All the attempts that have been made to address the severe problems posed by the synods on marriage and the family and the post-synodal apostolic exhortation have been completely ignored by Rome.
But with the advent of the “Four Cardinals Letter” and Cardinal Burke’s subsequent — and extremely significant — explanatory interview, it seems that the closest allies of Pope Francis are closing ranks and circling the wagons.
In a series of seemingly unrelated moves, we are seeing strong reactions against the faithful Catholic resistance.
Fr. Antonio Spadaro — “the pope’s mouthpiece” — tweeted:
#AmorisLaetitia: The Pope has “clarified”. Those who don’t like what they hear pretend not to hear it! Just read…
The offending tweet appears now to have been deleted. In its place were two others. This:
#AmorisLaetitia is an act of the Magisterium (card. Schönborn) so don’t keep asking the same question until you get the answer *you* want… pic.twitter.com/A9NGhELryE
— Antonio Spadaro (@antoniospadaro) November 15, 2016
And this:
«Amoris Laetitia es obviamente un acto de magisterio». Mi conversación con el… https://t.co/GKznVhkqlb pic.twitter.com/44n1gYhm5L
— Antonio Spadaro (@antoniospadaro) November 15, 2016
The second tweet links to a partial transcript of Fr. Spadaro’s “conversation” with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn about Amoris Laetitia, in which the Viennese cardinal — tasked by Pope Francis with the official interpretation of AL — famously said, “It is obvious that this is an act of the magisterium: it is an Apostolic Exhortation.”
The thin-skinned Fr. Spadaro has since blocked me for my own response to him:
You oppose Christ. And so, however much power you may have at the moment, you will fail. You cannot win. https://t.co/FcRHWlckr9
— Steve Skojec (@SteveSkojec) November 15, 2016
I’m afraid in this matter, I’m unable to be a journalist. I’m a partisan.
Elsewhere, Cardinal-elect Cupich of Chicago, when asked about bishops distancing themselves from Francis and his vision for the Church, responded:
Surely, there are some who are struggling with the vision offered by the pope, and, yes, sadly, there are some who are opposed to him and do not like him, as Cardinal Wuerl said. I use the word sadly, not in terms of it being sad for the pope, but for those who oppose him or working against him because in reality they lack an understanding of what it means to be a bishop in the Catholic Church.
At Rorate Caeli, we are treated to a partial translation of a blog post by Vaticanista Sandro Magister, who has uncovered an Orwellian attempt to monitor Catholic professors who do not toe the line on Amoris Laetitia:
Sandro Magister reveals it today in his personal blog, and calls it a “Sodalitium Franciscanum“, in reference to the “Sodalitium Pianum” (SP) St. Pius X supposedly established as an underground network to find Modernists infiltrated in the Church. The main difference, of course, is that the supposed “SP” tried to do a good thing (that is, avoid the spread of errors and novelties that attempted against the Faith and Morals the Church has always professed), while the Pope’s new Banana-Gestapo (like the actual Gestapo or the KGB) tries to do a bad thing: expel from Catholic institutions those who simply want to teach Catholic Faith and Morals as the Church has always taught them — and warns all that they are being monitored secretly in their classrooms in order to toe the new pro-adultery and pro-cohabitation line.
Magister transcribes the letter received by faculty in the Pontifical Institute John Paul II for Studies on Marriage and the Family (linked to the Lateran University). The threats contained in it are not hollow, because Francis himself intervened earlier this year to completely subject the board of the Institute to HIS new view of marriage (as opposed to Jesus Christ’s and John Paul II’s), putting strong henchmen in their place. Men who would not mind following orders, even if absurd.
And in Germany, Cardinal Lehman — a long time dissenter from Catholic teaching and vocal proponent of Pope Francis — says that now is the time to accomplish the agenda he favors — because Francis will allow it:
Liberal-minded Cardinal Karl Lehmann is urging his fellow German bishops to change Church discipline quickly while Francis is still Pope.
In an interview with German website katholisch.de, he pressed the bishops to use the “freedom that has been granted by the Pope.”
“Francis wants us to explore new paths. Sometimes you don’t have to wait until the large tanker begins to move,” he added, alluding to the alleged slowness of the Curia in making changes, an attack often uttered by German liberal churchmen.
The remark was geared toward the discussion of the possibility for admitting divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to Communion.
[…]
Lehmann strongly opposes Humanae Vitae and is one of the signatories of the “Königsteiner Erklärung.” He has continuously supported the promotion of admitting “remarried” divorced Catholics to the Eucharist, according to his own account. He also supports the German bishops’ refusal to accept St. John Paul’s admonishment of the “Beratungsscheine,” counseling certificates that allow women in Germany to undergo legal abortion.
In this most recent interview with katholisches.de, Lehmann also supported abolishing celibacy for clergy on the basis of an alleged lack of priests. “What actually hinders us from ordaining married permanent deacons, who do a great service to the Church, so that they may also take on priestly services?”
I’ve already written that the schism is here, just not fully developed yet. These movements both for and against Christ’s teaching within the highest echelons of Church power are indicative that the pace of the split in the Church is accelerating.
If you haven’t started praying that God rescue and reform His Church — and for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart — now is a good time to start.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
The more this absurdity plays out, the less it becomes about a heretical pope and more about a whore we call holy mother church. This is what I don’t understand, how can such a spotless Bride whose archetype was the Virgin Mary herself be so impure and worldly in her universal teachings on faith and morals? Can anyone give me an instance in Church history where the Church of Christ taught something in error to the Universal Church via the Infallible Ordinary Magisterium? I have seen instances of “heretical” popes who personally believed or said something in error but it is my understanding that there is no instance of the Church promulgating error to the Universal Church concerning faith and morals. Was there? Errors in fact have happened, I know, but that is not in the realm of faith and morals. Can someone please direct me to an instance of this if there is one?
michael
Cardinal Humbert split the Rock almost a millennium ago, and the Western Churches have been in heresy ever since. The Roman Pontiff, a lieutenant Messiah, an Antichrist, have been in error ever since, especially with the Filioque and unsupportable Papal Supremacy.
The Eastern Orthodox have been allowing the divorced and remarried to receive communion for awhile now. In fact, they allow persons to have two divorces and remarriages. They also allow couples to use artificial contraception. We, as Roman Catholics, don’t believe that’s right and proper, as divorce goes against Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the teachings of His Holy Catholic Church.
The Eastern Orthodox are in schism. All of the bishops including St. Paul, acknowledged the primacy of St. Peter. (This is why St. Paul had to convince St. Peter to allow Gentiles–he knew it would be a precedent for the whole Church.) The One True Church always endures, even despite bad popes.
Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox in 1968 while in a meeting with Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras. They maintain valid Apostolic Succession and have valid sacraments including Holy Orders- deacons, priests, and bishops. Additionally, Orthodox may receive the sacraments at any Roman Catholic church validly, and vice-versa for Roman Catholics if extenuating circumstances exist.
Please study Church history and development of the Churches in the East and West. Complicated issues remain. We must continue to pray that the Holy Spirit will unite the Orthodox and the Catholic Church as one again in all matters.
What exactly were you correcting? Are you denying that the Eastern Orthodox are in schism?
Why would you suggest I don’t know that we view them to have valid apostolic succession and thus their Sacraments to be valid?
I cross myself when I pass the altar at an Eastern Orthodox church. None of this changes the fact that they’re in schism.
Who taught all of you guys that humility and cowardice are the same thing?
I am not denying anything. The reality is that the mutual excommunications were lifted and remain so. Rome for quite some time now (I cannot speak for the current pope) has been dialoging at a very high level to work out language which is acceptable to both sides regarding issues on papal infallibility, etc.
Does any of this change the fact that the Eastern Orthodox remain in schism? Let’s all pray that they overcome their pride and acknowledge God’s vicar on Earth. It’s clear in the Bible, based on the keys to the kingdom, that God is giving St. Peter authority.
You won’t answer the schism question. I think false ecumenism might be a problem.
The LAST thing the Body of Christ requires is the absorption of the schismatics heretics of the east.
They must repent of their many heresies first
Schisms always have declared the Church to be heretical – it maintains the schism!
It is the so-called “Orthodox” churches who exist in a state of permanent heresy – preferring the dictates of the Emperor Justinian on divorce to the doctrine of Christ Himself. Bergoglio is simply embracing your heresy. Perhaps you would like to have him once he has been anathematized.
Only Peter was given the Keys. It is in all of the better bibles.
O, and the schismatics of the east – the seedbed of heresies and iconoclasm – and Filioque was inserted by the Pope against your heresy
Why do you guys allow contraception? Don’t you know that this evil practice in your Fake church DISMANTLES THE MECHANISM that joins the body and soul composite together. The man or woman who uses contraception desecrates God’s fertility system.
What do you say about that, Jack?
Contraception stops God Himself? That’s an innovation worthy of being as erroneous as the Immaculate Conception, but not quite as much as the Filioque or Papal Supremacy.
“That’s an innovation worthy of being as erroneous as the Immaculate Conception”
Oh my goodness you just don’t read the Bible! Hahaha, a heretic is lecturing me. That is funny material! Why don’t you open the Bible once in a while and learn how read?
Here are two verses just for you? Now repent before Satan takes you to hell with your contraception! Did you know that Jesus is the Eternal WISDOM?
“But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God , and the WISDOM of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:24
For WISDOM will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.” – Wisdom 1:4
There you go…. Scriptures support for to the Immaculate Conception. But I don’t expect a Protestant to comprehend this. They are too busy using RUBBERS to being reading the Scriptures! HA!
That AL = Infallible Ordinary Magisterium
*
Is erreoneous, thus you are beginning with a false premise. Don’t take my word for it, so says a papal surrogate in L’Osservatore Romano – http://wp.me/p2Na5H-Mf
I noticed you did not provide an example I was looking for. And who said I was speaking about AL. I was thinking more of Vatican II teachings.
My understanding is: Ordinary Magisterium + universallity + faith or morals + proposition + papal authority = infallible. Antiquity or conformity with the past is not needed and neither is an anathema. A threat of punishment for non-conformity has nothing to do with something being true or false.
Vatican II at no point intended itself to be infallible as it never made any definitive doctrinal statements. It is a large bunch of pastoral directives and guidelines. Anywhere that doctrine is stated is not intended to define said doctrine, only to state it. That is a key distinction. Also, ecumenical councils are an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium.
As I understand it, the Ordinary Magisterium is only infallible when the Pope defines something the Church has always believed… an example being when JPII settled once and for all the matter of female priests. It was always believed, but only then defined.
Did you read Paul 6 when he closed the council? Sounds pretty binding and magesterial to me.
So are you saying that Vatican II is binding on all Catholics or are you saying you don’t believe Paul VI was a valid pope thus fully accepting the error of sedevacantism? I can’t tell.
If Paul 6 was Pope and Vatican 2 taught Truth, then all Catholics would be bound. Obviously, that didnt happen. And your assumption that sedevactism is an error is false. Everytime the Pope dies, the seat is empty. There is no time limit on when it must be filled. Who fills the seat or does not fill the seat it is a matter of opinion not faith. No one is damned because they are confused as to who holds or doesnt hold the office.
Sedevacantism, as I used it, is the belief that there have been no valid popes since Pius XII and that, starting with John XXIII they have all been heretics and thus have either deposed themselves (John) or were heretics upon election (Paul VI and on) and thus were never validly elected. This is an error that depends upon ultramontanism. I am of course aware that when a pope dies there is a sede vacante. But the idea that we’ve had 6 anti-popes in a row is false. There’s not enough evidence to support that. The error also holds that the Novus Ordo Mass, AS WELL AS all the sacraments administered in the new rite are invalid, including priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations. Do you know how few remaining valid bishops there are that means? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t add up to the gates of hell not prevailing… the number is very slim.
I’m not going to go any further with this conversation. You are spreading error, you have been corrected numerous times, and you refuse to amend your words and beliefs. As I have said, you are dangerously close to schism. Pray. Repent.
You’re in very serious danger of the ban hammer. The only thing holding me back is the productive discussion that has arisen to refute your position. Advocacy of sedevacantism is verboten here by the house rules.
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/comment-policy/
Practically every article you post, Steve, illustrates the sad state of the Church and the errors being taught by our so called shepards. What conclusion are people suppose to reach if they grew up believing their Church was indefectable? If we cant believe what our shepards are teaching us now why are we suppose to believe what they taught us before? I was a happy Novus Ordo guy up until a few years ago. Its sites like yours that showed me the true errors being taught. Errors so grave that they cannot possibly be from true shepards. Ban me if you must, but thank you for helping me open my eyes to the great apostasy of the concilior church.
What conclusion are people suppose to reach if they grew up believing their Church was indefectable?
That it’s still indefectible.
If we cant believe what our shepards are teaching us now why are we suppose to believe what they taught us before?
I’m sorry that it has become complex and confusing. That’s a scandal and a shame. But just because we have a pope who isn’t a mature, adult Catholic doesn’t mean we get to not be.
Its sites like yours that showed me the true errors being taught.
I’m glad.
Errors so grave that they cannot possibly be from true shepards.
See, that’s where you’re wrong. Vatican I did everyone a grave disservice — a disservice Cardinal Newman warned about ahead of time — when it promulgated in eloquent and obsequious speech the doctrine of papal infallibility. Because most people struggle with reading comprehension when it comes to century-old texts, what eludes them is that Vatican I *never* stated that the pope could not err. It merely affirmed that he was infallible when teaching authoritatively on faith and morals.
For decades, sedevacantists have been laboring under the same false assumption as the post-conciliar, pro-Vatican II, Francis-can-do-no-wrong ultramontanists. Namely, that a pope is so carefully protected from error that he cannot but teach what is true and godly.
The post-conciliars react to a pope like Francis by finding the appropriate mental gymnastics to interpret him in an orthodox way. The sedes, recognizing that this is an exercise in futility, say that he simply can’t be pope. Both groups would have a far easier time if they recognized that popes can err, and that infallibility is a limited charism.
But that’s messy and ugly and complex, and people don’t like things that can’t be tied up in a neat little bow. So the conciliarists strap suicide vests to their credibility, and the sedes take their ball and pout and run home.
The mystery of inquity ain’t a mystery for nothing. We dealt with the reality that Jesus chose Judas. Why can’t we deal with this?
First of all, you use Cdl Newman to bolster your view. Newman was a convert as you know from Anglicanism which is a more virulent form of Gallicanism. It is the error of Gallicanism that produces the recognize and resist attitude. Now the opposite of Gallicanism is Ultramonatism (which you claim is an error without ever quoting an authoritative source). The issue of papal infailibity has been debated for centuries (that is why Siscoe and Salza can always find theologians to back their claims but again they can never find authoritative sources). This issue was definitively ruled on in Vatican 1 and other Papal teachings in the 19th Century. The Church took the Ultramonatist view and many Gallican books where soon placed on the Index of forbidden books. It is no surprise that the SSPX leans towards Gallicanism seeing its French origins. Lastly your notion that things are messy and complex is simply your opinion. God does not teach confusion. Thomistic logic says that something either is or it isnt. Bergolio either is Pope or he is not. If he is, then you have no right to resist and must assent to his teachings. It is the resister crowd that sows confusion. At least the conciliorists are clear in their believe of evolving truths, they are not confused at all and neither are the sedevacantists. The line is drawn and you are stuck in no mans land with your contradictions. It is either the True Faith or the concilior faith.
There seem to be a lot of sedes around lately…
St Vincent Ferrer mistakenly backed an antipope with all his heart.
I have heard that too. It confirms my point that sedevacantists are not excommunicated or damned or in danger of hell because of their position on the status of the occupant of the Chair of Peter. I will again reiterate an important point, if one believes the Chair is empty, then one should continue with the Faith until one is convinced that a true Pope is elected. If one believes that there is a valid Pope, then one should assent to his teachings on faith and morals, be a loyal loving subject, and stop being giddy over the fact that there may be a forthcoming palace coup.
That’s it. Regardless of what one thinks of the current man heading the religion in Rome, and whether it posesses all the necessary Four Marks of the Church, one still has to keep the Faith, and go to the same Mass that we know for certain is the same one that was handed on through the ages.
I don’t “schismatise” myself (sever the visible bond of Charity) from Catholics of good will who think differently, as long as we hold and profess the same Catholic Faith which is binding forever.
Those myths to try to get the conciliar popes off the hook keeps going around the internet, but Deo gratias, so does the truth.
John XXIII on VII intending to be a proper council of the Church, whose commission is to TEACH.
“The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council, being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”
Paul VI closing the Council. The “it was only a pastoral council so it can get away with error and heresy” myth is dead in the water.
“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.”
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.
The Church cannot gather all the bishops under the Pope in a general council and NOT teach infallibly. Your question is a bit loaded. You could remove “the error of”. It is not an error to admit the possibility of a false claimant to the papacy, and therfore the impostor not having the charism of infallibility. To say that it can destroys the Papacy. It doesn’t defend it. There are many different ways to try to make sense of the crisis since VII. No one down here in the ground started this fight, nor asked for it.
He is saying the second, and so am I. It is not against the Faith to do so.
Vatican II teachings on faith and morals infallible as are ALL of the Church’s Teaching on faith & morals.
*
Now why would you bring up Vatican II teachings? What is the connection with this article?
Except it never, ever teaches on faith and morals in a definitive way. You and I have done this song and dance before though, so I’ll leave it there.
Let’s approach it this way: Before they were declared dogmas [= revealed truths which have been formally defined or proposed by the Church] were the truths Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, or even Papal Infallibility, taught in the Church [= doctrines] or not? And if yes, were they infallible or not before they were declared dogmas?
Of course they were true. But there was open, sometimes even vigorous debate about them. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas went back and forth a couple of times regarding the Immaculate Conception. Papal Infallibility was also a matter that had its proponents and detractors. And it was fine to debate those things. But after they were all declared ex cathedra or through the definitions of Church Councils, the debate was ended. Vatican II makes no formal declarations regarding matters of faith and morals, and Pope Paul VI, who ratified the constitutions that came forth from it, declared they did not make solemn (i.e. infallible) declarations on matters of doctrine. If the Pope has no intention of declaring something infallible then it’s not. And since he had no intention to do so with Vatican II and even affirmed the negative, meaning there are none, then it contains no mark of infallibility.
Indeed Jafin. Dietrich von Hilderbrand said as much about Vatican II that it was not binding as it may no solemn dogmatic definitions, issues no anathemas and defined no canons. The only parts of Vatican II that could be said to be infallible are parts that restate a previously defined dogma. Errors such as collegiality (condemned under the error of Gallicanism) religious freedom (condemned by Pius IX in Quanta Cura) and Ecumenism (condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos) are not binding.
It was a magesterial teaching and therefore could not teach error. But it did.
Question was not whether they were true but whether they were infallible.
Infallible means not false. If something is not false, in the context we’re using, then it is true. Therefore, in this case, “infallible” and “true” are interchangeable. Before the declarations though, they were NOT infallibly defined of course. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this though. How does this relate to V2? There were no dogmatic declarations or definitions made at V2 so I’m not following.
Sometimes it is a matter of language. (The following are links)
*
Infallible | Online Etymology Dictionary
True | Online Etymology Dictionary
*
All of the the revealed truths that the Church teaches are ALL of them infallible. Some of those truths have been formally defined or proposed by the Church. They were just as infaiible before they were formally defined or proposed by the Church as they are after the Church formally defined and proposed them.
*
To your point, formally defining or proposing by the Church is not what makes the revealed truth infallible, it is for the salvation souls e.g. shutting down theological thinking and debates that can result in conclusions contrary to the faith. It is the Church saying, “Faithful, you must believe this for the salvation of your souls.”
*sigh* Yes. This is something we agree on, and we have to because this is what the Church teaches. This is also what I’ve been saying. But the question remains: What does this have to do with Vatican II?
Vatican II [I did not bring VII in the comments here below this article, @disqus_kHRUYy5pZr did], as ecumenical council DID teach on faith and morals and “Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.” (My emphasis) – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
Ecumenical Councils are modeled after the Council of Jerusalem or Apostolic Council which was held in Jerusalem around 50 AD, which is unique among the ancient pre-ecumenical councils in that it is considered by Catholics and Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later Ecumenical Councils. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem
Not that there is a possibility of error in any of the organs of infallibility in the Church, but an Ecumenical Councils, to me at least, is the Magisterium [=Church’s Teaching Body] at its fullest.
1) I have commented elsewhere on what VII Council and the Pope of the Council Bl. Paul VI said as regards the authority and theological qualification the Council.
2) If Vatican II did not teach, why is there a disagreement between SSPX [and others of like thinking] and the Church? Pope Emeritus BXVI:
For you and others, VII not infallible because it was not dogmatic. For the Church, VII infallible in all she taught as regards faith and morals [=doctrine], because she has always taught those things. VII not dogmatic but doctrinal as far faith & morals are concerned.
What did it teach on faith and morals that the SSPX does not agree with?
You asked well, thank you. (The following is a link):
What should Catholics think of Vatican II? | SSPX
*
It should be readily apparent that SSPX is confusing the work of innovators post VII with the teachings of VII (cf. the 16 documents of VII). They also have some errors in understanding of their own.
*
Isn’t it amazing that those who make accusations about the council just repeat canards oft-found and broadcast from Trads/sedevacantist [and those of like thinking] circles without having a grasp of the issues?
So you are basically saying if they had a true understanding of VIi they would agree with it? They can’t distinguish between what the documents say and what innovators say? In other words they really do not disagree with it, they just think it says something it doesn’t?
SSPX speak for themselves [cf. the link I shared with you] and the Church disagrees with their position. You may want to reach out to them regarding why they hold the position they do.
“It should be readily apparent that SSPX is confusing the work of innovators post VII with the teachings of VII (cf. the 16 documents of VII). They also have some errors in understanding of their own.” What are these confusions and errors? The link you provided seems to admit that innovators used the documents ambiguity to their advantage. But anyway, I ask again, what doctrines that VII taught in regards to faith and morals do the SSPX reject?
From my comment above https://disqus.com/home/discussion/onepeterfive/a_rapidly_emerging_schism/#comment-3005900094
cf. http://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-should-catholics-think-of-vatican-ii-faq6
*
Conciliar Teaching vs. How SSPX views it (=
How interpreted by Rome[1])
You assert V2 taught infallibly, even though the Council Fathers did not intend it to at any point. Point out some things that it taught infallibly. I’m not talking about simply stating things that were infallibly defined elsewhere first, not simply matters of faith we all agree on (the resurrection for instance), but where the council exercised the Extraordinary Magisterium to authentically teach the faithful.
Also, as Jay asks, of these matters, what is it the SSPX disagrees with?
We are going around in circles. They did not define or propose anything definitively, i.e. define any dogma but all they taught, because the council DID, teach on faith and morals is infallible because that’s what they Church has always taught.
*
Let’s approach it this way you point out to me what in the 16 Vatican II documents taught error in matters of faith and morals. If there is no error, that’s the means they are infallible. That’s what infalible means.
*
So as not to spoon feed anyone, you and Jay can go over to SSPX website and there you will find their disagreements with VII.
*
I close by saying that I have shown that you were confused about what is infallible and what true is. I add that you are also confused about what doctrine is and what dogma is.
Here’s a great source for errors of Vatican II. It’s a good start. http://www.catholictreasures.com/articles/25errors.html
I actually hadn’t run across this until I wanted to find a good source to respond here. It’s a nice starting place.
I find it interesting, though, that when I ask you to present specific examples of where the council infallibly defined something, and you deflect by saying I should present areas where it taught error. I’ve done my part. You do yours. On what, and where, does the Second Vatican Council teach infallibly on faith and morals? Teaching something that is true does not make the statement infallible. For example I say:
“Christ rose from the dead.”
The above statement is true, no? Is my statement infallible? No. Why? Well, for one, I don’t possess the charism of infallibility. However if the pope were to say this, or an ecumenical council, it would not be infallible unless it intended to declare this divinely revealed and authoritatively teach it. Then it would be an infallible statement.
I believe you have things backwards, it is YOU who is confused over what infallible and true are. Infallible, without error. True, that which is. Also, we haven’t even touched on dogma and doctrine. Doctrine = that which the Church believes and teaches. Here it is:
“In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.”
This is what I have known and believed all along.
Now, I know that you didn’t introduce the matter of V2 in this, it started elsewhere, but you jumped in and decided to declare it taught infallibly. I also said that we have already done this little song and dance before and said I didn’t want to do it again, but you insisted and, in the interest of charity, decided to go along with it. So here we are. I would like to say that, even if I may come off as adversarial, that isn’t what I mean. We are Catholics interested in the truth and are debating an important matter, and such vigorous debate I think is good. This is indeed all in charity.
Now, as I requested, please tell me where and what Vatican II taught infallibly. Because I’ve shown you where it taught error.
Bishop Schneider has long-since called for a “Syllabus of Errors in Vatican II”. I don’t recall exactly how he’s approached the topic, but it’s hard to have a Syllabus of Errors if there are no errors.
errors of Vatican II … As I suspected …
*
If one Ecumenical Council has taught error, no reason to have faith in any of the remaning 20 + the Apostolic Council. It is either ALL Ecumenical Council under a pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals AS THE CHURCH TEACHES or they not.
Ok, you’re right. We ARE going around in circles… but that’s because you keep saying the same thing: V2 taught infallibly on faith and morals.
You have yet to show me where and on what the Council taught infallibly on faith and morals.
Sure, things that are true are indeed referred to in the Council documents, and, being that they’re true and not false, then yeah, I guess you could say they’re infallible… but there are no declarations of anything at all that is guarded by the charism of infallibility. Vatican II has many statements contained in its documents that directly contradict the preaching of previous pontiffs and councils. Being that one cannot logically violate the law of noncontradiction, then you run into some potential pitfalls.
1) Previous Popes and Councils were wrong.
2) Vatican 2 (in these areas) is wrong.
3) Vatican 2 was not an Ecumenical Council
4) The Catholic Church is not the true Church Christ established.
Take your pick. Two and 3 seem like the most likely areas. Perhaps it’s NOT an ecumenical council because, perhaps, the substance of a council has to be have an intention to define doctrine and since V2 was of a pastoral nature and did not define any doctrine that it did not meet the necessary requirements and thus was not. Since it is the only council of such a nature… well, I don’t have the necessary knowledge and certainly not the authority to determine that. It could have potentially just been a really big Synod. Again, I’m not sure, I don’t know enough and won’t make a decision. I personally usually just hold to 2, but these are your choices.
You still have to provide specific doctrines that were defined by Vatican II that fit the requirements for infallibility. You have not refuted the errors presented (there are 25 in the link with references to previous councils, popes, and right reason that refute the propositions). You are just making assertions. We’re all seeking the truth here, yes? I’m trying to help you investigate your own beliefs and see if it holds up. Vatican 2 being wrong does not refute other Councils, if that’s what you’re afraid of.
I also really don’t think you truly understand the church’s teachings regarding infallibility. Infallibility is a charism that is given to the Pope and it is by virtue of his infallibility that the bishops, in union with him, can teach infallibly. Infallibility is not a virtue of a truth. The truth is the truth. So, for example, the dogma if the Immaculate Conception isn’t infallible because it’s true. It’s simply the truth. The proclamation of the doctrine was infallible. The pope declared it infallibly, but he was only able to do so because it is true. If it was not true, he would not have been able to, because the Holy Spirit would prevent it. It is the utterance, the proclamation, that is infallible. The truths themselves are simply true.
I was preparing a longer response to demonstrate how impossible it is for the Church to teach error on matters of faith and morals but since we both agree we are going around in circles, I will leave you with this:
Cardinal Burke and three of his brother Bishops who are Cardinals have just demonstrated how sharp and astute they are. We also have Pope St. John Paul II the Great whom you acknowledge to be a saint, i.e. he was a holy man and in addition a philosopher of the highest caliber. Then we have his successor on the throne of Peter who is universally acknowledged as a theological heavyweight. You want to tell me that they all missed the errors of Vatican II?
Benedict XVI was theologically very progressive while liturgically conservative. He was a heavyweight but he came to some erroneous conclusions, especially in regards to VII (e.g. acknowledging heretical sects such as the Lutheran “church” as a legitimate church in his book Theological Highlights of Vatican II). John Paul II was a Council Father and so espoused many of the ideas that are false. His personal sanctity was not tempered by entirely orthodox doctrine (e.g. Assisi). Cardinal Burke has expressed issues with the current liturgical practice of the Church (Novus Ordo) and, at least in private to a seminarian/close friend if not publicly, that current Canon Law is not sufficient in certain areas. He likely understands errors there, but has not taken that to task. And Bishop Athanasius Schneider has expressed on numerous occasions a desire for a syllabus of errors, of sorts, for Vatican II. So, yes. I am indeed saying that they either a) missed the errors or they were aware but b) weren’t sure what to do or c) it was simply too difficult to address, for whatever reason(s).
You have to understand, you’re right… the Church cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals BUT the men in the Church, even heading the Church CAN. Such teaching is outside the Church and does not constitute the Church’s teaching. This is what we’re currently seeing with AL, which I know you see the errors of. It is an Apostolic Exhortation which, normally, is seen as a magisterial document. Of low authority compared to others, but still magisterial. Cardinal Burke has said it is NOT a magisterial document specifically because of the errors, not because of the kind of document.
fyi, I responded to your other post above as well. 🙂
@jonathanwabbaschwartzbauer for your sake and others of like thinking regarding TWENTY-FIVE EXPLICIT ERRORS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II (and the corrections immediately following) by Michael Malone | Catholic Treasures Books [http://www.catholictreasures.com/articles/25errors.html], may I suggest the following approach:
– Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html]
– Commentary on the Document: Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html]
The right way to seek clarification when in doubt as regards what the Church has taught [vs. an individual’s teaching like Pope Francis in AL] just as the 4 brave cardinals have very recently demonstrated.
Perhaps these responses have just clarified for you some of the supposed errors.
I will read the links you posted and get back to you. I’ll probably just edit this message, so keep an eye out for that.
EDIT:
I’ve read the documents. Those documents are insufficient to address all of the errors in Vatican II. In regards to, in particular, the third question, as regards the words “subsitit in,” the document is in error. Elements of sanctification and truth that may exist in the various ecclesial communities notwithstanding, these groups do are not subject to the Roman Pontiff (cf. Unam Sanctus) and thus are cut off from the true vine. Whatever elements may exist, it is “necessary for salvation that all men be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” While we always trust in the mercy of God, and never judge the soul of individuals, we also believe and profess the one true faith. And this is part of the one true faith, “Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus,” and the necessity of subjection to the Pope, as previously referenced. The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church, and the use of the term subsists, as it is used and has been explained, is in error.
Let me clarify something that probably hasn’t come across well. I don’t believe that the entirety of all of the documents in Vatican II are completely in error. Some areas seem to be more or less fine (I’d have to read it again, but, in its text, Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn’t seem too bad. Been awhile since I read it though.) Other areas, particularly Gaudium et Spes and most any reference to ecumenism, are rife with issues. Ecumenism, as described in Vatican II, and practiced by Pope John Paul II at Assisi and Pope Francis in Lund, has been condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.
I used to be like you. I used to believe that Vatican II was fine and that all of the problems have come from misinterpretations, and deliberate twisting of the words, the so called “spirit” of Vatican II. I believed that there was a huge misunderstanding or conspiracy or both, and that poor catechesis was to blame. But the more I dug, the more I learned, the less Vatican II could be made to fit the narrative I had woven to make it ok. It’s not all error, but there’s some error. I’ve listed error. A good spot is Chapter V of Lumen Gentium on the Universal Call to Holiness in the Church. That’s pretty good. But back in Chapter I, at LG 16, you’ve got the council fathers trying to tell us that Muslims worship the same God. If you know anything about Islam, they don’t believe in the same God, much less worship our God. And on top of it, that they worship WITH US. They most definitely do not. So, you have things that are good and things that are bad so close together, that it’s difficult to separate.
If you’ve got a cake cut up in pieces and someone says “Oh only half the pieces are poisoned” “Only some parts of the cake are poisoned” or even “Only 1 piece is poisoned” are you gonna eat any of the cake? You don’t know if you’re going to eat some yummy cake or if you’re gonna die. So how can I, or any of us, go to the council documents, and be assured the part we’re going to consume is gonna be fine? We can’t! Not without the proper discernment and the tools required to make that discernment. And then we need to analyze every piece carefully. Are you gonna enjoy that cake if you’re analyzing every bite for a slight taste or odor that clues us in to the poison.
Now, please, if you’re going to respond, please don’t just say “It taught on faith and morals so it’s infallible” or variation thereof. Address the specific areas I’ve pointed out, either regarding ecumenism or looking into the link I posted earlier, and show how at least some of those statements are not in error. I’m also still waiting for you to state where the council is teaching infallibly on faith and morals. Even the biggest proponents of Vatican II (such as JP2 and BXVI) argue that it does not give any infallible proclamations, so I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea it is.
I look forward to hearing back, so long as it’s not a circle again. Pax tecum.
Individuals going back and forth on something does not even come close to the entire church teaching something in error to the universal flock.
Sorry.Vatican 11 was a pastoral ecumenical council which was not infallible!
There is no such a thing as a pastoral ecumenical council in the teaching of the Church. Either VII was an Ecumenical Council as the 20 preceding it were or it was not. Cf. Catholic Library > The 21 Ecumenical Councils [http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm].
It was magesterial. It was infaillable. The magesterium cannot teach error.
So the same is true of FC?
Your observation is quite right, and the fact that AL is not “infallible,” as some have pointed out, is besides the point.
We all know that AL is not the only problem. The Church has condemned, for example, the notion that the Church could officially approve of impious customs or liturgies. We all know that AL by itself is not the infallible, Ordinary Magisterium; but we know that AL, and all the other hooey and nonsense in encyclicals and exhortations, and in Canon Law, and in officially approved Catechisms, and all the pastoral letters of the bishops, and all the texts approved by their conferences, and all the doctrine officially expounded in their seminaries, etc., etc., is. And what is the universal message of these things since the 70s? Liberalism! Modernism! Indifferentism! All condemned! We have a Code of Canon Law that allows for communio in sacris with heretics and schismatics, a thing forever forbidden by Divine Law. We know that many impious customs occur all the time with full ecclesiastical approbation. We know that there are real complaints to be made about the new rites – including serious possibilities of invalidity, raised not by cranks and kooks, but by such men as Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
The inescapable conclusion: the thing operating out of the Vatican since the 60s, is not the Church. It is the anti-Church, an eclipse of the Church. Holy Mother Church cannot give us what this thing gives us. Holy Mother Church is not an whore. She does not err in such a way, as for errors to become universal and ordinary in Her Magisterium. This thing is not the Church, and we are living in a great crisis long foretold by the pontiffs in their encyclicals, and even in Catholic prophecy. We must face the facts, however bitter, repent, and pray for God to show us the way. The hierarchy is to be found amongst the few, remaining, orthodox, validly ordained clergy. Look to the Eastern Rites, the SSPX, even Sedevacantist groups not derived from the Thuc line of consecrations. From our extreme humiliation, the Lord will raise us up – not for any merit of ours, but because He will not long suffer His name to be blasphemed amongst the nations. Virgo Dolorisissima, ora pro nobis!
No, because the True Church of Christ is indefectable. The errors since Vatican 2 illustrate clearly that the concilior church that we all called the Church for the last 50 years or so cannot be the True Church since the Church cannot formally teach error.
Why don’t you own up to being a sedevacantist then? Their philosophy of no valid Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests for 60 years – all validity gone because of VII errors. What does that tell us about their own latae sententiae Bishops & Priests who have no faculties, authority, infallibility (no pope) or indefectibility to do anything, let alone licence or ordain priests. If Christ has not abandoned His Church then point to where it is please. There can be no unscriptural invisible Catholic Church – that is a Protestant error.
There are plenty of traditional bishops and priests who teach the true faith. They are the true Church. Christ has protected the Church. There have been many warnings and prophecies of a great apostasy. Well it happened 50 years ago. We are living it. Those traditional bishops and priests who have no faculties in the concilior church have all the faculties they need from Divine Law. Ecclesia Supplet.
You say nothing more than we already know as we have all suffered & still are suffering for the True Faith. Christ has not abandoned us & we must not abandon Him. PF & buddies will go as their ilk in the past did. We look to Our Lady’s Triumph – She hasn’t abandoned us either.
One that and our common profession of the One True Faith, I think we can all agree on. That is what makes us all members of the True Church. Our common faith, not canonical issues as to who is or who isnt pope.
Sedes cannot be let away with the accusation that the Seat of Peter has been empty for 60 years & that no valid Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priest are now alive. If that were so where will the next valid Pope that you approve of come from?
If Christ has not abandoned His Church then he is still sustaining His Sacraments – it cannot be otherwise. The Holy Mass (though not to our liturgical liking) is valid & licit as are all our Sacraments. By suggesting that people stay away & say the Rosary at home in some way to make up for their non-attendance does not fulfill their Sunday obligation & would be seen as an act of rejection by God. We who stay put in the CC with all its warts & constant frustrations are being faithful to the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church of Christ on earth believing in His promise & Our Lady’s coming Triumph. Those who leave in a fit of pique show themselves to be unwilling to stay & fight for its restoration & are leading themselves & their families away from God’s grace & so endangering their spiritual lives. Their clergy are not valid or licit nor consequently are their Masses or Sacraments. I have yet to hear the answer to where Christ’s Church now is headquartered if not in Rome.
You are dangerously close to schism. Please, pray for clarity and repentance.
He hasn’t removed the original despicable tweet. It’s still there like the last desperate shout from a retreating enemy. He knows the game is up.
The Novus Ordo is not Catholic, therefore it cannot be the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo hierarchy is comprised of heretics, therefore they have no legitimate authority and faithful Catholics are not bound to obey them. The Vatican II Council was defective – it gave us error and non-Catholic teaching. The conciliar magisterium promulgates error – it is defective and therefore has no authority. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is indefectible, and we firmly believe that we are bound to hold the infallible pronouncements and teaching in matters of faith and morals of all LEGITIMATE successors to Peter. Our last legitimate Catholic successor to Peter was Pius XII, who died in 1958. We know with certitude that the Catholic Church exists – we have Christ’s promise. It is simply no longer found in Rome. Sede vacante. Pray, brethren, that the Holy Ghost may give us a Catholic Pope. Until then, we are obligated by our Catholic Sensus Fidelium, to intellectually reject the heretics and their new religion which is a substantial change from the Catholic Church and break from her Apostolic Tradition. We are likewise obligated to avoid the Novus Ordo in our actions: we may not participate in any way with the heretics, nor worship with them, including their version of the traditional mass, since they offer it in communion with heretics. Find the Catholic Church….she is near you and she calls to her children, but she is much, much smaller than she was 60 years ago.
You are wrong and a liar. Who are you to decide this?? Are you a group of Luther? You are no different than being a Protestant. Go back and crawl back under the evil rocks you came from. The Catholic church is not your church you left it when it needed you. Pope Francis is the Pope and if he is a bad Pope he will be removed, but just like their have been bad Popes before Pope Pius the X11. You have no authority. Jesus said he would never leave us and he hasn’t, but you have. Your Pride and even in your group can’t even agree, is not the Catholic Church. You have no authority to tell us that our church is not the true Catholic Church. You are schismatic and in the state of mortal sin for the evil you push. May God have mercy on your soul. Go away and don’t come back to spit out your evil! God help us!
The Church will outlast Bergoglio and any other threat. We should remember that those who are mad at the Church are still close to it and need our love.
Thank you for telling the truth.
God bless you.
Your theory makes it impossible to elect a new pope since all the “real cardinals” are dead.
Exactly, so in essence then the gates of hell would have prevailed because in their crazy minds who would elect the new Pope. No one is valid. It is nonsense. Just like Luther who had valid concerns that we should have had a reformation inside the church, what he did was a revolution outside the church and left. He took all these souls to hell with him over what? His pride and wanted to be a Pope. They are doing the same thing. They are basically without a Pope or magisterium. Who is in charge then. Anybody? This is Protestant behavior. This group had some valid complaints, but instead left. Father said both masses are valid, and to say basically I am not receiving my Lord, I will defend my church to the death. How dare they? On their own they left. What about all those Popes that were bad long before that Pope? This is why we have Cardinals to correct the Pope if he is being heretical, God made sure we would have it in place just in case of the rare situations and to call John Paul 11 and Benedict not valid Popes is beyond prideful. I came back to my faith 8 years ago and my life has completely changed, had many little miracles all because of being in the cooperation with the Holy Spirit, have felt him like I never knew before being in a state of grace and these people come on and spout this garbage and tell me I am receiving just bread, my holy priests are fake???? They are being led by the devil to destroy the church dressed as Angels. They have convinced themselves of this lie. They could have stayed and fought the good fight, but abandoned us to their own peril. They must repent and we will welcome them with open arms or face the music at the damage they are doing. We need good soldiers, not people going AWOL. God help us!
As long as there is one bishop who holds the True Faith, the Church can be restored. In fact, I wish the remaining trad bishops would hold a council and elect a True Pope. You dont need cardinals.
You need what was set in place by Pope Pius XII as that is the last real pope according to sedevacantists, and you don’t have that now. Since you think there is something possible, describe the specific details of how you will know with certainty that a new pope is elected. Is it like “pope Michael” or similar?
If trad bishops elected a new Pope and the trad community accepted it, then we would have a new Pope. The concilior crowd would continue to have their anti pope and life would go on. The status quo is untenable and contradictory. In times if emergency (this is one of those times in my opinion), the trad bishops should not consider themselves bound by rules they cannot follow. Bishops have the authority, they should use it. How would we know if we had a true Pope? If he teaches the True Faith and not the concilior crap that started this mess.
You make up your own invalid conditions. Pope Pius XII released Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which says you must have a college of cardinals. Even more it actually condemns your idea.
3. The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the
assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them.
You are the devil get off this site spewing falsities. God help us from more Luthers!
“By their love for each other you will know them” The sky is either falling or it is not falling. The punishment is the agony, the passion, of the Church right now. Or it is fire falling from the sky? What the heck are we doing when we speak to each other as demonstrated in the several comments above?
Our anger is misplaced when it’s directed at fellow Catholics who are frustrated, angry, discouraged, confused, and see no relief. The Passion of Christ lasted until the last drop of His Precious Blood was drained. The Church, being His Mystical Body, must shed the last drop – but not the very last drop for He will never let that happen – but it will appear that the Church is dead – don’t forget that Our Lady of Good Success showed Mother Marianna de Jesus in Quito that the sanctuary lamp had gone out…the last light is fading right now.
For Heaven sake can’t we focus on that without tearing each other to pieces?
We are all frustrated, but this is like throwing gasoline on the fire from supposedly well intentioned people? No one is going to tell me that I have been receiving just bread and wine. This person is causing consternation by coming on these sites to tell people,hey you guys your church isn’t real. Come on, I’m defending Christ, and when he went into the temple to say people were dishonoring his father house he was rightly so to be as upset as he was. Guess what? that is how I feel. I will not tolerate the lie. It sounds like Francis, let’s all get along and overlook the heresies and the lies. We don’t leave the church or deny her as the truth even if we have a bad Pope in hard times. No thanks, all theses so call good intentions have been caused by Satan! You give Satan an inch he has taken the mile.
God help us!
Brian, you advance the idea of an invisible church – just like protestants have always done.
You are a protestant but you are just not aware of that fact
Notice how the wolves are starting to shed their sheep’s skin. They feel empowered by their leader. They are now not afraid to show us who they are. The Trojan Horse has opened and out spills its slime.
Just posted this on the Burke thread but it fits here too:
This is from the interview with Cardinal Burke given to Edward Pentin at the Register, it is excellent and everyone should go and read it. This is the final part of the interview and it is clear concise:
” What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.” http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-on-amoris-laetitia-dubia-tremendous-division-warrants-action
This is Very Big. Everyone needs to pray, fast and should have Masses offered for the deliverance of the Church from the corrupt members of the Hierarchy who are seeking to subvert Her to their perverse wills. Just have the Masses said as a special intention…
Apostolic exhortations are simply long, formal sermons. They are not magisterial documents – so said Cardinal Burke when he was apostolic signatura. The Modernists are very clever about appearing to be speaking in a magisterial voice when using modes of communication that are not protected by the charism of infallibility. AL may be piously received, but no one is bound in conscience to obey its pastoral suggestions. It contains no commands.
True enough possibly, but………………..the modernists are claiming that A.L. MOST DEFINITELY is magisterial, and to be followed and adhered to by the faithful.
The issue isnt the infaillability of AL, the issue is the fact that AL is heretical and it came from Francis thus making Francis a heretic, thus making him not the pope. PS – the same can be said for V2.
Two things:
1. Popes give commands. They make LAWS.
2. You are confusing the magisterial aspect of teaching heresy with the profession of heresy. He doesn’t have to teach heresy to lose his office, and a true pope cannot ever do that. He simply has to profess heresy publicly. Just one will do, and an office in the Church is automatically rendered vacant by that fact.
It is the same deal for every member of the Church. If you or I profess heresy, we sever ourselves from the Church. If a prelate or pope does it, he severs himself from the Church the same way, but he also loses any office in the Church.
“It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside the Church can command in the Church.” Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #15.
It is Divine Law – God’s way to protect the Faithful. We are commanded to flee and avoid heretics.
I thank God every day that I am not a Roman Catholic.
Don’t ! “Outside the Church there is no salvation” this still applies. Even in these evil times. I pray you join us one day, and we can be together.
And we thank God for the same. Now bugger off.
There are many other Catholics who are not Roman Catholic. Are they suppose to bugger off too?
No, dick. Just you.
You are a poor deluded soul who admires the obvious errors of the man whose errors you subsumed into your S/N
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii
You are a captive soul who could unshackle yourself. Will you?
Are you a member of the Church of Thomas Aquinas of Latter-Day Saints? I heard his name far too often in my stint in RCIA.
I found the Summa Theologica woefully deficient logically but far, far more so theologically. In fact, it appears that Aquinas tried to shackle God Himself in intricate and heavy chains of logic, trying to capture the Soul of God and somehow make Him comprehensible. It was a valiant but ultimately Quixotic attempt, certainly historically important, but not instrumentally so. As a guide to the perplexed it is perplexing, certainly not worth canonizing at the altar of the Council of Trent beside the Gospel Book. How can the Author of Logic be subject to His creation?
In any case, please pardon the delay of my response.
Are you Eastern Catholic?
Eastern Orthodox (although it’s more Easter Orthodox lately, like Cafeteria Catholics and Jack Mormons in many ways.) I was ultra-fastidious for a while, and have become lax. My geron/confessor passed away this year, and I moved to another part of the continent, so I’m talking to various priests, not all Orthodox, for this sacred duty.
My mother married a Melkite Catholic. I have been to their Divine Liturgy many times and we often talk about the differences in practicing the same true faith. One thing I have learned is that todays Romans are way too legalistic. They seem to have forgotten Christs teaching that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around.
“Cardinal against cardinal, and bishop against bishop”
And Pilate said “What I have written, I have written.” John 19:22
First tweet you reference still there:
https://twitter.com/antoniospadaro/status/798376308875128832
He just posted the original exhortation. That wasn’t a clarification.
Don’t understand.
With the Pope and the majority of the Bishops heretics, what happens when they all are of like mind. At the pace of appointment of Fransisbishops, it will not take that long. Look for the election of another papal heretic. When are they no longer the magisterium of the Church? Then, and if, who is? How do we discern this evil. Are the Sacraments administered by this newchurch valid? Very depressing as the end of this life nears. Options and opinions welcomed.
God will act, and it won’t be pretty. Akita has the answer – fire will fall from the sky and wipe out a great part of humanity. Be ready.
Akita is a post concilior pronouncement. As with everything after V2, there is too much doubt.
You will be very unpleasantly surprised. It’s the Sixth Seal in the Bible.
Referring to the Bible, Cardinal Burke insists that a pope must teach according to Church Tradition or “let him be anathema.” Pope Francis does not teach according to Church Tradition.
The formal act of correction will make the schism formal.
You do realize that people that adhere to the tradition of the Church will be the ones accused of schism. Exactly like the SSPX was and for the most part still is.
…and when their Puppet Church collapsed…, they will repent, but it will be apparently too late.
Whatever the case, Our Lord is still the one in control. I think we forget that far too often.
This sad situation is exactly why my wife and I went to the SSPX Chapel near us in 1997. You should too. Send no monies to Pope Francis. Speak to your local Bishop about this pointing out the error of Pope Francis.
We are relatively new to the SSPX and thank God every Sunday for leading us there. They provide exactly what we searched for in vain in novusordoism for at least two decades.
Yes, we all are aware of that. I suffer no illusions that once the fraternal corrections are made manifest, that there will be a well-spring of Catholic faithful rushing to the cardinals defense. Things just don’t work out that way. As Yeats wrote, “Things fall apart.”
Christ’s Redemption will put things back together again. But that may not happen in our lifetimes, or our children’s lifetimes.
Let them accuse all they want. It’s water off a duck’s back to me. Whoever holds and professes the Catholic Faith in its entirety will be on the winning side. God bless the SSPX.
Make it formal doesnt make it so. It already exists. Its like when you break your arm. You go to a doctor and he says you broke your arm. Well it wasnt the doctor who broke your arm, he just made the diagnosis. Same with Francis. He ceased being pope when he uttered heresy. You are just waiting for the doctor to make the formal diagnosis. But the Chair of Peter is empty right now.
Bring it on. We need to drain the spiritual swamp of modernists, Francis included.
Good one…………….’drain the spiritual swamp of modernists’…………..love it!
I don’t believe either “swamp creature” or “modernist” is one of the titles of His Holiness Pope Francis.
Remember your comment above when next time you avail yourself of the Sacrament of Penance.
Modernist is a term used by Pope St. Pius X, and is one who follows the heresy of modernism. Let me be more specific – Francis is a heretic who promotes liberation theology Marxism version of modernism. Know that papolatry is a grave species of idolatry.
Who are you to judge?
Modernist is an appropriate title for a heretic however.
You can start draining the swamp by avoiding everything that is concilior. That is the source of the schism.
That goes too far. Distinguish between Vatican II and the abuse of Vatican II (“spirit of V2”).
Have you read any of the Vatican II documents in detail? I also used to think that VII was good and it was just that the evil liberals hijacked it.
Tom A is right on the money. He probably doesn’t go far enough!
We have marked you as the same troll as Doctrinally Principled so be off. I don’t reply to Trolls.
“We”? Who’s “we”? The Inner Party members? Are you O’Brien and I’m Winston?
I’m not that “Doctrinally Principled” guy. I saw him around the traps the other day causing a stir, but he/she (probably a he – women don’t talk like that) is a different person to me.
I couldn’t make out if he was headed for the Eastern “Orthodox” or was a sede using rhetoric to point out the confusion of our time, or a completely servile Novus Ordo chap.
Who is OBrien and who is Winston??
I take it you have not read 1984 by George Orwell.
You should! The answer will become clear.
No i have not read it. Just my Surname is Winston and i was curious as to the mention of the Surname. thanks.
Yes, I have read all the V2 docs, and several of them multiple times. I utterly reject your interpretation.
OK. If you want to be guidedby, and obedient to the ambiguity in the supposed magisterium, which casued the worst crisis and the greatest loss of souls in 2000 years, you’re welcome to it. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach like that.
There is nothing to distinguish. They are one and the same. Heresy.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfad9060aa07a3dd5453c1de961c771f3abd722712218addb443ad7aae96d640.jpg
https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=prophecy+of+st+francis+of+assisi+about+Pope+Francis&cat=web&pl=chrome&language=english
Aside from making Martin Luther look like an exemplary Catholic, this Sparado guy is clearly an idiot. Even by his manner.This is someone a Pope works with on an apostolic exhortation?! It tells us all we need to know. Even if they manage to ‘succeed’ in this life, they had better be ready for a nasty surprise when they enter the next.
Pope francis is not even pope its obvious a coup took place. A catholic must hold with faith to the traditions handed down… this is our faith and it can not be destroyed so if we merely “hold fast” we will be alright. A significant proportion of people have already rejected francis as an anti pope even if they can not or will not commit to that position. There will be a schism in the church i am sure… there already is fancis and his cronies are the schism. We can only warn fellow catholics for the good of souls that the catholic church has ceased to be Catholic
Thanks Steve. Seems to me that we can consider Pope Francis de facto excommunicated due to his holding of heretical positions and especially his obstinate resistance to clarification. Consequently we have no obligation to listen to him or support him. Our only obligation is to resist him, proclaim his doctrinal dissidence and pray for him.
anyone having contact addresses of these four, so that we can give them encouragement?
“Liberal-minded Cardinal Karl Lehmann is urging his fellow German bishops to change Church discipline quickly while Francis is still Pope.”
THE
CHASTISEMENT
“He said he chided her…”
Not to the boys
Who do their own schtick.
Not to the girls
Who call themselves Rick.
Not to the men
Who cut off heads quick.
Not to the Extra
Ministers’ clique.
Not to the gals
On their buses so slick.
Not to the spouses –
Find new lips to lick.
Not to the Prelates
Preaching heresy thick.
Not to the kinky
In lust for a kick.
But give me the mother
With child number eight –
She, I’ll chastise,
She, I’ll berate,
Then brag to reporters
How I admonish sins great –
A mother and child,
Humbly…humiliate!
One of the things that bugs me is this hope and optimism I see here at 1Peter5, that this missive from the 4 Cardinals spells the beginning of the end for Jorge the tyrant. I’m not saying it can’t happen. If it does, it will be in spite of them, not because of them.
Because several things are overlooked. PF is not playing games. He is TOTALLY COMMITTED to his demonic revolution. And it’s going to take more than letters and petitions to get him to repent. He has big plans for the church – nothing less than full absorption into a global oligarchy, where all will be one. And a follow up from these 4 cardinals will just end in more failure. Secondly, show me a bishop who speaks with the power and authority of Christ, which all “bishops” have by virtue of the Apostolic Tradition, who call good, good and evil, evil. And we will be witness to men who have not been seduced by modernism, as those 4 have been. They are sickening. Is their apology for ostensibly standing up for the faith a sign of Christ’s authority? Do they really have the Catholic faith in their souls? Or are they Vat ll ersatz “bishops”, who unlike Cupich, Marx and Kasper et al, seemingly “walk the walk…” How can any real bishop talk the way they do about their concern for progressives, their concern for Jorge’s “year of mercy” inflicted on the church by the tyrannical Bergoglio. It’s hard not to conclude that it’s not Christ who reigns in their souls, but the seductive power of that worst of all heresies. They apologized for standing up for the church, for God’s sake. I used to think that Cardinal Sarah had the “right stuff” to fight for Christ’s church, but he seems to have been cowed by the “merciful” Francis.
Hi Tom, Are you actually an observant Catholic?
Respectfully let’s talk about restoration and renewal of our beautiful Catholic Church.
The Schism has been here since 1970, at least. Because the Boomer Generation was notorious for burying their heads in the sand and hoping problems would go away or simply not be so bad, all kinds of work-arounds were developed in order to avoid the obvious. The implications of admitting that the “popes” were heretics, Modernists, etc., and were obviously wrecking the Church, abolishing Her rites, etc., were too serious to be faced. So, they invented all kinds of excuses, stretching to the max (and beyond the max) the idea that popes can make such mistakes when not working in an “infallible” capacity. Sure, a mistake here and there can be made; but that is different from an habitual lack of fidelity to the Magisterium and the imposition, via the Infallible, Universal, Ordinary Magisterium, of blasphemous customs, rites, laws and doctrines.
There is a reason why the Church’s clear doctrine is that all, public heretics – even material heretics (i.e., people who don’t maliciously intend to espouse heresy, but who nevertheless habitually make no effort to cleave to the Magisterium through ignorance) – are automatically out of the Church whether anybody does anything “official” about it or not. How could the Church be one and whole, if persons who manifestly make no effort to adhere to Her Tradition and Teaching are permitted not only to be regarded as Catholics, but even to feign leadership roles in the Church, imposing impiety, heresy, wicked customs, defective rites, etc., under color of law? Francis is not a Catholic; he is not a member of the Church; really, he is not even a Christian – he is at best a Syncretist, assuming that he is not something worse in his private life and thoughts. Really, since the 1967 rite of consecration of bishops is almost certainly invalid, he is not even a bishop!
Men like Cardinal Burke have come right up to the line of admitting Francis is an heretic. A canonical process resulting in the acknowledgement that he is an anti-pope would be a good thing. But the important thing to remember, especially if the Modernists have so stacked the deck that no move against him will be successful, is this: heretics are ipso facto deposed, and this is especially true of the pope, since no authority on earth is competent to judge an actual pope. So, whether they succeed or fail…
the solution is obvious. He is not the pope, one way or the other. The Modernists who reject the Magisterium are not members of the Magisterium, one way or the other. Stop offering your submission to them!
Well said.
“There is a reason why the Church’s clear doctrine is that all, public heretics – even material heretics (i.e., people who don’t maliciously intend to espouse heresy, but who nevertheless habitually make no effort to cleave to the Magisterium through ignorance) – are automatically out of the Church whether anybody does anything “official” about it or not” Since Vat. II, the Church has been sending out catechists into Government schools to teach and their training has been lacking. Much has been left to themselves to prepare for this work. Yet I know many of them are big hearted people with generosity. In my opinion it would be inappropriate to apply material heretic to these people.
Actually, that is exactly what the term “material heretic” is for. The theologians formerly said that this term only applied to persons of good will, outside the Church. So, for example, a Protestant who grew up in Appalachia and knew nothing about the Catholic Church (or, only knew that his grampa called it “the Whore of Babylon,” or somesuch), but who had good will, believed the Bible, loved the Lord, etc. This man would be a material heretic because, even though he was not deliberate or malicious in his heresy, he was materially (“technically”) not obedient to the Magisterium.
The theologians formerly assumed that no Catholic could be a material heretic, because he would know that the Magisterium exists, and that he is therefore obliged to obey it. He could only be a formal (malicious) heretic. But in my opinion, with the advent of Modernism and its belief that everything is subjective, relative and changeable, we for the first time have people who think of themselves as Catholics, but who have been convinced that the Magisterium and/or their duties to it, are radically altered. As Cardinal Billot clarified in his definitive treatise on ecclesiology, the Catholic who intends to cleave to the Magisterium, but is merely in error of fact, is not even a material heretic, he is simply mistaken. The sin of heresy has less to do with the substance of one’s belief, than of one’s intent to believe what the Church teaches – one can lack this intent through deliberate malice (formal heresy) or through ignorance of one’s duties to the Magisterium (material heresy).
One is also held to an higher standard where there is higher responsibility. A man claiming to be a bishop, let alone a pope, has grave obligations to follow and to enforce the Magisterium of the Church, which are not so easily excused through ignorance. It can still happen, but ignorance of bedrock Catholic principles is inexcusable. In my opinion, Francis and most of the hierarchy are formal heretics; but because one cannot prove their internal disposition, we can at least say they are material heretics. From what you have said, I don’t imagine the catechists you mention are formal or material heretics, either.
‘Eyes Opened’ is so right. I am starting to believe that God has allowed us to endure this Pope and his heresies, in order to expose those wolves hiding in sheeps clothing. The mask has come off and all these Cardinals, bishops, and priests have exposed their true hatred for the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church.
Pope Francis has perhaps done more to clean up the Church than any other Pope. All of the Popes since Vatican II have basically let heresy bubble just under the surface. They were unwilling to do anything about it because in most cases, these heretics didn’t come right out and teach heresy, they just planted the seeds and let them grow. Honestly, we saw some improvement under Pope Benedict but not what was needed.
Now we are going to be a part of history as we see all this unfold. Now the Cardinals must act, one way or another. No sitting on the fence anymore. If they don’t support Cardinal Burke and the other three, they also don’t support Jesus Christ. It is their choice now.
That seems to rhyme very much with what has taken place here in the States. Only Obama could bring out and expose all the corruption of the UniParty globalists embedded at all levels of the government. We don’t have any idea how Trump will work out yet, but it was not possible for someone like him to be elected without the nation first suffering through an Obama first.
If “Lehmann [among others] strongly opposes Humanae Vitae”,
then how can he insist that Amoris Laetitia is magisterial
(since the former is both magisterial and a papal encyclical)?
He who offends in one point has broken the entire law.
“Closing ranks” is an apt description, but what comes next is really up to the four cardinals. The Pope can easily ignore them—and that’s happening. But it’s up to the four cardinals to determine whether they are willing to continue to be ignored or whether they will act.
I think these cardinals will ultimately back down (because let’s face it–there’s usually lots of talk but little to no action from Church leadership in practice); however, stranger things have happened.
I don’t think the 4 Cardinals would have begun this lightly. Cardinal Burke has outlined the options in an interview.
Time will tell who is correct. I think once the four cardinals realize that they won’t have much backing from the other bishops, that will be the end of this.
We will see.
I always said Francis needed to go,there is a reason Benedict left an I don’t think we know the truth,
Bishop Athanasius Schneider predicted before the 2015 synod was completed that there may be a schism. He also said that traditionalists would be persecuted for awhile, but that the Church would return to its senses eventually. Or words to that effect.
Ooooooooo, he blocked you, Steve? He hasn’t blocked me yet. And I’m pretty NASTY with the tweeting! I tweeted him some fun stuff! Here’s one:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/648246f80fd7ca984bc79aebe3c0104532356accfb407bb372eaec65d48f9566.jpg
I like pictures you know! I think kids like pictures, and I think adults like pictures too! hehehehehe!
Next time, I’m going to zoom on the Dragon picture, you know make it a little bigger, just for Jorge. hehehehehe!
I’m telling you, these heretics are working for the population control elites. They are Double Agents. They shout: “Decentralization!” The End Game is this:
to turn the Catholic Church into 30,000 Protestant denominations. Because the Protestants allow divorces and remarriages (there is no unity), the destruction of marriages will be the goal for these Heretics. Once the doctrines of the Church are destroyed so will the unity of the faith. Christians will be sifted like wheat and the Evil Secular Marxist will persecute us.
These heretics are pushing the “doctrines of demons” (1Timothy 4:1).
To a large extent, I agree with Fr. Spadaro:
(1) Stop acting like you don’t know whether “Amoris Laetitia” is magisterial or not, because you KNOW and it IS;
(2) Stop asking for clarifications on points which are already clear in “Amoris Laetitia,” like offering the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist to SOME who live — and, perhaps, must live for the time being — in adulterous unions;
(3) Stop placing “Amoris Laetitia” IN OPPOSITION to the Church’s magisterial tradition (e. g., Pope St. John Paul II’s “Familiaris Consortio” and “Veritatis Splendor”) and start reading “Amoris” WITHIN that tradition.
As for blocking: Yes — unfortunate — but, those on the Catholic Right have their “Father Zuhlsdorfs” who blocks any and all who disagree with him, even mildly.
When a document opens itself up to multiple interpretations by its inherent ambiguity, and when the man whose signature is on said document refuses to publicly state which interpretation is correct but instead hints that a heterodox one is his intention by way of a clandestine letter to a bishops’ conference, it is well within the right of the cardinals and even the laity to question its authority.
Regarding your Point 3) this is precisely the opposite to that taken by the “official” Interpreter of AL, the pro-sodomite +Schonborn, who said that Catholic magisterial tradition was to be interpreted in light of AL, not the other way around.
Things are heating up: http://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/holy-see/in-wake-of-rejection-of-dubia-pope-francis-cancels-meeting-with-cardinals
is the Pope running away to avoid scary Cardinals, perhaps he knows something?
It is closing in on him “who can deliver from [God’s] hand” [Is 43:13]. Meanwhile Voris/CM spins ?
Cockroaches scatter in the light.
Does the organisation in Rome headed by Francis possess the Four Marks of the Church?
Does it have the two visible bonds of the visible Church – i.e. the outward profession of Faith and the outward profession of Charity?
Is it the same religion, identical to that which Pope Pius XII and his predecessors were the visible head of?
No, no, and no.