Pope Francis’ appointment of Fr. Timothy Radcliffe to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace this past weekend was most disconcerting. Any openly dissident priest who advocates for Catholic acceptance of gay relationships and identity, women’s ordination, and the “Eucharistic” nature of sodomy — a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance — should not be given a platform of any kind. In a sane world, they would be disciplined.
Since the Radcliffe appointment, I’ve spent a good bit of time looking at the reaction of Catholics on various websites and social media. Many are perplexed. Some are outraged. Some have said that they’re done with the Church. Others are offering the usual sort of justifications we have become accustomed to over the past two years. These are typically some variation of the following:
- Maybe Pope Francis didn’t know who this guy really was and just rubber-stamped the appointment.
- English isn’t the pope’s first language and this is an English priest; it might be a language barrier problem.
- The pope’s advisers are bad men who are manipulating him!
- Being appointed as a non-voting consultor on a Pontifical commission isn’t a “game changer.”
- Maybe the pope is just trying to keep his enemies close to keep an eye on them!
- [Insert your favorite here]
All of these credulity-stretching mental exercises are usually followed with, “Remember, Christ promised that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church!”
Of course they won’t. Can we take that off the table, please? Let’s assume as a given that we are all aware of Christ’s promise. To that I say:
All kidding aside, again, I repeat: the Gates of Hell will not prevail. This much we know for certain. But why would Christ make such a promise at the very foundation of His Church?
Because He knew that when the time came, it would appear otherwise.
Christ was offering us reassurance. A guarantee. A promise we could take to take to the bank when the chips were down. But what it does not mean is that things for the Church will always be well.
History has borne this out.
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. A number of heresies and crises have arisen to confront the faith, with three of these so major that they seemed to threaten the Church’s very existence. Some have argued — and I would agree — that we’re in the fourth great crisis of the Church – one only equaled in magnitude by Arianism before it.
And not a few of us have taken note of the fact that this present crisis, while clearly something that has been in development for at least a century, has experienced a resurgence under the current pontificate not previously seen since the aggiornamania of the 1960s and 70s.
Many Catholics find themselves — at this very moment — quietly asking the same unthinkable question: is the present acceleration of this crisis incidental to the pontificate of Pope Francis, or a direct result of it?
In other words: is the pope actually making things worse?
It is not my purpose to answer this question here.
We have a more fundamental problem to solve. A prerequisite, if you will. It is simply this: are we even allowed to ask such questions in the first place? Is it acceptable for a Catholic to believe that a Roman Pontiff could be responsible for the dissemination of error, even in his non-official acts? Could a man who is elected pope be sufficiently steeped in Modernist thought or secular progressive ideology (even through no fault of his own) that his very worldview naturally skews in a direction that veers away from the horizon of orthodoxy towards which the Barque of Peter has always — and will always — chart her course?
It has become an increasingly common problem in the Catholic world these days to find ourselves in the unenviable position of being afraid to say what we really think. This is both institutional — imposed as policy (whether written or unwritten) on those who work for Catholic organizations — and personal — through the various mechanisms of self-doubt. If we notice patterns, problems, and consistent deviations from the mien of previous pontificates, who are we to raise such questions? To borrow a phrase, “Who are we to judge?”
We have become accustomed, sadly, to having low expectations of our bishops. And further, when their bad judgment is manifest, we’re not unused to calling them on it. To give an example, just a year ago, in a special report on the inclusion of Fr. Radcliffe as a speaker at a 2014 San Diego convocation of priests, Michael Voris of Church Militant lamented:
“Many faithful Catholics are at their wits’ end, feeling undercut by bishops at every turn. … The faithful are aghast that a man like Fr. Radcliffe, former worldwide head of the Dominicans, would be brought to address their priests. He openly promotes sodomy as an acceptable lifestyle, and one even pleasing to God. He goes to multiple dioceses worldwide, presiding over Masses celebrating homosexual identity. He declares sodomy has the potential to be, ‘Eucharistic’ — his words — and that homosexuals should be allowed into the priesthood in direct contradiction of the Vatican. In 2006, at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles religious education conference, he said, ‘We begin by standing by gay people … and this means letting our imaginations be stretched open to … watching Brokeback Mountain, reading gay novels, having gay friends, making our beliefs of our hearts and our minds delighting in that being …’
[…]
More and more faithful are beginning to see a nexus, a connection, between all these different scandals, from cardinals and archbishops supporting giving holy communion to divorced and remarrieds, to Cardinal Dolan praising active homosexuals marching in the Saint Patrick’s Day parade, to inviting a sodomy-supporting priest to preach in the diocese, various lay people are becoming enraged.”
That the faithful are extremely upset about these things is an entirely appropriate response. In particular, Fr. Radcliffe’s positions represent an affront to decency, to Christ’s teaching, and that of His Mystical Bride, the Church.
But this is where things get strange. In a report on the recent appointment — made by Pope Francis — of the same Fr. Radcliffe, Church Militant did an admirable job of reminding readers of his radical offenses. Yet no questions were asked about the pope’s responsibility in making such an appointment. The “nexus” that “more and more faithful are beginning to see” was not mentioned again – even though more and more of them are also beginning to see that same nexus in Rome, not just in their dioceses. There was nothing about “aghast” or “enraged” Catholics in the report. Just the facts. Almost a week later, the silence continues.
Voris has no qualms when discussing the poor decisions of “cardinals and archbishops”. So why, when that same sodomy-supporting priest is empowered by the Bishop of Rome — the pope — is there total silence on the man who made the decision? The answer is that Church Militant has a zero-tolerance policy on papal criticism in the public sphere:
It is our judgment that most Catholics should neither read nor have easy access to articles and essays that could be judged critical of the Pope. Such writings should be published and reserved for those capable of engaging them without risk of damage to their faith in the Church and the Vicar of Christ. We make these recommendations for the same reasons that we discourage people from visiting sedevacantist and pornography web sites: they are potential occasions of sin, from which masters of the spiritual life are unanimous in their recommendation of “flight” rather than “fight.” They lead people to think or do things they would not otherwise have thought or done and, almost without exception, those things are harmful to one’s spiritual life. At least one priest has described web sites containing such articles and encouraging such themes as “ecclesiastical porn” …We call it “spiritual pornography.”
[…]
[H]ow is a Catholic better off believing bad things about the Church, whether those things be true or false, and how should a Catholic respond to those things? If someone believes that the Catholic Church has become a bad place to be, what is that person supposed to do? Join another Church? Break away from the visible, corrupt Catholic Church and form an alternative, allegedly more faithful version of the Catholic Church (see CMRI and SSPX)? Leave the Catholic Church and join a more faithful Evangelical Christian assembly? Give up on religion entirely and go the “I’m spiritual but not religious” crowd? Organize “Recognize and Resist” movements within the Catholic Church and relentlessly attack Her from the inside? Seek Church reform via some kind of coup d’etat and replace current leadership with … what?
None of these responses is authentically Catholic. Each is facilitated and encouraged by papal criticism almost indistinguishable from what is found in the writings of virulent antiCatholic apologists…
It is not my place to tell another publication what their editorial policy should be. I understand that Church Militant has chosen not to engage in papal criticism because they believe this to be the most prudent and charitable course, and while I disagree, I must respect their own internal policy. Their business, their rules. And though I find their logic faulty, I actually do appreciate where they are coming from.
I take serious issue, however, with the implication that anyone who engages in any sort of papal criticism is somehow a “spiritual pornographer” or, by insinuation,”virulently anti-Catholic.” These labels make faithful Catholics — priests and laity alike — afraid to speak the truth. Whether this is because they will lose family and friends, their jobs, or their funding, they are put in a position where voicing their thoughtful concerns becomes a serious liability. It has a stifling effect on much-needed conversation from the very people who are most qualified to offer more light than heat: parish priests, knowledgeable Catholic writers, and perhaps most especially, trained theologians in academia. These last, if they are faithful enough to Rome to have taken the oath of fidelity to the Magisterium, find themselves over a barrel: they are obligated to defend the faith, but how can they do so when it means addressing their concerns about the pope? Under accusations such as those popularized by Church Militant and others, they can lose their mandatum to teach the faith to the very students who will soon find themselves in the heart of the growing crisis.
Being afraid to speak the truth in times like these is a very dangerous thing indeed.
In response to the argument itself, the assertion that a person exposed to papal criticism will feel that they have no choice but to leave the Church, develop a schismatic mentality, or become an apostate simply does not follow. On the contrary, I’ve heard from people who are so distressed by the normalcy bias that they’re seeing when faced with troubling words or actions on the part of the pope that they have given voice to their own desire to leave the Church, or not to join it as they had previously intended. They want to know that what they’re thinking — that there are real problems being manifested that go against their understanding of Catholicism — doesn’t make them crazy. It’s absurd to believe that reassuring these people by asserting the unchanging truths of the faith — and contrasting them, when necessary, against the present situation — would somehow have a deleterious effect.
Put more simply: we didn’t make this mess, but pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t going to make it go away. Want people to stay faithful? Help them to see how what’s happening doesn’t mean Catholicism is false, but rather, is suffering exactly as we were always told it would. Show them what is true, and what the limits and boundaries of assent require. Give them a path forward, not out.
To that end, we need to look to our Church’s history. Would we say that the bishops of the Third Council of Constantinople, which posthumously anathematized Pope Honorius I for heresy, were “spiritual pornographers” or scandalizers of the faithful? Would we make such claims about the Theology faculty at the University of Paris who opposed the heresies in the personal sermons of Pope John XXII — or King Philip VI, who forbade them from being taught?
Taken further, would we make such claims about St. Paul, who publicly reprimanded the very first pope, the one chosen by Christ Himself?
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. – Galatians 2:11
A pope is still a man — and thus, a sinner — and can make mistakes. Paul withstood Peter for the simple reason that he was “to be blamed” – in other words, culpably in error. In the case referred to by St. Paul in Galatians, it was on Peter’s part both an error of judgment and a faulty application of theology. In his commentary on Galatians 2, St. Thomas Aquinas explains in what manner and by what precepts Paul could so object to his pope (my emphasis):
He says, therefore: Indeed, they advantaged me nothing; rather I conferred something upon them, and especially upon Peter, because when Cephas was come to Antioch, where there was a church of the Gentiles, I withstood him to the face, i.e., openly: “Reverence not thy neighbor in his fall and refrain not to speak in the time of salvation” (Sir 4:27). Or: to his face, i.e., not in secret as though detracting and fearing him, but publicly and as his equal: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him” (Lev. 19:17). This he did, because he was to be blamed.
[…]
Apropos of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.
[…]
The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: Thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, when I saw that they, who were doing these things, walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, because its truth was being undone, if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal justifications, as will be plain below. That, they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others: “That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light” (Mt 10:27); “The way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in” (Is 26:7). The manner of the rebuke was fitting, i.e., public and plain. Hence he says, I said to Cephas, i.e., to Peter, before them all, because that dissimulation posed a danger to all: “Them that sin, reprove before all” (1 Tim 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed.
St. Thomas makes the important distinction between an exercise of authority — a papal action — and authority of ruling — the power and authority inherent in the papal office. He asserts that if public actions of a prelate — even the pope — cause “danger” that is “imminent,” then the “truth must be preached openly” and “the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others.” Further, if it is true that these prelates must not “disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them,” then any argument that the faithful and clergy must not publicly address a pope’s public errors, misleading statements, or actions for fear of scandalizing the faithful is without merit.
On the contrary, there is a positive duty to keep such errors from spreading if one possesses the ability to identify and charitably elucidate them. This is of paramount importance in order to instruct or correct those who might be led into sin by believing these errors. This is not merely a hypothetical, but something that has become a real problem with (to use examples that quickly come to mind) misconceptions following the Synod that the pope has changed the rules for the divorced and remarried on receiving Holy Communion, or in the case of those who have taken Pope Francis’s “Who am I to judge?” as a tacit endorsement of same-sex relationships. The Spiritual Works of Mercy include “instructing the ignorant,” “counseling the doubtful,” and “admonishing the sinner.” At various levels, any (or all) of these three works of mercy might apply in a redress of these errors.
We would also do well to remember that the non-theological actions of popes can also be scandalous. Popes like Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Sergius III, John XII, Alexander VI, Innocent IV, and Urban VI come prominently to mind. These popes — all of them valid — were reported variously to have taken part in scheming, simony, murder, adultery, rape, torture, sodomy, bestiality, desecration of the corpse of a predecessor, and other horrific crimes.
While Pope Francis has certainly not been accused of acts such as these, many of his papal appointments have empowered men who have no business in leadership positions in the Church, and whom, as in the case of Fr. Radcliffe, represent an actual danger to the faith. Men who speak to the media, making statements on the pope’s behalf, leading us to believe that he agrees with their heterodox agendas.
And when reports of the pope’s more controversial (alleged) opinions or activities disseminate through the global press — reports which many faithful Catholics find troubling — they are very rarely addressed or corrected, despite a Vatican press office and a PR executive in his employ, both of which are meant to monitor the news and ensure that the Vatican is being represented accurately in the media. The mechanisms are in place to analyze the message the world is receiving, but a choice is made not to clarify. The impression given is that silence gives consent.
Perhaps this is why Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei, made such a strong statement about careful language from the Church:
But this is not enough. Once the integrity of the faith has been safeguarded, then it is time to guard the proper way of expressing it, lest our careless use of words give rise, God forbid, to false opinions regarding faith in the most sublime things. … we have to speak in accordance with a fixed rule, so that a lack of restraint in speech on our part may not give rise to some irreverent opinion about the things represented by the words.”
If the Vatican does not choose to speak to these issues by reaffirming Church teaching, may we, the faithful, not do so in an attempt to mitigate the damage? We do not have the luxury of living in the historically disconnected world, where statements of the pope took months to reach any given diocese by letter, if at all. Our always-on, Internet connected planet presents a new reality not encountered by the ancient Church: every thought and action of a figure as high profile as a pope is instantly broadcast to billions, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. They are forming opinions of what we believe based on what they hear and see, whether or not it is accurately represented. Is there to be no corrective action taken by anyone if the Holy See takes none itself?
As cited by Pope Leo XIII, Pope Felix III admonished:
“An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”
It seems indisputable, then, that we must resist error — even from a pope, who may fall into such outside the parameters of the infallibility of his office and most particularly in his personal judgments.
In the 16th century, we see this understanding succinctly expressed by Melchior Cano, a Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent. It is taken from his De Locis Theologicis — a text the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates “certainly ranks with the most lauded productions of the Renaissance” and “in the estimation of some critics … made its author worthy of a place next to St. Thomas Aquinas.”
“Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.”
It seems equally clear that none of us may use such criticism as an excuse to abandon the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We may not decide for ourselves that any given occupant of the See of Peter is not the pope, for it lies outside our competence to make such judgments. We must submit to every legitimate exercise of his authority, showing obedience in all areas where obedience is due.
But we are not required to turn off our minds, to blind our eyes, or to dull our senses. We have at the present moment not just one pope, but the 265 who came before him. We have the immemorial teachings of the Church, her doctors, and her saints. Learn your faith. Understand it. Apply it. Live it. Pray for the Holy Father and the bishops who surround him. Pray for the restoration and reformation of the Church. Where we correct, we should do so in charity, out of a love of souls, and for the faith.
We were warned by a cardinal elector before the last conclave, “It is a dangerous time. Pray for us.” That danger has not passed. This website has taken the fifth chapter of the First Epistle of St. Peter as its namesake for a reason. Why? Because it gives us the roadmap for what we must do:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you. Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you. Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you. To him be the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
– 1 Peter 5
” I repeat: the Gates of Hell will not prevail. This much we know for certain. But why would Christ make such a promise at the very foundation of His Church?
Because He knew that when the time came, it would appear otherwise.”
Excellent reassuring point that is much needed in these trying times.
Christ warned us of false prophets but he never said they would never be within His Church and of course, history proves this to be true.
Thank you so for posting this. It’s very helpful and charitable. I think these are the ‘interesting times’ the Chinese curse spoke about. Very trying times indeed!
Honestly? Every Pope we’ve had since ’58 has been doing things no -Pope- is supposed to be allowed to do. I’ll do whatever I damn well please.
Although I detest these historical comparisons. Some of them are flat-out wrong and others are actual exaggerations. Let’s call this what it is: unprecedented. The Popes are using their authority to teach and enforce heresy. Just like 90% of the hierarchy. The same hierarchy that put thee popes in power. If they – in particular Jorge Bergoglio – wanted to stop this, they could. They don’t want to.
Quit downplaying this. For all intents and purposes we are watching the death of Catholicism. Take pictures while there’s still something to take pictures of.
I believe the infection of the Arian heresy was comparable to what we are experiencing.
“Christendom has had a series of revolutions and in each one of them Christianity has died. Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a god who knew the way out of the grave.” – G.K. Chesterton
If this is the case, Cardinal Burke has been the St. Paul to Pope Francis’ St. Peter.
Except that St. Peter did not fire St. Paul.
Thank you, Steve, for addressing this manufactured disconnect regarding “Papal” criticism and the attempts of some to play Pope during his undeniable absence on ChurchMilitant.
For even though there is a supposed shunning of papal criticism, the penchant for asserting an unauthorized magisterial authority in attempting to proclaim/declare an official state of schism (name branding by way of repetition and overreaching associations) when speaking of TLM communities whom Pope Francis himself has declared to be Catholic seems more than suspect.
The same can be said for ChurchMilitant’s pronouncements, punctuated by shaming, ridicule and marginalizing the fidelity of those Catholics who do speak up. No news organization has the authority to intimate what constitutes faithfulness or not. Especially when confirmed Catholics are duty bound to uphold and defend the Faith. And especially not when that selfsame news organization uses the 4th commandment to support their position while negating the 4th commandment when it comes to exposing the disaster of fatherly qualities of lawful priests, bishops, cardinals, etc.
For while one community supposedly criticizes the actions of the Holy Father, the other pretends there is no Holy Father while exposing the filth inside the Church. I don’t know about you, but I’d be less apt to join an organization that seemed to have no head at all or a very confused one that kept appointing reprobates to high office with absolutely no recourse than acknowledge that every organization can and is often plagued by very bad leadership. And that the natural course of things is to acknowledge the problem, address the head, that is the one making the appointments and to move on with the business of the day. This stance at ChurchMilitant appears to be listen to us or you are unfaithful and since the Pope is conveniently absent from our programs, we’ll step into fill you up with the “right” position.
It seems that the other news organizations are more intent on building a following to their point of view rather than building the Church and/or exposing lies and falsehoods, at least not those that are considered okay for the moment – like ChurchMilitant’s lack of magisterial authority. (Any attempt to post a link to your articles on 1PeterFive is scrubbed at ChurchMilitant. And those posters on that blog who point out the inconsistency of assuming authority to pronounce schism (worse than sodomy and abortion according to Fr. Nicholson, a close associate of ChurchMilitant) are similarly bullied. Thankfully a few readers at ChurchMilitant were able to read the links and be justified by the even handed articles here before posts were removed. The one featuring Fr. Clovis is superb.
The truly disturbing element seems to be that the Fr. Paul Nicholson model of shameful bashing without any authority is now leading to that clerics recommendation that we give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt (because we don’t know everything – much like we don’t know everything regarding the situation of the SSPX) regarding these absurdly odd appointments. An apology regarding +Nicholson’s abusive overreach regarding Fr Gruner was ripe with guilt by association (+Nicholson intimates that Fr. Gruner’s ties to +Millingo should discredit him entirely while subsequently deleting any posts which outline Pope Saint John Paul’s association with Macial Maciel and asking for commentary.) The spin is that Fr. Gruner’s position leads to undeniable schism – a crime, “…worse than abortion and sodomy.” While this may be true about schism, no formal schism has been declared. Obviously certain parties are overreaching their sphere of authority, but when the next article recommends faithful Catholics read +Radcliffe’s book, the tone turns rather creepy.
Of course, any/all comments that call Fr. Nicholson out for his inconsistency and overreach in making erroneous pronouncements about fellow Catholics are removed. The same tactics are in play at ChurchMilitant. Those who do not cow to the bullying are threatened with banning and are shut down. It would seem freedom of the press is not something advocated in many Catholic circles. But when one asserts that they are “the” place where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed, it is rather misleading for there is much hidden, spun, and hatched there that is not Catholic….. and not faithful either.
Thank you, Steve, for providing a forum to discuss this craziness.
“Any attempt to post a link to your articles on 1PeterFive is scrubbed at ChurchMilitant”
That’s interesting. I had one or two of my own comments there deleted the other day, and a link I posted to one of our articles to help explain something disappeared when it left the moderation queue.
I suspect a certain influence at work here. It’s unfortunate.
…another reason why what you’re doing at 1PeterFive is critical.
Folks are being herded by fear in other places. That mindset is seeping into other Catholic blogs wherein any attempt to discuss the truth, Catholic patrimony, and what the Church actually teaches are attacked by “faithful” who have been convinced that blind and unquestioning is proof of superior fidelity.
It’s why I have to be annoying about fundraising. I do this full time, and need to make ends meet. If I get donors with deep pockets, they’re most likely going to want to put strings on the money. And then we wind up not doing what we came here to do.
Much better to crowdfund this endeavor by those who appreciate what we do and want us to continue. Then we can keep growing, and keep shining the light where it needs to go.
…I funnel as many folks here as possible for just this purpose. That said, I’ll keep doing so along with the message of funding.
God bless!
We should take a roll call of everyone who was banned from Shea’s blog.
Here.
indeed!
I was
“…any attempt to discuss the truth, Catholic patrimony, and what the Church actually teaches are attacked by “faithful” who have been convinced that blind and unquestioning is proof of superior fidelity”
in addition to Mark Shea’s blog, I was actually banned from a forum for broaching the topic of how to tackle hostile New Atheists online.
…could be the terminology of “tackling” is the issue. You see, to tackle something would imply that it is a problem that must be addressed and/or an obstacle that must be overcome. To address anything or to overcome anything implies that all is not smiley in Brave New World. That’s the only anathema today.
For instead of standing fast with Christ so as not to put God- likely one those instances voted against by assorted Bishop’s conferences – to the test, the new “fidelity” meter is to jump off the cliff at the behest of a grinning hierarchy. Or else risk the derision of queued cliff jumpers….. I mean, Catholics.
Anyone with any passing knowledge of history knows that Popes can, and have, made errors – even grave errors. Further, history is riddled with saints and theologians and others who have legitimately criticized the Pope. So it should be obvious (although it unfortunately isn’t) that a Catholic can criticize the Pope. Thank you Steve for reminding us of that truth.
However, I do think we should talk about (article idea!) exactly what is the proper way to criticize a Pope. He is, after all, our Holy Father, and one does not criticize his dad as he would criticize a friend or a stranger. For example, I get very uncomfortable when I see Catholics not only criticize a Pope’s actions, but also then assume his intent as malicious and condemn that as well. It seems to me that when Our Lord told us to not judge, he did not mean judging actions – we obviously have to do that – but he meant judging the heart of others. So whereas it is quite acceptable – even necessary at times – to criticize the Pope’s actions, I think we fall into more dangerous territory when we assume to know his intentions.
Obviously this should be more fully fleshed-out than a blog comment can do, but I wanted to offer a few thoughts on the subject.
Did I just hear you volunteer? 😉
If I may interject, it seems to me that the question(s) as posed by Steve answers itself. That is, of course we can argue in favor of the thesis that the Pope is actually making things worse. The line we, as laypeople, cannot cross is represented by asking whether he intends to make things worse. Unless the Pope gives a press conference in which he states unambiguously, “It is my intention to destroy the Church of Christ,” we are bound by charity to assume that he does what he does with the best of intentions. But we are not bound to ignore the evil which could – and, in the case of the appointment of Fr. Radcliffe, already has and very likely will continue to – follow from his prudential actions.
Of course, the very next question is: How could the Pope do X, Y or Z, when doing so obviously causes such great harm to the Church? And this is where the attempts to psychoanalyze the man come in: Is he ignorant of the facts of the situation? Is he being manipulated? Is he playing a political game? We want to assume that the Pope is acting with the best of intentions, and therefore look for something to excuse him from any culpability in the evil which follows. In a way, however, this kind of speculation is just as damaging as that which is far less charitable in nature, e.g. Is he a Modernist? Is he a Freemason? Is he the False Prophet?
Obedience would require that we refrain from any speculation as to the particular interior motives of the Pope. The most we can do is to point out the glaring discrepancy between his actions and what we are bound to assume is his intention, i.e. to defend the deposit of faith. When there is grave danger to the faith, we can even take our question directly to the Pope himself, and request, in all humility, that he explain to us how his actions square with the mission of his office. Cardinal Burke, for example, has made it clear that he will do just that if the Pope continues on the path of subversion. As he put it, in his characteristically diplomatic manner: “I would have to speak in this case with the Holy Father: ‘How I can stay loyal to the truth and at the same time not call off my obedience?'”
An absolutely excellent point.
Be that as it may, error exists in the objective order. That’s why I think it’s more helpful to ask, “Can Catholics object to the pope’s errors?” The question answers itself even more forcefully than the original. I don’t particularly care what his “intentions” may be, for I am not exposed to them, but to his words and actions. Error has no rights, even when it comes from the pope. Therefore, I think the best way to address the apparently endless train of papal balderdash–which, to give “neo-Catholics” their due, quite often reinforces Francis’s continuity with his immediate predecessors (hence I call him Roncalli 2.0)–is to say, “If the pope is being accurately reported, despite his pious intentions, it follows that, etc.”
The reason your question answers itself is because it already assumes as an objective fact that the Pope is in error. While this conclusion might seem patently obvious to some, and to require an act of willful ignorance to keep from being drawn, the Catholic response here – as I understand it – is to withhold such judgment until the matter has been decided by those with the proper authority to do so. Until then, we can question and even deny assent to doubtful teachings of our otherwise legitimate pastors. But proclaiming a prelate to be in objective error – and then inviting fellow Catholics to follow me in acting upon that judgment – is not in my job description.
But that’s the point: I’m not making the speaker the issue; I’m referring to the claims in question. If I were explaining a papal “gaffe” to a friend or my children, I would say something like, “I don’t know if so and so actually said it, but let’s just discuss the claim on its own.” If we as Catholics are forbidden to parse truth and error AT ALL, then the whole thing is as damnable as the Church’s enemies have always held. Truth is whatever the hierarchy needs it to be, I guess.
Of course we should discuss the specific matter, whatever it might be, and precisely in the manner you indicate in your last post. But asking “Can Catholics object to the Pope’s errors?”, as you did in the one previous to it, is not exactly leaving the Pope out of the question, is it? And that is the point.
1) I should have clarified that by “the pope’s errors” I meant the errors which are attributed to him, thus reinforcing my emphasis on the objective nature error, while prescinding from the ‘owenership’ of such errors. That is why I made the caveat about not knowing if he’s being accurately reported.
2) You’re focusing on the public nature of discussing clerical errors, so let me ask you: While you deny the laity has a right *publicly* to declare that a prelate is in objective error, do you also deny that, to cite your earlier comment, “we can question and even deny assent to doubtful teachings of our otherwise legitimate pastors” *in the public forum*?
3) Can you cite any errors uttered or written by Pope Francis which present a grave harm to the faithful and/or flout Catholic dogma?
1) Duly noted.
2) Short answer: No. The emphasis here, however, is not so much on the publicity as on the presumption of authority to make a judgment of objective fact in such a case. I see no problem with public discussion and debate, provided the participants have a shared understanding of the limits of such discussion; the Internet Inquisition, on the other hand, is something which can quickly do more damage than good.
In the Kasper Affair, for example, I was quite open on my blog in asking whether or not the Cardinal’s proposal was heretical. I marshalled forward several anathemas from the Council of Trent which practically beg that such a case be made. But, as I possess exactly zero authority to actually determine such a matter, all I can do is present the evidence as I see it and pose the question. Obviously, I wasn’t the only person doing this, and Cardinals Müller, Sarah and Brandmüller eventually came forward to confirm the suspicion by stating that adopting the proposal would, in fact, involve heresy.
Now, prior to their statements of condemnation, it’s safe to say that I would have been materially correct in simply asserting that the Kapser Proposal is heretical. But to pronounce such a judgment as obtaining outside the limits of my own conscience requires actual authority – authority I do not possess. Formally speaking, then, to do so would have been wrong. It’s not unlike having a formally incorrect syllogism with a materially true conclusion. Yes, you have the right answer, but you didn’t arrive at it in the correct manner, and the judgment is false. Obviously, I’m not a Pragmatist in such matters.
3) Short answer: Sure. On the first charge, “Who am I to judge?” has proven to be hugely harmful – though more to those outside the Church than to the faithful, I’d say. On the second, I find the statement attributed to him by Scalfari regarding the annihilation of souls irreconcilable with defined dogma – and I’ve said as much publicly. Did he actually say it? I don’t know. He very well could have.
Now, I strongly suspect that quotes from one or more duly qualified and possibly even sainted theologians could be produced which draw dire consequences for a Pope in such a situation. Great! Feel free to discuss them on your blog and forward them to your local bishops conference with a request for clarification. But it would be wrong to insinuate that, because a theologian said Y should follow X, any of us have the authority to determine that X is, in fact, the case and are therefore justified in acting as though Y obtains. Otherwise, how does this differ from Lutheranism?
In short: Yes, we can criticize a Pope’s actions and words in terms of their – potential or actual – evil effects. We can also wonder out loud how such actions or words can be squared with the Pope’s mandate to defend the deposit of faith. We can even request from our prelates an explanation as to how such a feat is to be accomplished. But we can’t take it upon ourselves to deem a Pope to be in error on matters of faith or morals. We can withhold assent to any of the assorted hogwash he might utter, but pronouncing a positive judgment of error in matters pertaining to the faith is a bridge too far.
You’re trying to “have your cake, and eat it too” Rad, and it just doesn’t work that way….it doesn’t and it CAN’T.
–
You just can’t say that “it’s OK to criticize the Holy Father” until, well…until it’s not OK. Parts where I’m from that’s called DOUBLE-SPEAK and it’s cousins to hypocrisy and duplicity.
–
Your position on this would be like saying that only the Imperial Tailors were authorized and qualified to determine if the Emperor was truly naked or not….and that the eyes of EVERYONE else in the Empire were unable (or, as you put it – unauthorized) to see for themselves that the Emperor, indeed had no clothes.
Who here isn’t trying to “have their cake and eat it too”? I’m assuming everyone wants to remain a loyal son of the Church – which includes remaining both charitable and obedient to the Pope – and, at the same time, everyone wants to remain true to their well-informed conscience – which includes criticizing even the Pope when necessary. You’re making me out to be the poster-child for clericalism and blind obedience when I’m advocating neither of those things. Read my comments; the position I’m taking is a tad more nuanced than that.
If we are to “withhold such judgment until the matter has been decided by those with the proper authority to do so” but those with this authority are also teaching errors, what then is the solution?
Exactly.
Yep, I’m pretty much scratching my head, trying to figure out what “proper authority” he thinks is coming to decide this. Because Cardinals who raise any objections or try to clarify Church teaching are pretty much slammed for being disloyal to the pope.
The solution? Do you mean for the individual layperson or for the Church as a whole? In the former case, see my previous comment. In the latter, see my previous comment.
“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.” – St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 2, chapter 30, no. 15
Dear Brother. Pope LIberius was considered a Saint for centuries
Google
Holy Pope Liberius
And Saint Athanasius his own self publicly defended Liberius’ orthodoxy and laid the troubles he experienced at the feet of those who had captured Liberius and tortured him; Athanasius completely exonerated him.
Google
History of the Arians, Part V
Pray. Pay. Obey.
Ah yes, the “Who am I to judge” argument.
Which is decidedly more appropriate coming from a layperson.
Clericalism.
The assumption here is that if one clearly admits to oneself and others that this present pontiff is damaging our precious Faith we have been given, he or she will therefore take the next step of ‘leaving the Church’. To remain silent in the face of the damage Francis is causing through his devastating ecclesial appointments, through his careless imprudence in words, and his
silence in the face of error and heresy is to ally with the evil forces at work in the Church. Anyone who truly LOVEs his or her Faith is obligated to stand for Jesus Christ and His Truth no matter what. Leave our true Faith? Never.
Indeed it does not follow that if one loves the true and full Catholic Faith he or she will ‘leave it’ when the going gets tough. However, it is not beyond the realm of the possible that the true Church will be underground and the present insanity will take over the buildings. Christ will not allow the gates of hell to destroy His Church, but He may allow His true Church to be treated as He was. We must prepare for that inevitability through prayer.
There really is not on blessed thing that me and thee can do other than keep the Faith.
I am sure you are aware of JournoList, the conspiracy by the media liberals to attack conservatives and support obama and it worked fabulously well.
Well, while there has been a synaxis of like-minded trads who have assembled themselves on the internet, we have less than zero power and influence; that is, we are thought by most to be angry nasty men with a mean-spirited agenda, whereas the equivalent of the ecclesiastical JurnoList, the official Catholic Church at al levels – from the female Chancellor of your Diocese, to your local Bishop, to the USCCB to the Magisterium – goes on its merry new way with only occasional pubic shots we we benighted men.
C’est la vie.
Mine is not the council of despair but an attempt to rally the realists; we have met the enemy and they have the authority but they can not force you to abandon the faith once delivered.
An excellent guide during these troubled time is St Vincent of Lerins. Find him at Catholic Encyclopedia under “Fathers” and read what he taught.
What we are experiencing is the way that God tests if we love Him and it is a test that has only one grade. Heaven or Hell.
Don’t be tempted to abandon communion with our Bishop or Pope of that is the sine qua non of catholicism and we can only control our own selves
…was that so, Mighty Joe, when there were multiple claimants to the throne of Peter? Or is the sine qua non of Catholicism that of keeping the Faith?
Let’s let the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X furnish the answer;
State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church
To be a member of the it is necessary to baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same sacraments,and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the church.
You prolly are unaware that the same teachings can be found in the Baltimore Catechism, The Roman Catechism, The new Catholic Catechism, the Early Church Fathers etc etc etc; that is, that has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church until the novelties of Lefevbre and Fellay and crew
…you are probably unaware that you have no jurisdiction and/or authority to pronounce “officially” a state of schism. Otherwise, you wouldn’t disregard the Pope and the lawful pastors of the Church as you do whenever you attempt to imply something that has not been declared.
That is one reason why your sine qua non declaration is rather odd because even as you claim fealty, you pronounce that which is reserved to others.
Again, I would appreciate your explaining the status of “Catholics” during the time of the Great Western Schism. That, and fact that there are canonized saints who followed the wrong pope. How is it that St. Vincent Ferrer saved his soul?
I’m asking you this, Mighty Joe, because times of crisis have arisen before in the Church. I’ve no doubt there were some that denigrated St. Vincent for his schism etc. I can only imagine that such persecution was added to his merit in light of the reality that he obviously had the Faith.
That said, before you go off on making personal attacks on others, you may want to look to the novelty you purport – that of stating that something is formally schismatic without the backing of the Holy Father. Be careful, Mighty Joe. Zeal can blind a person, even to their own modernist tendencies.
I cited Cardinal Muller, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Church who publicly stated the sspx remains in schism.
Pope Saint John Paul I officially declared the sspx was a schism as did Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Prefect of the CDF; he labeled it the Lefevbrite schism in a public speech to Chilean Bishops.
Sorry, I don’t have the time to develop the other obvious official pronouncements that you are ignorant of but maybe you could tell all of us which Pope vacated the declaration of Schism by Pope Saint John Paul Ii.
You keep referencing the western schism when there was but one pope – although others claimed they were – and so it must be assumed that you think there are now other pretenders to the Papacy that have convinced some Catholics that they are Popes
So, who are they?
I mean, the Mormons, Eskimos, Jehovah Witnesses, hell, even liberal democrats, know who the Pope is ,so which Catholics are you referencing who are confused about who the Pope is?
Mighty Joe, your tone and attempt to indicate the ignorance of others while at the same time skirting around the “official” pronouncement of Pope Benedict which falls short of declaring a state of schism in this situation is telling.
Goodness sake, but I hope you would understand especially in today’s climate that papal speeches and those given by prelates are not formal declarations. Far from it. That is why there is always the reference back to what is found on the Vatican website – so that “all” is kept official in accordance with that which is necessary to make such declarations as you do here.
So while I understand your zeal, again, I would make an appeal to you to refrain from making declarative statements that have no basis in “official” Church positions. This is the very kind of overreach that causes confusion in other areas and sets no example whatsoever for yielding to the Holy Father -something you state is “the” essential element.
That is why I brought up the Western Schism, Mighty Joe. For while you go off on your, “Oh, hell,” which smacks very close to a personal objection, not a wholly doctrinal objection based solely on the official position of the Church, you miss the fact that you object in your posts to the seeming “authority” that the Society claims for itself.
So you ask, who is the other claimant to the Papacy? But, Mighty Joe, you miss the point that you made that being faithful to “the” Pope is the essential element. Are you indicating that there would be no issue with the Society if they asserted another claimant to the See of Peter? And all this while you deride the authority of even Bishops. (Fellay and “his” crew?)
If you don’t see the absence of logic in your rebuttal, I cannot help you. But you do nobody any help whatsoever by asserting as fact and final that which isn’t. You overstep your own authority while claiming others be castigated for doing what you claim is the exact same thing.
St.Vincent Ferrers followed the wrong man, Mighty Joe, not the “real” Pope. Yet St. Vincent Ferrars was canonized. The point being, you may be filled with zeal to help others avoid error, but in so doing you may very well be maligning and calumniating those who, like St. Vincent, are very pleasing to God.
Perhaps you should withhold judgment. Truth will out.
That was a very long detour you took to avoid answering which Pope it was who vacated the judgment of a Canonised Pope that the sspx is a schism.
Ecclesia Dei. Look it up at The Holy See website.
Adios
Heh, I just noticed you being a sapper of your own argument when you said I have no jurisdiction.
Quite right, I don’t; and I never claimed to have jurisdiction.
But, the SSPX, whose clerics have orders but no Jurisdiction, do claim jurisdiction (supplied by the church, don’cha’know) even though when Lefevbre started his petit ecclesia he had no jurisdiction as he had been demoted and moved back from Africa to France and, thus, he had no authority/jurisdiction to pass on.
Said otherwise, the so-called orthodox have a more legitimate claim to Jurisdiction (thus their sacraments are valid) whereas the sspx claim is vitiated by Roman Catholic reality; No Jurisdiction, no Ministry.
This has been a fun exchange, pgmgn, thank you, but I think we are testing the patience of our host too dearly when we dig into the facts of the sspx.
…then dig into the facts, Mighty Joe. Your assertion that +Lefebvre was demoted and had no right to establish the Society belies (easily researched) reality. And it is precisely that disinformation that wreaks havoc with all faithful Catholics. Much like your not understanding Canon law with regard to supplied jurisdiction.
As to our hosts’s patience, methinks he is for truth, not spin.
That is why I am grateful to Steve for broaching the subject as he has done. Cool heads must prevail, for it is only the cool head that can think clearly and help navigate this unprecedented crisis.
“As to our hosts’s patience, methinks he is for truth, not spin.”
You are correct, sir. I find MJY’s commentary on the SSPX lacking. Sadly, I don’t have time to do my due diligence to have the argument. And though it may surprise my detractors, I don’t spend enough time thinking or reading about this topic to have it all top of mind.
But I agree with you: nothing so official has come from Rome. Declarations of “latae sententiae” is not the same as a formal decree; the excommunications have been lifted; Muller’s comments about “de facto schism” are vague, not descriptive, etc.
This is an issue not easily swept under the rug, but neither is it particularly easy to defend. I have long suspected Rome prefers things this way, inasmuch as a wholesale condemnation of the SSPX would obviously go to far, and reconciliation would be an indictment of the entire post-conciliar thing. It’s exhausting and goes nowhere. A perfectly designed quagmire.
Ecclesia Dei is a formal decree issued by a Canonised Pope and it identiifes the sspx as a schism and subsequent Popes have not formally stated the sspx is not a schism.
If a declaration about a schism from a Canonised Pope is not authoritative then everything is up for grabs.
Let any Tom and Dick Verbo Bishop start his own petit ecclesia then if there is something to object to
Pope John Paul II said that the bishops — and only the bishops — of the Society “have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.” He did not anathematize them. He indicated that they had done this to themselves. In so saying, he cites Canon 1382: “A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”
The reasons why the pontifical mandate was denied, and the canonical arguments for necessity all need to be considered when evaluating an automatic sentence of excommunication. I don’t have time to do that here.
But the important thing to remember is that Pope Benedict *lifted* these excommunications. In explaining why he lifted them, he carefully avoiding saying that the Society was in any way in a state of schism. The canonical irregularities and lack of jurisdiction all remain real obstacles, but these are disciplinary issues. The reason why the disciplinary issues remain is because of, as Pope Benedict said, DOCTRINAL disputes.
These have not been addressed. You have, in every presentation of your rather heavy axe to grind against the Society (I’d love to know why they irk you so) completely avoided the *substance* of their disagreement and have instead focused on its effects.
I share their concerns on religious liberty, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, and to a not insignificant degree, the liturgy.
They are closer to full, authentic Catholicism than any “separated” group, including the orthodox. They acknowledge the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and submit to him in all areas where they believe he legitimately exercises his Petrine Office.
And they were proven right, incidentally, about the fact that the old Mass was never juridically abrogated. Summorum Pontificum made that quite clear. How many other things might they be shown to have been correct about?
I do not love the SSPX. I actually despise the illicit consecrations. These destroyed, in my view, the credibility of their other claims, if only by making ad hominem rebuttals against them so easy. But their theology is far more orthodox than anything on display in Rome or almost any diocese around the world that I can think of.
We know that man does not live by theology alone. The isolation of the Society has damaged them, and has caused some among them to imbibe a toxic, perhaps even fatal, sort of pride. So has, I think, their correctness about matters theological and liturgical. They possess truth, but often without charity and certainly without docility.
In the current situation, painted with a broad brush, it’s almost as though the SSPX retains the mind of the Church without the heart; Rome is the heart without the mind. We need the reunion of both, or the crisis will never abate.
Steve. You have not met your usual high standards.
Ecclesia Dei. See 5 C, the Canonised Pope identified the sspx as a schism and no subsequent Pope has said they are not in schism.
Period. End of story.
Now, if you make the mistake of trying to argue the necessity defense know that PRIOR to the Consecrations the Pope had nixed their claim and The pontifical commission for the interpretation of legislative texts adduced the specifics,
It is the Pope, not count caponi or count chocula, who is the authentic interpreter of legislative texts.
Why am I so resolute in opposing the schism?
They have convinced otherwise solid Catholics that a schism is not only permissible but a positive good and that evil will have substantial consequences for that petite ecclesia has attracted former faithful catholic s and has confused others of good will – such as your own self – that this schism is worthy.
Lord have mercy.
It is not enough that we already have consequential matters to deal with inside the church, we now have far too many soi distant trade stating publicly a schism has real positive value to the Catholic Chuerch; and that is simply a satanic delusion
5C follows from 4, which bases its rationale in Canon 1382. There is not now, and has never been, a formal juridical act or declaration of Schism towards the SSPX on the part of a Roman Pontiff. The Motu Proprio merely states the legal consequence of the illicit consecration. It is not a positive declaration of action from the pope.
The latae sententiae excommunication it mentions is automatic, and is similar in its juridical application to a person who procures abortion, etc. It is not a schismatic act, but rather one that separates the guilty from *communion* with the Church. The 1983 code of canon law makes clear that the penalty for illicit consecration is “excommunication”. This is a different animal than schism.
Of course, the Ecclesia Dei commission has been at pains not to refer to the SSPX as being “in schism.” They have even gone so far as to say that the faithful who wish merely to attend a TLM may *fulfill their Sunday obligation* at SSPX chapels and even donate money to their collections.
This is not something we can say about a group that is, in fact, in schism. And the juridical *fact* of a schism, as opposed to some vaguely conjured “de facto” presumption of schism, are two WILDLY different things.
“PRIOR to the Consecrations the Pope had nixed their claim”
But again, we find ourselves in an odd legal situation, do we not? Canon 1323, 4, states: “No penalty is incurred by a person forced by a necessity to act against the law.”
Now if the situation of necessity is created by the same person who has supreme legislative authority to nix any claim to said necessity, we are faced with a conundrum. Denying the papal mandate to consecrate bishops was clearly a prudential and not an infallible act of the Petrine Office. So how can the pope say “I declare your perceived state of necessity non-existent” when he is, by his own non-infallible action, the originator of the perceived state of necessity?
And again, this is why I don’t eat up huge gobs of my time having this debate. The logic on both sides is solid, and around and around we go.
“They have convinced otherwise solid Catholics that a schism is not only permissible but a positive good and that evil will have substantial consequences for that petite ecclesia has attracted former faithful catholic s and has confused others of good will – such as your own self – that this schism is worthy.”
Again: it. is. not. a. schism. I refuse that definition, as did Pope Benedict, as has the competent pontifical commission, Ecclesia Dei, and as does common sense and basic logic. The ACT OF CONSECRATION was excommunicable, but to conflate this with schism is an abuse of the definition of the word.
I do not believe ANY schism is worthy. Do not put those words in my mouth. Schism is a grave sin, and it is reserved for men like the red-hat wearing imps in Germany who are so obsessed with sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance that they have sought to remake the Church in their own image.
The egregiousness of actual schismatic mentalities and, yes, outright heresies coming from the most valued advisors of the pope gives the lie to the silly notion that the SSPX is such a big problem for the Church. It isn’t. They are Catholic. They are worried about the very doctrinal and liturgical issues which have led to this mess. They are said to have “canonical irregularity” because they are STILL PART OF THE CHURCH. Canon law doesn’t apply to Protestants, does it?
You overstate your case through a distortion and exaggeration of facts. Whatever faults of Lefebvre or his bishops, I find myself principally concerned with the orthodoxy of their thought, teaching, and liturgies, and their fidelity, at no small cost, to the very Rome who keeps them out in the cold. If they were truly schismatic, they could (and would!) have gone off on their own a long time ago. That they have not speaks volumes about why your position is absurd.
In 5 c, a Canonised Pope states Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism…
What schism was here referring to?
The Old Catholics?
No. He was obviously referring to the Lefebvrite schism but you deny the plain meaning of the text and so it is not surprising to read that you think you have the authority to decide whether or not to obey a Pope.
Steve look at how far you have already travelled down the road of schism.
Now, I suppose you will come back and say you do not have to obey a Pope if he takes a decision you think opposes the will of God.
Fine; that was not only Lefebvre’s ideological position, it was Luther’s also.
…MJY, look at how far down the road of dismissing official statements of the Church you’ve come in your vendetta against fellow Catholics. You are the very type of idealogue that Pope Francis decried. Indeed, your proselytizing methods are solemn nonsense.
Perhaps you should look to Pope Francis for guidance now and keep mum. You do not. And that, Sir, is telling as it is increasingly clear that your intentions here are far from pure.
Thank goodness there are cool and thinking Catholic heads out there who are not so easily intimidated as to join the mob in unjustly bashing those they do not like.
I don’t know what schism he’s referring to. I’d love to know, since he never defines it. He calls the episcopal consecrations a “schismatic act.” How so? Canon law itself, which he uses as the juridical basis for his assessment, declares illicit consecrations an excommunicable offense, but not a schismatic one.
Canon 751 defines schism as a “refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff”; one could argue that the consecrations might fit this description, but it’s odd that 1382 makes no such mention.
In any event, it would specifically be the consecrations themselves which represent the “schismatic act.” This is a singular event, and not an ongoing one. There is no schism in the broader sense that the Society denies the pope’s authority, or that he is the pope, etc.
The excommunications for that *singular act* have been lifted. There have been no further consecrations by the SSPX.
There. is. no. schism.
Come on, Steve. You know what schism he was referring to.
The praxis of the sspx is an object lesson in the denial of papal authority; that is, it only will obey a pope if a Pope takes a decision they approve of and if he takes a decision they do not approve, they do not obey. They are their own authority
The sspx is a permanent heretical schism; it is a petit ecclesia and Lefebvre and Fellay, early on , developed secret tribunals that supplanted the universal jurisdiction to the Pope and those tribunals replaced the Roma Rota as Mallerias publicly admitted.
I can see why you essentially are in support of the sspx; you aver that you also will only obey the Pope if you have judged him to be acting in accord with Tradition as you understand it or if you think the Pope is acting in accord with the will of God.
As to why you do not understand that is the protestant principle of private judgment is owing to the malign success of the sspx schism and and its pernicious propaganda and that is why the sspx schism must be opposed tooth and nail
It’s not a schism. It’s not a heresy. You can keep asserting it all you like, but it doesn’t make it true. There was a schismatic *act.* The excommunications for said act have been lifted. There IS. NO. SCHISM. It is a matter, as Pope Benedict said in Summorum Pontificum, of “a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.”
“You aver that you also will only obey the Pope if you have judged him to be acting in accord with Tradition as you understand it or if you think the Pope is acting in accord with the will of God.”
Yes. This is, in our modernist age, essential. You call Pope Francis “our pope and our cross.” This is not for nothing. Should I follow him into his explanation that the miracle of the loaves and the fishes was a miracle of sharing? That Christ likes it when we sin, and that our sin is in His soul? That the first and greatest commandment is love of neighbor? How about when he tells members of other faiths that they need not convert, or when he prays in common with Protestants?
Popes can err in their personal opinions or in prudential matters. Galatians 2. The entire point of the article above (which has somehow devolved into yet another SSPX discussion) is that this is so, and we have a right and duty to resist.
A discussion I’ve been having with a theologian friend today about this precise topic garnered this response from him:
“the Pope acts infallibly *only* when the conditions mentioned in Pastor Aeternus are met; when he teaches in a manner that is not ex cathedra, he does not enjoy the definitive protection of the Holy Spirit. However, the Pope does enjoy a certain general protection as head of the Christian Church. Obviously — at least to most of us — any number of Pope Francis’ statements are problematic, at best, and there is no problem with saying so.
The second aspect of Vatican I’s teaching on the papacy concerns papal supremacy. This is the point at issue in the manualistic tradition mentioned earlier in this thread. Vatican I takes a very strong position on the supremacy of the Pope in the governance of the Church, and in the duty of Catholics to obey him, even in prudential matters. This, too, is de fide.
But what does that mean? We have to keep in mind the distinction here between infallibility in teaching, and supremacy in governance. Simply put, an infallible teaching must be believed, period. This duty is absolute, and admits of no distinctions whatsoever.
Papal supremacy is not the same thing. The Pope is the Supreme Ruler of the Church on earth, invested wtih vice-regal power, which he can, and by right, exercise always and everywhere, over all of the Christian faithful. But it is not true that this power admits of no exceptions.
The easiest example of such an exception is a command to do positive evil. If the Pope commands one to commit murder, under any pretext whatsoever, he must not be obeyed. …
In the crisis we find ourselves in today … we do have a general duty to obey. As far as we can, we must obey, and do what we can to promote good discipline. But our obedience and prudential submission to the Pope is not absolute, and we are not absolutely bound to submit to every prudential command or wish; or to every teaching — especially, with regard to the latter, when he is manifestly in error. ”
You need to understand this. If you can’t, we can’t go any further.
Steve. Has any Pope taken a decision to which you personally object but nevertheless obeyed ; remained faithful that is; for example the promulgation of the Lil’ Licit Liturgy and suppression of the real mass.
I take it you did – that you did not refuse to accept his legislation and you did not enter into schism even though me and thee did not agree with his decision.
I would say that one mark of a real Catholic Traditionalist is whether or not he obeys a Pope when the Pope takes a decision he personally opposes
Now, can you give even one real world example of any Pope in your lifetime who has taken a decision you refuse to accept. I doubt it.
You are faithful and you will remain faithful for no Pope is going to take a decision that forces you to sin.
Now it is true that the sspx schism (in the person of Fr. Peter Scott) told those who succor the schism that the Lil’ Licit liturgy did not satisfy the Mass requirement and, further, he told them it was sinful to assist at the Lil’ Licit Liturgy.
In what way was that an expression of Catholic Tradition?
Were there trads back in the day who formed a schism when the Mass was changed from Greek to the Latin or when the entire Canon was changed – as Michael Davies favorite Liturgical expert states in the Catholic Encyclopedia?
Holy Writ, Matt;16,19 teaches that a decision taken by the Pope will be ratified in heaven etc etc but it nowhere teaches that the layman can judge the Pope as not having taken the right decision for thus and such reason and, that it is ok to disobey.
That was the ideology of Martin Luther, the arch heresiarch, who claimed that he was beholden to a higher law and that was the very same claim made by Lefebvre.
Martin Luther also claimed he was not bound by any ecumenical council if it violated what he thought was God’s law – and that was also the way of Lefebvre who, like John Kerry was in another matter, was for the council before he was against it.
I don’t see you acting that way but you have already intellectually staked-out an area of disobedience well in advance of any decision taken by Our Pope and Our Cross.
Even IF the Sinod approves communion for adulterers, how would that affect your obedience? Are you a Prelate or Priest who is expected to obey that decision – are you and EMHC expected to dispense communion to adulterers?
I have yet to either see or anticipate any decision being taken by any Pope that would cause me to disobey even though I would stridently disagree with the decision we fear he make take.
No, the real question is the same question faced by Catholics during the Donatism crisis – will you still maintain communion with the impure?
The Lefebvrite schism would not owing to his fear of contracting spiritual aids/cancer if he maintained communion with the antiChrist which is what he called Pope John Paul II.
Was that an expression of Catholic Tradition- calling a Pope the antichrist? Well, it is the tradition of Southern Baptism but not Catholic Tradition.
I can not think of a plausible scenario that would make you cut and run; I see you maintaining the Bonds of unity especially when the going gets tough for, as St Vincent of Lerins taught us, these crises are the way God tests us if we really love Him.
Jesus has always been and will always be the head of His Church and there is simply no other alternative than to remaining in full communion with it; any other approach is anchored in private judgment, that is, protestant praxis
….then show the mark of the “true” traditionalist, MJY. And try, despite your personal rancor, to act as the Pope is regarding the Society. He doesn’t say schism and neither should you. Shame on you.
..they submit to him in all areas when they believe he legitimately exercises his Petrine Office…
Yes, precisely correct; that is, they are protestant in their praxis but you do not see that reality.
That is, they obey the Popes when they agree with what they think is right and they disobey him when he takes decisions that oppose their agenda – which is based on a false idea of Tradition.
Now, you think that is an acceptable way to be Catholic but that SPECIFICALLY violates the infallible teaching of Vatican 1.
Subordinates do not get to decide what decisions of any Pope they will or will not obey.
Said otherwise, the schism promotes that heresy as Tradition; and that is not the only heresy that schism promotes but one heresy is enough, right?
…and you only submit to official Papal decrees when they suit your narrative, MJY. You entirely dismiss the last official position of the Church. And indeed, you dismiss the prudent approach of those like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider.
This is precisely why your argumentation does nothing to help heal wounds, but rather seems suspiciously bent on doing damage based on half truths and a desire to appear superior.
Your use of capital letters and delving into marginalizing others, now including Steve, is no way to move forward. If moving forward to heal is your goal.
I also submit to legitimate exercises of the Petrine Office. And I absolutely reject and resist illegitimate exercises thereof. This is not Protestant, it is orthodox.
You overstate the implications of Pastor Aeternus as well. Even Pope St. Pius X said that the four conditions of PA have to be met before an act is infallible. Outside of that, there simply must be room for discretion. Otherwise, we have no choice but to pray, pay, and obey.
Frankly, that describes a religion for fools. Catholicism is many things, but not that.
Is it your opinion that what I cited is not infallible?
I’m sorry, I’m doing too many things at once. Which thing did you cite? I don’t see it in the immediately preceding comments.
See Vatican 1, Chapter 3, On the power and the character of the primacy of the roman pontiff ,
It infallibly teaches that true obedience is due to the Pope owing to his position- a Divinely Constituted position of authority – but, along with the sspx, you are publicly stating that you will decide what is and isn’t true obedience for you, like the sspx, will decide whether or not the Pope will be obeyed.
The SSPX teaches true obedience is disobedience but such is the Humpty Dumpty Doctrine of the schism.
You aver that you will decide when to resist divinely constituted authority so make sure to read the last few sentences of that section of Infallible Doctrine.
Nixon once infamously said, We all are Keynesians now..
Please do not let it be said of trads We are all protestants now..
O, and I am not a sedevacantist, just an old school Catholic
No, MJY, it does not teach that obedience is due to him in everything that comes out of his mouth. There are conditions which must be met. The pope is not a divine mouthpiece or sock puppet. For heaven’s sake, is that really what you believe?
And you may not be a sedevacantist, but you show a striking affinity for their arguments in your rhetoric.
…an ‘old’ school Catholic who doesn’t understand what the Church actually teaches. That, MJY, is what has aided and abetted the current “pastoral” mess.
But again, I suggest you be consistent in your following of the Pope, friend. And Pope Francis has aided the Society and not said one word about schism. You should follow suit if you kept to what you preach. Instead, you pretend Catholic, scolding others, while acting the Protestant. No good example in that, MJY. That is why your preaching rings hollow.
The Church never said the real mass was abrogated.
The promulgation of the new missal never made such a claim nor was such a claim the subtext of that legislation
The Church juridically acted as though it was abrogated. An indult was required even to celebrate the TLM. But no special permission is required for a rite that retains its place as a right of the faithful.
Interestingly enough, MJY, mentions this regarding the Society:
“…Is he the reason Fellay so savagely turned on Williamson?” in another post.
I find it rather interesting that one who fancies himself faithful to the Church would describe any “turning” on Bishop Williamson to be savage. That one word, to me, explains the unreasonable bias in MJY’s Society bashing. There is no love of Church here, rather just hatred against a perceived threat. (…at least that’s how I read it.)
Could be that MJY’s axe is being ground against all logic and reason because he is disturbed by what he perceives as a savaging of Bishop Williamson. That would surely explain the personal attacks minus all hope of logic.
I don’t think he’s a partisan to any of them. I see instead the sedevacantist mindset: an absolute, iron-clad interpretation of Pastor Aeternus that makes any “resistance” movement within the Church — like the SSPX — absolutely detestable. (Peruse the SSPX topic archives at the sede site Novus Ordo Watch if you want to see what I mean.)
All I know is that this is, as I predicted, a waste of time. Of which I have precious little to distribute amongst the things that need my attention.
Will I resist the temptation to respond to MJY’s further rejoinders? We’ll see. 😉
…thanks for the website referral. God bless and thanks again for taking what time you have to be rational. There’s precious little of that which makes the reality that you have a family a wonderful reality – keep those genes and common sense in the pool!
Just to be clear, it’s a referral for research purposes, not a recommendation. That way lies madness. Sedes remind me of the Chestertonian observation on insanity:
“The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.”
No worries, Steve. I took your meaning.
That said, at the advent of the Bishop Williamson faction, there were fund raising efforts I’d heard tell of on his behalf that took place in Sedevecantist circles. Both west and east coast.
This is why your supposition regarding Mighty Joe sounds very feasible. It also explains, at least to me, his odd disconnect from all reason (madness?). But the knives aimed at the Society from both left and right tells a story of its own.
Thanks again for the reporting.
….and the hierarchy relies on that lack, Steve, and the reality that the laity (whom many have been trained to believe are “responsible” for the fallout after VII by assort spin-masters) is already tasked with their own duties of state. Guilt and shaming are powerful weapons.
That’s why many settle for the soundbites of other media outlets who fancy themselves authorized to step in where leadership is conveniently absent and….absolved. Rather handy.
O, I see. You are a positive partisan of the schism and you prolly think their propaganda is probative.
The fact is that Lefevbre was demoted from his former position as an Archbishop in Africa and he was granted a nominal Bishopric – in name only – he had no jurisdiction, thus, he had no pastoral power over souls, thus, he had no power to delegate.
O, and you probably think he is a neo-Athanasius and that he never was really excommunicated etc.
I well understand the lying propaganda of the schism and think it laughably insane but there are not a few who swallow it whole and that is just evidence that schism makes you stupid.
Adios.
I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to talk facts to one who succors a schism.
The Catechism of Trent: Hence, there are but three classes of people excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics, schismatics.
I think we agree, because I’m certainly not suggesting that we are faced with either (a) leaving the Church or (b) remaining silent. Neither of those are options, as you note. We have the duty to express our opinions pertaining to the good of the Church to our pastors and the right to express those opinions to our fellow Catholics. That’s Canon Law, and I have no problem with it.
The reason the assumption you mention nevertheless needs to be addressed is because it is being argued explicitly by the proponents of Sedevacantism: Francis is a heretic, but a heretic can’t be Pope, therefore Francis cannot be the Pope. Or some variation on that theme. As far as I can see, one can’t refute the logic here. All one can do is question the veracity of the premises.
It is not our role to understand this pontiff’s motives, nor to conclude whether or not he is the true pope. Our role is to uphold the Faith, no matter who is damaging it. The truth of things will eventually unfold. The point is that each of us –individually– must decide whether we will be loyal to the fullness of the Faith or our own selfish and/or fear-filled ends. When anyone is not up for that responsibility, he or she takes comfort in ‘joining a group’ and thereby abdicating his or her responsibility before God.
Dear Radical Catholic. We sensible handsome men are nearly always in agreement.
Schism and sedevacantism (pull-up a chair an abandon your mind) are not options.
And why would we go elsewhere?
Jesus has always been the head of His Church and He still is and He will be until the end of time; so, if the Barque is going down (it isn’t) I’ll go down with it.
Who wants to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and have to explain to Him why you abandoned His Church?
Not me..
Mysterium Iniquitatis exists owing to a truth neither me nor thee can see.
Do not let yourself slip into a nominalism which dictates that whatever the Pope says is to be taken as sound doctrine until some other Pope says it isn’t. Our faith has an objective content, and a Pope’s words have objective signification. It was only the furious opposition to John XXII’s heretical sermons denying the immediacy of the particular judgment (arguing for a soul-sleep until the General Judgment) that led him to retract his error.
Apparently I’m doing a horrible job of expressing myself if I’ve given the impression that I’d accept anything and everything Pope Francis says as being of impeccable orthodoxy until declared otherwise. If granting that we can question and even deny assent to the doubtful teachings of our legitimate pastors is not enough to avoid the charge of “clericalism”, as is now being advanced by St. Benedict’s Thistle above, then I’m obviously out of my depth here. Thanks for the exchange, however, Mr. Ferrara.
I myself have raised these questions: ‘Is he being manipulated?’ ‘ Does he have intentions of converting the heretics that surround him?’ etc, etc. not because I am assuming his intentions are good, but to point out to others that we do not know what’s really going on in the Vatican. I guess to ‘play the Devil’s advocate’ so to speak, because after all, do any of us know what goes on behind closed doors? Or in the Pope’s heart for that matter? I must say, it really doesn’t look good, but we may never know the ‘why’ of his actions and ‘off kilter’ statements, but I have seen so many comments that insinuate that his intentions are to ‘change the Church’ into something not at all Catholic, that it may make some think about the many different scenarios that ‘could’ be happening, and not all of them are bad intentioned. We cannot judge what’s in his heart mainly BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA! A good reason Jesus told us NOT to judge people’s hearts and especially the Pope’s heart because when it comes down to it, we are way too clueless.
Certainly we cannot judge the Pope’s heart or anyone else’s for that matter but isn’t one of the ways you try to understand a person is to learn about his/her background which certainly can help you discern much about that person? What did Pope Francis say and do prior to his elevation to the papacy? What can we glean about him by reading the books he wrote?
The presumption of benign motives is only a presumption. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the presumption offends reason; it does not serve the truth, but rather obscures it.
That is why, as you write, the endless search for excuses for Francis’s actions involves speculation worse than the “uncharitable” obvious explanation. And the obvious explanation, which leaps from the pages of Evangelii Gaudium, is that Francis views with contempt what he regards as “structures which give us a false sense of security… rules which make us harsh judges… habits which make us feel safe….”
That is, the obvious explanation is that Francis is “the Modernist as reformer” described by Saint Pius X in Pascendi. Francis tells us so, leaving no doubt of the matter. And he backs up his Modernist attitude with such gestures as telephone calls to women in Argentina telling them that, by his permission, they can receive Holy Communion while living in a state of public adultery.
There is another presumption that must come into play: that the Pope is rational. He says what he means and means what he says, and does what he intends to do, knowing the impression it will give.
There is no legitimate form of charity that requires us to presume the Pope does not understand the objective signification of his own words or the message conveyed by his own actions, such as elevating the evil Timothy Radcliffe to the dignity of a papal consultor or approving the cause for the preposterous “beatification” of the arch-heretic Helder Camara, aka “the Red Archbishop.”
What do we do with the obvious conclusion that Francis is a Modernist, embodying the characteristic Modernist blend of truth and error? We do not hate him for it, but neither do we shrink from saying what needs to be said, and what Father Clovis said during his speech in Rome: that the saying “is the Pope Catholic?” isn’t funny anymore.
That today we cannot honestly answer that classic question without reservation; that, as John Vennari has put it so well, we could not–let us face it—trust Francis with the religious instruction of our own children, should alert us to the unparalleled situation in which we now find ourselves.
I recognize that to presume benign motives given the evidence would be to offend reason. If I were a Cardinal, I’d have pulled the emergency brake long ago. But the question here, as I understand it, is how far a layman can go in acting upon his presumably well-founded assumptions without making himself guilty of disobedience or inciting others to the same. As someone who keeps a blog – though my readership is rather minute – I feel required to maintain as much as possible of that “reverence” spoken of in Canon 212 §3. It’s a squishy term, I suppose, but I’ve drawn the line at making judgments of objective fact in regards to matters of faith or morals outside the boundaries of defined dogma. With my admittedly limited knowledge, I don’t see how a layperson can cross that line without undermining the authority of the Magisterium. However, I’d be more than happy to find out why, exactly, I’m wrong in my thinking. To find out I’ve been holding back unnecessarily would be a huge relief, frankly, and would free up my writing considerably.
It isn’t a question of disobedience or inciting others to disobey. The words and deeds of this Pope which have scandalized the faithful while delighting the world do not require any act of obedience from us.
What rightly concerns you is how strongly you can lodge your protest without a failure of charity. It is a question of tone rather than content. Then again, at least as I see it, if the Pope does outrageous things, such as approving the “beatification” process for one of the worst heretics in the living memory of the Church (Camara “the Red Archbishop”), a reverential tone hardly seems appropriate in lodging the obligatory protest.
I don’t see reverence and righteous indignation as inconsistent. Fr. Clovis said what had to be said when he remarked that “Is the Pope Catholic?” is a question that is no longer funny. It is what we are all thinking, and the Pope may well benefit from hearing it said aloud. The history of the Church is replete with examples of extremely harsh condemnations of wayward Popes by their subjects, just as wayward fathers are rightly rebuked by their children. If not now, then when?
But this is a matter for each of us to determine in conscience and with spiritual advice. I don’t pretend to have the one-size-fits-all answer. Perhaps there is one rhetorical approach for those of Sicilian descent, as I am, and another for those of more sanguine temperament.
“I don’t see reverence and righteous indignation as inconsistent. ‘We have Christ as our model, and He exemplified this truth in His treatment of the Pharisees, did He not? It is becoming crystal clear that to remain silent now, no matter if we will be thought ‘disrespectful’, will be to fail Christ. The handwriting is on the wall. Indeed, it is a matter of individual conscience, but to persist in the dreamlike fantasy that the present pontiff is not heretical is folly. The saints too show us the way to be in this terrible time of trial.
As a parent, it is that test of whether or not I would trust my children with someone or in some situation that clears the fog. So while some advocate that the 4th commandment precludes criticism of the Pope, the 4th commandment also compels parents and those in charge of others to keep care of their souls and do that which is right before God.
“as John Vennari has put it so well, we could not–let us face it—trust Francis with the religious instruction of our own children”
I hadn’t thought of it that way. And it’s entirely true. What a terrifying reality.
Thanks, Mr. Ferrara, for saying so well what in my heart I know is true. I understand people’s reluctance to ‘criticize the pope’, but the situation we find ourselves in is unlike anything the Catholic Church has seen in its long history. With the news that the bishopos conferences of Switzerland, Germany and France are meeting secretly in Rome to plan for the October synod in order to push for the homosexual agenda, as well as for adulterers being able to receive the Holy Eucharist, the possibility of actual schism unfolding is real. It all is happening so fast. We do not have time to search for ‘endless excuses for Francis actions’. Thank you for your clear and honest assessment of this present ‘bishop of Rome’.
@disqus_TaQYYtvZOi:disqus [Please see image.] My comments – some that argue against your position – to your article at Remnant Newspaper, are pending or have been removed. I have informed Remnant Newspaper but received no reply. It seems to me yo are quite willing to spread your thought but quite unwilling to listen to counter arguments.
Your comments have weight. But my question is: Where does the Church teach that a Pope is infallible when he canonizes someone without proof of miracles and with no ancient cult of reverence or uninterrupted history of wonders, but rather based simply on his own prayer and advice from other bishops, who are certainly fallible?
Look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about this: “It is also commonly and rightly held that the Church is infallible in the canonization of saints, that is to say, *when canonization takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century..*”
“Commonly and rightly held” is not an infallible teaching of the Magisterium, but rather the common opinion of theologians. Moreover, that common opinion presumes that “canonization takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century.”
What if there is no process to speak of, but rather, as here, an “equivalent canonization” that did not even follow the very criteria for equivalent canonization cited by Cardinal Amato?
I just don’t think it is as simple as: accept every canonization without regard to circumstances or the Church has failed.
Having said that, I am hardly denying that John XXIII is in heaven. I merely question whether Francis has so declared infallibly when he did not satisfy the criteria Cardinal Amato himself said are necessary according to the formal papal teaching of Benedict XIV in his landmark decree on the doctrine and practice of canonization.
Thank you Chris Ferrara, perhaps we can continue our discussion over at Remnant [I am putting somethings together] so as not to hijack the discussion here – Thank you Steve Skojec and please excuse us. In the meantime, please review the following:
*
This
And this
Source: PROFESSION OF FAITH | CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
The language of the Canonisation is itself the classical formation of infallibility and it was used by Pope Francis.
Now, anyone can nitpick the process preceding the Canonisation – that is the praxis of the sspx schism – but such pedantry does not render said Canonisation false.
“I just don’t think it is as simple as….”
That is simply a protestant praxis in the service of an imagined impeccable process. The sspx is not the only outfit which arrogates unto itself authority to set itself up as the judge of the Church, many individuals who succor that schism do also.
So what?
Since when are traditional Catholics in the business of opposing Canonisations?
Since the advent of the schism.
That is when this novel protestant praxis began to masquerade as Catholic Tradition.
Said otherwise, identify one Saint in Tradition who spent his time sowing doubt about a declared Canonisation; this is not part of Tradition.
Just because you arrogate the right to proclaim schism where there is no official proclamation does not mean that others operate in the same fashion, Mighty Joe.
A little self examination in that regard may do some good.
Said otherwise, you seem to paint others with your own brush. That is no part of Tradition save that of the age-old habit of finger pointing when times are tough.
In Dec of 2013, Cardinal Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ,said that although the excommunications were lifted the sspx is suspended from the sacraments because by their schism they have broken away from communion with the church
Now if you are not in full communion with the Church and you succor the sspx ,that will have no effect on you for you think the sspc is the authority
….Mighty Joe, there is no need to succor anyone. Truth, all of it, is what is required.
And while Cardinal Mueller can voice his concerns, there is no weight to them until there is an official declaration.
Nobody is looking to the Society as “the” authority here. Rather it is looking to what the Faith teaches, the protections of Canon law, and serious matters of conscience. This could be why the Vatican has withheld a definitive proclamation of schism.
And again, if you follow the Pope, then do so completely and do not overstep yourself. That is no help to anyone as it is an action motivated by zeal, not submission to the Holy Father or the Church.
If you desire that all submit to the Holy Father and the Church in her “official” positions, you need to lead by example and not let anger get in the way.
I am not saying the process has to be impeccable. I am asking the question to which the Church has given no answer: “Can a Pope canonize someone infallibly by reciting a formula without any recognized process or exception to the process before the act of canonization?”
There is no Church teaching on this. And, in fact, the Magisterium itself has not declared that canonization is ipso facto infallible. The common opinion of theologians, to which reasonable objections are permitted, is that it is infallible according to traditional procedures or exceptions such as “equivalent” canonization. But what if those procedures are abandoned? Are we not allowed to pose questions about the result? I am not saying John XXIII is not saint, I am asking whether the infallibility of the declaration is beyond question.
You didn’t invite me over to the Remnant. This will be brief: As regards the canonization of Pope St. John XXIII, you are way off the mark . He was NOT canonized via “equivalent canonization”.
*
I will leave you to do the right and honorable thing.
You have point. It was something similar: a canonization pro
gratia. The grounds recited were also similar: “the exceptional reach of the liturgical cult of the Blessed John XXIII” and “a growing number of
signs and miracles were being attributed to the Blessed by the people of
God.”
What liturgical cult of exceptional reach? Apparently there were some parishes named after him in several dioceses with Vatican permission. What signs, what miracles, what investigation, what proof?
Then there was the “request made by the Council’s Fathers right after the Pope’s death” and “the indisputable pertinence of the figure
and work of John XXIII today.”
A *request* for canonization and the *fame* or *pertinence* of the subject are hardly traditional grounds for canonization, but only perhaps a basis for initiating a cause.
The category “pro gratia,” does not appear to have been applied in
this way ever before in Church history. John Paul II applied it to
some Chinese martyrs, which obviously would be appropriate, but as Vatican Insider noted: “other Council Fathers and many faithful also
wanted this, asking for John XXIII *to be exempted from the usual rituals an individual must usually go through to be proclaimed a saint.* *No other candidate for the sainthood can claim this kind of treatment.”*
So, this is actually less well-founded than an equivalent canonization. It is completely unprecedented. But thank you for the correction. I will post it over at The Remnant.
Since my comment has been posted over at Remnant, please allow me to provide the basis for it here.
About “equivalent canonization”:
This was not the case with Pope John XXIII who was canonized together with Pope John Paul II using the usual formula of canonization.
– Cf. Cardinal Amato on the canonization of Peter Favre · – http://www.osservatoreromano.va/it/news/la-virtu-di-perdere-tempo#sthash.InZm85qJ.dpuf
*
Your Ha-ha is very telling of you I would say.
Dear Mr. Ferrara,
It may be possible (and plausible) that the current “Bishop of Rome” is a catalyst for Matthew 13:30 to occur. May God’s will be done.
Respectfully,
Curtis
I was afraid that you would say that.
Saint Catherine of Siena who wrote to Pope Gregory XI:
“Since [Christ] has given you authority and you have accepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is yours. If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign….If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.” Later in her letter she continued, “Cursed be you, for time and power were entrusted to you and you did not use them!”
I guess the Saint doesn’t match up to your criteria for appropriately criticizing the Pope.
I don’t think she said, “Who am I to judge.” for a good reason.
Eric, in addition to Faithful Catholics,
there are SSPX attendees even through the SSPX holds no ministry within the Catholic Church at this time, and Sedevacantists posting.
The second group not even believing that there has been a Pope since the 1950s.
So there are many pushing their own political agenda, rather than the Catholic Faith.
They give themselves away by their disrespectful posts.
You are correct. We absolutely do not know the Pope’s intentions – unless he tells us.
And you are correct on judging public actions. Jn 7:24; Lk 6:42; Mt 7:5.
Catholics not only have a right but a duty to call out error. Popes and the Magesterium have and do have personal opinions that are not orthodox. The Pope is not god. Catholics must be faithful to Christ and His true teachings, not have a blind fidelity to a man or men.
The word “Magisterium” is misused here: everything that is of the Magisterium is orthodox; anything that is orthodox is not of the Magisterium.
Cf. CCC 93 [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#93]
Face It: Francis Sides With The Sodomites.
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/face-it-francis-sides-with-the-sodomites/
Voris is NOT the ‘be all and end all’ of catholic thought, nor is he even a very good journalist or consistent commentator, despite all this affectations of ‘superior knowing’ and presentation. His policies mean nothing, except perhaps to him.
…his policies seem to assert that nobody can criticize the Holy Father, but folks like him certainly can assert their “positions” as binding in the Pope’s manufactured absence. Combine that with the Fascist crushing of all opposed, complete with ridicule and outright bullying, and you have the magisterium of Michael Voris. (Maybe not “his” magisterium entirely, but he puts his name to it. Combine that with the odd pushing of Fr. Nicholson to give +Radcliffe’s book a “let’s see” read and that spells disgusting.)
As the Passion of Our Lord’s Mystical Body unfolds, we need to recall that the first time this happened, just hours after Christ consecrated the first 12 bishops, 11 of them – a full 92% with the first pope among them – either abandoned Him, betrayed Him, denied Him, or committed suicide. Only St. John remained to the bitter end, and that’s because He alone stayed close to Our Lady. That’s where we need to stay.
As it was happening, it’s likely that the beloved disciple understood little or nothing at all of what was occurring. We may not either; confusion, chaos, and agony might be all there is to be seen around us. As wicked men lay hands on His Mystical Body we may watch, as St. John watched, as the majority of those around us break faith after the manner of the first apostles. And given the odds, we may well be among them.
Stay close to the Blessed Mother. Certainly, 10 of those 11 repented and became the very greatest of Saints, but I fear that when the Passion of Our Lord falls full upon His Church we are likely to witness a falling away that will once again reach the very top. It’s happened before, it can happen again; and if it does, even though the gates of hell will be no more successful than they were the first time, if Calvary is any indication, it sure as hell is going to seem like they have.
It’s very simple. Anyone who sees a grave, even mortal danger, to others is gravely obliged to warn and defend those who are in that danger. It doesn’t matter the source. And I would say that a threat that comes from a source that is very, very trusted is an even greater threat because it is unseen or widely denied. Everyone sees the danger of an entity like ISIS. Though that danger is grave it is mainly of the physical kind; mad Islamists can kill you and your family, burn your home, raze your church and your town and destroy or steal your goods. But how much more grave is a moral, a spiritual threat that comes from a source that most people do not expect? And therefore, how much more grave the obligation to sound a warning?
There you go making sense of all kinds: Catholic sense, common sense…
I agree, Hillary…it is so simple! Like Ockham’s Razor, the principle with the least complicated explanation is often the correct one. Actions speak louder than words. Someone may say a host of truths that any believer would recognize as good and admirable but if that someone does something in complete contradiction to what he has just spoken, he is not speaking in truth. If someone says a host of truths that any believer would recognize as good and admirable but in the same breath says something that is just the opposite of what he expressed, he is not speaking the truth. It isn’t complicated. But what to do when the speaker is in a position of authority and people depend on what he says for lucidity and guidance in these evil times? I find it very interesting that Pope Francis and Obama share so many inherent traits, including this confusion, opaqueness, double-mindedness, charisma to some…antipathy for others. It is because we so value the papacy and the Magisterium that it like a stab in the heart to see such lack of truth and clarity.
So many do not believe a warning is necessary. They refuse to believe facts and evidence. Their eyes are shut tight and they have lost the ability to hear. The faithful have been deceived but still cling to the idea that mere mortals, i.e., their shepherds, are always infallible and would never deceive them.
“It seems equally clear that none of us may use such criticism as an excuse to abandon the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”
Dear Mr. Skojec,
It appears to me, that Francis “Bishop of Rome” does not use ANY of the symbolic gestures that he IS INDEED the Vicar of Christ on earth.
(The pope of ” The Second Vatican Council Church” maybe, yet not the TRUE VICAR of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.)
It makes perfect sense how he could say, “Who am I to judge”:
He does not have a papal ring, does not wear the shoes, does not live in the papal palace, does not wear the papal tiara, does not sit in an elevated chair, does not speak TO THE WORLD with Moral Authority, does not…
May God Bless Francis for revealing to many faithful souls what the true fulfillment of the Second Vatican Council looks like…
For those who have “ears to hear” and “eyes to see”…
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/the-parable-of-the-faithful-virgin/
Respectfully,
Curtis
Indeed. Since the primary mission of the Church since Vatican II is “unity”, one of the greatest stumbling blocks for our separated brethren is the primacy of the pope and the governing of the Church as a hierarchical body. Clearly, the actions of JPII and now Francis indicate their absolute approval of downplaying, or ignoring, this primacy and hierarchical structure. Giving the laity the authority to perform what was a function of the priest, and more importantly, substituting a table for the Altar which diminishes and obscures the role of the priest as one acting in persona Christi, are two examples of the destruction of the hierarchical nature of the Church.
Vatican II seems to be very similar to the Tower of Babel.
“Disordered men” have their methods/attempts at achieving “unity”; and God the Holy Ghost has His (Fire & Truth)…
The current crisis appears to have been predicted by Saint Paul:
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm
God Bless,
Curtis
Of course Scripture has told us of the Antichrist and the Second of Coming of Christ.
No one but God knows when this will occur.
If one researches those who were influential in the “reforming” of the Church, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Cardinal Angelo Scola, and Adrienne von Speyr, to name a few, you have a better understanding of how the radical (and I claim heretical in some cases) changes in Vatican II occurred.
Christian Order (www.christianorder.com) has a couple of articles written by James Larson that critique the theology and philosophy of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac, both of whom JPII and Benedict were influenced by. (The article “Broken Cisterns” in March 2006 critiques Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the article “By Arts Entirely New” in April 2006 critiques Henri de Lubac.)
Absolutely spot-on. Thank you for this!
This is actually very well presented and I pretty much agree with what you have written.
What I object to when others criticize the Pope they go after him using scorn and ridicule – some bloggers and commenters are particularly mean spirited.
In many cases I think too much attention is paid to the pope’s daily homilies and comments. Worse – too much attention is paid to how the media spins it – taking it out of context. So the pope’s apologists do come out and say what the pope meant. One may criticize that practice as well – but mockery is not good.
This is a good post nonetheless. God bless.
It seems that almost every day, and at least every week minimum we
hear of some high prelate–bishop, archbishop, cardinal, etc–supporting
or sometimes even promoting what is sinful and this to continuing loss
of souls, not to mention their own.
We read from St. Paul’s letter to the Galations; 7-8:
7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For
the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption,
but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal
life.…
What is “sown in the flesh”? Sins of
the flesh from contraception, abortion, lust, pornography, sodomy, all
homosexual acts, fornication, adultery, etc. Those prelates who say
‘bravo’ to sin or who champion those who do, those who call sodomy “luv”
and support it…even those who by sin of omission never speak of these
evils to their flocks and so let them be catechized by the
world…well, we see corruption everywhere.
And
those who are preaching the Truths of the faith and who uphold morals
and speak about sin are persecuted and maligned. But Our Precious Lord
Himself told us that John 15:20″Remember
the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’
If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you… and James 4:4 You
adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means
enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the
world becomes an enemy of God.
It
is not a good sign when ‘the world’–the corrupt leaders and promoters
of evil–extol a person. It generally means that person has compromised
with the world or looked the other way or has come into line with the
immoralities of the world.
We know Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. And
even the ‘elect’ (the faithful) can be led astray as Our Lord also
warned us. We seem to have many wolves in shepherds clothing these
days.
“Maybe the pope is just trying to keep his enemies close to keep an eye on them!”
If this were a “choose-the-right-answer” test, I’d choose the above, but not without qualms. I know that anecdotals can’t conflate with the truth, but here are two examples, at least:
1. When the then San Francisco Archbishop Levada was appointed as prefect of the Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith, we SF Catholics had a fearful laugh-out-loud. He was the most gay-enabling, feminist-sympathizing, liturgy-abuse ignoring, “Renew”-heresy promoting prelate just a shade paler than his flaming liberal predecessor, Abp. Quinn.
But the moment Pope Benedict XVI appointed Levada to head the CDF, miracle of all miracles! – Levada became as faithful and courageous as can be expected of the chief defender of the Faith. We rejoiced when he became a cardinal.
2. Witness now the present CDF prefect, Cardinal Muller. When Pope Benedict XVI appointed him, he was a supporter of the condemned Liberation Theology. And just like with Levada, we were fearful of how he’d do as defender of the Faith.
Today Muller seems to be disinfecting Liberation Theology of its Marxism influence and working hard to baptizing it into Catholicism. It’s Muller now that the Pope has to contend with before issuing his controversial climate-change encyclical! The new rottweiller for the faith, God bless him!
A papal appointment may be the way to straighten out unorthodox churchmen, so let’s hope the same happen to this new appointment by Pope Francis. The thing about it, though, is that Francis is no Benedict XVI!
“Any openly dissident priest who advocates for Catholic acceptance of gay relationships and identity, women’s ordination, and the “Eucharistic” nature of sodomy — a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance — should not be given a platform of any kind. In a sane world, THEY would be disciplined.”
“THEY”? “THEY”?
In the English Language, the word needed there is “HE.”
Aggressive and public pedantry is uniquely distasteful.
I make mistakes. Feel free to send me a note next time. Use the contact button up above.
Since you didn’t, I’m going to leave it there. Just to annoy you.
I’m pleased to know that my comments were read. Both of them.
You’re welcome.
Lesbonics is a pet peeve.
In 2004, the American bishops voted for a document, “Catholics in Political Life,” in which it is said that a bishop may “legitimately” choose to give Communion to promoters of abortion. There’s a small problem with this: Giving Communion to these people IS A MORTAL SIN.
If you have any doubt about that proposition, cf. Cardinal Burke’s now-famous article on the subject:
http://tinyurl.com/canon915
What did the Vatican say in response? That the position adopted by the bishops was substantially consistent with what Cardinal Ratzinger had written to the bishops. (In the famous letter that Cardinal McCarrick concealed from the bishops while lying to them about Cardinal Ratzinger’s position.) Huh? The USCCB’s position flew in the face of what Cardinal Ratzinger had written!
As Pope, Benedict created Donald Wuerl and Raymond Burke Cardinals at the same Mass–one a proponent of giving Communion to pro-abortionists, one the most prominent opponent of this mortal sin. The message sent by the Pope? This disagreement is of no consequence. A “dispute among monks”?
The next Pope, Francis, degrades Burke and elevates Wuerl. He appoints Cupich and McElroy–both outspoken proponents of the mortal sin of giving Communion to pro-abortion people. Now comes the Radcliffe appointment. (And everyone knows there are many more below the radar.)
Giving Communion to adulterers and giving Communion to pro-abortionists are THE SAME ISSUE.
BOTH Benedict and Francis have led us to the “Kasper Proposal,” for the simple reason that, when it comes to giving Communion to obstinate public sinners, the SPECIES of the sin is absolutely immaterial. You CANNOT give Communion to pro-abortionists, but object to giving Communion to adulterers. Or Mafia dons. Or porn stars. Or gay couples. Or recipients of the Margaret Sanger Award. Or, as a matter of fact, abortionists.
Only about ten bishops in America, and a similar handful in Europe–and no Popes–have stood up against this rampant, public mortal sin which is eating the heart out of the Church.
This is not a contradiction according to the documents of Vatican II which created the Bishop’s Conferences and under the rule of “collegiality”, gave them authority to experiment and decide what went on in their dioceses. That the German bishops were the first to publicly declare that they have this right should not have caused the uproar it did if people had read the Vatican II documents.
So a bishop can allow Communion to pro-abortionist’s with a clear conscience.
Beyond that, even the bishop doesn’t seem to have much authority in his diocese when you consider the various and myriad abuses and goings-on in some parishes or he is simply extending this rule of collegiality to the priests and laypeople so they really do as they please.
Show me the sentence in the documents of Vatican II where the bishops’ conferences are authorized to give themselves permission to COMMIT MORTAL SIN.
Giving Communion to persons who are publicly known to be obstinately persisting in grave sin is itself a mortal sin because it is necessarily a cause of grave scandal, because tt betokens condonation of the grave sin.
The term “collegiality” does not mean “let chaos reign.”
I believe that falls under their “pastoral” preference, which seems to override any and all moral precepts. After all, isn’t the emphasis on God’s mercy and those old legalism of the Church had to be discarded in order to reach modern man?
This is simply one of the consequences of Vatican II’s implementation of Bishop’s Conferences and their desire to destroy the hierarchical nature of the Church through their new “collegiality” doctrine and popes Paul VI and John Paul II’s refusals to publicly act like the Successor of Peter (refusing to wear the Papal tiara, giving the papal ring away, no coronation but simply an installation, and Francis’s request to be simply called a bishop, for example) and the approval of all kinds of “experiments” within the dioceses could lead to nothing other than confusion, opposition by the dissenter’s to Church teachings, and a constant flux of “discussions” that lead to more confusion and dissent.
These acts opened the door to dissent, contradictions, and the absolute abuses the local priests and laypeople foist on the poor parishioners in Novus Ordo churches. With no absolute papal authority, giving the bishop’s complete control over their dioceses, and the delight of the bishops to fully utilize their new command to “experiment”, can it be at all surprising that no one can be certain any longer what the church teaches or believes?
Papal actions, not intent, must be criticized where necessary. The Michael Voris argument against such a policy makes no sense. While Michael vigorously and constantly calls out Bishops, our dear Pope, the Bishop’s leader, is given immunity. It particularly makes no sense especially when one can make critical remarks about the Pope in the comment section following each day’s Church Militant TV Vortex as I have done myself and many others have also. Publishing these comments belies and undermines Michael policy of Papal immunity.
I hope Eric Sammons agrees to provide guidelines for Papal criticism.
….perhaps it is because you didn’t mention the SSPX or the Remnant or now Fr. Clovis that your papal criticism didn’t get tagged. Having dealt with countless “moderators”, I cannot help but attribute their position to programming not logic. For when one points out any disconnect in a point of logic, then the “we support the Pope” and all manner of name calling ensues. Including the use of capital letters.
What comes with participation in Christ’s prophetic office:
Cue venom-spewing attack from Mark Shea in 3…2…1….
Really, I think you have to write his name three times in a thread for him to appear.
But I’ll be waiting for the pox on all our houses and the accusations that we are schismatics, ungrateful for the gift of the Eucharist, undermining the Faith, etc…
Since the proliferation of widespread use of the Internet and 24/7 news outlets, and considering the fact the majority of the media are not supporters of Catholicism, one would hope the Vicar of Christ would be more discerning in what he said and did in public.
My policy is such: I love the pope. He is my papa. I love my biological father, too. But that doesn’t mean I agree with him or am proud of everything he does or says. To the best extent possible, I was obedient to him, in spite of his faults. The same goes here: It’s not impossible to love Papa Francesco as an obedient son, and at the same time be greatly disappointed, and sometimes angry, about the way he runs the household. That’s the balance between remaining in the barque and jumping overboard and into the maelstrom. God gave us Francis to be our papa right now. Out of obedience to God, I have to do my best to form my conscience to the teachings of the pope. But when those teachings and activities go far astray of what we know to be in the tradition of faith and doctrine, we can conscientiously object, remain faithful to the Church, and still love the Holy Father. There’s a lot of people saying, “well, you’re no different than the people that ignored Humana Vitae!” False. What Paul VI taught in Humana Vitae was in the sensus fidei for centuries upon centuries. Bowing to the UN secretary, preaching radical ecumenism, attacking marriage, celebrating liberation theology pioneers, and turning junk science into some kind of theological crusade is just whacked. I love the Holy Father. But I also love him enough to know his faults. I pray for him every day.
Anyone may correct me, but while I was watching the results of the papal election on EWTN I remember quite specifically that Colleen Carroll, as the voice of EWTN said to remember that the election of a pope is not the work of the Holy Spirit but of men choosing someone they feel is the best man to be pope. Why is there this huge disagreement amongst Catholics? There are strong indications that there was pre-election pressure for some of the cardinals to vote for Bergoglio and that he had nearly won in the election of Pope Benedict XVI. I wish there were some way to get at the root of this. As it is, everyone keeps saying he was chosen by God. These cardinals all have free will and there were some who may have had a specific agenda not relying on the will of God. I’m not trying to cause scandal but am sincerely in need of some answers. I truly felt Pope Benedict was my papa, and I love him dearly. I have tried to love this new pope, but as I’ve said before, it’s as though there were a cuckoo bird who has taken over the nest. How I wish I didn’t feel this way. Love is an act of the will, I know, but…
I just wanted to remind all to keep faith. The Pope ‘is’ Peter, the Vicar of Christ. Christ’s promises cannot fail, any more than God can cease to exist. Calm down, the Lord God is in control of all things. He knows the Pope’s heart, intentions, and everything he will do. The Pope cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals if and when he makes it clear that he is intending to teach something infallibly. If He intends to, then…let’s just say that, as I believe has happened several times in the past, we’d have to elect another Supreme Pontiff. Keep close to the Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Our faith lies in Him and His promises. I know things ‘look’ bad, but that’s all the more reason to keep hope and exercise faith. It’s easy to do when things ‘seem’ to going well (or at least better), like under BXVI, but harder to do today. If the happenings in Rome and the Pope’s remarks on this or that constantly upset you spiritually, then don’t go looking every single day to see “what the Pope has done/said now”. That’s not to say everyone should just turn a blind eye. Not at all, but if necessary…it works for me anyway. I gather enough information by clicking on one or two ‘certain’ links on New Advent once in a while. It depends on the person. What can I ‘really’ do about the situation anyway? Pray, that’s it, and in fact, there’s nothing more beneficial that I ‘can’ do.
Remain in the Barque of Peter. Abandoning his Barque is abandoning Jesus, and “there is no salvation outside the Church” for such a one, since he has left his only Savior. Just think of the many, many times in our past when things were going badly, and even worse than now, with rampant heresies, horrible and bloody persecutions, and with sin and corruption infecting large swaths of the clergy. Did the laity have it any easier during these times? No. But those who kept the faith and persevered were most pleasing to God and were saved; those who despaired, jumped ship, and abandoned the Sacraments did not, since, again, “there is no salvation outside the Church.” The Church survived, as She must, being the Bride of Christ. Through every century of the Church, just as now, countless numbers of the laity have been enmired in “sin and corruption” as well. You just don’t read about them in history books. The clergy are human just like us – yes, it is true, we hold them to higher standards and God gives them special graces to be good and brave shepherds, but they remain fallible and sinful humans.
Just to point it out, I have said nothing regarding the rightness or wrongness of criticizing the Holy Father. I believe Mr. Skojec has already done an admirable job in discussing the matter.
Above all, pray for our Pope, those around him, and for our bishops.
Giving the benefit of the doubt is something we should give to our brothers and sisters as well. That is why knee-jerk assumptions that fellow Catholics are criticizing papal actions with a mindset to foment desertion from the Faith – or do not have Faith or are weak in the Faith – is wholly unjustified – not that that is what you are doing.
So let’s be strong in the Faith and truly put our Faith in Christ. And as grace builds upon nature, it is entirely possible that these types of discussions are what God will use to bring about the resurgence of actual “Catholic” Faith within the Church. That is the belief in what the Church actually teaches and not the increasingly narrow thread that following dangerous policies is the only proof of fidelity.
Umm…so we agree?
“Just to point it out, I have said nothing regarding the rightness or
wrongness of criticizing the Holy Father. I believe Mr. Skojec has
already done an admirable job in discussing the matter. Even so, the
Pope deserves our love, respect, and obedience. He deserves it because
God demands it. But “love, respect, and obedience” does not equate to
agreeing with everything he says, nor to not expressing criticism in
certain circumstances if necessary. However ‘everything’ he says on
matters of faith and morals, but not infallibly, should be taken very
seriously and weighed and evaluated carefully using a well-formed
conscience, giving him the benefit of the doubt when things are not
totally clear.”
I’m glad that you agree that it is precisely keeping the Faith that leads one to look and speak honestly about the disconnect at the highest levels between Church hierarchy and what the Church actually teaches.
It is fear and looking only to the Pope and the hierarchy, not cleaving to the actual Faith and the just expectation that leadership does also, in my view, that leads to one’s potentially deserting the Church.
The way I look at it is this …Francis is the Pope of the Country of The Vatican. He is a head of state and operates like a head of state. He is political. He gives speeches, he kisses babies, he tells the world his world view and that he has answers for farmers, corporations, other Churches, families, dioceses, educators, how to “live and let live. He has answers about the economy, world-markets, immigration reforms, health care, how US and Cuba should establish relations. His aim is to bring peace to the world. Well, as we well know, Jesus said I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Francis is a geopolitician. Meanwhile Pope Benedict is praying on that mountain everyday for his Church. He is using the spiritual power God gave him. He is demonstrating that above all else, prayer is most important. It is up to the priests, the bishops and faithful to get down on theirs knees and ask the Lord to have mercy and intervene. Their role is spiritual, not political. Pope Benedict is the Successor of St. Peter. And instead of counting on man-made strategies, he is showing us the only way out of this is through prayer – The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Rosary…not the printing of another encyclical, not the issuing of speeches, not brokering deals with the UN. It is prayer. So… no, the gates of hell will not prevail because we have Peter in Rome, climbing that mountain, praying for us everyday.
Excellent commentary….
It doesn’t take a Theologian to parse through the words and actions emanating from Rome, the Pope and others in high office to determine that many times they are at odds with what has been taught prior to the past 50 years or so. At the same time we lament to our friends or write on our blogs of the incredulity – and pain – we must endure, we also continue to pray for the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops to be True Shepherds and defend the Faith of 2,000 years. The Faith that Christ brought to Earth to save many; not the faith of man being designed and constantly redesigned to save all men. It is clear that the Church has charted a course to become friends with the world, no longer content to remain just friendly in order to pursue its Christ-mandated mission – conversion of all men to the One True Faith.
Yes, we must “resist them to the face”, always and everywhere, if for no other reason than basic Catholic charity. But as you rightly pointed out, there is also the instructing of the ignorant and counseling of the doubtful, as if those in Rome are either. If someone preaches other than that of which we have always been taught, aren’t we to treat them as anathema, until they remember the Truth?
Pray, pray, pray…for the Holy Father, the Cardinals and Bishops! Never fear to correct them in fraternal charity, but also never fear to remind them of the Truth of the past 2,000 years. More importantly, remind them of Christ’s own words as written in the Bible by their predecessors, who heard them from Our Lord’s own lips.
Remember the TARP program?
Maybe what we have here is the ecclesiastical equivalent of the TRAP program only this is the T toxic Assets Repossesed by the Pope program in which the Pope has identified toxic assets which liberals fear had fallen to dangerously low levels of novel illiquidity during the previous papacy and in restoring them to the economy of salvation, he hopes to stabilise the situation.
When the going gets weird, the layman goes wiseass.
Look, we are screwed and we had better understand that we have been abandoned a long time ago and, as the enemy of New Church, we are proof that the old adage of keeping your enemies close has been long ago vitiated as a viable idea and now only exists as a bit of self-soothing to try and rationalise the indefensible.
That the gates of hell will not prevail refers solely to the Holy See of Peter, not the church throughout the world, and any sentient man can see the church does not exist in America in the form it one did; sure, one can find valid sacraments etc but, as an institution it does not exist.
Vatican I teaches that Jesus exercises His judgment through the Pope and if a Pope refuses to judge, then Jesus has been rendered silent.
So, what can one man do except try to enjoy his life and try to save his soul…
O, and incrementally advance the time for cocktails.
To criticize another, while insisting on exemption from criticism for oneself, is unmitigated narcissism.
Thank you so much, Steve, for this excellent article. In the days to come, I will refer to it and promote it on my own blog.
You know, once, I tried to discuss the corruption of a few cardinals with one of my fellow parishoners. I was focusing on the most blatant example at the time: Cardinal Dolan of New York. I was referring to his flirtations with sodomy approval, and I specifically tried to discuss his unCatholic actions at the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day parade in Manhattan.
But before I could even BEGIN to go into any depth of this man’s policies and public statements, she shut me down immediately. Before I could speak a single sentence, she said: “Now now, I don’t want to hear a single thing about this prince of the Church. He is our leader, our spiritual father, and he deserves our respect. So don’t dare tell me anything bad about this man of God.”
You are so right when you explain how these people pretend that there is not even a problem. Such people are SO COMPLETELY out of touch with what is going on in our Church hierarchy, that once they are finally confronted with the fact that a priest equates gay rectal sex with the Eucharist–such people will be speechless and unlikely to know what to even think. In the face of such corruption, such delicate people could potentially lose their faith.
I believe that John Milton called such a shut-in mentality “a cloistered virtue.”
CCC: ” 907 In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess,
[lay people] have the right and even at times a duty
to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church,
and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful,
with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors,
and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.”
(Also in the Code of Canon Law: # 212.3)
The best way to insure that people know the TRUTH is to ask them to read a Catholic Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” of 1997 at home.
It is not always necessary to directly contradict the Pope.
Merely “quote” Jesus or the Doctrine of the Faith as stated in the CCC as appropriate.
The truth will speak for itself.
Promote the reading of a Catholic Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” of 1997.
All who read these will know when high ranking Clergy are acting according to the teachings of Christ and the Doctrine of the Faith – – or are wolves in sheeps’ clothing.
…what you propose, MIKE, is a good beginning, but studying the Faith as it was taught/understood prior to VII is necessary to get a thorough grasp of today’s situation. This is how many faithful are coming to understand more clearly that there are decided issues to be had with certain VII documents.
Wolves in sheeps’ clothing is the word.
The goal is not to overwhelm or confuse the majority who are uncatechised, or partially uncatechised.
The goal is to get ALL literate persons to read a Catholic Bible and the CCC – 2nd ed., so they will know the Doctrine of the Faith and why.
All other reading is secondary, after these have been digested.
Btw – there are heretics on the far right as well as the far left.
You may find it overwhelming, MIKE, but the goal for Catholics should be to educate thoroughly. Remember, we are speaking of literate Catholics.
That is why I said that your suggestions were a great beginning. ALL literate Catholics need to understand the Faith, all of it. So understanding what came before that which is questionable is necessary…. not secondary. Especially when those questionable areas present an integral part to the present day disconnects.
When properly understood, the materials you deign secondary are precisely what illuminates the who, what, where, when, etc of what makes actual heresy – on the left or right – not just what one believes from a limited perspective. Without that understanding/education there is a lot of mud slinging that would simply vanish with thorough education.
Steve has a great article from a few days back regarding VII documents that merits a read all around.
False.
The two most important Books in the Catholic Faith are the Bible and CCC.
* * * * * * How many baptized Catholics do you know who have read both from cover to cover ?
The mud slinging would stop if people read these and adhered to them.
Both the Bible and CCC are necessary to help people get to Heaven.
This must be the goal.
All other reading is secondary.
….and yet adult Catholics are required to go beyond rudimentary reading. Otherwise, they become idealogues with no understanding of even their own Catholic patrimony.
This is why those Catholics who seek to teach others and/or to share the Faith with those outside it need to do more than the basics.
I would hate to raise up a generation of seemingly “educated” Catholics who would venture out into the world only to be tripped up by those who know more about Catholicism than they do. That is why all “literate” Catholics should begin with scripture and the CCC and then venture forward to a complete education so that they will not present themselves as ignorant.
Willful, pedantic ignorance is no good witness. Much like the slinging of sacrilege is no tool to keep folks from examining that which is public record. (VII documents are not on the forbidden book list.)
Apparently you have not read both the Bible and CCC from cover to cover.
The footnotes in the CCC take one back to all the pertinent Church Documentation (documentation which can be found on the Vatican web site).
All the Church Councils from the beginning, etc, etc, etc,
On the internet go to: “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.
Watch the short video by Dr. Hahn. And you will then know the truth about the CCC and its richness in the Faith and Truth.
Thank you for confirming my point. All the documents from all the Church Councils are important reading, MIKE, if one desires true understanding.
Try to see the similarity in messages, MIKE. Not everyone who has an interested in education is an adversary 🙂
No offense intended. But it is critical in these times to Save Souls – that as many as possible be encouraged to read both the Bible and CCC at home.
Taking anyone off point who has not read both of these completely – can mean they will get frustrated and read nothing.
There is always something new to learn and digest in the Bible and also in the CCC.
Based upon posts on various web sites, it is clear that the average Church going Catholic has not read the Bible and CCC in entirety. They do not know the Faith completely.
They can read the documents in the footnotes at their own pace – when and if interested.
….indeed there are heretics inside the Church. That is why these two books are necessary. But there are ways and means being incorporated by those inside the Church to facilitate their heresy under the heading of pastoral practice and/or inculturation that need to be understood.
Otherwise, many of the heretical practices will just be dismissed with a, but Father is doing it for “this” reason or “that” reason.
This is precisely how many abuses are allowed despite the letter writing campaigns of faithful and/or the “gentle” corrections given to Father. This can and does get very frustrating to say the least. But deeper knowledge, that is a full knowledge, will strengthen Catholics.
Thank you for your post.
False. Again, based upon your post I would guess that you have not read the CCC from cover to cover. You have no clue what you are talking about.
It is not just “basics”, and contains the ENTIRE Doctrine of the Faith – and gives the reasons for these teachings and where the teachings came from.
It is not Pastoral, Merciful, or Charitable to condone or approve the sins of anyone. And anyone reading the Bible and CCC would know this, and be in a position to correct errant Clergy.
Those who believe heretical Clergy have not read the CCC either.
Reading the Bible & CCC in entirety gives them the Truth so they will know when/if a Clergy is mistaken or preaching error,- (and needs correction using official Church documentation).
God bless you for guessing about others, MIKE. I’ll leave you to your argument and looking to Scott Hahn.
Your posts speak for themselves.
As well as all other posters including myself.
Reading or not reading the V II Docs is not going to help anyone get to Heaven.
That is why all the arguing is silly.
Further, many of the complaining posters have not read ALL 16
V II Docs in entirety either – based upon the errors in their posts. They merely repeat what they think others have told them.
The “complaining” posters as you call them are not complaining, MIKE. They are questioning for good reason. And while you rail against those who supposedly do nothing to fix anything, you dismiss the reality that the first steps to “fixing” anything is to read/digest, discern and then spread the word that Houston has a problem. That is why shouting down that necessary effort by way of name calling is counterproductive.
You are right, however, that Christ prayed in Jn 17:21 for unity. But that’s the catch, MIKE. Faith is a gift from God. (Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God.) That is why Christ prayed to the Father. Not to us. Jesus didn’t say to the Apostles, please answer my prayers. No.
We are not God and therefore “we” have no justification for changing or attempting to obfuscate and negate the truth that Christ died to give us. Our Lord told the Apostles to hand down what they had received. To have Faith, to live it, and to expect to be persecuted and even hated and killed because of it. We are to follow Christ. Not cover Him up in some places so as not to offend.
So while we should not put up roadblocks to true unity, which would be sinful, we cannot manufacture unity, MIKE. Not via capital letters, not via dumbing down the Faith (or seeking to underwhelm), not by hiding doctrine, not by calling bad good or being “pastoral” in place of truthful. And most certainly not by shooting the messenger just because it contradicts our comfort zone.
Certain aspects of VII, for all intents and purposes, appear to represent a break with the Deposit of Faith that was handed down. That is apparent to anyone who can read – so long as they understand what was handed down. This is why literate Catholics should be wholly educated. But even if they cannot read, the fruits are not there, MIKE, to give VII a pass.
So while there are portions of Vatican II documents that are fine – nobody is arguing that – that is not the point. It is the reality that certain documents represent novelty that is the issue. Much like an apple might look very appetizing. One could argue that the fruit is completely nutritious. And yet the core could hide a razor which would certainly damage whoever took a wide, indiscriminate bite. That, MIKE, is what needs to be understood by a greater portion of serious, believing Catholics. The “why” being so that they save their souls by keeping the Faith, as it was handed down, and give it to their children without the ambiguities that have already wreaked enough havoc.
Clearly you personally have not read the CCC in entirety (cover to cover) either or you would not state: – ” We are not God and therefore “we” have no justification for changing or attempting to obfuscate and negate the truth that Christ died to give us.” – This truth is in the Bible and CCC.
The Bible and CCC contain the truth.
If you want to understand the 5 or 6 sentences that need clarification in all of the VII Documents merely pay attention to the teaching of Bishop Athanasius Schneider. He is 100% accurate. It is very simple, and will take less than 15 minutes of anyone’s time. This is all you have to recommend. Not personal opinions of others that are in error.
He does not bad mouth V II itself.
If you cared about accuracy you would correct all the heretical posters who bad mouth all or most of VII.
They are so silly they blame bad Bishops and even bad Popes on Vatican II (1962-1965).
When in fact the worst Pope was Pope Alexander VI (Borgia) in 1492-1503. What are they going to blame his sins on ?
They drive readers from the Church with their rants against V II, pretending/lying that VII is the Source of Sin for most high ranking clergy.
God bless you, MIKE, for your efforts.
Your treatment of this topic is much appreciated. The analysis you provide is so perfectly articulated – to say much more would be an attempt to gild the lily. I wept on March 13 2013, knowing full well what was transpiring. It was in the wind the day Pope Benedict announced
his resignation. The heterodox have positioned an individual in the Chair of Peter who will eviscerate the authority of the office to such a point that the crisis we are in today will be looked back upon with nostalgia. To prevent this all we have is the voice of the laity. The clergy and religious either applaud this tragedy or are bound by fear to be still. Amongst the laity the low-info
and nominal looking for a pass will ride this horse. The destination will not be pleasant. Speak boldly to your confessors. They must hear of the interior discontent this Pope engenders in the consciences of the faithful, struggling to be faithful to Jesus Christ and the Magisterium of his bride, the Church.
Cf.
Revolution in Tiara and Cope: A History of Church Infiltration, Brian Miles April 15, 2015 | 1P5.
Just to end the sspx exchange.
See for your own self
Google – http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/blefevbre.htl
and see that a he had once been an archbishop of Dakar but then was demoted – I mean, when one goes from Archbishop to Bishop emeritus and head of a Titular See (do you know at a Titular See is ?) there is no other way to see that than as a demotion in rank.
He had no Jurisdiction; pastoral power over souls and, thus, he had no power or authority to delegate.
As to the sspx and their illicit, sacrilegious, and criminal activities, google
Ad Apostolorum Principis
and read # 40 and # 41 and learn what Tradition really teaches about these miserable miscreants
“… Is he the reason Fellay so savagely turned on Williamson?”
This line is peculiarly interesting. Are you a follower of Bishop Williamson, Mighty Joe? That would explain quite clearly your adamant attempt to defame without accuracy and/or proper authority. If you truly followed Pope Francis, and were loyal in the particulars that you demand of others (however erroneous those demands may be), you would follow suit.
Methinks you have revealed your true self.
Savagely indeed. You are little more than a useful tool. An agitator bent on disinformation. But your belt is obviously lacking as your only reply to Steve’s even handed and bipartisan analysis is to call names.
Thank you so much for posting.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/blefevbre.html
If you want to have some fun, google
Ms. Cornaz + Maurice Pinay
and read about how a fake mystic duped him into believing he was a chosen one.
Yes, let’s have him as our authority for nothing signifies Tradition as having its putative champion susceptible to fall prophets
OK, enough fun for awhile
Cf. Quotes Suitable for Framing: Saint Augustine | The American Catholic.
My confessor told me to stop reading things the Pope says. “There’s nothing you can do about it (his words) anyway.” But this is becoming extremely difficult.
So, the Church militant will retain the sensus fidelius, and if we do not, no one will. I think, in the end, my confessor is right. It matters less whether we criticize the Pope and his words or the Vatican, and more that we follow and speak proper doctrine without confusion ourselves. Keep saying marriage is forever, between one man and one woman. Keep saying that liturgical continuity to the Church pre Vat II makes us holier. Keep saying we need to stop the grinding material poverty some of our brethren face, and that comes from a well tended modern democratic capitalist system of moral individuals. Keep saying that Christians are being murdered for their faith. The rest of the theological arguments of why this or that historical tendency of the Church or whatever is not where most of us should put our effort.
Since when have ‘gates’ ever attacked? I think a better understanding of ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail’ is where the Church is on the offensive against evil. That is: we come to the ‘gates’ and knock them down…they are overcome and do not prevail. So…I don’t believe Jesus, in this instance, was talking about evil attacking the Church.
Beautiful article! What CMTV is doing is very dangerous, not only it take away people the “Catholic Sense” but common sense as well. Can anyone say that the Pope did not know it is harmful to the Faith when the bishops voted down the agenda of giving communion to adulterers and by his authority over ruled the Bishops and kept it in the agenda? I was still a fan of Voris at that time when he was reporting back in 2014. And he gave his viewers the assurance that orthodox prevailed and the evil agenda was thrown out by the Synod Fathers. He did not report what Pope Francis did and I guess many his subscribers thought the Synod Fathers changed the voting rule. St. Alphonsus Liguori expounded on the Scriptures in which Our Lord “If you love your father, mother…more than Me you are not worthy of Me”. The Saint said “father” not only applies to biological father but also spiritual father, such as priest, bishop and pope. May God bless your apostolate we need more Catholics like you to speak the truth in this time of great apostasy.
Thank you. Finally clear. I have had enough with CM making me feel like a bad Catholic. They won’t acknowledge Canon law 212. And how are we suppose to privately question the Pope’s actions when he is confusing the faithful? Stupid.
God help us.
Thank you. I have now switch to being a member of your site. I thought I was a bad Catholic when saying anything about the Pope that I was upset with a CM.
God help us!
It’s a challenging and confusing time to be a Catholic. But also an exciting one! Glad to have you.
Is there a Canon law that that permits this? Elaborating and explaining is one thing, but bear in mind that the opposition can do an equally good job of defending their position. It doesn’t matter if you cite the example of St.Paul chastising Peter. We are all familiar with that story bud. Quit preaching eloquently to the choir and instead give us a life jacket. You can’t argue when it’s right there in black and white, unambiguous, clear and concise. Otherwise you’re blowing hot air brother and wasting all our time. If you want to help us out give us the Canon Law permitting the Laity to criticize the Pope. That would really help us bro, because even Atheists are citing our Holy Father now famous, ‘who am I to judge.’ Funny how the words of the Pope is now being used as a baseball bat to hit orthodox Catholics over the head with. Of course we far too obsessed with abortion, gays and birth control so says our Holy Father. How foolish of us to think those topics were important.