In the discussions prompted by the recent news about the publication in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) of two documents pertaining to the interpretation of Amoris laetitia, many people seem to have picked up the idea that the Authentic Magisterium is infallible, as if this were a case of Roma locuta est, causa finita est. But this is not true. Whatever else this recent publication in the AAS may mean, it does not mean that anything has been definitively answered or decided.
The authentic magisterium, to which the faithful owe religious submission of will and intellect (Lumen gentium 25; cf. CIC 752), is not infallible.[1] This is what Lumen gentium says about the authentic magisterium of the pope and the bishops:
In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious submission of the soul (religioso animi obsequio). This religious submission of will and intellect (religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium) must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence and that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.
Now it should be clear from the reference to the authentic magisterium of the pope “even when he is not speaking ex cathedra,” that this text is talking about non-infallible teaching. But in case that isn’t clear, let me direct your attention to the official notes on this text provided by the Theological Commission at Vatican II in order to explain its meaning to the bishops before they voted on it. When this particular paragraph was added to the second draft of the schema on the Church, the explanation was that it had been added “in order to further determine which assent ought to be given to the teaching of the authentic Magisterium below the grade of infallibility” (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Vaticani II, 2/1, p. 255). Again, in the third draft, the paragraph was relocated with the explanation that this was because “it seemed better to treat of the non-infallible magisterium of the Roman pontiff in the context of the magisterium of the whole episcopal body” (Ibid., 3/1, p. 250).
There should be no doubt, therefore, that when we are talking about the authentic magisterium of the pope, we are not talking about infallible teaching. The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. And that is usually referred to as his solemn or extraordinary magisterium. Not his merely authentic magisterium.
However, in case that is not clear enough, let me add a second proof from Pope St. John Paul II’s Catechesis on the Church. In his general audience of March 24, 1993, he clearly and explicitly asserts that the pope speaks infallibly “only (‘solo’) when he speaks ex cathedra.” Now we have it from Lumen gentium 25 that the pope exercises his authentic magisterium “even when not speaking ex cathedra.” So if he is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, then he is not infallible when he does not speak ex cathedra, even if he is exercising his authentic magisterium.
Here is another dilemma for anyone who thinks that the authentic magisterium of the pope cannot teach error: John Paul II was exercising his authentic magisterium in the general audience mentioned above, but it certainly didn’t meet the requirements for speaking ex cathedra. So either John Paul II was right and the pope is not infallible in his authentic magisterium when not speaking ex cathedra, or he was wrong. But if one were to argue that he was wrong, then it would mean that he taught something false in his authentic magisterium. In other words, his own error would prove that he was right after all. No matter which way you slice it, the conclusion necessarily follows that popes can teach error in their authentic magisterium when they are not speaking ex cathedra.
Let me insert a brief logic lesson here for the 2+2 = 5 crowd. If it’s not infallible then it’s fallible. And if it’s fallible, then it could be in error. Deny that and you may as well walk right through the door marked Abandon Reason All Ye Who Enter Here.
Now all of this has to be borne in mind in order to understand what is really required by a “religious submission (obsequio) of will and intellect” to the teaching of the authentic magisterium of the pope or of the bishops.
Normally, of course, it means that the teaching in question should be accepted as true, though with the awareness that it could be false. In the scholastic terminology this is the kind of assent characteristic of opinions rather than knowledge. When I say I know that something is true, my assent is certain. When I say I think that something is true, my assent is given, but without certainty and with a recognition of the possibility of error.
Due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit given to the Church, we can be sure that instances of error in this kind of authentic teaching are rare. And yet since they are possible, our response must also take that into account. So what does the obligation of religious submission mean for Catholics in individual cases of teaching from the authentic magisterium? I think it can be summed up best by saying that we should accept that teaching as true precisely to the extent that it does not conflict with irreformable Catholic doctrine.
NOTES:
[1] The term ‘authentic magisterium’ can be used in a broad or a narrow sense: in a broad sense, it can be used to refer to all official magisterial teaching, whether infallible or not; it is usually used in a more narrow sense to refer to official teaching that is not infallible, but is still authoritative. This is the sense in which it is being used here.
Pseudo-saint John Paul II also taught mutual submission of the spouses and called for a common martyrology with non-Catholics in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint. So, there’s a few more examples for ya.
First, I agree that JPII did some stuff that really causes me heartburn.
Second, Sainthood does not require perfection, even from a Pope.
I think we tend to forget that in dealing with various modern Saints of whom we know more personal information than past Saints.
For example, my patron Saint is St Hallvard. We know very little indeed of St Hallvard. We know much more about John Paul. Knowing that tends to make them human, and THAT takes the gloss off them.
I refer to the Baltimore Catechism:
Question 83:
Can the Church err in the Canonization of a Saint?
Answer:
The Church cannot err in matters of faith or morals, and the
Canonization of a Saint is a matter of faith and morals.
So if one denies the validity of a Saint, one is denying a teaching of the Church.
A Saint is a person in heaven. People have had deathbed conversions. It is theoretically possible that there could be a saint which could have only one edifying thing said about them, that at the moment of death they rejected everything they had lived for. Some of the Church’s greatest saints once lived deeply immoral lives.
John Paul II is a saint in spite of having made many downright HORRIFIC misjudgments of character, about which volumes could be written. He is not a saint because of those things, and him being a saint does not lessen the severity of those imperfections. Him being a saint does not make those evil things good. He is a saint because, in spite of those imperfections, he was holy. The Church, in her wisdom, has seen fit to acknowledge that.
Yes, correct. Denying a Saint of the Church places the denier in the exact same category as those who deny any other dogma of the faith.
It’s easy to want to deny it, because some recent canonizations seem to have been done for the wrong reasons at times. Canonizations shouldn’t be popularity contests. One can argue that, even though the canonization itself is infallible, the timing for the formal declaration may have been imprudent.
John Paul II is no more a saint now than he was ten years ago. More importantly, he is not a saint simply because he was well marketed as “the people’s pope,” and that such irrelevant hype was really played up by his admirers as holiness. A lot of people seem to think that’s the reason though.
Good point to imprudent I would add doubtful: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonization-doubts-john-xxiii-john-paul-ii-2637
Neo Modernism is not Catholicism. This canonization causes a real crisis in the Church: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/dilemma-canonizing-pope-john-paul-ii-3298
He is a saint by popular acclaim.
I didn’t say a thing about perfection or imperfection.
You wrote:
“I think we tend to forget that in dealing with various modern Saints of whom we know more personal information than past Saints.
For example, my patron Saint is St Hallvard. We know very little indeed of St Hallvard. We know much more about John Paul. Knowing that tends to make them human, and THAT takes the gloss off them.”
JPII did public acts against the faith that had no public correction or repentance. Hence, he is not an example of imitation, which is the primary purpose of canonization: making sure the person is safe to imitate and that they won’t cause scandal. Now think about Assisi meetings: accommodating pagans in breaking the first commandment by worshiping false gods (demons) on consecrated church ground. But what else did he do? He asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam, praised heretics and giving them awards (Blondel, Balthasar), liturgical shananigans, etc. etc.
All public acts against the faith, no correction, no repentance. That is not a Saint.
RodH wrote:
“So if one denies the validity of a Saint, one is denying a teaching of the Church.”
Very simplistic thinking. The only thing about canonization that is infallible is that the person is in heaven. But try to think clearly: should everyone in heaven be canonized? No. Why? Because not everyone should be looked at as worthy of imitation and admiration. THAT is the point.
Otherwise, there is no point in canonization when we can just overlook ANY amount of absurdly from an individual – no matter how much scandal or material error/heresy they spew.
I didn’t say a thing about perfection or imperfection.
You wrote:
“I think we tend to forget that in dealing with various modern Saints of whom we know more personal information than past Saints.
For example, my patron Saint is St Hallvard. We know very little indeed of St Hallvard. We know much more about John Paul. Knowing that tends to make them human, and THAT takes the gloss off them.”
JPII did public acts against the faith that had no public correction or repentance. Hence, he is not an example of imitation, which is the primary purpose of canonization: making sure the person is safe to imitate and that they won’t cause scandal. Now think about Assisi meetings: accommodating pagans in breaking the first commandment by worshiping false gods (demons) on consecrated church ground. But what else did he do? He asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam, praised heretics and giving them awards (Blondel, Balthasar), liturgical shananigans, etc. etc.
All public acts against the faith, no correction, no repentance. That is not a Saint.
RodH wrote:
“So if one denies the validity of a Saint, one is denying a teaching of the Church.”
Very simplistic thinking. The only thing about canonization that is infallible is that the person is in heaven. But try to think clearly: should everyone in heaven be canonized? No. Why? Because not everyone should be looked at as worthy of imitation and admiration. THAT is the point.
Otherwise, there is no point in canonization when we can just overlook ANY amount of absurdly from an individual – no matter how much scandal or material error/heresy they spew.
Your reasoning here is flavored by understandable emotion.
What is simple is that the Church has recognized JPII as a Saint, that is, as one certainly in heaven. That’s all there is to it, though I’d think you agree that isn’t all many WANT to make of it, that is, those who seek to make JPII perfect.
Your and others’ sentiments about the flaws of JPII’s pontificate don’t escape me. In fact, JPII was an important reason why I did NOT investigate the truth of the Catholic faith for many years.
Pope Frances canonized JPII. History may end up recording him as a anti pope. He is claiming heresy is authentic magisterium as of June 5th 2017. Saints have been removed from canon of Saints in the past for much less than the JPII circus. I guess you could beat your chest and do a litany to “St. John Paul the great” I just don’t see the point of dying on that hill. I guess if Frances is Pope than you could be right but being right makes Catholicism a joke to anyone with the ability to think. Frankly if I were you I would want to be wrong.
There is real and proper distinction between a saint in heaven and one should be labeled a “Saint” formally and have their cult promoted and spread (regardless of perfection, which is not the point). I oppose the latter on logical and reasonable grounds, emotions or not. Again, not everyone in heaven should be canonized – JPII should have his cult suppressed, remove his optional feast day off the new calendar, and we should all refrain from at least giving him the label “Saint” in front of his name.
I think you missed the quote from the Batlmore Catechism above:
“Q. 83. Can the Church err in the Canonization of a Saint? A. The Church cannot err in matters of faith or morals, and the Canonization of a Saint is a matter of faith and morals.”
If the Church canonized Pope John Paul II and you deny this, then either:
1) He is a saint and you are wrong.
2) He is not a saint, and therefore the current Church is not the Catholic Church.
3) He is not a saint, because you reject the Baltimore Catechism, and therefore are not a Catholic.
You are conflating what the multiple declarations that are contained in canonization as one whole. Canonization states that the person is worthy of veneration, imitation, allows the Church to have a public cult, and confirms they are in heaven.
If you do some research, you will see that the only thing which is infallible that is attached to canonization is that the person is in heaven. That is it.
So, option 4:
John Paul II is in heaven, but it was imprudent and rash to canonization him as he has done many public scandalous things without public correction. (And again, just because someone is in heaven, doesn’t mean it is safe to canonize them – which is what I am arguing)
Also, the Baltimore Catechism is for beginners and does not go into detail about this. Refereeing it is ridiculous in the context intricacies I am talking about. That would be like trying to argue for or against the debitum peccati with a children’s catechism. It’s not going to cut it.
Most of the criteria for canonisation that the Baltimore Catechism would have recognised has been ditched. So… Maybe not any more
The canonization of John Paul II is a grave scandal. On the long list of horrors of Pope Frances the canonization of John Paul II is near the top of the horror list top 10. Firstly if this canonization stands the idea that canonized Saints are “worthy of imitation” is forever destroyed. No good Catholic would kiss a Koran. No good Catholic would allow any type a of pagan or a mixture Catholic/pagan “blessing” from Hindus or African witch doctors. I do not doubt the possibility that John Paul II is in heaven. He did greatly promote the rosary. He did however deform the rosary with the so called luminous mystery’s. If he is in heaven or not in heaven is not the point. The many scandalous actions of John Paul II at a minimum can be said to be heteropraxis. Many solid traditionalists that are not sedevacantists question his orthodoxy and view his canonization as a baptism of Vatican II novelties most notably https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1f5eba93de6be3f4db292a1d9804af28ff24f330b85f7b7e5bc722fc0f5f3ac3.jpg y false ecumenism. John Paul “the great” my foot. The handling of the sex abuse crisis alone is a reason to hold off for at lease 100 years on even looking into the cause. The children who were abused are still alive for goodness sake. Oh and the sex abuse crisis is STILL GOING ON!!!! What a horror.
It’s true that the authentic magisterium is not “infallible”, but that’s completely irrelevant.
The point is that the authentic magisterium can never be HERETICAL, because it requires “religious submission of mind and will”, and the Church cannot demand us to submit to heresy. Just because the ordinary magisterium is not infallible, does not mean that it can promote heresy.
Bergoglio has promoted a teaching as “authentic magisterium” which would bind the conscience of priests to administer Holy Communion to public adulterers, as priests owe “religious submission of mind and will” to his authentic magisterium.
This proves what St. Robert Bellarmine said about an heretical pope, namely, that he is automatically deposed. If a heretical pope was not automatically deposed, we would have to follow his heresy as long as he remains pope, as Catholic are bound in conscience to submit to the teaching of the pope.
Therefore, Bergoglio cannot be the pope.
To admit that the authentic magisterium is not infallible but still to claim that it can never be heretical is incoherent. To say that a particular kind of act can never be heretical is to say that it is infallibly preserved from teaching error in matters of dogma. I think you missed the point of what religious submission of will and intellect means. Exaggerated ultramontanism leads to sedevacantism.
Indeed.
Speaking tongue-in-cheekly, in addition, I have always wondered what we would think were we to be able to drag a microphone back in time and hang it on the chin of ole Rod Borgia whilst he sat around chatting with his kids after dinner. Well, you get the point.
I’ve always wondered if that quote attributed to Pope Adrian VI was true. Watching Pope JPII kiss the Koran and praise pagans and listening to Benedict XVI as Father Ratzinger and as Pope Emeritus wax on extra ecclesiam nulla salus gives pause…
When you think about it though, big difference between personal lust and heresy. Pope Rod was a better pope than Francis appears to be. He was a sinful man and may have repented and gone to Heaven when judged. Francis? He may not be a lustful sinner, but the sin of teaching people to stay in their sins is, in my humble opinion, FAR WORSE!
“Bergoglio has promoted a teaching as “authentic magisterium” which would bind the conscience of priests to administer Holy Communion to public adulterers, as priests owe “religious submission of mind and will” to his authentic magisterium.” – John Common
Don’t you believe that John Common’s concerns are valid under the regime of this pope?
That in fact, Pope Francis will make it very difficult for his bishops not to enforce what he has put forth.
And the bishops in turn will make things very difficult for the faithful priest as well.
I am much less preoccupied with technicalities, but more preoccupied with the effects of Pope Francis upon many religious to implement this heretical point of view.
Yes, you have put your finger on it. Who really cares, here at the coal face, what’s authentic and what’s not? It is important, but it will be made right eventually. What’s so important is how this will work out at the parish level. After all that’s where Catholics learn, and live. Each pastor will have to choose: Our Lord Jesus Christ, or Pope Francis. Pray for priests.
I don’t think that is incoherent. I can be wrong without being a heretic. I mean, wrong in matters of faith or morals. And it seems relevant that if the Holy Father were, which God forbid, to claim some heretical teaching as “authentic”, then his claim to authenticity would be flawed.
I do wonder, for example, whether we are to believe the Holy Father’s claim to authenticity in this case.
This is precisely where I have been struggling. Just because he declares X to be part of the “authentic Magisterium”, does that make it so? I have to think the answer is “no” if, as here, “X” is a clear departure from previous teaching on a matter of faith or morals.
God help the poor faithful priests who will be instructed to cooperate with grave sin.
Even the pope cannot make 2+2 equal 5. I know to the bottom of my soul that it is 4, and if he says otherwise, I believe he is a heretic who has already deposed himself from the papacy and I owe him no “obedience” nor allegiance whatsoever.
If the authentic magisterium of the Church is to be whatever the present occupant say it is, we have turned into Greek listening to the latest Oracle of Delphi. When his “magisterium” contradicts 2000 year of teaching by prior Popes it is heresy and not to be followed.
To this I would say that there is a big difference between “religious submission of mind and will” (i.e., simple obedience) and the assent of faith to revealed truth. The former would be like when I explain something to my 4 year old in a way that she will understand, though in a simplistic way or perhaps totally erroneous, and expect her to believe me—because I’m the papa and she is immature. But I could still be wrong, because if it ain’t a truth of faith it’s one of three things: (1) philosophical knowledge that is certain (i.e., a priori knowledge, as Von Hildebrand would say); (2) empirical knowledge; or (3) opinion.
A person, even the pope, can err regarding all three kinds of knowledge. See, e.g., Laudato si.
Forgive me, but I do not see the pope as in err. I see him with a driven purpose.
Our Church is very good at fancy phrases like ” religious submission of mind and will” and the ” assent of faith”.
I can only focus on one thing for certain: The teachings of the Church in faith and morals is not being defended and is on the precipice of being driven bankrupt.
Is there something positive I am missing in this article? I ask sincerely, because if there is, I would love to know.
I hear you. These are grave times we live in. I’m a convert and fell in love with the historical Church and its love for the Truth, and now all ever I see are headlines about orgies, Martin Luther the Great, Peter’s Pence backing Hilary Clinton, etc. As faithful Catholics, we must all suffer with Our Lord during these unprecedented times. May Our Lady’s victory come soon!
Why is that our Catholic convert brothers and sisters see so clearly, what so many trained Catholics miss?
Because they prayed and studied and spent, in some cases, YEARS discerning the truths of the Catholic faith before they made what in many cases was a tremendous sacrifice ( friends and family members rejecting them, loss of employment, etc.) to enter into the Catholic church. They are like the man in Jesus’s parable who sold everything he had to buy the field containing the treasure. They are not about to give up that treasure without a fight!!!
So, 1. They have studied the Catholic faith more than many if not most cradle Catholics have, and, 2. They have already suffered for its sake. That is the answer to your question, in my opinion!
Convert-to-convert, it is more than just difficult to stand.
I am glad I have spent a lot of time reading the Bible and thus have lots of examples of really sinful members of “the chosen of God” to reflect on, but nevertheless, the thing that repulses me, truly disgusts me and enrages me, is the almost total lack of guts, decency, courage, leadership and discipline coming from our effeminate prelates. It is quite remarkable.
100 per cent, it really is quite incredible!
The World has been closing in on the Church for many decades now but the scale and strenght of positive
reaction within the Church to negate these severely damaging problems is so poor and threadbare that one
is left completely astounded.
Hypocrites! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/95e73cff67340c095ff1cd25bf9a28b0f7a58bd0bbe56f40ab5b1ddf77ade173.jpg
True conversion to orthodox Catholicism is a sign of the great work of the Holy Spirit. In these perilous times, it’s a miracle! Thank you for your witness — to your fellow Catholics and to the world around you. May Our Lord continue to bless you abundantly, and may Our Lady protect you!
I believe there is an extra problem as priests must obey their bishop. If their local bishop follows heresy it may mean the priest must seek to change diocese.
I am wondering then, if this article and that of Ed Peters should be copied and sent to every priest and bishop.
So when the foolish bishop tells his priest, ” You must follow authentic Magisterial teaching”, the priest can hold us this excellent article. Or when the errant priest tells his poor bishop that he should allow for this and that, and many
flock are in agreement; the poor bishop can hold this article as well.
I am not trying to be argumentative here. But, it seems to me, that in all practicality, ( and at the end of the day that is what counts), a noteworthy article such as this, will have little weight at the end of the day.
I think orthodox Bishops are more willing to put up with heretical priests in their dioceses but heretical Bishops persecute orthodox priests unfortunately probably to force them out.
True. What I said above applies not only to the Pope, but to all Bishops.
“.. not infallible, but is still authoritative. This is the sense in which it is being used here.”
Those last seventeen words in the article, are extremely distressing. Bergoglio rules with an iron fist and so do many of his now in placed bishops throughout the USA. What more is there to discuss?
How can non truth be authoritative? All authority comes from God-Who is Truth.
Yes, all authority comes from God, and His Holy Ghost governs the Magisterial Teaching of the Church.
Man’s opinions can change – but not God’s.
Bergoglio is not under the governice of the Holy Spirit.
Dr Joy’s exposition on non fallible is teaching excellent. Nevertheless if we ask what does the Pontiff’s letter teach, the response is the Pontiff’s letter now included in Acta Apostolica doesn’t teach anything. Zero. It is simply a non specific comment on another document, which document as canon lawyer Edward Peters recently indicated is more a stew of possibilities than definitive making the Pope’s letter of affirmation a double possibility [a legal description of an inconclusive transfer of goods which extends transfer unto perpetuity]. Charade and cunning replace honest doctrine.
Are there not more options than that?
What I mean is, that though the Argentine letter is certainly not presented in anything like a normal “teaching” environment and at least using common terms if not canonical terms, Pope Francis does indeed seem to be teaching, first the Argentines, and now the whole world.
Denzinger has quite a number of letters and whatnot that purport to affirm this doctrine or that, or deny it, which are then taken as supports for a position taken by a Pope. This AAS listing seems to me to clearly be a statement of teaching intent by the Pope.
Or am I a lost ball in the high weeds…?
Rod you would have to examine the Argentine Bishops directives to conclude that it is specific. Because it considers variables such as hardship and conscientious freedom from culpability in D&R from a valid first marriage, and possible invalid exchange of vows conditions that cannot be confirmed with reasonable certitude all which are referenced from AL [nothing new] there are no definitive standards for making a viable judgment. The Argentine directives reduce the priest to making nothing more than a value judgment. Of course it’s an erroneous policy but an erroneous policy based on possibilities that cannot be verified. The Pope in his letter of affirmation is affirming possibilities. Nothing more.
Yes, but the possibilities ALL must lead to 1} education of the individual that the individual is living in mortal sin and 2} a declaration of nullity {or repair of the sinful relationship} before communion can be granted. Correct?
The Pope isn’t referring to folks who are truly in ignorance and just wandering up to the communion rail.
NONE of the possibilities may open the rail to any who are validly married to another than that which whom they are living {nor my it be opened to those living in other “irregular” {sinful} relationships. A priest does not have the authority to grant an ad hoc annulment 3 minutes before the Mass starts but he does have the responsibility to educate and warn the individual that they are living in mortal sin. The latter precludes any righteous motivation for reception until the “concrete situation” is repaired.
What I’m saying is that no matter how we slice it, the Pope is “teaching” that those who are living in a state of mortal sin mat receive communion and that priests may educate them Incorrectly about that state. The very fact that the individual meets him in the confessional demands the priest’s informing the individual of his condition, and right there, that precludes them receiving communion till an annulment is granted {or other sinful relationships are ended}.
So, if the individual does what is indicated and sees a priest before receiving, by that very act he may not receive communion, unless the priest doesn’t inform them and they are truly in ignorance of their condition. In which case the priest is guilty of grave sin.
I see no way that 1) the Pope isn’t “teaching” {at least in some informal way} and 2) that the Pope isn’t encouraging grave sin.
A declaration of nullity cannot be granted [is not possible] for a ratified valid sacramental first marriage [a valid consummated marriage between two baptized persons]. In the case you are referring to the Pontiff suggests in AL that D&R can be doing “their best in offering God worship” and be the recipients of grace. That’s a hypothetical that the Church does not accept because their living in a state of grave sin. The option they have is to desist from relations and promise to remain bound to refrain. Then they can confess receive absolution and receive the Eucharist. This is suggested and many disagree to its interpretation. If the Argentine Bishops clearly confirm in their directives that the D&R can remain living in adultery and receive then the quandary of the Pope’s letter is the intention. Does he mean what some like Cardinal Gerhard Mueller purport that the Pope is not suggesting communion for adulterers, or does he, the Pope actually confirm a clear abrogation of Church doctrine in the directives. That is why as I quoted the Doctrinal Commentary in reply to Steve Skojec that the letter must stated his views as “sententia definitive tenenda”.
For the reasons I stated and you have given here, I just don’t see how this letter can be interpreted in an orthodox manner.
And here’s the thing; I don’t think ANYBODY truly believes that it can be for any practical purpose other than winning a technical argument that bears no connection to reality, especially the heretics who are acting with more honesty than the orthodox who keep playing games.
What other purpose would such a letter offer when these cases have be adjudicated in a clear fashion for two thousand years?
I agree with the Pope: There are no other interpretations.
You and I know as do many others that the Pope intended to confirm the Argentine Bishops’ directives and repudiate moral doctrine. The problem is whether the contents of the letter rises to the level of a binding document even as regards assent, or whether he can be indicted by it as a heretic. I don’t believe so. The letter does not state affirmation of error as a “sententia definitive tenenda”. The canonical standards require explicit and obstinate denial of a doctrine for heresy. The Pontiff knows this and is clever enough to say just enough to favorably sanction but not enough to be sanctioned. That is why Cardinal Burke and others are hesitant although I agree with you he must speak out against the Pontiff as courageously as Fr Thomas Weinandy OFM Cap did recently. Fr Weinandy perceived intent evidenced by many factors including silence, unwillingness to correct the errors within the Church. My opinion is the accumulation of the Pontiff’s words actions written statements can suffice to indict him. But not by a Cardinal or two rather by convening a universal Council of Bishops.
Pope Francis seems to have a satanic genius. Poor man.
I just posted a response to Steve Skojec’s earlier response to my original post that explains my views touching on what you imply.
Thank you.
It is hard to conceive of Catholic prelates gathering for such a Council, but with the Pope seemingly eager to use all the rope handed to him, just maybe he’ll throw a dally over a tall limb and pull hard enough to get his own feet off the ground.
Given the many versions of his teaching, and it is a teaching, and most importantly, THE RESULT, there is, in my opinion, no wriggle room for Bergoglio. We are way past the smoking gun stage. The bodies and shell casings are all over the room and they all have his fingerprints on them. He is as guilty as sin.
Fr. Weinandy is the lead prosecutor here and he knows what he’s up to. Let’s let him lead the way.
The accumulative errors since his being raised to the pontificate convicts him. Fr Weinandy has had and continues to have my support. Others will be joining him simply as we are by being in agreement.
The problem is Father Weinandy doesn’t have the support of the Bishops-many of whom surely covet crimson and would not want to be reassigned to some less than glamorous diocese. We would be fools to assume that Bishops don’t prefer honor and status. The apostles argued among themselves who was greatest and they had Christ right there, incarnate.
Unfortunately that might be drawn from their reticence.
Let’s start with a Cardinal or two and see what happens.
It may be on the way. For our part Winslow we need to continue the good fight.
As you are doing and have done since this unfortunate papacy was inflicted on us. Thank you, Father and may God bless you abundantly.
For the reasons I stated and you have given here, I just don’t see how this letter can be interpreted in an orthodox manner.
And here’s the thing; I don’t think ANYBODY truly believes that it can be for any practical purpose other than winning a technical argument that bears no connection to reality, especially the heretics who are acting with more honesty than the orthodox who keep playing games.
What other purpose would such a letter offer when these cases have be adjudicated in a clear fashion for two thousand years?
I agree with the Pope: There are no other interpretations.
C’mon, Father Morello. Can there possibly be any doubt of the Pope’s intention in this matter?
No. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the Pontiff’s intent. My point is it is not sententia definitive tenenda and need not be considered as viable or deserving any adherence whatsoever. Read my response to Steve Skojec above which I will post momentarily. It explains my views more extensively.
Everyone seems to be neglecting the “public scandal” angle. Part of the problem with D&R people presenting themselves for Communion is that even if they ARE “living as brother and sister,” the other people in the congregation don’t know that, and will — given the culture we live in — assume that of course they are having sexual relations. This dulls the consciences and weakens the faith of others in the church, since they will conclude that the Church doesn’t REALLY mean what it teaches about marriage. It’s similar to the way many Catholics conclude that opposition to abortion is a merely optional thing, since they see pro-abortion legislators receiving Communion every Sunday.
When John Paul II considered the possibility of communion for D&R based on mercy in Familiaris Consortio his final rejection was largely based on the scandal it would cause. As was the position of Benedict XVI.
“He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery with her.”
I don’t see any mitigating factors there. Who cares what the Argentinian bishops, or the Pope for that matter, are using to try to fit a square peg in a round hole? It’s bogus from front to back no matter who tries to pull it off.
Which reminds me, I think some direct broadsides at Cupich, McElroy, Farrell, et al are in order. Those queens are flying under the radar and getting away with it.
Rod even if there is controversy on whether the letter now establishes authentic Magisterial teaching we are nevertheless obliged to reject it as Steve Skojec indicates since it repudiates unchangeable doctrine on Adultery and D&R.
Truth can never contradict truth. How, then, can a teaching that repudiates unchangeable doctrine be magisterial, in any way, shape or form?
Rather, an erroneous teaching is, and always will be just that, erroneous, irrespective of its source, and must be firmly rejected.
It appears, therefore, that we are dealing here with an absurd attempt at conferring magisterial status to an erroneous teaching. For obvious reasons, such attempts can never succeed.
I don’t believe the letters are authentic magisterial teaching Joannes as I explain in my second response to Steve Skojec immediately above. God I’m absolutely convinced will not permit a Roman Pontiff to bind the faithful by magisterial pronouncement [or as I argue throughout issued as a sententia definitive tenenda] to practice what is sinful. Again there is nothing in these letters despite their inclusion in the Acta Apostolica that is definitively addressed to the entire Church .
I have no doubts about your Catholic orthodoxy, Fr. Morello, and I greatly admire your courage.
Having said that, wouldn’t you agree that the “controversy on whether the letter now establishes authentic Magisterial teaching” you were referring to in your above response to Rod belongs entirely to the domain of the absurd? Magisterium and heterodoxy are two totally incompatible notions.
On the other hand, even though the two erroneous documents in question were intended, at least initially, for the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires, they deal with issues relevant to the entire Church. And by declaring them to be part of the “authentic Magisterium” and publishing them in AAS, the Pope seems to be attempting to extend their validity to the entire Church. Don’t you think?
Yes.Yes. That is his intent. His scurrilous response against the honest inquiries of prelates, ordinary priests and Laity, and the attempt to use the camouflage of orthodox statements to obscure his real motivation to recreate the Church not by clear, definitive Magisterial definition but by slight of hand betrays something about him that can’t be reconciled with goodness, honesty, good will and love of people, which virtues indicate someone placed in their position of authority by God–that this Pontiff is indeed not the work of the Holy Spirit but rather permitted for the unfolding of a divine plan to separate the chaff from the wheat before judgment. That is my growing conviction. We must refuse the deception and stand fast with Christ.
I agree, but is that not the very definition of Protestantism, i.e. setting oneself in opposition to the pope?
Normally yes. Not when a Roman Pontiff is in error as had occurred with Honorius I. Now the distinction Heartlander is whether what Pope Francis says is a valid exercise of his Authentic Magisterium. It clearly is not. The letter of affirmation now introduced in Acta Apostolica doesn’t teach anything. It’s an affirmation of another letter from Argentina regarding request for approbation of the Argentine directives. There is no specification of what is approved in the Pope’s letter. Cardinal Coccopalmiero very recently announced that the Argentine letter seeking Pontifical approbation is now also included in Acta Apostolica. Coccopalmiero sought to publicly confirm that this act now raises the view of the Argentine Bishops regarding possible exceptions for communion to D&R as official and similarly raises Ch 8 AL to the level of promulgated [words to that effect] Doctrine. And it’s someone other than the Pontiff, their author that makes this claim. The two letters do not comply with Prop Two of the Doctrinal Commentary to Ad Tuendam Fidem requiring sententia definitive intenda for it to be binding. Or even valid. An important condition regarding Proposition Two of the Doctrinal Commentary, which Proposition Two addresses the Authentic Magisterium when it directly references the Deposit of the Faith [Proposition One], unlike doctrine on a lower level of import in Proposition Three for example disciplinary matters. Any expression of the Authentic Magisterium made by the Pontiff referencing the Deposit, here indissolubility of marriage and Adultery must therefore be by solemn pronouncement or sententia definitive intenda. The two letters in the Acta are not valid magisterial doctrine as purported by Cardinal Coccopalmiero and implied by Cardinal Parolin.
If it truly “repudiates unchangeable doctrine on adultery” then how does that not make Bergoglio a heretic? And if he is a heretic, has he not thereby automatically deposed himself from the papacy?
He’s in error but he left himself enough wiggle room to talk himself out of it. Whether he is Laetae Sententiae excommunicated by his acts, it’s something we can’t speculate at this point because he hasn’t attempted to formally change doctrine. If he is only God knows that.
I agree Father; however, the theological parsing of this matter and most of what Francis has obfuscated or misrepresented throughout his tenure as the Bishop of Rome will be way over the head of the average Catholic, who will be utterly lost if he pays attention and, unhappily, if he does not.
I fully agree Bosco. That’s the deception the body of the faithful are being urged to accept.
THAT’S IT.
I have marveled at the culture of Proverbs 10:19 deception that has been put before “average Catholic guy” over the last 50 years. ALWAYS there is this plausible deniability of heresy.
It’s Anglicanism, pure and simple, and many Catholics just don’t want to admit it.
Good reference, but don’t forget Proverbs 10:18 which leads in to your citation:
“Lying lips that hide malice, foolish lips that spread slander,
what a world of sin there is in talking!
Where least is said, most prudence is.”
Proverbs 10:18-19 (Msgr. Ronald Knox translation of O.T.)
I thought this was the key takeaway: “I think it can be summed up best by saying that we should accept that teaching as true precisely to the extent that it does not conflict with irreformable Catholic doctrine.”
That is in fact what ultimately determines the issue of whether the letter now establishes authentic teaching Steve. If there is conflict with irreformable doctrine we reject it.
And since such conflict DOES exist where does this leave us, where DOES this lead us?
We are not obliged Barry to follow teaching if it is ambiguous thus non binding and certainly must reject it if it contradicts defined doctrine on faith and morals. Nothing that this Pontiff has produced meets the standard of binding doctrine.
That is where it leaves us of course but where it leads us is difficult to say, we can only speculate.
We need THAT formal correction from those who “exposed” the Pope with the Dubia or eventually many
may scatter as sheep do without solid guidance.
Thanks Fr.
True.
“I fear though Card Burke is holding back because he’s stultified by the failure of previous attempts to effect any beneficial response from the Pontiff.”
I’ve lost patience with Catholic leaders. Are they REALLY that naive? If Burke is surprised by the void of “dialogue” he’s getting from Bergoglio then Burke is one whale of a lot less intelligent than everybody says he is.
I work in secular business. Maybe Burke should get some advice from guys that deal with dishonest crooks every day. As if he doesn’t deal with enough of them himself. If he really expected to be respected and treated as Cardinal, then I don’t know what to say.
“And the master praised the dishonest steward for his shrewdness; for, in relation to their own contemporaries, the men of this age are shrewder than the sons of Light.”
This passage comes to mind.
Wake up, Burke.
Cardinal Burke, Rod. Let’s keep our decorum here.
The good cardinal is operating in the certainty that standing up to El Bergo — I mean, formally, with others behind him, the only sort of thing that might count — will cause a schism. And thus he’ll get the blame for it, Not the pope. Kinda like harassing a guy verbally in a whisper till he hits you, then calling all to witness you were brutally punched!
One problem with that is, the schism exists de facto already, just not de jure. All the maneuvering is to see who gets blamed for that stop up to de jure.
And as many have said, too, Card Burke doesn’t want to damage the papacy. the office itself. Bringing down PF will probably do that — which to the Modernists is a feature, not a bug.
RC
The sad reality is that we are in one or very close to one. That is why I call the situation a cold civil war in the Church.
I appreciate that but I would assume that they ‘thought things through’ before issuing the Dubia.
Their credibility is at risk (of departure altogether) if there is no further movement. Perhaps that is
THEIR “sacrifice” since it is (of course) particularly an unanswered Dubia that uncovered the Pope’s intentions
to “change” what should “not be changed”
Thanks Fr.
Yes the silence of the Pope, refusal to correct and overall words and actions the accumulation of which can suffice to indict him, whether by affirming what we already believe is error or by a council of bishops, cardinals. The latter seems wishful thinking at this point since so many are siding with him and others like Cardinal Burke seem stultified. The best you and I and others who oppose the damage he’s causing is continue to speak out with fortitude and offer prayer and sacrifice. Perhaps as I’m becoming increasingly convinced only divine intervention will resolve this travesty.
I doubt the numbers are there for a council of Bishops, Divine intervention suggests “helplessness” and
subsequently if this is so Our Faith suggests such intervention being realized in due course.
Thanks Fr.
Is it possible to make a blunt accusation against him that will compel him to defend himself? Like a competent authority declaring him to be a manifest heretic and advising him he is no longer the Pope and no Catholic must or should obey him?
Yes. Every bishop and cardinal receives the office as defender of the faith and in that capacity they can. Bishop Athanasius Schneider appears most consistent in opposing the Pontiff’s views although as much as I would agree with such a reprimand I doubt this Pontiff will submit.
Isn’t that the real question, Father? If the pontiff will not submit, then what? You see, this is what Cardinal Burke simply cannot fathom- what is the next step? If it is deposition, what happens after that? An imperfect council of the willing prelates? What??? The good cardinal must surely know that the consequences of either acting or not acting remain almost a Hobson’s Choice- damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Al considering the immensity of what’s at stake when you’re facing a true two option dilemma the only real choice is to act. The only other example when silence was warranted occurred with Pius XII regarding the murder of Jews and Hitler’s murderous fanaticism that likely would have triggered more killing of the innocent. Here we have the murder of the human soul by treachery and lies that can only be avoided by open opposition.
I hope the remaining Dubia Cardinals and their supporting brother prelates act- and soon. If they do not act, I fear the clouds of darkness and what that will mean for so many faithful Catholics. Thank you for your reply. God Bless you.
It’s certainly no service to humanity to let Francis keep pounding away at his flock, telling them, figuratively speaking, that 2+2=5. FALSEHOOD. The more people start speaking up and affirming TRUTH — that 2+2 indeed equals 4, always has, always will, and not even God Himself will change it — the better.
Knowing as you do he will not submit, I’m after more than that. If a competent authority declared him a manifest heretic he’d know something is up and his job is in jeopardy. Would his failure to respond to that be an opening to depose him? Would that be enough to break the episcopal log jam and get some serious Cardinals and bishops to join the effort? No one can answer that, of course, but I’d like to see a trial run.
Probo.
Maybe this might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/07/pope-francis-wants-to-change-line-our-father-prayer.amp.html
As I posted in my reply to Steve: This is really scary.
Yes Margaret it has all the hallmarks of a climactic moment. Let’s pray for the best result.
But Jesus Himself did not see “Lead us not into temptation.” According to the Bible, He said “Do not put us to the test.” Jesus didn’t use the word “trespasses” either. Scripture tells us that Jesus said, “Forgive us our offenses as we also have forgiven those who have offended us.”
Sorry, but the Church changed Jesus’s words for the Lord’s Prayer centuries ago.
And I don’t have a problem with “Do not let us fall into temptation” since that’s the way the prayer has always been phrased in Spanish. “No nos dejes caer en la tentación.”
There are so many legitimate reasons to believe that Francis has deposed himself because of actual heresy, that I hate to see people getting all worked up about something that’s not heresy.
There’s no real conflict, Barry. Bergoglio is insisting we make ourselves complicit in the mortal sin of adultery. Is there an option there?
Steve this copy of a post I made earlier on CWR explains my position on this crisis and the reason why I disagree with what Dr Joy says here that seems to conflict with a previous interview:
Edward Peter’s confirms what others conclude [Dr. John Joy, co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies and a specialist in Magisterial authority said “It means that it is an official act of the pope rather than an act of the pope as a private person. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops requires religious submission of will and intellect which would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals”–posted by 1P5] that it is a private letter and doesn’t officially teach anything. It appears a typical ruse. This has been part of the “tactic” (Prof Pierantoni’s description) of reference to a negative commandment Thou shalt not commit Adultery in a positive context allowing for myriad exceptions. Why wouldn’t the Pontiff make official pronouncements on what he continuously indicates are his intentions but instead does so furtively, obliquely, always with a degree of ambiguity if not that he is aware that an authority above himself will not permit it and he knows that. If God permits this trial for all concerned, which He in fact does and that none of these apparent doctrines are binding then we are being given a conscientious choice centered on loyalty to the words of Christ or their repudiation. That really is our choice.
But it feels really weird to set my own convictions against the Pope. Even if that doesn’t technically make me Protestants, it sure makes me FEEL Protestant — that feeling of rebelliousness, that feeling of “I know better than the Pope.” I resent the heck out of Bergoglio putting me in that position.
So many words are expended on the formal and informal meaning and application of Pope Francis seemingly heretical teaching. This effort, I suppose, is laudable for those whose responsibility and competence is to study such matters. However, for the average serious Catholic who needs direction now, such deliberations are both frustrating and and off-putting. Accordingly, we could use some clear direction on how we should respond to Pope Francis’ “new teaching” on sexual morality. My opinion is that it should be treated as material heresy until proven otherwise.
Correct Michael there’s sufficient evidence that the Pontiff is in error if not formally materially. You’re on the right track and others who are confused and wavering need to read what you have to say.
Thanks Father. I appreciate that. One asks for abuse who stands up for established Catholic doctrine. But that is our duty as Catholics—to defend the faith even as many of our Bishops have forsaken that responsibility.
If the pope teaches that 2+2 = 5 or some other proposition (say on a moral or political issue) that is not infallible but does not conflict with irreformable Catholic doctrine, what does “religious submission of will and intellect” mean for a Catholic?
A broader formulation could be: “religious submission means that we should accept the teaching in question as true precisely to the extent that it does not conflict with doctrine taught by higher authority.” Irreformable Catholic doctrine would certainly be a higher authority. Most other teaching of the authentic magisterium is even of higher authority than a letter like this. And the certain conclusions of natural reason (e.g. 2+2=4) are also of higher authority. But if it simply conflicts with your own opinions, then you need to yield your opinions.
Yet, it is inserted in the last paragraph of the Professio
Fidei which obliges the following to take it:
NOTE: Canon 833, Nos. 5-8 obliges the following to make the
profession of faith: vicars general, episcopal vicars and judicial vicars;
“at the beginning of their term of office, pastors, the rector of a
seminary and the professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to
be promoted to the diaconate”; “the rectors of an ecclesiastical or
Catholic university at the beginning of the rector’s term of office”; and,
“at the beginning of their term of office, teachers in any universities
whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals”; and
“superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic
life in accord with the norm of the constitutions.”
It would seem then that there are other authorities higher than the letter besides “irreformable Catholic doctrine”. In view of these possible authorities, what is the authority of the letter that it should demand religious submission of will and intellect? Mightn’t different readers assessing the various higher authorities reach different conclusions about whether the letter demands submission? Conflict with one’s own (=personal?) opinions is seldom the reason for not submitting, since on any controversial subject, expert (=authoritative?) opposing opinions are usually in abundance.
And, pace John Joy, below, or at least notwithstanding what I am sure would be an incorrect inference to draw from his comment, “authentic magisterium” does not encompass purely political matters. A faithful Catholic is perfectly in order to oppose any and all of the Holy Father’s expressed opinions on economics, etc., insofar as they do not touch on moral issues.
I think that’s what they call a small mercy.
Then one question is whether “authentic magisterium” encompasses the matter of the letter. The question may seem frivolous, but perhaps it is not, since controversial issues of faith and morals are rarely “pure”.
No, not frivolous at all. I was thinking more or less the same thing.
The pope apparently believes that his response to the Argentine bishops, and even their letter itself, if I understand correctly, are “authentic magisterium”. But deciding on what is and what is not authentic magisterium is, presumably, not guaranteed by the gift of infallibility.
I am afraid I am reminded of Protestant claims of “sola scriptura”.
What a shemozzle! So we’ve got a brief footnote which is couched in ambiguous and vague terms which is then “clarified” by a letter to a national bishop’s conference, which then gets inserted into the AAS. And that’s an “authentic magisterium”? Please. What a tortuous, elliptical, weasel route to a magisterial pronouncement. In fact, it’s a complete joke! How does anyone take any of this seriously? Is this what we’ve come to? Next we’ll hear that Francis had an elevator conversation with a cardinal who works for the curia where he mentioned what Francis said to another cardinal who told a bishop………
The whole thing is a sick parody of the Petrine ministry.
..
AND PF claimed that he could not remember the footnote in the first place… some magisterium.
Of course it is not an „authentic magisterium”. Although it does not change the fact that Francis is teaching the heresy and cardinals should do something about it.
What Dr Joy says is fine and dandy – technically correct and erudite. I don’t disagree with what he says and the following comment is not aimed at him at all, but rather at those who might get their knickers in a twist about accepting something which is purportedly part of the “authentic Magisterium.”
My response to those who quibble and fret about what Frankenpope has supposedly branded as authentic is: Puhleeese, get a grip, grow a brain cell, take your thumb out your @ss – this is Bergoglio we are talking about here!!! The man can’t string two sentences together without spouting bovine excrement all over the place. He isn’t for real, he isn’t credible, he can’t be trusted to tell you the right time of day. The only thing authentic about this guy is the consistency of his ability to lie and destroy things – he’s worse than my mutant teenage ninja son.
Even if he tried to teach anything “Ex Cathedra”, I wouldn’t believe it because he is who he is. He’s a lying, manipulative sociopath and we have all the evidence you could ever need to know that he is a lying, manipulative sociopath ( and I’m only half way through “The Dictator Pope”).
God gave us reason for a reason and faith is not opposed to reason – we can’t use it as an excuse to justify doing something really stupid. Believing that anything that this nutjob says has any magisterial value whatsoever is not only stupid – its really, really, really, stupid – and we deserve everything we get if we fall for it.
As I said elsewhere this week, the rule of law doesn’t cease to exist because the legislator in chief likes to pretend that it has.
The laws that govern the Church are God’s laws, put in place by God’s design to ensure that His Church retains its character of indefectibility. We observe those laws and rules and theological distinctions because they matter to us. They mattered in the past, they matter in the present, and they will certainly matter in the future when this mess is sorted out. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, why good guys so often lose. They observe the conventions of war, while villains cheat.
It’s not a comfortable thing to say, but I can’t muster up any reasonable doubt that Francis is a material heretic. I also believe that if put to the test, he would prove his pertinacity. Which is precisely why I think he MUST be put to the test. This is why the failure of Burke, et. al., to take action is arguably as scandalous as what Francis is doing. And of course, if it could be proven, much of what he says and does would simply be invalidated.
The issue I have is that while we can come to a moral certitude of certain things, we need more. We need to move from de facto to de jure. And the nature of formal heresy is that it is very much de jure.
Until we get there, we must look at things like this with the grave suspicion they warrant, remind ourselves of what the Church teaches about such things under normal circumstances, and be patient despite how wrong it feels for God to show us that He really is guiding His Church.
“It’s not a comfortable thing to say, but I can’t muster up any reasonable doubt that Francis is a material heretic. I also believe that if put to the test, he would prove his pertinacity. Which is precisely why I think he MUST be put to the test. This is why the failure of Burke, et. al., to take action is arguably as scandalous as what Francis is doing”
I couldn’t agree more.
Burke’s inaction IS JUST AS SCANDALOUS AS THE POPES.
And if he never acts, I see no difference between him and the Pope at all. Maybe in degree, but certainly not in essence.
One question. IS there an ‘et al’? If Card Burke is on his own, IS there anything he can do other than restate the truth? Which he constantly does. We’ve all heard there are others behind him, but are they STILL behind him? (Hmm, that’s turned into three questions!)
There is only one reason Cardinal Burke must put the correction on the ‘record.’ And that’s because it MUST be recorded so that future generations can see in black and white the heretical errors of Francis. Cardinal Burke (and others who believe like he does) knows that Francis will not be moved at all if he is formally corrected.
What’s important is that he DO it!!!! Get it down! Put it out there! Then Francis, when he continues to be silent, will be called out for the heretic he is.
I agree, Barbara. Cardinal Burke is under tremendous pressure, but that’s no reason he can’t tell the world the truth. With the other three Cardinals who signed the Dubia, he has taken the lead and, with two of the four deceased and most of the rest too scared to join him, he is now frozen in mid-course and essentially alone. I have written to him. His reply was he’s doing all he can. I’m not sure about that, but I’m not in his boots. But if I were, knowing myself, I’d be all over Bergoglio and even if he excommunicated me, having the bully pulpit, I would not cease to condemn him 24/7. But that’s me, safely in front of my computer screen.
General George Patton’s motto during WWII was, ‘Never take council of your fears.’ Fear has hamstrung many world leaders over time. Cardinal Burke has said he won’t be part of a schism, but it’s too late for that. There is schism throughout the Church and all he can do is either fight it or join his brother bishops under the bed.
I don’t know why you only pick on cardinal Burke. Aren’t there any other cardinals around.
All cardinals inaction IS JUST AS SCANDALOUS AS THE POPES.
Why does there seem to be this obsession with cardinals?
The responsible party that needs to take action is the successors of the apostles, namely, the BISHOPS.
The Hippocratic Oath is operative here.
First, do no harm.
Thank you Steve. The Church is governed by law and we must live by them, because they do matter. So well stated.
I am not trying to “pick a fight” with Ed Peters, or Dr Joy. They have a duty to clearly state the laws that govern the Church. And they have done so. I am very concerned that the cardinals will hide behind this and further dig themselves and all of us into a deeper grave.
I was hoping that perhaps this last act by Francis would cause a reaction by Cardinal Burke at least.
So much folly will be made from this last act by Francis, in my opinion.
Totally agree – he should be put to the test and it is a scandal that the rest of the hierarchy will not rise to their obligations in the true sense of collegiality and actually put him to the test.
But when all is said and done, “material heretic”, “formal heretic”, simply “offensive to pious ears” are all nice and formal canonical and theological definitions which wrap things up in just-so terms. However, there is something far more fundamental here for anybody with any residue of the sensus catholicus:- would you buy a used car from this bloke? Is it really rational to place any trust in him at all given his record of the last 5 years, to say nothing of what went before?
I think the solution to the Bergoglio question is as much in the hands of the laity as anybody else. If enough of the faithful just refuse to follow this joker because he is utterly unworthy of belief, then his papacy will fail and Our Lord Himself will depose him whatever the Cardinals do or don’t do. Vox populi and all that.
“would you buy a used car from this bloke?”
No, and that is the thing that I have wrestled with as a Catholic for 3 years. I stood up for this guy for a year and felt I was losing my integrity as a man for doing it.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82137085d7349fb983a8b18664e07652f786b2fdbba5a465804e4d6b2d70fa7a.png
When the late John Vennari said he would not trust Francis to teach the catechism to his children I think it summed it up well. The thing is I just can’t get pass the logical conclusion that Jorge was already set in these errors long before March 2013. I mean it does not make sense that he would suddenly become a heretic or apostate after he arrived in Rome. The St Gallen mafia group certainly knew who they were dealing with. However if you reach that logical conclusion then we have an imposter on the throne which is a terrible situation to be in. Would God allow such a deception to occur? I will let St John Eudes answer – bad priests are a punishment from God for the sins of the faithful. If God has allowed such a man to reach “the top” to use the words of the late Cardinal Ciappi, how angry must He be? How about a billion aborted babies angry? How about 40-50 years of blasphemous liturgy passed off as Mass? Kyrie eleison.
I’m in.
I agree, . . . .”in the hands of the laity”
“If enough of the faithful just refuse to follow this joker…”
Being on the lower end of the Catholicism intellectual spectrum, and while I agree with the sentiment, what I’ve not been able to discern from following the myriad discussions wrt AL is exactly what actions can we the lowly laity take? What is it we’re supposed to do/say that will manifest our rejection?
The Pope is driving faster than the posted speed limit, the USCCB is racing to keep up, what can I do except stay in my lane and follow the posted speed limit sign? A second question just as important: Who will be the Trooper that finally forces adherence to the law?
Seems like there’s not much proactively we can do, we must wait until one of the “possibilities” is put into practice and then try to un-ring the bell.
“The Pope is driving faster than the posted speed limit, the USCCB is racing to keep up, what can I do except stay in my lane and follow the posted speed limit sign? A second question just as important: Who will be the Trooper that finally forces adherence to the law?”
I love mental pictures and this one here is spot on.
Except from my seat watching the video from the news helicopter, it looks like the USCCB car spun out, rolled a 360 and is now piled up and burning in the ditch.
I myself am doing precisely that — not giving this man any loyalty in my heart — but my fear is that that basically makes me a Protestant.
Of course, I have always been an ornery, think-for-myself type, and I was FURIOUS with John Paul II when he kissed that loathsome, diabolical Koran, but somehow I was able to chalk up even that blasphemous act to a beloved father who was simply misguided and slipped up.
With Bergoglio, it’s different. I’m not willing to cut him any slack at all, because basically, I do not see him as my father at all. Perhaps that’s because, unlike JPII, Bergoglio is constantly berating people like me. Fathers are supposed to admonish their children, but not just rail at them all the time. It’s a little like the way Obama was constantly hectoring and scorning his own fellow Americans, telling them how bigoted and narrow they were just because they adhered to traditional values rather than to his Leftist garbage.
Also, JP II was extremely devoted to reason and rational argument, and would make a case for what he was advocating. He calmly tried to convince us of things. He was a TEACHER. Bergoglio, in contrast, like so many others in our shallow pop culture, seems to be all about “feelings.” He tries to appeal to our emotions, rather than to our powers of reason. Subjectivity rather than objectivity. And if you don’t align with him, then you’re a cold, unfeeling “Pharisee” and all the rest of it.
IOW, there is no way I’ll allow a lying tin horn South American dictator to coerce me into complicity with mortal sin.
I agree with your posts very much on this matter for what it is worth.
I do not believe there is a ” line in the sand” where these cardinals will cross and Bergoglio knows this all too well. He is COUNTING on legalize, sentimentality to the papacy, and the fear of being seen as divisive ( the EGO), by the cardinals to go unabashed on his quest.
Steve, you may want to check out this from Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/07/pope-francis-wants-to-change-line-our-father-prayer.amp.html
This is getting really scary.
Margaret
“This is why the failure of Burke, et. al., to take action is arguably as scandalous as what Francis is doing.”
Why don’t people get this? I do honestly want to know.
I think there’s both a sypathy with the position they’re in (“Well, if they do something they’re going to be rendered completely useless and then they can’t stay in the fight”) and a reticence to hold accountable those few prelates who actually seem to be on our side in some way.
But as Antonio Socci wrote:
“If therefore the apostolic mandate of Jesus and the reason the Church exists is evangelization, how can we remain silent in the face of a pontificate like Bergoglio’s which – with both words and actions – totally overturns the Lord’s command?
Are there still any Catholic bishops and cardinals left? They ought to know that God will demand an account from them for their complicit silence. And in case they might have forgotten, we must remind them of it.”
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/evangelization-mission-listen-jesus-church-time-novelties-bergoglio/
“Well, if they do something they’re going to be rendered completely useless and then they can’t stay in the fight.” To me this seems quite similar to the arguments that the disciples made against Jesus going to the cross.
I agree. It’s a form of consequentialism. I’m not saying I think it’s correct. I’m just trying to understand where it’s coming from.
Yes, I understood you in that way.
I think it’s sort of a cognitive dissonance. We’ve read for so long that X bishop is “orthodox” and Y bishop is not. Now we see that the supposedly orthodox bishops are nearly or completely silent about this crisis facing the Church.
Don’t hold back, Deacon Augustine. Take your best shot and say what you really mean.
What Francis wrote in ‘Amoris laetitia’ is just his own opinion (cfr. #3 & #4). Francis calling it now “authentic magisterium” is simply a contradiction in terms. Calling it that in a rescript is null and void (cfr. CIC 1983, c. 59, § 1).
With all due respect, articles like this one, despite being well written and well intended, are mere asides dealing with what is not the real crux of the matter…
“What Francis wrote in ‘Amoris laetitia’ is just his own opinion.” Did he even write the thing? My understanding was that Tucho Fernández ghost-wrote it for him.
You’re right. He just signed it.
Since it was ghost-written by an aide, it shouldn’t even be in AAS.
hey, soon Our Lord Will send us a Restorer who will ‘call sin sin and good good’.,”The Angel of Peace’formed by Our Lady.Be of good cheer,for I Have conquered the world’says Christ.. This 2nd john the baptist will speak words of heavenly balm to us when we need it most. This person will go head to head with the last Antichrist and then Hurray we will have The golden Age or Holynew Era Our Lady promised where Christ Will Reign in all hearts for the full 1000 yrs;The second Coming. The fufilment of the Lord’s Prayer when Fathers’ Will WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN” Praise God in all things ,His Plans are Perfect. GOD bless
I can see why people don’t want to join the Church.
I recently said ” I can see why people don’t want to join the Church”. This wasn’t meant to be a an insult or a mean- spirited comment… (because it wasn’t posted). I am a Catholic, and I am traditional and conservative however, the Church can be so technical and confusing to both people within it and outside of it. I agree with the contents of this article but to be frank, if I wasn’t Catholic I’m not sure if I’d want to join such a large and confusing establishment that currently does not even seem to agree with itself. Its appears that it would be easier to pray and love God in my heart and forget this whole mess.
Indeed, the only people in the Bible using such pedantic, labyrithine arguments are the Pharisees. Jesus seems to pretty much accept with tenderness all who throw themselves on His mercy.
It is not nice and neither it can be correct to implicate that those who are pedantic teachers and doctors of Catholic Church, Faith, Law, should (must) always belongs to the campus of Pharisees.
How do you even begin to explain this mess to a potential convert? Don’t go to that parish because the priest isn’t really Catholic and also this pope we have don’t pay any attention to him.
Not to mention: How do we explain it to our children? How do we raise them Catholic when the pastor is a “liberal” spouting the kind of insidious nonsense the pope is constantly spouting? When you spend the drive home from church on Sunday giving them caveats and corrections to what they’ve just heard? How do they learn to respect priests if their own mom and dad are constantly disagreeing with him? And with the bishop? And with the pope?
I understood very well what you meant.
The Church is under an abusive “father” right now…….And there is a vast amount of ” sick” enabling going on from the hierarchy on down.
Let’s all just stand around and play word games here: is it authentic magisterial teaching or is it not and let’s define
and argue the points: WHILE Bergoglio has said ” it is Authentic Magisterial” teaching.
And that frankly, is that. He is the pope, the last time I looked. And his statement matters very much to the vast majority of Catholics in the pews, behind the collar, and those who look at the Church from the outside.
It matters VERY MUCH to me.
Perhaps our holy and intelligent men need to come out from behind their books, their studies, their fine robes and understand that their flock is in the midst of a very, very bad situation which not only is jeopardizing their ability to know Truth, but to respect the papacy and the Magisterium.
Right now I have deep respect for the office of the Pope, but struggle to deal with a Pope who is simply abusive as Pope.
It is because we respect the office of the papacy so much that we are so agonized by all that is going on. If we didn’t think the papacy was any big deal, we ‘d just say “meh” and shrug our shoulders.
Your viewpoints are very refreshing indeed. Right now the Church is in a cold civil war.
This is a bit (but not a lot) off topic, but did any of you folks see the Fox News segment with Fr, Jonathan Morris reporting that the pope intends to drop “AND LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION” from the Lord’s Prayer? I keep thinking things can’t get any more screwy, but then I’m proven wrong again and again.
Wut???
Reuters reports that during a television interview with an outlet in France, the Pope has suggested worldwide change to the Lord’s Prayer.
“That is not a good translation,” he said in a television interview on Wednesday night — according to initial reports, referring to “lead us not into temptation” in speaking with God.
The Supreme Pontiff apparently said the Catholic Church in France had decided to use the phrase “do not let us fall into temptation” as an alternative and indicated that it or something similar should be applied worldwide.
“It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation,” he said, according to another media report.
He added Christians in France had adapted the prayer to get around the issue.
Pope Francis said: “The French have modified the prayer to ‘do not let me fall into temptation’, because it is me who falls, not the Lord who tempts me to then see how I fall.”
Two versions of this prayer are recorded: the long form in the Gospel of Matthew in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, and the short form in the Gospel of Luke when “one of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, as John [the Baptist] taught his disciples.
http://www.spiritdaily.com
I thought it means do not put us to the test? Not that He would leads us to sin.
The Greek translation is also ” trial” or test.
“What it teaches us to pray is that the temptation does not take us in. Don’t lead me INTO temptation. Deliver me from this evil that is set before me.
Today I will stand before innumerable temptations. That’s what life is: endless choices between belief and unbelief, obedience and disobedience. But, O mighty God, forbid that I would yield. Hold me back from stepping inside the temptation.”
John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books, including Reading the Bible Supernaturally.
My thoughts: The Lord’s prayer calls down on God to please give us HIs graces in all humility to handle the trial or the test and not let us fail. I really don’t think Francis has the foggiest clue about God’s graces, especially Sanctifying Graces and the ability of mankind to resist or not be lead “into” these temptations.
In Portugal, we’ve *always* prayed “don’t let us fall into temptation”.
Wow! I did not know that. Anyway, we may be finding some new phraseology working its way into the English version of the Lord’s Prayer.
Yes. Here’s the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/07/pope-francis-wants-to-change-line-our-father-prayer.amp.html
Bergoglio’s point is, the words “lead us not into temptation” beg the question whether God would ever lead His children, I.e., tempt them, to sin. Theology is a tricky area to get involved with and i’m not a theologian, so I hesitate to go any further with that. That said, I think Joao’s message below contains a more accurate translation of the Aramaic spoken by Our Lord.
Yes, things could get rather interesting. For instance: What does Bergoglio think of the fact that the Father not only allowed, but even deigned that His Son be tempted in the desert by the evil one. From the announcement that God would send us a Savior, all the way til the Ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven, is seems to me that everything was divinely mapped out, to fulfill the prophecies of Salvation. And the temptations against Jesus by the evil one was part of that divine plan. I am not sure how big a part of God’s job it is to keep us from temptation. Rather, it is our job that, when a temptation comes our way, that we resist it, and thereby defeat it. But evidently, Jesus did refer to our requesting that the Father preserve us from temptation, in whatever words and language He used, which means, if Christ said it, we follow it.
Problem seems to be we don’t have an original in Aramaic. Many Catholics believe the original was written in either Koine (Greek) or liturgical Hebrew, not Aramaic. Regardless, St. Jerome renders it into Latin as “ne nos inducas in tentationem;” whether one thinks it’s a good or bad translation of the Greek original, that is what we have used since then. Most Catholics with half a brain have always known what is meant both in the Latin and the English rendition of the phrase, pace what the current pope seems to fear; we’re not stupid. I find it troubling that the same man who is insouciant enough, for example, to say aloud that a mass murderess like Emma Bonino is a “forgotten great” of Italy then expresses horror over a phrase billions of Catholics have uttered daily for almost 2000 years. Something is clearly out of balance there.
Excellent! You have nailed it again. Thank you.
Not to mention the beginning of the book of Job.
Now, where did those theolgians go who claimed it was a translation error? Lol. Remember? They claimed because the original was not in Latin people drew incorrect conclusions.
Can we finally dispense with the absurd spin and lies?
“Due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit given to the Church, we can be sure that instances of error in this kind of authentic teaching are rare.” Why should such instances as Amoris Laetitia be rare? If one pope can mislead the Church and the world, why couldn’t very many popes have done so? If Bergoglio is indeed the Holy Father, then we have learned that the papacy is very unreliable as a conveyor of the Faith. “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church…” but all you faithful, you can’t trust what Peter is teaching? Is that all the papacy is? With Bergoglio, that’s what it has been reduced to. Maybe he is the Pope, but if so, who needs the papacy?
The author writes: “popes can teach error in their authentic magisterium.” So why listen to popes, this one or any one (except for Peter — he was inspired by the Holy Ghost in his Epistles)? There might just be an error or two showing up. And who decides if a pope’s “non-infallible authentic magisterium” is wrong? Big “T” Tradition, as Bishop Williamson and no doubt the Orthodox would suggest? And who interprets that “Tradition”?
Bergoglio has done for the 6th Commandment what John Paul II had done previously for the 1st Commandment, although without making his horrible ecumenical acts and statements part of the “authentic magisterium” ( I hope.) The author again: “we should accept that teaching as true precisely to the extent that it does not conflict with irreformable Catholic doctrine.” But communicatio in sacris, which John Paul II certainly was involved in, was forbidden by the Church as part of divine law. By his actions he taught that had been considered a mortal sin for almost 2,000 years is now legitimate. It’s hard to see how, if Bergoglio is condemned, John Paul II is off the hook.
I am looking for clarity. What, whom can we trust in the Church? Alas, not the popes.
Patrick, the point you make is the one I am constantly wrestling with in my brain. We are told constantly how this teaching or that document is non infallible and that only an ex Cathedra pronouncement is infallible, but how many ex Cathedra pronouncements have been made in the last few decades? A couple? If a Pope can error a little here and error a little there, why not a lot here and a lot there? And then it’s up to the sheep to constantly judge the communications from the Pope? It doesn’t seem right that a Pope, who could be in office for many, many years, would have to be under constant scrutiny from underlings to correct his errors.
It looks to me like this is part of Bergoglio’s plan to take down the Church. The mere fact we are discussing the authenticity of the office of the Pope is troubling. Destroy that and you destroy the Catholic Church. And meanwhile most of our Cardinals and bishops are sitting on their hands, terrified of losing their perks if they dare to defend Christ against this pope from hell. I wouldn’t want to be them when they die.
Pope Francis is not trying to tear down the Church, he is erecting an anti-church which looks and sounds just like the real Church. That is what Bishop Sheen talked about decades ago. Satan ‘apes’ God, or tries to. Francis is building not tearing down. To the boob in Novus Ordo-land this new church looks pretty good – you get to have a party every Sunday at ‘mass’ and go home to your regular life feeling great. But God will not be mocked. The true Catholic Church stands today as it has always done. Those who are given graces, and respond to them, recognize this. God knows who will respond and who will not – seems terrible to us to think that God will not always give light to the blind, but there it is.
PF appoints a few more Cardinal’s….! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0fb3090e1cff1e02c36b7ee6d652a9a32944136a77b5addb5a757af781e15de.jpg
LOL…..
Fast forward to the next conclave and a potential encounter during preparations… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f12b49e82a27051fd39c3a511a2a62803e48d86264053eca14df4dfee3a447df.jpg
On the contrary to many people belief, papal infalibillity is not the absolute power, but an enormous limitation to any Pope. Almost everything has been defined yet. Defined ex-cathedra. There is not a possibility to define on infallible ground contrario sensu to a previous infallible definition. So even if Bergoglio eventually decides to define ex cathedra what he is trying to do by practice on the Amoris Letitia issue it has no value cause it goes against what has been defined before per secula seculorum.
So this is not even a question of Canonic Law but of logic.
Depose him and put a Catholic Pope. Or at least a reasonable one.
I read today that the Pope wants to change the Lords Prayer and leave out the part where we say, “lead us not into temptation”. He said that part makes people think the Lord leads us into temptation, when He doesn’t.
I remember reading once that this phrase is a bad translation or that it was changed for some reason. I can’t remember the specifics.
So tired of hearing this trope.
indūcās is second-person singular present active subjunctive of indūcō, primary meaning is to “lead, bring or conduct in or into somewhere.” The Our Father says, “et ne nos inducas in tentationem”, literally, “and lead us not into temptation”. Unless you feel the traditional latin prayers are in fact wrong and you’re talking about the aramaic prayer…. The original Latin prayer most certainly suggests that God tricks or deceives people into sin.
Thank you for the post. Btw, are you in NJ? I have cousins with your last name in NJ. (I’m Ukrainian Greek Catholic.)
I’m Byzantine Catholic – I knew you were Eastern rite from previous posts/comments of yours. Babiak’s a really common name, and I have relatives in Ohio, DC/VA, NY, NJ, and PA, and probably many more. Hello! Боже, Отче наш, молимо Тебе: заспокой страждання, зціли поранених і прийми душі полеглих у Твоєму Царстві Небесному. (Weirdly, there were few Eastern rite Churches in my day and still, so I went to Roman Catholic churches, university, wedding, baptism of children etc since age 4-5, only baptized and chrismated in the Byzantine Catholic Church, but have lived my whole life as a Roman Catholic, and still go to Roman Church, even toying with the idea of deacon a little lately. But I love my roots, what I know of them from books.
Deacon Babiak: It has a nice ring to it..sounds good..sounds emphatic!
You seem to be well informed concerning this translation. I’d like to pose a question you may be able to answer with some authority. Since we have no original version of the Gospels in Aramaic and, in fact, are not sure they were even written in that language, Jerome was surely translating from Greek to arrive at “et ne nos inducas in….” You indicate here that this is a faithful translation of the Greek. If this is the case, isn’t the pope then second-guessing Matthew and Luke? Not that it would faze him to do so….
You know, when I think of it, why would I not trust SAINT Jerome? Was he a poor Latin, Hebrew, Greek scholar? We must think long and hard, very long and hard, before we start changing things especially something as ancient as the traditional translation of The Our Father.
Isn’t this a perfect example of going far past tradition to embrace the so-called authentic meaning? For me, it’s good enough that the present translation is ancient – why did St. Augustine pray it? St. Dominic? St. Francis of Assisi? St. Padre Pio? St. Teresa of Avila? St. John of the Cross, up to St. Therese of the Child Jesus? All fools of course because they prayed words that make no sense???? I think not. They prayed the prayer as it was taught to them with the pure understanding that this prayer was pleasing to God – in the old translation. They did NOT pick every damn thing apart as we do today.
Enough already!!! Pray the Our Father like you did when you were a kid.
This is a very slippery slope. Think of a change in the Hail Mary because her virginity is not teachable to the modern mind. ” Hey, Mary, you were a pretty good mother! Good for you! Ask God to give us more grace, ok????” How would that be – more understandable?
Concerning your revised version of the Hail Mary, Barbara, be careful. Any idea or notion that one floats out there in cyberspace these days may catch the fancy of Jorge Bergoglio and then…. As for the line from the Pater Noster, there is a conceivable valid explanation for Francis’ notion that saves him from the accusation of hubris. Perhaps he has come to the conclusion that ours is the most stupid generation in the last two millennia, that we simply cannot understand any longer this phrase’s sense of “permitting,” i.e. do not ‘allow’ us, or ‘permit’ us, to be tempted.” I admit that such a position seems to contradict many other things he says, but that reality doesn’t seem to have given him pause in the past.
Excellent post, Barbara. Right on the money. The Aramaic might sound better to moderns, but that’s not what the Greek of St. Matthew’s Gospel says. We don’t have the original Aramaic (assuming, as I do, that that was the original).
However, I think that Job would demur regarding the notion that God could not “lead into temptation.”
You’re right as long as we understand that “lead” here means “permits the temptation to exist.”
Which has ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE been the assumption. Ain’t nothing new there.
Good grief folks, all this is is the whole Protestant “get back to the original ‘Early Church’ thing”.
Which means…that EVERY SINGLE DOCTRINE is up for grabs.
Now, as for getting back to the “Early Church”, it is high time we get rid of that phoney “Mass” thing and load the sanctuary with electric guitars so we can, as a gal I know says “Get my worship one” and belt out those “Praise Songs” just like the Apostles and the Fathers did at their “services”.
Rod, you see this rightly.
This is just a part of much bigger game which have for the goal – the CHANGE!
People must understand what is the real meaning of the CHANGE in this case(s).
Make changeable everything. As fast as possible. Until the main goal, the real target is not completely changed to unrecognizability.
Most people have missed changes which already happened with Our Lord prayer, in the other Western countries, namely Holland and Belgium which have two different (speaking) parts of country, French and Dutch.
And so, in Dutch (Flemish) part of Belgium “Our Lord” was changed almost a year ago
This was decided by Belgian and Dutch bishops!
They have more correct the old “bekoring” translation ( “temptation”, from the Latin “temptationem”) changed into the new version with totally different word “beproeving” (which means just “test”, “ordeal”, or “tribulation”)…
See here:
Apparently the wording Francis favors is closer to the traditional French translation which Archbishop Lefebvre advocated for. The difference being that Archbp. Lefebvre sought to conserve tradition vs. introduce novelties. I wonder if this is some sort of twisted head nod on the part of Francis.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-2.htm#Temtation
I read the reference you gave me, good reading. I found this one; “Blasphemous Lord’s Prayer corrected by France’s Catholic Church
A ‘blasphemous’ version of the Lord’s Prayer has finally been corrected by the French Catholic Church – 50 years after it was introduced”. Paste the whole thing and it will come up.
Peter can error? Not according to Vatican I:
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
With umpteen provisos, we’ll all live happily ever after.
If there are that many qualifications then why have all these statements by the Popes and Councils about the supremacy of the Papacy and “this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error”? Why not just make the Pope into a ceremonial figure of unity like the Queen of Great Britain and be done with it? Then each person can make his own decision what he believes and what he doesn’t believe from the Pope.
In the Traditional thought of the Church the truth of a doctrine can never itself be part of the criteria for what constitutes an authentic exercise of the Magisterium, for that would result in absurdity: It would require the faithful to know ahead of time and independently of the Magisterium what is true and what is false in religious matters, when the whole point of the Magisterium is to teach people what is true and what is false concerning faith and morals. Thus the role of teacher and taught would be entirely reversed.
In his book “The Origins of Papal Infallibility” historian Brian Tierney points out that there was a principle in Roman law which said that “a prince is not bound by the decrees of his predecessor.”
So that, for example, a particular emperor might bequeath a piece of land to a benefactor “for all time.” The next emperor is perfectly within his rights as emperor, to completely vacate the bequest, taking ownership of the property himself.
Papal infallibility, Tierney goes on to say, is actually a limitation on the rights of an individual Pope.
I don’t know where you find it, in Tradition or anywhere else in Catholic thought, that “…the truth of a doctrine can never itself be part of the criteria for what constitutes an authentic exercise of the Magisterium…”
Certainly, when it comes to Church discipline—eating meat on Fridays—can and has been changed. But when it comes to matters of faith and morals it is precisely defined truth which is an essential criterion. Otherwise, you’re telling us that Francis might just decide that the Immaculate Conception is an erroneous teaching.
If you’re saying that—despite the solemn teaching of the Church, for centuries, that divorced and remarried couples whose first spouses are still alive, are committing adultery and may not receive Communion—Francis can play Roman emperor and reverse that teaching, I’m afraid that’s just plain wrong.
Interesting discussion.
As a theologically-trained, ex-Protestant missionary, studying the doctrines of the faith in RCIA, naturally, the infallibility of the Pope was a huge issue.
And thus I sort of braced myself for my first reading of the declaration of the dogma. I remember then, and it still strikes me now, “What…is THIS what all the whoopla is about?”
For the LIMITATIONS scream off the page. The dogma IS a limitation. All the fears of Protestantism about the Pope being able to simply declare this or that true like a Mormon prophet are manifestly impossible.
That is not to say a bad Pope cannot do real damage to the faith of weak Catholics and divert from the Church non-Catholics. To deny that a Pope can do real damage to the faith by spouting personal opinions about this or that would be tantamount to saying I can’t by an act of will go rob a liquor store. It is a denial of another doctrine of the Church, that of Free Will.
The point is; Can the Pope CHANGE a dogma of the faith by an heretical opinion, and the answer is “No”.
BUT…just as I can, if I want to, go rob a liquor store, he can sure try, and THAT, my friends, is where Bishops, Priests, and laity come into the picture. We must defend the faith as it has been handed down.
Ultimately, we will stand before God and we will not have the right of an excuse that some Pope sired children, or ordered an unjust war, or suggested that Jesus sinned. We will stand before God and be judged for our works and saved by faith, faith that comes from the gift of grace.
A side note…
I’ve never seen it discussed—which probably counts for almost nothing—but often there seems to be confusion between what is infallibly true and what is infallibly binding.
As defined dogma, the Immaculate Conception is unalterably true. As a defined moral principle, the evil of premeditated murder is unalterably true. And both are infallibly binding, the first on all Catholics; the second, by virtue of natural law, is binding on all men.
When the Church forbade eating meat on Fridays, it was unalterably
binding—on all Catholics. But there was never anything intrinsically
evil about meat; nothing intrinsically evil about eating meat and
nothing intrinsically anti-meat about Fridays any more than any other
day of the week.
It was a matter of discipline and what made it sinful was the act of disobedience to the legitimate authority of the Church which required this manner of honoring Christ’s Good Friday sacrifice. That is why it could be changed.
The terms “authentic Magisterium” and “error” are radically incompatible. Errors cannot pertain to the authentic Magisterium, nor is there any such thing as the “fallible ordinary Magisterium.”
Question: Who determines that the Pope is in error? Mustn’t there be a correction from his Curia or bishops somewhere in the world? If it’s left to you and me whether or not the Pope is in error, we might as well be Protestants.
Make no mistake; I think the Pope is in error. But your solution bespeaks a bit of a “sleight of hand.” To determine whether or not the scenario laid out in your second paragraph is legitimate, one requires a formal and authoritative response from bishops in order for the laity to have a clear conscience in opposing a clear and unambiguous act of the Magisterium (and the AAS, heretofore, has been one of the triggers which signals an unambiguous act of the papal Magisterium).
….”laity to have a clear conscience in opposing a clear and unambiguous act of the Magisterium”….
Yes, I’d be interested to read Mr Ferrara’s take on that.
Exactly.
If the Pope’s teaching must be officially approved by moi before it becomes official, then I am effectively the Pope. That’s Protestantism.
Some error is subtle; others are manifest, requiring little or no scholarship to discern.
My all-time favourite, which I have posted on numerous sites, has to be Para 253 of Evangelii Gaudium. Pope Francis explains that Islam, properly understood, is opposed to all forms of violence. This plainly contradicts basic sanity as founded on 1400 years of history, numerous current events and many passages of the Koran. Not to mention the Prophet’s career as a mass murderer, rapist and paedophile. So we are free to pass judgement on such passages. Plus anything else the Pope writes on economics, politics, science, penal policy and so on.
Indeed.
My “favorite” is his swapping of God for Man in EG 161. What other term can be used for it but “blasphemy”?
Everybody gets wound up about AL {for good reason}, but EG is another roll of firestarter that needs to be addressed.
Several people have commented on various disastrous paragraphs of Evangelii Gaudium. Another obvious howler is a passage from Para 32:
“Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated”.
So each episcopal conference might have doctrinal autonomy? How does Rome prevent disintegration of the Church into regional fragments, except by retaining authority to override the episcopal conferences?
Popes have the faculty, under certain conditions, of speaking authoritatively on morals and the Christian faith. Francis appears to believe his authority allows him to speak definitively about Islam.
If we are unable to determine when a Pope has erred merely because we are not the Pope, then our faith has no objective content and the Pope becomes a gnostic guru. But in truth even the Pope is subject to the authentic Magisterium, not the other way ’round. This is exactly what Benedict XVI said at the outset of his papacy.
The truths of the faith are knowable by any well-catechized member of the faithful. And when, as in this case, a Pope flatly contradicts the teaching of his predecessors, we are able to see the contradiction. The Pope cannot force us to submit to error merely by SAYING “this is authentic Magisterium.” The authentic Magisterium cannot contradict itself.
Ironically, it is precisely Protestantism that characterizes the Pope as an inerrant guru no Catholic may ever question.
Finally, how can you defer to the bishops for an authoritative declaration that Francis is in error? Where does the Church teach that bishops alone can know whether a Pope has erred?
The objective content of the Faith is articulated by the Papal and episcopal Magisterium.
Of course the Pope is subject to the “authentic Magisterium.” But do you really think Benedict was saying that it’s up to the individual Catholic to decide its authenticity?
Unless you are ready to make each individual Catholic (or a cadre of internet lay gurus) a part of the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church (heretofore reserved to the Pope and bishops), you have not solved the conundrum in which we find ourselves. The “sensus fidelium” affirms what has already been promulgated as authentic magisterial teaching.
Your answer essentially destroys the historical authoritative structure of the Catholic Church.
senrex, you identify the real problem.
But language isn’t esoteric. It has meaning that can be defined, described and understood.
So when the words of a Pope clearly contradict the language of dogma, Mr Ferrara’s argument comes into play.
And this then is the heart of the chaos that 50 years of ambiguity and blatant assaults against past, defined doctrine has produced.
There is to me a practical matter.
Cardinal Burke could, by stating clearly the language of the defined and {in the past} accepted doctrine, make clear what the Church has always taught, and if the Pope stood against this clear re-presentation of perennial teaching, state for the world in clear language his opposition to teaching.
How would this be known?
Well, the Catholic faith is NOT a Gnostic religion, and I submit that it is known when NON-Catholics weigh in on what the Pope is teaching. And more and more, we see non-Catholics asserting that using common meanings of words, they hear the Pope teaching novel doctrines. This may neither be binding nor the final word, but it sure bolsters the position put forth that the Pope is not adhering to Tradition.
Rod, I believe the Pope is teaching error. BUT that is my private opinion. Do I possess the right to state publicly that he is in error? THAT is the problem. If I teach catechetics in a parish, do I possess the right to tell a class that, despite inserting a document into the AAS which heretofore has indicated “authentic teaching of the Magisterium” that it is NOT Magisterial teaching?
Our problem is far more complicated than what is being suggested here.
Yes, I agree.
There is simply no mechanism for short of a future Pope’s condemnation of a current Pope’s actions.
I agree it is complicated, for at this time we must “do something”, either 1] interpret the Popes words as heretics do, or 2] force all the Pope’s words into an orthodox interpretation, or 3] remain silent and allow the common culture and loudest media voices interpret them as they wish.
But I submit there is a 4th option and it is the one I believe the Bishops should have been taking all along.
At this point the Pope has never come out and clearly in legal fashion condemned past teaching and asserted a new teaching {ex cathedra}. I think that is obvious and all can agree with that. That he is playing games, disingenuously sneaking in or otherwise attempting to break down sound past teaching in a war of attrition is another thing entirely.
So, in the face of this strategy of what appears to be the changing of practice instead of the head-on changing of teaching {and practice in various ways has changed over the last 50-100 years} the bishops {as individuals or as a group or in unison the world over} could forcefully restate sound doctrine and enforce sound practice. In fact, any single bishop could do that right now. This is what they MUST do. And in doing this there is absolutely no need to argue with the Pope. ALL they need to do is forcefully, unequivocally and unashamedly in each of their dioceses boldly assert orthodox doctrine AND {as importantly} ENFORCE the practice of same. ESPECIALLY ENFORCE THE DISCIPLINE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DOCTRINE. Bishops still have authority to impose various strictures without standing in front of the Pope with hat in hand.
This is why I’ve said over and over the problem is not “one bad Pope”. The real problem IS NOT “Bergoglio”. The problem is the radical changes in practice that have swamped the Catholic Church of today from what the Catholic Church was say 100 years ago.
Orthodox “Akin-types” get all wound up about the suggestion that the Church has “changed her teaching” when that isn’t REALLY issue at all. “The Law” remains there, albeit rolled up and stuffed behind the altar as in Helcias’ day. BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN “READ” AND CERTAINLY HAS NOT BEEN ENFORCED FOR GENERATIONS. Bergoglio is merely the natural and predictable result of this cultural change.
One can assert the teaching hasn’t changed while at the same time asserting the obvious; PRACTICE HAS CHANGED IN VAST AREAS OF THE GLOBE without losing one’s grip on the teaching of the Church on the un-changeableness of Church doctrine.
This is the problem of heretical or effeminate and weak bishops, and one may assert the heterodoxy of a bishops teaching and discipline, may one not?
The Pope need not even be mentioned.
But this approach would have to be done VERY strongly, and right now in the CC we simply do not have strong bishops. AT ALL. One bishop may condemn the actions of another bishop without resorting to a challenge to papal authority. In short, no doctrine is actually stopping a solid defense of the faith by bold and courageous bishops or priests.
So pardon me for saying it, but arguments as those put forth by Louis Verrechio, Ann Barnhardt are maybe emotionally satisfying, and arguments put forth by Mr Ferrara who I respect greatly might be tempting to accept, but in effect, they all crowd closely to veering off the doctrinal path themselves, while at the same time missing the real issue which is that no matter how closely a Pope holds to “technically accurate doctrine”, if he doesn’t enforce it, he might as well be a Buddhist.
And THAT is what we’ve had for a long time among Popes and bishops; technically holding to doctrine while allowing total mayhem in practice.
Nothing stops bishops from declaring war on both doctrinal impurity or heteropraxy and I submit, THAT is the way to resist what one may see as a rogue Pope.
The Pope is in error when he contradicts the authentic teaching of the Church established as the deposit of faith through the centuries. That’s how he can be judged like any other Catholic for non-conformity in mind to the teaching authority of the Church.
So only when he’s developing on well established doctrine must we assent to the teaching and reject anything else as his personal opinion that is erroneous.
Thank you for that.
While I have spent much time criticizing the sophistic parsing of words, possibly I have ignored words that need no parsing, but only a simple definition, and what you provide about “Magesterium” seems to fit in that category.
There is more to it. As I wrote elsewhere, stating that AL #305 is (1) a personal opinion (cfr. AL #3 & 4), and (2) authentic magisterium (cfr. the rescript in question), is a contradiction in terms.
Since a mere exhortation and this particular rescript are just that, no one is obliged to religious or legal submission to either of them.
And so the faithful are suppose to parse this out? The Magisterium is to teach the faithful without ERROR. That is the Magisterium’s purpose. The laity are not to determine what is true and what is false; it would invert the whole idea of teacher and taught. The Magisterium’s authority was given to them at Our Lord’s Ascension. Last time I remember that was not given to the laity. While you parse and obfuscate 1.2 billion Catholics faith and salvation are at risk with the poison of Bergoglism.
No Catholic and I mean no Catholic would have held the idea you propose about the Magisterium in the time of St. Pius X. Anyone that did would have been booted out of the Church.
The article above gives me little comfort. All the praxis enacted in the past 50 years has been implemented by the authentic papal Magisterium: from the usurpation of the role of the priests by the laity (“Priestless Communion Services”) to “Altar girls” to eliminating the need for a Consecretory Prayer within a Mass Canon (Anaphora of Adi and Mari). These are all departures from the constant praxis of the Church (and remember: praxis leads doctrine). Yet, Lumen Gentium 25 says that I must give submission of intellect and will to all of them. Sorry, but it’s all a bit too facile.
Indeed.
I confess, I have tremendous problems with Lumen Gentium {Nostra Aetate, Gaudium et Spes…} on a number of issues, issues that read most naturally in an unorthodox fashion.
I long for the day when at least a Syllabus of errors is dogmatically issued pertaining to the Council.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cdfeab1b0ce0079353b3979c07eb97ba06d8f535504c67634528ce587630012.jpg
Remembering the Holy Father Benedict and his crystal clear magisterium.
NONE of this matters. In the pew what matters is what is taught in the social media, from the pulpit (hahahah) and what each Catholic chooses to believe about what Francis “teaches.”
How many Catholics today, or in any era of the Church’s teaching life, have parsed sentences coming out of the Pope’s mouth? NONE.
That’s why none of this matters to Catholics. I say this with great sadness. Where do I turn? My FSSP pastor (thank God!!) Church teachings prior to Vatican II, St. Thomas Aquinas and his interpreters, Saints and Doctors, and Father’s of the Church. Everything else is bull.
Good and solid summation.
One that needs to be folded up nicely and, figuratively-speaking of course, rammed down the throats of every bishop with a special Gold leaf Edition reserved for Cardinal Burke.
So many questions and very few answers. I do not want to guide 1P5 readers anywhere else, but AKA Catholic yesterday posted a really good video that really sums up where many Catholics like myself currently stand. Check it out. This seemingly complex mess is succinctly boiled down to the lowest common denominator.
By all means we should be guided to anything that would help us!
It is a very good video indeed, and well worth watching. (I don’t usually have the patience to sit through videos, but I found this one to be worth every minute.)
https://akacatholic.com/has-francis-been-corrected/
So one obeys a command to give religious submission to a teaching if one accepts it to the extent that it does not conflict with irreformable Catholic doctrine? Well that certainly makes it very easy to obey any such command! By that definition the most traditional Catholic could happily give religious submission to any heretical teaching by entirely rejecting it since a heretical teaching conflicts entirely with irreformable Catholic doctrine. Obviously that is not what is meant by religious submission of intellect and will!
It is certainly true that we are required to submit to teachings that have not been delivered ex cathedra and so we are required to submit to teachings which papal authority has not guaranteed to be true. Yet something which is not guaranteed to be true may nonetheless be so and there is no logical inconsistency involved in thinking something true while also thinking there’s a chance that it is false, whereas there is an inconsistency involved in thinking something is guaranteed to be true while also thinking there’s a chance that it is false. And that is where the religious submission of intellect given to the authentic magisterium differs from the irreformable submission of intellect given to ex cathedra teachings. We give religious submission of intellect and will to a papal teaching when we think and act as if it were true until the popes themselves deem otherwise while also thinking that there’s a chance they may do that. The ball, however, is firmly in the papal court and not our own. If one refuses religious submission, therefore, to the controversial ‘Buenos Aires’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia one cannot do so on the grounds that the ‘authentic magisterial’ is not guaranteed to be true. Rather one needs to argue that the grounds for giving religious submission to the teaching do not in fact obtain. Since those grounds are simply that a genuine pope has genuinely issued a statement to that effect effect via the appropriate mechanisms one needs to think either that no such statement was really issued in Acta Apostolicae Sedis or that Pope Francis is not a genuine pope. If one is not prepared to think either of those things then one needs to think and act in accordance with ‘Buenos Aires’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia until some pope or other decides otherwise.
The difference Ezra is the permission to receive communion if the D&R live as brother and sister meets to requirement to desist from committing adultery, whereas the permissions suggested in AL simply accommodate the state of living in adultery. The premises that presumably justify this are nowhere expressed definitively, simply a matter of “discernment”, but not what must be discerned. Therefore the premises of AL and the two letters in Acta Apostolica allow for exceptions unto perpetuity effectively dissolving the sacrament of marriage as indissoluble. .
Our Lord, during the Bread of Life discourse, spoke very plainly about His Flesh being real food and His Blood being real drink for the life of the world and that we are to eat and drink of Him so that we will have life in Him. That is pretty strong stuff there and when He questioned, He did not soften it or tell people that He “didn’t mean it.” No! He upped the ante, so to speak, and His language became stronger so as to drive home His message. Ok, we all get that, right? So why can we not apply the same thing here? We keep trying to decipher and explain away what Pope Francis is saying because we just do not want to believe that his Catholicism is tainted and weak, even to the point of heresy. And he, like our Lord, isn’t backing down. No! He continues to up the ante himself. We must not fall into the trap of over-intellectualizing this. Faith is not for the lofty, but for the humble. Some good old fashion common sense and faith is needed here. Through his subtleties, Pope Francis is bringing error into the Church and has given his answer to the dubia. Pray, pray, pray for this man for his may be in the same kind of peril as the one he is trying to rehabilitate, Judas. Yeah, he didn’t mean it, either. Next up, changing the Our Father. We must stop overthinking, repent and pray.
“There should be no doubt, therefore, that when we are talking about the authentic magisterium of the pope, we are not talking about infallible teaching. The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. And that is usually referred to as his solemn or extraordinary magisterium. Not his merely authentic magisterium.”
…99% of Catholics today or even a hundred years ago wouldn’t be able to understand what this says…and that’s partially the problem. It invites simpler ideas and explanations to come in and replace authentic ones that require higher learning. Which is why many Catholics today believe the pope is always right because..you know..’Papal Infallibility’ and that the Holy Spirit Himself chooses the pope in Conclave.
Sorry, but the answer to the question, “Can civilly divorced and remarried Catholics receive Holy Communion under certain circumstances?” is “They already do, so clearly they can.”
People are playing theological and legal Twister to ignore the fact that at least in the U.S., this has gone on since the 1990s. Has ANY bishop in the U.S. ever objected in an official way? One *might* count Cardinal Burke’s participation in the dubia as a sort of very weak-kneed objection, but that’s basically it. (Complaining to Raymond Arroyo on an EWTN television show doesn’t count.)
The Pope clearly supports this practice and no one except some of the laity (who do not have teaching authority) are objecting—and even they were silent for twenty to thirty years on the issue. Cardinal Sarah (who is in charge of administering the Sacraments) hasn’t objected. What has your own bishop said about this issue? What have other bishops, especially the ones who people so fawningly refer to as “Orthodox,” said about this issue?
What is really left to say?
This practice that has gone on for decades (which, let’s face it, is in the hand of parish pastors) will continue this Sunday, just like it did last Sunday. You can cite Canon 915 or parse “authentic magisterium” all day long but that won’t change the facts on the ground one iota. Lex orandi, Lex credendi.
“Lex orandi, lex credendi”? Pray, tell me, which prayer(s) allow divorced and civilly remarried catholics to access the Holy Eucharist? Thank you!
I believe Davend means that what is practiced at masses throughout the world has an effect on the people who attend them. I agree with him.
Very well. Then, please, tell me, which part(s) of the Mass allow divorced and civilly remarried catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist?
Mind you, I’m not asking a mere rhetorical question. I sincerely want to understand what both of you mean..
The motto basically means that if you want to know what people really believe, watch how they pray. Or in this case, pay attention to what actually happens at Mass.
The part of the Mass where divorced and civilly remarried people are allowed to receive Holy Communion (under the guise of the internal forum) is the Holy Communion part. This has been going on in the US, and probably elsewhere, for decades.
Wholly aside from the issue of what SHOULD be occurring, I agree with you making the {obvious} observation of what IS happening in the CC. The people are eating to their own condemnation just as St Paul says.
At present, the CC reflects almost as in a mirror the “Hidden Law” days of Helcias and King Ezechias cited in Isaias 36 and 37. Unknown, unread, ignored to the detriment of the people, the Law was found hidden behind the altar. We are told some of how the people had slipped into disorder and spiritual darkness, but what can the practices of the people have been that caused so much chaos? Divorce? Remarriage? Maybe? Jeremias 3:8, Isaias 50:1, Malachias 2:16. For in the Law we read not just the oft-quoted Mosaic permission that JESUS CONDEMNED {Luke 16:18}, but we also read of the scourge of divorce EVEN IN THE DAYS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
We have essentially experienced the same thing, tho for a shorter period of time. But make no mistake, when the Law of Christ is finally read to the people and ENFORCED, there will be immense resistance and very likely schism from those who reject and have been rejecting the truth all along.
And to those with “ears to hear”, that selfsame reading will be life anew.
Who is going to do the reading and enforcing?
I thought that was obvious. The guys that used to do it; Bishops and Priests.
Yes, those are the ones who SHOULD do it–clearly. But my question is really who in the church is actually up to the task? Certainly not the priests and bishops who have been silent for thirty years?
SOME are up to the task.
Overall, and really, let’s place blame where it is due, ESPECIALLY in the developed world, the bishops and priests have demonstrated effeminacy and pathetic cowardice and faithlessness of Cecil B de Mille-type epic “Biblical Proportions”.
But not all Catholic priests and bishops are worthless sacks of rot.
Some actually are good Fathers. Some apostolates exercise compassionate discipline as a part and parcel of their culture, AKA, they are actually Catholic. FSSP and I suspect ICKSP for example. And in some regions of the world, parts of Africa also, Church discipline is exercised.
The faithlessness and lack of guts exhibited by our current crop of clerics in the developed world reminds me of the cowardly Hebrews who were scared off entering the Promised Land by the size of the enemy. But there were still Joshua and Caleb and today we still have some Joshuas and Calebs. And just like the days of Elijah, some haven’t bowed to Ba’al yet. All is not lost.
In the meantime, like the faithless Hebrews of old, the current generation of OCP-crowing, “Cool Kid”-wannabe, Episcopalianism-pretending, Luther-loving, deadbeat dad “Fathers” will just have to die in the desert of their own spiritual void, sadly dragging down, admittedly, the rest of the Church as they gasp out their last stanzas of Marty Haugen and Kumbaya.
But which bishops specifically have been speaking up about the internal forum and its abuses? Names? They’ve had thirty years to do it.
I think one thing that probably unites the people on this blog is that we think this is an extremely serious matter that needs to be addressed. The logical parties to address the problem aren’t speaking up. The bishops that people fawn over as “oh so orthodox…” have been silent.
“The bishops that people fawn over as “oh so orthodox…” have been silent.”
Bingo.
About this specific issue, actually, a number have issued guidelines for communion in their dioceses that are orthodox and on the surface affirm Church teaching AND practice. Gadecki representing all the Polish Bishops for example has come out strongly, as has Chaput in his diocese, tho at least in the latter I don’t know how he wants this administered {that is, “Will it be enforced?”}. You can google others.
Going back in time we see excesses, problems, failures all exhibited in the lives and actions of leaders of the Church. She pulls thru.
If you need a bit of cheering up, you might find comfort as I do by the following:
“”THE Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”
~Hilaire Belloc”
There are days when this quote trumps all the entries in Denzinger in propping up my morale.
Good one! I just copied and pasted and saved that Belloc quote to my Great Quotations file. Thanks for sharing it here!
Well, I would hope, rather, that the reading of the Law will have the effect on people that it did in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, when people fell on their knees sobbing and repenting, embraced the Law, saw the light, and resolved to start anew serving the Lord.
“Lex orandi, lex credendi” refers to *what* we pray, not with *how* we pray.
It’s both because actions often speak much louder than words. How we pray is also vitally important.
Not to mention the pro-babykilling politicians and activists receiving Holy Communion.
Agreed. This is certainly the only problem with the administration of Holy Communion, although this issue of divorced and civilly remarried people receiving Holy Communion also engages the Sacrament of Marriage. This all falls squarely under the bailiwick of Cardinal Sarah, who has been silent, and who is often lionized by supposedly “Orthodox” Catholics. The people in Cardinal Sarah’s fervent fan club are also part of the problem.
In your first sentence, I think you meant to say “This certainly NOT the only problem with the administration of Holy Communion.”
Oops Yes!!! I will correct. Thanks!
The question at hand is NOT whether this is done or is not done but, rather, simply if it is sinful to do so. The answer to that question is yes. Catholics do a lot of things that are wrong, that are sinful. Till now, however, it has not occurred to our pastors to give their official blessing to this kind of activity.
They have been turning a blind eye to it for a while though. People notice.
You are right about horrific practices being allowed. As they have been in the past from time to time.
And that is why rigid Church discipline must be part and parcel of the eventual Restoration.
I used to sometimes attend a church that my state senator attended. He was pro-abortion, yet used to receive Communion every time I was there. I am ashamed to say that I was silent for way too long. Finally, I got up the nerve to approach him after Mass one day and talk with him, as tactfully and politely and charitably as I could. He (and especially his wife, for some reason) ripped me a new one.
I wrote to the bishop about what was going on. He wrote back that it was up to the pastor.
I approached the pastor himself to ask him why he allowed this. Being a “liberal” himself, he fed me a bunch of malarkey, I politely and calmly argued back with him, and he ended up turning his back on me and walking away. The situation continued. I found other churches to attend, since I was tired of getting my heart ripped out every time I attended that one.
To sum up: I’m ashamed of how long I stayed silent, but when I finally did speak up, it accomplished nothing.
Let’s just say I condemn the bishops’ silence toward the pope, but understand it all too well.
I’d say it accomplished a lot!!!
You did what a saint would have done, the rest is not your problem.
At the very least, your conscience is clear now.
Jesus gave simpler criteria: “By their fruits you shall know them..”
John 10:27-28
My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand.
This just in:
Pope Francis has declared that all pizzas must be made square.
The reason is that you can fit more square pizza’s in square ovens, thereby using less energy to roast more pizza and making the earth more sustainable…
There are reports coming in among Italian pizza makers of resistance to the new edict. As a result , the Vatican has accused them of being too rigid and old-fashioned, and has declared them to be in an irregular canonical situation.
Further resistance by the Pizza Maker’s Union, known for its traditional approach to pizza making, has caused the Vatican to declare them to be in schism and has promulgated that any Catholics attending the round Le-pizza-ite facilities will be automatically excommunicated.
Luigi Veritassio, the head of the Pizza Maker’s Union local 999 has been quoted by reliable source to have declared, ”Mio padre lo ha fatto uscire dalle sue pizze e suo padre prima di lui … Preferirei tagliarmi la gola se mai mi sottometterei al Nuovo Ordine di pizzar
.
Michael Roncalli
UCN News
There once was a scholar named Jerry
who noted while in his library:
“Catholics , (none too observant )
love Francis so fervent
they’ve made the Lord Jesus secondary.”
So when are the good Prelates going to speak up regarding Amoris Letitia? By now, many lukewarm or liberal Catholic’s are buying into whatever Francis is dishing out!
And not solely the lukewarm or liberal. Here we have Jimmy Akin’s take on recent papal thoughts concerning the Our Father. Search as you may, you will NOT find in any of Jimmy’s posts even the mildest criticism of Francis’ actions or words, not even of those that are most strikingly outrageous. http://jimmyakin.com/2017/12/no-pope-francis-is-not-changing-the-lords-prayer.html
Just out today, December 12, 2017: Group of Catholic pro-life and pro-family leaders announces their intent to obey Christ and the Church of the ages rather than heretical pastors. The letter concludes:
“If there is any conflict between the words and acts of any member of the hierarchy, even the pope, and the doctrine that the Church has always taught, we will remain faithful to the perennial teaching of the Church. If we were to depart from the Catholic faith, we would depart from Jesus Christ, to Whom we wish to be united for all eternity.
“We, the undersigned, pledge that we will continue to teach and propagate the above moral principles, and every other authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, and will never, for any reason, depart from them.”
https://www.fidelitypledge.com/