Yesterday, I published an excerpt of Cardinal Burke’s interview with Catholic Action. At the time of publication, I had not yet seen his separate interview with Edward Pentin, in which he took an even firmer stance.
The importance of what is being said here can’t be understated. Again, I will highlight several important passages:
Are you hearing this concern about confusion [concerning Amoris Laetitia] a lot?
Everywhere I go I hear it. Priests are divided from one another, priests from bishops, bishops among themselves. There’s a tremendous division that has set in in the Church, and that is not the way of the Church. That is why we settle on these fundamental moral questions which unify us.
[…]
Some will see this initiative through a political lens and criticize it as a “conservative vs. liberal” move, something you and the other signatories reject. What is your response to such an accusation?
Our response is simply this: We are not taking some kind of position within the Church, like a political decision, for instance. The Pharisees accused Jesus of coming down on one side of a debate between the experts in Jewish Law, but Jesus did not do that at all. He appealed to the order that God placed in nature from the moment of creation. He said Moses let you divorce because of your hardness of heart, but it was not this way from the beginning. So we are simply setting forth what the Church has always taught and practiced in asking these five questions that address the Church’s constant teaching and practice. The answers to these questions provide an essential interpretative tool for Amoris Laetitia. They have to be set forth publicly because so many people are saying: “We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us.”
It’s a pastoral duty?
That’s right, and I can assure you that I know all of the cardinals involved, and this has been something we’ve undertaken with the greatest sense of our responsibility as bishops and cardinals. But it has also been undertaken with the greatest respect for the Petrine Office, because if the Petrine Office does not uphold these fundamental principles of doctrine and discipline, then, practically speaking, division has entered into the Church, which is contrary to our very nature.
And the Petrine ministry, too, whose primary purpose is unity?
Yes, as the Second Vatican Council says, the Pope is the foundation of the unity of the bishops and of all the faithful. This idea, for instance, that the Pope should be some kind of innovator, who is leading a revolution in the Church or something similar, is completely foreign to the Office of Peter. The Pope is a great servant of the truths of the faith, as they’ve been handed down in an unbroken line from the time of the apostles.
Is this why you emphasize that what you are doing is an act of charity and justice?
Absolutely. We have this responsibility before the people for whom we are bishops, and an even greater responsibility as cardinals, who are the chief advisers to the Pope. For us to remain silent about these fundamental doubts, which have arisen as a result of the text of Amoris Laetitia, would, on our part, be a grave lack of charity toward the Pope and a grave lack in fulfilling the duties of our own office in the Church.
Do you see this? It means that your concerns are being heard. I think the comment I’ve heard most often since all of this began is this: “Where are the Cardinals and bishops? Why are they not defending the faithful? Why are they not challenging this?” Well, now they are.
And here’s where the rubber meets the road:
What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error. [emphasis added]
This is it, folks. The beginning of the big push. Cardinal Burke does not say how many prelates back them but have not signed the document. That said, he also contends that it doesn’t matter that they are only a few:
Some might argue that you are only four cardinals, among whom you’re the only one who is not retired, and this is not very representative of the entire Church. In that case, they might ask: Why should the Pope listen and respond to you?
Well, numbers aren’t the issue. The issue is the truth. In the trial of St. Thomas More, someone told him that most of the English bishops had accepted the king’s order, but he said that may be true, but the saints in heaven did not accept it. That’s the point here. I would think that even though other cardinals did not sign this, they would share the same concern. But that doesn’t bother me. Even if we were one, two or three, if it’s a question of something that’s true and is essential to the salvation of souls, then it needs to be said.
Amen to that. Pray for these men. They are up against forces beyond our imagining. Our Lord and Our Lady are on their side, but we need to be, too.
First Great Britain, then the U.S….I think the Church is ripe for it’s own “Brexit moment.”
Actually we need a ‘FREXIT’ – Francis Exit
I think Marine Le Pen has already bagged the term “Frexit” for when France leaves the EU so you may need to coin another idiom. 😉
Then I’ll piggyback on that term.
Frepose? Francis+depose?
Where will he go? Argentina? You know Jorge is full of himself, he ain’t going to leave. He’s going to take the buildings and kick all the faithful out!
Ooooooo, they go their money in stocks and mutual funds, and the whole German church’s tax thing. I think we’re mess up, pray the Rosary. Maybe we’ll get a Lepanto III (Lepanto II was with Hillary, but you already know that).
Don’t talk of schism in celebratory tone, as though it is great that it is finally about to happen. I will never leave the Church, no matter how bad the Pope is. Schism is a grave sin.
We should be circumspect about where this leads. Perhaps the better strategy is to bide our time and wait for the next Pope. If we push this one too hard, he’s liable to do just about anything. One thing is for sure, he will never give up on his agenda. If he thinks he’s losing, I fear he will go nuclear and call a 3rd Vatican Council – a possibility that has already been thrown around – which in my opinion would be far, far worse than what’s going on now.
If you stay loyal to the teachings of the Church, you are not the one that is in schism. Also, how many souls will be lost if we just wait this out. What if things get worse with the next Papacy?
Stay in the Barque.
And stay true to the teachings.
So his teaching is leading souls into grave sin, but you don’t think this should be aggressively confronted because something worse might happen? What’s worse than a pope’s heresy leading souls into grave sin?
No, I am just saying that caution is in order. I believe this man has a huge ego; push him too hard and he may blow up the whole ship just to spite his opposition. How many souls would be lost in that scenario. We need our faithful leaders to be wise as serpents, not just innocent as doves.
Good men should not be dissuaded from doing the right thing out of fear of what the evil or ignorant might do in return.
Sometimes, like Our Lord, especially when souls are at risk, you have to speak the truth even if it blows things up:
“Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it…After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” John 6:60 – 66.
I can’t argue with this. But even General Eisenhower delayed the invasion of Normandy until the right moment.
Yes, but they DID have the invasion. Have not Burke et al delayed until the moment was right?
Schism may be the only way out. If the heretics don’t take their ball and go sideways, we can’t ever evangelize them. Catholics now face — every day — the reality of having the pope’s words thrown in their faces as they try to do the work God has asked of them.
The sin of Schism lies at the feet of those promoting heresy, not those that reject it.
I am not leaving the Ship, even if the Pope turns out to be a heretic. Leaving will accomplish nothing good. It’s what Luther did.
We. Are. Not. Leaving.
They are.
Well, I would suggest that even if you were personally convinced that the Pope had proven himself to be a material heretic, you should be very careful about setting out on your own and claiming that your Church is the “real” one and that the one you left behind with the heretic Pope at the helm is the false one. I can assure you that Cardinal Burke will never do that. The thing to do is to work from within the existing structure of the Church, knowing that in the end the Truth will (must) prevail.
You misunderstand me. These men are departing from the truth of Christ. I’m not going anywhere, I’m not starting anything, I’m in the same place I’ve always been.
The only way a pope can lead a schism is if a pope removes himself from the Catholic faith. What comes next will help us to know whether, in fact, he has done precisely that — as it overwhelmingly appears.
The office he holds is the key. He may be unworthy of it, but nevertheless he holds it. It simply won’t do for some “remnant” to declare him outside the faith and pick a new pope, because he still holds the Chair.
The only way out would be for him to die, to resign, or to be formally deposed. I suppose it is theoretically possible for him to be formally deposed, but I do not see the College of Cardinals, nor the world’s bishops, voting to remove him. Nor do I see a worldwide uprising among the Catholic faithful demanding he abdicate.
Sad as it may be he holds the Chair and any person you came up with among your like-minded friends would hold a different Chair.
I assume you’re new here. We cover all of this in various places. I don’t disagree with your technical points.
I’m saying that what is happening now is a logical prelude to a formal charge of heresy and possible deposition. And if anyone in the history of the Church has ever deserved it, it’s Francis.
Steve is right: we are one step closer to the Pope receiving a warning per Cardinal Burke’s mention of this in the one interview from 11/15. This and possibly a second warning take us very close to a declaration that the Pope is a formal heretic. And I’ll side 100% with Steve’s sentiments- we are not going anywhere. We are in the Barque of Peter and we do not leave this boat by breaking communion with Peter (only the Church can declare him to be deposed and thus excommunicated from us the Church until a new Pontiff is elected).
Oh yeah, he introducing a new Clown Religion alright:
“The ‘children of heaven and resurrection’ are not a privileged few, but they are all [ALL?] men and all women, because the salvation brought by Jesus is for everyone. And the life of resurrection will be similar to that of the angels, that is, everyone immersed in the light of God, completely dedicated to His praise, in an eternity full of joy and peace.” – Francis prayed the Angelus on Sunday 11/6/16 in St. Peter’s Square.
Here is a situation to consider: what if the Catholics who are TRUE to the faith and staying in orthodoxy, laymen and prelates alike, are accused by Rome of being the heretics? Of being the schismatics? Wouldn’t that just be a diabolical accusation? Some prophecy speaks of just that event occurring. And Francis threatens excommunication of those loyal priests, bishops, and cardinals. The pressure to capitulate would be tremendous.
“Go nuclear and call a 3rd Vatican Council”?
It is Russia that has the nukes,
and as for counsel, Francis told the inquisitive Putin
at their Vatican meeting in November of 2013:
“We will not discuss Fatima.”
Too bad.
Let us be clear: Cardinal Burke has now unequivocally placed himself in the same category as Charles Curran, Hans Kung, and other stubborn dissenters from the papal Magisterium.
Vatican I makes unequivocally clear that Cardinal Burke’s duty is one of heirarchical subordination and obedience to papal authority in all matters of papal teaching and church governance. By dissenting from an apostolic exhortation, Cardinal Burke is flagrantly running afoul of this duty, just like Charles Curran and Hans Kung before him.
Vatican I also makes it unequivocally clear – in multiple passages of Pastor Aeternus – that the papacy has never erred. For Cardinal Burke to suggest that it ever has, and for him to appeal to this alleged error as a basis for his own rebellion, is a profoundly disloyal act to the supreme authority that he is sworn to uphold as divinely instituted.
Cardinal Burke fully deserves to be deposed and stripped of his Cardinalature for his insubordination. He has failed as a Cardinal and as a Catholic.
lol
EDIT: 1P5 readers this is a HUGE troll alert; anyone who would suggest that a cardinal’s only duty toward a pope is one of servile obsequiesence is not a serious thinker; just laugh and move on.
You, too, are a disloyal Catholic. You are no better than Charles Curran and Hans Kung, however much you may have deplored them in the past.
By acting as though the sections of Vatican I that I have cited do not exist, you are every bit as much of a “Cafeteria Catholic” as are those who act as though Humanae vitae doesn’t exist.
You’re assuming Francis is the Pope.
Francis is no more un-orthodox than his post-conciliar predecessors. Look up what communicatio in sacris meant prior to Vatican II. Docrine develops. Period.
It can never change it’s meaning.
Can the Pope allow someone to receive communion after committing communicatio in sacris?
They would have to recant to the extent that such an act was done publicly. They would need to go to confession for that.
Pope Pius XI said in Mortalium Animos that participating in these interfaith, false ecumenical shindigs are tantamout to apostasy. Yes, apostasy!
Hmm. Thank you. Something Pope Francis should keep in mind if he decides to respond to the 4 cardinals.
Sedevacantism is generally not welcome on this website.
However, I personally have a lot of sympathy with the sedevacantist position, since I am Doctrinally Principled – even though I am not one.
Sedevacantism represents the closest thing to a doctrinally principled position that is possible within Catholicism.
What are you? An old Catholic that rejects Vatican I?
D.P.: thoroughly read Siscoe’s article over at the Remnant on how the Church should depose a heretical pope and then see if this clears up the many questions and concerns you have at the moment.
It does not, since Siscoe places the opinions of private doctors ahead of those Magisterially articulated by Vatican I, as well as by Popes Pius IX, X, XI, and XII, as well as Leo XIII, in their magisterially binding commentaries on Vatican I.
I must admit that the unwelcome seems to have loosened up with the ascendancy of Francis. It’s getting harder to argue against it.
The visibility of the Catholic Church rests on the visible bonds of Faith and Charity. Faith is the foundational bond. To break it is heresy. Charity is the second bond. To break it is schism.
In coming to my understanding of the crisis, and who Bergoglio is, (or rather, in my opinion is not) I realised that schism is only possible where the visible bond of Faith is present.
If someone does not profess the Catholic Faith, whole and entire, then one can’t go into schism with that person, because the heretic breaks the bond of Faith and is outside the Church. Thee is no bond of Faith with that person. The tie has already been cut.
If someone does not profess the Catholic Faith, then to break ties with them is simply to hold to the Faith. I can’t be in schism with a non-Catholic. I’m no more in schism with Lutherans or Seventh-Day Adventists than I am with Francis.
My private judgement is only that – my own. It doesn’t bind anyone else.
So you like Jorge? The guy who said: “It is the Communists Who Think Like Christians”!
the bottom line is that Pope Francis’s actions have called into fundamental question the very belief among conservative and traditional catholics that the papacy is of divine institution, and that as such it reliably guarantees the truth.
You can dismiss my arguments which tend to show, using the Church’s own claims, that the papacy is a human invention as as laughable if you wish. But such cavalier dismissals will do nothing to erase the nagging doubts that Pope Francis has raised.
On the contrary, I think it is safe to say that these doubts will only increase as Pope Francis deals with these dissenters with the kind of untrammeled authority that Vatican I grants him.
Your arguments are specious, and you know it. The Church has never claimed — not even in your heavily prooftexted portions of Vat I — that the pope is infallible in every word and action. Papal Infallibility is a limited charism. Nothing here invalidates it.
You are changing the issue by introducing infallibility. The quotes I presented – which I assume you have since read – reiterate repeatedly the claim that the papacy has never erred.
The denial of error is a general one, and thus covers both infallible and fallible instances. The distinction between fallible and infallible instances is one that you are choosing to read into the text without warrant in order to twist the meaning of the text to suit your position.
I’m sorry, Mr. Skojec, but it will not be so easy for you to evade the force of that language if you are intellectually honest.
No. They don’t reiterate that at all. They reiterate that the papacy will remain unfailing in FAITH. We already know that the papacy will not fail in authoritative teachings on faith and morals.
This isn’t even a little bit hard. You’re just incredibly desperate to prove a point.
I agree with everything except after the semicolon. You can’t really laugh about it because others who may be new to 1P5 may be scandalized (in the Scriptural sense of the word).
This is just false. Those who opposed Pope Honorius I were vindicated when was posthumously declared anathema. So were those who opposed Pope John XXII. Nevertheless, it would have been a great sin for the opponents of those popes to leave the Barque of Peter and go into schism.
Also, I don’t see how Burke has dissented from any part of the Magisterium. All he has done is ask the Pope to clarify that Amoris Laetitia can and should be read in harmony with the magisterial teaching (of a saint, no less!) in Veritatis Splendor and not in opposition to it. The fact that the Pope refuses to answer speaks volumes.
How do you explain the fact that Vatican I clearly asserts, in multiple passages, that the papacy has never erred?
If, on the other hand, it has erred, as you assert, then how does any basis for its allegedly unique authority in matters of truth not collapse?
Like many Traditionalists, what you are doing is appropriating traditional Protestant talking points against the papacy, drawn from the facts of church history, to justify your rebellion against the papacy.
But if you are going to do that, at least have the intellectual integrity to draw the proper conclusion from the instances of papal error in history that you adduce: Namely, that the papacy is a fallible institution devised by men, not God.
And at least also have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that Vatican I is in error when it teaches that the papacy has never erred.
With all due reference, I have seen an analysis going along these lines regarding infallibility: If the Pope would ever lead to error – the circumstance that happens is that he has excommunicated himself at the instance, and thus is not truly the Pope and the infallibility has not been broken. Can this be a correct assertion? Or similar to marriage annulment, that it can be found that the Pope was never elected or somehow it never happened in the first place?
That is a sedevacantist argument, which is generally dismissed with hostility and contempt (though without serious counterargument) on this website.
The sedevacantism is not in arguing that the pope stops being the pope by becoming a heretic, but in trying to assert this has happened in the past. The authority to declare the pope a heretic doesn’t rest on the hands of each and every layperson. Rather, the laypeople are supposed to listen to the church for this to be decided. At least, that is how I understand this.
So in the meantime, you must submit to and obey Francis on pain of mortal sin? Of course you can form a private judgement in order to protect your Faith from sources of danger. We have to do it all the time. The Church will one day make the declaration for the common good of all, but we can make a private judgement about him which is not binding on others.
From what I can see Francis has never asked Catholics to DO anything. He is suggesting that some Catholics who are in the objective state of mortal sin continue in that state until some time in the future they can come to a ‘fuller understanding of the teaching.’
So what is Francis telling me to do? Nothing. Therefore I am not disobeying him. I am simply ignoring him and going about my business. It’s priests and bishops that are on the firing line. Francis tells bishops to interpret AL in a certain way. These bishops tell their priests to give Holy Communion to public adulterers – if they don’t, that’s disobeying the Pope.
Pope Honorius I was declared anathema for having tolerated heresy. His case was thrown up as an example by those who opposed defining the doctrine of infallibility. But in the end, the key was that he had not affirmatively declared heresy; he had only permitted it to flourish (due to his sympathies with it).
Pope John XXII was challenged for making statements that contradicted the Tradition, such as that those who die do not see God until the final judgment. He ultimately withdrew those statements.
These are historical facts.
Other Popes have made stupid mistakes (like relocating to Avignon). Under your premise, St. Catherine of Siena was a bad Catholic for shaming Pope Gregory into returning the Rome.
I am not a traditionalist. I have only attended one Latin Mass, and did not much care for it. If being scandalized by a Pope who is seeking to undo the Magisterium of St. John Paul the Great makes me a “bad Catholic” then so be it.
John XXII’s error was not taught by him. It was simply a private opinion which had not yet been defined.
Homorius’s case was examined by St Robert Bellarmine. He settled the issue. Honorius was not a heretic, and never, ever taught heresy.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c78e749b32ebe7ebe738e87484ca9b50f62533d99bd9d5f911fe56ed50b07c0.jpg
I don’t get the joke. But clearly you are a Cafeteria Catholic who blithely dismisses key passages of Pastor Aeternus in Vatican I, including those which maintain that the papacy has never erred, as well as those which mandate hierarchical subordination and true obedience to all papal acts.
If you’re kidding, I’m not in the mood for this type of humor.
If you’re not, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Vatican I never asserts that the papacy is impeccable.
I am deadly serious, sir. You were the one who initially tried to make this a joking matter, not I.
Below are four passages from Vatican I which testify to the papacy’s perpetual freedom from error. In light of what they claim, the error that Cardinal Burke is imputing to Pope Francis is a doctrinal impossibility:
And since that saying of our lord
Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail
of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic
See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. (Session 4, Ch. 4, Par. 2)
It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world … referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which
arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the
faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing. (Par. 4)
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…. (Par. 6)
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…. (Par. 7)
Galatians 2:11 is divinely revealed. Explain it.
Yes, and Galatians 2:11 clearly contradicts Vatican I.
There is a reason why Protestant polemicists (and also Eastern Christians) have been employing it as an argument against papal claims for centuries. Galatians 2:11, by contradicting the dogmas of Vatican I, disproves those dogmas.
Now that Pope Francis is contradicting these dogmas once more, it is time for Catholics to draw the proper conclusion:
The papacy is not divinely instituted. It is a purely human authority.
The Popes have NEVER erred in their teaching office which is why trads are wrong. Doctrine does develop though.
Eusebius said that Cephas in Galatians 2:11 is not St Peter. Compare the Greek and Latin texts, and you’ll see that it is not open and shut.
Thank you, Willard and Not another one, for corroborating me in my contention that the Traditionalist Catholic attempt to argue against Pope Francis by appealing to supposed past errors by popes is an argument made in bad faith, when advanced by those who call themselves Catholics.
Ok now why don’t you tell us what denomination you belong to?
Talking to yourself again.
Eusebius < St. Thomas Aquinas.
Yes, that’s right. But the identity of Cephas had been legitimately disputed. The Greek and the Latin are not clear.
If the Cephas in Galatians 2 is St Peter, then it is still only an act of weakness on St Peter’s part, like the Avignon Popes. It was not a denial of the Faith.
I’m sorry. You’re just wrong.
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/can-a-catholic-criticize-the-pope/
No need to apologise…happy to be corrected.
Ah. There it is. It was only a matter of time before the mask came off.
That’s the Protestant view, so why are you here? Steve is right – you are a troll.
Dude, Popes can err. Again, see Honorius I and John XXII. Not everything a Pope teaches is infallible.
Also, the issue here is that Pope Francis’s ghost writers were very careful in Amoris Laetitia to create just enough ambiguity to permit contrasting interpretations without formally contradicting the pre-existing Magisterium. Then, after the fact, Pope Francis has used surrogates and “private” correspondence to telegraph that he wants Amoris Laetitia to be interpreted in a way that contradicts the prior Magisterium without having to publicly and formally say so himself.
If popes can err, then how do you explain the fact that Vatican I claimed – four distinct times! – that they never err?
(See the relevant quotes in my earlier response to Steve Skojec.)
This is why Traditionalists are borrowing Protestant arguments to justify their dissent from Pope Francis when they appeal to Honorius, John XXII, etc. Prior to Vatican II, the Catholic Church never countenanced the idea that these popes erred. Nor could it have, since it clearly contradicts Vatican I.
Okay, time for a syllogism!
P1: It is part of the historical record that Roman Pontiffs, beginning with St. Peter, have erred.
P2: Doctrinally Principled says V1 teaches that Roman Pontiffs can never err.
Therefore, either V1 was wrong, or Doctrinally Principled is actually Doctrinally Challenged.
Have you read the 4 quotes from Vatican I that I pasted into an earlier response to Steve Skojec? If you do, you will see that it is Vatican I that teaches that Popes can never err.
If you are unwilling to become a serious participant in this discussion by reading the quotes, then I must ask you to desist from your uncharitable insults directed against my person.
Please maintain a respectful silence instead as the substantive discussion proceeds.
Uppity and thin-skinned too; the worst kind of troll.
You merely continue with the ad hominem insults, rather than addressing the substance of my arguments. You are doubling down on the sin of detraction.
I will make it easier for you to address substantive issues by copying the 4 separate passages from Pastor Aeternus in Vatican I in which the perpetual freedom from error of the papacy is clearly taught:
“For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.” (Session 4, Ch. 4, Par. 2)
“This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing.” (Par. 4)
“…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….” (Par. 6)
“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….” (Par. 7)
This is rich. Let’s recap:
I merely chuckled at your opening post, nothing more.
In response, based on your personal hackneyed interpretation of V1, you called me a disloyal Catholic.
Now you’re complaining about ad hominems…and I’m back to chuckling.
Are you, or are you not, going to appraise the evidence, drawn from Vatican I, which contradicts your contention that popes can teach error as far as the Catholic faith is concerned?
And yes, if you choose to ignore dogmatic teaching when it is convenient. and if you choose to ignore binding texts which advance such inconvenient teaching (for example, to the effect that popes do not teach error), then you are disloyal, “cafeteria,” etc.
This reminds me of the last ditch screech of the intellectually challenged backed-into-a-corner commenter: How dare you!!!!!
Wasn’t St Leo II “prior to Vatican II” and did he not anathematize Honorius as a heretic along with the Fathers of Constantinople II?
Either Honorius erred and St Leo II was right.
Or
Honorius did not err and St Leo II did.
Which is it?
Either way, the episode disproves the Catholic position that the papacy is of divine institution, and a perpetual guarantee against error.
That is why the pre-Vatican II Church was never willing to grant that the papacy had ever factually erred, and why Vatican I affirmed no less than 4 times that the papacy had never erred.
To admit even one instance of error completely undercuts Catholic papal claims. That is why Pope Francis has occasioned such anguished hand-wringing among conservative and Traditionalist Catholics:
It may be easy to ignore the distant historical past when it comes to papal error, but it is impossible to ignore the present.
No it does not disprove the divine institution of the papacy. You are simply interpreting the words of Vatican I in a non-Catholic way, Phil.
Is this the Phil of the Pterdox CH troll?
I think you will find that both “DP” and “Not another one” are one and the same Phil.
Not sure who Phil is, but both of those profiles are freshly minted so it wouldn’t surprise me.
He’s a troll in the NW of UK who has over twenty pseudo names & kept talking to himself by way of these names all day on the CH website so much so they had to close it. He had infiltrated another Catholic website & now is here. You know trolls by the fact they have a low number of posts & support as they keep shifting from one name to another.
FWIW, the IP address of this guy says he’s in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. I doubt he’s doing a VPN to a town like that. They usually spoof larger cities.
Also, his profile says it was created in June, 2014.
He used to post on another site under the name Mark Thomas giving IP addresses in Florida & Dallas, but eventually some posts came through with a UK timeline so he was outed then. That site was almost closed due to his takeover ploy. The man must be deranged & certainly isn’t Catholic.
He must be on medications OR Francis sent him over here! You should work for the FBI Ana ! Good detective work!
Thank you, Ana! ?
But one good thing comes from reading great responses to the nonsense: I learn lots of good stuff!
That also occurred to me. There should be some way to stop these people taking up so much space.
He just got a visit from the Ban Fairy, whoever he is.
You’re a mind reader! How did you figure it out?
#1, obviously. ?
Popes cannot and do not teach heresy. See St Robert Bellarmine’s judgement on the Honorius case, not Salza & Siscoe’s.
Thank you. Sending you a hug.?
see above
Yes, but the problem with all the august authorities you cite who claim that popes can err is that they wrote well before 1870, the year Vatican I was promulgated. From the standpoint of magisterial authority, Vatican I both contradicts and nullifies them all.
Specifically, Vatican I renders all these authorities irrelevant by asserting unequivocally and repeatedly that popes do NOT err. Here again are the passages:
“For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.” (Session
4, Ch. 4, Par. 2)
“This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing.” (Par. 4)
“…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….” (Par. 6)
“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….” (Par. 7)
Except for the authority who actually spoke at V1 and gave the Church’s interpretation of that Council. The only way you could have missed that is if you were…wait for it…trolling!
I don’t understand what you are saying.
Did you read the quotes? They speak for themselves quite clearly.
Are you trying to evade the issue by diverting the discussion elsewhere?
You can’t read. It’s astonishing. None of those quotes say that the pope can’t err. They merely say — in the flowery language common to late 18th century religious writers — that the pope will forever be infallible (“unblemished”; “no failing”; “never-failing”) in…wait for it… FAITH AND MORALS.
You’re just being sophistically redundant.
You stated that all the authorities cited by Naslund wrote well before 1870; that is incorrect. He quoted Bishop Vincent Gasser, who spoke at V1, and gave an interpretation of it contrary to your own.
No, you are interpreting Vatican 1 in much the same way that a Protestant would interpret the Bible. You are proof-texting select paragraphs while ignoring the whole context of the council as well as how the fathers of the Council intended the faithful to understand the council. Robert Siscoe undermines your argument:
“Several years ago a lengthy article was published, which interpreted Chapter IV of
Vatican I’s Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, as teaching that a pope cannot fall
into personal heresy (cannot lose the virtue of faith). The author essentially
argued that the First Vatican Council raised to the level of dogma the opinion
of St. Bellarmine and Albert Pighius (who held that a pope cannot lose his
personal faith), and that, consequently, the contrary opinion can no longer be
defended….suffice it to say his private interpretation of Pastor Aeternus is in
direct contradiction to the official interpretation of the document given
during the Council….In his famous four-hour speech, delivered during Vatican I,
Bishop Vincent Gasser, the official Relator (spokesperson) for the Deputation
of the Faith, stated that this is precisely not what the document intended to
teach. During the speech, which provided the Church’s official interpretation
of the document to the Council fathers, Bishop Gasser responded to what he
called “a very serious objection raised in this podium, to the effect that we
wish to elevate the extreme opinion of a certain school of theologians into a
dogma of the Faith’. What was this extreme opinion? He goes on to explain:
‘As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused
of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the
dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed
calls ‘pious and probable’, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a
private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to
fall into heresy or teach heresy.’
Afterquoting the text in which St. Bellarmine agrees with the opinion of Albert
Pighius, Bishop Gasser concluded by saying: “it is evident that the doctrine in
the proposed Chapter [of Pastor Aeternus] is not that of Albert Pighius or the
extreme opinion of any school…Suffice it to say that the hypothesis of a pope
falling into personal or even public heresy is not contrary to the teaching of
Vatican I when interpreted according to the mind of the Church. This explains
why the dogmatic manual of Msgr. Van Noort, which was published many decades
after the Council, noted that “some competent theologians do concede that the
pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy.” Clearly,
neither Msgr. Van Noort, nor the other “competent theologians” he is referring
to, considered this teaching to be at variance with Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus.”
Thank you for your posts here today. I think they’ll be helpful to everyone who is more sincere in their concerns than DP.
Time for a little distinguo here. From Vatican I:
…religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles presumably includes Galatians 2:11, no? In any case, this passage clearly limits the scope of papal teaching authority to the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. It rejects out of hand the notion that a pope has the authority to make known some new doctrine such as, say, admitting unrepentant adulterers to Holy Communion under the personal authority of their subjective consciences.
Likewise, Paragraph 9 imposes strict limitations on what is to be considered as infallible teaching. It’s hardly a “traditionalist” quirk to recognize that there are several levels of teaching authority ranging from infallible to prudential. Even liberal Catholics recognize this, hence their desperate attempts to claim that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not an infallible document.
I start suggest that you read the following:
True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and Other Errors by John Salza and Robert Siscoe http://www.trueorfalsepope.com.
Davies, Michael. St. Athanasius: Defender of the Faith http://www.angeluspress.com
Church history, specifically the case of Pope Honoring that Steve mentioned. Also Pope John XXII, who denied that the souls of the blessed see God face to face but recanted on his deathbed. (These are mentioned in TOFP.)
I’m going to stop now before I post something uncharitable.
The only guarantee of lack of error for a pope concerns the very restricted and specific stipulations required to make an infallible pronouncement.
Francis has not fulfilled these in his apostolic exhortation of AL. And so its content is subject to critical evaluation.
This is correct, and so we can see why Francis is deliberately vague.
Yeah, that profile (Doctrinally Principled) was created just to chest thump on this thread. Total troll.
I am not a troll just because I advance a point of view that you disagree with. Please apologize for your unchristian slur.
“In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion”
You’re a troll.
In a post that concerns alleged errors by Pope Francis, how exactly is it off-topic to point out that Vatican I teaches – repeatedly – that popes have never erred? If Vatican I teaches this, then this obviously ought to carry over to and severely modify your current attitude to Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke.
Please address the evidence to this effect I have adduced, and take it into proper account in formulating your response to Pope Francis.
To do otherwise is to keep your head in the sand in exactly the same way that you love to castigate others for keeping their head in the sand about how bad Pope Francis supposedly is.
Dude doctrine develops. Ever read what Cantate Domino said about Jews and pagans?
I have, and it hasn’t changed.
So do Jews and pagans go to Hell unless they become Catholics?
Well, yes, of course. Remaining in the unity of the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. The extremely remote possibility of baptism of desire could make them members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but that is a big maybe. We simply do not know.
We/the Church only knows with certainty that which is visibly manifest. Pope Pius XII taught that only those who have been Baptised and profess the True Faith, and are subject to the legitimate pastors, and have not been excommunicated are members of the Catholic Church. As soon as one departs from this black and white teaching, one ends up denying many essential dogmas. Modernists hate black and white.
The Church has two visible bonds: Faith and Charity. If someone has broken either or both of these bonds through manifest heresy or schism, he is outside the Church and cannot be saved.
When the Church prays for the dead, it is only for the faithful departed, not every person who has died.
So, what is certain is that only Catholics who die in the state of grace will be saved, and all others are lost eternally.
I read Father Feeny once in a while. Boy, there was one brave priest. He defended this teaching and was pilloried for it. But he made lots of converts, and held up the True Faith until he died.
It is trolling because it is:
a) false
b) insincere
c) designed to cause confusion over the Catholic understanding of papal infallibility on a Catholic website
You’re like the kid who read the first page of a book about an opening chess move that “gets them every time” and then never goes for any other move. You’ve rested your entire case on arguments you believe to be airtight without even taking time to examine the semantics of them first.
You are a distraction from the larger discussion, and you’re arrogant about it. Get lost.
But, but…he’s doctrinally PRINCIPLED!!!
Nooooooo, keep him here. I do pictures for him! Nasty ones! LOL!
Antipope, in the Roman Catholic church,
one who opposes the legitimately elected bishop of Rome, endeavours to
secure the papal throne, and to some degree succeeds materially in the
attempt. This abstract definition is necessarily broad and does not
reckon with the complexity of individual cases. The elections of several
antipopes are greatly obscured by incomplete or biased records, and at
times even their contemporaries could not decide who was the true pope.
It is impossible, therefore, to establish an absolutely definitive list
of antipopes, but it is generally conceded that there were at least 37
from 217 to 1439. Felix V (1439–49) was the last. Historically,
antipopes have arisen as a result of a variety of causes; the following
are some examples:
Tentative list of antipopes
Hippolytus (217/218–235) Novatian (251) Felix (II) (355–365) Ursinus (366–367) Eulalius (418–419) Laurentius (498, 501–c. 505/507) Dioscorus (530) Theodore (687) Paschal (687) Constantine (II) (767–768) Philip (768) John (844) Anastasius (855) Christopher (903–904) Boniface VII (974, 984–985) John XVI (or XVII) (997–998) Gregory (VI) (1012) Benedict X (1058–59) Honorius (II) (1061–64) Clement (III) (1080–1100) Theodoric (1100–01) Albert (or Aleric) (1101) Sylvester (IV) (1105–11) Gregory (VIII) (1118–21) Celestine (II) (1124) Anacletus (II) (1130–38) Victor (IV) (1138) Victor (IV) (1159–64) Paschal (III) (1164–68) Calixtus (III) (1168–78) Innocent (III) (1179–80) Nicholas (V) (1328–30) Clement (VII) (1378–94) Benedict (XIII) (1394–1417) Alexander (V) (1409–10) John (XXIII) (1410–15) Clement (VIII) (1423–29) Felix (V) (1439–49)
You are wrong sir. Cardinal Burke is simply asking for clarification . He rightly states that the Pope’s primary role is to uphold Tradition. If Francis stubbornly refuses to answer a few simple questions to remove the confusion of the faithful then we know that the Holy Father wants the confusion for a nefarious purpose. It would also mean that he is NOT upholding Tradition. Cardinal Burke is a canon lawyer par excellence of deep humility. His behavior has been nothing but a perfect example of truth spoken in love. How I wish I could say the same for our Pope.
Groundless and totally erroneous.
If I like you, I do pictures for you. If I don’t like you, I do pictures for you. Either way, I always do pictures! hehehehehe! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/09b76551cea4d97becc81498f09df1c9dbc373d1df5bb9b2fd84b5ce1fcbb787.jpg
Amoris Laetitia is a terrible document, but in itself, it does not formally teach heresy. It can be read in a way that does not contradict the previously existing Magisterium. Unfortunately, it has been given heretical interpretations, and those interpretations have been informally approved by the Pope and his closest advisors in non-Magisterial statements.
There is an important difference.
It is one thing to formally teach heresy in a magisterial document, and another thing to “informally” tolerate or even support a heretical interpretation of a Magisterial document. Pope Francis could, in fact, give all the “right” answers to the dubia without literally contradicting his own exhortation. Likewise, a subsequent Pope could give all the “right” answers to the dubia without contradicting it.
So it should be easy for Pope Francis to answer the simple yes/no questions and be done. That he hasn’t done so yet, and doesn’t appear to be planning to, speaks volumes. Which is the point.
Yes, it should. But he can’t answer them without either a) contradicting and, indeed, disowning the Magisterium of St. John Paul II, or b) giving up on his intended purpose with AL. So he won’t answer. If he says anything, it will be something about “Doctors of the Law” and “Pharisees” who present questions as traps to try to defeat Jesus. Because that’s the kind of thing he does.
Isn’t this the very same tactic that secular progressives, the abortion promoters and the gay lobby have used to further their radical agendas?
The Magisterium is Divinely commissioned to TEACH – by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
It does not operate in the way you seem to think.
It teaches Divine truth, not dangerous ambiguity that squirms and looks for any possible loopholes and “outs”. Enough of post Vatican II apologetics.
“But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” Matthew 5:37.
The Magisterium does not and cannot teach evil; therefore, it does not speak in ambiguity and shades of possible meaning, and to say otherwise is heresy.
Now to Francis for the last word. Not only are his encyclicals part of his magisterium, but even far less formal teaching. “I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That’s what I think, not what the media say that I think. Check it out; it’s very clear.” -http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/we-must-reach-out
Starting in paragraph 3 where it first describes marriage as an “ideal”, do a word count of how many times the word “ideal” is applied to marriage. It is not talking about an “ideal marriage” as opposed to a marriage in difficulties, it speaks of the very fact of being married as an ideal – an “ideal” which we cannot expect people to live up to in this world of today in which even attempting to be married is such a hard and challenging thing for the poor modern intellect to grasp. Hence his firm belief that the great majority of marriages are not even valid in the first place.
To present marriage in such terms – which is rife throughout the whole document – is a heresy itself. Marriage is not an unattainable ideal, it is a holy Sacrament of the Church and one is either married or one is not married – irrespective of the quality and merits of that marriage. The heresy he brings to the party is the Lutheran heresy of Gradualism wherein the Commandments are not seen as binding, normative and absolute precepts of God’s Law, but rather as mere guidelines to be aimed at and which can only be applied according to the capacity of each individual to aspire to keep them. Gradualism is both taught and assumed in this document and it has been anathematized by the Council of Trent.
The only way that it could be said that AL does not formally teach heresy is if one took the position that an Apostolic Exhortation is not a formal teaching document.
I have read several parts quoted here and elsewhere that seemed unequivocally to be heresy. The denial of eternal damnation, for example, in itself is popular perhaps but incontrovertibly heretical.
facebook.com/massimo.intro….
Massimo Introvigne & Andrea Tornielli accuse Card. Burke of starting a schism.
of course they did. They are water carriers for Pope Francis, so this is how Pope Francis views the actions of Cardinal’s Burke, Brandmüller, Caffarra, and Meisner (and soon to be et al…) not surprising, very sad but not surprising.
Ana, when I click on that link it comes up as “page cannot be found”. You don’t have another link to it, do you?
It worked for me, but with Steve permitting this is the text:
Il tempo è galantuomo (non così alcuni che commentano i miei post, ma è vero che io posto anche per raccogliere materiale su certe tendenze, per esempio fra due giorni presento in Texas i primi dati della ricerca che ho svolto postando a proposito di Halloween – il testo apparirà prontamente sul sito CESNUR).
Qualche tempo fa scrissi ad alcuni amici – attirandomi molti insulti – che il cardinale Burke è quello che pensa in modo più conseguente un fondamentalismo cattolico, potenzialmente scismatico (dico potenzialmente perché poi per fare gli scismi ci vogliono anche gli attributi), dove la Tradizione – quale? interpretata da chi? – diventa un tribunale per giudicare il Papa. All’epoca una mia mail privata fu diffusa illegalmente e fui ampiamente vilipeso per avere pensato male di Burke… ivi compreso da Burke stesso.
Burke ora si esprime con una chiarezza mai sentita prima, e al limite dello scisma: http://www.ncregister.com/…/cardinal-burke-on-amoris-laetit….
QUOTE
What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.
UNQUOTE
Come ha scritto Vigiliae Alexandrinae la posizione secondo cui non si può opporre la Tradizione al Papa, che loro chiamano “ultramontanista”, “in Italia è notoriamente [rappresentata] da Massimo Introvigne, don Piero Cantoni, p. Giovanni Cavalcoli, Andrea Tornielli” – anche se Cavalcoli magari cambierà idea dopo il conflitto con la Segreteria di Stato…
Ma per fortuna non è così: è rappresentata, anzitutto, dal Papa e dalla stragrande maggioranza dei vescovi, sacerdoti e fedeli. E resta vero che un “atto formale” di separazione dal Papa sarebbe seguito da quattro gatti affetti da febbre ideologica. Ne ricavo però che mesi fa denunciando il pericolo delle posizioni di Burke, ben lungi dal fare dell’allarmismo o della maldicenza, intravedevo che cosa si stava preparando in conciliaboli più o meno segreti tra Burke e i soliti sospetti.
Alla fine la questione, che va molto al di là del caso specifico di un singolo documento, è chi devono seguire i fedeli per sapere che cosa insegna la Chiesa oggi: il Papa o Burke? Non “il Papa o i fondamentalisti cattolici?” perché in realtà ogni fondamentalista cattolico ha posizioni diverse dal suo vicino.
E ora sfogatevi pure. Da quando posto su Facebook in tema di nemici del Papa e dintorni e i fondamentalisti si scatenano, i miei articoli su questi temi quasi si scrivono da soli…
Time is of the gentleman (not that some people who comment on my posts, but it’s true that I also place to collect material on certain trends, for example in two days I present in Texas the first data of the research I’ve done posting about Halloween – The text will appear on the site cesnur promptly).
Some time ago I wrote to some friends – and pulled many insults – that the Cardinal Burke is what she thinks more resulting a catholic fundamentalism, potentially scismatico (I say potentially because then to make schisms takes even the attributes), where the tradition – Which one? Played by who? – becomes a court to judge the Pope. At the time a my personal email was widespread illegally and was widely reviled for having thought ill of Burke… including from Burke.
Burke now speaks with a clarity I’ve never heard of, and at the edge of the schism: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-on-amoris-laetitia-dubia-tremendous-division-warrants-action.
Shares
What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.
Unquote
How he wrote vigiliae alexandrinae the position that you can’t resist the tradition to the Pope, which they call ” ultramontanista “, ” in Italy is known to be [represented] by Massimo Introvigne, Don Piero Cantons, p. Giovanni Cavalcoli, Andrea Tornielli ” – even if cavalcoli maybe she’ll change her mind after the conflict with the secretariat of state…
But fortunately it is not: it is, first of all, by the Pope and the vast majority of bishops, priests and faithful. And it remains true that a “formal act” of separation by the Pope would be followed by four cats with ideological fever. I think it is, however, that months ago denouncing the danger of the positions of Burke, very far from the scaremongering or of slander, rigid opening that what he was preparing in whisper, more or less secrets between Burke and the usual suspects.
At the end of the matter, which goes far beyond the specific case of a single document, it is who must follow the faithful to know what the church teaches today: The Pope or Burke? Not ” The Pope or the fundamentalists Catholics?” because in reality every catholic fundamentalist has different positions from his neighbor.
And now let’s save that for yourself. Since place on Facebook on the subject of enemies of the Pope and the surrounding area and the fundamentalists unleashed, my articles on these topics almost write themselves…
Introvigne and Tornielli are serious progressives. I’m fairly sure that Introvigne isn’t even a Catholic anymore.
They are indeed.
All this talk about how many souls will be lost. That is really something we can’t predict whether the good Cardinals confront or not. We must understand that while we are in the dark, God is not! This is a time of testing souls and revealing the hearts of many, including each one of our hearts. It’s very important to implore our Lady of Sorrows to share with us the grace(s) of Her first Sorrow! All things true will be revealed to the faithful soul! Nothing is going to be left or stand after this sifting, except FAITH. This faith will be pure and to obtain it, much sacrifice of myriads of types of battles must be fought. Our three powers of intellect, memory, and will are going to be either crushed and annihilated or formed and delivered from the disorder so rampant! Our Lady is most exquisitely ordered and powerful! We must lean on Her most Humble and perfectly Immaculate Heart begging for a share in its strength or we will sadly perish! Our Lord is serious about this and has had enough of His Mother being discounted, trampled and not loved! He is not kidding that Her Immaculate Heart will Triumph! This will not magically happen as in some emotional sign, event, or whatever so many are looking for! God Wills it first in our hearts! STAT! All that is happening has the first intention of sifting, joining, separating, etc. Assist at the TLM, pray and practice strong devotion to Our Blessed Mother and watch. Be sober and watch. Be not moved!
Anyone know who owns the property of the actual Churches in each diocese? I’m expecting schism and I could see a Chaput on one side and a Wuerl on the other. What would happen to the churches we go to in that situation?
Varies somewhat per diocese I believe. Most parishes I know of are technically incorporated individually and thus likely own the Churches themselves. However there is the story of Cupich locking the priest and parishioners out of their own church on Easter because they celebrate the TLM so that may not always be true. Something to look into.
In response to the claims made by Doctrinally as well as later comments which express confusion over schism in the Church, I cannot recommend enough the Remnant’s “Can the Church Depose an Heretical Pope” by Mr. Robert Siscoe. He does a very commendable job summarizing the general consensus reached over the centuries by theologians and Doctors of the Church as to the rules and process whereby a heretical pope would theoretically be deposed.
Siscoe does address Doctrinally’s claim that the Pope has always and in every situation been considered infallible. He writes: “It is the common opinion amongst theologians that a Pope can fall into personal heresy, and even public and notorious heresy. Regarding this point, Fr. Paul Laymann, S. J. (d. 1635), who was considered “one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his time” wrote the following:
‘It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as a person, might be able to fall into heresy, and even notorious heresy, by reason of which he would merit to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from her.’
In his famous book The Catholic Controversy, St. Francis de Sales wrote:
‘Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was.’
Pope Adrian VI († 1523) went further by saying “it is beyond question” that a Pope can err in matters of faith, and even “teach heresy”:
‘If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).’
While St. Bellarmine personally held to what he called the “pious opinion” of Albert Pighius, namely, that a Pope could not fall into personal heresy, he conceded that “the common opinion is the contrary”.
Siscoe then proceeds to directly destroy the claim made by Doctrinally as it relates to VI:
“Several years ago a lengthy article was published, which interpreted Chapter IV of Vatican I’s Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, as teaching that a pope cannot fall into personal heresy (cannot lose the virtue of faith). The author essentially argued that the First Vatican Council raised to the level of dogma the opinion of St. Bellarmine and Albert Pighius (who held that a pope cannot lose his personal faith), and that, consequently, the contrary opinion can no longer be defended….suffice it to say his private interpretation of Pastor Aeternus is in direct contradiction to the official interpretation of the document given during the Council….In his famous four-hour speech, delivered during Vatican I, Bishop Vincent Gasser, the official Relator (spokesperson) for the Deputation of the Faith, stated that this is precisely not what the document intended to teach. During the speech, which provided the Church’s official interpretation of the document to the Council fathers, Bishop Gasser responded to what he called “a very serious objection raised in this podium, to the effect that we wish to elevate the extreme opinion of a certain school of theologians into a dogma of the Faith’. What was this extreme opinion? He goes on to explain:
‘As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls ‘pious and probable’, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy.’
After quoting the text in which St. Bellarmine agrees with the opinion of Albert Pighius, Bishop Gasser concluded by saying: “it is evident that the doctrine in the proposed Chapter [of Pastor Aeternus] is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school…Suffice it to say that the hypothesis of a pope falling into personal or even public heresy is not contrary to the teaching of Vatican I when interpreted according to the mind of the Church. This explains why the dogmatic manual of Msgr. Van Noort, which was published many decades after the Council, noted that “some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy.” Clearly, neither Msgr. Van Noort, nor the other “competent theologians” he is referring to, considered this teaching to be at variance with Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus.”
The rest of Siscoe’s article does an excellent job summarizing the deposal process—a hypothetical situation which may not be so hypothetical depending on how events play out. In a nutshell, the ground-rules and process for a deposition of the pope is as follows:
Ground-rules:
1.) A heretical pope remains pope until the official deposition process by the Church is undertaken; 2) the pope has no superior to his authority on earth; 3) a pope who deviates from the faith should be deposed as the Church has a right to separate herself from her heretical head per divine mandate; 4) only the Church—acting through a general ‘imperfect council’ composed of her bishops (i.e. one that is not called to define doctrines or regulate the Church but only to juridically decide the matter of a heretical pope or as with the Western Schism in the 13th century to decide on the lawful Pope amongst many rival claimants)—has the authority to depose a validly elected Pontiff. Even this latter rule is qualified in that the Church through this council acts only in a ministerial function to prove the crime of heresy and to publically declare the sentence—God Himself reserves the right to actually remove the man from the office.
Steps:
I) The Church acting through said imperfect council composed of her bishops (no required number of bishops is stated in this article; perhaps someone on this forum can research if there is any consensus on the number required to make the council binding) first must establish that the alleged heresy committed by the Holy Father is in fact a material heresy, i.e. that it denies a revealed truth of the Church that she has definitively proposed as such through solemn pronouncements and/or through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
II) Next the Church must determine that the Pope has not only promulgated a material heresy but has formally committed to it through pertinacity (stubborn adhesion to the heresy). Determining formal heresy is more difficult than determining material heresy as the determination of pertinacity pertains to the conscience (internal forum) of the Holy Pontiff. Thus as Siscoe notes, this determination is typically established by ‘drawing out’ the formal nature of the heresy, usually through one or two public warning(s) (WE SEEM TO BE ON THE VERGE OF THIS NEXT STEP AS OF 11-16-16). This warning is actually required by canon law (2314.2 & 188.4, 1917 Code) which is itself based on Titus 3:10-11. This public warning seeks to give the defendant time to amend his teaching or find an excuse for the mistake committed through human error or weakness. Siscoe notes that even in the extreme case of a cleric apostatizing from the Faith, a warning is required before his office may be declared vacant.
III) If the Pope were to remain hardened in his ways after being duly warned, his pertinacity in maintain the heresy would be established and proof of his departure from the Faith would be proven. He by this very act would pronounce a sentence against himself and essentially self-abdicate from the Chair of Peter.
IV) In turn, the council of bishops (and Cardinals if they are also bishops) confirms the self-judgment of the Pope and judges him guilty with the declarative sentence: he is a heretic and thus one to be avoided by the faithful per Titus 3:10-11 and in keeping with the understanding that the Church has jurisdiction over the faithful. The former pope is now rendered impotent as the body can no longer associate with the severed head.
V) Just as God joined the man to the office of Pope by the ministerial power of the Church, God now respects the declaratory sentence of the Church and separates the heretical man from the Petrine office.
VI) The Church may now make the declaration of deprivation and declare the See Vacant which allows the Cardinals to elect a new Pope.
Francisco Suarez summarizes the process neatly: “Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and by the consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic [declaratory sentence] and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ [divine punishment], and once deposed he would become inferior and would be able to be punished. [human punishment]”
Thus no faithful Catholic has a right to take a sedevacantist position until the Church herself has completed the process above and declared the see vacant. In the case of Pope Francis, we are still in the early stages of this process and every faithful Catholic must still recognize and acknowledge him as our Pope and our head (and also give him the proper honor he is due owing to his Office). Per the Thomist John of St. Thomas: “So long as it has not been declared to us juridically that he is an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned, a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned”
Let the process begin.
Robert Siscoe’s “scholarship” is apparently very shoddy. The spurious “quote” from supposedly Pope Adrian IV is a prime example of this. This is not the place to discuss it in too much detail, but I don’t think that you should recommend his material too readily.
There are some very interesting discussions going on at the Suscipe Domine forums at the moment. One poster called Nazianzen is giving Salza and Siscoe a real hiding, showing up their poor and misleading work. He/She says that the SSPX have distanced themselves from the TOFP book because of the poor quality of the material, and that +Fellay has not even read it. Look under the subforum headed the S… thesis. Very interesting!
Thank you very much. Clear as a bell, and I agree that the process has started. Treating this pope with charity and patience is the hard part. If all we can do is pray that God’s Will be done that’s ok.
Ground rule #2 is immediately a problem. There’s another guy who says he’s Pope and he (Benedict) was UNQUESTIONABLY made pope. This situation transcends what was forseen.
I don’t know if Benedict ever made an excathedra pronouncement that bergoglio is pope – the absurdity of that speaks for itself.
As I recently stated elsewhere, their use of this specific language (“formal act of correction”) suggests they are thinking in terms of the road to deposition of a pontiff (a declaration of him having deposed himself, specifically, that being how it works, of course). Fascinating and, I must admit, unexpected to me. (How many cardinals need to side with them for the relevant theology to “kick-in,” I am now wondering.)
As the good Cardinal said, it’s not a matter of numbers. The question isn’t the theology, it’s the earthly side we need to be concerned about.
What I was referring to was not the value of the correction per se (which obviously has enormous value to God and to souls), but the formal processes for warning a sitting pontiff and (subsequently & potentially) declaring him a heretic (which requires a judgment *from the Church*). The theologians spoke at great length on these issues but exactly what is meant by “the college of cardinals” (a majority?) I am not sure they clarified.
As has been said, almost ad nauseam, this situation is unprecedented, so I don’t think there really is a true formal process. The Cardinals will be making one, based on what the theologians have taught, as they go. I’m sure such a process is in the works. It will all be worked out. Our Lord is behind this. Christ is King.
The theologians have spoken on some conditions regarding such a process. I’m told that there are high-level prelates in Rome who recently requested copies of “True Or False Pope” – that’s a hint…
For now numbers don’t matter because as Cardinal Burke says even one must speak truth. Where numbers matter is a few steps down the road when a document must be given to Francis telling him that he has been found to teach error and therefore “what is he going to do about it.” This is not even the end. He then has another opportunity to say that he no longer believes what AL says, or he can tell all the signatories of the latest document to go chase themselves. THAT’s the danger moment and numbers would matter because he would not be able to buck a majority.
Exactly. If this moves to the point of the cardinals making a declaration of formal heresy, numbers do matter.
My guess is that Burke expects a plurality.
And in the meantime. I believe, as a practical matter, we should consider Pope Francis and unindicted heretic and disregard all his statements past, present and future regarding Catholic faith and morals. We must also pray for him that he repent and, if not, that he be replaced.
I was wondering how that works. Is it EVERYTHING he’s done? I’ve thought about this year of mercy – that’d be invalid too, right?
I would say yes just to be safe.
While a Pope, just like any other misinformed Catholic, might be a material heretic, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Pope has sinned and is, therefore, not in a state of grace and outside the Church. Let us not commit an act of sedition upon the foundation on which the Church is built. Vatican I taught and declared “Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.” (emphasis mine.)
Here’s the problem: Which pope? Benedict said he couldn’t lose the papal charism and would be a kind of ‘contemplative pope’. He’s still called ‘holy father.’
Look through the history of the Church. You will find that any time there are two men called pope, it’s a time of crisis because one MUST BE an antipope.
Ratzinger was validly elected. He himself says he’s still pope. Bergoglio CAN NOT be.
No pope has the right to change Christ’s teaching.
Our first obligation is to Christ, who said “I am the Truth.” Our obligation extends to Truth Himself far before it extends to us having to accept an obvious violation of Christ’s will.
The last line of the article is, “Amen to that. Pray for these men. They are up against forces beyond our imagining. Our Lord and Our Lady are on their side, but we need to be, too.” If God only wills one single, infinite, eternal, indivisible willing of everything in time and space, and God once willed to honor St. Joseph as the head of the Family, Should we not also unite our prayers with those of Jesus and Mary, THROUGH St. Joseph as Head of the Family, and thereby better please God and be more likely to receive God’s Mercy and grace because we are more perfectly united to the infinite, eternal, unchangeable will of God?
I think it was Pope Leo XIII who said that the world will have peace when it recognizes the sanctity of St. Joseph (sorry, I don’t have the exact quote).
QUAMQUAM PLURIES (On Devotion to St. Joseph)
Pope Leo XIII
Encyclical 1889.
I’ve been praying a Novena to St. Joseph & two other prayers for an end to this debacle. He is the Patron of the Universal Church.
Thank you very much for the source! ?
You are welcome Margaret.
Just saw this on FB: “Truth: The Orthodox have divorce and remarriage. Truth: The Catholic Church allows Orthodox to receive communion. Truth: The Catholic Church already allows divorced and remarried communion without objection.”
The leap in logic is astounding. Old IQ test question: “If all Bifurs are Bofurs, and some Bofurs are Bomburs, then all Bifurs are Bomburs.” Not necessarily!
P.s. Yes, that was a real question on a real iq test I took as a kid. Yes, those are names of dwarves in the Hobbit. Yes, that is awesome.
The plot is thickening: http://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/holy-see/in-wake-of-rejection-of-dubia-pope-francis-cancels-meeting-with-cardinals
Pope running away to avoid scary Cardinals; perhaps he knows something?
“Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!”
Perhaps the Holy Father is retreating to a “safe space” to regroup/strategize/try to figure out just what to do now (this wasn’t suppose to happen, darn it! I’m the Pope!)? After all, Burke and company can be so darn mean! (sniffle, sniffle)
I think there’s a lot more yelling than that.
And I wonder if as far as mercy goes is there going to be less mercy if a blatant, obvious heretic is replaced by a gentler, slight modernist? Might this be vexing/infuriating yet somehow clarifying? Might the heretic-lite be palatable and so more vicious and tricky?
He doesn’t like it and needs to find a way around it. I wonder if he has a way out of checkmate.
In reality, what would happen if it is proved that everything has been revealed about the third secret? Our parish Priest clearly states that everything has been revealed. I trust his truth and therefore think that maybe it’s a tickling of the ear where certain Catholics will not accept that we have heard everything. However at the same time the writings of Akita and Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich point towards an apostasy, a new mass and two Popes.
In my view it’s an interesting situation because If Medj is true, the gospa would have said by now that Our Holy Mother’s third secret of Fatima has not been revealed and so if there is something being withheld we can clarify the gospa in diabolical.
I hope that this makes sense.
Saint Paul faced the same thing the faithful Cardinals are facing –
2 Corinthians 11:12-15Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
May they find encouragement in the experience they share this day which Saint Paul experienced in his day. Satan is the relentless foe of the Truth. Francis should be judged by the company he keeps. Cupich for example.
Interesting that Burke compares himself with Jesus.
What does that say about Burke’s state of mind?
It might be the case that a valid “act of correction” could have been issued in the past.
However, does that still apply since the 1870 adoption of the doctrine of papal infallibility?
I suggest the doctrine has superseded the act both legally and theoretically.