Is Pope Francis a heretic?


APRIL 28/JULY 14, 2017

 

Is Pope Francis a heretic?

The general consensus is that he is. Some Catholic writers were being very careful in choosing their words. He is, after all, the Pope! Who wants to be the first to say that he is one? (Some sites allowed their readers to use the “heretic” word in the comment boxes.) But, with the progress of Pope Francis’ pontificate, many began to use the heresy
word. And it follows that a Pope who condones or promotes heresy is a heretic.

 



 


 

It is widely agreed that the Catholic Church in the Pontificate of Pope Francis is in schism:

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UNDER POPE FRANCIS IN SCHISM

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_CATHOLIC_CHURCH_UNDER_POPE_FRANCIS_IS_IN_SCHISM.doc

This is largely the fallout of the controversial 2015 Synod on the Family:

THE SYNOD ON THE FAMILY-BETWEEN HERESY AND SCHISM 01
11 SEPTEMBER 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_SYNOD_ON_THE_FAMILY-BETWEEN_HERESY_AND_SCHISM_01.doc

THE SYNOD ON THE FAMILY-BETWEEN HERESY AND SCHISM 02
21 SEPTEMBER 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_SYNOD_ON_THE_FAMILY-BETWEEN_HERESY_AND_SCHISM_02.doc

THE SYNOD ON THE FAMILY-BETWEEN HERESY AND SCHISM 03
16 OCTOBER 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_SYNOD_ON_THE_FAMILY-BETWEEN_HERESY_AND_SCHISM_03.doc

It openly escalated to charges of heresy with the release of the March 19, 2016 Document Amoris Laetitia:

POPE FRANCIS APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION AMORIS LAETITIA ACCUSED OF HERESY BY 45 THEOLOGIANS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/POPE_FRANCIS_APOSTOLIC_EXHORTATION_AMORIS_LAETITIA_ACCUSED_OF_HERESY_BY_45_THEOLOGIANS.doc

 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC #2089:Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him
.”

 

 

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” 
Canon 1364 §1: “
an apostate from the faith,
a heretic, or

a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
” 
The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which is ‘wide’ (latae) or widely applied; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic.

Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority. 
Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offences which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically.

Source: http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htm

Heresy is the denial of Truth.

WHAT IS SCHISM?

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/WHAT_IS_SCHISM.doc

 

My presentation is a collation of orthodox, traditionalist and conservative criticism of the Pope. The reader will observe from studying it that these opponents of heterodoxy, progressivism, liberalism and modernism have often just stopped short of labeling the Pope a heretic. They on the other hand have had no hesitation in calling some of his closest aides heretics (e.g. page 20). However, a few Catholics who left comments on blogs and news stories declared the Pope to be one. Some writers even said that posterity, maybe even one of his successors, will be obliged to declare Pope Francis a heretic in order to begin to repair the almost irreparable damage that he has inflicted on the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.

I have omitted articles from the sedevacantist sites (mundabor, novusordowatch, traditionalcatholicpriest, mostholyfamilymonastery, etc.) that call Pope Francis a false prophet, the anti-Pope and the anti-Christ.

 

Conservatives thought that Pope Francis was a “heretic” almost from the onset of his Pontificate (the terms ‘heresy‘ and ‘heretic‘ which now crop up incessantly were never used by them during the earlier pontificates to define any pronouncement from Rome or against any of the Cardinals and Bishops of the Church):

Pope’s crackdown on order alarms traditionalists

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2013/12/15/popes-crackdown-on-order-alarms-traditionalists/

By Nicole Winfield, Vatican City, December 15, 2013

[…]

 

2 out of 5 readers’ comments

1. Jorge the Heretic strikes again! Anti-pope in action!

2. Pope Francis is a “modernist”*, and he CLEARLY is ANTI-CATHOLIC. Tell me, are we going to go by the edicts of a tyrannical dictatorial anti-Catholic regime that has been taken over during VATICAN II by Archbishop Bugnini & his band of MASONS & PROTESTANTS who aided and abetted the changing of the liturgy, or are we going to SIDE WITH the 2,000 years of unchanged liturgy of the Catholic Church which prior Popes wrote time after time that to change the liturgy would be committing “suicide” in the Church.

*MODERNISM is a heresy that was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in 3 Documents in 1907, 1910. See p. 74

 

Almost every major pronouncement of Pope Francis evoked the cry “heresy”! But we will deal with only a few in this file — his push for “decentralization” of authority, the Synod on the Family, and his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, in particular (though we could include all his motu proprios and encyclicals).

 

Eminent prelates like Cardinal Arinze, [pages 44 and 48 of QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 26-THE DECENTRALIZATION OF DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY
(SYNODALITY AND COLLEGIALITY)
http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_26-THE_DECENTRALIZATION_OF_DOCTRINAL_AUTHORITY.doc], have condemned Pope Francis’ call for a “healthy” decentralization or “devolving authority to local dioceses”.

Traditionalists and conservatives have compared it with “the old heresies of
Gallicanism and Ecclesiastical Nationalism” [
http://www.robertodemattei.it/en/2015/10/22/the-synod-the-decentralization-of-the-church-offends-the-faith-and-common-sense/]. To cite from the above source, “The primacy of jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff, in whom resides the supreme authority of the Church, over all Pastors, over all the faithful, independent of any other power, is, in fact a dogma of faith, promulgated by the First Vatican Council. This principle guarantees the unity of the Church: unity in government, unity in faith and unity in the sacraments. Decentralization is a loss of unity which lead inevitably to schism. Schism is, in fact, the rupture which inexorably occurs when a central point of reference is missing, a unitary criteria, on the doctrinal level as well as those of discipline and pastoral care. The particular Churches, divided on praxis, but also on doctrine which praxis comes from, are destined inescapably to be in conflict and produce fractures, schism and heresies.

 

 

Papal call for “decentralization” puts integrity of Catholic doctrine at risk

http://voiceofthefamily.com/papal-call-for-decentralization-puts-integrity-of-catholic-doctrine-at-risk/

October 22, 2015

Pope Francis calls for “decentralization” to “Episcopal Conferences”

[…]

Pope Francis can only quell grave concerns by correcting heresy

“Decentralization” has been demanded by prelates who are openly stating that they wish to see Episcopal Conferences depart from the faith and practice of the Universal Church. Far from correcting such prelates Pope Francis has often, as in the case of Cardinal Marx, appointed them to positions of influence. It is reasonable therefore for Catholics
to be gravely concerned when he echoes their call for decentralization.

Pope Francis can only restore trust by publicly correcting heresy and by ending his practice of conferring honours and influence on prelates who reject the Catholic faith.

 

Read my 216-page compiled analysis QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 24-APOSTOLIC DECEPTION AMORIS LAETITIA
(
http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_24-APOSTOLIC_DECEPTION_AMORIS_LAETITIA.doc) on the Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation that was the result/outcome of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family and Marriage, 2014, and the Ordinary Synod, 2015.

A Document from a Pope has never before been received with as much conservative commentators’ and observers’ criticisms as has Francis’ Amoris Laetitia, meaning that there are serious problems with it, as the experts reveal. Condemnation of it continues up until today!!!!!

A Traditionalist Catholic commented, “the ironically entitled ‘Synod on the Family’ been widely disparaged as ‘the Sin-Nod’ and ‘the Synod Against the Family’.”

There has never been a Vatican release that was so anticipated, with some already taken to calling it the Exhortation of Desolation!

A Traditionalist wrote, “…the Catholic world awaits with dread a 200-page “Apostolic Exhortation” that may accomplish what the Synod failed to approve despite its blatant manipulation by Francis.After its release, Trads called it “heresy” and an “Apostolic Excrementation“. Conservatives said it was “subversive“.

 

Under certain conditions there is an interplay between schism and heresy.

The Archbishop Emeritus of Karaganda, Kazakhstan prophetically said:

“The Pope during the Synod will show whose side he is on,” said Archbishop Lenga. “If he accepts the statement of those who want to distribute Holy Communion to the divorced, there would be a heresy in the Church, and if he does not accept, there could be a schism in the Church.”

Lenga concluded, “Either we are on the side of Christ, or on the side of the devil. There is no third option. The common people are sometimes closer to Christ than priests.”

Previous comments by Vatican Cardinal Raymond Burke have been more guarded but as the Synod nears, the reality of a looming schism in the Church has pushed him and other Church leaders to a painful willingness to be frank in publicly warning about the seriousness of what is facing the Church…

Cardinal Burke concurs that “we’re in a time of crisis within the church,” suggesting that “we may have to give our all (including our very lives) to safeguard and promote the truth of the faith not only for ourselves and our own generation but also for those to come.”

Burke is blunt about the current state of the Church confronting heretical positions coming from those high up in its leadership. “If this means that Cardinals will be opposed to Cardinals then we simply have to accept the fact that that’s the situation in which we find ourselves,” he said. “Certainly for my part I don’t look for this kind of conflict but in defending the truth of the faith I end up in a disagreement or conflict with another conflict. What has to be primary to me is the truth of the faith.”

See the whole video here: http://lifesitenews.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=3b519162c561a81f1ee4736a3&id=929f8abacb&e=fc7b5b6f53
41:26

Source: Explosive video: Pope ‘will show whose side he’s on’ during Synod, says archbishop

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/explosive-video-pope-will-show-whose-side-hes-on-during-synod-says-archbish

By John-Henry Westen, September 10, 2015…

Eventually, during the Synod, Pope Francis did indeed show which “side” he was on. Post-Synod, there are regional churches that have commenced distributing Holy Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried. Can we conclude as per Archbishop Lenga that Pope Francis has shepherded the Church into heresy?

 

A few weeks later, this was the title of an article by LifeSiteNews:

Blasphemy, Heresy, Schism and the “Collapse” of the Church

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2103-blasphemy-heresy-schism-and-the-collapse-of-the-church-but-hey-at-least-the-bishops-will-get-to-vote
EXTRACT

By Hilary White, October 20, 2015

 

 

 

Now, just stop for a moment and think about these items one at a time: 

—The pope has been acknowledged to have allied himself with a notorious heretic (Cardinal Walter Kasper) who has, with the support of an entire episcopal conference, been, for fifty years, bent on the obliteration of most Catholic moral teaching, and a goodish part of its teaching on ecclesiology. 
—This pope has been warned by some of his highest ranking officials that the proposed direction, called “the Kasper-Bergoglio line,” will lead to the “end of the Church,” its complete disintegration into chaos and schism.
—This warning the pope shouted down privately and then rebuked publicly. 
—A few days later the pope followed with a declaration of his grip on total, supreme power – the power, apparently, even to destroy the Church of which he is head – like a small boy declaring that he can break all his toys if he wants, because they are his and no one can stop him.

 

As far as is possible, the information below is arranged in chronological order.

For quite a few of the articles I have included the comments of readers because they reveal so much more, oft times disagreeing with the author, for instance in the one immediately below…

 

On heretical Popes**

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/11/11/on-heretical-popes-3/

By Fr. James V. Schall SJ, November 11, 2014

One man whom I know holds that all popes since Pius X were heretics. Whole groups maintain that all popes after Vatican II are heretics, even John Paul II. He invited leaders of other religions to Assisi to pray together, but he failed to evangelize them or insist in uniqueness of Catholicism. At Vatican I, several notable figures did not accept the infallibility doctrine. The Reformation itself mostly declared all popes heretical back to Peter. Pope Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII precisely over the question of the indissolubility of marriage. The Eastern Orthodox have rejected the papal position for centuries.

Under Pope Francis, columnists from all over the world broach the “heresy” question, which he is said to foment. Cardinal Burke remarked that Pope Francis should clarify just what he stands for. William Oddie thinks that, in recent comments on marriage, Francis has done this. Others are not so sure. I know a man who thinks that the pope should simply resign because his comments have caused so much anguish and confusion.

George Weigel noted that the modern world has waited half a century for the Catholic Church to accept its mores. It has not done so under Francis. A correspondent in Argentina, however, writes that only three views of this pope exist: 1) he is a modernist, but covers himself by occasionally talking of the devil, 2) he seeks attention and power by attracting everything to himself, and 3) he is a confused thinker but basically orthodox. The man adds that this last view is no longer tenable. Still he sent a document that Archbishop Bergoglio wrote on the gay question in which Francis upheld the old Roman Law tradition of marriage that referred to a mother and the sons begotten of her. But I would be surprised if Pope Francis did not have a huge following in Argentina.

Some writers hold that a pope cannot be a heretic. I had a professor of theology who held that, if a pope was about to sign a heretical document, he would be dead the next morning. Others maintain that if a heretic is elected to the papacy, he will automatically convert on accepting the Office of Peter.

The technical issue of a heretical pope goes back to Reformation discussions, led by the Jesuits, Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez, among others. Jacques Maritain, Yves Simon, and John Courtney Murray brought up the issue in discussing the difference between political and ecclesiastical authority. We read in Romans that the authority of an emperor, as that of a pope, comes from God, but in differing ways.

John Locke’s opposition to the divine right of kings was an aspect of this issue. The divine right of kings was not a medieval doctrine, though it did go back to oriental despotism, to the divinization of Alexander the Great and the Roman emperors. Authority came directly to the king, not through the people, as the Aristotelian mind had it. Divine right was designed to protect the king from assassination by elevating him to a divine status.

Bellarmine and Suarez considered a de facto possibility of a heretical pope. They granted that the Church would have to depose him if he did not self-declare his heresy. They differed on the exact procedure that would be required. Basically, electors would de-designate the man chosen pope. But as such, they had no authority over the papal power itself, which is from God.

In recent discussions of a heretical pope, the term sedevacante shows up. It means that, if a pope is heretical, his chair is automatically vacant by divine law. Some hold that anyone can so pronounce this vacancy, which would logically make every man his own pope. Bellarmine and Suarez thought the Church, in the persons of a General Council or the assembled Cardinals would have to declare the pope a heretic and depose him. They differed a bit on the exact procedure.

Several writers imply that suddenly the institution, which seemed so solid over the centuries, appears shaky in its own order. “If the Church succumbs to modernity, will it still be a Church?” they wonder. The main issues, in the case of Francis, revolve around the indissolubility of marriage, the nature of the papacy itself, and the approval of gay life as normal. The first is a question of reason and revelation – Moses allowed divorce, Christ did not; the second of revelation; and the third, homosexuality, of reason.

Issues such as the pope’s understanding of the economy or his reading of Islam as solely a religion of peace can be disputed. They are not so close to doctrinal issues. Though they seem to diverge at times, doctrine and compassion do not exclude each other.

 

 

 

Heretical popes? The essence of Catholicism is that there be none. It is also its essence that, if necessary, the issue be faced squarely and judged fairly.

Among Fr. Schall’s recent books are The Mind That Is Catholic, The Modern Age, Political Philosophy and Revelation: A Catholic Reading, Reasonable Pleasures, and, new from St. Augustine’s Press, Docilitas: On Teaching and Being Taught.

 

4 of 5 readers’ comments

1. The author is wrong. A Pope may be a heretic, as Pope Honorius clearly was. The thing is he never taught heresy infallibly. (Remember the 3 criteria: 1/. Teaching to the Church Universal 2/. Teaching on faith and morals 3/. Teaching from the Chair of Peter). Francis has made a complete mess of the Papacy but so far he has come nowhere near troubling the infallibility of the Pope issue. -BQ

2. To BQ: The author, James V. Schall, S.J., is not wrong, because he doesn’t claim no Pope can be a heretic. The author is just stating that “some writers hold that a pope cannot be a heretic.” 
Now, I’d like to have a better understanding of what you mean when you say Pope Francis has made a mess of the Papacy. How so?
I mean, he has made quite a few off-hand comments which have led to various (wrong) interpretations by, especially, the media.
Is that the mess Pope Francis is doing in your opinion?

3. A Pope can be a heretic. You clearly failed Catholicism 101. The question is can they teach it to the Church universal as doctrine, which is where infallibility comes in. I would suggest Pope Francis accepting the blasphemous crucifix of Christ on a hammer and sickle was offensive, I would suggest that Pope Francis issuing the document that Jews should not be converted was heresy, I would suggest that Pope Francis claiming that “you aren’t a Christian if you build walls” was clearly idiotic and stupid as those of us who are Catholic were bombarded with images of the Vatican with its 50 foot high walls as a clear example of his hypocrisy and unbelievable insensitivity of Francis. I would suggest Pope Francis attacking and insulting Catholic bishops and Cardinals at the end of the Synod of the family was disgraceful behaviour on the Popes part. I would suggest his repeated phone calls to his atheist mate in Italy claiming he is going to overturn the Church’s teaching on marriage as scandalous. I haven’t even started yet. What about Pope Francis awarding Putin a “peace prize” after he has invaded 3 countries. How would you feel if you were Ukrainian? The Holy Catholic Church has been blessed with such wonderful and holy men in the last 5 Popes it is such a shame we have this man occupying the chair of Peter so unworthily now. Mark my words, this man will split the Church. –BQ

4. I think it may be high time the bishops meet to consider the pontificate of Francis, what it has done and is doing and may do to the Church. Facts should be examined without naïveté, then a decision made. A pope need not explicitly deny one iota of doctrine as he hands the church over to mischievous theologians who are prepared to transvalue the traditional meanings of Church teachings. Pope St. Pius X explicitly warned against this MO in his battles against and warnings about Modernism festering (he said) in the very bosom of the Church. Progressives, so-called, are the heirs of the Modernists with their “evolution of doctrine” creed. Francis needs to be examined. Very carefully. Very realistically. Very soon.

**Fr. Schall would not have elected to write on that subject unless there were problems with Pope Francis.

 

 

Can a Pope Be a Heretic?

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/can-pope-heretic

By Jacob B. Wood, March 4, 2015

Recently, Cardinal Burke stated that, if Pope Francis were to endorse a position on marriage and sexuality that were contrary to the tradition of the Church, that he would be obliged to “resist” the pontiff. Although the cardinal clarified that he was speaking of a purely hypothetical situation, he hit upon a nerve that gets struck from time to time among Catholics—in instant messages, in passing, on Facebook, though almost never in print—”What if?” What if Cardinal Kasper’s ideology takes over the upcoming Ordinary Synod on Marriage and the Family? What if the behind-the-scenes machinations of his supporters ultimately win the day? What if the pope lets civilly divorced and remarried Catholics receive communion?

Fr. James Schall identified (immediately above) the dilemma last year, when he pointed out that the elephant in the room is the question of heresy. If Church discipline of excluding Catholics who have obtained a civil divorce and remarriage from Communion is based on infallible Church doctrine about sin and repentance, and if the pope tries to change that discipline, wouldn’t that make the pope a heretic concerning that doctrine?

In the finest tradition of Jesuit discourse, Fr. Schall insisted that we talk about the elephant rather than staring at it. I agree because I know that God is not going to let us down, and neither is Pope Francis.

 

What is a heretic?
In order to even talk about the elephant, we have to identify it. A “heretic” is someone guilty of a heresy. According to the Catechism, “heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” A heretic differs from an “apostate,” who is guilty of “apostasy” (the total repudiation of the Christian faith, not just some part of it), or a “schismatic,” who is guilty of “schism” (separation from the unity of the Church, without necessarily denying some or all of the Christian faith) (CCC 2089).

 

 

In a more technical sense, the denial of some truth of the Faith can actually be two things: a sin and a crime. It is a mortal sin, because it is directly contrary to the theological virtue of faith, “by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself” (CCC 1814).

It is a canonical crime, because the Church criminalizes certain, very dangerous sins like heresy, so that the Church can compel those who commit them with penalties to carry out the promises of their baptism (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1311). The penalties for the crime of heresy include automatic excommunication (Canon 1364 §1); for clerics, automatic removal from any ecclesiastical office that the heretic might have possessed (Canon 194 §1, no. 2); for religious, automatic expulsion from their religious order (Canon 694, §1, no. 1).

It is important to remember, though, that not everyone who happens to deny some truth of the Faith is culpable for the mortal sin of heresy; nor is everyone who is culpable for the mortal sin of heresy penalized for the canonical crime of heresy in the same way. To be fully culpable for the sin, a person has to have full knowledge of what the Church teaches in a particular matter and make a conscious decision to reject the Church’s teaching in that matter (CCC 1859), or a person has to willfully fail in his or her duty to seek the truth (CCC 1791). To receive the maximum penalty for the crime, a person also has to be at least 16 years old, be aware that heresy is a canonical crime, and not be subject to a long list of other exclusions and exceptions (Canons 1322-24).

Since believing something wrong doesn’t automatically make you culpable for the sin or guilty of the crime, theologians usually make a distinction between people who aren’t consciously and deliberately rejecting the Church’s teaching and those who are:

—material heretic is someone who does not realize that they believe something heretical. Provided that their ignorance is not their own fault, material heretics are neither culpable of the sin nor guilty of the crime.

—formal heretic is someone who does realize that they believe something heretical and makes a conscious and free decision to believe it. Formal heretics are culpable for the sin, and can also be penalized of the crime provided that they meet the appropriate conditions (age, awareness, etc.).

 

Can the pope be a heretic?
Most theologians would agree that a pope could be a material heretic, just like any other well-meaning but misinformed Catholic. He wouldn’t be culpable for any sin or guilty of any crime. He could, in fact, remain in a state of grace, and, endowed with the virtue of faith, lead the Christian faithful in the faith delivered once for all to the apostles. His material heresy might even appear in his non-infallible teaching, although God gives him special help to avoid that (CCC 892). But Catholics firmly believe that it could never appear in his infallible teaching. (CCC 891)

Theologians are divided as to whether the pope could ever be a formal heretic, because they don’t agree on two things:

1. Does the grace promised by Christ to Peter preclude the possibility of a pope falling into formal heresy?

2. If it doesn’t, would a heretical pope lose his office as a consequence of the sin of heresy, or as a penalty for the crime of heresy?

There were always some people who believed that God would simply not allow the pope to become a formal heretic, because it would be against Christ’s promises to Peter. But from the twelfth century onwards, a lot of Catholic theologians didn’t. That’s when Gratian, the most important medieval canon lawyer, included in his Decretum a warning to errant popes that he attributed to St. Boniface:

If the Pope, remiss in his duties and neglectful of his and his neighbor’s salvation, gets caught up in idle business, and if moreover, by his silence (which actually does more harm to himself and everyone else), he nonetheless leads innumerable hordes of people away from the good with him, he will be beaten for eternity with many blows alongside that very first slave of hell [the Devil]. However, no person can presume to convict him of any transgressions in this matter, because, although the Pope can judge everyone else, no one may judge him, unless he, for whose perpetual stability all the faithful pray as earnestly as they call to mind the fact that, after God, their own salvation depends on his soundness, is found to have strayed from the faith. (Decretum, Part 1, Distinction 40, Chapter 6)

So, no one can convict a pope of being remiss in his duties, because no one stands above the pope in judgment—unless the pope is a heretic, and then… Then what? Unfortunately, Gratian didn’t fill in the blank. But since Gratian’s Decretum became required reading for theologians and canon lawyers, the question became unavoidable for subsequent generations of Catholic theology.

The two most important answers came from sixteenth-seventeenth century Jesuits: Francisco Suarez and St. Robert Bellarmine.

Suarez took it as a given that a pope could be a formal heretic. He then considered two possibilities for what happens next:

First possibility: The pope loses his office as a consequence of the sin of heresy, because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church. (Suarez, De fide, 10.6.2)

Suarez rejects this possibility for two reasons. First, falling out of a state of grace might mean that you aren’t a member of the Church in the way that you’re supposed to be, but it doesn’t mean that you’re not a member of the Church—otherwise you’d be kicked out of the Church every time you committed a mortal sin. Second, if Catholics are supposed to believe that God deposes popes, then Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, and the pronouncements of the Magisterium ought to have said something about it—but they haven’t. Besides, if God deposes popes, you could never be sure if the pope was really the pope—what if he was a secret heretic and God had secretly deposed him? How would you ever know? (Suarez, De fide, 10.6.2-4)

 

 

 

Second possibility: The pope keeps his office if he commits the sin of heresy, but loses his office if he is convicted of the crime of heresy. (De fide 10.6.6)

Suarez thinks that, just like Christ bestows the papacy on the man whom the Church elects, so also Christ takes away the papacy from the man whom the Church convicts (De fide 10.6.10). So, if a pope commits the sin of heresy, all the other bishops of the world have the right to try him for the crime of heresy, even against his will (De fide 10.6.7). If they were to convict him, he could be considered deposed from the papacy by Christ, and the Church could elect another pope.

Bellarmine was more hesitant about the whole question. Unlike Suarez, he did not take it as a given that the pope could be a formal heretic. Actually, Bellarmine considered it “probable” that God would prevent the pope from ever being a formal heretic (he says it twice: De Romano Pontifice 2.30 and 4.2). Nevertheless, Bellarmine was willing to consider what would be the case if the pope could fall into formal heresy.

If we assume that the pope could be a formal heretic, Bellarmine thinks Suarez’s opinion is wrong. Suarez allows the bishops to judge the pope. But one of Gratian’s basic rules is that no one can judge the pope. Sure, Suarez has Christ carrying out the judgment, but it is only because the other bishops of the Church have pronounced the judgment first.

Instead, Bellarmine adopts the position that Suarez rejected: the pope loses his office immediately by committing the sin of formal heresy, because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church. It’s true that the bishops could still get together and make a declaration that God had deposed the pope, but their declaration would not be a judgment in any real sense, only an acknowledgement of what God had already done. (De Romano Pontifice 2.30)

Suarez and Bellarmine both have good points, but I think they each show how the other misses the mark. Suarez is right that, if Catholics are supposed to believe that God deposes popes, then Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, and the pronouncements of the Magisterium ought to have said something about it. But Bellarmine has something important to contribute, too: if God doesn’t depose popes, then no one can, because no one can judge the pope. And besides, it’s not even agreed that the pope could ever be a formal heretic, anyway.

 

Where does that leave us?
First, God has not abandoned his flock to the whims of heretics. Our Lord prayed for St. Peter’s faith (Luke 22:32), he promised Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church that was founding upon him (Matthew 16:18), and, on the day of Pentecost, he sent his Holy Spirit upon that Church, with Peter at its head, to proclaim the Gospel to all nations (Acts 2). Catholics shouldn’t expect, and shouldn’t go looking for falsehood in the successor of St. Peter. God is always faithful to his promises.

Second, because God is faithful to his promises, there is no evidence that Pope Francis has committed the mortal sin of formal heresy, the canonical crime of formal heresy, or that he is even a material heretic with regard to any of the Church’s teachings, including the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. Much to the contrary, he has said that he considers himself a “Son of the Church” in this regard, he has endorsed a traditional understanding of the relationship between the sexes, and has condemned the “ideological colonization” that breaks down God’s plan for the family. Sure, he has expressed support support for the way in which Cardinal Kasper wrote on marriage and the family, but he has never publicly and definitively endorsed what Cardinal Kasper said.

So what is all the fuss about? About something Pope Francis might do or say but has not actually done or said? Then why don’t we follow Gratian’s advice? Let’s pray for Pope Francis as earnestly as we can, because like Gratian said, our own salvation depends in many ways on the guidance he gives us as members of the flock of Christ. Even better, let’s pay attention to how we pray. Certainly Pope Francis needs our prayers. But prayers motivated by love for him are more meritorious than prayers motivated by fear of what he might do in spite of the graces that God offers him to fulfill his divinely appointed duty. Perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:8), and each one of us—clergy and laity alike—always stands in need of an increase of that love. Not that there will be less to work for—the latest revelations of impropriety at the Extraordinary Synod warn us against such naïveté—just less to fear as we grow in the confidence of Christ, and as we trust in the victory that God has already won in Christ, into which he leads his Church daily through the Successors of St. Peter: “I have said this to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

Jacob W. Wood is an Assistant Professor of Theology and a Faculty Associate of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He earned his Master’s in theology from St. Andrews University and his Ph.D. from The Catholic University of America.

 

2 of 580 readers’ comments

1. Indeed, Francis said nothing, just acted: gave preeminence to Kasper and his thesis, appointed the secretary, overrode the choice by the bishops of redactors, overrode the vote of the bishops on what would be included in the final report. Francis used the old leftist trick of controlling the process to achieve intended conclusions; he stacked the deck against orthodoxy, for his heterodoxy, his heresy. Some say that he acted as a Jesuit, more commonly known as deceptive. Francis just didn’t count on the Holy Spirit stirring a handful of orthodox cardinals to defend the Faith and protect the Church from his cabal of heretics.

 

 

 

2. Just a few moments after being selected by the Highest Authority in the Church, Peter was called “satan” because of his “thoughts of men and not of God.” Perhaps a Pope can be as ambiguous as our first Pope and yet not be a full-time heretic. In any case the words of Daniel, echoed by Our Lord in Matthew 24 worry me: “when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place … know that your liberation is near.”

I was not saying the pope is a heretic. I was commenting on the sycophants who spin confusion and say it is clarity.

 

 

Pope Francis’ doctrine chief: Bishops conference presidents are not ‘vice-popes’

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-doctrine-chief-bishops-conference-presidents-are-not-vice-pope

By Patrick B Craine, Rome, December 30, 2013

Pope Francis piqued the curiosity of many members of the faithful in his November 24th exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, when he said national bishops’ conferences should be granted “genuine doctrinal authority” as part of his effort to reform the papacy and decentralize authority in the Church. 

The idea raised concern for many Catholics, including those active in the battle for life and family, who expressed misgivings about giving more authority to institutions that, in many countries, have often been used to undermine the Church’s teachings on life and family issues.

Now the Pope’s prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has weighed in on the issue. Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller says that while the conferences can exercise a certain doctrinal authority – in preparing local catechisms, for example – they exist to serve individual bishops and will never act as an intermediary between bishop and pope. 

In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera published December 22nd, Archbishop Müller said there is no such thing as “national churches,” and the president of a bishops’ conference cannot be a “vice-pope.” 

“Some interpret Evangelii Gaudium as if the Holy Father wants to promote a certain autonomy of the local churches, the tendency to distance themselves from Rome,” he said. “But this is not possible. Particularism, like centralism, is a heresy. It would be the first step towards autocephaly.” 

The papacy and the role of bishop are “by divine right, instituted by Christ,” but the bishops’ conference, he said, “both historically and today, belong only to the ecclesiastical law,” which he noted is a “human” creation.

“The presidents of the episcopal conferences, while important, are coordinators, nothing more, not vicepopes!” he said. “Each bishop has a direct and immediate relationship with the Pope.”

A “decentralization” of power to the conferences would only create a new centralization, he said, in which the conference president “has all the information and the bishops are inundated with documents without time to prepare.” 

In a paragraph of his exhortation, Pope Francis spoke of the need for a “conversion of the papacy” and the way in which papal primacy is exercised. In particular, he said there was a need to better elaborate “a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority.”

“Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach,” he added.

However, bishops’ conferences have often been criticized for harboring dissidents or being used to try to silence strong episcopal voices in the name of ‘collegiality,’ and producing statements that are vague, confusing, or even misleading.

One of the most famous examples is the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 1968 Winnipeg Statement, which dissented from Humanae Vitae‘s prohibition of contraception by claiming that Catholics could use contraception in “good conscience” provided they had “tried sincerely” to obey Church teaching.

Most recently, the German bishops’ conference has been embroiled in controversy after signaling that they would allow Communion for some Catholics who are “remarried” despite an existing Catholic marriage.

Many fear that increasing power at the conferences could undermine the efforts of outspoken bishops within their dioceses, and increase the tendency for bishops to yield their proper authority to the conference.

In the lead-up to the 2008 U.S. election, Bishop Joseph Martino, then the ordinary in Scranton, was forced to intervene when a liberal Catholic group at a parish used some vague lines from the USCCB document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship to justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate. “No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” the bishop said, noting that he had produced his own pastoral letter insisting that Catholics must vote pro-life.

Perhaps the most incisive criticism of modern bishops’ conferences was offered by Pope Benedict XVI himself before his election. 

In The Ratzinger Report, his 1985 book-length interview with journalist Vittorio Messori, Cardinal Ratzinger explained that while the Second Vatican Council sought to restore the role of individual bishops, in practice the post-Conciliar period saw a reduction of their role because of the greater emphasis on the conferences. 

“The decisive new emphasis on the role of the bishops is in reality restrained or actually risks being smothered by the insertion of bishops into episcopal conferences that are ever more organized, often with burdensome bureaucratic structures,” he said.

Echoing Müller’s observation that the conferences are of human origin, Cardinal Ratzinger said they “have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.” 

“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops,” Cardinal Ratzinger added.

To what extent Müller’s view reflects that of Pope Francis, and to what extent it will impact the discussion going forward, is unclear.

 

 

The prefect made similar remarks at the end of September, days after Pope Francis confirmed him in his post.

Bishops’ conferences lack “a teaching competency over and above the authority of individual bishops,” he said, according to The Tablet. “They are not a third authority between the Pope and the bishops. So I don’t think we will see a sort of federalist reform similar to that in the Federal Republic [of Germany] where key competences are relayed from the central state to the individual states. That is not how the Church is constituted!”

 

 

The Synod’s Interim Report: Ambiguity and Misinterpretation

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/synods-interim-report-ambiguity-misinterpretation

By Eduardo Echeverria, October 17, 2014

[…] (Note: If I use brackets […] it implies that the information is already available in my other files.)

 

1 of 155 readers’ comments

Poor Jimmy Akin. He must be putting in overtime these days blaming “interpretations” or the “press convoluted” statements. Sooner or later, he and the Pollyanna attitude gang over at Catholic Answers will need to either fold and agree with the heretical statements coming from the Bergoglian empire, or admit that it’s heresy (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/good-news-from-the-synod-of-bishops-12-things-to-know-and-share)

 

 

Michael Voris speaks with the Associated Press about the Synod on the Family

http://cmtvnews.com/2014/10/16/michael-voris-associated-press-interview/
3:42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6K8xXimlMg

ChurchMilitant.TV Michael Voris video

October 16, 2014, published October 19, 2014

[…]

 

1 out of 36 readers’ comments

Hearing what was coming out of the Synod from the beginning to the publishing of the Relatio was very distressing and frightening. Why these moral issues were even being discussed was shocking to me. My hope and prayer is that the truth of our Catholic faith will not have to suffer from some heretical men in the Church. This shaking up may be the beginning of the refreshment that’s been needed as it was in Noah’s time. Sometimes I forget to trust Our Lord, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. Thank you Michael for championing our faith and giving us hope.

 

 

A Critique of Cardinal Kasper’s Latest Arguments

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/a-critique-cardinal-kaspers-latest-arguments

By Monica Migliorino Miller, October 20, 2014

[…]

 

1 of 161 readers’ comments

“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.” Jesus in Matthew 24:15-16. If I remember well St. Augustine explained “the mountains” figuratively as the firm ground we thread when we follow the teachings of the saints of all ages. Obviously the Church will never fail to teach the truth but now there is a band promoting heresies STANDING within her very inner circles. For the first time in centuries there is a Pope who is not formed — neither in philosophy nor in theology — to the degree that his predecessors were. The only thing now guarding the teaching of truth is the Holy Spirit and the bishops faithful to the Magisterium. It will be wonderful to see our Lord defend His Bride from the powers of Hell, consuming them with the fire of His breath. My prayers are with the Bishops of Africa and their faithful brothers all over the world and especially with Cardinal Raymond Burke who I pray will be our next Pope one day once the members of this heretical gang are gone.

 

 

Salt and Light attacks Card. Burke: sticking to the ideal instead of ministering to people

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/10/salt-and-light-attacks-card-burke-sticking-to-the-ideal-instead-of-ministering-to-people/

By Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, October 23, 2014

Salt and Light Television video featuring Alicia Ambrosio – Vatican Values VIDEO 18:41

Life Site has a piece about Salt and Light network’s verbal attack on Card. Burke. HERE

[…]

 

1 of 114 readers’ comments

 

 

 

 

Fr Rosica was so obviously a part of the synod stitch up and manipulation, that I am not surprised that his TV network is going after Cardinal Burke. The homo-heresy looks like it is the main fault line along which schism in the Church is growing – and Cardinal Pell spotted this before making his intervention. The Kasper coterie strike back, but let us hope there will be enough orthodox fathers at the synod of 2015 to defeat them.
–Deacon Augustine

 

 

Eleven Ways the Synod Failed Pope Francis’ Vision
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/11-ways-the-synod-failed-pope-francis-vision/

By Fr. Raymond J De Souza, October 23, 2014

[…]

 

2 of over 100 readers’ comments

1. Pope Francis approved the Synod agenda, which was posted in advance on the Vatican web site for all to see.
Pope Francis personally invited heretical Cardinals Kasper and Danneels as featured guest speakers.  This gave them worldwide press coverage months in advance to
promote their heresies and desire to change Doctrine.
Pope Francis personally appointed Baldisseri and Forte who wrote the false interim report.
Pope Francis set the stage, the topics and the tone, no matter what he may have said outside the Synod.
Let us be clear any relaxing of Doctrine – is a change in Doctrine.
It is not merciful, charitable, or pastoral to affirm, confirm or condone anyone in mortal sin.
2. I think Pope Francis almost did get his agenda, but thanks to the courage of a few bishops here and there, this was thwarted. You can tell exactly what the Holy Father’s agenda was by the men he put in place, gave the floor to, and appointed to write the reports after the bishops elected conservatives. Cardinals Kasper, Maradiaga, Forte, etc. are all known quantities that had been pretty much sent to the hinterlands by his predecessors. Yet, he put them in place,
let Kasper run around for a year proclaiming his heresy and that the Pope agreed with him and did nothing about it. The Pope has also removed Cardinal Burke from the Congregation of Bishops, and shortly from his position in the Signatura. 

No Father, I am afraid the Holy Father’s agenda is abundantly clear, and it does not match up with the revisionist history you describe above.

 

 

Chaput speaks against some views voiced in recent Vatican synod

http://articles.philly.com/2014-10-24/news/55364337_1_chaput-synod-divorced-and-remarried-catholics

By David O’Reilly, Inquirer Staff Writer, doreilly@phillynews.com
October 24, 2014

Same-sex marriage and Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics “can’t be a reality in our lives,” Archbishop Charles J. Chaput told a gathering of conservative Catholics this week.

His remarks seemed to signal that next year’s World Meeting of Families here would send no mixed messages such as those coming from the Vatican’s recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family.

[…]

Matthew Schmitz, deputy editor of First Things, said Wednesday that he did not believe Chaput’s remarks represented a rebuke of Francis for inviting the bishops’ synod to engage in a lively debate over how best to minister to modern families.

Instead, he said, Chaput appeared to be dismayed that the synod had “become an opportunity for confusion and consternation” that looked in the news media like “a battle between heretics on the one hand and crusty old bigots on the other.”

“That’s not what the church looks like,” Schmitz said. “It’s more like a muddling middle.”

 

 

Face it… and deal with it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyzsaEPBeHg&feature=youtu.be 9:42

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/platform/?today=2014-10-27

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/scripts/vort-2014-10-27.pdf

By Michael Voris, Rome, ChurchMilitant.TV, October 27, 2014

[…]

They didn’t learn about what the Fathers and doctors and saints said about Scripture; they learned what heretics like Friederich Schleiermacher, David Strauss, and Ludwig Feuerbach said. They were all part of a tradition called the Tubingen School—one of the original dens of evil.

Now this has been going on for more than a hundred years and still does go on. Young men filled with faith come to seminaries and begin to have their faith deconstructed.

[…]

 

 

 

 

Bp. Athanasius Schneider on the recent Synod’s final document: “radical neo-pagan ideology”

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/bp-athanasius-schneider-on-the-recent-synods-final-document-radical-neo-pagan-ideology/

Posted on 5 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

His Excellency Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan, had an interview with a Polish news outlet. HERE. He speaks with his usual forthrightness, to the point of being blunt.

[…]

 

1 of 43 readers’ comments

Scary and uncertain times. On one side the reaction (broadly) is: The sky is falling! Schism! Heresy! On the other side (broadly): Nothing to see here. Everything’s fine. “The gates of hell…” In the middle (broadly): Worry and apprehension but ultimately “Wait and see”.

What I’d really like is for all sides to start laying down some markers. What would be the *least* that would cause you to rethink your position? The ‘everything’s fine’ crowd will say “well obviously if Francis comes out and tries to infallibly define an outright heresy then of course that would be very bad”, but no one is really suggesting that that’s very likely. The ‘schism’ side will say “well obviously if he turns around and fires Kasper and says it was all an elaborate ruse to flush out the heretics then obviously…” but again, that’s not very likely.

What are people genuinely afraid of? What is the *least* that can happen to confirm your fears and what will you do then? What is that the *least* that can happen that would make you realize you were wrong?

 

 

The Loosing of the Leash: Card. Burke appointed to Knights of Malta

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/the-loosing-of-the-leash-card-burke-appointed-to-knights-of-malta/

Posted on 8 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

And so the show has dropped.

[…]

 

1 of 42 readers’ comments

The synod was a “total disaster”, as is this. May God grant Cardinal Burke the continuing strength and courage to defend the Faith against the heretics in the Church!

 

 

The Pope’s Unforced Error 
His demotion of Cardinal Burke, a loyal but eloquent critic, could turn out to be his greatest mistake. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392508/popes-unforced-error-benedict-kiely/page/0/1

By Benedict Kiely, November 12, 2014

[…]

 

3 of 701 readers’ comments

1. The Pope demotes Cardinal Burke to military commander. Maybe it is a demotion in the eyes of the world, but not in God’s eyes!!!!!! Cardinal Burke is fighting heresy. Leading the fight!!!! Fighting the good fight. Way to go Cardinal Burke!!!

2. Can you not all recognize the wolf in sheep’s clothing in Francis? How could such a Synod document, drafted by APPOINTEES of Francis, be released? How can the MAJORITY (not 2/3 majority) of prelates vote for doctrine, and vote to allow Holy Communion to be given to adulterers? Francis is the Biblical False Prophet, the second beast of Revelation 13.

3. Pope Francis is an Apostate pope. The secret of Fatima is revealed and confirmed. Those that rose at Vatican II to undermine the Faith can scramble, trying to justify their acts by canonizing the Popes who ignored the message of Fatima, but their time runs short. Jesus returns for a reason, and the damage those faithless political prelates push forward with each passing day are good cause.

 

 

MAGISTER: “words and gestures left purposely vague”

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/magister-words-and-gestures-left-purposely-vague/

Posted on 13 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[…]

 

1 of 9 readers’ comments

Was Our Lord ambiguous? The apostles? The fathers? Our Lord’s words were perplexing and baffling at times to the apostles themselves. He proclaimed a New Covenant. Did Our Lord seek to avoid the persecution of the elect?
There is nothing good in ambiguity, it is the shelter of
heresy.

 

 

Obscurity of natural law is the consequence of a clouded conscience, and so God intervenes, reveals truth. His servants guard and proclaim revealed truth to a clouded, meaningless world. Those who speak ambiguously should be ignored, until such time as they speak clearly.

 

 

Lettre d’un curé au Pape
par Solluna

http://www.leforumcatholique.org/printFC.php?num=769078 and at the mid-page of this link http://eucharistiemisericor.free.fr/index.php?page=2201151_lapins

By Fr. Anonymous, January 22, 2015

[…]

My biggest fear is that if Francis continues to push the Church to heresy, then we could experience a war among the faithful who would show the opposition of Archbishop Lefebvre after Vatican II as a simple objection!

 

Was Pope Francis warning against bishops ordaining ‘traditionalist’ seminarians?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/was-pope-francis-warning-against-bishops-ordaining-traditionalist-seminaria

By John-Henry Westen, Rome, February 20, 2015

[…]

 

1 of 37 readers’ comments

Pope Francis
is a heretic and not really a Catholic. It is time for the bishops to draw up a list of his heresies and demand that he recant every one of them in public. If they don’t that, our bishops are useless cowards.

 

 

The German bishops have voted to allow those in gay civil unions or in adulterous second marriages to remain Church employees

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/german-bishops-compromise

By Christine Niles, Munich, May 7, 2015

[…]

 

1 of 19 readers’ comments

These are heretics and apostates sorry excuses for clergy let alone alleged bishops. Francis should expel German heretics Marx and Woilke & Kasper like he did the apostate ex priest in Australia and ten homosexual prelates in Spain recently.

 

 

Pope’s Ghostwriter Clashes with Head of CDF over Eco-encyclical?

http://www.onepeterfive.com/popes-ghostwriter-clashes-with-head-of-cdf-over-eco-encyclical/

By Steve Skojec, May 13, 2015

[…]

 

1 of 35 readers’ comments

Heresy. We all better gird our spiritual loins for the Great Apostasy, because it is here. In living color…and coming to a Parish near you…
Father Duffy

 

 

The Francis Effect and what has gone wrong – Father Linus Clovis

http://voxcantor.blogspot.in/2015/05/the-francis-effect-and-what-has-gone.html

May 14, 2015

Father Linus F. Clovis spoke last week at a forum for Pro-Life leaders in Rome.

It can be found on Gloria TV http://gloria.tv/media/CG5Dyd1WWLg and Steve Skojec has transcribed some of the main points. Please visit OnePeterFive for the rest of the transcript.

 

1 out of 5 readers’ comments

“…A truth that is not defended is suppressed…”

I like that statement. A widespread form of this suppression, is the refusal by clergy and laity to talk about heresy and schism. How can you clearly teach the truth without identifying the error? When the bishops of Rome refuse to talk about this then the suppression becomes all the more serious. An essential characteristic of the Neo-Modernist understanding of truth, is the correspondence of mind with one’s lifestyle (adaequatio intellectus et vitae). This understanding of truth, worthy of the hippies, at Haight and Ashbury, in the 1967 summer of love, has saturated our Church. It has crippled our ability to defend our faith and morals.

 

Fr. Clovis’ understanding of truth looks sound and traditional; the correspondence of the mind with reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei).

Pope Benedict XVI, in his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, had a quote that really caught my attention: “What was Holy yesterday is Holy today.” Equally true, of course, is:What was heresy yesterday is heresy today.”

I like this Fr. Clovis. He has some Athanasius and Borromeo in him.

 

 

Leading Pro-Life Priest Laments “The Francis Effect

http://www.onepeterfive.com/leading-pro-life-priest-laments-the-francis-effect/

By Steve Skojec, May 14, 2015

[…]

 

2 out of 92 readers’ comments

1. Fr. Clovis–a saint for our times! Great article Steve. This is the most uplifting article I have read in months or is it years. Fr. Clovis leaves little doubt that Pope Francis is doing much more harm than good. His very popularity condemns him. May God bless Fr. Clovis and help Pope Francis to see the error of his ways. 2.
Pope condemn heresies? No, more like initiate them. It appears the only ideas our dear Pope considers corrupt are those beliefs held by orthodox Catholics.

 

 

PopeWatch: Francis Effect

http://the-american-catholic.com/2015/05/18/popewatch-francis-effect-4/

By Donald R. McClarey, May 18, 2015 

[…]

 

1 out of 13 readers’ comments

The pope continues to appoint and applaud heretics and unsavory people. I cannot trust him to uphold the faith or do the right thing.

 

 

Confidential Meeting Seeks to Sway Synod to Accept Same-Sex Unions 

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/confidential-meeting-seeks-to-sway-synod-to-accept-same-sex-unions/

Around 50 participants, including bishops, theologians and media representatives, took part in the gathering, held at the Pontifical Gregorian University.

By Edward Pentin,
The Register‘s Rome correspondent,
May 26, 2015

[…]

 

1 of 274 readers’ comments

I have read some say that these Cardinals and Bishops who are promoting the destruction of the family are heretics.
At first I thought that this was too harsh a term. Now I think it is true.

Take for example, Cardinal Kasper. He is around 84 years old, he witnessed the time leading up to Adolf Hitler, he saw how the propaganda was used to move the German people to be more accepting and even support the persecution and murder of millions of Jews, he saw through the use of the media, the conversion of the German people to a people willing to participate in the imprisonment and killing of Catholic priest, polish, gypsies, and many other groups. In 1930 they would have never dreamed of doing what they themselves were involved in just 10 years later.

If only the Catholic Church in Germany would have stood up against Hitler early on, publicly told people that supporting Adolf Hitler was wrong and that they should fight against him, I am sure that he would never have been able to do what he did. Yes, Catholics were a minority in Germany at the time but they had tremendous influence.

I can’t believe the Cardinal Kasper can’t see that by supporting the anti-family agenda of the left, he is in fact supporting ever more dramatic anti-God change and ultimately, in fact, bringing about the persecution of the Catholic Church by the people and governments of the world.

Never has evil been defeated by sitting backing and not saying anything. The only chance Catholics have is to stand up and fight this diabolical agenda. Of course, prayer is the most important, prayer for strength and bravery during the coming persecution, prayer for strength and bravery to stand up for what is right, both among our peers and against those that support the diabolical agenda. We must stand up for God, or he will not stand up for us in the final judgement. He died for us, are we not willing to at least face the wrath of our peers. As he said, I came not to bring peace, but a sword.

 

 

Mixing up the sciences of Heaven and Earth

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/mixing-up-the-sciences-of-heaven-and-earth

By Fr. George W. Rutler, June 18, 2015

[…]

 

1 out of 516 readers’ comments

The encyclical is filled with 2nd grade logic – (paraphrase) “I observe chaos, humans inhabit the world, therefore the cause is climate change.”

I nearly wept in complete sadness, amazement, and frustration when I read the pope’s apparent condemnation of … air conditioning … of all things, he could condemn, he condemns … air conditioning.

The official English draft implies that the solution to the “filth” of the earth is preventing humans from inhabiting the earth. It is almost as if he simply took Humanae Vitae and replaced contraception with humans and sexual chaos with global warming.

Lastly, it is implied that St. Francis’ theology was correct. Isn’t that a major stretch? St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong on some major doctrinal matters (Immaculate Conception). Couldn’t St. Francis have been heretical by even suggesting that non-human beings are even close to equal to human beings?

Laudato Si’ seems to be based on and filled with so many heresies it would take thousands of pages to explain all of them.

 

 

Pope Francis on Communist Crucifix: “It wasn’t an Offense”

http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-on-communist-crucifix-it-wasnt-an-offense/

By Steve Skojec, July 13, 2015

[…]

 

4 of 193 readers’ comments

1. Are we really going to keep pretending Jorge Bergoglio is any kind of good Catholic? Compare this to his reaction when he got a Rosary Bouquet. He also degraded the Catholicization of South America – Something every South American owes their entire present civilization to at this point. This man if not a heretic in the least is a malcontent.

2.
Steve Skojec: First and only warning: you want to speculate, I’ll give you some latitude if you want to try to make your case, but start declaring things like “Francis is the False Prophet” and you’re way out of your depth.

Only a pope has the right to judge a prior pope, and a council to decide that a sitting pope has committed manifest heresy.

3. I want to offer freedom for discussion, but we don’t play this game here.

I’m not sure you are correct Mr. Skojec, regarding ‘only a pope has the right to judge a prior pope, and a council to decide that a sitting pope has committed manifest heresy‘. I think there are Biblical passages which are in opposition to that conclusion and there are saints (Bellarmine for one) who’ve written in opposition as well. (See “De Controversiis On the Roman Pontiff” St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. Translated from the Latin by Ryan Grant, pages 304-310.)
Nevertheless, none of this precludes a lay person from her/her PRIVATE opinion as to the orthodoxy of a current claimant to the throne of Peter. 
And regarding the throne, if I recall correctly, Francis and at least 3 of his predecessors were never enthroned, they were ‘installed’, similar to how priest/presbyters have been ‘installed as presiding over the assembly of the people” since A.D. 1968 – not as receiving Holy Orders to offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass. 
For that reason alone, I think, we may question the validity of the sacraments offered by any man, priest, bishop or pope, who took vows after 1968 in the institutional Latin church. To my mind, Francis is the first layman to occupy the office. 
Leaving that aside, I think anyone who knows the basics of the Catholic Faith is capable of understanding when an action and/or statement is heretical. I also think anyone who knows the basics of the Catholic Faith is protected by the truth and shouldn’t have to wait (for decades or centuries) for a proclamation from a council to discern heresy from orthodoxy AND to be able to state that in no uncertain terms. 
It is a fine (and intentional) mess–as Francis has so often asked the youth to ‘make a mess’. In this, he leads by example.

4. The concern with these outright heretical speeches and acceptance of Marxism does start to raise questions about the validity of Francis as Pope.

 

 

The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4131/the_rigging_of_a_vatican_synod.aspx
EXTRACT

By Edward Pentin, September 2, 2015

We wonder how certain bishops could recommend allowing the divorced and remarried to participate in Holy Communion but it isn’t surprising if you understand what occurred within the Church at the Second Vatican Council.

It is a fact that the heretical theology and philosophies of those such as Mario Martini, Bruno Forte, Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Henri de Lubac, Jacques Maritain, and particularly, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (who had no less than 14 known interdicts, prohibitions and outright condemnations against him from competent Church authorities including Pope Pius XII) were not only influential in the Council [Vatican II], but some were actually adopted-religious liberty, ecumenism, the mission of the Church, and collegiality for example.

In fact, we learned that the “modern” theologians, philosopher’s, psychologists and psychiatrists had much more to teach us about our religion than St. Thomas Aquinas, previous popes, previous Ecumenical Councils, Saints, and Doctors and Fathers of the Church. The Church, in order to reach out to the modern world, relied on these moderns for direction and assistance in the new “pastoral” and “ecumenical” objectives in which Vatican II operated.

 

 

 

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a believer in evolution and denied the Dogma of Original Sin. He believed in an evolutionary Christ, a “cosmic” Christ, and in an evolution of man’s conscience where, truth at one time in history was true then but could not be true in another time. All people and all of creation are “moving forward” and once everyone realizes they have God within him, the ‘omega point” is reached. The fullness of truth.

This is how the contradictions seen in the documents of Vatican II are validated. For example, the Catholic Church understood that She alone was the one, true Church instituted by Christ but as man’s conscience evolved, he came to understand that all religions have some truths and so, all faiths are actually part of the redemptive value of Christ’s suffering and death and thus, all are actually the Church of Christ.

Pope Francis, in his encyclical “Laudato Si” even referenced Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
and incorporated his heretical dogma of evolution in this paragraph: 83.

“The ultimate destiny of the universe is in the fullness of God, which has already been attained by the risen Christ, the measure of the maturity of all things. Here we can add yet another argument for rejecting every tyrannical and irresponsible domination of human beings over other creatures. The ultimate purpose of other creatures is not to be found in us. Rather, all creatures are MOVING FORWARD WITH US AND THROUGH US TOWARDS A COMMON POINT OF ARRIVAL, WHICH IS GOD…”

This statement is a perfect example of how Modernists are able to deceive. They combine both the truth and a Modernist dogma in the same sentence. This method is evident in all of their writings.

The “cosmic Christ” of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is what the German bishops are pursuing. Modern man does not accept the “past” moral teaching that one should be left out of the partaking of Communion because modern man’s morality has “evolved”. And so, the teaching of the Church must adopt the evolved, and more enlightened of course, understanding of man.

A more thorough expose of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin can be found at: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/teilhard.pdf (The Teilhardian Church, by F. Albers, Ph. B.)

 

2 out of 126 readers’ comments

1. Thank you, Mr. Pentin, and those who cooperated with you – I am sure at no small professional risk to any of you – and for keeping us informed. As we stand before the firing squad of heresy I prefer to look them in the eye with a knowing smile.

2.
Your comment is informative and in many ways correct. However, there is a certain “fire” in those seeking alternative modes of operation which preclude a simple “fear of the state” motivation for their accommodation to immorality and
heresy. They have seen fit to leave two generations without Roman Catholic catechesis, they align themselves with every
left wing political movement they can, and they worship at the altar of the soft sciences of sociology and psychology. Remember – this posture was deliberately adopted during and after the Second Vatican Council with the cooperation of John XXIII and Paul VI. For whatever reasons John Paul and Benedict did not expose these movements and their
constituents for what they are – they were wrong not to do that (fear of scandal/saving ecclesiastical face) thus we
have what we endure today. In recent months I have been enormously informed by the works of Roberto de Mattei, Romano Amerio and H.J.A. Sire. Scholarly, illuminating examinations of the Church in its current dilemma and how we got there.

These men only reveal what all of us knew while it was happening over the past fifty years. You read them and just keep shaking your head “yes… I’m not crazy.” Must reading for Catholics not afraid to lift the curtain and face
the beast that is among us.

 

 

Taking Offense at Pope Francis… Just the Beginning

http://twoheartspress.com/blog/taking-offense-at-pope-francis-just-the-beginning/

By Dr. Kelly Bowring, September 2, 2015

[…]

Blessed Are Those Who Take Offense at Pope Francis

It’s not a question as to whether Pope Francis is just a liberal pope, a misunderstood pope, a Jesuit pope, a pastoral pope, or even possibly a heretical pope and an anti-pope.

What we do now know is that, as prophecy rightly warned, Pope Francis has begun to wage a campaign against the traditional Church. He is engaging in subtly and even cunningly moving the Church from a concern for revelation, conversion and salvation to one that focuses almost exclusively on humanism, socialism and the environment. The reality of sin and Hell are by effect being undermined. Compassion for the sinner is being emphasized, without equal emphasis on repentance. The problem is that this leads to people choosing hell who refuse to turn their backs on mortal sin. Pope Francis is leading the Church into the greatest crisis in her history, as prophecy said he would and as many commentators are now admitting he is doing.

Does not the Holy Spirit speak through the prophets, and thus should we not listen to solid divine prophecy, especially as it begins to prove true over time?

 

 

 

Prophecy is clear about what is unfolding and coming, and looking at what is going on in the world and in the Church today confirms the writing is on the wall. Prophecy tells us that the Church is about to be torn asunder and split into two camps, and this by her own ministers, where the visible Church will become the false counterfeit Church and the true Church will have to go underground. It won’t be long now before the divide within the Church becomes formalized and truly colossal. It seems more and more apparent that plans are already underway to form a new church in league with the world; one that by effect becomes more and more opposed to Christ and His Law of truth.

The last 3 years shows us that as the power of Pope Francis rises, anyone who dares to challenge him is being ignored or removed, even in the highest places within the Church. The offenses we have received from him are already so many it’s hard to keep up. Thus, blessed is he who sees what is going on and thus rightly takes offense at him and courageously stands up for the true Faith in these times.

[…]

Today, the greatest heretics in the history of the Church have infiltrated to her highest levels. No one can deny this now. Sure, many will try to deny these prophecies which God revealed to the world and the corresponding unfolding of events, but they will do this at their own peril. Things are going as they are and rejecting or ignoring this reality will not stop it. Many others will listen and respond. It is to you I speak. Meanwhile, these heretics will continue unabated in weakening the Church. But, I intend to do what I can to stop them and I am trying to encourage you to do the same. And if you don’t actively discern and decide whose side you are on now, you will very soon wake up to find yourself on the wrong side by default as things unfold.

[…]

The Great and Final Battle Is Unfolding Now

We are now in the time of the great spiritual confusion that God has been warning us about, a time that will see the great and final storm of the Church and shipwreck of the faith. The devil is the source of great confusion, and he is causing many to become spiritually blind, distracted, and asleep. The imposter is being set up to deceive so many people, and because of their misguided loyalty, they will follow like lambs to their own slaughter. They do not see how the Trojan horse has already entered the city of God. More and more from within the enemy is being perceived as the friend, while the true Church of Christ is being declared to be the enemy. Liars at high levels in the Church are using twisted logic to replace the doctrines of the Faith with new heretical teachings, and no one is being given a forum to be heard against them and what they are doing.

[…]

See Pope Francis for what he is and judge his works in order to see if they bear fruit. We have had enough time now to see that the fruit that Reinhard Marx, Walter Kasper and Cupich yield is rotten to the core.

Changes are being forced upon the faithful, and we are being made to swallow lies. These lies are coming from Satan and are dressed in sheep’s clothing. The truth is that they are designed to destroy the Church on earth, from within its very center. The proof is evident to those who want to see… that these changes being introduced contradict and oppose the true Word of God.

[…]

 

 

Prelates Speak Out About Synod!

From: tfp@tfp.org
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:30:43 -0400 Subject: Prelates Speak Out About Synod!

By John Horvat, September 11, 2015

[…]

Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga is bishop emeritus of Karaganda, Kazakhstan. He claims that in churches today “Christ is no longer proclaimed. They don’t speak any more like Christ — yes, yes, no, no.” There are many that cause “a silence to arise around sin, the tone is quieted down. Sin is what you want it to be.”

“If it [the Synod] accepts the statement of those who want to distribute Holy Communion to the divorced, it would be a heresy in the Church. And if it does not accept, there can be a schism in the Church. German, Belgian, and Dutch schism.”

 

 

Family leaders alarmed at Pope Francis’ personal invitees for Synod

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/family-leaders-alarmed-at-popes-personal-invitees-for-synod

By Pete Baklinski, September 15, 2015

[…]

That the Church is facing an unprecedented crisis is a theme beginning to be stressed by prelates recognized by many Catholic faithful for their strong commitment to upholding Catholic teaching.  

Last week Archbishop Lenga, the emeritus archbishop of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, told Polonia Christiana in an explosive video that also featured Cardinal Burke, that Pope Francis will reveal himself during the Synod.

“The Pope during the Synod will show whose side he is on,” he said. “If he accepts the statements of those who want to distribute Holy Communion to the divorced, there would be a heresy in the Church, and if he does not accept, there could be a schism in the Church.”

 

 

 

Cardinal Burke said in the same interview that “we’re in a time of crisis within the church,” suggesting that “we may have to give our all (including our very lives) to safeguard and promote the truth of the faith not only for ourselves and our own generation but also for those to come.”

Archbishop Lenga concluded: “Either we are on the side of Christ, or on the side of the devil. There is no third option. The common people are sometimes closer to Christ than priests.”

 

 

Beware the Divider, Already In Our Midst

http://www.onepeterfive.com/beware-the-divider-already-in-our-midst/?utm_source

By Steve Skojec, Rome, September 15, 2015

[…]

But even now, the forces which have aligned themselves against the surge of heresy now roaring up like a geyser from within the Church are themselves being manipulated. I have seen in recent weeks a growing spirit of division among those who should be united under Christ’s banner. Like tendrils of smoke, the enemy sows doubt and discord, delicately enough that we do not notice. We distract ourselves with arguments that do not pertain to the evil before us. We find that the faults of others with whom we are aligned have become sufficiently exaggerated that we are agitated. And some of our fellows, with whom we should be standing against the coming charge, have even turned and set upon the members of our ranks.

I have become convinced that these sorts of events, which I see growing in frequency, are in fact the fruit of a campaign of spiritual warfare — intentional distractions and provocations — designed to blunt our effectiveness, to dull our awareness, and to drain our energy. Beware the Divider, already in our midst, who seduces us into thinking that our cause is more just, our judgments more correct, our methods more praiseworthy.

[…]

 

625,000 Catholics ask Pope Francis to dispel moral confusion at Synod

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/625000-catholics-ask-pope-to-dispel-moral-confusion-at-synod

September 18, 2015

[…]

Some prelates slated to attend the upcoming Synod have openly challenged Church moral doctrine. 

For example, in a recent interview with La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit periodical, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna spoke approvingly of homosexual unions. “We can and we must respect the decision to form a union with a person of the same sex,” the prelate said, “[and] to seek means under civil law to protect their living together with laws to ensure such protection.”

However, many high-ranking Church leaders disagree with Cardinal Schönborn, a delegate at the upcoming Synod.

Cardinal Raymond Burke declared in a video interview released by Polonia Cristiana that, “It is heresy to teach that homosexual relations…are not disordered, to teach that they have positive elements.

In the same documentary video, Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga added: “… if we believe that homosexuals brought something into the Church, it is nothing but debauchery and licentiousness. … The Holy Scripture beautifully says that such people will not get into Heaven.”

[…]

 

 

“Master, Doth It Not Concern Thee That We Perish?”

http://www.onepeterfive.com/master-doth-it-not-concern-thee-that-we-perish

By Steve Skojec, September 21, 2015

[…]

Last week’s video from Polonia Christiana (which I’m still transcribing quotes from) in which several Catholic prelates discuss how heresy and schism are now a reality facing the Church remains one of the best things we’ve seen on the topic.

The attack on marriage — and through it, the promotion of sodomy and of sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist — is the issue that is even now bearing down on us like a freight train.

[…]

It seems now as we watch the Barque of Peter battered on the waves of heresy and scandal that Christ sleeps through the tempest that surrounds us. Even so, we must remember that His power is not latent and His awareness has not turned away from us. His love for His bride is deeper than any man’s for his own beloved, and He will save her in her deep distress.

In his encyclical on the Kingship of Christ, Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI reminds the faithful:

Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. 

[…]

 

 

Subject:
Pope’s address to the Joint Session of Congress USA: Reveals his insidious agenda Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:48:50 +0000 (UTC)

Pope’s address to the Joint Session of Congress USA: Reveals his insidious agenda

By Fr. Conrad Saldanha, a priest of the Archdiocese of Bombay

September 24, 2015

I worked on his address to the American Joint Session of Congress on an urgent basis to caution Catholics on Pope Francis and his heretical teachings. His heretical teachings are also rampant in all his speeches and writings, including his encyclicals. He only confirms the many prophecies of caution, especially by our Lady and of the various saints. It invites us to a time of prayer and repentance and trust in God in this time of great deception, so that we may not be carried away by such deception. Fr. Conrad  

[…] See pages 6-11 of QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 15-THE POPE SPEAKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AIR POLLUTION AND A HERETICAL PRIEST EVADES PROLIFE ISSUES

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_15-THE_POPE_SPEAKS_ON_CLIMATE_CHANGE_AIR_POLLUTION_AND_A_HERETICAL_PRIEST_ EVADES _PROLIFE_ISSUES.doc

 

 

Cardinal Danneels
admits to Being Part of ‘Mafia’ Club Opposed to Benedict XVI

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi

By Edward Pentin, September 24, 2015

[…]

 

1 of 58 readers’ comments

Danneels, Kasper and Marx as well as Forte and Baldisseri are the ringleaders in the cabal of heretics. We must pray hard that their efforts to destroy the Our Lord’s Church from within and lead more souls astray are defeated.

 

Vatican Conspiracy against Pope Benedict, For Pope Francis?

http://www.onepeterfive.com/vatican-conspiracy-against-pope-benedict-for-pope-francis

By Steve Skojec, September 25, 2015

[…]

 

1 out of 29 readers’ comments

“I saw the relationship between the two Popes. I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city (of Rome). The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness. Then, the vision seemed to extend on every side. Whole Catholic communities were being oppressed, harassed, confined, and deprived of their freedom. I saw many churches close down, great miseries everywhere, wars and bloodshed. A wild and ignorant mob took to violent action. But it did not last long. Once more I saw the Church of Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect, while storms were damaging it. But I saw also that help was coming when distress had reached its peak. I saw again the Blessed Virgin ascend on the Church and spread Her mantle [over it]. I saw a Pope who was at once gentle, and very firm . . . I saw a great renewal, and the Church rose high in the sky.”

“I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before and he admits only a limited number of friends near him. I fear that the Holy Father will suffer many more trials before he dies. I see that the false Church of Darkness is making progress, and I see the dreadful influence that it has on people. The Holy Father and the Church are verily in so great a distress that one must implore God day and night. “I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps.” -Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich

 

 

1P5 Podcast – Episode 20: Are You Angry Yet?

http://www.onepeterfive.com/1p5-podcast-episode-20-are-you-angry-yet/

By Steve Skojec, September 26, 2015

[…]

The anger one feels at the open and flagrant contempt on display for the Catholic faith from the highest echelons of the Church is perhaps matched only by the astonishing naïveté of those members of the faithful who refuse to admit there is a problem. From the tepidity of the Catholic message during the papal visit to the aggrandizement of manifest opponents of the moral law at papal Masses to the conspiracy of known heretics who are so brazen that they admit their misdeeds in public to the never-ending assault of heterodox prelates hand-picked by the pope to have a seat at the Synod…it’s time to be angry. But we mustn’t stop there.

“Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are, and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are.”– St. Augustine

 

Words of Encouragement from our contemporary Athanasius

http://www.onepeterfive.com/words-of-encouragement-from-our-contemporary-athanasius/

By Steve Skojec, October 6, 2015

[…]

Many of us are fearful, because of what we see coming. But what if this is what God wants? What if He is allowing this Synod to come to its fruition in perverse distortions of doctrine or praxis so that it may become clear who Our Lord’s enemies are, and how He will confound them? I have had this thought in my mind for some time, but Bishop Schneider’s letter confirms it. I have found it beneficial to no longer pray specifically that the Synod preserve the doctrine on marriage, but instead that God’s will be done with the Synod. If He wants preservation of doctrine through this body, so be it. If He wants schism or heresy or apostasy so that the cancer may be excised from the Church, so be it.

I want what He wants, and only that.

[…]

 

 

Secular Conservative “The Week:” Does Pope Francis Fear God?

https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/10/06/secular-conservative-the-week-does-pope-francis-fear-god/
http://www.onepeterfive.com/do-they-not-fear-god/

By Steve
Skojec, October 6, 2015

[…]

In the next three weeks, I fully expect the leadership of my own One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church to fall into apostasy, at the conclusion of the Synod on the Family that begins today in Rome. This is the outcome Pope Francis has shaped over the entirety of his pontificate, and particularly with his recent appointments.

An event like this —heresy
promulgated by the Pope and his bishops — is believed by most Catholics to be impossible. But they should be prepared for it anyway. This is not an ordinary religious conference, but one to be dreaded.

[…]

 

 

Bishop contradicts Christ,
spouts heresy
at Synod

https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/bishop-contradicts-christ-spouts-heresy-at-synod/

October 8, 2015

[…]

 

 

8 October – Thoughts about the Synod at this point

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/10/8-october-thoughts-about-the-synod-at-this-point/

Posted on 8 October 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[…]

 

2 of 88 readers’ responses

1.
At this point, it’s pretty clear that the Pope wants a certain outcome and given his comments, it’s not as bad as the innovators desire, but given the annulment reforms, it won’t be a good either.

If it’s a sin to want this Papacy to end, then may God have mercy on me, but I do want Pope Francis to feel happy that he’s done what he set out to do and retire so someone better can assume the Papacy that has the fortitude to undo the damage.

Unfortunately, I fear that just as the synod was rigged, so will the conclave be rigged since the foxes are in charge of the hen house. Without a fair selection and strong but wise Pope that is willing to cut the leaders of these heresies at the knees, at least one schism will happen and it won’t be pretty. If I didn’t know Church History and I didn’t have complete faith in the Church, I’d be in despair now. As it stands now, I’m fortifying myself and my family against the coming storm.

2.
I’d love to see all the faithful cardinals get up and start shouting “heresy, we resist these machinations!”
And then resist! Stage a sit in.

 

 

“At the End of the Synod, Francis may impose his will, Diktak-style — but Bergoglism is foundering everywhere” [The Argentinian War Machine with the German Engine is Stuck in the Mud]

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/10/socci-at-end-of-synod-francis-may.html

By Antonio Socci,
October 11/15, 2015

[…]

The Synod opened with Cardinal Erdö‘s report reaffirming Catholic Doctrine, demolishing Kasper’s heresies (and irritating Bergoglio).

[…]

 

 

Hell of a Synod

http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexhell-of-a-synod

By Michael Voris, October 12, 2015

[…]

These men are about as Catholic as Judas was. They talk in syrupy sound bites and convoluted, nonsensical phrases, but at the end of the day have no more concern for souls than the man in the moon. They have lost the Faith, and so, being professional Churchmen, they need to invent a new mission for their New Church. They spew heresy disguised as politically correct language aimed at “inclusion” and “welcoming” but are sinister in their approach.

Things have reached a bit of an impasse at the Synod, as many of the bishops are now saying publicly. The impasse is over how to speak to an indifferent world the truths of Christ in such a way as not to water down the doctrine. Even the press corps in the press briefing room has now popped that question at least twice, sensing the impossibility of trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Both Canadian archbishop Paul Andre Durocher in the naturalist camp as well as Philadelphia archbishop Charles Chaput admitted to the difficulty of trying to square this circle.

The real underlying tension is the one present in the Church at large, so it shouldn’t be surprising that it has found its way into this Synod. It is the issue of being “offensive.” It is the one thing that you cannot be in the Church today, under any circumstances. If you say anything that causes offense, you are shown the door immediately. John the Baptist would have a difficult time in such circumstances, not to mention, oh, say, Jesus Christ, of whom St. Mark records for us “they took offense at Him.”

[…]

 

 

The Church cannot change her language about homosexuality

http://voiceofthefamily.com/the-church-cannot-change-its-language-about-homosexuality/

October 13, 2015

[…]

St Paul warns about how a lack of clear teaching will lead to indifference and heresy:

“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue plain speech, how shall it be known what is said? For you shall be speaking into the air.” (1 Corinthians 14:8-9)

“Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:1-4)

This is why in 1905 Pope St Pius X instituted the Oath against Modernism, to sworn by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. The person swearing the oath said:

“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously” and

“I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.”

In brief, the calls for the Church to put aside its doctrine and use new language instead stem from an unacceptable desire to marry the spirit of the age, as Voice of the Family has warned in its analyses of the Ordinary Synod’s Instrumentum Laboris and of the Extraordinary Synod’s Relatio Synodi.

 

 

With orthodox Catholic confidence at its seeming lowest ever in and with the present Pope, one media apostolate organised a mid-Synod petition appealing to the participants to “abandon the failed Synod”:

Catholic Faithful ask Bishops to Abandon the Failed Synod

http://www.onepeterfive.com/catholic-faithful-ask-bishops-to-abandon-the-failed-synod/

October 14, 2015

[…]

The previous day, they had published this essay on the “bad” Popes of the past, with Pope Francis’ being now under the scanner and senior prelates anticipating a possible Hobson’s choice between heresy and schism:

Getting Real about Catholic History: A Brief Review of Papal Lapses

http://www.onepeterfive.com/getting-real-about-catholic-history-a-brief-review-of-papal-lapses/
EXTRACT

By Benedict Constable, October 13, 2015

This essay is not for the weak in faith, who cannot bear to see any pope criticized for any reason—as if the whole Catholic Faith will come tumbling down when we can show that a particular Vicar of Christ was a scoundrel, cheat, murderer, fornicator, coward, compromiser, ambiguator, verger on heresy, promulgator of heresy, promoter of lax or faulty discipline, or what have you.

 

The Catholic Faith comes to us from God, from Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Church, its immovable cornerstone, its permanent guarantee of truth and holiness. The content of that Faith is not determined by the Pope. It is determined by Christ, once for all, and handed down in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium—with the Magisterium understood not as anything and everything that emanates from bishops or popes, but as the public, official, definitive, and universal teaching of the Church enshrined in dogmatic canons and decrees, anathemas, bulls, encyclicals, and other instruments of teaching, and precisely inasmuch as they announce their intention.

One serious problem that faces us is the rampant papolatry that blinds Catholics to the reality that Popes are peccable and fallible human beings like the rest of us, and that their pronouncements are guaranteed to be free from error only under strictly delimited conditions. [1]

Apart from that, the realm of papal ignorance, error, sin, and disastrous prudential governance is broad and deep—although secular history affords no such catalog of greatness as the nearly 100 papal saints, and plenty of worse examples than the worst popes, which says a lot about man’s fallen condition.

At a time when so many Catholics seem to be confused about whether and how the Pope can go wrong, it seems useful to compile examples in three categories:

(1) times when the popes were guilty of grave personal immorality;

(2) times when popes connived at or with heresy, or were guilty of a harmful silence or ambiguity in regard to heresy;

(3) times when popes promulgated something heretical or harmful to the faithful.

Of course, not everyone will agree that every item listed is, in fact, a full-blooded example of the category in question, but that is beside the point; the fact that there are a number of problematic instances is sufficient to show that the Pope is not an automatic oracle of God who hands down only what is good, right, holy, and laudable. (If that last statement seems like a caricature, one need only look at how conservative Catholics today are bending over backwards to try to get lemonade out of every lemon offered by Pope Francis, and denying with vehemence that Roman lemons could ever be rotten or poisonous.)

[…]

Times When Popes Connived at or With Heresy, or were Guilty of a Harmful Silence or Ambiguity in Regard to
Heresy

Pope Honorius (625–638)

In their efforts to reconcile the Monophysites of Egypt and Asia, the Eastern emperors took up the doctrine of Monothelitism, which proposed that, while Christ has two natures, He has only one will. When this was rejected by theologians as also heretical, the further compromise was advanced that, although Christ has two wills, they have nevertheless only one operation. This, too, was false, but the patriarch of Constantinople made efforts to promote reunion by stifling the debate and forbidding discussion of either one or two operations. In 634, he wrote to Pope Honorius seeking support for this policy, and the pope gave it, ordering that neither expression should be defended. In issuing this reply, Honorius disowned the orthodox writers who had used the term “two operations” in their writings. More seriously, he gave support to those who wished to fudge doctrinal clarity to conciliate a party in rebellion against the Church.

Fifteen years later, the Emperor Constans II published a document called the Typos in which he ordained precisely the same policy that Honorius had done, but the new pope, Martin I, summoned a synod that condemned the Typos and upheld the doctrine of two operations. An enraged Constans had Martin brought to Constantinople and, after a cruel imprisonment, exiled him to the Crimea, where he died. In 680–681, after the death of Constans, there was held the Third Council of Constantinople, which discarded the aim of harmony with the Monophysites in favor of that with Rome. Flaunting solidarity with the persecuted Martin, it explicitly disowned his predecessor: “We decide that Honorius be cast out of the holy Church of God.” The then-reigning pope, Leo II, in a letter accepting the decrees of this council, condemns Honorius with the same forthrightness: “We anathematize Honorius, who did not seek to purify this apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by a profane betrayal permitted its stainless faith to be surrendered.” In a letter to the bishops of Spain, Pope Leo II again condemned Honorius as one “who did not, as became the apostolic authority, quench the flame of heretical doctrine as it sprang up, but quickened it by his negligence.”[4]

[…]

Times When Popes Promulgated Something Heretical or Harmful to the Faithful

Here, we enter into more controversial territory, but there can be no doubt that the cases lists below are real problems for a papal positivist or ultramontanist, in the sense that the latter term has recently acquired: one who overstresses the authority of the words and actions of the reigning pontiff, as if they are the sole standard of what constitutes the Catholic Faith.

Pope Paschal II (1099–1118)

In his desire to obtain cooperation from Emperor Henry V, Pope Paschal II reversed the policy of all his predecessors by conceding to the emperor the privilege of investiture of bishops with the ring and crosier which signified both temporal and spiritual power. This concession provoked a storm of protest throughout Christendom. In a letter, St. Bruno of Segni (c. 1047–1123) called Pope Paschal’s position “heresy” because it contradicted the decisions of many church councils and argued that whoever defended the pope’s position also became a heretic thereby. Although the pope retaliated by removing St. Bruno from his office as abbot of Monte Cassino, eventually Bruno’s argument prevailed and the pope renounced his earlier decision.[6]

 

 

[…]

Pope John XXII (1316–1334)

[…]

St. Robert Bellarmine admits that John XXII held a heretical opinion with the intention of imposing it on the faithful but was never permitted by God to do so. [7]

[…]

Pope Paul VI (1963–1978)

There are several errors with which Paul VI is connected.

1. Gaudium et Spes #24

The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965, contains at least one heretical statement. Section 24 states that “love of God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.” This contradicts Christ’s own words: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37–40). Are we required both to assent to Christ’s words that the first and greatest commandment is the love of God and the second, love of neighbor, and to assent to GS 24 that the first and greatest commandment is the love of God-and-neighbor? 

This error is repeated in Apostolicam Actuositatem #8: “The greatest commandment in the law is to love God with one’s whole heart and one’s neighbor as oneself.”[10]

While the love of God and of neighbor are intimately conjoined, it has never been stated in the entire Christian tradition that love of neighbor stands on the same level as the love of God, as if they are the very same commandment with no differentiation. Yes, in loving our neighbor, we do love God, we love Christ; but God is the first, last, and proper object of charity, and we love our neighbor on account of God. We love our neighbor and even our enemies because we love God more and in a qualitatively different way. 

[…]

4. The
General Instruction on the Roman Missal of 1969

The first edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, promulgated with the signature of Paul VI on April 3, 1969, contained formally heretical statements on the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. When Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (et alia) pointed out the grave problems, the Pope ordered the text to be corrected, so that a second revised edition could be brought out. In spite of the fact that the differences in the text are astonishing, the first edition was never officially repudiated, nor was it ordered to be destroyed; it was merely replaced. [12]

[…]

Pope Francis

Numerous canonists and commentators believe that the recent annulment reforms will amount, in practice, to “Catholic divorce,” particularly because of the utterly novel concept of a “presumption of invalidity.”

Such a presumption contradicts both the natural moral law and the divine law. Moreover, even if there were nothing doctrinally problematic in the content of the motu proprios, the result of a vast increase in easily-granted annulments on thin pretexts will certainly redound to the harm of the faithful in at least three ways: first, by weakening the already weak understanding of and commitment to the indissoluble bond of marriage among Catholics; second, by making it much more probable that some valid marriages will be declared null, thus rubber-stamping adultery and profaning the sacraments; third, by lowering the esteem with which all marriages are perceived.

[…]

Other examples could be brought forward, but this review is enough to permit us to see one essential point: if heresy can be held and taught by a pope, even temporarily or to a certain group, it is a fortiori evident that disciplinary acts promulgated by the Pope could also be erroneous and harmful.
After all, heresy in itself is worse than lax or contradictory discipline.

[…]

 

Notes

[1] To understand this point better, I recommend reading the words of Fr. Adrian Fortescue, http://liturgyguy.com/2015/09/26/papal-infallibility-revisited/, and the excellent posts of Fr. Hunwicke, such as http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2015/01/pope-or-tradition.html, http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-pope-and-spirit.html, http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/09/ratzingers-infallibility-2.html. This explanation of infallibility is also worthy of consideration: http://www.fisheaters.com/papolatry.html

[4] Again following the account in Sire, Phoenix, 18–19.

[6] Following the detailed account of Roberto de Mattei,
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/03/de-mattei-st-brunos-filial-resistance.html.

[7] For full details, see http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-pope-who-fell-into-heresy-church-that.html.

[10] It only gets worse in Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium n. 161, where we read the absurd statement: “Along with the virtues, this [observance of Christ’s teaching] means above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples: ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you’ (John 15:12).”

 

 

 

Never in the Christian tradition has John 15:12 been confused with the first and greatest commandment. Characteristic of the same confusion are the misleading applications of Romans 13:8, 10 and James 2:8 that follow, which give the impression that “the law” being spoken of is comprehensive, when in fact it refers to the moral law. In other words, to say that love of neighbor “fulfills the whole law” means that it does all that the law requires in our dealings with one another. It is not speaking of our prior obligation to love God first and more than everyone else, including our very selves.

[12] For details, see Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2009), 299–328; Sire, Phoenix, 249, 277–82.

 

 

Cardinal Sarah urges Synod to reject liberal agenda pushed by organizers in blistering speech, interview

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-sarah-urges-bishops-to-reject-liberal-agenda-of-synod-organizers-i

By Andrew Guernsey, October 14, 2015

[…]

Concerns remain that the Synod leadership of ten clerics chosen by Pope Francis to write up the final report for this year’s Synod may manipulate the process in such a way that it may require a countervailing 2/3 majority for the bishops to remove heterodox paragraphs from the final document that only passed on a simple majority previously. Cardinal Sarah has repeatedly denounced proposals to liberalize Church discipline on marriage, homosexuality and Holy Communion as “a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology”  “that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice – which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions.”

 

 

Disco Dogma

http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexdisco-dogma

By Michael Voris, October 15, 2015

Now, they call Rome the Eternal City, meaning not only is it very old, but also that things here are ageless. However, judging from this Synod, that’s not exactly true.

It seems, at least at the Vatican, as if Rome is stuck in the 1970s, although the gunk from 40 years ago spewed out from crazy Churchmen and theologians is suddenly all fashionable again. In some ways, the heretics, heterodox and dissenters have the moment here and have blown the doors of discussions about how the Catholic family can survive and thrive in the Faith in a twisted and perverse generation, and turned into their own little Vatican III. There’s practically nothing here that hasn’t been presented for discussion, and they all have their roots back in the 1970s. Talk about Disco Dogma.

[…]

Well, now here we are, the Church has come to this point, on a world stage with the international media broadcasting this heresy all over the world as though it could possibly be accepted. You accused of us talking too much about liberals and heretics and homosexuals in the Church. So, in the end, who was wrong and who was right?

You had debates with us over the question of how deep the crisis really is. We said it was this deep, and you laughed it off. But all that is water under the bridge. What needs to happens is Catholics who still believe the Faith — not many, I know — but whoever you are, need to open up your eyes and get a grip on what is actually happening here. Words are being said over dinners and lunches and coffees, words like “heresy,” “schism,” “violations of canon law,” “changing doctrine.”

This isn’t child’s play. This is the real deal. It’s for all the marbles, right here right now. Regardless of what you think of me, my style, our website, whatever, you are duty-bound to tell everyone you can by any means you can of the pit the Church has been pushed into by these wicked prelates. This Synod has just passed its halfway point and the most radical of things hasn’t even happened yet.

 

Selected comment

The one good thing about this synod is that we will finally find out who the heretics are.

 

 

Cardinal Burke goes on the offensive against revolutionary Synod

https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/cardinal-burke-goes-on-the-offensive-against-revolutionary-synod/

October 15, 2015

[…]

We also know that it is Pope Francis who has driven the rise of Cardinal Kasper since his first week in office!  It was at his very first Angelus address that Pope Francis declared Cardinal Kasper’s heretical work “serene” and “theology done on the knees.”  He has promoted it from his first days in office, and constantly since.

Furthermore…….and most importantly…….it is Pope Francis who has most relentlessly pushed the toxic notion that it is possible to separate “doctrine” from practice, or “pastoral application.”  As Cardinal Burke notes above, “these are false distinctions, false contrasts.”  

 

 

To take an example from criminal law, what Pope Francis is basically proposing is that, even though laws may stipulate a minimum 20 years for a first degree murder conviction, “in practice” they simply be let off scot free, while leaving the law on the books.  Such would obviously be seen as essentially declaring murder to be legal.

What we have with regard to this revolution against the Faith is even worse, for it involves soul-murder, and heaping sacrilege upon sacrilege.

We must pray for these lost men.  Yes, there is hardly anyone less likely to convert than an aged ideologue who has pursued a heterodox agenda for decades, but we must try, nonetheless. It is our sacred duty, and miracles do happen. May God have mercy on their souls.

 

 

The Synod was neither a great success nor a huge failure

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4319/the_synod_was_neither_a_great_success_nor_a_huge_failure.aspx

By Russell Shaw, October 26, 2015

[…]

 

1 of 14 readers’ comments

“The notion that the Church survived Francis’ Synod unscathed is fanciful nonsense. The seeds of future “development” of heretical themes closely associated with this two-year exercise have been planted, and the heterodox prelates like Marx, Kasper, Cupich, and Danneels have more than enough reason to proclaim themselves satisfied with the results; their day will come and soon, thanks to the support of their friend and ally, Pope Francis.
Pollyannaish optimism notwithstanding, the most positive thing that any Catholic can say about this fiasco is that “it didn’t teach heresy!” What a pathetic boast!”

 

 

Is the Pope Toying with Heresy?

http://buchanan.org/blog/is-the-pope-toying-with-heresy-124205

By Patrick J. Buchanan (conservative Catholic, former Republican presidential nominee and advisor to Ronald Reagan)
October 26, 2015

Had the pope followed his friend Cardinal Kasper and ordered Catholic teaching and diocesan practice changed, he could have provoked a schism inside the Church.

Such a change in doctrine would have called into question papal infallibility.

But if Catholic truths about the indissolubility of marriage and intrinsic immorality of homosexual unions can be changed, then, either the Church has been in grave error in the past, or the Church is toying with heresy today.

Saturday, The Washington Post described the synod as a “brawl over Francis’ vision of inclusion.”

Reporter Anthony Faiola compared the synod deliberations to a Tea Party rebellion in John Boehner’s House caucus, and the pope to a change agent like Barack Obama who finds himself blocked and frustrated by conservatives.

… In Sunday’s sermon the pope seemed angered by both the defiance of the resisting bishops and the conclusions the synod reached. To Pope Francis, the traditionalists appear to be placing the strictures of moral law above the Gospel command of mercy.

The pope seems to be saying that the dissenting bishops, no matter their command of moral law, are lacking in charity, the greatest of the three theological virtues.

If he permits the bishops to follow their consciences in their dioceses, he will advance the disintegration of the Church.

 

 

No, The “Conservatives” Did Not “Win”

https://onepeterfive.com/no-the-conservatives-did-not-win/


By
Steve Skojec,
October 27, 2015

[…]

After three weeks of trench warfare, it represents — in the most optimistic interpretation — a stalemate. At worst, it’s a significant loss of ground, inasmuch as it fails to address the rampant speculation that has infested the Church for the past 20 months that the pastoral practice on the reception of communion by the divorced and remarried will be changed

This relatio is about as secure a barrier against communion for the divorced and remarried as a front door left open and unlocked in a bad neighborhood. Sure, it has some of the right features, but so what? This thing is primed and ready for exploitation. It has professionally-designed time bombs baked right in. Just like Vatican II. Which, of course, is never fully implemented – even after half a century.

I reached out to Bishop Schneider this week to share something I had written about the Synod. This morning, I received a response:

“We have to not be naive, because of the apparently orthodox text. In reality, there are dangerous traps and back doors masked in a very cunning manner, which open the way for the Kasper agenda.”

Wake. Up.

 

 

This is not over. We didn’t get the cure to this fatal disease, we got an obvious placebo. Stop celebrating, because the next wave is already coming, and no matter how exhausted we are, the fight goes on.

The heretics in the Church are not cowed. They are more empowered than ever. Those who advanced heterodoxy at the Synod were not disciplined – nor were they, as so many wishful-thinkers speciously tried to convince us, brought to Rome by Pope Francis to be “smoked out.” They are his friends. They helped get him elected.

Do you know who did get “smoked out”? The Catholic bishops.

And that brings us right back to the real heart of the problem: when two diametrically opposing sides both claim victory, one of them is wrong.

Pope Francis is the guardian of the Church. He has allowed these rough men to attempt to violate Christ’s sweet spouse, and has raised his voice in protest not against those seeking to have their way with her, but against us – the very ones who would protect our mother from such an outrage.

 

 

Voice of Family warns Synod proposal to give authority to bishops conferences will shatter the Church

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-the-church-being-subjected-to-the-dictatorship-of-relativism

Voice of the Family, Rome, October 17, 2015

[…]

 

1 of 19 readers’ comments

Great analysis. Let us follow Jesus and His one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, in season and out — even if the apparatus of the Church falls into the hands of heretics for a time, as it did during the Arian heresy.

 

 

Is “Kasperism” a new heresy?

https://onepeterfive.com/is-kasperism-a-new-heresy/

By Michael Lofton, October 29, 2015

It would seem that a new heresy is being created before our very eyes. What is this new heresy? If Arianism was named after the priest and theologian Arius, who championed the denial of Christ’s divinity, it seems fitting to call our present corruption of Catholic belief, “Kasperism” – inasmuch as it has been promoted most vigorously by the German Cardinal Walter Kasper. What is Kasperism? It is the view that dogma is to be left intact in theory, but may be contradicted in practice.

Many are already familiar with an example of Kasperism, which has come to be known as the “Kasper Proposal” – a proposal that affirms the indissolubility of marriage in fact but contradicts it in practice, by allowing adulterers to receive Holy Communion as a “pastoral” provision. Kasperism, however, should not be equated solely with the Kasper Proposal. Kasperism is, in fact, a much larger threat than the Kasper Proposal itself, as it may apply to any doctrine, not just the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage.

To give an example, it may also apply to the issue of sodomy. Most Kasperites won’t go so far as to say that sodomy is a virtue in theory because they know what the church teaches on this matter, but in practice they wish to treat it as if it weren’t immoral. Concerning the issue of sodomy, Vatican spokesman Fr. Thomas Rosica exemplified Kasperism when he said:

“There must be an end to exclusionary language and a strong emphasis on embracing reality as it is. We should not be afraid of new and complex situations. … The language of inclusion must be our language, always considering pastoral and canonical possibilities and solutions.”

Here, Fr. Rosica doesn’t deny that sodomy is a sin. And he doesn’t have to, as the end game is still the same – get rid of “exclusionary language” and sodomy will be accepted in practice.

Another example may be found in the Holy Father’s recent call to decentralize the church. In this call, Pope Francis doesn’t actually say that the pope no longer has supreme and universal jurisdiction, because to say so would go against the doctrinal formulation of the First Vatican Council:

“We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord…Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.”

Instead, Francis has indicated that he intends to simply act as if this weren’t true in practice and – voila! — the doctrine of Vatican I is as good as gone. The Holy Father states:

“The second level is that of Ecclesiastical Provinces and Ecclesiastical Regions, Particular Councils and, in a special way, Conferences of Bishops. We need to reflect on how better to bring about, through these bodies, intermediary instances of collegiality, perhaps by integrating and updating certain aspects of the ancient ecclesiastical organization. The hope expressed by the Council that such bodies would help increase the spirit of episcopal collegiality has not yet been fully realized.

 

We are still on the way, part-way there. In a synodal Church, as I have said, “it is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound ‘decentralization‘.”

As nobody has ever suggested that the papacy should micromanage everything that takes place in the territory of the local bishop, this is a straw man used to advance an agenda that undermines papal primacy. And yet, without a specific refutation of the doctrine, any challenge to such action would be met with a personal affirmation from Pope Francis of what the church teaches on this matter. Through the Kasperian lens, it is possible to both admit that a doctrine exists and to contradict it in practice. Infallibility is thereby preserved, but the practical result is just as effective as if the teaching could actually be changed.

We all know that the Church is rife with heterodox prelates who wish to destroy the Catholic Faith as it has existed for twenty centuries, changing it to suit their own purposes and desires. It has become clear that they would even change the Church’s dogmas. They have nonetheless been frustrated in this effort, which would place them under the anathema of the First Vatican Council:

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”

The solution they have devised is simple and effective: they will not deny dogma. They will even affirm it. They will then treat it as though it does not exist by finding reasons why “mercy” or “pastoral concern” demands it must be circumvented in practice. In an earlier time in the Church, their calculated casuistry would have had them branded as heretics and defrocked; but this is not such a time, and they know very well that they may perform their dance around dogma with impunity.

If Kasperism is the heresy I believe it to be, it is the most dangerous sort of error ever invented by Satan. Why? Because it is untouchable. Arius and his followers made no denial of their belief that Christ was not eternal or of the same substance as God, but rather, merely a creature. They were confronted for what they believed, and for the error they taught. Kasperians, on the other hand, pride themselves on dissimulation. They make a great show of upholding the letter of the law, while utterly destroying it in spirit. If one were to say to the Kasperians, “What you are saying contradicts dogma!”, they would merely respond, “No! We affirm the dogma.”  In so doing, they effectively disarm those who would seek to point out their errors, forcing them to make the case that they are liars and spreading confusion in their wake. For this reason, Kasperism ought to be fought with even greater vehemence than the Arian heresy, for it is much more deceptive in nature, and has the potential to do even more harm.

Will a future pope condemn this pernicious error as a heresy? Time will tell. But we must not wait in our attempts to combat it. Souls are at stake.

 

7 of 42 readers’ comments

1. Both Cardinal Mueller and Cardinal Sarah have named this phenomenon as a Christological heresy. To create such a contradiction between Truth and Life in the Body of Christ is to attempt to create contradiction in Christ Himself.

This will no doubt need further development, but whatever name is ultimately given to it, a heresy is clearly what it is because it strikes right at the nature of the Godhead.

Perhaps we have needed these 50 years since the Council to really drag the beast out into the open so that we can get a proper look at it. –Deacon Augustine

2. Kasperism does predate Kasper in a sense but I think he has articulated it the best just like Arianism predated Arius in a sense but was identified with Arius because of his popularization and articulation of the heresy.

3. Perhaps rather than giving that insufferable man the notoriety of spawning a new heresy, it should be named for what it actually does e.g. Christocontradictionism, Christonihilism, Christofallibilism or some other such appellation? –Deacon Augustine

4. I suggest Dissimulationism as a name for the new heresy, not “Kasperism,” which signifies nothing in particular.

After error has been plainly defined it may be combatted more effectively.

5. See Pascendi, On the Doctrine of the Modernists, Pius X 1907, http://www.papalencyclicals…

The heresy is not new, and it’s not from Kasper. The heresy is Modernism and the modernists have been behaving like Kasper is for decades, as we can see from the writings of Pius X as quoted by Lefebvre (written in 1907 by the way):

“Their tactics are never to expound their doctrines methodically and as a whole, but in some manner to split them up and scatter them here and there …. One page of their writings could have been written by a Catholic: turn over, and you will think you are reading something by a Rationalist. Reprimanded and condemned, they go their own way, concealing a boundless effrontery under a deceitful appearance of submission. Should anyone be so mistaken to criticize any one of their novelties, however outrageous, they will fall upon him in serried ranks: the one who denies it is treated as an ignoramus.” Sound familiar?

6. When I was editing this, I almost suggested to the author that this is a facet of modernism, but I thought it would be worth putting forward the theory. Modernism is a big, broad term, inasmuch as it is the “synthesis of all heresies”; it’s also become a catch-phrase of traditionalists and catch-all for the current errors in the Church.

This specifically focuses on the intentional affirmation of doctrine while simultaneously doing the exact opposite. While that gets a mention in Pascendi, they’ve really honed it since. “Kasperism” or “Kasperianism,” even if it never becomes more than a colloquialism, puts a label on this theological sleight of hand that even people uncomfortable with “Modernism” can use. Sometimes, there’s value in a greater precision. –Steve Skojec

 

 

7. The Synod and the actors of the Bergoglian-Kasperite heresy have done one thing for us, and that is to awaken us to the reality of the apostasy and give a name to the crisis.

That means the cat is well and truly out, and can never be placed back in, the bag for all to see that have eyes to do so.

 

 

The Decline of the Catholic Church in Germany and the reasons for it

The controversy surrounding the gender flyer of the German Bishops Conference is symptomatic of the situation of the Catholic Church in Germany

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4331/the_decline_of_the_catholic_church_in_germany_and_the_reasons_for_it.aspx

By Dr. Michael Schneider-Flagmeyer, October 30, 2015

[…]

 

1 of 20 readers’ comments

That the gender flyer of the German bishops’ conference contradicts all the statements of the Pope is nothing to wonder about. They have been liberals for more than a generation and John Paul II and Benedict XVI didn’t care about it at all. In reality the Germans just go a little bit further than the present Pope in their heretical pastoral practice. As is well known, the Pope wants to admit all the civilly divorced and remarried to Communion. This has been his position from the beginning of his pontificate and he has confirmed it recently, in his latest Scalfari interview. This means that the Pope wants to give the Holy Eucharist to people who are manifestly in a state of mortal sin. The German bishops just draw the consequence that mortal sin is no obstacle for communion. Sexual sin as a category is already practically abrogated by the Vatican. So what does it matter that the German bishops admit homosexuals and transgenders? My prediction: The Pope and the Vatican will do nothing against the German episcopate.

 

 

On January 1, 2016, Ross Douthat commented:

It may be that this conflict has only just begun. And it may be that as with previous conflicts in church history, it will eventually be serious enough to end in real schism, a permanent parting of the ways.

My initial hope for this pontificate was that it would successfully separate the first two forms of liberal Catholicism from the third, offering outreach, engagement, and a sense of the Catholic Church as something bigger than a partisan conservatism without handing territory to the full-blown theological liberalism that seeks, at some level, a very different Church.

I am not so hopeful anymore. I think that Francis is risking far too much that’s essential in his quest for new directions, his fealty to “the God of surprises.” Which brings me to the second conclusion conservatives should draw from this particular moment: The papacy is not always the first bulwark of orthodoxy.

Note that this is not the same as saying that the pope can actually fall into heresy, or teach it ex cathedra as doctrine. But a glance at Catholic history indicates that even if they are preserved from the gravest errors, popes are not necessarily the heroic protagonists in major theological conflicts. In many cases, we remember councils and saints rather than popes—Nicea and Trent, Athanasius and Ignatius. Rome tends to move late and not always effectually at first, and in some cases (the unfortunate Pope Honorius being only the starkest example), the papacy has conspicuously failed to be either wise or courageous when orthodoxy is on the line. And occasionally we even get Avignons and anti-popes as well!

Source: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/01/a-crisis-of-conservative-catholicism

 

 

From:
info@lepantofoundation.org
To: Michael Prabhu
michaelprabhu@vsnl.net

Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:36:22 +0100

Subject:
Roberto
De Mattei on the Pope’s pronouncements and video: It’s not only heresy that offends the Catholic Faith

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/christmas-hour-of-faith-in-darkness-of.html

Corrispondenza Romana, January 13, 2016 (published on Rorate Caeli) Translation:  Contributor Francesca Romana 

In a long interview published on December 30th in the German weekly Die Zeit, Cardinal Ludwig Müller, Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith, raised a question of crucial relevance today. When the interviewer asked the Prefect what he thought of those Catholics who attack the Pope defining him “a heretic”, he replied: “Not only because of my office, but from personal conviction, I must disagree. A heretic in the theological definition, is a Catholic who denies obstinately a revealed truth proposed by the Church that they are obliged to believe. It’s another thing when those who are officially charged to teach the faith express themselves in a somewhat inappropriate, misleading or vague way. The teachings of the Pope and bishops are not above the Word of God, but serve it. (…) Moreover, papal pronouncements have a different binding nature – ranging from a definitive decision pronounced ex-cathedra to a homily which is used rather for spiritual analysis.”

Today there is a tendency to fall into a simplistic dichotomy between heresy and orthodoxy. Cardinal Muller’s words remind us that between black (open heresy) and white (complete orthodoxy) there is a grey area which theologians have explored with precision.

 

 


There are doctrinal propositions, even if they are not explicitly heretical, that are condemned by the Church with theological qualifications proportional to their gravity and in their contrast to Catholic doctrine. Opposition to the truth in fact, presents diverse levels, according to whether it is direct or indirect, immediate or remote, open or hidden, and so on. The “theological censures” (not to be confused with ecclesiastical censures or punishments) express, as Father Sisto Cartechini explains in his classical study, the negative judgment of the Church on an expression, an opinion or an entire theological doctrine (Dall’opinione al domma. Valore delle note teologiche (From Opinion to Dogma. The Value of Theological Notes) “La Civiltà Cattolica” Edition, Rome, 1953). This judgment can be private, if given by one or more theologians independently, or public and official, if promulgated by the ecclesiastical authority. 

Cardinal Pietro Parente and Monsignor Antonio’s Dogmatic Theological Dictionary sums up the doctrine thus: “The censure formulas are many, with a gradation which goes from the minimum to the maximum. Three categories can be grouped: the First Category: regards the doctrinal content a proposition can be censured as: a) heretical, if it openly opposes a truth of faith defined as such by the Church; according to the greater or lesser opposition the proposition can be said to be near heresy, that it smacks of heresy; b) erroneous in the faith, if it is opposed to a grave theological conclusion which derives from a revealed truth and a principle of reason; if it is opposed to a simple common sentence among Theologians, the proposition is censured as temerarious. The Second Category: regards the defective form for which the proposition is judged equivocal, dubious, insidious, suspect, evil-sounding etc., even if not contradicting any truth of faith from a doctrinal point of view. The Third Category: regards the effects that can be produced in particular circumstances in time or place, even if not erroneous in content and form. In such a case, the proposition is censured as perverse, corrupt, scandalous, dangerous, seductive for the simple” (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Studium, Rome, 1943, pp. 45-46). In all of these cases Catholic truth lacks doctrinal integrity or is expressed in a deficient and improper manner.

This precision in qualifying errors was developed mainly between the XVII and XVIII centuries, when the Church found Herself faced with the first heresy which fought to remain internal: Jansenism. The Jansenist strategy, just like the modernists’ later on, was that of continuing to self-proclaim their complete orthodoxy, despite repeated condemnations. In order to avoid an accusation of heresy, they engineered themselves into finding ambiguous and equivocal formulas of faith and morals, which did not frontally oppose the Catholic faith and allowed them to remain in the Church. With the same accuracy and determination the orthodox theologians individualized Jansenism’s errors, branding them according to their specific characteristics.

Pope Clement XI in the Bull Unigenitus Dei Filius of September 8th 1713, censured 101 propositions in the book Réflexions morales by the Jansenist theologian Pasquier Quesnel, as, among other things: false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting to the Church […] suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics, heresies and also schisms, erroneous and close to heresy” (Denz.-H, n. 2502).

In his turn, Pius VI in the Bull Auctorem fidei of August 28th, condemned eighty-five propositions, extracts from the Acts of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786). Some of these propositions from the Synod are expressly qualified as heretical, but others are defined, according to the cases: schismatic,
suspected of heresy, inducing heresy, favouring heretics, false, erroneous, pernicious, scandalous, temerarious, injurious to the common practice of the Church (Denz. H, nn. 2600-2700). Each one of these terms has a different significance. Thus the proposition in which the Synod professes: “to be persuaded that the Bishop has received from Jesus Christ all the rights necessary for the good government of the Church” independently of the Pope and Councils (n.6), is “erroneous” and induces schism and subversion to the ecclesiastical hierarchal regime”; the one in which limbo is rejected (n. 26), is considered “false, temerarious, offensive to Catholic schools; the proposition that prohibits placing relics or flowers on the altars (n.32) is said to be: temerarious, injurious to the pious and recognized customs of the Church”; the one, that hopes for a return to the archaic rudiments of the liturgy, ” with the restoring of greater simplicity to the rites, expressing it in vulgar language, and uttering it loudly” (n.33) is defined as “temerarious, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favoring the slander of heretics against the Church Herself.”

An analysis of the final Relatio of the 2015 Synod of Bishops, conducted according to the principles of Catholic theology and morals, can do nothing other than find grave disconformities in that document. Many of its propositions could be defined as evil-sounding, erroneous, temerarious and so on, even if no-one can say that it is formally heretical.

More recently, on January 6th 2016, a video-message from Pope Francis diffused all over the world’s social networks, was dedicated to inter-religious dialogue, where Catholics, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims seem to be placed on the same level, as “children of (a) God” whom everyone encounters in their own religion, in the name of some common profession of faith and love. Francis’ words, combined with those of the protagonists in the video and above all with the images, are the vehicle of a syncretistic message which contradicts, at least indirectly, the teaching as regards the redeeming uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, reaffirmed in the encyclical Mortalium Animos by Pius XI (1928) and the Declaration Dominus Iesus by the then Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger (August 6th 2000).

As ordinary baptized Catholics wishing to apply the theological censures of the Church to this video, we should have to define it as: inducing heresy as far as the content is concerned; equivocal and insidious as far as the form is concerned; scandalous as far as its effects on souls are concerned. The public and official judgment is up to the ecclesiastical authorities and nobody better than the present Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith, has the qualification to speak in this regard. Many distressed Catholics are calling on him to do just that.

 

 

Smashing Traditions: The Vatican war machine is back

http://www.onepeterfive.com/smashing-traditions-the-vatican-war-machine-is-back/

By Steve Skojec, January 21, 2016

[…]

In less than three years’ time, we have seen the empowerment of heterodox prelates, the tearing up the institution of marriage, the flattening of the understanding of the Eucharist and who should receive it, the waving off of concerns about contraceptive use, the accusation that Catholics obsess about abortion and moral issues, the dismissal (and crushing, in the case of the FFI) of those who are attracted to traditional liturgy, a complete antipathy towards evangelization, and a steady stream of insults from the Vicar of Christ towards those Catholics — priests and laity alike — who devoutly adhere to the Church’s doctrines.

This doesn’t even touch on the long list of theological distortions, humanist concerns, and elevation of worldly matters — like climate change — to a level of ordinary magisterial teaching, despite the fact that specific prescriptions on these topics are clearly outside the Church’s areas of competence.

The disaster of this papacy is interminable. I know that the comment box will soon be filled with people clamoring over how Francis is a heretic, how he isn’t the pope, and so on, and so forth.

These comments are needless, arrogant, and serve no purpose – so please refrain. Such juridical matters will not be settled by us, and as such, they are not our concern. We wait for God in His own time to provide a competent judge of these things. What is our concern is the damage wrought, and what we may do to repair it.

This is not a fight I want to keep fighting. It’s exhausting. But nonetheless, I will continue to do so, because I am an obstinate Christian, and I obstinately love the Church, and the God who founded and guides her.

 

 

The Galatians Two Moment Is Now

http://www.onepeterfive.com/the-galatians-two-moment-is-now

By Steve Skojec, February 23, 2016

[…]

Get this through your heads, Catholic apologists. Your dissimulation on this issue is nauseating, and we’re way past playing footsie with the truth, or writing posts full of mental reservation. We just had the bishops of one of the most Catholic (by percentage of population) nations on earth give essentially a blanket opening to their faithful using contraception because of something the pope said on a plane.

I’ve been arguing since 2013 that a pope can do a lot of damage without changing a single iota of doctrine. Francis proves this with alarming frequency. Why are all Catholics of goodwill not on the same page? Why are so few of us lucid in our understanding that this is a pontificate which our Christian duty requires us to resist?

We must still respect the office of the papacy. We must still, barring any juridical evidence to the contrary, accept that Francis is the pope. But we have now entered a moment in history where our bishops must take action on this. We need something definitive from them about Francis. It is imperative to the salvation of souls that they tell the faithful not to follow Francis into his contradiction of Church teaching.

Pope Honorius I was posthumously anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople, and arguably for less than Francis is doing now. Honorius was condemned more for failing to act than for the deliberate promotion of heresy.

Because of his failure, the council declared:

“We anathematize Honorius, who did not seek to purify this apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by a profane betrayal permitted its stainless faith be surrendered.”

In later comments made to the bishops of Spain, Pope Leo II explained further, saying that Honorius was one who did not, as became the apostolic authority, quench the flame of heretical doctrine as it sprang up, but quickened it by his negligence.

Making excuses for Francis is no longer going to suffice. Looking for semantic loopholes that can be twisted into quasi-orthodox interpretations is disingenuous. Saying simply that we need to pray for Francis isn’t good enough. Waiting to see if God sends a meteor isn’t a solution. The benefit of the doubt can only be given when there is doubt. If there has ever been a time when episcopal spine was needed, this is it.

 

 

The German Church’s Opposing Voices

http://www.onepeterfive.com/the-german-churchs-opposing-voices/
EXTRACT

By Maike Hickson, March 14, 2016

The German Church is in a dire state.

Threatened by burgeoning apostasy and heresy within its own ranks, orthodox Catholics around the world look with a wary eye to the nation that gave us Martin Luther and the Protestant “Reformation”. The original title of Fr. Ralph Wiltgen’s essential account of the ecclesiastical revolution that took place at the Second Vatican Council told us who the principal influences were: The Rhine Flows into the Tiber

In the 21st century, Catholics are once again remarking at the prominent roles played by controversial German prelates like Cardinals Kasper and Marx — at request of no less a figure than Pope Francis — at the recent Synod on the Family.

 

 

And yet, it would be a false understanding to believe that the German Church is homogenous in its views. Cardinal Walter Brandmüller
said last year that anyone who wishes to change the Church’s teaching on marriage — “even if he wears the Roman purple” — is a heretic. The famous German Professor Robert Spaemann called Pope Francis’s leadership “chaotic” and “irritating.”

 

 

Post-Synodal Exhortation Expected This Saturday

http://www.onepeterfive.com/post-synodal-exhortation-expected-this-saturday/

By Steve Skojec, March 14, 2016

[…]

 

3 of 35 readers’ comments

1. Heresy. We all better gird our spiritual loins for the Great Apostasy, because it is here. In living color…and coming to a Parish near you…
Father Duffy

2. I am not expecting anything near ‘excellent’ from the this document: I expect some very clear traditional Catholic Teaching (to please actual Catholics) with an admixture of Ambiguous language talking about love, compassion, mercy, integration, tolerance etc… about things like adultery, fornication, sodomy etc. (to please the heretic Modernists). It will be the V II approach, place irreconcilable things together and pretend that they are not irreconcilable.
3. Hopefully I am completely wrong and it’s all good…

Father R.P.

 

 

Pope Emeritus Benedict breaks silence: speaks of ‘deep crisis’ facing Church post-Vatican II

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-emeritus-benedict-says-church-is-now-facing-a-two-sided-deep-crisis

By Maike Hickson, March 16, 2016

On March 16, speaking publicly on a rare occasion, Pope Benedict XVI gave an interview (English translation) to Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, in which he spoke of a “two-sided deep crisis” the Church is facing in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The report has already hit Germany courtesy of Vaticanist Giuseppe Nardi, of the German Catholic news website Katholisches.info.

Pope Benedict reminds us of the formerly indispensable Catholic conviction of the possibility of the loss of eternal salvation, or that people go to hell:

The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation.

He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”

Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”

As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, Catholics themselves, in Benedict’s eyes, are less attached to their Faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” asked the pope. And he concludes: “But if Faith and Salvation are not any more interdependent, even Faith becomes less motivating.”

Pope Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life.

“Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent in their effects,” he said. In this context, he also touches upon the exploratory ideas of the now-deceased Jesuit Cardinal, Henri de Lubac, about Christ’s putatively “vicarious substitutions” which have to be now again “further reflected upon.” 

With regard to man’s relation to technology and to love, Pope Benedict reminds us of the importance of human affection, saying that man still yearns in his heart “that the Good Samaritan come to his aid.”

He continues: “In the harshness of the world of technology – in which feelings do not count anymore – the hope for a saving love grows, a love which would be given freely and generously.”

Benedict also reminds his audience that: “The Church is not self-made, it was created by God and is continuously formed by Him. This finds expression in the Sacraments, above all in that of Baptism: I enter into the Church not by a bureaucratic act, but with the help of this Sacrament.” Benedict also insists that, always, “we need Grace and forgiveness.”

POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI BREAKS HIS SILENCE FOR A FOURTH TIME

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/POPE_EMERITUS_BENEDICT_XVI_BREAKS_HIS_SILENCE_FOR_A_FOURTH_TIME.doc

 

2 of 172 readers’ comments

1. The greatest Pope since Pius XII, I don’t expect to see another any time soon.

2. I don’t know about anyone else, but the Pope Emeritus’ words seem to pointedly refute what Francis has been touting.

 

 

3. His words are an earthquake to the ideas of Francis to include everyone, regardless of religion, regardless of belief, in the heavenly banquet. A true breath of fresh CATHOLIC air.

 

 

A historic indictment – A review of Antonio Socci’s La Profezia Finale (The Final Prophecy) on Pope Francis

http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page104/socci_indictment_of_francis.html

By Christopher A. Ferrara, March 21, 2016

[…]

Another Honorius?

Socci’s indictment (p. 207) reaches its climax with the suggestion that Francis, being a Pope who “promotes his own ideas,” may go the way of another Pope who did the same: Honorius (r. 625-628), who was posthumously anathematized by an ecumenical council—a sentence confirmed his own successor, Leo II—for aiding and abetting the spread of the “monothelite” heresy (denying any human will in Christ). Socci levels against Francis the same condemnation Leo II leveled against Honorius: “Those who aroused contention against the purity of apostolic tradition, at their death certainly received eternal condemnation, [including] Honorius who, rather than extinguishing the flame of heresy, as befits apostolic authority, fed it by his neglect.”

 

 

The Pope: Missing another opportunity

https://frconrad.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/the-pope-missing-an-another-opportunity/

By Fr. Conrad Saldanha, March 29, 2016

[…]

In his zeal to communicate erroneous and heretical concepts of parity of gender, equality of religions, and servanthood the Pope has missed on many opportunities to clear the air on many misunderstandings concerning Christian Dogma, morality and faith. He is known for such blunders and has been one of the worst teachers of the faith; an abuse by the highest authority which is unprecedented since the beginning of Christianity.

No Pope in the history of Christianity has spoken so freely and in such confusing language and communicates a very high degree of a false sense of humility through his actions in order to deceive the masses.

[…]

 

 

Apostolic Exhortation Will Be Released Friday, April 8

http://www.onepeterfive.com/apostolic-exhortation-will-be-released-friday-april-8/

By Steve Skojec, March 31, 2016

[…]

 

1 of 8 readers’ comments

Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the general secretary of the Synod of Bishops and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, O.P., archbishop of Vienna are the Official presenters (interpreters as well???) of the Exhortation and they are of the Kasperian School… Furthermore each Bishop is being encouraged to hold a press conference at the same time that the official one is being held in Rome…going for a full court press.

Expect some nice Catholic Truth to decorate the façade and to find some fully modernist heresies implicitly endorsed all the while leaving room for ‘plausible’ deniability. Father RP

 

 

Preparations for the Exhortation are Being Made – in Rome and in Germany

http://www.onepeterfive.com/preparations-for-the-exhortation-are-being-made-in-rome-and-in-germany/

By Maike Hickson, April 1, 2016

[…]

 

2 of 65 readers’ comments

1. Interesting. If true, it will damage the Church. However, Local Episcopal Conferences can be corrected in the future by more orthodox Successors to Peter…

2. Or dissolved altogether. However, the immediate effect would be de facto schism in many places for they would immediately formally adopt heretical, sacrilegious practices. Which will cause local clergy to be severely disciplined by their heretical overlords and even cause non-conformist Bishops to be deposed (these are already happening, however it will get much worse), faithful laity will be excommunicated etc… Like I said: The structural collapse of the Church in the West. –Father RP

 

 

 

In His Own Words: Cardinal Schönborn on Exhortation’s Deepest Concerns

http://www.onepeterfive.com/in-his-own-words-cardinal-schonborn-on-exhortations-deepest-concerns/

By Steve Skojec and Maike Hickson, April 4, 2016

[…]

 

1 of 8 readers’ comments

I pray daily that God will intervene supernaturally to prevent formal heresy from being proclaimed.

 

 

Card. Brandmüller strikes again before release of Amoris Laetitia

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/card-brandmuller-strikes-again-before.html
EXTRACT

April 7, 2016

Dr. Maike Hickson, who often writes for Rorate, today has a story on a recent statement made by His Eminence Cardinal Walter Brandmüller ahead of the release of Amoris Laetitia — being dubbed the “Joy of Sex.” You’ll remember the good cardinal last year said those who advocate changing Church teaching on marriage are “heretics.

 

 

Cardinal Brandmüller Reiterates Church Teaching on Eve of Exhortation

http://www.onepeterfive.com/cardinal-brandmuller-reiterates-church-teaching-on-eve-of-exhortation/

By Steve Skojec, April 7, 2016

[…]

 

3 out of 15 readers’ comments

1.
Methinks the document will be none other than patent ambiguity, once again.

2. If they don’t interpret it in light of Church teachings, then what?
Where is our Mother Angelica? Where is our St. Athanasius for that matter?
I believe there won’t be a bit of doctrine changed, but a ton of praxis. Hands will be tied, just like before. We as the laity must hunker down, keep our souls in order and hold tight to pick up the pieces.

3. Or do like Bishop Emeritus Gracida recently suggested: cause a scene by standing up in church and shouting down the heretics:
http://bit.ly/1Mhnyfg

 

 

HERESY! HERESY!! HERESY!!!

https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/heresy-heresy-heresy/

By Mundabor, April 8, 2016. Sedevacantist.
All emphases theirs

Amoris Laetitia (subtitle: “on the graces of those living in public adultery”) has been released, and it is worse than the worse expectations of your truly. I have obviously not read the entire pile of rubbish (nor will I ever do it), but I have followed the hints appeared in the press, and you don’t need more than 3 minutes to understand the scale of the attack to Truth.

I was expecting fluffy and ambiguous statements, which can (and must) be read in an orthodox sense, in the style of the closing Relatio
of the synod. But this is much worse. This Apostolic Excrementation seeks to demolish the very concept of objective situation of sin excluding one from communion. It seeks to impose on Catholics the idea that one can publicly live in sin, and be aware of his situation of publicly living in sin, and not be in mortal sin because he just doesn’t want to get it.

There is a complete disregard of the (obvious) considerations JP II made about the objective scandal given by those who, objectively, live in scandal. And it is, without having to mention JP II, a complete disregard of the most elementary common sense.

I have no way to copy and paste right now. Read the paragraphs starting from 301 to 306. It is purest heretical poison.

Once again: this encyclical pretends to base on what is already Catholic teaching (of course there can be circumstances which diminish culpability; we all knew that), and extends its meaning to encompass any publicly sinful, publicly adulterous, uninterruptedly sinful behaviour and lifestyle.

I am at lunchtime now, and will write more as time and adrenaline allow. Please allow me some time to get into the details in a controlled emotional manner.

But don’t believe those who tell you “it could have been worse”. It could not have been worse, when we consider that open heresy would never be proclaimed from an official document. This is as heretical and subversive as a Pope can get.

This is not only on Francis’ head, but on the head of all those who do not condemn the obvious attacks to the Sacraments (both communion and confession) and the family. From Cardinal Mueller to the last bishop, may the Lord in His Justice punish all those prelates who make themselves accomplices, and be it that with their silence, of such an abomination.

 

The time to stand up and speak up is now. One day we will all die, and we will be asked what we have done as a godless Communist ravaged the Church. And no, no one will be able to say that he just did not get it.

 

1 out of 9 readers’ comments

It is utterly heretical, indeed. I would go even further: No serious Protestant who actually cared about his faith and confession could ever have written such scandalous nonsense. Luther and Co. may have condoned divorce in certain extreme cases, but they still had a very clear sense of sin, scandal, repentance and the meaning of marriage all of which are absent from this pile of rubbish.

All serious believing Christians should condemn this heretical, anti-Christian excrementation together as an expression of honest ecumenism.

 

 

Robert Royal on ‘Amoris Laetitia’: Beautiful, Moving, and Divisive… Chaos and conflict, not Catholicity

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/04/robert-royal-on-amoris-laetitia-beautiful-moving-and-divisive-chaos-and-conflict-not-catholicity/

Posted on
8 April 2016
by
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[…]

 

1 of 42 readers’ comments

I’m sorry but I don’t understand the argument that says “Don’t forget the positive things… Not everything is ambiguous or wrong, it occasionally clearly reaffirms doctrine”… I could get a 275 page Methodist document on salvation and say the same thing… They reaffirm the trinity, Christ is the son of God who suffered and died for us etc. … but that doesn’t change the fact that it would still overall be a heretical Protestant document“The worst kind of heretic is the one who, while teaching mostly true Catholic doctrine, add a word of heresy, like a drop of poison in a cup of water.” – Pope Leo XIII… Though I would agree that we should not let such things allow us to despair. It should affirm us in our need recommit ourselves to a strong intellectual and spiritual rigor. It reminds me of the last line of Ross Douthat’s address to First Things: “My own reading is this: Our victories were not as permanent as we supposed, our arguments were less persuasive than we’d hoped, the Catholic center was not quite where we believed it to be, and our adversaries were not as foredoomed as we fondly wanted to believe. Which is not reason for pessimism, but for thinking anew and acting anew: Our work is—as ever—only just begun.”

 

 

The Headlines Say It All

http://www.onepeterfive.com/the-headlines-say-it-all/

By Steve Skojec, April 8, 2016

[…]

 

2 of 33 readers’ comments

1. Yeah, the Pharisees consciences said it was perfectly fine to kill the Son of God. A pedophile’s conscience says it’s ok to molest children. What in the world is this man thinking. I think we need to call this what it is, heresy.

2. If the Hierarchy accepts this Heresy they will be in Heresy. This is as bad as the Arian Heresy which in that crisis the majority of the Catholic Bishops accepted the Arian Heresy at one point. There must be a movement to resist this and correct such a diabolical error that can destroy the Catholic Church.

 

 

The Shameful Document

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2016/04/the-shameful-document.html?m=1

By Patrick Archbold, April 8, 2016

[…]

 

2 of 140 readers’ comments

1. God must be really angry with us to allow a pope this bad.

2. Bergoglio is totally unambiguous, crystal clear in saying, God erred – Jesus was flat wrong when he told the woman caught in adultery “Go and sin no more.” Bergoglio has corrected our Lord and Savior, He should have said “Go and sin on more.” Bergoglio has now proclaimed heresy.

 

 

Pope Francis Departs from Church Teaching in New Exhortation

http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-departs-from-church-teaching-in-new-exhortation/

By Maike Hickson, April 8, 2016

[…]

 

1 out of 449 readers’ comments

“…many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”.” So is he saying that one may do evil in order to achieve a good end? The end justifies the means after all? If he is teaching this then he is a heretic. –Deacon Augustine

 

 

Pope Francis: Deceptio Laetitia

https://frconrad.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/pope-francis-deceptio-laetitia/
EXTRACT

By Fr. Conrad Saldanha, Mumbai, April 10, 2016

[…]

Deception is a tremendous evil, which is usually not forced on to others in free society but definitely strips a person naked to hell.

“The Joy of Love experienced by families is also the joy of the Church.”

The very starting point of the document is heretical; then what more can we expect from Pope Francis in his 325 paragraph, spread over 9 chapters, Apostolic Exhortation.

In the above statement the subjective love experienced by families is made universal by Pope Francis; Alas for his contextual theologising! He then leads us on through such subjective reasonings, situational ethics, objectifying conscience, ambiguous and vague arguments in the ever progressive abyss of damnation which his notorious Papacy advocates.

Where from does the Church draws its joy and inspiration: is it from the “joy of love experienced by families”? The church has thus abandoned its creator who has purchased it with his own blood shed on the cross.

Such is the confusion and contradiction manifested in the very first sentence of Pope Francis’s Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia”: “the desire to marry and form a family remains vibrant, especially among young people, and this is an inspiration to the Church”.

[…]

 

 

‘More Catholic than the pope’

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/more-catholic-than-pope.html

April 10, 2016

[…]

Due to the publication of the papal exhortation Amoris laetitia, Catholics who seek to hold fast to the Church’s perennial teachings which conflict with the reflections and counsel of Pope Francis will inevitably find themselves being assailed as thinking themselves “more Catholic than the pope.”

The old expression “more Catholic than the pope” has historically referred to the kind of Catholic who (usually unwittingly) relies upon his own limited or defective grasp of the Faith and his own preferred Catholic devotions and religious practices as the ruler by which he measures orthodoxy and orthopraxis.  If someone is described as thinking himself, or acting like he thinks himself, “more Catholic than the pope,” it’s supposed to mean he’s self-righteous, priggish, a rigorist or perhaps suffers from scrupulosity — or so the accuser would say.
The expression, of course, is connected with the Catholic doctrines of Petrine primacy and papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Taken literally, however, the expression “more Catholic than the pope” suggests that the way Catholics determine what Catholicism is, or what it isn’t, is by finding out what the pope says and does in his daily life.

That, however, couldn’t be further from the truth. As explained in the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus, the Church firmly holds that “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

The Catholic Faith is not something invented anew by each pope according to his own opinions, predilections, understanding, or whims.  The pope is only good as a “yardstick” when he formally teaches in accordance to “the Faith once delivered unto the saints,” as St. Jude the Apostle wrote.

When Pope Liberius assented to the unjust excommunication of St. Athanasius the Great, and signed off on an ambiguous creedal formula that could be accommodated to the Arian or semi-Arian heresies, every faithful Catholic was then “more Catholic than the pope.”

When Pope Honorius I uttered false theological opinions and failed to correct and condemn the Monothelite heretics, every faithful Catholic was then “more Catholic than the pope.” Indeed, they were so much more Catholic than Honorius that the Church posthumously condemned him as a heretic, a decision that Honorius’ successor St. Leo II approved.We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius … and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”  For most of the Church’s history, priests praying their Office repeated the anathema pronounced against Pope Honorius.

When Pope Stephen VII desecrated the remains of Pope Formosus during the hideously shameful Synodus Horrenda (the “Cadaver Synod”), every Catholic who strove to practice justice and who respected the sanctity of the human body was then “more Catholic than the pope.”

 

 

When Pope John XII effectively “turned the Lateran palace into a brothel,” as contemporary historians so colorfully put it, and when Pope Benedict IX gave himself over to unchastity and bloodshed, every faithful Catholic who strove to cultivate the virtues of chastity, purity, mercy, and peace in their personal conduct was then “more Catholic than the pope.”

When Pope John XXII preached in his sermons the error that the faithful departed do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after Judgment Day at the end of the world, every faithful Catholic was then “more Catholic than the pope” — and the loud and outraged cry of the faithful against him led him to retract his error, and his successor then infallibly defined John XXII’s opinion as heresy.
Papal infallibility doesn’t mean papal impeccability or papal omniscience. The obligations of docility and obedience do not extend so far that one must stand on one’s head and cross one’s eyes in order to see how a scandalous, erroneous papal utterance is in fact true after all. Most of what a pope says is not infallible, and papal authority has never extended to having the right to introduce teachings and laws that contradict or go counter to the Faith.  It’s no dishonor or disrespect or disobedience to the Holy Father to point out and to believe those truths of the Catholic Faith.
“More Catholic than the pope,” you say?  That has happened many, many times in the Church’s history.  It’s greatly to be lamented when it happens — but why should anyone believe it can’t happen today, or be offended even by the mere suggestion that it has again happened?

More than ever, pray for the Church. Pray for the pope.

He that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. (I Cor. 10:12)

 

 

Antonio Socci: There has been a coup in the Church

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/antonio-sooci-there-has-been-coup-in.html

By Antonio Socci, “Libero”, April 10, 2016

Let us rebel against “the dictatorship of relativism” which is destroying Catholicism and our civilization.

In “La Repubblica” yesterday, the Catholic ideologue of progressivism, Albert Melloni, informs us that Bergoglio’s Exhortation (re-named by some “Familiaris divorzio”) is “a praise to erotic joy”.  With this, he makes it seem like a playful treatise on pornography to be published in Dagospia with the title: “Coito ergo sum”. 

Isn’t the idea of a ‘red-light’ Vatican pathetic?  To be sure, the Bergoglian “modernism” of today brings to mind the image of an eighty year-old woman running around in a mini-skirt and stiletto heels, exposing her bosom to all and sundry. Also on social issues, Bergoglio rehabilitates the fossilized slogans of those abominable “red-light” 1960s, now at the age of catheters and Alzheimer’s. Then the Bergoglian pages on Eros which are a clumsy amateurish copying (with errors) of the theological  and pastoral masterpiece by John Paul II, who, in his catecheses on Genesis and the body, linked together splendidly the “Eros” and “Agape” in Christian marriage.

To Genesis and the Song of Songs, Wojtyla added his past human experience as a poet- miner-theologian and in his youth took part in the resistance against Nazism and Communism reading St. John of the Cross and Montfort.

Someone paraphrasing Melloni, says that the Bergoglian Exhortation is, in reality, “a praise to heretic joy” (not erotic). And that is the rub.

 

Erotic or heretic joy?  
For years now the Church has defended Herself from the assault of the “dictatorship of relativism”. She defended Herself at the Consistory in 2014 and the two Synods, even putting Bergoglio in the minority, yet the Argentinean Pope has imposed his “revolution”, unilaterally, on the Church anyway. (So much for synodality!)  

Now it is the Bishops’ newspaper itself, “Avvenire” that has rapidly thrown Benedict XVI and John Paul II out the window, informing us that there really is a revolution going on in the Church.

The official body of the CEI, launched the Exhortation in this way: “About ten days ago when Cardinal Kasper announced the publication of the Post-Synod Exhortation on the family, he spoke ‘of the most important document in the history of the Church in the last thousand years’, not a few looked on this with that false indulgence reserved for somewhat exaggerated declarations […]. Now that Amoris laetitia, is here for all to see, it would seem really difficult to contradict the German Cardinal.  Francis’ text has the savor of a solid, revolutionary text”. 

So Bergoglio is “revolutionizing” i.e. turning the Church upside down, as Ross Douthat in the New York Times wrote last November, when he indicated the existence of a “plot to change Catholicism” adding that “now the principal plotter is the Pope himself”.  

It is now official. Today, after the publication of this revolutionary text, is the “day after” for the Church. What was considered impossible has happened. The Apostolic Exhortation is an open act challenging two thousand years of Catholic teaching. And in Catholic circles people are shocked and struck dumb in bewilderment. Even if abroad Catholic voices are beginning to make sounds of protest, which will rise even more, especially in the United States (but also in Poland, Africa, Mexico and elsewhere).

Yesterday, on a Canadian site, there was a decidedly strong headline, which nonetheless helps us understand just how much indignation is smoldering under the ashes: “Who will denounce Amoris laetitia as heretical? Who will call out Jorge Bergoglio for his crime? Will history now call this the Bergoglian Heresy?”

Naturally – in all of this – Communion to the divorced and remarried is only a pretext, it is a question that interests no-one, not even the divorced: the “revolutionaries” have simply used “irregular couples” as an impetus to demolish the foundations of two thousand years of Catholicism.

 

And now there is a panorama of ruins set before the eyes of priests who are still Catholic, since – like skittles toppling – after the indissolubility of marriage, everything will come toppling down: confession, the commandments, the natural law. Most of all, the constant teaching of the Church emerges destroyed. 

We need to remember the many who have experienced family break-ups or difficult situations and – for the love of Christ –have stayed faithful to the commandments and precepts of the Church. 

One of these people said to me: “Amoris laetitia is terrible for me as it tells us: you have been fools to trust Jesus Christ and the Church by putting up with these trials. You have stupidly thrown away your lives, when you could have enjoyed yourselves and now you would even have the Pope’s approval.” And of a Vatican that praises “erotic joys” as Melloni says. 

For Catholics though, it is evident that these would be (false) heretical joys since it was Jesus Himself Who commanded “what God has brought together let no man put asunder” (Matt. 19, 6). His words “will never pass away”. The teaching of the Church is founded precisely on His Word and the Laws of God. It can never be refuted or changed by any pope. 

 

 

Popes, “Seeming” Popes, and Anti-Popes

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/traditional-catholic-answers/item/2436-popes-seeming-popes-and-anti-popes

By Chris Jackson, April 12, 2016

Now that Francis is officially allowing sacrilegious Communion to unrepentant adulterers, sane Catholics are starting to ask questions. Isn’t the pope supposed to be our guardian of orthodoxy? Isn’t he infallible? Isn’t the Church supposed to be indefectible? In that vein, I was fortuitous enough to come across the following article, which discusses possible scenarios regarding a heretical pope. I know that many articles have been written on this subject since Vatican II, mostly pertaining to the sedevacantist issue. However, I have never seen an article quite like this. The kicker? It was written in 1868. Therefore it cannot be accused in any way of being biased. The author speculates on possibilities regarding the pope I have never before seen in a Pre-Vatican II Catholic document. I think it is a fascinating read.

The article was written by the distinguished William George Ward. According to his Wikipedia entry:

Ward left the Church of England in September 1845, and was followed by many others, including Newman himself. After his reception into the Church of Rome, Ward devoted himself to ethics, metaphysics and moral philosophy. He wrote articles on free will, the philosophy of theism, on science, prayer and miracles for the Dublin Review…He was an opponent of Liberal Catholicism and defender of papal authority. In 1851 he became professor of moral philosophy at St Edmund’s College, Ware, and the following year he was appointed to the chair of dogmatic theology. In 1863 he became editor of the Dublin Review (1863–1878). He supported the promulgation of the dogma of Papal Infallibility in 1870. 
Ward wrote a response to an article by P. Le Page Renouf entitled, “The Condemnation of Pope Honorius,” which appeared in The Dublin Review in 1868. An excerpt of said article pertaining to a speculative heretical pope is provided below. All emphasis is in the original. 
Please buckle up and get ready for a wild ride in Pre-Vatican II speculative theology. Do any of the scenarios proposed by Ward apply to Francis or our present day situation? We report, you decide. See you in the combox.
Chris Jackson

 

Excerpt from “Mr. Renouf on Pope Honorius” (1868)

…3. “Throughout the middle ages,” says the author (p. 31), “it was never doubted that a Pope might . . . become a heretic or schismatic, mad or imbecile;” and he implies by his context that this is inconsistent with the doctrine now advocated by Ultramontanes. Now no fairer specimen can be found of a modern Ultramontane, than Dr. Murray, of Maynooth. Dr. Murray refers to the possibility of some Pope being a formal heretic, and also of some Pope becoming afflicted with insanity; nor does he allege the existence of a Divine promise against either calamity. 
Without entering further on the question of insanity, we will give his view on the more important issue. (See d. 20, n. 108). Can the Pontiff, he asks, become a formal heretic? Bannez, Valentia, and Laymann answer in the affirmative; Tanner and Viva think the thing uncertain; Bellarmine and Wiggers account it probable—Suarez even more probable—that God will not permit this. He cites no one theologian who considers it certain that some Pope may not be a formal heretic; but he adds most reasonably, that the fact of no such circumstance having occurred for so many centuries, affords much increased probability to the more favourable opinion. Dr. Murray adds, as a truth admitted by all, that the Pope may fall materially into dogmatical error, and even into heresy.
However let us suppose, for argument’s sake, that Mr. Renouf’s allegation were true. On such an hypothesis, in addition to the Ultramontane doctrine itself,—viz. that the Pope is infallible ex cathedra, —modern Ultramontanes have added another tenet altogether distinct; viz., that no Pope can fall into formal heresy. For this tenet doubtless they can claim no support from mediaeval theologians: but how can such a circumstance affect in the slightest degree the value of mediaeval testimony to the Ultramontane doctrine itself? It would have been very strange if any mediaeval theologians had held the opinion that no Pope can fall into heresy; considering that, as Mr. Renouf himself informs us (p. 43), S. Liberius was called a heretic in the Roman Breviary, and his fall “was accepted as one of the simply indisputable facts of Church history.” On the other hand, as critical and historical studies have advanced, it has become more and more evident that in fact no Pope has ever become a formal heretic; and in consequence the pious hope and opinion has largely and increasingly spread, that God will always preserve the Church from such a calamity.

 

4. Since the mediaevals considered it a certain fact that a Pope could fall into heresy, the question had to be faced, what would result from such a phenomenon. By far the commoner opinion seems to have been, as Mr. Renouf points out (pp. 34- 37), that he would cease to be “Pope by ceasing to be a Catholic.” For ourselves, while counting it indefinitely more probable that God will never permit such a calamity, we incline with diffidence to the mediaeval opinion; we incline to think that “by the very fact through which he falls from the Faith of Peter, he “would” fall from the Chair and See of Peter ” (p. 33).
5. But here ensues a difficulty, to which our author draws attention. A Pope may—by hypothesis—profess formal heresy; and yet that profession may be generally unknown. He has ceased then to be really Pope, and yet is universally regarded as Pope. Mr. Renouf writes as though this difficulty were confined to the particular case of a Pope secretly professing heresy; whereas his own authority, Turrecremata, might have reminded him (p. 37) that it applies with even greater force to other cases also. Lord Macaulay somewhere supposes that, at a time when hordes of barbarians were baptized en masse, some ten or twenty may have accidentally missed valid baptism. One of these afterwards undergoes the form of ordination and consecration, and is accounted a bishop; in due time he is appointed to the Pontificate. He is no real Pope, yet every one so accounts him. Even more plausible difficulties are often pressed by Protestants, as arising from the Catholic doctrine concerning sacramental intention. All these perplexities however are really quite groundless, except on one most strange supposition; except on the supposition that God, having founded the Church, ceases thenceforth to protect and watch over her. Divine Providence, as Turrecremata says (Renouf, p. 37j, will protect her against all such evils.
Turrecremata’s doctrine has been carried by later theologians to its legitimate results. Divine Providence, he says, will protect the Church against any evil results which might ensue to the Church, from an unavoidable mistake of some seeming Pope for a true one. But if the false Pope proceeded to put forth doctrinal determinations quasi ex cathedra, most serious evil would accrue to the Church. It is the explicit doctrine therefore of later theologians, that so soon as a Pope, recognized as such by the Universal Church, has put forth any doctrinal determination, he is infallibly the true Pope. Even F. Ryder (Letter, p. 9) considers that this proposition is de fide. Whenever therefore any universally recognized Pope puts forth any doctrinal determination, it is infallibly certain that he is not unbaptized, nor otherwise disqualified for the Pontificate.
6. But lastly, urges our author—and this on the surface is his strongest point—mediaeval theologians considered that such a seeming Pope may take advantage of his position, by inculcating heresy on the Church. Both Turrecremata and Ockham (pp. 33-35)—the former of whom denounced the latter “with execration “—yet agree in this opinion. A seeming Pope, according to them, may solemnly “define” “an error against the Faith,” and “assert that it is to be held by Christians as Catholic.” 
Now in the first place, of course they held this opinion; for everyone thought at that time that S. Liberius had acted in this very way. 
Then, secondly, Mr. Renouf is quite mistaken in supposing that such an opinion has been unheard of since the Reformation. There have been few more eminent post-Tridentine Ultramontanes than Valentia; who expressly quotes Turrecremata’s opinion, and pronounces it “not entirely improbable” (“De Objecto Fidei,” (p. 7, q. 6).
Nor, thirdly, can the author say that later Ultramontanes have endeavoured to conceal the fact of this opinion having once existed. That admirable journal, the “Katholik,” of Mayence, has entered fully on the subject within the last ten years. 
We are not ourselves prepared to concur with this opinion; but when it is fully and fairly stated, there is no difficulty in seeing how Ultramontanes may have held it. We cannot explain it better than by putting an imaginary case. Ultramontanes maintain, that the one way assigned by God to Christians for their learning orthodox doctrine, is a docile submission of intellect to whatever the Supreme Pontiff teaches ex cathedra. Suppose then Honorius had really taught ex cathedra that in Christ there is but one operation and one will. In such a case, all Christians would be required by Ultramontane doctrine to hold this tenet; and so on the Ultramontane hypothesis God would guarantee error as truth. Consequently (as we have so often observed) Ultramontane doctrine would at once be refuted, if any one could show that Honorius taught Monothelism ex cathedra. 
But now change the supposition. Time goes on: S. Leo II confirms the Sixth Council, and Monothelism is definitively condemned. Suppose some subsequent occupier of S. Peter’s chair were to declare that in Christ there is but one will, and were to exclude from his communion those who think otherwise. This would be no doctrinal determination, but a heretical profession. The Church has already definitively declared that in Christ there are two wills; and he who publicly denies that dogma, avows himself a heretic. 
Turrecremata and other mediaeval theologians thought that God might permit this; because (as is evident) no perplexity or uncertainty could thence accrue to the Catholic’s faith. To use their own language—the seeming Pope is no longer a “shepherd,” but stands confessed “a wolf.” And so Valentia explains Turrecremata’s doctrine. “Grave authors admit [that a seeming Pope] may desire to obtrude on others his private heresy, which is notoriously such.” “Nor would this,” he adds, “involve danger to the Church. For she, knowing that through manifest heresy such a Pontiff has fallen from his authority and is teaching contrarily to the Church’s notorious Faith, would be bound to flee from him.”
This whole line of thought, as we have already explained, is entirely alien to the spirit of later Ultramontane theologians; because as sound criticism has advanced, the opinion has most widely prevailed among them, that God will never in fact permit a Pope to fall into formal heresy…

 

Let Me Say It Again Slowly

http://www.onepeterfive.com/let-me-say-it-again-slowly/

By Steve Skojec, April 12, 2016

[…]

 

 

2 out of 193 readers’ responses

1. Fr. RP: The divisive nature of Amoris Laetitia cannot be understated. It will drive many a good Priest to ruin, it will pit laity against their Priests, Priests against their Bishops, Bishops against their priests, parishes against parishes etc…

Over at St. ALLAREWELCOME you can go to communion because their Priest is merciful and kind like Pope Francis! Over at St. ETERNALTRUTH you are forbidden communion because that Priest doesn’t obey the Pope, he’s an evil judgmental Pharisee! Time to complain to the Bishop about him and get him removed!

Good priests will be removed from their pastoral offices (they will be betrayed and set up by other priests who hate them for not being like them: effeminate, sodomite, heretic, etc… Bishops will align against non-conformist Bishops and denounce them and they will be removed from their offices for ‘grave pastoral reasons’.

This isn’t hyperbole, it’s already been happening and it’s going to get much, much worse.

Welcome to Practical Pastoral Protestantism with the full weight of the Papal Office behind it.

This is a non-Pastoral Bomb blowing up the Unity of the Church.

May God Save Us!

2. Fr. RP: Whoever the next Pope is, if he isn’t a Saint then he is a dead man walking. A Pope is going to have to condemn the current papacy and its acts. And to do so he will need to excommunicate its advocates, amongst the laity and the Clergy (including Bishops and Cardinals). And it’s going to be ugly, very, very ugly.

 

 

Pope Leo XIII Warned Us

http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-leo-xiii-warned-us/

By Steve Skojec, April 15, 2016

In his 1896 Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII warned us of the dangers of accepting error in something otherwise good:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition”
(Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

If you catch yourself, as some are already doing, trying to keep the good and strain out the bad in Amoris Laetitia, it would be well to remember this warning (and the further instruction that follows it in the above-cited encyclical.)

Any promotion of Amoris Laetitia as a partial good runs the risk of also promoting its errors and even heresies. Where the exhortation is good, it reiterates what is known. Where it innovates, it offers more than a single drop of poison.  Better instead to reiterate the pure doctrine of the Church on these topics, already taught so clearly in years past.

 

4 out of 18 readers’ responses

1. Why is everyone getting so worked up? It’s a FIVE GALLON container of Gatorade, for heaven’s sake. 99.9% of it is perfectly fine. I only added one OUNCE of Arsenic to it. Gosh, fussy people. C’mon, fellow Catholics, drink up. You’ll be fine.

2. Steve, is Pope Francis a manifest heretic because of the obvious and objective conclusion that he is a Modernist who adheres to the heresy of Modernism, previously condemned by the Church?

Hypothetically (because I am not sure where to cast my lot at this point). Forget about what he has written in EG (247) and AL that is heretical or the litany of things said in interviews and elsewhere. The fact that he is a Modernist is all we need to conclude that he is a manifest heretic. I don’t need a bunch of bishops to convene a tribunal, which will never happen since they (possibly not in total) are also manifest Modernist heretics, to tell me that a circle is round and not a square. They can’t judge a pope since he has no authority over him on earth. If they can judge him, then it is because he is no longer pope and has no authority over them.

3. Steve Skojec:
It’s not that straightforward.

https://www.olrl.org/misc/sede

4. Steve Skojec:
And I’ll leave it to those in whose hands God has entrusted the future of the Church (who have the authority bestowed upon them to clear up this mess) to sort it out.

I am willing to point out the problems. I am willing to point out the way things were done. I am willing to say, “Well, this one sure appears to be heresy.”

But the fantastic thing about not being a position to judge a pope is that I will never be in the position to judge a pope.

I’ll line up the dots so closely together that you only need to squint to see what’s probably true…but I will not cross the line into saying I know.

 

 

 

 

On Change for Divorced and Remarried, Pope Francis Says “Yes”

http://www.onepeterfive.com/on-change-for-divorced-and-remarried-pope-francis-says-yes/

By Steve Skojec, April 16, 2016

[…]

 

3 out of 290 readers’ responses

1. So, let’s see it as it is, and name is as it deserves: the Pope, by permitting (nay, CREATING) a change in the practice, has implicitly and in all truth attempted a change in the doctrines which underlie the practice. Therefore, the Pope MUST hold a heretical opinion either about the truth of the dogma of the Real Presence OR the truth about the indissolubility of Holy Matrimony. Therefore, by clearly asserting that he himself enacted a change in practice, he clearly reveals that he holds a heretical belief. True?

2. I would also add that considering all his chastising of those who will not bend to his new rules that he has also been duly informed several times that what he is doing is wrong and heresy. Which means there’s a good chance he may in fact be a formal heretic. We need a formal & public inquisition into this matter by a Council to determine this once and for all. There are more than enough grounds.

3. My sentiments exactly. It seems not only that the Pope has forgotten the word “adultery,” but the Catholic media has forgotten the definitions of apostasy and heresy.

 

 

SSPX: Amoris Laetitia a “Victory of Subjectivism”

http://www.onepeterfive.com/sspx-amoris-laetitia-a-victory-of-subjectivism/

By Maike Hickson, April 18, 2016

[…]

 

3 out of 74 readers’ responses

1. This document is a disaster on a practical level, even though Cardinal Burke claims it is non-magisterial. Faithful priests will be persecuted by liberal bishops such as Cupich if they refuse Holy Communion to remarried divorcees.

2. Of course it is magisterial. What is Burke thinking? At what level, who knows? It will be cited in future editions of Denzinger. Hopefully as a document identified as heresy condemned by the next Pope, or the first one after the current generation of sodomite supporters dies off.

5. It is now clear for all to see that this Apostolic Exhortation – Amoris Laetitia – is to become the stepping stone by which ALL sinners will be able to access Holy Communion without need (or guilt) to approach Confession first with due remorse, repentance & a firm commitment to mend their ways. This is abjectly against the sixth & eight commandments & willfully denies God’s right & purpose in setting out his rules in order that we may attain our heavenly abode. It also transparently demonstrates that anyone who accepts this “papal opinion” and live accordingly has already lost the belief in transubstantiation &, I would contend, in God Himself.

For a Pope, backed by his Hierarchy, to suggest that this is what the Holy Ghost intends to happen, is monstrously demonic & heretical and must be condemned at the highest level. If not, the Catholic Church is facing yet another schism. A complete clean-out of the Vatican has now become compulsory. Fr. Amorth your services are desperately required!

 

 

“A Christ both Loving and Fierce”

http://www.onepeterfive.com/a-christ-both-loving-and-fierce/

By Steve Skojec, April 19, 2016

[…]

 

1 out of 6 readers’ responses

Thanks Steve. This raises my confidence in First Things willingness to take on Pope Francis after canceling my subscription following Maureen Mullarkey’s dismissal for her critical article on Pope Francis.

Pope Francis must be taken on by all Catholics for his own good and ours. Letting him persist in his penumbra of incipient heresy by a failure to speak up is to be in service to the devil.

 

 

Priest on papal exhortation: We must hold fast to the Tradition

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/priest-on-papal-exhortation-we-must-hold-fast-to-the-tradition

By Fr. Linus Clovis, April 20, 2016

[…]

 

1 out of 17 readers’ responses

Huss was burned for heresy because he was a fraud…

Frankie gives us Hussism and to him’s given laud,

 

While the faithful hear the songs and try their best to sing,

Frank adores in Muslim Mosque and no one says a thing,

Frankie belches heresy from orifice and pore.

When we think he’s done he gives us reams of paper more.

Argie priests he ran off so to get his point well made.

Traddie types kept trying though he strived to make them fade.

Frankie traded God for man in Para 1-6-1.

Evan-jelly Gaudee-um gave us the Heads’up son!

Frankie-land is wilderness and snakes there do abound.

In the land of Cath’lic men snakes never can be found.

Now we’ve got the Joy of Love…of…Sin and now we know,

Just what Frankie wants from God and Man and those below.

Now he’s chasing Real Men off from Catholic-istan.

Those who love the Lord are not but Devil is his fan!

Trust your Bible’n’Denzinger and be not now rebuffed!

God will settle Frankie’s hash when God has had enuff!

 

 

The current crisis in the context of Church history

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-current-crisis-in-the-context-of-church-history

By Roberto de Mattei, May 6, 2016 (Speech at Roman Life Forum, May 5, 2016)

(Click on the link to read the rest along with a concise history of heresies in the Church.)

[…]

In the centuries from Constantine to Charlemagne there were sixty-two Popes. Among them were Saint Leo the Great, who braved, alone, Attila, “the Scourge of God”, Saint Gregory the Great, who strenuously fought against the Lombards, Saint Martin I, sent into exile in chains to Chersoneus and Saint Gregory III who lived in continuous peril of death, under persecution by the Byzantine Emperors. Yet, along with these great defenders of the Church, we also find Popes like Liberius, Vigilius and Honorius who vacillated in the faith. Honorius, in particular, was condemned as a heretic by his successor, Saint Leo II.

[…]

To express a negative judgment on the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, it is not necessary to have studied theology, the sensus fidei which results from Baptism and Confirmation is quite sufficient. The sensus fidei brings us, through supernatural instinct, to refuse this document, leaving the task of applying adequate theological notes to the theologians

Between heresy and orthodoxy there are many possible gradations. Heresy is the open, formal, persistent opposition to a truth of faith. However, there are doctrinal propositions, while not being explicitly heretical, are censored by the Church with theological qualifications proportionate to their gravity and contrast with Catholic doctrine [9]. Opposition to the truth in fact, presents different grades, depending on whether it’s direct or indirect, immediate or remote, open or hidden, and so on. The “theological censures” convey the negative judgment of the Church on an expression, an opinion or an entire theological doctrine. They regard the doctrinal content: heretical propositions, near to heresy, savoring of heresy, erroneous in the faith, temerarious; they regard the form, for which the propositions are judged equivocal, ambiguous, captious, suspect, bad-sounding etc.; they regard the effects they can produce for the particular circumstances of time and place. In such a case, the propositions are censured as perverse, corrupt, scandalous, dangerous, seductive to the simple. In all these cases, Catholic truth lacks doctrinal integrity or it’s expressed in a deficient and improper manner. 

In one of his reflections on April 16th 2016, Father Jean-Michel Gleize, refers to number 299 of Amoris laetitia, according to which; “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal’” (§ 299) and comments: “In the variety of ways possible:” why not, then, in admitting them to Eucharistic Communion? If it is no longer possible to say that the divorced and remarried are living in a state of mortal sin (301), why should the fact of giving them Communion be an occasion for scandal? And at that point, why refuse them Holy Communion? The ExhortationAmoris Laetitia is clearly moving in this direction. In so doing, it represents an occasion of spiritual ruin for the entire Church; or in other words, what theologians call a “scandal” in the full sense of the term. And this scandal is the consequence of a practical relativization of the truth of the Catholic Faith concerning the necessity and indissolubility of the sacramental union of marriage.”[10]

Amoris laetitia is a scandalous document, with catastrophic effects for souls.

[…]

The principal work of hell is heresy. Heresy won’t prevail over the faith of the Church. 

[…]

We know [also] that a Pope can contribute to the auto-demolition of the Church, by falling even into heresy and in this case our conscience compels us to resist him.

[…]

 

Notes

[9] Antonio. Piolanti, Pietro Parente, Dizionario di teologia dogmatica,, Studium, Rome 1943, pp. 45-46

[10]  Father Jean-Michel Gleize FSPX, Amoris Laetitia, considerations on chapter  8, in http://sspx.org/en/amoris-laetitia-sspx-gleize  

 

 

The reader must be informed that Pope Francis has called faithful traditional Catholics like you and me “heretics”!!

Pope Francis: ‘Rigid… this or nothing’ Catholics are ‘heretical’ and ‘not Catholic’

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-rigid-this-or-nothing-catholics-are-heretical-and-not-catholic

By John-Henry Westen, June 9, 2016

The stunning introduction to today’s official Vatican Radio report on Pope Francis’ morning homily reads: “Pope Francis warned on Thursday against an excessive rigidity, saying those within the Church who tell us ‘it’s this or nothing’ are heretics and not Catholics. His remarks came during the morning Mass on Thursday celebrated at the Santa Marta residence.”

The specific section of the homily referred to in the opening is as follows:

This (is the) healthy realism of the Catholic Church: the Church never teaches us ‘or this or that.’ That is not Catholic. The Church says to us: ‘this and that.’ ‘Strive for perfectionism: reconcile with your brother.  Do not insult him. Love him. And if there is a problem, at the very least settle your differences so that war doesn’t break out.’ This (is) the healthy realism of Catholicism. It is not Catholic (to say) ‘or this or nothing:’ This is not Catholic, this is heretical. 

Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well.  He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.

Interpreting what Pope Francis is saying in a precise way has always been difficult.  However, there has been a consistent theme in his remarks against what he refers to as ‘rigid’ Catholics who hold steadfastly to the ideals proposed by Christ and to absolutes. “Fundamentalism is a sickness that we find in all religions,” said the Pope in November while flying home from Africa. “Among Catholics there are many, not a few, many, who believe to hold the absolute truth,” he added. “They go ahead by harming others with slander and defamation, and they do great harm…  And it must be combated.”

In his most recent Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis criticized the Church for often proposing, “a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage.”  He added that conscience can “recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.”

An accusation of rigidity or heresy by Pope Francis against those who would insist on the ideal of Christ’s teaching such as marriage, would fall heavily on Francis’ own predecessor, Pope St. John Paul II, whom Pope Francis himself declared a saint.  In the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, John Paul taught: “It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an ‘ideal’ which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a ‘balancing of the goods in question’.”

The same condemnation of heresy against “this or nothing” Catholics would seem to target the author of God or Nothing, Cardinal Robert Sarah, who Pope Francis appointed to head the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.  In God or Nothing, Cardinal Sarah forcefully rejected the notion of watering down the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage with pastoral leniency.  “The idea of putting magisterial teaching in a beautiful display case while separating it from pastoral practice, which then could evolve along with circumstances, fashions, and passions, is a sort of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology,” he wrote. 

Cardinal Sarah also issued a warning to prelates who would seek to alter doctrine by altering the practice of the Church regarding marriage.  “Men who devise and elaborate strategies to kill God, to destroy the centuries-old doctrine and teaching of the Church, will themselves be swallowed up, carried off by their own earthly victory into the eternal fires of Gehenna,” he said.

Pope Francis says that Christ “tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.'” The Bible however, records our Lord’s words differently in the Gospel of Matthew concluding the 5th chapter where He teaches the hard truths about divorce and adultery. “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect,” said Jesus.

 

5 of 239 readers’ comments

1. Why doesn’t Pope Francis simply say he shares the opinion of many people that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are unrealistic, too high and hard for many people who cannot be expected to live up to them? All his criticism of the doctrines and those who do uphold them is not necessary. Unless like many he still wants to feel justified in his opinion, even morally superior.

2. Sadly, the Pope is emerging as a fallen-away Catholic.

3. It seems that the idea began in 1962 by some Bishops to transform the Catholic Church into a Protestant Church. That seems to be taking ground quickly now. A lot of what Pope Francis is saying is more Protestant than Catholic Theology. Having looked up the different versions of how the Mass was to be said coming from Vatican 2, nothing really was to change. The Priest was supposed to remain facing East (the Tabernacle) with the rest of the congregation and the Traditional form of the Mass was to remain even if said in English. This abuse over the years has led to what is there now. The Tabernacle in most Churches is not even on the Altar anymore. It is off to the side and in some cases not even visible to the congregation. Almost as if to make it disappear from the minds of the Faithful. What you are left with is a celebration similar to the Protestant one. I began going to the Traditional Mass over the past few years and I can assure you there is certainly a major difference and it is more fulfilling.

 

4. Within the last several days “LifeSiteNews” stated that Francis has a liberal interpretation of the “multiplying of the loaves and fishes”. He believes that the extra food came from a “sharing” of those in attendance. There was no miracle.

5. Yes I’ve read the Pope arrogantly proclaim the Church to be “My Church” – and how he appears to believe that 2,000 years of Faith and Tradition are now suddenly ‘heresy’.

The Pope’s ‘brave new vision’ of his ‘ideal’ Catholic include Social Justice Warriors, Eco Warriors and Rainbow Warriors. Not surprising, given that he’s an overt Marxist.

In conclusion, given his latest sermon, I’d say the Pope appears to be attempting to force a schism.

[THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UNDER POPE FRANCIS IN SCHISM

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_CATHOLIC_CHURCH_UNDER_POPE_FRANCIS_IS_IN_SCHISM.doc]

 

‘We are being put to the test’: Prominent Catholic academics say Pope’s exhortation presents danger to Church

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-are-being-put-to-the-test-prominent-catholic-academics-say-popes-exhorta

By Claire Chretien, June 14, 2016

Prominent Catholic philosophers and a world expert on the Church Fathers have joined the growing chorus of voices expressing deep concerns over the implications of Pope Francis’s controversial exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

[…]

 

1 of 3 readers’ comments

Sometimes I wonder just to what point this pope is being manipulated; I mean, when you don’t even write your own exhortations, what does that say? But then I look at everything he has said off the cuff and the only common sense conclusion I can come to is that he is personally at odds with the teaching of Jesus Christ. The way it’s shaping up, we are on the verge of the Great Apostasy where we will have to choose between following a
heresiarch
or staying true to Jesus. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua).

 

 

The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia: a theological critique

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11324

June 29, 2016

[…]

The criticism of Amoris laetitia offered here permits these valuable elements to have their true effect, by distinguishing them from the problematic elements in the document and neutralising the threat to the faith posed by them.

For the sake of theological clarity and justice, this criticism of the harmful parts of Amoris laetitia will take the form of a theological censure of the individual passages that are deficient.

These censures are to be understood in the sense traditionally held by the Church, 2 and are applied to the passages prout iacent, as they lie. The propositions censured are so damaging that a complete listing of the censures that apply to them is not attempted. Most if not all of them fall under the censures of aequivoca, ambigua, obscura, praesumptuosa, anxia, dubia, captiosa, male sonans, piarum aurium offensiva, as well as the ones listed. The censures list i) the censures that bear upon the content of the statements censured, and ii) those that bear upon the damaging effects of the statements. The censures are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors that Amoris laetitia on a plausible reading contains; they seek to identify the worst threats to Catholic faith and morals in the document. The propositions censured are divided into those that are heretical and those that fall under a lesser censure.

Heretical propositions, censured as ‘haeretica’, are ones that contradict propositions that are contained in divine revelation and are defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal

Magisterium. The propositions that fall under a lesser censure than heresy are included as posing an especially grave danger to faith and morals.

The censures of these propositions are not censures of administrative, legislative or doctrinal acts of the Supreme Pontiff, since the propositions censured do not and cannot constitute such acts. The censures are the subject of a filial request to the Supreme Pontiff, which asks him to make a definitive and final juridical and doctrinal act condemning the propositions censured.

[…]

Note 2. See H. Quilliet, ‘Censures doctrinales’, DTC II, 2101-2113, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal commentary on the concluding formula of the Professio fidei’, June29th, 1998.

 

Theological censures of propositions drawn from the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia

A). Heretical propositions.

1). AL 83: ‘The Church … firmly rejects the death penalty’.

If understood as meaning that the death penalty is always and everywhere unjust in itself and therefore cannot ever be rightly inflicted by the state:

 

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Perniciosa.

Gen. 9:6 3: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

See also: Lev. 20-1; Deut. 13, 21-22; Matt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10; Jn. 19:11; Rom. 13:4; Heb. 10:28; Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius, PL 120: 499A-B; Innocent III, Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians, DH 795 4; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the 5th commandment; Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, AAS 44 (1952): 787; John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.

 

Note 3. Scriptural references are taken from the Vulgate or from the neo-Vulgate.

Note 4. All references to Denzinger are taken from the 43rd edition.

 

2). AL 156: ‘Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected.’

If understood not simply as denying that a wife owes servile obedience to her husband or that the husband has authority over his wife that is the same as parental authority, but as also denying that the husband has any form of authority over his wife, or as denying that the wife has any duty to obey the legitimate commands of her husband in virtue of his authority as husband:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Prava, perniciosa.

Eph. 5:24: “As the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.”

See also: 1 Cor. 11:3; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-5; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the sacrament of matrimony; Leo XIII, Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879): 389; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 549 (DH 3708-09); John XXIII, Ad Petri cathedram, AAS 51 (1959): 509-10.

 

3). AL 159: ‘Saint Paul recommended virginity because he expected Jesus’ imminent return and he wanted everyone to concentrate only on spreading the Gospel: “the appointed time has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29) … Rather than speak absolutely of the superiority of virginity, it should be enough to point out that the different states of life complement one another, and consequently that some can be more perfect in one way and others in another.’

Understood as denying that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is superior considered in itself to the state of Christian marriage:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Perniciosa, suspensiva gravis resolutionis.

Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 10: “If anyone says that the married state surpasses that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema” (DH 1810).

See also: Mt. 19: 12, 21; 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 38; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Apoc. 14:4; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, DH 1353; Pius X, Response of the Biblical Commission, DH 3629; Pius XII Sacra virginitas, AAS 46 (1954): 174; 2nd Vatican Council, Decree Optatam totius, 10.

 

4). AL 295: ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.

This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’

AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’

Understood as meaning that a justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema” (DH 1568).

See also: Gen. 4:7; Deut. 30:11-19; Ecclesiasticus 15: 11-22; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Zosimus, 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace, DH 225; Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH 397; Council of Trent, Session 5, canon 5; Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27 and 29; Pius V, Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay, 54, (DH 1954); Innocent X, Constitution Cum occasione, On the errors of Cornelius Jansen, 1 (DH 2001); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).

 

 

 

5). AL 297: ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’

If understood as meaning that no human being can or will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Scandalosa, perniciosa.

Matt. 25: 46: “These shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting”

See also: Mt. 7:22-23; Lk. 16: 26; Jn. 17:12; Apoc. 20:10; 16th Synod of Toledo (DH 574); 4th Lateran Council, DH 801; Benedict XII, Constitution Benedictus Deus, DH 1002; Council of Florence, decree Laetentur caeli, DH 1306; John Paul II, Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Recentiores episcoporum, AAS 71 (1979): 941; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-37.

 

6). AL 299: ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. … Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel”.’

If understood as meaning that the divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

Mk. 10:11-12: “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”.

See also: Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7: 10-11; Heb. 10:26-29; Council of Trent, Session 6, canons 19-21, 27 (DH 1569-71, 1577); Session 24, canons 5 and 7 (DH 1805, 1807); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office on ‘Philosophical Sin’, DH 2291; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).

 

7). AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’

 

Understood as meaning that a Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Prava, perversa.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20: “If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he may be, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound only to believe, as if the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments be observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570).

See also: Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Council of Trent, session 6, canons 19 and 27; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).

 

8). AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’

Understood as saying that a person with full knowledge of a divine law can sin by choosing to obey that law:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Prava, perversa.

Ps. 18:8: “The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”

See also: Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).

 

 

 

9). AL 303: Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.’

Understood as meaning that conscience can truly judge that actions condemned by the Gospel, and in particular, sexual acts between Catholics who have civilly remarried following divorce, can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Scandalosa, prava, perversa, perniciosa, impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 21: “If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be anathema” (DH 1571).

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 2: “If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema” (DH 1802).

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 5: “If anyone says that the marriage bond can be dissolved because of heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or because of the wilful absence of one of the spouses, let him be anathema” (DH 1805)

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 7: “If anyone says that the Church is in error for having taught and for still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, the marriage bond cannot be dissolved because of adultery on the part of one of the spouses and that neither of the two, not even the innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and the wife who dismisses and adulterous husband and married again are both guilty of adultery, let him be anathema” (DH 1807).

See also: Ps. 5:5; Ps. 18:8-9; Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Heb. 10:26-29; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 3:7; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); Pius XII, Decree of the Holy Office on situation ethics, DH 3918; 2nd Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 16; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 54: AAS 85 (1993): 1177; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1786-87.

 

10). AL 304: ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.’

Understood as meaning that moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action under any and all circumstances:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

John Paul II, Veritatis splendor 115: “Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts” (DH 4971).

See also: Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Apoc. 22:15; 4th Lateran Council, chapter 22 (DH 815); Council of Constance, Bull Inter cunctas, 14 (DH 1254); Paul VI, Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 83: AAS 85 (1993): 1199 (DH 4970).

 

11). AL 308: I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”.’

If understood as meaning that Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it:

i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.

ii). Scandalosa, prava, perversa, impia, blasphema.

1 Cor. 11:27: “Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

 

 

 

Familiaris consortio, 84: “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.”

2nd Lateran Council, canon 20: “Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate, and priests, not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is certain that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another” (DH 717).

See also: Mt. 7:6; Mt. 22: 11-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-30; Heb. 13:8; Council of Trent, session 14, Decree on Penance, cap. 4; Council of Trent, session 13, Decree on the most holy Eucharist (DH 1646-47)); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63 (DH 2160-63); John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1385, 1451, 1490

 

B. Propositions falling under lesser censures

12). AL 295: ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.

This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’

If understood as meaning that free acts that do not fully carry out the objective demands of divine law can be morally good:

i). Erronea in fide.

ii). Scandalosa, prava.

1 Jn. 3: 4: “Whosoever committeth sin, committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity.”

See also: Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).

 

13). AL 296: “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement. The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever.”

 

AL 297: ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’

Understood as meaning that in circumstances where an offender does not cease to commit an offence the Church does not have the power or the right to inflict punishments or condemnations without later remitting them or lifting them, or that the Church does not have the power or the right to condemn and anathematise individuals after their death:

i). Erronea in fide.

ii). Scandalosa, perniciosa, derogans praxi sive usui et disciplinae Ecclesiae.

1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 1358: “The remission of a censure cannot be granted except to an offender whose contempt has been purged”.

3rd Council of Constantinople, Condemnation of the Monothelites and of Pope Honorius I: “As to these self-same men whose impious teachings we have rejected, we have also judged it necessary to banish their names from the holy Church of God, that is, the name of Sergius, who began to write about this impious doctrine, of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, of Paul and of Peter and of those who have presided on the throne of this God-protected city, and the same for those who have been like-minded. Then also (the name) of Theodore who was bishop of Pharan.

All these afore-named persons were mentioned by Agatho, the most holy and thrice blessed pope of elder Rome, in his letter to the . . . emperor, and rejected by him as having thought in a way contrary to our orthodox faith; and we determine that they are also subject to anathema. Along with these we have seen fit to banish from the holy Church of God and to anathematize also Honorius, the former pope of the elder Rome” (DH 550).

See also: 2nd Council of Constantinople, canons 11-12; Lateran Synod, canon 18 (DH 518-20); Leo II, letter Regi regum, DH 563; 4th Council of Constantinople, canon 11; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites DH 1339-1346; Benedict XV, 1917 Code of Canon Law, canons 855, 2214, 2241:1 and 2257; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canons 915 and

1311; Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, canon 1424:1.

 

14). AL 298: ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.’

 

 

 

If understood as meaning that persons who are civilly married to someone other than their true spouse can show Christian virtue by being sexually faithful to their civil partner:

i). Erronea in fide.

ii). Scandalosa.

1 Cor. 7:10-11: “To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.”

See also: Gen. 2: 21; Mal. 2:15-16; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18; Heb. 13:4; Letter Quam laudabiliter of Leo I, DH 283; Letter Regressus ad nos of Leo I, DH 311-14; Letter Gaudemus in Domino of Innocent III, DH 777-79; 2nd Council of Lyons, Profession of Faith of Emperor Michael Palaeologus (DH 860); Council of Trent, Session 24 canons 5, 7; Pius VI,

Rescript. ad Episc. Agriens., 11th July 1789; Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879-80): 388-94; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 546-50 (cf. Dz 3706-10); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 19, 80-81, 84: AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1643-49.

 

15). AL 298: ‘The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate” [footnote 329]. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”.’ {N.B. The last clause in double quotation marks misleadingly applies to divorced and civilly married couples a statement of Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 51, that refers only to validly married couples.}

Understood as endorsing claims that divorced and civilly remarried couples have an obligation of sexual faithfulness to each other rather than to their true spouses, or that their living ‘as brother and sister’ could be either a culpable occasion of sin against that supposed obligation, or a culpable cause of harm to their children:

i) Erronea in fide.

ii) Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

Ecclesiasticus 15:21: “He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man licence to sin.”

See also: Rom. 3:8, 8: 28; 1 Thess. 4:7; Jas. 1:13-14; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 79-83: AAS 85 (1993): 1197-99 (cf. DH 4969-70).

 

16). AL 300: ‘Since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same [footnote 336]. This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists.’

 

AL 305: ‘Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end [footnote 351]. In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy”. I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak”‘.’

Understood as saying that absence of grave fault due to diminished responsibility can permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of divorced and civilly remarried persons who do not separate, nor undertake to live in perfect continence, but remain in an objective state of adultery and bigamy:

i). Erronea in fide, falsa.

ii). Scandalosa.

John Paul II, Familiaris consortio 84: “The 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. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.”

1 Jn. 2:20: “You have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things”.

See also Ez. 3:17; Mt. 28:20; 1 Cor. 11:27-29; Eph. 5:30-32; 2nd Lateran Council, DH 717; Paul V, Rituale Romanum, 49; Benedict XIV, Confirmation of the Synod of the Maronites; Encyclical letter Ex omnibus; Benedict XV, 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 855; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 915; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to

Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Eucharistic communion by those faithful who after a divorce have entered a new marriage, AAS 86 (1994): 974-79; Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, canon 712;

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650, 2390; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Concerning Some Objections to the Church’s

Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, in “Documenti e Studi”, On the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried, Vatican City 1998, pp. 20-29; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (PCLT), “Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried“, on-line at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis 29: AAS 99 (2007), 128-29.

 

17). AL 298: ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.’

If understood as meaning that the divorced and remarried can either sin or culpably expose themselves to the occasion of sin by abstaining from sexual relations in accordance with the perennial teaching and discipline of the Church:

i). Temeraria, falsa.

ii). Scandalosa, prava, derogans praxi et disciplinae Ecclesiae.

Ecclesiasticus 15:16: “If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee.”

See also: 1 Cor. 7:11, 10:13; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 102-03: AAS 85 (1993): 1213-14; Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris consortio, 84, AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis 99 (2007), 128-29.

 

18). AL 298: ‘There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.’

If understood as meaning that subjective certainty in conscience about the invalidity of a previous marriage is sufficient on its own to excuse from guilt or legal penalty those who contract a new marriage when their previous marriage is recognised as valid by the Church:

i). Temeraria, falsa.

ii). Scandalosa.

Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 12: “If anyone says that matrimonial cases do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema” (DH 1812).

See also: Leo XIII, Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879), 393; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canons 1059-60, 1085.

 

19). AL 311: ‘The teaching of moral theology should not fail to incorporate these considerations.’

Understood as meaning that the teaching of moral theology in the Catholic Church should present as probable or true any of the propositions censured above:

i). Falsa.

ii). Scandalosa, prava, perversa, perniciosa.

Matt. 5:19: “He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”

See also: Is. 5:20; Mt. 28:20; 1 Tim. 6:20; Jas. 3:1; Pius IX, Bull Ineffabilis Deus, DH 2802; 1st Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, cap. 4 (DH 3020); Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum antistitum, DH 3541; 1st Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, cap. 4 (DH 3020); Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iusiurandum fidelitatis in suscipiendo officio nomine ecclesiae exercendo, AAS 81 (1989): 106; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum veritatis, On the ecclesial vocation of the theologian, AAS 82 (1990): 1559; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 115-16: AAS 85 (1993): 1223-24; Benedict XVI, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Works of Father Jon Sobrino SJ, 2 (DH 5107).

The propositions censured above have been condemned in many previous magisterial documents. It is urgently necessary that their condemnation be repeated by the Supreme Pontiff in a definitive and final manner and that it be authoritatively stated that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.

 

 

Catholic academics urge cardinals to ask Pope Francis to fix exhortation’s errors

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/45-catholic-academics-urge-cardinals-to-ask-pope-francis-to-fix-exhortation

By Claire Chretien, July 14, 2016

Forty-five Catholic prelates, academics, and clergy have submitted an appeal to the Dean of the College of Cardinals in Rome requesting that the cardinals and Eastern Catholic Patriarchs petition Pope Francis to repudiate a list of erroneous propositions that can be drawn from Amoris Laetitia.

 

 

The appeal will be sent in various languages to the 218 living Catholic Cardinals and Patriarchs over the coming weeks.

The unnamed signatories contend that the exhortation contains “a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals.” According to the group’s press release, the signatories submitted along with their appeal a documented list of applicable theological censures specifying “the nature and degree of the errors that could be attributed to Amoris laetitia.”

The group’s appeal asks the cardinals, in their capacities as the Pope’s official advisers, to approach Pope Francis with a request that he reject “the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.”

We are not accusing the pope of
heresy,” said Dr. Joseph Shaw, a signatory and a spokesman for the group of scholars and pastors, “but we consider that numerous propositions in Amoris laetitia can be construed as heretical upon a natural reading of the text. Additional statements would fall under other established theological censures, such as scandalous, erroneous in faith, and ambiguous, among others.”

[…]

 

5 of 48 readers’ comments

1. There’s no mistake. I will go so far as to say this man is a heretic. He and his very intelligent collaborators know full well what he is about. The time has come to say “enough”. Bravo to those that are addressing the issue! In time, all the faithful will see him for what he really is.

2. We can be sure the initiative will be ignored by King Francis the First. He has already said he doesn’t care what conservative bishops are saying about him and his ideas. “They do what they do and I do what I do.” he said. What arrogance! There can be no doubt this heretic Pope is determined to do as he pleases.

3. Well, it didn’t take the Holy Father long to squash Cardinal Sarah’s plea to concede a vestige of orthodoxy to the much-abused Novus Ordo Mass.

My guess is that this latest document challenging the heretical bent of Amoris Laetitia will either be summarily ignored or waved off scoffingly in yet another of Francis’ scandalous, off-the-cuff quips.

Hopefully, these 45 theologians will pave the way for 100s or 1000s more who see through the veneer of Catholicism that can no longer obscure the Modernist stranglehold in Rome.

4. “We are not accusing the pope of heresy,” said Dr. Joseph Shaw.
Why the heck not?
He is obstinate in
heresy, e.g. couples faithful in fornication have the grace of Matrimony.

5. It is necessary to go the extra mile in order to rid ourselves of this Modernist Cabal. Pope Francis must be called out for HERESY!

 

 

More details surface about 45 theologians’ appeal to correct Amoris Laetitia’s errors

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/more-details-surface-about-45-theologians-appeal-to-correct-amoris-laetitia

By Claire Chretien, July 20, 2016

[…]

The Catholic Herald reported Monday that it had obtained a copy of the letter, which the Herald said stressed that it “does not deny or question the personal faith of Pope Francis.” According to the Herald, the signatories wrote that it is necessary for Pope Francis to issue a clarification about the exhortation’s ambiguous passages, from which the signatories say heretical propositions can be drawn, in order for the portions of Amoris Laetitia that affirm Catholic doctrine to be truly effective. The Herald reported that among the signatories were “several distinguished figures, including one of Britain’s best-known theologians and the founder of a French religious community.”

 

1 of 14 readers’ comments

Pope Francis may very well be known in the very near future as a heretical pope. His words speak loudly concerning his beliefs. More Catholics are waking up about this man whereas at first they defended him.

 

 

Full text of 45 theologians’ appeal to correct Amoris Laetitia’s errors revealed

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/full-text-of-45-theologians-appeal-to-correct-amoris-laetitias-errors-revea

By Claire Chretien, July 28, 2016

[…]

Amoris Laetitia ‘can mislead Catholics into believing what is false and doing what is forbidden by divine law’

“The apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, issued by Pope Francis on March 19th, 2016 and addressed to bishops, priests, deacons, consecrated persons, Christian married couples, and all the lay faithful, has caused grief and confusion to many Catholics on account of its apparent disagreement with a number of teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and morals. This situation poses a grave danger to souls,” the letter begins. It cited the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that “inferiors are bound to correct their superiors publicly when there is an imminent danger to the faith” and the Latin Code of Canon Law’s affirmation that “the Catholic faithful have the right and at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to make known their views on matters which concern the good of the Church.”

 

 

“The problem with Amoris Laetitia is not that it has imposed legally binding rules that are intrinsically unjust or authoritatively taught binding teachings that are false,” the theologians contend. “The document does not have the authority to promulgate unjust laws or to require assent to false teachings, because the Pope does not have the power to do these things. The problem with the document is that it can mislead Catholics into believing what is false and doing what is forbidden by divine law. … What is important about the document is the damaging effect it can have on the belief and moral life of Catholics.”

From portions of Amoris Laetitia, propositions that are heretical, contrary to Sacred Scripture, and scandalous can be drawn, according to the censures.

The statement that the Church “firmly” rejects the death penalty and the implication that it is always unjust, the denial that wives should submit to their husbands, and the denial that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is superior in itself to the state of Christian marriage are several of the propositions drawn from Amoris Laetitia that the document censures as contrary to Sacred Scripture.

 

 

Vatican sex-ed ‘surrenders’ to sexual revolution: Life and family leaders react

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-surrenders-to-sexual-revolution-with-release-of-sex-ed-program-life

By Pete Baklinski, Rome, July 29, 2016

[…]

 

2 of 44 responses

1. Let’s be frank – this isn’t the work of the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church it is the work of Marxist/Masonic/Modernism, i.e. Satan. Our Lady said that Rome would lose the faith & become the seat of the Antichrist which is evident for us all to see. She also said this Apostasy would start at the top & those who should speak won’t. It’s all happening right now before our eyes.

It is imperative that Amoris Laetitia be scrapped. If no adequate response is received by the signatories to the Appeal of Catholic Academics & Clerics to the Cardinals re AL, then further steps must be taken to call for a Council to examine the heresies in this document, particularly the intent to change Catholic Doctrine via altering the pastoral approach which cannot be condoned. With PF already implementing this ‘pastoral’ teaching to the serious concern of us all, time is of the essence. We all will face persecution of one kind of another under this Papacy, but priests in particular must now come out in favour of Christ’s laws, not Satan’s & we must support them not only by our prayers but by positively & unashamedly upholding the tenets of the CC going back to Christ Himself.

2. Coming from an organization that has been riddled with pedophilia lawsuits and has cost the faithful, yes that’s right, the faithful, millions of dollars to encouraging gays in the priesthood and corrupting the sacrament of marriage, I would not any longer respect the poor judgement of this papacy! As I said before, unless this pope repents and changes his course, I firmly believe he will be known as a heretic. He is a disgrace to the Catholic faith! He said he looked for his time in the chair of Peter to be short. I sincerely pray that it is! Vocations to the priesthood did not flourish where he came from and he has allowed abominable things to take place then and now.

He received the chief baby butcher at the Vatican as if he was a king. This man needs a lot of prayers alright and pray for him I do, and holy mother church! Remembering the words of the Blessed Mother: “In the end, the Immaculate Heart will triumph”!

 

 

Source: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/pope-must-act-avoid-schism-and-heresy, September 22, 2016:

An Austrian Catholic philosopher said he fears Amoris laetitia may cause a complete split in the Church.

To avoid schism and to avoid heresy and to avoid the complete split in the Church, I think it is necessary that the pope … be told [these] problems [and revoke them]“, said Josef Seifert, Austrian Catholic philosopher in a new interview with Gloria.TV

Josef Seifert said that he hopes Pope Francis retracts the statements in Amoris laetitia that seemingly contradict Catholic doctrine. If he “persists in it,” then there is the “danger of schism.”

It is “objectively heretical” to claim, as Amoris laetitia does, that someone may be simply unable to live according to the demands of the Gospel, Seifert said. Amoris laetitia suggests that people can “recognize that it’s God’s will to live in an adulterous relationship,” but “that contradicts clearly quite a few dogmas of the Tridentine Council and it clearly contradicts Veritatis splendor and other solemn teachings of the Church,” he said.

Seifert stressed that he was not calling the pope a heretic, but simply pointing out that
he made heretical statements that should be corrected.

Since the publication of Amoris laetitia on April 8, 2016, the Catholic world has witnessed a general confusion. Everyday brought news about a deep split within the Church. The main point of discussion is allowing the communion to the “remarried” divorcees. Bishop Fellay had announced this consequence as soon as the Exhortation was published:

One parish priest, in keeping with his duty, refuses the Body of Christ to public sinners, while another invites everyone to Holy Communion… A deep division is forming within the episcopate and the Sacred College of Cardinals. The faithful are bewildered; the whole Church is suffering from this rift.”

 

 

 

With burning concern: We accuse Pope Francis

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/620701cd08ba49e80312ae1ae26d4104-635.html

From Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara & John Vennari, September 23, 2016

[…]

Thus the Church would “in certain cases” contradict in practice what she teaches in principle regarding morality, meaning that the moral principle is practically overthrown. In the midst of the synodal sham, but without mentioning you, Cardinal Robert Sarah rightly condemned such a specious disjunction between moral precepts and their “pastoral application”: “The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice—which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions—is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology.”
Yet, as you would have it, based on “discernment” by local priests or ordinaries, certain people living in an objective condition of adultery can be deemed subjectively inculpable and admitted to Holy Communion without any commitment to an amendment of life even though they know the Church teaches that their relationship is adulterous.

[…]

We must agree with the assessment of the aforementioned Catholic journalist concerning your insane pursuit of Holy Communion for people in immoral sexual relationships: “This whole affair is bizarre. No other word will do.” Beyond this, however, your entire bizarre pontificate has given rise to a situation the Church has never seen before: an occupant of the Chair of Peter whose remarks, pronouncements and decisions are blows to the Church’s integrity against which the faithful must constantly guard themselves. As the same writer concludes: “I say this in sorrow, but I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by bands of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright –schism. Lord, have mercy.”
Yet almost the entire hierarchy either suffers in silence or exultantly celebrates this debacle.

[…]

For the love of God and the Blessed Virgin, Mother of the Church, whom you profess to revere, we call upon you to recant your errors and undo the immense harm you have caused to the Church, to souls, and to the cause of the Gospel lest you follow the example of Pope Honorius, an aider and abettor of heresy anathematized by an ecumenical council and his own successor, and thus bring down upon yourself “the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
But if you will not relent in the pursuit of your vainglorious “vision” of a more “merciful” and evangelical Church than the one founded by Christ, whose doctrine and discipline you seek to bend to your will, let the cardinals who regret the mistake of electing you honor their blood oaths and at least issue a public demand that you change course or relinquish the office they so improvidently entrusted to you.
Meanwhile, we are duty bound to oppose your errors according to our own station in the Church and to exhort our fellow Catholics to join in that opposition, using every legitimate means at our disposal to mitigate the harm you seem determined to inflict upon the Mystical Body of Christ. All other recourses having failed, no other way is open to us.
May God have mercy on us, His Holy Church, and on you as its earthly head.

 

 

Disagrees

Is Pope Francis a Heretic? Part I

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-pope-francis-a-heretic-part-i

By Tim Staples, October 3, 2016

The apostolic exhortation of our Holy Father, Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia (Latin, “The Joy of Love”), promulgated March 19, 2016, has caused quite a stir. Because my colleague Jimmy Akin has already written an excellent synopsis of it, I was not planning to write about it.

But because the questions about Amoris Laetitia, which I will refer to as “AL,” seem to keep coming—some few even accusing Pope Francis of heresy—I decided to jump into the fray. In this post I will outline the controversy.

There are nine chapters in the document, but I am going to focus on chapter 8 (though I will mention other parts as well) and the famous “footnote #351,” which has been the source of virtually all of the questions I have received. If you have not read the rest of it, I encourage you to do so. There is much in AL that is good, beautiful, and true and that helps you understand the whole document. It is packed with solid Catholic doctrine and practical application concerning our Faith. But, unfortunately, many seem to have overlooked the good due to the confusion caused mainly by what I argue are faulty interpretations of chapter 8.

Let’s see if we can clear up the confusion.  

 

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. No exceptions. But in so doing he made very clear he was not and is not changing a single doctrine of Catholic Faith. In fact, he did not even change a single law of the Church, notwithstanding all of the accusations to the contrary.

The Pope was quite simply applying what is a commonly held teaching of the magisterium—everyone who commits an objectively grave sin is not necessarily culpable of mortal sin—to the particular situation of people who have divorced and remarried without having received an annulment.

 

 

It is indeed the perennial teaching of the Church that In order to commit a mortal sin, one must:

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.

The Church also teaches that there are many factors involved in the process of human persons committing sins that can contribute to decreasing a person’s culpability to the point where he would not be culpable of mortal sin.

In AL 301-302, Pope Francis makes these same points clear, employing first the always lucid teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 65, art. 3 ad 2; De Malo, q. 2, art. 2) in paragraph 301, and then, and more importantly, the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 302:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (citing CCC 1735). In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability” (citing CCC 2352). For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person.

This is indisputable Catholic teaching, folks.

So is it possible that a married Catholic could find himself a situation where he is divorced and remarried outside of the Church and yet not be culpable of mortal in? According to both Pope Francis and the teaching of the Catholic Church, yes, it is possible. A person could be living in an objectively grave state of sin but have his culpability for that sin either reduced to the level of venial sin, or even to the point of no culpability at all.

If we understand this to be so, the conclusion necessarily follows: A person living in a situation of objective grave sin (remarried outside the Church) yet not subjectively and mortally culpable for that sin would not have an impediment to receiving the Eucharist according to divine law. According to divine law, only a mortal sin impedes a validly baptized Catholic from licitly receiving the Eucharist. Venial sin does not so impede him (CCC 1457).

I say “divine law” here for a very important reason. That this was not permitted before, as we will see below, was a matter of the “practice” of the Church—a matter of prudential judgment, not doctrine—as presented by Pope St. John Paul II in his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio 84, a document I shall henceforth refer to as FC. This was never divine law.

But I get ahead of myself.

Though Pope Francis makes clear this possibility of a person living in an objectively grave state yet not mortally culpable is an “irregular” (AL305) and even “exceptional” (AL307) situation—and thus, I think we could argue, a rare situation—we have to acknowledge that here, on the objective level, the Pope is right. Hence, the now famous footnote #351 makes sense when it says of those in such situations:

In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy.”. . . I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

In tomorrow’s post I will identify and respond to the three main objections to Amoris Laetitia. Stay tuned.

 

 

Is Pope Francis a Heretic? Part II

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-pope-francis-a-heretic-part-ii

By Tim Staples, October 4, 2016

Yesterday I outlined the controversy over Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Now let’s break down what I have found to be the three key and most common objections to AL. The first two are closely related, so we’ll consider them together:

 

The objections

1. Pope Francis is claimed to give tacit approval to adultery when he posits “extraordinary” cases where a Catholic is divorced from a presumably valid nuptial union, remarried outside of the Church, and yet be able to receive communion licitly in the Church.

2. Pope Francis is claimed to contradict divine law as laid out plainly by our Lord himself in the Gospels: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18; see Mark 10:11-12, Matt. 19:9, I Cor. 7:10-11).

 

A Catholic response

The pope made quite clear that he is not giving any sort of approval to adultery. In paragraph 297, he says:

[I]f someone flaunts [flouts] an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Matt. 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the gospel message and its call to conversion.

Our Holy Father uses the language of excommunication here. I don’t know if he could have been any more forceful.

 

 

 

In paragraph 295, Pope Francis agrees with Pope St. John Paul II, from FC, that there can never be a change in the divine law of God. The moral law is given to us as a gift from God. He reminds us that it was St. John Paul II who:

. . . proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth” (FC 34). This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law. The law is itself a gift of God that points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace, even though each human being “advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of God’s definitive and absolute love in his or her entire personal and social life” (ibid., 9).

Pope Francis also made clear “in order to avoid all misunderstanding” that he is in opposition to any who would water down the gospel. He says the essential truth of the gospel must be proclaimed in its entirety, including the indissolubility of marriage:

In order to avoid all misunderstanding, I would point out that in no way must the Church desist from proposing the full ideal of marriage, God’s plan in all its grandeur: “Young people who are baptized should be encouraged to understand that the sacrament of marriage can enrich their prospects of love and that they can be sustained by the grace of Christ in the sacrament and by the possibility of participating fully in the life of the Church.” A lukewarm attitude, any kind of relativism, or an undue reticence in proposing that ideal would be a lack of fidelity to the Gospel and also of love on the part of the Church for young people themselves. To show understanding in the face of exceptional situations never implies dimming the light of the fuller ideal or proposing less than what Jesus offers to the human being. Today, more important than the pastoral care of failures is the pastoral effort to strengthen marriages and thus to prevent their breakdown (AL307).

Pope Francis is not talking about changing, or even making “exceptions” to, the sixth commandment or the Sermon on the Mount; he is talking about whether or not individuals can break a commandment while not being fully culpable for it. And the answer is: yes they can.

 

3. The claim is made that Pope Francis contradicts a doctrinal declaration of Pope St. John Paul II, in FC 84:

[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. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

The operative word here is “practice.” There is not even a question as to divine law here, as we said above. Pope Francis is not denying divine law. It is the “practice” of the Church that Pope Francis is changing. This is a matter of prudential judgment in a juridical matter, not doctrine.

It is interesting to note that in his decision making process Pope Francis is actually building upon principles laid out in FC. He refers to John Paul’s “law of gradualness” (FC34); and we could add here Pope St. John Paul II’s acknowledgment that there are levels of culpability in these cases of divorce and remarriage:

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid (FC84).

John Paul II does makes clear that, even in these cases of reduced culpability, the divorced and remarried would not be permitted to receive Communion, and for two reasons. First, he mentions their “objective state,” and second because of the real possibility of scandal, as we saw above. These are both very strong reasons for the “practice” of Pope St. John Paul II. But these are both matters of prudential judgment, not doctrine.

Pope Francis, on the other hand, acknowledges that his judgment in this matter presents a danger of confusion in its application: “I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion” (AL308). He understands that there is a greater need for ongoing pastoral discernment in the lives of these who live in these “irregular” situations. For example, pastors must ensure that whatever mitigating factors there may be continue in their lives (AL301-302, 307). And he understands the pastoral need to ensure that the ninety-nine are not scandalized as a result of the shepherd’s concern for the one (AL299).

This is no small undertaking our Holy Father is advocating.

And to be frank with you, I do not think Pope Francis’s decision is the most prudent. I am inclined toward the wisdom of Pope St. John Paul II on this. At the same time, I fear that in making that statement I may be standing in opposition to the heart of the Good Shepherd. Could it be differing times require differing prudential judgments? Is it providential that this decision comes in the midst of this extraordinary year of divine mercy (see AL309)?

I don’t know. But I am intrigued by Pope Francis’s words echoing those of the Good Shepherd:

The Bride of Christ must pattern her behavior after the Son of God who goes out to everyone without exception. She knows that Jesus himself is the shepherd of the hundred, not just of the ninety-nine. He loves them all. On the basis of this realization, it will become possible for “the balm of mercy to reach everyone, believers and those far away, as a sign that the kingdom of God is already present in our midst” (ibid.).

 

 

 

Doesn’t really know

Is Pope Francis a Heretic?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/12/pope-francis-heretic.html

By Dave Armstrong, December 13, 2016

Options and Respectful Speculations on the Synod on the Family, Amoris Laetitia and Practical Applications 

As most of you who have followed my writings know, I have been a staunch defender of Pope Francis: holding that he is orthodox and has often been grossly misrepresented, for a variety of reasons: most but not all occurring through no (or little) fault of his own. To that effect, I have written a book defending him, and collected a lengthy list of articles that explain “controversies” in a light favorable to the Holy Father. In my previous two articles on the pope, I expressed my opinion that Amoris Laetitia was sufficiently clarified already (11-16-16). Then I modified my view somewhat (though not essentially), in terms of thinking that further clarification from the pope (in reply to the dubia from the four cardinals) would be helpful and indeed is necessary in our present “confused” circumstances (12-1-16).

Despite my provocative title (yes: designed — like all good titles — to draw you in!), I am far from saying that he is a heretic (!). I haven’t fundamentally changed my mind. But some people (including many — of impeccable orthodoxy — whom I respect) think he is wrong in areas related to difficult marital situations and reception of Holy Communion. I’m not sure, myself. He may be in error. At this point, I don’t think there is enough hard evidence of that. Others disagree. I think our options are roughly outlined in the following analysis, that I submit to you for your consideration. Perhaps it will help some folks work through where they stand on this increasingly troublesome controversy. I will outline the choices we have at each step of the way.

 

A. The Synod on the Family [October 2015] is orthodox and in line with Catholic moral tradition.

B. The Synod on the Family is heterodox and not in line with Catholic moral tradition.

I choose A.

 

C. Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia is orthodox and in line with Catholic moral tradition.

D. Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia is heterodox and not in line with Catholic moral tradition.

I choose C.

 

E. Amoris Laetitia allows no exceptions to the rule of prohibiting Holy Communion to persons in an “irregular” marital scenario.

F.  Amoris Laetitia allows very rare exceptions (on a case-by-case basis) to the rule of prohibiting Holy Communion to persons in an “irregular” marital scenario. Indeed, there is precedent for this in canon law and previous papal statements.

G. Amoris Laetitia allows many exceptions (on a case-by-case basis) to the rule of prohibiting Holy Communion to persons in an “irregular” marital scenario.

H. Amoris Laetitia allows widespread, sweeping exceptions to the rule of prohibiting Holy Communion to persons in an “irregular” marital scenario (basically the Cardinal Kasper proposal).

I choose F.

 

I. Pope Francis’ own personal opinion on the matter is consistent with E.

J. Pope Francis’ own personal opinion on the matter is consistent with F.

K. Pope Francis’ own personal opinion on the matter is consistent with G.

L. Pope Francis’ own personal opinion on the matter is consistent with H.

Here is where I’m not sure, and where my own confusion and uncertainty lie. I suspect that his position is J (= F), but it is possible (and more and more people think) that his position is K (= G) or even (God forbid) L (= H). Thus my position, summarized, is:

A. The Synod on the Family [October 2015] is orthodox and in line with Catholic moral tradition.

C. Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia is orthodox and in line with Catholic moral tradition.

F.  Amoris Laetitia allows very rare exceptions (on a case-by-case basis) to the rule of prohibiting Holy Communion to persons in an “irregular” marital scenario. Indeed, there is precedent for this in canon law and previous papal or magisterial statements. [See Addendum at the end]

J. Pope Francis’ own personal opinion on the matter is consistent with F. [more likely, in my opinion] or [less likely, in my opinion]:

K. Pope Francis’ own personal opinion on the matter is consistent with G:

[Amoris Laetitia allows many exceptions (on a case-by-case basis) to the rule of prohibiting Holy Communion to persons in an “irregular” marital scenario.]

 

Hence, the need for clarification. If the pope provides clarification that his position is F (granting that F is true in the first place), then my set of opinions (A + C + F + J) is consistent. But if he clarifies that his position is G, then I think he is (with all due respect) in error.

Moreover, there is the altogether different practical question of how theological liberals in the Church (or dissidents or heterodox or modernists or “progressives”: choose your term) — including some of the bishops — will interpret and implement Amoris Laetitia. I touched upon this in my previous article:

 

 

It’s also true that those who have nefarious heterodox intent (as I have alluded to in the past) will exploit any confusion or (rightly or wrongly) perceived “loopholes” as a license to depart from true Catholic practice, just as they did with Vatican II and the reform of the Mass. Yet another good reason to clarify with great specificity . . .

Here’s how that works. I indeed F is the case (as I believe), the theological liberals habitually distort that in practice and implement G or H, under the pretext and pretense that any loophole becomes (after being exploited and co-opted) a giant gaping hole big enough for a truck to drive through. It becomes a (by now familiar) exercise in the “slippery slope.” If rare exceptions exist, and if this is in line with previous Catholic moral tradition and canon law, then it needs to be made crystal clear which scenarios constitute such exceptions and which do not. Otherwise, there is confusion and exploitation from those who are seeking to change unchanging Catholic moral tradition.

That’s why the pope (or at least a high-ranking Cardinal in effect speaking “for” him) needs to clarify, and the sooner the better. The longer the current confusion continues on, the worse it gets. It’s now scandalous. Soon it will be outright disastrous, leading to defections into quasi-schismatic radical reactionary Catholicism or out of Catholicism altogether (similar to an early 70s scenario of mass defection).

I’m quite willing to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, and wait and see until more “certain” statements are made. Many others, I think unfortunately, are not so unassuming, and therein lies the widening troublesome situation that we now face, until this is definitively resolved. The more uncertainty we have, the more we will have undue and unedifying speculation, detraction, gossip, calumny, and slander taking place in our beloved social media.

And that is not good . . .

*****

 

Addendum: Possible Exceptions to Rules on Reception of Holy Communion (Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI)

Cardinal Ratzinger, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Concerning Some Objections to the Church’s Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful (1998):

3c. . . . Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.

[Footnote 4] During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.”

 

 

The irrevocable duties of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/12/de-mattei-irrevocable-duties-of.html

By Roberto de Mattei, December 14, 2016

In his intervention at the Lepanto Foundation on December 5, 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke said: “There is a very heavy burden on a cardinal’s shoulders. We are the Pope’s Senate and his primary counsellors and must, above all, serve the Pope, by telling him the truth. Submitting questions, as we have done to the Pope, is in the Church’s tradition, specifically to avoid divisions and confusion. We did this with the highest respect for the Petrine Office, without lacking reverence to the person of the Pope. There are many questions, but the five main questions we have posed must, of necessity, have a response for the salvation of souls. We pray every day for a response, faithful to Tradition, in the uninterrupted apostolic line that takes us back to Our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

With these words Cardinal Burke brought to mind the importance of the mission of cardinals, the highest in the Catholic Church, after that of the Supreme Pontiff. They are in fact the Pope’s foremost counsellors and collaborators in the governing of the Universal Church.  Their institution is very ancient, seeing that already under the pontificate of Sylvester I (314-335) we find the terms diaconi cardinales.  It seems that we owe the definition of the Sacred College as “Senate of the Church” to St. Peter Damian, acknowledged by the 1917 Code of Canon Law (can. 230).  The Sacred College of Cardinals has a juridical character which attributes to it the triple nature of coadjutor body, substitute body and electoral body of the Supreme Pontiff.

We must not commit the error of elevating the role of cardinals from being counsellors to the Pope to that of “co-decision-makers”. Even if he leans on counsel and assistance from his cardinals, the Pope never loses his plenitudo potestatis. The cardinals participate in his power only in the exercise thereof, within the limits defined by the Pontiff himself. The Cardinals never have deliberative powers regarding the Pope, but only advisory ones.

 

 

If the pontiff should avail himself of assistance from the College of Cardinals, even if not obliged to do so, for their part, the cardinals have the moral duty to counsel the Pontiff, submit questions to him and admonish him, independent of the Pope’s reception to their words.  The presentation by the four Cardinals (Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra and Meisner) of some dubia to the Pope and Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asking them to clarify “the grave disorientation and great confusion” relating to the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, enters perfectly within the duties of cardinals and cannot be the object of any censure.

As the canonist Edward Peters, referendary to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, affirmed,  that the four cardinals “[made] text-book use of their rights under Canon 212 § 3 to pose doctrinal and disciplinary questions that urgently need addressing in our day,” Then, if the Holy Father should omit doing so, the cardinals collectively will address him with a form of fraternal correction, in the spirit of admonition made by St. Paul to  the Apostle Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2,11).

The canonist then concludes by saying:

“How anyone can conclude, then, based on the facts at hand, that the four cardinals are at risk for deprivation of their office, escapes me. No one, least of all the four cardinals in question, challenges the special authority that a pope enjoys over the Church (1983 CIC 331) nor do they harbor any illusions that a pope could be forced to answer the questions they posed. My hunch is that four cardinals, while they would welcome a papal reply, are probably content with having formally preserved these vital questions for a day when a direct answer might be forthcoming—although they might yet exercise their own Episcopal office as teachers of the faith (1983 CIC 375) and propose answers on their own authority. For that, these men are, I think, prepared to accept personal ridicule and to suffer misunderstanding and misrepresentation of their actions and motives.”

The dignity of a cardinal is not purely honorary, but involves grave responsibilities. Cardinals have privileges because first of all they have duties.  The honours given to them derive precisely from the burden of responsibilities that weighs on their shoulders. Among these responsibilities there is that of fraternally correcting the Pope when he commits an error in the governing of the Church, as happened in 1813, when Pius VII signed the ill-fated Treaty of Fontainebleau with Napoleon, or in 1934 when the Cardinal Dean, Gennaro Granito di Belmonte, admonished Pius XI, on behalf of the Sacred College, for the rash use he made of the Holy See’s finances. The Pope is infallible only under determined circumstances and his acts of government or Magisterium can contain errors that any one of the faithful may point out, with even greater reason if he is invested with the office of  principal counsellor to the Supreme Pontiff.

Among the medieval canonists who dealt with the College of Cardinals, one who excels is Enrico da Susa, also called Ostiene (since he was the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia) an author who was the object of a recent study by Don Jürgen Jamin, entitled, The Cooperation of Cardinals in Pontifical Decisions, ratione fidei. The Thought of Enrico da Susa (Ostiene)) (Marcianum Press, Venezia 2015). Professor Jamin, recalls that Enrico da Susa, while commenting on the Pontifical Decrees, considered the hypothesis of a Pope who falls into heresy.  Professor Jamin recalls in particular Ostiene’s commenting of these word relating to the Pope, “Nec deficiat fides eius”.  According to the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia: “The faith of Peter is not exclusively his “faith” meant as a personal act, but is the faith of the entire Church of which he is the spokesman and the Prince of the Apostles. Christ prays therefore, for the faith of the entire Church in persona tantum petri, since it is the faith of the Church, professed by Peter, which never fails et propterea ecclesia non presumitur posse errare” (op. cit. p. 223).

Ostiene’s thought matches that of all the great medieval canonists. The greatest scholar of these authors, Cardinal Alfonso Maria Stickler, points out that “the prerogative of infallibility of office does not impede the Pope, as an individual, from sin and thus become personally heretical (…). In the case of an obstinate and public profession of certain heresy, since it is condemned by the Church, the Pope becomes “minor quolibet catholico” (a common phrase of canonists) and ceases to be pope (…). This fact of a heretic Pope does not touch then Pontifical infallibility since it does not signify impeccability or inerrancy in the person of the Pontiff, [or] inerrancy in establishing forcefully from his office a truth of the faith or an immutable principle of Christian life (…).  The canonists knew very well how to distinguish between the person of the Pope and his office. If then they declared the Pope dethroned, when certainly and obstinately heretical, they admit implicitly that from this personal fact not only is the infallibility of the office not compromised, but that it is somewhat defended and affirmed: any ‘papal’ decision whatever against a truth already decided is automatically rendered impossible” (A. M. Stickler, Sulle origini dell’infallibilità papale, “Rivista Storica della Chiesa in Italia”, 28 (1974), pp. 586-587).

The cardinals who elect the Pope do not have the authority to depose him, but may ascertain his renunciation of the pontificate, in the case of voluntary demission or of manifest and persistent heresy.  In the tragic times of history, they must serve the Church, even until the shedding of blood, as the colour red indicates in the garments they wear and the formula at the imposition of the biretta “red as sign of the dignity of the Cardinalate, signifying that you must be ready to act with fortitude, even unto the shedding of blood, for the increase in the Christian Faith, for the peace and tranquility  of the People of God and for the freedom and diffusion of Holy Mother Church.”

For this we join the prayers of Cardinal Burke, in asking Pope Francis to respond to the dubia “faithful to Tradition, in the uninterrupted Apostolic line which takes us back to Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

 

Climate of fear in Vatican is very real

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/climate-of-fear-in-the-vatican-is-very-real

By Steve Jalsevac, December 16, 2016

[…]

 

 

2 of 174 readers’ comments

1. We left the Anglican Church because the progressives and liberals took over the Church. Biblical theology went out the window, and we were left with nothing but heresy. Now the Roman Church is going the way of the Anglican Community which has lost many members to other Churches. Have we gone from the frying pan into the fire? I hope not but under this Pope it appears so. Where do we go from here as many Protestants have been infiltrated by progressives and liberals as well. It is no wonder that the Church is losing so many faithful people.

Pope Francis has become the Obama of the Roman Church, the fox who invades the chicken coop to destroy. May God have mercy and provide deliverance from this Pope who divides his flock.

2. As this wearisome pontificate continues, Pope Francis sounds more and more like the heresiarch Martin Luther than the Vicar of Christ.

 

 

Cardinal Burke: “No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy.”

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/12/19/cardinal-burke-no-i-am-not-saying-that-pope-francis-is-in-heresy/

In an interview with CWR, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke discusses the current controversy over “Amoris Laetitia’ and the questions he submitted with three other bishops to Pope Francis.

By Michael W. Chapman, December 19, 2016

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke was made a bishop by Pope John Paul II in 1994. In 2010 he was named a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI and soon thereafter become Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. In 2014 Pope Francis removed Cardinal Burke from his position as Prefect and named him chaplain to the Order of Malta. During the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, held in Rome in October 2014, Cardinal Burke strongly criticized the mid-term report (Relatio post disceptationem), stating that it “lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium” and that it “gives the impression of inventing a totally new … revolutionary, teaching on marriage and the family.” He added that he thought a statement of clarification from Pope Francis “is long overdue.”

More recently, in September of this year, Cardinal Burke and three other cardinals—Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner—sent a request for clarification to Pope Francis regarding sections of chapter 8 of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The letter stated, in part, that “we the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation” and asked the Holy Father “as supreme Teacher of the faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity…” 

In a November 15, 2016 interview with Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register, Cardinal Burke explained that the “five critical points” in the dubia submitted to Pope Francis “have to do with irreformable moral principles” and that if there was “no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.”

Catholic World Report recently spoke with Cardinal Raymond Burke on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8th) at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wisconsin, which he founded while serving as Bishop of La Crosse from 1994 to 2003.

CWR: In early 2004, when then-Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was running for President and you were just beginning your ministry as Archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, you said Kerry should be refused Communion because of his pro-abortion stance. You also said you’re always getting into trouble. Are you still getting yourself into trouble? 

Cardinal Burke: I suppose that’s true, but I trust it’s good trouble.

CWR: When was last time a Pope was rebuked?

Cardinal Burke: As far as I know, and I’m not an expert in this, it was John XXII. He was corrected for a wrong teaching he had on the beatific vision. 

CWR: And who did that?

Cardinal Burke: There was a bishop involved and some Dominican Friars…

CWR: Is there a Scriptural basis for rebuking a pope?

Cardinal Burke: The classic Scriptural basis is St. Paul’s rebuking of Peter [in Galatians 2:11ff] for his accommodation of the Judaizers in the early Christian Church. Saint Paul confronted Peter to his face because he would be requiring things of the Gentile Christians that are not inherent to the Christian faith. And Peter actually agreed with that, but when he was with the Judaizers he would feign the other position and so Paul corrected him, as he said, to his face.

CWR: Why do you think Amoris Laetitia chapter 8 is so ambiguous?

Cardinal Burke: The reason for its ambiguity, it seems to me, is to give latitude to a practice which has never been admitted in the Church, namely the practice of permitting people who are living publicly in grave sin to receive the Sacraments.

CWR: It seems that you have, in some ways, become the champion of Canon 915, thinking back to the controversy over Kerry and even before him to some politicians in La Crosse, Wisconsin, where you were bishop from 1994 to 2003. [Editor’s note: Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law states: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” For more background see Dr. Edward Peter’s page about the Canon.)

Cardinal Burke: And that’s certainly a very good thing of which to be the champion.

CWR: What was the initial reason for you to submit the dubia to Pope Francis?

 

 

Cardinal Burke: Some of us had raised these questions to Pope Francis in the correspondence before this because of their gravity. But then there is also the growing confusion in the Church, in many quarters and parts of the Church, and the plea from both priests and laity, that the cardinals, who are the chief advisors to the Pope, needed to fulfill their responsibility by seeking clarification about some matters which are, as long as they remained in doubt, a source of great confusion and eventual spiritual harm in the church.

CWR: There’s a lot of talk that Amoris Laetitia is deliberately ambiguous and that’s because the divorced and remarried already find themselves in rather ambiguous situations. How do you respond to that?

Cardinal Burke: For those who are divorced and remarried, or I should say divorced and living in an irregular matrimonial union, if they truly understand the Catholic faith, the solution to that is not some confused approach, but the solution is to know the truth about the marriage to which one is bound, and once one knows that truth to live in accord with it. That is the only approach that can bring the faithful who find themselves in such a situation peace both with God and within the Church. This isn’t new; these situations have existed throughout the Church’s history. There are always complex aspects to the situation, but the only way to address them is by acknowledging and living the truth.

CWR: Why isn’t the truly pastoral situation just to allow them to receive Communion?

Cardinal Burke: Because it doesn’t respect the truth, and there can’t be any possible truly pastoral situation that doesn’t honor the truth taught by Christ Himself in the Gospel. So that if I’m bound to someone in a marriage and I’m living in a marital way with someone else, in adultery, pastoral care should be directed to helping me free myself from the sin of adultery. It’s no help to me whatsoever and a positive harm to me to tell me, “That’s all right, go ahead, and you can live that way and still receive the Sacraments.”

CWR: If a couple—where at least one has had been previously married and there was no declaration of nullity granted for the previous bond—came to you and said, “Look, we’ve been married for 20 years. We’re in a stable relationship, we’ve got four children together and they’re living good lives. We go to church every Sunday and the children are in Catholic schools. Why should we be denied Communion, never mind Confession?” what would you say to them?

Cardinal Burke: Because one or the other of them is bound to a prior marriage and therefore they’re not free to enter another marriage or live in a marital way with another party. If they, for some reason, for example, raising children or some other valid reason, need to continue to live under the same roof, then they are called obviously to live chastely and that is as brother and sister.

CWR: Are there others, besides the four cardinals who submitted the dubia to Pope Francis, who support what you’re saying?

Cardinal Burke: Yes.

CWR: And they’re not speaking out because…?

Cardinal Burke: For various reasons, one of which is the way the media takes these things and distorts them making it seem that anyone who raises a question about Amoris Laetitia is disobedient to the Pope or an enemy of the Pope and so forth. So they…

CWR They’re keeping their heads down.

Cardinal Burke: Yes, I suppose.

CWR: One prelate has accused you and your fellow cardinals of being in heresy. How do you respond to that?

Cardinal Burke: How can you be in heresy by asking honest questions? It’s just irrational to accuse us of heresy. We’re asking fundamental questions based upon the constant tradition of the Church’s moral teaching. So I don’t think there’s any question that by doing that we’ve done something heretical.

CWR: Some critics say you are implicitly accusing the Pope of heresy.

Cardinal Burke: No, that’s not what we have implied at all. We have simply asked him, as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, to clarify these five points that are confused; these five, very serious and fundamental points. We’re not accusing him of heresy, but just asking him to answer these questions for us as the Supreme Pastor of the Church.

CWR: In raising these questions you’ve been accused implicitly by the Pope and explicitly by others of legalism, of being Pharisees and Sadducees. [Smiles, chuckles] You smile because you get this all the time. Why is this not legalism?

Cardinal Burke: Simply because we are not asking the questions as a merely formal exercise, we’re not asking questions about positive ecclesiastical law, that is, laws that are made by the Church herself. These are questions that have to do with the natural moral law and the fundamental teaching of the Gospel. To be attentive to that teaching is hardly legalism. In fact, it is, as Our Lord Himself taught us, the way of perfection to which we’re called. That’s why He Himself said that He didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it [Matt 5:17].

CWR: Bishop Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C., the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina, who has written an open letter of support for the four cardinals and their dubia, has also said that the Church is in a de facto schism. Do you agree with that?

Cardinal Burke: There is a very serious division in the Church which has to be mended because it has to do with, as I said before, fundamental dogmatic and moral teaching. And if it’s not clarified soon, it could develop into a formal schism.

CWR: Some people are saying that the pope could separate himself from communion with the Church. Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?

Cardinal Burke: If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.

CWR: That could happen.

Cardinal Burke: Yes.

 

 

CWR: That’s a scary thought.

Cardinal Burke: It is a scary thought, and I hope we won’t be witnessing that at any time soon.

CWR: In hindsight, with all of the controversy that has surrounded this, should you have kept these concerns to yourself and just waited for His Holiness to answer your dubia?

Cardinal Burke: No, not at all, because the faithful and priests and bishops have the right to have these questions answered. It was our duty as cardinals, when the Pope made it clear that he would not respond to them, to make them public so that the priests and the lay faithful who had these same doubts might know that their doubts are legitimate and that they deserve a response.

CWR: Some consider you to be an enemy of Pope Francis. How do you see yourself in relation to him?

Cardinal Burke: I am a Cardinal of the Church, and one of the Pope’s principal co-workers. I have absolute respect for the Petrine office. If I didn’t care about him and his exercise of the Petrine office, I would just remain silent and let everything go as it is. But because in conscience I believe he has an obligation to clarify these matters for the Church, I made it known to him, not just on this occasion, but on other occasions. The publication of the dubia was done with complete respect for his office. I am not the enemy of the Pope.

CWR: Back to this question about the Pope committing heresy. What happens then, if the Pope commits heresy and is no longer Pope? Is there a new conclave? Who’s in charge of the Church? Or do we just not even want to go there to start figuring that stuff out?

Cardinal Burke: There is already in place the discipline to be followed when the Pope ceases from his office, even as happened when Pope Benedict XVI abdicated his office. The Church continued to be governed in the interim between the effective date of his abdication and the inauguration of the papal ministry of Pope Francis.

CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?

Cardinal Burke: It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.

CWR: Just to clarify again, are you saying that Pope Francis is in heresy or is close to it?

Cardinal Burke: No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy. I have never said that. Neither have I stated that he is close to being in heresy. 

CWR: Doesn’t the Holy Spirit protect us from such a danger?

Cardinal Burke: The Holy Spirit inhabits the Church. The Holy Spirit is always watching over, inspiring and strengthening the Church. But the members of the Church and, in a pre-eminent way, the hierarchy must cooperate with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. It is one thing for the Holy Spirit to be present with us, but it is another thing for us to be obedient to the Holy Spirit.

 

 

Cardinal Burke: “No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy.”

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/12/19/cardinal-burke-no-i-am-not-saying-that-pope-francis-is-in-heresy/

In an interview with CWR, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke discusses the current controversy over “Amoris Laetitia’ and the questions he submitted with three other bishops to Pope Francis.

By Michael W. Chapman, December 19, 2016

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke was made a bishop by Pope John Paul II in 1994. In 2010 he was named a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI and soon thereafter become Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. In 2014 Pope Francis removed Cardinal Burke from his position as Prefect and named him chaplain to the Order of Malta. During the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, held in Rome in October 2014, Cardinal Burke strongly criticized the mid-term report (Relatio post disceptationem), stating that it “lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium” and that it “gives the impression of inventing a totally new … revolutionary, teaching on marriage and the family.” He added that he thought a statement of clarification from Pope Francis “is long overdue.”

More recently, in September of this year, Cardinal Burke and three other cardinals—Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner—sent a request for clarification to Pope Francis regarding sections of chapter 8 of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The letter stated, in part, that “we the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation” and asked the Holy Father “as supreme Teacher of the faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity…” 

In a November 15, 2016 interview with Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register, Cardinal Burke explained that the “five critical points” in the dubia submitted to Pope Francis “have to do with irreformable moral principles” and that if there was “no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.”

Catholic World Report recently spoke with Cardinal Raymond Burke on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8th) at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wisconsin, which he founded while serving as Bishop of La Crosse from 1994 to 2003.

CWR: In early 2004, when then-Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was running for President and you were just beginning your ministry as Archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, you said Kerry should be refused Communion because of his pro-abortion stance. You also said you’re always getting into trouble. Are you still getting yourself into trouble? 

Cardinal Burke: I suppose that’s true, but I trust it’s good trouble.

CWR: When was last time a Pope was rebuked?

 

 

Cardinal Burke: As far as I know, and I’m not an expert in this, it was John XXII. He was corrected for a wrong teaching he had on the beatific vision. 

CWR: And who did that?

Cardinal Burke: There was a bishop involved and some Dominican Friars…

CWR: Is there a Scriptural basis for rebuking a pope?

Cardinal Burke: The classic Scriptural basis is St. Paul’s rebuking of Peter [in Galatians 2:11ff] for his accommodation of the Judaizers in the early Christian Church. Saint Paul confronted Peter to his face because he would be requiring things of the Gentile Christians that are not inherent to the Christian faith. And Peter actually agreed with that, but when he was with the Judaizers he would feign the other position and so Paul corrected him, as he said, to his face.

CWR: Why do you think Amoris Laetitia chapter 8 is so ambiguous?

Cardinal Burke: The reason for its ambiguity, it seems to me, is to give latitude to a practice which has never been admitted in the Church, namely the practice of permitting people who are living publicly in grave sin to receive the Sacraments.

CWR: It seems that you have, in some ways, become the champion of Canon 915, thinking back to the controversy over Kerry and even before him to some politicians in La Crosse, Wisconsin, where you were bishop from 1994 to 2003. [Editor’s note: Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law states: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” For more background see Dr. Edward Peter’s page about the Canon.)

Cardinal Burke: And that’s certainly a very good thing of which to be the champion.

CWR: What was the initial reason for you to submit the dubia to Pope Francis?

Cardinal Burke: Some of us had raised these questions to Pope Francis in the correspondence before this because of their gravity. But then there is also the growing confusion in the Church, in many quarters and parts of the Church, and the plea from both priests and laity, that the cardinals, who are the chief advisors to the Pope, needed to fulfill their responsibility by seeking clarification about some matters which are, as long as they remained in doubt, a source of great confusion and eventual spiritual harm in the church.

CWR: There’s a lot of talk that Amoris Laetitia is deliberately ambiguous and that’s because the divorced and remarried already find themselves in rather ambiguous situations. How do you respond to that?

Cardinal Burke: For those who are divorced and remarried, or I should say divorced and living in an irregular matrimonial union, if they truly understand the Catholic faith, the solution to that is not some confused approach, but the solution is to know the truth about the marriage to which one is bound, and once one knows that truth to live in accord with it. That is the only approach that can bring the faithful who find themselves in such a situation peace both with God and within the Church. This isn’t new; these situations have existed throughout the Church’s history. There are always complex aspects to the situation, but the only way to address them is by acknowledging and living the truth.

CWR: Why isn’t the truly pastoral situation just to allow them to receive Communion?

Cardinal Burke: Because it doesn’t respect the truth, and there can’t be any possible truly pastoral situation that doesn’t honor the truth taught by Christ Himself in the Gospel. So that if I’m bound to someone in a marriage and I’m living in a marital way with someone else, in adultery, pastoral care should be directed to helping me free myself from the sin of adultery. It’s no help to me whatsoever and a positive harm to me to tell me, “That’s all right, go ahead, and you can live that way and still receive the Sacraments.”

CWR: If a couple—where at least one has had been previously married and there was no declaration of nullity granted for the previous bond—came to you and said, “Look, we’ve been married for 20 years. We’re in a stable relationship, we’ve got four children together and they’re living good lives. We go to church every Sunday and the children are in Catholic schools. Why should we be denied Communion, never mind Confession?” what would you say to them?

Cardinal Burke: Because one or the other of them is bound to a prior marriage and therefore they’re not free to enter another marriage or live in a marital way with another party. If they, for some reason, for example, raising children or some other valid reason, need to continue to live under the same roof, then they are called obviously to live chastely and that is as brother and sister.

CWR: Are there others, besides the four cardinals who submitted the dubia to Pope Francis, who support what you’re saying?

Cardinal Burke: Yes.

CWR: And they’re not speaking out because…?

Cardinal Burke: For various reasons, one of which is the way the media takes these things and distorts them making it seem that anyone who raises a question about Amoris Laetitia is disobedient to the Pope or an enemy of the Pope and so forth. So they…

CWR They’re keeping their heads down.

Cardinal Burke: Yes, I suppose.

CWR: One prelate has accused you and your fellow cardinals of being in heresy. How do you respond to that?

Cardinal Burke: How can you be in heresy by asking honest questions? It’s just irrational to accuse us of heresy. We’re asking fundamental questions based upon the constant tradition of the Church’s moral teaching. So I don’t think there’s any question that by doing that we’ve done something heretical.

CWR: Some critics say you are implicitly accusing the Pope of heresy.

 

 

 

Cardinal Burke: No, that’s not what we have implied at all. We have simply asked him, as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, to clarify these five points that are confused; these five, very serious and fundamental points. We’re not accusing him of heresy, but just asking him to answer these questions for us as the Supreme Pastor of the Church.

CWR: In raising these questions you’ve been accused implicitly by the Pope and explicitly by others of legalism, of being Pharisees and Sadducees. [Smiles, chuckles] You smile because you get this all the time. Why is this not legalism?

Cardinal Burke: Simply because we are not asking the questions as a merely formal exercise, we’re not asking questions about positive ecclesiastical law, that is, laws that are made by the Church herself. These are questions that have to do with the natural moral law and the fundamental teaching of the Gospel. To be attentive to that teaching is hardly legalism. In fact, it is, as Our Lord Himself taught us, the way of perfection to which we’re called. That’s why He Himself said that He didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it [Matt 5:17].

CWR: Bishop Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C., the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina, who has written an open letter of support for the four cardinals and their dubia, has also said that the Church is in a de facto schism. Do you agree with that?

Cardinal Burke: There is a very serious division in the Church which has to be mended because it has to do with, as I said before, fundamental dogmatic and moral teaching. And if it’s not clarified soon, it could develop into a formal schism.

CWR: Some people are saying that the pope could separate himself from communion with the Church. Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?

Cardinal Burke: If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.

CWR: That could happen.

Cardinal Burke: Yes.

CWR: That’s a scary thought.

Cardinal Burke: It is a scary thought, and I hope we won’t be witnessing that at any time soon.

CWR: In hindsight, with all of the controversy that has surrounded this, should you have kept these concerns to yourself and just waited for His Holiness to answer your dubia?

Cardinal Burke: No, not at all, because the faithful and priests and bishops have the right to have these questions answered. It was our duty as cardinals, when the Pope made it clear that he would not respond to them, to make them public so that the priests and the lay faithful who had these same doubts might know that their doubts are legitimate and that they deserve a response.

CWR: Some consider you to be an enemy of Pope Francis. How do you see yourself in relation to him?

Cardinal Burke: I am a Cardinal of the Church, and one of the Pope’s principal co-workers. I have absolute respect for the Petrine office. If I didn’t care about him and his exercise of the Petrine office, I would just remain silent and let everything go as it is. But because in conscience I believe he has an obligation to clarify these matters for the Church, I made it known to him, not just on this occasion, but on other occasions. The publication of the dubia was done with complete respect for his office. I am not the enemy of the Pope.

CWR: Back to this question about the Pope committing heresy. What happens then, if the Pope commits heresy and is no longer Pope? Is there a new conclave? Who’s in charge of the Church? Or do we just not even want to go there to start figuring that stuff out?

Cardinal Burke: There is already in place the discipline to be followed when the Pope ceases from his office, even as happened when Pope Benedict XVI abdicated his office. The Church continued to be governed in the interim between the effective date of his abdication and the inauguration of the papal ministry of Pope Francis.

CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?

Cardinal Burke: It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.

CWR: Just to clarify again, are you saying that Pope Francis is in heresy or is close to it?

Cardinal Burke: No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy. I have never said that. Neither have I stated that he is close to being in heresy. 

CWR: Doesn’t the Holy Spirit protect us from such a danger?

Cardinal Burke: The Holy Spirit inhabits the Church. The Holy Spirit is always watching over, inspiring and strengthening the Church. But the members of the Church and, in a pre-eminent way, the hierarchy must cooperate with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. It is one thing for the Holy Spirit to be present with us, but it is another thing for us to be obedient to the Holy Spirit.

 

 

Cardinal Burke suggests timeline for ‘formal correction’ of Pope Francis

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-cardinal-burke-suggests-timeline-for-formal-correction-of-pope-fr

By Lisa Bourne, December 19, 2016

[…]

 

2 of 126 readers’ comments

1. The only one separating himself from the Church is Bergoglio by constantly verging on heresy. History will show that Bergoglio is in the wrong. And yes there have been dozens of times that popes have been wrong and the bishops who corrected them were right.

 

 

I’m still not convinced Bergoglio isn’t an anti-pope, given the way the homosexual cabal forced Pope BXVI to resign and drove him absolutely insane after imprisoning him in his “residence”.

2. Amoris Laetitia is a heretical document that has been thrust upon Catholics and is not in any way Catholic of itself.

Any document or promulgation by the Vatican hierarchy that contradicts the Word is heresy. If it weren’t this way, we would have no Savior. It’s not possible for Jesus as the Son of God to contradict Himself.

 

 

Cardinal Burke: A Pope Who Professes Formal Heresy “would cease, by that act, to Be Pope”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-if-a-pope-would-formally-profess-heresy-he-would-cease-by-th

By Claire Chretien, December 21, 2016

In a new interview, Cardinal Burke said he is not accusing Pope Francis of “heresy” by submitting the five dubia for him to answer. He also explained that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope” and that there is a process within the Church for dealing with such a situation.

“The faithful and priests and bishops have the right to have these questions answered,” he said of the dubia. “It was our duty as cardinals, when the Pope made it clear that he would not respond to them, to make them public so that the priests and the lay faithful who had these same doubts might know that their doubts are legitimate and that they deserve a response.”

It “could happen” that a pope would formally profess heresy, but “I hope we won’t be witnessing that at any time soon,” Burke told Catholic World Report (CWR). 

“There is already in place the discipline to be followed when the Pope ceases from his office, even as happened when Pope Benedict XVI abdicated his office,” said Burke. “The Church continued to be governed in the interim between the effective date of his abdication and the inauguration of the papal ministry of Pope Francis.”

Members of the College of Cardinals would have to be the ones to declare the pope in heresy, Burke said. He also said there is precedent for cardinals rebuking a pope. Burke has said that if Pope Francis doesn’t respond to the dubia, cardinals could also formally correct him in the way that Pope John XXII was corrected in the Middle Ages when he taught errant notions about the beatific vision. 

The cardinal also explained he and his peers want the pope to clarify whether Amoris Laetitia aligns with Catholic moral teaching precisely because they are loyal to him and care about him, not because they are his “enemies” or dissenters as some critics and even other prelates have suggested.

“How can you be in heresy by asking honest questions?” asked Burke. “It’s just irrational to accuse us of heresy. We’re asking fundamental questions based upon the constant tradition of the Church’s moral teaching. So I don’t think there’s any question that by doing that we’ve done something heretical.”

“I am a Cardinal of the Church, and one of the Pope’s principal co-workers,” said Burke. “I have absolute respect for the Petrine office. If I didn’t care about him and his exercise of the Petrine office, I would just remain silent and let everything go as it is. But because in conscience I believe he has an obligation to clarify these matters for the Church, I made it known to him, not just on this occasion, but on other occasions. The publication of the dubia was done with complete respect for his office. I am not the enemy of the Pope.”

Burke stressed that he is “not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy.”

“I have never said that,” he told CWR. “Neither have I stated that he is close to being in heresy.”

Canonist Dr. Ed Peters recently outlined on his blog how ecclesiastical law treats the question of a pope believing or promoting heresy. According to Peters’ analysis, the Catholic canonical tradition firmly supports Cardinal Burke’s remarks.

Peters finds the canonical tradition expressed by Franz Wernz — a famed canonist who was elected as the Superior General of the Jesuit order in 1906 — who considered the impact of personal heresy on the part of a pope in his work Ius Canonicum.

After laying out various positions dealing with a heretical pope and showing their deficiencies, Wernz speculates that while no one on earth can remove power from a pope since there is no higher office than “Roman Pontiff” that is capable of passing such judgment, nevertheless, a general council could determine that a pope had committed heresy, and in doing so, had effectually cut himself off from the true vine, thereby forfeiting his office.

Wernz wrote in his work published posthumously in 1928: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact. Meanwhile a declaratory criminal sentence, although it is merely declaratory, should not be disregarded, for it brings it about, not that a pope is ‘judged’ to be a heretic, but rather, that he is shown to have been found heretical, that is, a general council declares the fact of the crime by which a pope has separated himself from the Church and has lost his rank.”

After this quote, Dr. Peters comments: “I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis.”

It would be “impossible” and “unthinkable” for a pope to “commit the Church to heresy,” Peters wrote, because the Holy Spirit provides “protection” against this.

Canon law defines heresy as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth that must be believed by divine and catholic faith,” and “canonical tradition yet recognizes (and history suggests) that a given pope could fall into personal heresy and that he might even promote such heresy publicly,” Peters explained. “In sum…however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet, would result in the loss of papal office.”

Read Cardinal Burke’s full interview with CWR here.

 

 

2 of 41 readers’ comments

1. You have quoted this section of Bergoglio’s book several times, and I am glad you do remind us of this important statement from Cardinal Bergoglio. It shows he was always willing to depart from Catholic teaching with his own opinions. To say a homosexual relationship could be a private union with no effect on society is just stupid and wrong. So shallow. Sorry to say it that way but what else is it? And now this man is the universal teacher for the Catholic Church doctrine and pastoral practice? People may debate whether he has crossed the line into formal heresy, but the whole Papacy of ambiguity, airplane press conferences, newspaper interviews, private letters and phone calls made public, etc. etc. is a disgraceful embarrassment to the Magisterium, the teaching office of the Catholic Church and its Tradition of intellectual and spiritual giants such as Augustine and Aquinas. Bergoglio is a Modernist, including in how he has dumbed us all down, and the modern empty culture loves him for it. To say John the Baptist doubted Christ, or Jesus the child was naughty and disobedient to his parents, or Mary felt deceived by the Angel when she saw Christ on the Cross, these are all incredibly shallow and stupid things for him to say. I admire Cardinal Burke’s professional restraint and respect towards the Pope when he also knows Bergoglio is off the rails.

2. First, the dubia seem to suggest that the pope is indeed in heresy, if he refuses to clarify. Second, have we not had popes in heresy before?

 

 

Canon law tradition says a pope who commits formal heresy ceases to be pope: expert

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canon-law-tradition-says-a-pope-who-commits-formal-heresy-ceases-to-be-pope

By Pete Baklinski, December 21, 2016

The saga of the four cardinals’ dubia and their possible “formal correction” of Pope Francis over Amoris Laetitia has raised the question of what would happen if a pope obstinately refused to uphold the perennial truths of the faith.

While the leading critics of Amoris Laetitiaincluding the four cardinals, have been clear that they are not accusing Pope Francis of heresy, many wonder in light of the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility if it is possible for a pope to commit heresy and how it would affect his papal office if he did.

Renowned canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters recently wrote a blog post on this very question.

According to Peters, who holds the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, canonical tradition has dealt with the possibility of a pope falling into personal heresy and promoting such heresy publicly and what should be done if this happens.

Peters notes that while it is true that, as Canon 1404 states, “The First See is judged by no one,” thus making it impossible for anyone to remove an erring pope from his office, this does not mean that a pope in error retains his office.

Peters quotes an interpretation of Canon 1404 by famous American canon lawyer Lawrence Wrenn to make the point.

“Canon 1404 is not a statement of personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair,” writes Wrenn in the 2001 New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law.

Peters writes that the “crucial question” from a canonist’s perspective is “who would determine whether a given pope has fallen into heresy,” a question he says that canon law is silent about, but not canonical tradition.

Peters finds the canonical tradition expressed by Franz Wernz — a famed canonist who was elected as the Superior General of the Jesuit order in 1906 — who considered the impact of personal heresy on the part of a pope in his work Ius Canonicum.

After laying out various positions dealing with a heretical pope and showing their deficiencies, Wernz speculates that while no one on earth can remove power from a pope since there is no higher office than “Roman Pontiff” that is capable of passing such judgment, nevertheless, a general council could determine that a pope had committed heresy, and in doing so, had effectually cut himself off from the true vine, thereby forfeiting his office.

Writes Wernz in his work published posthumously in 1928: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact. Meanwhile a declaratory criminal sentence, although it is merely declaratory, should not be disregarded, for it brings it about, not that a pope is ‘judged’ to be a heretic, but rather, that he is shown to have been found heretical, that is, a general council declares the fact of the crime by which a pope has separated himself from the Church and has lost his rank.”

After quoting Wernz, Peters comments: “I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis.”

Comments Peters: “…however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet [God forbid], would result in the loss of papal office.”

“In sum, and while additional important points could be offered on this matter, in the view of modern canonists from Wernz to Wrenn, however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet, would result in the loss of papal office,” he writes. “May that fact serve as a check against those tempted to engage in loose talk about popes and heresy.”

Peters writes that “thanks to the protection of the Holy Spirit” the Church, even during the reign of a heretical pope, “cannot fall into heresy.”

In an interview with Catholic World Report published this week, Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the four cardinals behind the dubia, said that he and his brother cardinals are not saying the pope is in heresy, but merely asking him to clarify ambiguities in Amoris Laetitia.

 

“We have simply asked him, as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, to clarify these five points that are confused; these five, very serious and fundamental points. We’re not accusing him of heresy, but just asking him to answer these questions for us as the Supreme Pastor of the Church.”

When asked about what would happen if a pope did commit heresy, Burke — recognized as one of the world’s foremost authorities on Roman Catholic canon law  — agreed with Peters’ analysis that such a pope would automatically cease to be pontiff.

“If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen,” he said.

Following the canonical tradition, Burke said that it would have to be members of the College of Cardinals who would make such a declaration of heresy, adding that there is already the discipline in place to be followed when the Pope ceases from his office, as happened when Pope Benedict XVI abdicated his office.

Read Dr. Ed Peters’ blog post here.

 

1 of 9 readers’ comments

As long as Pope Francis doesn’t answer the dubia and ignores any “correction” issued by the Cardinals, I don’t think he can be accused of “formally professing heresy”. Therefore, he doesn’t automatically forfeit his office as Pope, according to the scholars’ criteria. After all, even the four cardinals are saying Amoris Laetitia is “unclear”. So Francis gets to spread confusion in the Church and the dissolution of the Church’s moral teachings.

However, what I do think the dubia and correction may accomplish is putting a brake on Francis’ and Kasper’s further plans – like allowing communion to be distributed to non-Catholics. It also puts a taint on Amoris Laetitia and makes it easier for a future Pope to roll it back. It also may put a brake on the moral rot currently spreading in the Church. Anyone who thinks Pope Francis is going to be declared a heretic is going to be disappointed, I’m afraid.

Cardinal Burke is playing the “long game”.

 

 

Catholic Cardinal: There’s ‘Serious Division in the Church,’ Could ‘Develop Into a Formal Schism’

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/catholic-cardinal-theres-serious-division-church-could-develop-formal-schism

By Michael W. Chapman, December 23, 2016

One of the top bishops in the Catholic Church, American Cardinal Raymond Burke, said there is “a very serious division in the Church which has to be mended” or it “could develop into a formal schism.”

[…]

Later in the interview, Cardinal Burke made it abundantly clear that he is not an enemy of Pope Francis and he does not believe that Pope Francis is teaching heresy with the disputed section in Amoris Laetitia. “I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy,” said Burke.  “I have never said that. Neither have I stated that he is close to being in heresy.” 

“I am a Cardinal of the Church, and one of the Pope’s principal co-workers,” said Burke. “I have absolute respect for the Petrine office. If I didn’t care about him and his exercise of the Petrine office, I would just remain silent and let everything go as it is.”

“But because in conscience I believe he has an obligation to clarify these matters for the Church, I made it known to him, not just on this occasion, but on other occasions,” said Burke.  “The publication of the dubia [questions about Amoris Laetitia] was done with complete respect for his office. I am not the enemy of the Pope.”

It is within Church teaching and tradition, when there is confusion over a moral or ecclesial matter, for bishops and the laity to ask the Pope for clarification. It is also normal and expected that the Pope respond, to end all confusion or scandal and unify the Church, the mystical body of Christ. 

“We have simply asked him, as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, to clarify these five points that are confused” in Amoris Laetitia, said Burke. “[T]he faithful and priests and bishops have the right to have these questions answered.”

CWR also asked if a Pope could be “declared in schism or heresy“.  Cardinal Burke said, “If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.”

If that were to happen, members of the College of Cardinals in the Church would have to declare that the Pope is in heresy, explained Burke. At that point, the papacy would be vacant and the cardinals would elect a new Pope. 

 

 

Pope says he may split the Catholic Church, according to Der Spiegel

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-says-he-may-split-the-catholic-church-according-to-der-spiegel
EXTRACT

By Deacon Nick Donnelly  • ChurchMilitant.com • December 23, 2016

Dubia cardinal: Whoever thinks adultery and Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic

Walter Mayr, the Rome correspondent of the German magazine Der Spiegel, reports the following at the conclusion of his 23rd December article on Pope Francis and the crisis over the dubia:

In a very small circle, Pope Francis is said to have self-critically further explained himself as follows: ‘It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church’. [Im kleinsten Kreis soll Franziskus sich selbstkritisch schon so erklärt haben: “Nicht ausgeschlossen, dass ich als derjenige in die Geschichte eingehen werde, der die katholische Kirchegespalten hat.”]

 

 

…Walter Mayr describes a pope who is isolated, “boiling with rage” at the resistance to his reforms, and running out of time, writing that the Holy Father is increasingly lonely, weakened by resistance in the Curia and demoralised by the lack of courage to change…

Mayr interviews Cardinal Brandmüller, one of the signatories of the dubia, who gives his assessment of what is at stake with the dubia and Amoris Laetitia:

Speaking in his apartment next to St. Peter’s Basilica, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller said in truth “it is about all or nothing” [“es geht um die Wurst”], to speak in colloquial terms; that is to say, it is about the kernel of the whole, about the teaching of doctrine.

Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.” Holy Scripture, according to Brandmüller, is not a place where everybody can pick what he likes: “We are, according to the Apostle St. Paul, administrators of the mysteries of God, but not holders of the right of disposal.”

 

 

Pope Francis has become a source of division

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-has-become-a-source-of-division

By Phil Lawler (Catholicculture.org), January 30, 2017

[…]

 

1 of 48 readers’ comments

He is a modernist heretic who contradicts the constant magisterium of the Church instead of protecting the Deposit of Faith.

 

 

Pope accuses Christians of ‘cowardliness’ for overfocus on following ‘all’ 10 Commandments

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch-pope-accuses-his-critics-of-cowardliness-for-overfocus-on-following-1
EXTRACT

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, February 1, 2017

[…]

 

1 of 179 readers’ comments

From what I understand, the Bishops cannot declare Pope Francis a ‘heretic’ because he doesn’t FORMALLY speak FROM THE CHAIR. But he’s teaching FROM THE PULPIT and he’s teaching HERESY. How in the world can the Church condone that when he’s leading so many souls in the opposite direction of Church teaching, which is CHRIST’S TEACHING!? I’m sorry, but he’s doing JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE with his ‘HOMILIES’ and his widely publicized INTERVIEWS, as he would if he would speak FROM THE CHAIR!!!! Common sense tells you that he needs to be STOPPED!!!! Ha! He’s figured out he doesn’t need to SPEAK FROM THE CHAIR in order to get his TWISTED THEOLOGY across to the masses. And they just let him blather on. INCREDIBLE!!!!!

 

 

Dr. Lamont: It is more likely than Not That Francis is a Formal Heretic

https://onepeterfive.com/dr-lamont-likely-not-francis-formal-heretic/

By Oakes Spalding, February 14, 2017

All sorts of rumors are now swirling about current events in the Church:

—Cardinal Burke has been cancelling engagements. Why?

—Cardinal Muller has resigned from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Was he forced or was it voluntary?

—A formal correction of the Pope has already been made in private and is about to become public.

—The Pope and his allies are intending to radically revamp the Novus Ordo Mass to make it even more amenable to Protestants and others.

And these come against the background of significant public events and incidents:

—The official and public endorsement of a heretical understanding of communion by various groups of bishops in Argentina, Malta and now Germany, based (they claim) on the Pope’s recent apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The Pope has either confirmed their endorsements or maintained a favorable-seeming silence.

—The “annexation” of the Sovereign Order of Malta by the Vatican.

—The overnight appearance in Rome of posters critical of a sitting pope – something not seen since the era of the Papal States.

—A parody “attack” on the pope sent via email to Vatican officials.

—A seemingly coordinated attack on Cardinal Burke – now the Pope’s most identifiable “opponent” – accusing him of being a right-wing extremist in league with the Trump administration and neo-Fascist Italian politicians. The attack has involved Pope Francis himself and various Vatican allies but has also bled over into the American secular press.

A friend reminded me of this motto:
Motus in fine velocior

“Motion accelerates when the end is near”

 

 

But what is the “end” in this case?

The unprecedented (in modern times) suppression of four (or more) cardinals and thus a tightening of the grip of the Church of Mercy?

Open schism?

Or is it that the “end” will include the removal of a pope?

As unthinkable as the last possibility may seem, more and more people, many inside the Church hierarchy and bureaucracy, are now privately talking about it. Even if it is mere wishful thinking, this has enormous significance.

Yesterday, Rorate Caeli, one of the leading traditionalist Catholic websites, published a long essay by Canadian-born philosopher John R.T. Lamont, addressing certain questions surrounding the meaning of “formal correction.” While the positions taken in the article were not explicitly endorsed by the site, the post was not preceded by any disclaimers either, unlike other “controversial” articles they have published.

Among other things, Lamont claims:

In the light of the fact that Pope Francis has openly endorsed heretical understandings of Amoris laetitia in his letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Sept. 5th 2016, it is more likely than not that he is in fact a formal heretic.

Why then have so few cardinals and bishops publicly lined up with the four “dubia cardinals” on this? Lamont argues that much of the reason stems from an absolutist understanding of “obedience,” with roots in the philosophy of St. Ignatius Loyola and other 16th and 17th century Jesuits. But this understanding is erroneous and dangerous:

The question of how anyone, even a cardinal, can correct the Pope is an important one. It is a basic principle of the divinely established constitution of the Church that the Pope judges all other Catholics on earth and is judged by none of them. But this constitution does not establish the Pope as an autocrat with tyrannical authority, who is answerable to no-one. The Pope’s authority is a legal one, and as with all legal authority it involves duties to his subjects as well as rights over them. The duty to confess the Catholic faith is a fundamental duty of the papal office. His subjects may thus formally request and even require him to carry out this duty. The right to make such a formal request belongs to any Catholic, but the cardinals, whose office is to advise the Pope, have a strict duty as well as a right to make this request. The cardinals who have failed to do this are guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. This failure is a catastrophe that threatens to lead to the disintegration of most of the Church.

Read the full article here.

It should be noted that the anonymous Rorate author who introduces the piece strongly rejects the truth of the rumor that the Pope has already been formally corrected. However, he does not explain why he believes this.

We’ll find out soon enough.

Readers have left 76 comments

 

 

When public correction of a Pope is urgent and necessary

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/02/de-mattei-when-public-correction-of.html
EXTRACT

By Roberto de Mattei, February 22, 2017

Fraternal correction is an act of charity.  One of the gravest sins against charity is schism, which is separation from the authority of the Church, Her laws, uses and customs. Even a Pope can fall into schism, if he divides the Church, as the theologian Suarez explains (De schismate in Opera omnia, vol. 12, pp. 733-734 e 736-737) and Cardinal Journet confirms (L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné, Desclée, Bruges 1962, vol. I, p. 596).

Confusion reigns in the Church today. Some courageous cardinals have announced an eventual public correction of Pope Bergoglio, whose initiatives are becoming more disturbing and divisive each day that passes. The fact that he has neglected to respond to the cardinals’ “dubia” on Chapter 8 of the Exhortation Amoris laetitia, accredits and encourages heretical or near heretical interpretations on the matter of Holy Communion to the divorced and remarried.  Confusion, thus favoured, produces tensions and internal fights, or rather a situation of religious contraposition which foreshadows schism. 

An act of public correction is [thus] rendered urgent and necessary.

Roberto de Mattei is an Italian historian, president of the Lepanto Foundation, director of the Radici Cristiane [Christian Roots] magazine, and editor-in-chief of the Corrispondenza Romana news agency. He has taught at the University of Rome-La Sapienza, the University of Cassino, and the European University of Rome. From 2003 to 2011, he was vice-president of the National Research Council of Italy, and, from 2002 to 2006, he was counselor for international affairs of the Italian government. He is the author of more than twenty books translated into several languages. He is a Knight Commander of the Vatican Order of Saint Gregory the Great, in recognition of his service to the Church and Christian Civilization.

 

 

They gave Pope Francis four years to ‘make the Church over again.’ Here’s how he’s tried.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/they-gave-pope-francis-four-years-to-make-the-church-over-again.-heres-how

By Pete Baklinski, March 1, 2017

[…]

The apostolicity of the Church where the deposit of faith is authentically handed down from the apostles through their successors the bishops and cardinals has been obscured and undermined in various ways under Francis’ pontificate:

 

 

—He has elevated openly heretical bishops and cardinals who do not hold the unchanging faith as handed down through the ages from the Apostles. See QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 08-CONSULTOR TO THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE PRACTISES NEW AGE ADVOCATES THE HERESY OF WOMEN PRIESTS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_08-CONSULTOR_TO_THE_PONTIFICAL_COUNCIL_FOR_CULTURE_PRACTISES_NEW_AGE_ADVOCATES_THE_HERESY_OF_WOMEN_PRIESTS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 15-THE POPE SPEAKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AIR POLLUTION AND A HERETICAL PRIEST EVADES PROLIFE ISSUES

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_15-THE_POPE_SPEAKS_ON_CLIMATE_CHANGE_AIR_POLLUTION_AND_A_HERETICAL_PRIEST_ EVADES _PROLIFE_ISSUES.doc
etc.

—He has demoted and silenced high-ranking voices of orthodoxy within the Church.

—He has created an environment that allows bishops and cardinals and other prominent Church leaders to openly depart from perennial Church teaching and moral absolutes.

[…]

 

1 of 136 readers’ comments

As the article pointed out, Bergoglio despises TLM and hates traditional orders & organizations. The longer he occupies the Throne of Peter, the more damage he’ll do, and the bolder he’ll become. Eventually, he’ll get around to dealing with SSPX and other groups of reprobate Pharisees. I’ve been saying for years that Bergoglio’s election was invalid, he’s an apostate and (at least material) heretic. My comments used to be deleted by the editors here, but now they themselves are warning people about the duplicity and errors of Bergoglio.

It’s time we started addressing this antipope for what he is, rise up as the people did in the time of the Arian danger, and say, “No! What you’re teaching is wrong! This is NOT the Faith!” The Church is not Bergoglio’s plaything, to do with according to his whims. The Church belongs to us, and to all who hold fast to the authentic Magisterium and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Could a pope BE in schism?

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/could-a-pope-be-in-schism/
EXTRACT

By Dr. Edward Peters (Canon Lawyer), March 4, 2017

Canonical commentators new and especially old are wont to observe that schism, while conceivable in a ‘pure’ form, is in practice almost always bound up with a heresy, chiefly, it seems, with some variant on the notion that the Church never was, or at any rate no longer is, the Church that Christ founded; in other words, a bad ecclesiology could fester into a heresy strictly speaking (again, 1983 CIC 751 olim 1917 CIC 1325 § 2) and said heresy could in turn manifest itself in a state of schism. Canonical literature, as I and others have noted, finds the possibly of a pope falling into personal (or worse, public) heresy possible if not very plausible—meaning that such a scenario is one among others that centuries of daily Catholic prayers for the pope are offered to prevent.

 

 

The Question of Papal Heresy – Part 5. Is Pope Francis heretical?

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/is-pope-francis-heretical

March 07, 2017 

Building on the previous 4 parts, we examine whether the Church is officially promulgating heretical teachings through Amoris Laetitia.

The author of this series, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, has been a professor in the SSPX’s Seminary of St. Pius X in Econe, Switzerland for 20 years, where he is currently teaching ecclesiology. He is the author of numerous articles in Courrier de Rome and is a consultant to the SSPX commission responsible for doctrinal discussions with the Holy See.

 

Identifying Heresy

Calling one’s adversary “heretical” could be polite in a certain ecclesial context that is now past. More precisely, men of the Church too, whether or not they were theologians, had their repertoire of insults. Invective is found in all times and in all professions. We already find considerable traces of it in the Gospel, even on the lips of the Incarnate Word. One may regret that it has become rare, since the last Council, and deplore the kid gloves and sugar coatings that prevail now in inter-confessional dialogues.

The use of insults ought to remain legitimate, provided that no mistake is made about its significance, which will always be limited. Very often, it falls short of its original value and is no more than the last resort of those who have lost all their arguments and just want to avoid losing face. And we are not talking about demonization, which is a form of manipulation on a grand scale. In short, we may be in the middle of rhetoric here and, if you will, outside of the field of theology, properly speaking. Rhetoric may possibly serve as a support to theology, and that is precisely the basis of its legitimacy, but it could never replace it, much less mask the absence thereof.

 

 

 

 

“Heretical” Demands Contradiction To Defined Truth

It is different with the doctrinal censure “heretical”: the latter is a technical expression, part of the terminology to which specialists resort in order to give as precise an evaluation as possible. The designation “heretical” corresponds to this precise language that the theologian uses; in this sense it applies to a person whose acts and words sufficiently manifest a rejection or a questioning of the revealed truth that is proposed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. It applies also, consequently, or by extension of its meaning, to a proposition which demonstrably contradicts dogma.

Applying this type of designation to a person or to a proposition therefore implies that one has previously verified the rejection or contradiction in question. What matters is not only whether or not there is a rejection or a contradiction. What also matters is verifying whether this rejection or contradiction has any precise bearing on a dogma, in other words, on a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. That spells out the whole complexity of the matter that is hidden behind the word.

 

The Case of Pope Francis

The question that we are asking ourselves here is extremely precise: Does Pope Francis deserve this designation in the eyes of simple theology, as any member of the teaching Church can practice it by reason of his real, acknowledged competencies? And does he deserve it because of what he affirms in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia? Forty-five theologians thought that they were obliged to affirm it. Four cardinals give us to understand clearly enough that, unless he gives a satisfactory response to their dubia, the Supreme Pontiff could deserve the assignment of such a censure.

What can we say? Let us simply take a look at the five dubia presented by the four cardinals and also at the corresponding passages from Amoris laetitia whose meaning is in doubt. In order to be brief, and in order to be as clear as possible, we will formulate the essential idea of each dubium.

 

The First Dubium
The first dubium poses the question concerning paragraphs 300-305 of Amoris laetitia: is it possible to give absolution and sacramental Communion to divorced-and-remarried persons who live in adultery without repenting? For someone who adheres to Catholic doctrine, the answer is no. What exactly does Amoris laetitia say? The following passage from par. 305 says this:
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin—which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such—a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”

(A footnote reads: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 44). I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’ (ibid., 47)).

The doubt arises here with the note. There is no doubt about the fact that non-culpable ignorance of sin excuses from sin. But to those who are victims of this ignorance and thereby benefit from this excuse, the Church offers first the help of her preaching and warnings, the Church starts by putting an end to the ignorance by opening the eyes of the ignorant to the reality of their sin. The help of the sacraments can only come afterward, if and only if the formerly ignorant persons, now instructed as to the seriousness of their state, have decided to make use of the means of conversion, and if they have what is called a firm purpose of amendment. Otherwise the help of the sacraments would be ineffective, and it too would be an objective situation of sin.

We are dealing here therefore with a doubt (dubium) in the strictest sense of the term, in other words, a passage that can be interpreted in two ways. And this doubt arises precisely thanks to the indefinite expression in the note: “in certain cases”. In order to dispel this doubt, it is essential to indicate clearly what these cases are in which the Church’s sacramental aid proves possible and to state that this is about situations in which the sufficiently enlightened sinners have already decided to abandon the objectively sinful situation.

 

The Second Dubium
The second dubium poses the question concerning paragraph 304: is there such a thing as intrinsically evil acts from a moral perspective that the law prohibits without any possible exception? For someone who adheres to Catholic doctrine, the answer is yes. What exactly does Amoris laetitia say? Par. 304, citing the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas (I-II, question 94, article 4), insists on the application of the law, rather than on the law itself, and emphasizes the part played by the judgment of prudence, which allegedly can be exercised only on a case-by-case basis, strictly depending on circumstances that are unique and singular.
It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule.”

This passage does not introduce any ambivalence, properly speaking. It merely insists too much on one part of the truth (the prudent application of the law), to the point of obscuring the other part of the same truth (the necessary value of the law), which is altogether as important as the first. The text therefore errs here by omission, thus causing a misreading.

 

 

 

The Third Dubium
The third dubium poses the question concerning paragraph 301: can we say that persons who habitually live in a way that contradicts a commandment of God’s law (for example the one that forbids adultery) are in an objective situation of habitual grave sin? The Catholic answer is yes. Amoris laetitia says on this subject: “Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” Two points should be emphasized.

The sentence just quoted posits in principle the impossibility of making a universal affirmation. It does not deny the possibility of saying that public sinners are deprived of grace; it only denies the possibility of saying that all public sinners are deprived of it. This denial has always been taught by the Church. There are in fact, in concrete human acts, what is called exculpatory or “mitigating” reasons (or factors). Because of them, the sinner may not be morally responsible for the objective situation of sin. These reasons include not only ignorance, but also defects of an emotional, affective or psychological sort, and paragraph 302 provides the details, relying on the teaching of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992). Nevertheless, these mitigating factors (even if they were frequent, which remains to be proved) exonerate the person but still do not put an end to the objective situation of sin: the subjectively exonerated sinner does not cease to be in that situation objectively. By omitting this key distinction the passage from Amoris laetitia again introduces doubt here.

 

The Fourth Dubium
The fourth dubium poses the question concerning paragraph 302: can we still stay, from a moral perspective, that an act that is already intrinsically evil by reason of its object can never become good because of circumstances or the intention of the person who performs it? The Catholic answer is yes. Amoris laetitia says: “A negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.” That is true, but the reverse is not, and by neglecting to say that, this passage again introduces doubt.

If a divorced-and-remarried person sins, he sins as such, precisely because he is living in an objective situation of a remarried divorcé, which is an objective situation of grace sin, as such calling for a negative judgment. If the divorced-and-remarried person does not sin, it is not as such, but rather precisely for reasons other than his objective situation as a remarried divorcé, which in itself leads to sin.

The confusion arises here between the intrinsically evil malice of an act and the imputability of this malice to the one who commits the act. The circumstances of the act and the intention of the one who commits the act can have the effect of annulling the imputability of the malice of the act, but not of annulling the malice of the act. This fourth doubt proceeds from the same sort of omission as the third.

 

The Fifth Dubium

The fifth dubium poses the question concerning paragraph 303: can we say that conscience must always remain subject, without any possible exception, to the absolute moral law that forbids acts that are intrinsically evil because of their object? The Catholic answer is yes. Amoris laetitia repeats here the false confusion introduced already by Francis in his interview with the journalist Eugenio Scalfari, “Interview with the founder of the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica,” in L’Osservatore Romano, weekly French edition, dated October 4, 2013. (For more on this subject, see the December 2013 issue of the Courrier de Rome, the article entitled “Pour un Magistère de la conscience?” [“In favor of a Magisterium of the conscience?]).  

No one can act against his conscience, even if it is erroneous. Nevertheless, to say that conscience obliges, even when erroneous, means directly that it is wrong to go against it; but that does not imply at all that it is good to follow it. If the conscience is in error, because it is not in conformity with God’s law, not following it is enough for the will to be bad, but following it is not enough for the will to be good.

Saint Thomas remarks that the will of those who killed the Apostles was bad (Summa theologiae, I-II, question 19, article 6, sed contra). However, it agreed with their erroneous reason (= conscience), according to what Our Lord says in the Gospel (John 16:2): “The hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God.” This therefore is the proof that a will conformed to an erroneous conscience can be bad. And this is precisely what Amoris laetitia does not explain, introducing here a fifth doubt. 

 

Subjectivism: Root of Five Dubia

The five dubia are therefore quite well-founded. The root of them is always the same: the confusion between the moral value of an act, a strictly objective value, and its imputability to someone who performs it, a strictly subjective imputability. Even though it may happen that the moral malice cannot be imputed subjectively, because the person who performs the act is excused from it (which remains to be proved, as much as possible, in each case), the act always and everywhere corresponds to an objective malice and consequently is at the root of an objectively sinful situation, whether or not it is in fact imputed to the one who finds himself in it. The Church’s traditional doctrine gives primacy to this objective order of the act’s morality, which follows from its object and its end or purpose. Amoris laetitia, by reversing this order, introduces subjectivism into morality.

 

 

 

 

Is Subjectivism Negation of Revealed Truth?

Does such subjectivism, as understood in its principle as well as in the five conclusions that follow from it here, represent the negation of a divinely revealed truth that is proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium? One would have to be able to answer yes in order to conclude that Amoris laetitia presents a heresy in each of the points just singled out and that Francis deserves the equivalent theological designation.

In order to establish this conclusion, it would be necessary to verify two things. First, are the five truths demolished by these five doubts so many dogmas? Secondly, does Amoris laetitia negate these dogmas, or at least call them into question formally and explicitly enough? The answer to these two questions is far from obvious and certain. For this new theology of Francis, which extends that of Vatican II, avoids this sort of formal opposition with regard to truths already proposed infallibly by the Magisterium before Vatican II. It sins most often by omission or by ambivalence. It is therefore dubious, in its very substance. And it is dubious exactly insofar as it is modernist, or more precisely: neo-modernist.

 

Does the Pope Intend to Affirm or Deny?

Chapter Eight of Amoris laetitia is defined, like the others, by the fundamental intention assigned by the Pope to the whole text of the Exhortation, which is “to gather the contributions of the two recent Synods on the family, while adding other considerations as an aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral practice” (paragraph no. 4). Therefore we find here neither more nor less than matter for reflection, dialogue and practice. That is not material for clear-cut denial or calling into question. Or rather, if Amoris laetitia became the cause of heresy, it would be in an absolutely unique way, underhanded and latent as modernism itself. In other words, by the slant of a practice and an adaptation, more than within the framework of a formal teaching.

 

Practical Subversion of Doctrine

The heresy (if there is one) of Pope Francis is the heresy of a practical subversion, a revolution in deeds, and we would certainly say that this is what remained hidden until now behind the new concept of “pastoral Magisterium.” Now, in this area, it is difficult to make doctrinal censures. Indeed, censures establish a logically contrary relation between a given proposition and previously defined dogma. And this relation could exist only between two speculative truths, belonging to the same order of knowledge. The subversion, for its part, consists of eliciting among Catholics behaviors following from principles opposed to the doctrine of the Church.

This is how Amoris laetitia, while reaffirming the principle of the indissolubility of marriage (in paragraph nos. 52-53, 62, 77, 86, 123, 178), legitimizes a manner of living in the Church that follows from the principle opposed to this indissolubility (243, 298-299, 301-303): the neo-modernist Magisterium reaffirms the Catholic principle of marriage while permitting in practice everything to happen as though the opposite principle were true. How can anyone censure that? Would the note of heresy (understood in the strict sense of a doctrinal evaluation) still retain its meaning then?

 

Finding the Appropriate Expression

In this matter of censures, it is difficult to find the most appropriate expression, and not uncommonly theologians differ in their appraisals. Without intending to state that their insights are false, or that appraisals contrary to theirs are true, we would like to draw the attention of perplexed Catholics to a problem that perhaps is not always sufficiently taken into account.

The problem of this neo-modernist characteristic of Vatican II, which proceeds much more by way of a subversion in deeds than along the lines of a doctrinal heresy in the documents. Conclusive evidence of this problem, incidentally, has just been given to us, as though in spite of himself, by the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

When questioned on Saturday, January 7, by an Italian news agency, Cardinal Gerhard Müller declared that the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia “is very clear in its doctrine” and that one can interpret it in such a way as to find in it “all of Jesus’ teaching about marriage, all the doctrine of the Church over 2,000 years of history.” According to him, Pope Francis is: asking us to discern the situation of these persons who are living in an irregular union, in other words, who do not observe the Church’s doctrine on marriage, and asks that we come to the aid of these persons so that they can find a path toward a new integration into the Church.”

Consequently, the Cardinal thinks that it would not be possible to proceed to the fraternal correction mentioned by Cardinal Burke, given that there is in Amoris laetitia “no danger to the faith” (see his remarks reprinted by Nicolas Senèze in La Croix on January 9, 2017). In reality, the danger is very real, and Cardinal Burke rightly reacted to this statement by Cardinal Müller, insisting on the need for a pontifical correction.

 

Not Heretical but Promoting Heresy
The debate, therefore, is far from useless, but let us not lose sight of its object: it is not the scandal of a heresy formulated doctrinally; it is the scandal of a praxis that clears the way for a challenge to Catholic truth on the indissolubility of marriage.

To use the words of Saint Pius X himself from the encyclical Pascendi, the proponents of the new moral theology proceed with such refined skill that they easily take advantage of unwary minds. They promote heresy while giving the appearance of remaining Catholic. “Promoting heresy”: this corresponds to the theological note that Archbishop Lefebvre believed he had to use in order to characterize the harmfulness of the Novus Ordo Missae.

 

 

 

This rite in itself does not profess the Catholic Faith as clearly as the old Ordo Missae and consequently it may promote heresy….What is astonishing is that an Ordo Missae that smacks of Protestantism and therefore favens haeresim [is promoting heresy] could be promulgated by the Roman Curia.” (Mgr. Lefebvre et le Saint-Office“, Itinéraires 233 – May 1979, p. 146-1-47).

Without prejudice to any better opinion, we willingly had recourse to it in order to describe the major problem posed today for the conscience of Catholics by the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia.

 

Editor’s note
Fr. Gleize’s precise distinction will surprise more than one. In short, it seems that Pope Francis cannot be considered heretical, since 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.”

However, in the popular use of the word “heretical,” one who acts and talks in such a way that he encourages evil and favors heresy is considered heretical. “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck!” The popular expression is not a precise theological judgment; it is rather a common way of designating persons or ideas at odds with the deposit of faith.

The theological expression which can be properly applied to Pope Francis instead of “heretical” is favens haeresim or “promoting heresy.”

That does not change that the fact that the Holy Father is ambiguous in his declarations, refusing to clarify them, and – far from correcting evil- promotes it by practical disposition. It is what Fr. Gleize calls “the scandal of praxis.”

More will be discussed in the sixth and final installment of this series: Does a pope who falls into heresy lose his investiture in the primacy?

For the entire eight-part series, see THE QUESTION OF PAPAL HERESY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_QUESTION_OF_PAPAL_HERESY.doc

 

 

Four Years Later: Reflections on an Unprecedented Pontificate

https://onepeterfive.com/four-years-later-reflections-unprecedented-pontificate/
EXTRACT

By Steve Skojec, March 11, 2017

Amoris Laetitia raised the stakes of the battle for the soul of the Church to the level that even the most die-hard ultramontanists — the honest ones, anyway — are now forced to admit that we are faced with a serious problem. If it took something as significant as an arguably heretical apostolic exhortation that lays siege to the sacraments to raise the alarm, there have also been countless less-well-publicized examples of heterodoxy since that fateful night four years ago that it should remove all doubt about the severity of the crisis…

What (Pope Francis’) “irreversible reform” has turned out to be is nothing less than severe and intentional doctrinal distortion, a heretical approach to the Catholic understanding of sin and the sacraments, the breaking down of existing structures, rules, boundaries, and institutions, and a resulting confusion that is metastasizing in the Mystical Body of Christ with eternal consequences for souls.

One is forced to wonder: if Satan himself were to engineer an assault from within the Church, how would it differ from what we are experiencing today?

 

 

Is Catholic opposition to Pope Francis growing?

https://onepeterfive.com/is-catholic-opposition-to-pope-francis-growing/

By Maike Hickson, June 8, 2017

[…]

 

1 of 42 readers’ comments

Let us pray that Bergoglio exits the stage very soon. He is awful! His remarks that God cannot exist without Man is rank Heresy and Heretical statements pour from his mouth every day. May his lies and perfidy bring him down, or, at least bring about his conversion. At any rate Bergoglio please exit the stage.

 

 

Cardinal Schönborn: “All the [Dubia] Questions Can Be Answered ‘Yes'”

https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-schonborn-dubia-questions-can-answered-yes/

July 14, 2017

[…]

 

4 of 85 readers’ comments

1. The Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna is just another heretic awaiting judgement. If the first question can be answered with a Yes then questions 4 & 5 must be answered no. This isn’t intellectual rigidity it is Logic and Logic is not contra reality, illogic is. The Cardinal is employing illogic which is why he is speaking like an idiot. –Fr. RP

 

 

2. Hell is where Cardinal Schönborn and his ilk will be going if they don’t repent of this heresy.

3. He threw a lot of smoke bombs so the evil clown and his minions could escapes. Another heretical modernist. Ignore him.

4. I really, really am tired of the “liberal” and “conservative” labels too. Let’s get back to the pre Vatican II authentic Catholic terms. A time when there were only two distinctions: a person was either Catholic or a heretic. But alas I know I’m just a wretched, rigid, neo-Pelagian, sophistic Pharisee that only sees things in black and white because I’m compensating from some psychological defect/ personality disorder. Thus my imperfections lead me to the Latin Mass. I must appear as Michael Myers to the modernists.

 

 

I took the decision to include for academic purposes, this one more post from Mundabor (see pages 2, 32):
						

Frexit

https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/frexit/

July 1, 2016

As Brexit completely dominates the news here, I thought I would make a couple of Frexit scenarios.

Make no mistake, we’ll have Frexit one day. We only don’t know when, and what damage will be done in the meantime. However and as they once told us at university: certus an, incertus quando, or “certain if, uncertain when”. I can see the following Frexit scenarios:

First scenario: the Cardinals finally read the job description and start criticising the Pope as a darn Castroite nutter with no faith, no shame, no clue, and no brain. He is peeved and, in an attack of rage, resigns. Probability: extremely low.

Second scenario: in the silence of the Cardinals, the Bishops organise a massive revolt. Generous donors allow a council in some friendly Country (Poland, Hungary). The Pope is deposed as heretic. He is put in front of the choice between resignation and schism, and he chooses resignation because he has always avoided a fight where he wasn’t the bully. Probability: makes the first scenario sound likely.

Third scenario: Francis stages an elopement with – as it would turn out – the lurv of his life: Tucho Fagnandez, or Monsignor Ricchione come to mind. The Pope resigns. The world is astonished. The couple is happy. Who are we to judge? Probability: ask Tucho Fagnandez.

Fourth scenario: Francis gets bored of Rome. He is fed up with all those unbearable couple who are, actually, married (“or so they think”, he says to himself), people who actually pray the rosary, clerics who actually believe in God. He decides to go back to the Buenos Aires slums; where the priests stink of sheep and male prostitutes, people aren’t married but hey, they have fidelity, and everyone praises him when he says he doubts the existence of God. Probability: barely existent.

Fifth scenario: Francis is caught in a “gay sauna”. His explanation that he wants to lose weight is enthusiastically accepted by the Pollyannas, but fails to persuade everyone else. He chooses to resign. Then announces he will move to Cuba, where Raoul Castro will teach him Catholicism. Probability: honestly, I don’t want to know.

Sixth scenario: Francis gets a stroke, and his tongue remains paralysed. No one understands what he says on the aeroplane, so there can be no scandal headlines. Francis is utterly peeved. He resigns and moves back to his Jesuit seminary, where he can smoke dope with the three remaining seminarians and force them to listen to him for hours on end. Probability: let’s not put limits to Providence.

Seventh scenario: Francis receives a visit from the Grim Reaper, and his soul is brought to the destination appointed for it from all eternity. He does not need to resign. Probability: very high.

There. I have my Frexit scenarios.

One will be allowed to dream once in a while.

 

 

POPE HONORIUS THE HERETIC

(We have seen him mentioned on pages 5, 21, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36, 40, 46 and 51)

 

Can a Catholic criticize the Pope?

http://www.onepeterfive.com/can-a-catholic-criticize-the-pope/
EXTRACT

By Steve Skojec, May 21, 2015

Ours is a Church that began under a brutal and bloody persecution. It has endured some 30 antipopes. We’ve had two valid popes (Honorius I and John XXII) who, to some degree, embraced heresy during their tenure as Vicar of Christ.

 

 

What are we to think of the Sedevacantist position?

A detailed look at some of the more common objections put forward by Sedevacantists

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/sede.htm
EXTRACT

By Fr. Raymond Taouk SSPX

Q. “It would seem that people couldn’t ever know if the Pope were a formal heretic until Holy Church declared the fact.”

 

 

 

A. Perhaps a restorer Pope/Council will simply judge the Conciliar Popes only to have been gravely mistaken and guilty of endangering the true dogmas of Faith, as was the case with some previous Popes such as Pope Honorius I (625-638), who after his death was excommunicated and condemned by the 6th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, as well as by his successor, Pope St. Leo II. In fact Fr. Sylvester J. Hunter states on this point that “Those writers who believe it to be possible that the Pope should fall publicly into open heresy commonly hold that the vacancy in the Holy See must be declared by the Bishops gathered together at the summons of the Cardinals, or of someone from among their own number who takes the responsibility; and the same course would perhaps be lawful if an insoluble doubt arose as to the rights of two rival claimants to the Papacy, or if the Cardinals absolutely refused to hold an election to fill a vacancy.” Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (1896), Volume I, Pg. 460, by Fr. Sylvester J. Hunter, S.J.

The Church may one day set about its work of determining, with all due process, to what degree the Conciliar Popes have deviated from Catholic dogma and what the implications are, juridical or otherwise. This is consistent with the Code of Canon Law # 2264, which states that a heretic loses jurisdiction only when declaratory sentence is passed. All of this is consistent with what we would call due process. Thus the Church alone can bindingly determine and declare if—and the precise moment— a Pope is deprived of office or not.

The excommunication of a heretic latae sententiae must be accompanied by a declaratory sentence (Canon 2223:4). Although as a rule “it is left to the discretion of the superior to declare that a penance has been incurred, i.e., to issue a declaratory sentence. However, this sentence must be issued…if the public welfare demands it, for instance, in the case of a corruptor, or briber, or dangerous heretic (Augustine, Vol. 8, p. 91.).

We may conclude that, unless such a declaratory sentence is forthcoming from the Church, no one could possibly know who is a formal heretic. That is to say, latae sententiae excommunication is not presumed without this sentence.

[…]

Q. Can the Pope err so much and still be pope?

A. Indeed for if infallibility is not engaged, it is possible that the Pope errs. The Pope can err, when not using the charisma of infallibility and we cannot put limits to such errors beforehand. For example Pope John XXII (1316-1334) in three sermons during 1331 preached against the common opinion of theologians that the souls of the just do not enjoy the beatific vision immediately after death, nor are the wicked at once eternally damned, but that all await the final judgment of God at the Last Day. However in 1334 in the presence of the cardinals, he made a retraction of what he had taught and died the next day.

Further history shows us that, Pope Honorius I (625-638) encouraged the Monothelite heresy. Pope Liberius signed a statement of Faith that could be given a heretical meaning. Pope Sixtus issued an Edition of the Septuagint, which was withdrawn after his death due to many errors. Pope Alexander VI bribed his way to the Papacy by the rankest simony, yet he has always been considered a legitimate Pope. These are just a few of many examples. All of these Popes are still officially listed as Popes.

The Pope only when he speaks ex cathedra is infallible, as also under certain conditions of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium. Infallibility is a de fide statement, a truth of the faith defined at Vatican I. When the Pope speaks outside of this specific function, when he speaks as a private Doctor, in order to express a personal opinion, he can make a mistake.

Let us note that just as Christ’s own body suffered so much physical evil, so too does his mystical body (The Catholic Church). Sin can become so widespread that the Mystical Body becomes “unrecognizable” (see Is. 53), yet it remains the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation (this is not to say that the visibility of the Church has not continued “we” rather assert the contrary. Thanks to the efforts of many faithful bishops and priests who have resisted the modernism being imposed on faithful Catholics, today there are a great number of parishes that offer the Traditional Latin Mass were true Catholic doctrine is taught).

It is further interesting to note that there were some heretics who said: it is impossible for the Son of God to suffer so much, therefore Our Lord did not have a real body that could suffer, it was just an appearance; others said; that Jesus who suffered so much could not have been God; both these errors were denounced and anathematized as heresies. In the same way today, some say: The Church is holy and the Pope is the “Holy Father” and therefore he could not possibly do anything wrong. This is bad theology.

 

 

Papal errors of the past show the ridiculousness of ‘spin-doctoring’ the pope

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/papal-errors-of-the-past-show-the-ridiculousness-of-spin-doctoring-the-pope

By Dr.
Edward Feser
, December 3, 2015

[…]

Pope Honorius I (625-638): Pope Honorius at least implicitly accepted the Monothelite heresy, was condemned for this by his successor Pope St. Agatho, and criticized by Pope St. Leo for being at least negligent.  Though his actions are in no way incompatible with papal infallibility — Honorius was not putting forward a would-be ex cathedra definition — they caused grave damage by providing fodder for critics of the papacy.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia says: “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius.  He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact…”

[…]

Pope John XXII (1316-34): Pope John XXII taught the heterodox view that the souls of the blessed do not see God immediately after death, but only at the resurrection — a version of what is called the “soul sleep” theory. 

 

 

For this he was severely criticized by the theologians of his day, and later recanted this view.  As with Honorius, John’s actions were not incompatible with papal infallibility — he expressed the view in a sermon rather than by way of issuing a formal doctrinal statement.  But as James Hitchcock judges in his History of the Catholic Church, “this remains the clearest case in the history of the Church of a possibly heretical pope” (p. 215).

 

 

Infallibility

www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
EXTRACT

Pope Honorius

The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter’s misrepresentation of his opponents’ position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills. Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius’s letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings.

 

Pope Honorius I was more silent on heresy than a formal heretic.

Yet he was anathematized posthumously.

What will the Church do about Pope Francis eventually?

 

 

RELATED FILES

SYLLABUS OF ERRORS AND OATH AGAINST MODERNISM (LAMENTABILI SANE) PIUS X, JULY 3, 1907

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/SYLLABUS_OF_ERRORS_AND_OATH_AGAINST_MODERNISM.doc

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS-ON THE ERRORS OF MODERNISM
PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/PASCENDI_DOMINICI_GREGIS.doc

SACRORUM ANTISTITUM-THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
PIUS X
SEPTEMBER 1, 1910

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/SACRORUM_ANTISTITUM-THE_OATH_AGAINST_MODERNISM.doc

 

DISSENTERS DISSIDENTS AND HERETICS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/DISSENTERS_DISSIDENTS_AND_HERETICS.doc

TESTIMONY OF A FORMER HERETIC-01
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/TESTIMONY_OF_A_FORMER_HERETIC-01.doc

 

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 01-WASHING THE FEET OF WOMEN ON MAUNDY THURSDAY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_01-WASHING_THE_FEET_OF_WOMEN_ON_MAUNDY_THURSDAY.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 01A-WASHING THE FEET OF WOMEN ON MAUNDY THURSDAY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_01A-WASHING_THE_FEET_OF_WOMEN_ON_MAUNDY_THURSDAY.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 01B-FRANCIS LEGITIMIZES WASHING THE FEET OF WOMEN AFTER VIOLATING RUBRICS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_01B-FRANCIS_LEGITIMIZES_WASHING_THE_FEET_OF_WOMEN_AFTER_VIOLATING_RUBRIC.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 01C-MAUNDY THURSDAY FOOT WASHING 4.0-MORE REACTIONS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_01B-MAUNDY_THURSDAY_FOOT_WASHING_4.0-MORE_REACTIONS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 01D-MAUNDY THURSDAY FOOT KISSING

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_01D-MAUNDY_THURSDAY_FOOT_KISSING.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 02-MEDJUGORJE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_02-MEDJUGORJE.doc

 

 

 

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 03-HOMOSEXUALITY THE SEX ABUSE CRISIS AND THE GAY LOBBY http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_03-HOMOSEXUALITY_THE_SEX_ABUSE_CRISIS_AND_THE_GAY_LOBBY.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 04-COMPROMISED BY NEW AGE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE?

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_04-COMPROMISED_BY_NEW_AGE_ALTERNATIVE_MEDICINE.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 05-BAPTISM OF ALIENS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_05-BAPTISM_OF_ALIENS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 06-ENDORSEMENT OF A NEW AGE HEALER FROM INDIA?

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_06-ENDORSEMENT_OF_A_NEW_AGE_HEALER_FROM_INDIA.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 07-TEAM BERGOGLIO IS A HERETICAL CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_07-TEAM_BERGOGLIO_IS_A_HERETICAL_CONSPIRACY_TO_OVERTHROW_THE_CHURCH_OF_CHRIST.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 08-CONSULTOR TO THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE PRACTISES NEW AGE ADVOCATES THE HERESY OF WOMEN PRIESTS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_08-CONSULTOR_TO_THE_PONTIFICAL_COUNCIL_FOR_CULTURE_PRACTISES_NEW_AGE_ADVOCATES_THE_HERESY_OF_WOMEN_PRIESTS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 09-THE POPE UNDERGOES NEW AGE TREATMENTS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_09-THE_POPE_UNDERGOES_NEW_AGE_TREATMENTS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 10-NEW AGE CONSULTOR TO THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE NOW DENIGRATES THE EUCHARIST

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_10-NEW_AGE_CONSULTOR_TO_THE_PONTIFICAL_COUNCIL_FOR_CULTURE_NOW_DENIGRATES_THE_EUCHARIST.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 11-PRESIDENT OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE JOINS IN RELIGIOUS RITUAL OF NEW AGE CULT

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_11-PRESIDENT_OF_THE_PONTIFICAL_COUNCIL_FOR_CULTURE_JOINS_IN_RELIGIOUS_RITUAL_OF_NEW_AGE_CULT.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 12-CATHOLIC CRITICISM OF ENCYCLICAL LAUDATO SI’

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_12-CATHOLIC_CRITICISM_OF_ENCYCLICAL_LAUDATO_SI’.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 13-SOME QUESTIONABLE ECCLESIAL APPOINTMENTS OF POPE FRANCIS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_13-SOME_QUESTIONABLE_ECCLESIAL_APPOINTMENTS_OF_POPE_FRANCIS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 14-A DANGEROUS POPE CHALLENGING THE CHURCH?

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_14-A_DANGEROUS_POPE_CHALLENGING_THE_CHURCH.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 15-THE POPE SPEAKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AIR POLLUTION AND A HERETICAL PRIEST EVADES PROLIFE ISSUES

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_15-THE_POPE_SPEAKS_ON_CLIMATE_CHANGE_AIR_POLLUTION_AND_A_HERETICAL_PRIEST_ EVADES _PROLIFE_ISSUES.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 16-CARDINAL DANNEELS REVEALS THAT HIS CLERICAL MAFIA STRIVED FOR BERGOGLIO AS POPE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_16-CARDINAL_DANNEELS_REVEALS_THAT_HIS_CLERICAL_MAFIA_STRIVED_FOR_BERGOGLIO_AS_POPE.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 17-HOW WILL TRADITION VIEW POPE FRANCIS’ PAPACY?

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_17-HOW_WILL_TRADITION_VIEW_POPE_FRANCIS_PAPACY.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 18-CATHOLIC CRITICISM OF POPE FRANCIS’ MOTU PROPRIOS ON MARRIAGE ANNULMENT

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_18-CATHOLIC_CRITICISM_OF_POPE_FRANCIS_MOTU_PROPRIOS_ON_MARRIAGE_ANNULMENT.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 19-CRACKDOWN ON THE FRANCISCAN FRIARS OF THE IMMACULATE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_19-CRACKDOWN_ON_THE_FRANCISCAN_FRIARS_OF_THE_IMMACULATE.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 20-ATHEIST PAPAL ADVISOR BELIEVES IN NEW AGE GODDESS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_20-ATHEIST_PAPAL_ADVISOR_BELIEVES_IN_NEW_AGE_GODDESS.doc

 

 

 

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 21-AWARDED 2015 PERSON OF THE YEAR BY ANTICHRISTIAN PETA

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_21-AWARDED_2015_PERSON_OF_THE_YEAR_BY_ANTICHRISTIAN_PETA.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 22-THE CONTRACEPTION AND RABBITGATE CONTROVERSIES

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_22-THE_CONTRACEPTION_AND_RABBITGATE_CONTROVERSIES.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 23-THE LUTHERANIZATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_23-THE_LUTHERANIZATION_OF_THE_CATHOLIC_CHURCH.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 24-APOSTOLIC DECEPTION AMORIS LAETITIA

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_24-APOSTOLIC_DECEPTION_AMORIS_LAETITIA.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 25-SHAME AND SCANDAL IN THE FAMILY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_25-SHAME_AND_SCANDAL_IN_THE_FAMILY.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 26-THE DECENTRALIZATION OF DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY (SYNODALITY AND COLLEGIALITY)

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_26-THE_DECENTRALIZATION_OF_DOCTRINAL_AUTHORITY.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 27-THE CHIEF DRAFTER OF AMORIS LAETITIA AND THE ART OF KISSING

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_27-THE_CHIEF_DRAFTER_OF_AMORIS_LAETITIA_AND_THE_ART_OF_KISSING.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 28- QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 28-DID GERMAN PELF INFLUENCE THE SYNOD ON THE FAMILY?

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_28-DID_GERMAN_PELF_INFLUENCE_THE_SYNOD_ON_THE_FAMILY.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 29-PROTESTANT ALPHA COURSE ENDORSED BY POPE FRANCIS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_29-PROTESTANT_ALPHA_COURSE_ENDORSED_BY_POPE_FRANCIS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 30-ECUMENISM WITH PROTESTANTS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_30-ECUMENISM_WITH_PROTESTANTS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 31-AMORIS LAETITIA-CONTINUING FALLOUT

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_31-AMORIS_LAETITIA-CONTINUING_FALLOUT.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 32-PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY UNVEILS DIABOLICAL SEX-ED PROGRAMME

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_32-PONTIFICAL_COUNCIL_FOR_THE_FAMILY_UNVEILS_DIABOLICAL_SEX-ED_PROGRAMME.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 33-POPE FRANCIS DECLINES DONATION BECAUSE OF 666 FIGURE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_33-POPE_FRANCIS_DECLINES_DONATION_BECAUSE_OF_666_FIGURE.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 34-POPE FRANCIS AND THE HAMMER AND SICKLE CRUCIFIX

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_34-POPE_FRANCIS_AND_THE_HAMMER_AND_SICKLE_CRUCIFIX.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 35-RESURREXIFIXES AND A STRANGE CROZIER

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_35-RESURREXIFIXES_AND_A_STRANGE_CROZIER.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 36-THE BENT CROSS CONTROVERSY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_36-THE_BENT_CROSS_CONTROVERSY.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 37-A BEACH BALL BEFORE THE TABERNACLE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_37-A_BEACH_BALL_BEFORE_THE_TABERNACLE.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 38-CONFESSIONAL ABSOLUTION WITHOUT A SHRED OF REPENTANCE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_38-CONFESSIONAL_ABSOLUTION_WITHOUT_A_SHRED_OF_REPENTANCE.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 39-SILENT ON ISLAMIST TERRORISM CONCEDING TO ISLAM

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_39-SILENT_ON_ISLAMIST_TERRORISM_CONCEDING_TO_ISLAM.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 40-THE PURGE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_40-THE_PURGE_OF_THE_CONGREGATION_FOR_DIVINE_WORSHIP.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 41-LIBERATION THEOLOGIAN BANNED EX-PRIEST BOFF SAYS FRANCIS IS ONE OF US

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_41-LIBERATION_THEOLOGIAN_BANNED_EX-PRIEST_BOFF_SAYS_FRANCIS_IS_ONE_OF_US.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 42-PRO-SOCIALISM, ANTI-CAPITALISM

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_42-PRO-SOCIALISM_ANTI-CAPITALISM.doc

 

 

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 43-FIRST-EVER ANGLICAN SERVICE IN VATICANS ST PETERS BASILICA

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_43-FIRST-EVER_ANGLICAN_SERVICE_IN_VATICANS_ST_PETERS_BASILICA.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 44-ARE THESE RUMOURS OR ARE INTERRELIGIOUS MASSES NEXT

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_44-ARE_THESE_RUMOURS_OR_ARE_INTERRELIGIOUS_MASSES_NEXT.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 45-CRITICISM OF TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND THE TRIDENTINE MASS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_45-CRITICISM_OF_TRADITIONAL_RELIGIOUS_ORDERS_AND_THE_TRIDENTINE_MASS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 46-CLIMATE OF FEAR IN THE VATICAN

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_46-CLIMATE_OF_FEAR_IN_THE_VATICAN.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 47-CRASS COMMENTS AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS ON FAITHFUL CATHOLICS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_47-CRASS_COMMENTS_AND_AD_HOMINEM_ATTACKS_ON_FAITHFUL_CATHOLICS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 48-THE DESECRATION OF SACRED SPACES IN ROME

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_48-THE_DESECRATION_OF_SACRED_SPACES_IN_ROME.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 49-LITTLE REVERENCE FOR THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_49-LITTLE_REVERENCE_FOR_THE_BLESSED_SACRAMENT.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 50-ABOLITION OF THE SOLEMN TRAPPINGS OF THE PONTIFICAL OFFICE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_50-ABOLITION_OF_THE_SOLEMN_TRAPPINGS_OF_THE_PONTIFICAL_OFFICE.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 51-I AM THE POPE-I DO NOT NEED TO GIVE REASONS FOR ANY OF MY DECISIONS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_51-I_AM_THE_POPE-I_DO_NOT_NEED_TO_GIVE_REASONS_FOR_ANY_OF_MY_DECISIONS.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 52-STRIPPING THE CHURCH-THE CATHOLIC FUNERAL OF THE FUTURE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_52-STRIPPING_THE_CHURCH-THE_CATHOLIC_FUNERAL_OF_THE_FUTURE.doc

QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 53-POLICE BUST DRUG AND GAY-SEX ORGY IN VATICAN APARTMENT


http://ephesians-511.net/docs/QUO_VADIS_PAPA_FRANCISCO_53-POLICE_BUST_DRUG_AND_GAY-SEX_ORGY_IN_VATICAN_APARTMENT.doc

 

AMORIS LAETITIA AND THE CURRENT CRISIS IN THE CHURCH

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/AMORIS_LAETITIA_AND_THE_CURRENT_CRISIS_IN_THE_CHURCH.doc

AMORIS LAETITIA AND THE GAY MAFIA IN THE VATICAN 01

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/AMORIS_LAETITIA_AND_THE_GAY_MAFIA_IN_THE_VATICAN_01.doc

AMORIS LAETITIA-THE SSPX ANALYSIS AND CRITICISM

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/AMORIS_LAETITIA-THE_SSPX_ANALYSIS_AND_CRITICISM.doc

THE DUBIA OR DOUBTS ABOUT AMORIS LAETITIA-FOUR CARDINALS ASK FIVE QUESTIONS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_DUBIA_OR_DOUBTS_ABOUT_AMORIS_LAETITIA-FOUR_CARDINALS_ASK_FIVE_QUESTIONS.doc

POPE FRANCIS APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION AMORIS LAETITIA ACCUSED OF HERESY BY 45 THEOLOGIANS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/POPE_FRANCIS_APOSTOLIC_EXHORTATION_AMORIS_LAETITIA_ACCUSED_OF_HERESY_BY_45_THEOLOGIANS.doc

 

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, COUNCILS, PAPAL AND VATICAN DOCUMENTS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/INFALLIBILITY_OF_THE_POPE_COUNCILS_PAPAL_AND_VATICAN_DOCUMENTS.doc

OBEDIENCE TO THE BISHOPS-RON SMITH

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/OBEDIENCE_TO_THE_BISHOPS-RON_SMITH.doc

CAN A CATHOLIC CRITICIZE THE POPE?

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CAN_A_CATHOLIC_CRITICIZE_THE_POPE.doc

WHEN PUBLIC CORRECTION OF A POPE IS URGENT AND NECESSARY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/WHEN_PUBLIC_CORRECTION_OF_A_POPE_IS_URGENT_AND_NECESSARY.doc

 

2016-THE YEAR POPE FRANCIS FINALLY SHOWED HIS HAND

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/2016-THE_YEAR_POPE_FRANCIS_FINALLY_SHOWED_HIS_HAND.doc

A CLOSED LETTER TO POPE FRANCIS NOW OPEN-FR CONRAD SALDANHA

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/A_CLOSED_LETTER_TO_POPE_FRANCIS_NOW_OPEN-FR_CONRAD_SALDANHA.doc

 

 

AN INDICTMENT OF POPE FRANCIS-ANTONIO SOCCI

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/AN_INDICTMENT_OF_POPE_FRANCIS-ANTONIO_SOCCI.doc

AN OPEN LETTER ON THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH-ARCHBISHOP PAWEL

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/AN_OPEN_LETTER_ON_THE_CRISIS_IN_THE_CHURCH-ARCHBISHOP_PAWEL.doc

AN OPEN LETTER TO POPE FRANCIS-FR GEORGE DAVID BYERS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/AN_OPEN_LETTER_TO_POPE_FRANCIS-FR_GEORGE_DAVID_BYERS.doc

 

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO POPE FRANCIS-FR RICHARD CIPOLLA

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/AN_OPEN_LETTER_TO_POPE_FRANCIS-FR_RICHARD_CIPOLLA.doc

AN OPEN LETTER TO POPE FRANCIS-RANDY ENGEL

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/AN_OPEN_LETTER_TO_POPE_FRANCIS-RANDY_ENGEL.doc

CARDINAL OSWALD GRACIAS INTERPRETS POPE FRANCIS PERSONAL REMARK ON HOMOSEXUALS AS CHURCH TEACHING

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CARDINAL_OSWALD_GRACIAS_INTERPRETS_POPE_FRANCIS_PERSONAL_REMARK_ON_HOMOSEXUALS_AS_CHURCH_TEACHING.doc

CATHOLIC OPPOSITION TO POPE FRANCIS GROWING

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CATHOLIC_OPPOSITION_TO_POPE_FRANCIS_GROWING.doc

HOMOSEXUALITY INSIDE THE VATICAN

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/HOMOSEXUALITY_INSIDE_THE_VATICAN.doc

 

INTERVIEW WITH JOHN VENNARI ON AMORIS LAETITIA AND SEX EDUCATION-RANDY ENGEL http://ephesians-511.net/docs/INTERVIEW_WITH_JOHN_VENNARI_ON_AMORIS_LAETITIA_AND_SEX_EDUCATION-RANDY_ENGEL.doc

IS POPE FRANCIS UNDERGOING TREATMENT WITH NEW AGE ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES?

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/IS_POPE_FRANCIS_UNDERGOING_TREATMENT_WITH_NEW_AGE_ALTERNATIVE_THERAPIES.doc

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UNDER POPE FRANCIS IN SCHISM

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_CATHOLIC_CHURCH_UNDER_POPE_FRANCIS_IS_IN_SCHISM.doc

THE FRANCIS EFFECT & WHO AM I TO JUDGE-THE SPIRIT OF VATICAN COUNCIL II?

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_FRANCIS_EFFECT_&_WHO_AM_I_TO_JUDGE-THE_SPIRIT_OF_VATICAN_COUNCIL_II.doc

THE LANGUAGE OF POPE FRANCIS IS AT TIMES TRYING FOR CATHOLICS-EVANGELII GAUDIUM

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_LANGUAGE_OF_POPE_FRANCIS_IS_AT_TIMES_TRYING_FOR_CATHOLICS-EVANGELII_GAUDIUM.doc

THE POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS AND NAME-CALLING

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_POPE_FRANCIS_LITTLE_BOOK_OF_INSULTS_AND_NAME-CALLING.doc

THE SHOCKING INITIATIVES OF POPE FRANCIS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_SHOCKING_INITIATIVES_OF_POPE_FRANCIS.doc

WE ACCUSE POPE FRANCIS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/WE_ACCUSE_POPE_FRANCIS.doc

A-Z LIST OF CONCERNS WITH POPE FRANCIS    

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/A-Z_LIST_OF_CONCERNS_WITH_POPE_FRANCIS.doc

FOUR YEARS LATER-REFLECTIONS ON AN UNPRECEDENTED PONTIFICATE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/FOUR_YEARS_LATER-REFLECTIONS_ON_AN_UNPRECEDENTED_PONTIFICATE.doc

UNEDIFYING IMAGES OF POPE FRANCIS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/UNEDIFYING_IMAGES_OF_POPE_FRANCIS.doc

Advertisements


Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

fergymisquitta

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

ephesians-511.net Testimonies

EPHESIANS-511.NET- A Roman Catholic Ministry Exposing Errors in the Indian Church Michael Prabhu, METAMORPHOSE, #12,Dawn Apartments, 22,Leith Castle South Street, Chennai – 600 028, Tamilnadu, India. Phone: +91 (44) 24611606 E-mail: michaelprabhu@vsnl.net, http://www.ephesians-511.net

EPHESIANS-511.NET- A Roman Catholic Ministry Exposing Errors in the Indian Church

Michael Prabhu, METAMORPHOSE, #12,Dawn Apartments, 22,Leith Castle South Street, Chennai - 600 028, Tamilnadu, India. Phone: +91 (44) 24611606 E-mail: michaelprabhu@vsnl.net, http://www.ephesians-511.net

%d bloggers like this: