When I started ringing the alarm about Francis in October of 2013, I didn’t make a lot of friends.
In fact, over the last three years, a number of other Catholic writers had a nice little competition amongst themselves to see who could take the most pot-shots at me, and the work we do here. Of course, as the situation became more clear, our credibility waxed and theirs waned. Too many good and decent Catholics who tried as hard as they could to hold back judgment eventually threw up their hands. I was at a get together last weekend with some folks I’d never met, and the exasperation was palpable. One man said to me, “I’m done with Pope Francis at this point.”
Among the most fervent of my detractors is a little-known blogger by the name of Scott Eric Alt. He has spent quite a bit of time firing in our direction from his blog. If I’m not mistaken, he’s the fellow who coined the nickname, “OneVaderFive.” But today, he is finally singing a different tune. In a post entitled, “Sorry, But I’ve Changed My Mind About Pope Francis“, he writes:
I mean, I do like Pope Francis. I’ve defended Pope Francis. I want to believe—I really want to believe—that footnote 351 of Amoris Laetitia can (and should) be read consistently with Familiaris Consortio 84. I have argued as much multiple times on this wery [sic] blog.
But then he details some of the inconsistencies. The statements by Schonborn and Spadaro. The irreconcilable differences between a Chapter 8 of AL that allows communion for the “remarried” and Familiaris Consortio. He continues:
This is why there is a problem with Amoris Laetitia–because there are sections of it, important sections, that are vague, and which scream out for clarification; but attempts to clarify have led to further vagueness (as in Schonborn’s interview with Spadaro) and inconsistent opinions about what it was that the pope wants pastors to do, and not do, with couples in an irregular union seeking to return to the Eucharist. We have had assurances that Amoris is utterly consistent with Familiaris and yet there are two problems:
- Schonborn’s words have been inconsistent and themselves not at all precise;
- None of these clarifications carry Magisterial weight.
And because they do not carry Magisterial weight, different bishops are interpreting Pope Francis to pretty much be saying what they want him to say, and doing what they want to do, and there is no uniformity or correction where there has been folly.
So four cardinals intervene with a series of questions asking the pope for clarification on footnote 351. The full text is here.
These strike me as fair questions. The cardinals are seeking a definitive, Magisterialanswer to some people’s doubts—not answers in interviews, not private lectures, not “go listen to so-and-so.” The reason a definitive answer is needed is precisely to prevent bishops in some places from running wild and doing whatever they want to the potential harm of souls. If someone in a state of mortal sin, not disposed to receive the Eucharist, receives the Eucharist anyway, that compounds the problem. It is a harm to both the individual who receives and the priest who knowingly distributes. A definitive clarification would, potentially, forestall this.
Moreover, if there has been genuine and legitimate doctrinal development, then that development needs to be spelled out in fairly precise terms. What is this development? How are we to understand it?
Only the pope has the authority to answer such questions. This is why the Church has a pope.
That Pope Francis has refused to answer these questions is a problem. It is tantamount to the pope saying, “I know there is confusion, I know people want it cleared up, but too bad. Figure it out yourself.”
Perhaps that is not an accurate representation of the pope’s thinking, but that’s what comes across. Confusion? Pshaw! Confusion upon your confusion!
And then, when the pope gives an interview attributing concerns to “legalism,” he comes across as condescending.
And now Fr. Spadaro has written another reminder that the questions have already been answered.
Really? By whom? The pope? In what context? Are these answers definitive? Are they magisterial?
Only the pope can speak with authority in answering these questions—not cardinals in interviews, not cardinals in private lectures, not theologians writing in journals, not bloggers on Patheos or One Vader Five.
The truth is, Eric is right. We’ve never claimed to speak with authority on these issues, because it’s not our job. We’ve simply refused to let the questions that this pontificate raises be buried. We’ve held feet to the fire. We’ve relentlessly pushed the discussion into the public eye so that people could at least feel that it was no longer taboo to talk about it. We’ve attempted to give cover for theologians, priests, and yes, even bishops and cardinals, to address these issues that are of significant concern to the faithful.
Only the pope can speak with authority on these questions. But he can only do so if he affirms, rather than denies, the teaching of Our Lord and his predecessors. This is what has Francis in a pickle. He can’t answer the dubia without unmaking his own program of upending the faith. Either he refutes his own obvious agenda, thus discrediting it, or he embraces it and makes himself into a public and manifest heretic. There is no winning option for him unless he has a sudden Damascus moment and stops persecuting the true followers of Christ to become a champion of orthodoxy.
Eric concludes:
[B]ecause of all this, the impression many people have is that the pope wants confusion, likes confusion, does not wish to clear up confusion, and if there is confusion he must scoff at confusion.
No, the reason we have a pope is so that the pope can provide answers to questions that arise in the Church. Questions have arisen. For the good of the body, for the unity of the Church, the pope must answer the questions. Only the pope can do so with authority. That is why we have a pope.
I want to believe Amoris Laetitia is consistent with Church teaching, but if it is, why does the pope have such a difficult time clarifying that consistency?
Roma, locuta. [sic]
Yes, Roma loquere indeed. Rome should speak. That she does not tells us a great deal.
For his part, I want to give Eric credit for being intellectually honest with his change of heart on this. I’m sure he has a long way to go, but once you start waking up in The Matrix, it’s hard to go back to sleep.
I have little doubt Eric will vociferously disagree with my assessment here. It doesn’t matter. Pretty soon, he may find himself realizing that we’re not wrong about the rest of this papacy either, whether he ever admits it or not.
May God grant him eyes to see.
Pope Francis consistently expresses his preference that he wishes to be guided by the Holy Spirit not catechisms. That’s it plain and simple. He therefore wants the same for us. What he is expressing by his silence is ‘don’t ask me, ask the Holy Spirit’. PERIOD. Got it yet???? I’m sitting on the fence here taking neither side, I’m just stating what I see before my eyes.
I don’t know what’s stranger: that you believe him when he says that, or that you think the Holy Spirit leads the Church into doctrinal error. You might be better off on the fence.
Steve, this is a wild guess, but I think this might help explain his comment (and without judging PF, maybe understanding how he thinks):
In the Spiritual Exercises, traditionally done one retreatant to one priest, the priest does not impose his own will on the retreatant. He guides – he doesn’t give his opinion. You are supposed to figure it out for yourself.
Example:. A man goes on retreat. In private conference with the priest outside of Confession, he says to the priest:
“Father, I’m cheating on my wife.”
Priest: “Why?”
The man gives his (false) reason(s) for his behavior to the priest. Finally, he says:. “I know I shouldn’t cheat on her; I know it’s wrong. What do I do, Father?”
Priest: “What do you think you should do?”
Man: “Stop cheating on her and tell her everything.”
Priest: “Then that’s what you should do.”
That’s the way it’s supposed to work in the Exercises.
Now this is going to sound kind of crazy but it seems to me that PF is using this on the whole world. in other words, he DOES expect you to figure it out for yourself (and the rest of the world too).
The problem with that is that most of the world doesn’t have a properly formed Catholic conscience. Reason can only go so far, as in Purgatorio by Dante Alighieri. Virgil – Dante’s guide – can take him through Limbo, Inferno and up to the summit of Purgatory BUT he can’t enter Heaven. Virgil returns to Limbo and Beatrice must now guide him.
Unless they cooperate with the grace of God, most people are not going to take the time and trouble to properly form their conscience. That’s why you have parents, teachers and priests – to teach you right from wrong, good from evil.
Now, I’m sure that you, being a good dad, have to put your foot down and tell your kids NO when necessary. That’s what we need from PF – I.e. NO to adultery.
Pope Francis isn’t a Jesuit anymore… not really. He’s the Pope. Jorge Bergoglio may be a Jesuit, but Pope Francis isn’t. So, if you’re not Jesuit, don’t act like a Jesuit. Be what you are… and in his case, that’s the Pope. (Just to be clear, I’m agreeing with you.)
Well, I’m trying to work out the puzzle that is our Pope, it might just be as Bishop Fellay was told, that Pope Francis just does not like conservative Americans.
The Holy Spirit is not some rebellious teenager at odds with his parents. The Holy Spirit cannot be divided from the Trinity – or from what the Holy Trinity, the Triune God, has revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
The Holy Spirit already spoke when He inspired the apostles to write down the words of Our Lord: “He who divorces his wife wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” There is no contradiction in God so any spirit which is leading Francis to contradict Our Lord is most certainly not the Holy Spirit.
If you sit on the fence for too long you will simply end up with a fence post jammed up your a@@.
Yep, not the Holy Spirit.
My @@ …. LOL
So, in your mind, the Holy Ghost can say one thing to, say, JP II, and something entirely different to Francis and that is supposed to be normal?
If that is the case, then our God is nothing more than a capricious, schizophrenic monster who delights in sending mixed messages to His helpless creation and revels in their confusion and His own arbitrariness. That is the only logical conclusion of your line of thinking, and it is dead wrong.
Yes this error is called voluntarism, the idea that God can will something contrary to His very nature.
Perhaps the sometimes questioned canonization (albeit lite) of John Paul II yet serves a useful purpose by strengthening the impact of his teaching, in particular Veritatis Splendor referenced in the Dubia as a basis of doubt about the contradictory teaching of Francis. Thus the elevation by canonization of JP II makes things more difficult for Francis, who can hardly bear to answer yes or no.
Harold, how can a canonization be “lite”? Can a woman be a little bit pregnant?
There are legitimate reasons for doubting the validity of JPll’s sainthood. And as for PF, he’s a Modernist, but so were his two immediate predecessors.
Perhaps not well expressed by me.
The new rules of canonization are “lite”, i.e. relaxed, leading some to doubt the validity of the process, or the reality of the result. In an age of widespread active deception, even in the Church (fake news, fake theology), lightening the burden of proof or streamlining discernment considerations does not seem like an intelligent thing to do.
Absolutely Harold. The process of discernment for sainthood should be as stringent as it is humanly possible to make it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It was JPll who abolished the Devil’s Advocate, a very stupid move. And I believe he reduced the number of miracles required. The new rules are highly suspect. I could only respond with respect and admiration at the church’s great committment to ruling out human error and folly in her discernment of God’s bestowal of the Beatific Vision on a few saintly souls.
Yes, and yet (to return to my original point) in any case John Paul II is now accepted by many in the Church as a canonized saint, and occasioned by the Dubia, that makes things more difficult for Francis & Co.
Right. I think you’re saying if JPll is canonized, then the heads in the sand “conservatives”, will have to admit that Francis IS a PROBLEM, since he goes against many of JPll,s encyclical statements.
I used to be one too, even though I don’t think of labels to identify my Catholic faith. However, as I delved deeper into his pontificate, I could not avoid the stark truth that JPll was a dyed in the wool Modernist.
My journey of discovery has been like finding the right pieces to fit into the finished jig saw puzzle. And I’ve had to rely on many Trad and two Sede blogs.
Some days ago I read a post of Colin Donovans, of EWTN. And I could see the evasions that he and so many Conservatives chose to live with. Defending Vatll, the conciliar popes, and now the renagade Jorge Bergoglio. And condemning Sedevacantism. And they STOP there
That, of course, is par for the course. But what I realized is that he and so many others avoid, like the plague, is to delve deeper into the contemptible betrayal of the church by all the conciliar popes, most bishops and countless priests. It’s like they never mention the 800lb gorilla of mass heresy and apostasy of baptised Catholics. Which can all be laid at the feet of the hierarchial church, from popes to parish priests. The truth stares them in the face, but they don’t want too see.
I discovered EWTN 12 years ago, and for the longest time I thought it was an oasis of solid Catholic faith in a very arrid desert. When I finally got internet service in 2012, I’ve slowly started to see the church since Vatll in all its scary departures from Christ and the church He founded.
Yes, we do have “mass heresy and apostasy of baptised Catholics, which can all be laid at the feet of the hierarchial church”, due to their passive/active acquiescence to the subtle infusion of the smoky “diabolical disorientation” which has entered into the Sanctuary through the fissure of modernism [adapted per Lucia of Fatima & Paul VI].
But I think we do not yet have “the great apostasy” referred to by Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, who was the personal papal theologian to Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II, and who read the original document: “In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”
The top of the Church is the Papacy. And who is “at the top” now?
There’s no question thst we are in the middle of A Great Apostasy. But is it THE Great Apostasy? Only God knows. Personally, I think the west is too far gone into paganism to be able to turn back, without a great chastisement. And the apostasy is pretty heavy duty, just as it is. And our wounded condition, from Adam’s Sin of Pride, stubbornly resists any return to Christ without God’s severe punishment. It seems to me.
Yesterday, Hilary White posted here at 1Peter5. She made the point that, if I remember correctly, that Francis is so corrupt, so insulting, so outrageous, that he will be the cause of his own downfall. And the church will finally begin the true renewal thst got hi jacked by Vatll. It’s certainly a happy ending fervently to be hoped for. Will this desired for reprieve be temporary? A mere prelude to THE GA. It also raises questions about the False Prophet, the Great Apostasy, the collapse of the west, running parallel with the collapse of the church, the conversion of the Jews, the Anti Christ and Christ’s Second and Final Coming.
There’s a Chinese curse which fits here, even though it’s from a pagan source – “May you live in interesting times”.
times never more interesting…
I’m not disagreeing with you, but let’s give EWTN its due. Even the post-V-II Church has not completely lost the truth of Christ, and EWTN is probably the most effective catechetical ministry out there for the vast numbers of Catholics and non-Catholics who know next to nothing about the True Faith. I came in from the Protestant cold eleven years ago by the grace of the Holy Spirit but I would have been lost in the Modernist wilderness right off the bat were it not for EWTN. The RCIA program I attended was pure garbage, but Mother Angelica and Fr. John Corapi and a few others gave me enough of a foundation that eventually I gravitated toward Tradition. Seeing a solemn high Mass “in the Extraordinary Form” on EWTN a few years ago was the nudge that put me over the brink, so to speak, and I started wondering why the N.O. Mass was so stripped down from the real thing. And there are still excellent programs to be seen there, such as “Father Spitzer’s Universe” and “Extraordinary Faith”, the latter a series which focuses on a group of young Catholics who are working to spread the TLM. Because worthwhile catechesis is so nearly non-existent in most dioceses, EWTN still plays a vital role despite its obvious shortcomings. Sure, I wish they were advocating the TLM all the time and loudly calling out the errors of this pontificate, but I pray that they will move in that direction.
No problem. Frank. Your concerns are good ones. I appreciate the reminder.
Not my thinking LB236 – I never said it was my thinking. I was highlighting what I think is PF’s thinking. So maybe direct your reply Rome-wards please!!
My apologies, then; it’s really difficult to tell when someone is being serious or when they are trying to make some other sort of point without a (sarc) tag or other disclaimer in their posts.
Thousands of protestant communities all claim to be guided by ‘the spirit’ but how can this spirit mean thousands of interpretations? Did not Our Lord say to say yes or no and the yes means yes and the no means no? He did not say to go and discern for yourself what you want to believe.
Even Luther was against this after he saw what he had started. “There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”
Agree
I don’t believe we can fence ride: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.
Fence ride? No not for long. But occasionally I like to rise above the dross and try to see for myself what is happening as objectively as possible.
Sounds frankly Protestant to me. “Don’t need no catechism; in fact, don’t need no Church. Got my Bible here, and the Spirit will show me the proper meaning of its words!”
Yeah, and PF negates that the Holy Spirit had any inspiration in catechism. It’s all about him and his holey spirit; a devilish imp no doubt.
Yes to me too, I’m only stating what I see.
Do you think that Francis is guided by the Holy Spirit, just because he imperiously claims that he is? He is deluded, a heretic. There is no humility in his soul.
There have been many heretics throughout the church’s history, the Arians, Luther, Calvin, to mention just a few. Today there are 10s of thousands of Protestant churches who all claim to speak for the Holy Spirit. Yet they contradict each other on points of doctrine.
And now we have “Pope” Francis the renegade.
I never said ‘I think he is guided by the Holy Spirit’, but rather (and I concede I should have stated this more clearly) that I think HE believes he is. Yes it is very protestant of him, I am troubled by it myself.
I see now you were commenting with “tongue in cheek” humour or sarcasm. But I did not get it until I just read your comment above,. And I”m glad you see through this Jorge Bergoglio for the megalomaniac that he is.
Actually it was neither humour nor sarcasm but rather frustration. I have met so many people, many of them Christian, who seem to behave in a very similar way to PF so it struck me as obvious as to his behaviour and nobody seems to see it. Now, on the other hand, it does trouble me terribly, as many replies have pointed out, it’s basically a form of Protestantism, i.e. being guided by one’s own conscience rather than Catholic tradition. And look how he points out Bernard Häring as a good theologian. Troubling to say the least!
Thanks. It’s gratifying, when I realize that all the blogs I follow as well as many of the commenters grasp that we cannot trust our subjective lives to guide us to the truth of Christianity. Especially today when the narcissistic ego is valued to the point of moral insanity. It’s very Catholic to look to the church’s higher authority, the papacy for guidance about right and wrong, et al. Needless to say, I make allowances for Francis, the loose cannon. Do not look to him.
Good, Eric, good…if only you knew the power of the Dark Side!
Hey, that’s my line!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a3187371e6d474f0d3f5f1d9eb707ecdcbc146935c92b0d3444a3474035f3279.jpg
lol, much better in meme form.
If you say the Holy Spirit guided you and it goes against the teachings of Christ, then the devil has a new disguise. God help us!
The imperative form corresponding to locuta (past particle) is loquere. “Roma locuta est” means “Rome has spoken”. To tell Rome to speak, one needs to say “Roma, loquere”.
Thank you. As I’ve mentioned in the past, I’m absolutely miserable at Latin, despite my fondness for the TLM and the Church’s retention of Latin as her living language.
I’ll update my own usage of the word, but his is a direct quote, so it’ll stay.
Someone on FB pointed this out to me as well, so I am going in to make the correction now.
Also, “wery” in my 1st paragraph was deliberate. It is an homage to Dickens; I’ve used the expression several times. It is standard Cockney speech to pronounce v’s like w’s, so “very” becomes “wery” in Dickens’s Cockney characters. (Small point.)
I believe that ‘Roma locuta est,’ could be constructed as an active periphrastic, meaning, ‘Rome must speak.’ Incidentally, I read somewhere or other that people who correct the grammar of others online tend to have above average iqs, but also tend to profile as psychopaths as well. I wonder if that is true for Latin (grammar) as well.
It is the passive periphrastic that has the sense of obligation, “must”. That would be “loquendum est”. However, loquor is a deponent verb, i.e. passive forms have active meanings (with the exception of the passive periphrastic which retains a passive sense.) So “loquor” is “I speak”, “locuta sum” is “I have spoken”, but “loquendum est” means “it must be said”. Because it is deponent, it does not have an active periphrastic form, but that would not have the meaning we want anyhow.
Will I seem less like a psychopath if I admit that this was sufficiently complicated that I had to look it up. 🙂
Thanks. I was going to ask if “loquendum est” could only be rendered as the passive periphrastic, but that might be overkill. I am not sure if Latin has a word for “psychopath.”:) I don’t like grammar overmuch anyway.
In italian too: “Cantare, gondoliere!”
At the time in which St. Augustine wrote “Roma locuta est, causa finita” the Pope of the time, Zosimus, waffled on Pelagianism. He met with some of the promoters of the heresy and put out a confusing statement. He didn’t last long and the next pope did accept the clear teacihng of the African episcopate, which included St. Augustine.
You actually read his post?
hahaha
Scott Error Alt changed his mind, so, maybe someday he will take back his nasty words directed against trads.
Obfuscation is a ploy used by Marxists and other malign beings to further an agenda through the use of smoke and mirrors. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The pope aint Catholic.
Many (sic) Jesuits are not Catholic
It is a blasphemy to call a formal heretic a pope.
Bye, Felicia.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-expression-Bye-Felicia-mean and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIzX-AnnU-c and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RppZW1-y8Ts
It is an even greater blasphemy to ELECT a known formal heretic as pope in a conclave acknowledged to have had iregularities invalidating the proceedings.
Wait, wait wait, lemme gess…Alexander VI?
Alexander VI would never be accused of a life of outstanding sanctity but neither was he accused of heresy before or during his pontificate. The proceedings of the conclave that elected him were not secret, unlike those of the 20th and 21st centuries. Because the proceedings were not super secret, we know that that the conclave was conducted canonically.
Dunno, but I do not think that any of Fr. Bergoglio’s superiors ever convicted him of formal heresy. As a Marxist (seems to me to be of a Stalinist flavour) and as a Jesuit, he is simply too slippery to be ‘convictable’ of formal heresy. As pope, only another pope (or perhaps something I have heard described as an ‘imperfect’ council) can convict him of formal heresy. I likewise do not think that that has occurred.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. “The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.
That is the definition of heresy given by St. Thomas in the Catholic Encyclopedia. St. Robert Bellarmane has said, in his opinion, a heretic pope loses his office “ipso facto”. Issues and accusations of heresy surrounding this papacy have been swirling around all of the papacies since that of St. Pius X. The historical context of these ponticates and the men who came to them need to be studied in depth, not to mention the conclaves that elected them. Pope Francis is the natural culmination of a process that began 102 years ago. I am convinced Pope Leo saw this in his vision. We owe it to our posterity to get the facts right.
The confusion is palpable. It is everywhere. It almost has substance. I am no theologian. If anything, I am a poet or a prophet. I like to tell people that I am a poet with no poetry, a prophet with no prophecy. It is strange. It is confusing. When I see things like what you have written above, I see Peter very clearly denying Our Lord. His first ecumenical act as pope: I don’t know the guy. His second: run and hide. Manifest heresy, a heretic pope, ipso facto no longer pope. I also see Our Lord saying that he wills not the death of the sinner, but rather his repentance. St. Peter is just St. Peter, not St. Peter the Great. Peter’s weakness gives hope to us at this time. These times are rough. Much of what there is to see is not beautiful. That being said, these are the good ol’ days.
You seem to insist on using examples to illustrate the present situation that are irrelevant, not being even roughly comparable to the case of Pope Francis. St. Peter may have been a coward but by the definition of heresy of St. Thomas Aquinas (see above), he was no heretic. He also repented his cowardice, in public, before Jesus Himself. Pope Francis won’t even explain his reasoning in Amoris to say nothing of repenting the heretical implications of such reasoning. Your smug self-satisfied judgment of a saint like St. Peter indicates to me you are just another apostate from Catholicism attempting to relativize everyone else’s faith in order to justify the absence of your own.
Darn. I thought my first response deserved more censure than that one. And I am not smug. Good looking? Yes (in a midget Wookiee/Sasquatch sort of way). Smug? Nope. However, I will point out that you seem to have missed that I indicated that St. Peter did in fact repent. Additionally, Andrew is not my given name, it is my confirmation name. As such, enjoying the patronage of St. Andrew, the older (or is it elder?) brother of St. Peter, I feel that I can give him (St. Peter that is) a little bit of “brotherly love” so to speak; he can take it. Besides, St. Thomas Aquinas does not really directly apply to this situation either. St. Thomas is for beginners. There are no beginners. And his music is better than his philosophy/theology anyway. To reiterate: (from a previous post) Pope Francis is too slippery to be pinned down as a “manifest,” or formal heretic. You see, he will not even acknowledge that there is such a thing as dogma. It is the “spirit of Vatican II.” Pastoral will supersede dogmatic or canonical. You do not have to like it. You can pray that a future Pope, council, whatever, will return us to sanity. But you cannot (or at least probably should not) apply sane reasoning to an insane time. I happen to ‘like’ Pope Francis. He is doing a wonderful job of sifting wheat from chaff. He is not intending to, necessarily, but he is. For that matter, he too can repent.
We have to be authentically Catholic in a halfass Catholic Church. Challenging but grace-filled days ahead!
“Roma locuta est,” her silence has spoken clearly enough.
Yes, silence speak louder than words. It screams DECEIVER.
“I want to believe AL is consistent with Church teaching but if it is, why does the Pope have such a difficult time clarifying…?”
It seems Scott still doesn’t understand that AL’s composition and content were no accident or oversight. Even with the Church bumping along the bottom as she is, a determined effort to plunge a dagger into the heart of her teaching on the sanctity of marriage can’t be too blatant for fear of waking up the semi-comatose masses still with some vestigial sensus catholicus to the wider crisis in the Church.
Scott may have the red pill in his mouth. He may even have swallowed it. But in his right hand, it sounds like he’s holding a powerful emetic and is ready to down that chaser at the first sign of orthodox teaching from the Chair of Peter.
Quite some way to go he still has.
This strategy used by Francis and his pets is exactly that used since Vatican 11. Every vague or contradictory… Or even clear statement will be cherry picked avoided or misrepresented and we are told when the pope thinks God thinks. Follow the orders even if they have no authority. The liturgy has been falsified through editing, omission, addition, invention and we have been told to shut up. In this way confusion has been imposed and a schizophrenic schism between doctrine and praxis has opened up. Francis is a schemer and things now he has authority it is his to manage us forcing his strange and contradictory blend of Catholicism, the 1960’s Communism, double talk, social work with South American piety with Peronist denunciations. He is Pope Fidel. Talk of removing four cardinals who correctly asked for clarifications while Fidel appoints unworthy men as cardinals and appeases his backers past voting age. Mahoney , Daneels, McCarick, and those easily bent to their agenda like Murphy O’Connor, Nichols, etc. Cupich and men like him have been promoted by the Liberal modernist mafia.
The firewall is breached. 2017 seems to be the year that we will know definitively who is on which side of the fence. This is long overdue. +Lefebvre’s stand against false obedience is becoming understandable to those sitting on the ‘conservative’ side.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-vaticans-doctrine-chief-responds-to-four-cardinals-dubia
I and a handful of my close friends have also had a problem since this Pope was elected and for the past three yrs. several of us have given him the benefit of the doubt. I too was chastised by other Catholic’s for being so critical of this Pope but time has proven thus far, that we have been right all along on this Papacy
“I want to believe Amoris Laetitia is consistent with Church teaching”. Really?
That’s retarded. That’s like staring at a black wall and saying: “I want to believe this wall is white”.
Idiot.
Skojec 1 – Unknown Eric 0
It reminds me of the Mormon missionaries. “I’ve prayed about the Book of Mormon and I testify it is true.”
Seems there’s a bit of Mormon in every Frankenpope defender.
http://calefactory.blogspot.com/2016/04/hard-evidence-vs-paranoia-unhappy.html
Why not a definitive No to Communion-for-Divorced-Civilly-Remarried (CDCRM)? The only answer that explains why Francis would not simply restate the consistent Church teaching is that it is not what he wanted.
Then why not a definitive Yes to CDCRM? Too controversial and risk of schism.
So in the end, no definitive answer. Qui tacit consentire videtur
Beginning with Cardinal Kasper’s key note February, 2014, through two tumultuous synods, and culminating with the explicit vagueness in AL on this question along with dubious quotations and references, it is reasonable to conclude that a policy of CDCRM was a primary objective of the whole ordeal. And it would rely on an artificial divorce of practice from doctrine, and be positioned among many pages restating the traditional Catholic teachings on marriage and family.
Absent a definitive answer, it is no surprise we already are seeing conflicting interpretations of AL on this point.
The Patheos crowd are bunch of Pollyannas.
I am so confused seeing so much confusion sown in our beloved Church.
Confusion is the trade mark of the Devil.
The Pope declining to clear a controversial-confusing statement bordering to heresy is the confirmation that he is backed by the Devil to keep confusion in the flock’s minds.
If mercy is given to the divorced and remarried… then mercy be given to same-sex marriage. Otherwise there would be hypocrisy. I wonder if this is where they want to go. Think about what I say with Matthew 19:4-6 as the backdrop. I suggest this because liberal scholars can twist scripture to satisfy the gay agenda EXCEPT for these words from our Lord. There is not other way.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/47e6512221d15568190788345c6f991d1772c2f415a664daee50a82f7587c983.jpg
http://opportuneimportune.blogspot.it/2016/12/dubium-de-dubiis.html
Can the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith reply to Cardinals’ dubia?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73fec6de01ae22a6176e3779833fc6847a412a1b3cc80ad5bef4d57490cc7032.jpg
…and just to understand where we are going, get shocked with this news: German Facebook page of Vatican Radio published a photomontage of Luther with Bergoglio’s grinning face (not a joke!)
http://opportuneimportune.blogspot.com/2016/12/rei-confessi-e-i-censori-che-dicono.html
See comments on Facebook page: Catholics are really outraged by this kind of “humor” which tries to make apostasy funny.
I wonder if all these people ever glanced at the denzinger Bergoglio web site. It’s an embarrassingly rich catalog of heresy, richly explained, of a near daily selection of Bergoglio’s un-Catholicism.
Do they pretend it doesn’t exist? Are they uninterested? Do they think it’s a bunch of lies?
And sites like Steve’s, 1p5, are richly footnoted and level headed. How do these people turn things around in their heads?
Surely there is willful inattention. Surely there is normalcy bias. But I don’t get it.
The fact is that all the questions had already been settled by previous Popes. So, the problem is a false one which has been fabricated. We cannot conclude that all the previous teaching of the Church is false, because that would the the end of the Catholic Church, its protestatization. Truths cannot change. The main problem or the principle one brought up in the dubia is probably the one regarding the existence of moral absolutes. This has been clearly clarified by Veritatis Splendor. Situation Ethics has been condemned in the 50s of the last century by Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office. PF will never respond because he would necessarily have to reject some of what he has stated in AL. Archbishop Bruno Forte, one of those who had an important role in the Synods, stated that PF told him that if he came out clearly on the matter of of holy communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, he would have a tremendous mess.