raised in Jerusalem, where he and his family (he is about 40), still resides. His mother is a Greek Catholic, father a Syrian who converted to Christianity, and became a very active soldier of Christ. George speaks six languages; Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, French and English, fluently…..a power house, to say the least (Novus Ordo).
To make the long story short, after we arrived by; The Dome of the Rock situated in the center of the Temple Mount, the site of the Temple of Solomon and the Jewish Second Temple. George gave us very insightful information, regarding it. The area is massive, in the middle with the Dome of the Rock, build by a Christians from Syria (yes, Christians), who where considered by the Muslims to be the best ‘builders.’ This is something to ponder about…..when these Christians were building it, they did not pray to Allah…..many Pater Noster’s, many Ave Maria’s still have an echo there, heard by the pure ‘ears’, and pure of ‘heart.’ Inside the beautiful Golden Dome, is the most sacred Holy of Holies, where the once ‘chosen’ have worshiped the One True God…..imagine this.
Inside the Dome of the Rock, in Arabic are written many praises to Mary, the Virgin, mother of a great prophet Jesus…….(in God’s time, she takes one at a time, fervent heart seeking ‘truth’ to her beloved SON…..my emphasis).
Of course, we know that accordingly to this false religion, Muhammad is the greatest prophet, and Allah is their ‘god.’
There’s four entrances, to the site of what once was, and what is now…..for the time being. Each entrance is the magnificent ARCH from the time of the Crusaders…..and each person who wants to enter, must pass under the Arch, with many engravings of Catholic symbolism, especially crosses, very visible till today……something to ponder about again. What a glory to God, to us Catholics is to see the Majestic Arches standing at four corners of the site…..in spite of so much contradiction.
I have mentioned….the rebuilding of the third Temple…..This is the place where the Temple is in high gear being planned to be build, for we know where’s the ‘Holy of Holies’. How, and when this will take place is a mystery for now to us, but not to God. Deo Gratias!
When Jesus rebuked Peter, he was not Pope yet. I believe the Church teaches that Peter assumed his office after the resurrection.
Also the Paul correction of Peter was not because Peter was teaching error. It was because he was causing scandal by his actions. Again, I believe this is the way the Catholic Church interpreted this passage prior to V2.
The New York Catechism: “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.”
You know Who is ABOVE him, to Whom he will have to be accountable for every lost soul. The Supreme Judge of All, especially, the Vicar of Christ…..to whom much was given, and much was squandered, known to the All Seeing God! Deo Gratias!
Let us thank God, that He founded the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church.
Let us pray for the Supreme head of the Church, the Pope at Rome.
That he may be given the grace to follow St. Peter in zeal for religion and
the salvation of souls, especially his own. Amen!
Miserere Domine, miserere nobis!
The SSPX had to come up with an explanation that people could believe as to why they were disobedient to the pope and the Ordinary Magisterium. That is how they came up with the concept of supplied jurisdiction. They can’t claim (and they don’t claim) their priests and bishops are really legitimate any other way knowing that none of the faithful would support them if they couldn’t be convinced of this extraordinary time or extraordinary crisis in the Church made it necessary for some unheard of in history explanation for Catholics disobeying the popes.
Thanks Tom A .
If you have a source of official teaching on the subject please send me the reference, I’ve not been able to track down anything except certain writer’s opinions.
My reasoning was that he Davidic kings had the office of “al-byit” who held “the keys of the kingdom” and was, in fact, second to the king in the line of command . This can be seen clearly in the story of Shebna and Eliakim in Isaiah 22:15-25, when Shebna gets fired and the office of master of the house is given to Eliakim, complete with the keys and the power to “open and shut.” Likewise in Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom, which I think would officially invest Peter with the authority of the King, with the power to “bind and loose.” Yes I know Jesus says “I will give…” so it could be argued Peter didn’t actually posses the office yet, so I could be wrong. But essentially in all the basics Peter would have been seen then to have primary authority over the other Apostles at that point. I was thinking also that the fact that Peter’s teaching was in actions and not words makes it no less a teaching. Jesus washed His Apostles feet as a demonstration of His teaching first, then explained later for example. The fact that Barnabus is mentioned also as retreating in the face of the circumcision party might show Peter’s actions were taken as the go-ahead position..
It just seems to me that the people who argue for blind obedience to the Pope and unquestioning submission have idolized the holder of the Papacy into some sort of God, is a mistake in my view. Yes, we need authorities, but those authorities must realize that they too still remain under the King.
Except there is no such book as a Catholic “New York Catechism.” its an on-line fabricated quote used by anti-Catholics.
Yeah… about that “quote” and that “New York” Catechism…
That “quote” is a collection of various phrases stitched together by Loraine Boettner, an anti-Catholic Presbyterian, author of the infamous ‘Roman Catholicism’ (aka the ‘Anti-Catholic Bible’ for Protestants) well known for appealing to forgeries and other dubious selective quotations to attack the Catholic Church.
In quoting that Catechism, that’s not actually a ‘New York’ Catechism, just a regular Catholic Catholicism published by Pietro Cardinal Gasparri and reviewed by authorities from New York and thus you’ll NY find stamps on the book indicating this….
The quote is stitched together using sentences from different articles from the cathechism, from two completely different pages, and even the footnotes.
So… Gangan uses distorted anti-Catholic references typically found and used on Protestant websites?
Hmmmm… Now I wonder if Gangi was ever Catholic at all, rather than a Protestant troll, only here to try and distort the Papacy and Catholicism with his ‘concern.’
Kinda makes sense if you look at it this way, considering his history…
Though in charity perhaps Gag’s a Protestant convert, or a misinformed Catholic steeped in Protestant ideas about the Church.
Oh no, either Gag’s a Protestant in Catholic clothes here as a saboteur considering his Boettner quote and misconceptions about the Catholic Church and Papacy, or he actually is an upholder of Novus Ordo ideology.
As for ‘true popes’ or not, not so fast. Just as the question arose in Israel with the anointing of David whether or not Saul was the true king or remained king, David’s answer was to leave him in place until such time as the Lord put an end to him. Saul’s own son, Jonathan, resisted Saul, but yet died alongside him. David killing those who killed Saul, the Lord’s anointed, though illicitly as not being the Lord’s choice.
While we may all in our hearts see the Popes as heretics, it is up to God, or the Church to make it legally recognized. Until then, just as the Israelites didn’t yet have the book of Samuel, other than Samuel himself so long as he lived, to tell them who was who, we have to persist in the confusion.
So either the Church, or a future Pope says something, or more likely God judges Francis and the current Church hierarchy in His way, or some undeniable proof comes out in the open as to the case of Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ election.
Until then we suck it up. Popes have been declared heretical after-the-fact in the past, despite what the Sede’s claim and the legalistic gymnastics pulled to allow them to escape the obvious no different than Francis’ attempts to legitimize adultery. As do we have the case where Heliocentrism was condemned as an article of faith binding upon the entirety of Christendom which practically every Catholic today believes, and Popes as far back as the late 1700s began to waver from intimidated by the winds of enlightenment driven ‘science.’ The Fathers, Tradition and Popes were Geocentrists informed by Scripture and Science confirms this. So this whole ‘True Popes can never lead the Church into error’ is frankly false by the way the Sedes interpret it, for either the Holy Spirit was asleep at the wheel from 33 A.D. to 1700 A.D. or He fell asleep after 1700 onwards to 2017. There’s a better case to be made for the latter. Either that, or Catholicism is bunk as the Church failed either before or after when the heliocentric issue swept many away due to one era’s Popes or another’s. Little wonder then, that the Miracle of Fatima was a moving dancing Sun against a fixed Earth, no different than the Scriptures state about the miracle of Joshua with regards to the Sun and Moon halting in their course together around the Earth.
The point of all this is prudence is necessary dealing with the Papacy, and the Church can be punished to the extent that it appears to all but disappear, no different than Judah did taken into exile. They too thought that given the Temple and the ark were there, that God would protect them no matter how bad they got. Given the precedence for Typology in the Bible and in the history of the Church, our times resemble their’s before the destruction of the Temple and exile.
For now it is sufficient to say that Pope Francis is a material heretic, and that it is incumbent on the Cardinals to do due diligence and form a council to correct, admonish, or declare his heresy formal before the entire Church. Failing that, many being heretics themselves, they can look forward to the chastisement that awaits them.
The source is the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I just re-read the passages. It states that the account in Matthew where Christ calls Simon , Peter, is a promise to the office since Jesus was still present. After the resurrection in John, Jesus installs Peter into the office on the shore when he tells him to feed My sheep.
Here is the source for Paul rebuke. Peter was setting the wrong example by only eating with Jewish Christians. In fact the story is a good example of the authority of Peter and how the early Church looked to Peter to decide on matters of faith. Something protestants conveniently ignore.
Says you? I got that quote from here at EWTN. If it is a forgery, why didn’t the EWTN priest say so?
Vatican I Pastor Aeternus basically says the same thing except for the God thing and supreme judge of heaven.
As rigorous as the Catholic Encyclopedia was and is, it is not the “last word” or even the “official word” of the Catholic faith. It is a good resource, but one must exercise some care in its use, as it is not a statement directly from the Church itself.
The Catholic Encyclopedia was a compendium of articles from about 1450 authors, mostly academics, from about 43 countries, overseen by an independent editorial board of 5 (mostly lay) men. The Company which was organized to publish The Catholic Encyclopedia was originally known as the Robert Appleton Company. In 1912 its title was changed to The Encyclopedia Press, Inc. and it was an entirely independent organization, expressly organized for the special purpose of publishing the Encyclopedia, and was not an organ of the Catholic Church.
Most articles have approval of the local bishop and ecclesial censors of the time. That a work has an “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” however do NOT mean that a book bearing these labels is inerrant, inspired, or divine. It only means that the local bishop didn’t find the book objectionable.
Therefore it cannot be said that every article the Catholic Encyclopedia publishes is an “official teaching” of the Catholic Church, though most often they make a very good job of presenting such teaching. Some articles express the thinking and academic opinions of the authors and editors of the articles and cannot always be said to be free from error. Some statements in the articles only represent theological opinions at the time about which little or nothing had been officially promulgated.
He has been attacking the Holy Faith on Catholic websites for years.
We see the priest, Fr. Robert J. Levis on 12-21-2003 said:
“Dear Joe, One should first of all examine the authenticity of each of these laudatory statement, their authors, the circumstances under which they appeared. That should be done first and properly.”
So he is challenging the questioner to examine the authenticity and context of each quote, which is something you have failed to do also.
Just because the priest was too busy or too lazy to examine each and every quote the questioner gave, still does not magically make every quote true.
We are all still waiting for you to provide us with the ISBN or some such other proof for the existence of the mysterious and yet to be located “New York Catechism” , maybe Bigfoot ate it, or space aliens….
Vatican I Pastor Aeternus also teaches that Peter was promised the office before the resurrection but was not installed until after. As far as official teaching on Paul’s rebuke, I don’t know of anything “official.”
“(…) you will not forget that opposed to the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ there is the reign of Satan. The reign of Satan has never perhaps been more extensive and penetrated everywhere into all domains as it has today. It surrounds us on all sides. What is the reign of Satan? The reign of Satan is the reign of scandal but scandal understood in its true sense understood in the sense of that which leads us to sin and, as a consequence, which leads us to HELL. That is scandal! Scandal is that which leads to sin, that which draws one into sin and indeed the reign of scandal is to be found in this world. Much is scandal around us, much is contrary to the law of God. Henceforth, in society, even the commandments of God are not only ignored but they are publicly and officially attacked. Laws are passed which are contrary to the law of God. All of this is legalized, officialized; the magistrates, the doctors are obliged to do some things which are contrary to the law of God, which are unjust, which are horrible, abominable! All of this in a time when one believes that our civilization has never been as great or as beautiful! On the contrary! This civilization bears the mark of SATAN and it bears the mark of HELL!
You will denounce these scandals in order to prevent them from leading souls to hell. You will not be afraid to denounce all that which drags souls into sin.
In order to have this courage and this force, you will ask these graces particularly of the Blessed Virgin Mary. You know, my dear friends, Mary is our Mediatrix Mother. She is the Mediatrix of all graces.”
:This meditation on the life of Jesus in all its details puts us little by little in an atmosphere of supernatural reality, and delivers us from the customary way in which men live, so deceived as to take no account of this great reality. Sin, and the results of sin, have succeeded in creating a world of mirages, illusions and errors. This has developed to such an extent that men finish up by becoming accustomed to this world, sensitized, sensualized, humanized, no longer being able to see that all this is vain and ephemeral in relation to the true spiritual and supernatural life, in relation to eternal life.
The holy and admirable life of Jesus is a constant reminder of the spiritual and divine realities which are alone valuable and alone eternal. Everything in Jesus returns to God, to the truth, to reality, to wisdom and to sanctity.
Would that we might always be more convinced of the necessity of following Jesus, as He asks His disciples. “Si quis sequitur me non ambulat in tenebris – He who follows Me does not walk in darkness. If someone wishes to be My disciple, let him carry his cross and follow Me.” For there is no other choice: either follow Jesus or rejoin Satan.
It is not at all surprising if Jesus suffers to see men prefer the darkness to the Light-and what Light! It is the Light which created the world, which supports it in existence, which enlightens every man who comes into this world, which brings to them the Light of salvation and of eternal glory. But they prefer the darkness of the world, of this world which is against Our Lord, of this world of the flesh, of money, of egoism, of pride-the threshold to Hell!”
I truly dont know what Ganganelli’s actual intentions are on this site (I assume they are nefarious but I dont know for sure), but his argument that we must obey the True Vicar of Christ is rock-solid. THIS IS WHY we dont stray from the Faith. THIS IS WHY we dont play games such as “he’s the pope but I dont agree with him because he speaks in opposition to the Faith, so I can rebuke him….BUT he’s still a valid pope”. A Pope does not deviate from anything set forth to be believed by the Catholic world before he took office. If someone who is being recognized as a pope deviates from our Faith (in terms of universal teaching….we arent talking about private utterances) then he is no longer a pope. If he was a heretic before he was elected than that election was invalid and he is not a pope.
Sorry guys….the 16 documents of vatican 2 and AL (and all the universally promoted garbage in between) are UNIVERSAL TEACHINGS (if these men were popes); therefore, if you believe this vatican 2 church to be the Catholic Church, then as Catholics you have no choice but to assent to all said teachings. To deny this fact is to deny the Catholic Faith.
So let me get this straight Gags…
You are in the habit of getting your Papal theology and quotations from the ‘Dear Abby’ section of EWTN???
And you’re relying on the confused Catholics writing in looking for answers rather than on the columnist response? Particularly coming from an enquirer who to begin with himself isn’t so sure as to their authenticity.
I don’t know whether that’s stupider than relying on Protestant sources in the first place.
First let’s also establish that no so-called Trad, especially not the ‘proud’ ones you mentioned would ever resort to using EWTN as a primary source. Not that all their work is bad, but c’mon man, c’mon… your sob story about being an ex-trad sounds more and more flakey with every shovel of the grave you are digging for yourself…
Certainly the EWTN respondent probably doesn’t have to time to examine all of these oft-used fake quotes. But EWTN should’ve put in the time at some point to refute these rather than just dismiss it like they did. A good reason why EWTN ain’t the best source for info.
I picked one at random to check it out: #13) Pope Nicholas to Emperor Michael quotation.
I can’t find any ‘Decreti Prima Pars’ or English documentation. All that comes up are Protestants using this quote as is to attack the Church.
The closest thing I can find between Pope Nicholas and Emperor Michael was during the Photian Schism, and The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. 866 (Letter 99) where Nicholas answers questions , and nowhere do I find anything of that quote. Chapter VIII deals with Lent. Chapter XCVI talks about how a husband deals with a wife. Doing a search for anything related to the word ‘judge’ bears 33 results and none of them have anything to do with the Pope. There’s nothing like that in there.
Sounds like either Gags has been misled as to what the Pope is all these years thanks to FAKE Theology, or he’s a Protestant agitator pretending to be a Trad, whoops ex-trad. Makes sense that he would like the Novus Ordo and VII so much then…
Gag, please walk us through your thought process when you saw this EWTN link of quotations and thought “Hey! Jackpot!” Despite both the write-in and the respondent aren’t kosher about the authenticity of the quotes.
Finally I hope this humbles you the next time you go bashing Trads or telling Louie how to run his blog.
So do you follow the Popes who upheld Geocentrism as an article of faith, formally heretical?
Or the Popes that came afterwards who incrementally rejected this binding ruling by the Holy Inquisition upheld by several Pontiffs enforced with full effect upon Christendom?
Was the Church led by the Holy Spirit in error prior to 1700, or from 1700 onwards? Because one way or the other a pretty big screw-up occurred that led to a massive undermining of the Papal Office and the Church, and universally the majority of Catholics have been subscribing to this error, though invincibly ignorantly so.
Which group of Popes would you rebuke as being in error that led the Church heavily astray? The ones from 33AD to circa 1700 upholding the Fathers and Scripture and Tradition universally? Or the ones from circa 1700 to 2017 who uphold the current scientific consensus of enlightenment-driven men who rely on Relativity?
Either way, both periods are a pretty long time for the Holy Spirit to mess up this badly.
“You will denounce these scandals in order to prevent them from leading souls to hell. You will not be afraid to denounce all that which drags souls into sin.”
Too bad the SSPX doesnt follow their founders advise. Where is the big headline on their website denouncing Francis and everything NO and V2? Yes, here and there one can find a critique, but why doesnt Fellay grab the spotlight and call Francis a
Heretic. We have been told that the Church has to “declare” a pope a heretic before deposing him. Well, what are you waiting for Fellay??? Are you afraid other bishops and cardinals will not follow you? Was St Athanasius afraid that no one followed him? Or are you afraid of losing your personal prelature? Traditional Catholics are suffering because we lack shepards. My critique also applies to the sede bishops. Call a council or conclave already if you believe the chair is vacant. Put your money where your mouth is!
For those who want to know the true Catholic story of Galileo and not protestant propaganda.
It is ironic that Luther himself condemned Copernicus while the Church only insisted that Copernicus call his system a “hypothesis” instead of a fact.
According to Catholic Encyclopedia.
Or he is a Freemason? Either way he is the enemy.
The Holy Church cannot have been invested with its powers nor Peter with his until the Holy Ghost was sent to them at Pentecost. That is when the Holy Church became filled with the Holy Ghost and His gifts.
I am an ex-trad and attended the SSPX chapel while Fr. Leo Boyle was the pastor.
As for the quote, I should have done a better job in verifying the authenticity of it but nevertheless, it is very close to what the Church teaches in the INFALLIBLE 1st Vatican Council and I quote:
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world”
In a New York minute
Everything can change
In a New York minute
Things can get pretty strange…
Lynda, I know its a minor point, but the Church teaches that Peter is installed as Pope after the resurrection when Christ tells Peter to feed His sheep. Pastor Aeternus, chpt 1.
Lol…so now we’re comparing a lack of scientific understanding to having sex with those who arent our spouse? Yes, Johnno, prior to science proving otherwise we were required to believe that the earth was the center of the universe (thanks for this groundbreaking info). Maybe next week you can justify killing the unborn with your idiotic “uh, but the popes believed that the sun went around the earth back in the day” garbage.
Bergoglio is a heretic and therefore not a pope. Give siscoe and salza my regards.
Like I said above somewhere, I dont know exactly what Ganganelli’s intentions are, but he speaks the Catholic Truth.
Pope Francis may be deposed in the future by a Church Council. But until that happens, Pope Francis is still the Pope. At the very least, Pope Francis is a link in the chain.
You may not like it, you can say there is no Pope, but you are dead wrong. As an ordinary Catholic, you have no power to pass judgement on the See of Rome. Give Martin Luther a “High Five” when you get there!
So if he is your Pope, Rush, and V2 was a true council, then why arent you a modernist? You are not assenting to the current magesterium. Ganganelli had the good sense to see the contradiction and he made his decision.
For those who want to know the true Catholic story of Galileo and not Tom A’s or the Novus Ordo Vatican II historical revisionist’s version who have comrpomised with atheistic driven scientific opinions.
“But the relevance and binding authority of the Fathers had already been decided on this particular issue. It was decided when the Holy Spirit led the 17th century magisterium to condemn heliocentrism based on what the Fathers said, a condemnation which was published and enforced all over Europe by the very pope who adjudicated Galileo’s trial, and which was supported by many popes after him and never officially rescinded by the Church. If it wasn’t for the recent claims of popular science supporting heliocentrism, I think we can agree that there would be no ongoing reevaluation of either the Fathers’ consensus or the decisions of the popes surrounding the Galileo affair.
Unfortunately, your present position wishes to turn the consensus of the Fathers into a wax nose that can be adjusted to fit the opinions of popular science. You refer to “orthodox works of modern theology” as giving you the authority to do so, but I don’t know any such “orthodox” authors who have not already decided that heliocentrism has been proven by modern science or who have even studied the issue beyond accepting what popular science says. Unless you can show us an “orthodox work” that has thoroughly studied the scientific issues, then I’m afraid their “orthodoxy” is severely handicapped by a bias that they simply cannot overcome, as is the case with much of the rest of Catholic academia today. Popular science rules, and everyone thing else (i.e., Scripture, patristics, medieval, popes, councils, saints, doctors, catechisms, etc) must accommodate its dictates, no matter how unstable they are.
Moreover, Bellarmine, Paul V and Urban VIII all stated, very clearly, that geocentrism IS a matter of faith, for the simple reason that it directly affects the validity and truthfulness of Scripture itself. (I had already introduced you to the conversations between Urban VIII and Cosimo Medici on this very issue. Urban felt very strongly that the whole edifice of Christianity was at stake over the Galileo issue). I would have hoped that you would be ready to concur with these popes since you yourself are in a valiant fight to preserve the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture from its present foes (some of which are popes and cardinals!). I dare say that we sadly arrived at the present position of the “errancy” of Scripture simply because popular science has convinced modern Catholic theologians that the Church got the Galileo issue wrong.
As it stands, you are now claiming (as of your previous email) that the 17th century prelature DID make a “mistake” (your word) in basing their condemnation of Galileo and heliocentrism on the consensus of the Fathers; and you probably think it was a “mistake” for the 17th century prelature to claim that geocentrism is a matter of faith. I find it amazing how a whole section of papal history, and one of the most important ever to occupy our history, can be whisked away and neutralized so easily. And with what as the proof?
If, as you asserted earlier regarding Pius XII, that is, that even non-infallible decrees from the magisterium are binding, what better claimant to that papal binding are the decrees issued by Paul V and Urban VIII in the Galileo affair and supported by many popes afterward? What better witness to those decrees do we find prior to Paul V than Pius V’s Tridentine catechism (which teaches geocentrism in four separate places, as you yourself discovered)? The papal pedigree is there, as is the patristic pedigree, and the tradition carried on by the medievals. As for Benedict XIV and Gregory XVI, I will answer them below, and they will not be supportive of your position.”
Where has ‘science’ proved otherwise? Please provide the ‘proof.’
Also while you’re at it please provide the Church’s official rescinding of the ruling against Galileo and the errors of Copernicus.
I wonder how long it’ll be until you start invoking John Paul II as an authority to attempt to refute this? But I’ll save you the trouble by informing you that he in his address to the Academy relied on their own adherence to Relativity to tell them they couldn’t prove what was going around what.
““…the declaration made by His Holiness and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, in which it is stated that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus – that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun stands in the center of the world without moving from the east to the west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended nor held. (May 26, 1616).”
“There were two “TEACHING” decrees written by the Sacred Congregation and approved by Pope Urban VIII that came out of the 1633 trial. The first condemned as “formally heretical” that the sun went around the earth. The second condemned as erroneous in faith that the earth moved. This decision was then published all over Europe, to all the papal nuncios and universities. No one was allowed to teach heliocentrism. The first attempt to teach heliocentrism came almost 200 years later with the Settele affair in 1820, but, as we all know too well, the Commissioner of the Index had to lie about the 1616-1633 decrees in order to get Settele an imprimatur.”
Tom A, all that proves is that Gagnelli, Protestants and Sedes share the same erroneous opinions about the Papacy. That he is a god-like man on earth whose every jot and title is under some magical protection spell when it only regards certain circumstances.
Now, for all we know the entirety of the VII papacies can all be declared anti-popes in the future. Sure. But if done so it will not be according to the automatic criteria of the Sedes where the Papacies can never ever ever do things that lead Catholics astray, despite that the Galileo issue shows that either the Church prior to 1700 erred greatly, or the Church after the 1700s erred greatly on a topic that had to do with Tradition, the Fathers and Scriptural inerrancy. Not some out-of-bound scientific issue that apparently the Popes had no jurisdiction over… Though Gagnelli and the Sedes would also declare that the Pope’s jurisdiction extends over everything and everyone on all matters. So you want to have your cake and eat it too. But if the Sede criteria for declaring who is a legitimate Papal office holder is correct, then we have been without a Pope since the 1700s because ‘science’ the same science that needs to invent non-existent matter, energy and gravitational holes all over the place purely through magic mathematics on a chalkboard proved the Popes wrong and thus set the ground for a total undermining of the Church’s credibility that exists to this day and where, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the Church’s shame over getting the Galileo affair wrong led to Vatican II and the need for the Church to admit weaknesses and make peace and work together with the modern world.
Either that, or the entire magisterium of the Fathers and Councils who declared them infallible on matters of Scripture and the Faith, which the Galileo issue was, on how the Fathers interpreted the motions of the Sun and Earth from Scripture just as they did the Virgin Birth or Christ’s command to literally eat His Body and drink His Blood, were wrong a long time ago and the Holy Spirit was asleep at the wheel all that time and failed to notice the little trojan horse that was building up which the Enlightenment and Protestants like Newton used and which the modern world continues to use to this day to declare the Church and the Scriptures in error, or to impress upon us how much we need to ‘reinterpret’ all this in light of modernist progress.
Add to that Gagnelli’s only reason for emphasizing these errors is not because he shares the faith of the sedes, but because he subscribes to a heresy that Papal teachings and the Magisterium can change over time, that God, like Allah, can change his mind whenever he wants and lead the Popes to teach contrary things and make adultery a-ok under innovative circumstances, and who are you to question Allah? Submit!
IS GEOCENTRISM REALLY THAT IMPORTANT?
“Now, the next question is, is geocentrism a theological/biblical truth? Are you correct in saying that geocentrism is “not a matter of salvation” and therefore not worthy of our time and attention? As I said above, if it wasn’t worth our time, then why did Mr. Lockwood write an article about it? The very reason he wrote about Galileo and attempted to find a solution is that he, and many people like him, are very bothered about what effect the Galileo affair has on the Church’s power to preach the Gospel of salvation. The simple fact is, if the Church was wrong when it officially condemned heliocentrism because, as she claimed, heliocentrism was against the teaching of Scripture and thus a matter of salvation (for he who rejects the truth of Scripture is a heretic), then the $64,000 question is: what else has the Church been wrong about? If the Church can’t even figure out what is and is not a matter of Scriptural truth and salvation, then how does it even have the authority to tell us what salvation is? Consequently, unless Mr. Lockwood can find a satisfactory answer why the Church said heliocentrism was “formally heretical,” then he is stuck with a Church that makes high-level official statements claiming a certain truth about Scripture and salvation but is, in reality, in abject error. This predicament inevitably means that every other decree the Church has taught about Scripture and salvation is open to question. There is simply no way around this logic.
Is that the kind of Church we want, Frank? Mr. Lockwood doesn’t want that kind of Church, but he was at a loss to find us a way out of the problem. I don’t want that kind of Church either, but I know that the only solution to it is to show that the Church was right, not only in condemning heliocentrism and Galileo, but was also right in considering cosmology a matter of Scriptural truth and ultimately of salvation itself, since a rejection of Scriptural truth and an acceptance of heresy will lead to damnation. When the Church committed herself to condemning heliocentrism as “formally heretical” at the 1633 trial of Galileo, there was no turning back. Geocentrism, because it directly reflected the inerrancy of Scripture, was now indirectly made a matter of salvation, for he who rejected the Church’s decree and the truth of Scripture was putting his salvation in jeopardy.
And this was no slap-on-the-wrist decree. It was backed by an absolute consensus of the Fathers (the very argument per the Council of Trent that St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope used against Galileo). It was backed by a consensus of all the medieval theologians. It was backed by four separate entries in Pius V’s Catechism of the Council of Trent advocating geocentrism. It was backed by a previous decision by a commission of eleven cardinals in 1615 declaring that heliocentrism was “formally heretical,” and subsequently by a decree authorized by Paul V in 1616 telling Galileo never to preach heliocentrism for the rest of his life. It was backed by a 1664 decision by Alexander VII to include Copernicus’, Galileo’s and Kepler’s books on the Index. As late as 1833, it was backed by the Glasgow edition of Newton’s Principia which contained a disclaimer authorized by the Vatican which said: “Newton in his third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s [Newton’s] propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees made by the Supreme Pontiffs against the movement of the earth.”
So here we have an absolute consensus in the Tradition, the Magisterium in one of its highest authoritative venues; and Scripture saying the sun moves and the earth stands still; all vouching for what Pope Urban VIII did in 1633 against heliocentrism and Galileo – sixteen hundred years of unswerving testimony from a Church that claims to be the certain and undaunted mouthpiece of God for the world. How much authority do we need, if this is not enough? What doctrine do you know of in the Catholic Church that has more credentials for being a doctrine than geocentrism? The only thing holding you back, Frank, is that you think science has proven the Church wrong. But that’s where I come in. Science has proven no such thing. The only thing science has proven is that it has no proof for heliocentrism. But if you are not willing to accept that fact, then, of course, you will see me as merely an agitator, a person who doesn’t care that he will alienate his fellow Catholics by this issue.
Now, as I said in my rebuttal to Lockwood, it will do no good to run to the “lack of papal infallibility” as the magic bullet to answer the Galileo issue, for if we are required to validate every truth of Scripture and salvation by an infallible papal statement, this would invariably subject every non-infallible statement (e.g., apostolic constitution, encyclical, motu proprio, etc.) to the same degree of error that many claim Pope Urban VIII committed when he condemned heliocentrism in 1633. A large percentage of our Catholic teaching would be suspect of error, for very rarely have popes issued doctrines that are circumscribed by a formal declaration of papal infallibility. We must also remember that neither Pope Paul V in 1616 nor Pope Urban VIII even had recourse to making their decree formally infallible since the procedure of decreeing a doctrine with “papal infallibility” was not formally known, much less defined before 1870.
Incidentally, much is made of the fact that though Pope Urban VIII put the full weight of his papacy behind the condemnation of heliocentrism and Galileo, he didn’t sign the decree. But the truth is, pope’s neither signed the decrees issued from canonical trials nor was their signature officially required in order to make their decrees effective or enforceable. Up until 1870 when the definition of papal infallibility was formally decreed by Pius IX, popes hardly ever signed their formal decrees, and there is no canonical stipulation that says a decree that is unsigned by the pope yet formally approved by him does not have the same force as a signed document. Moreover, the definition of papal infallibility given by Pius IX in 1870 says nothing about the pope having to “sign” his infallible statement. The decree says only “when he speaks ex cathedra…” He doesn’t even have to write it, if he so desires. Someone else can do that for him.
Now, as I said above, when you add the weight of the above arguments to the fact that long after Pope Urban VIII we have discovered reams of scientific evidence that backs up Urban’s decree against heliocentrism (which evidence I give to my patrons in over 700 pages of scientific research in Galileo Was Wrong), then I certainly do have a strong case. It’s much stronger than Mr. Lockwood’s, that is for sure. Mr. Lockwood wants us to ignore the Tradition; figuratize Scripture against a tradition that has always interpreted it literally; and embarrass several popes as being merely over anxious zealots who really didn’t know what they were talking about. Mr. Lockwood also wants us to pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat and declare that science has proven heliocentrism when, in fact, Mr. Lockwood and most other Catholic historians who write supporting Galileo have never done a study on the scientific side of this debate. They just assume Galileo was right and the Catholic Church was wrong.
So don’t you think it’s worth the risk of me being persecuted in order to tell them that they are starting out with an erroneous presumption rather than watch them go down a rabbit trail that is only going to end up hurting the Church’s credibility? That’s why I take the risk of “alienating” myself from other Catholics, Frank. It’s all about the credibility of the Church and Scripture. If the Church fails in one doctrinal point; the Church fails in all. That is what being Catholic is all about. We don’t have the privilege that the Protestant churches do wherein if we find one denomination in error we can form another one and declare that we have the truth. We are stuck with one church and one truth. So if that Church is wrong on just one issue that it authoritatively and consistently disseminated to its people (as is the case of geocentrism), then it simply cannot be trusted on any issue. The geocentric issue is one of those teaching that affects all three branches of the Church’s credibility and authority: Tradition (because geocentrism was taught by all the Fathers, doctors, saints, and medievals); Magisterium (because four popes put their full weight behind it); and Scripture (because it clearly says the earth does not move and the sun does). So if one denies geocentrism, he besmirches all three branches of the Church’s authority.
So when someone like me comes along and says, “Hold on, people, one of the very reasons we are having so many problems today in and out of the Church is because many people in the Church have decided that the Bible is wrong about 90% of the time and modern science has a better answer for us,”
Now, if that is not a matter of “salvation,” what is? If we can’t trust the Bible to give us error-free truth, then why are we trusting it for anything, including what it says about salvation? This was the very heart of the issue between Galileo and the Church. The matter was not so much about what revolved around what, but about what GOD said revolved around what. That is why I critiqued Mr. Lockwood’s article, something he conveniently ignored in his essay.
The other important issue is the integrity of the Church herself, for if the Church was wrong about its condemnation of heliocentrism, especially after it put the full weight of its magisterium and Tradition behind the condemnation, then the Church is a miserable farce, to say the least. As I said in my rebuke of Lockwood, if, after an absolute consensus of Fathers and medievals; the clear testimony of Scripture that the Church was never afraid to take literally because it was from the mouth of God (e.g., “This is my body”); and four popes who publicly and formally condemned heliocentrism as heretical, that the Church finds itself wrong about Galileo, then there is little hope for the Church. If the only truth we can know as Catholics has to be stamped with papal infallibility before we will ever accept it, then this puts into question at least 95% of what the Church has taught for 2000 years, since only about 5% has even been stamped with papal infallibility, if that.
So, as you can see, Frank, this is not an issue of Robert Sungenis wanting to be right, as you put it. This is an issue of Robert Sungenis trying to show severely brainwashed Catholic apologists today that in the Galileo affair the very integrity of God, Scripture and the Catholic Church are at stake, for the simple reason that, if all three are wrong about Galileo, then they could be wrong about anything, and our religion is not worth the paper it is written on.”
Yes Gag – The INFALLIBLE 1st Vatican Council – which as commentators and theologians of the Council have noted, deals with the model of a Pope exercising his authority legitimately, and which doesn’t apply to a Pope suspected of heresy.
The figure of the Pope described in the council is presumed to be a true Catholic and not a heretic whose actions are in accord with the entirety of the Faith and his predecessors.
It’s like when you look up a recipe, the recipe presumes you are competent enough to operate a stove and measure ingredients and follow the rules. It does not go out of its way to inform you that you should not put your hands in the fire, or mistake cyanide for vegetable oil. It presumes that you are cooking a healthy meal for your family, not trying to poison others and commit suicide.
Vatican I occurred at a time long before Coffee Cups need to print big warning labels that warned the customer that the contents are hot and can burn them, and that one shouldn’t fold up a stroller while the baby is still inside. But I guess Catholics today are different now and Vatican I needs to come with a label that states clearly:
“The Pope being described herein is an idealized Pope and may not necessary reflect the actual guy currently holding the office. Vatican I does not necessarily endorse all the views and actions of every Pope. Theological discretion is advised.”
The source I used is pre V2, the 1917 Cath Encyclopedia. It generally upholds your position.