While many Catholics in the world were indignant about the remarks of Pope Francis on 16 June regarding the likely invalidity of many Catholic sacramental marriages, he made another important statement on the same day that seems largely to have been overlooked.
The Austrian Catholic website kath.net reported on these additional remarks of Pope Francis. In spite of – or, perhaps, because of – the many well-grounded criticisms of the papal exhortation Amoris Laetitia – expressed by such learned and deeply faithful Catholics such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Professor Robert Spaemann, Professor Jude Dougherty, as well as Professor Josef Seifert – Pope Francis has now insisted that his exhortation is, indeed, “doctrinally sound.”
In a question and answer session after his remarks at the opening of the Ecclesial Convention of the Diocese of Rome on 16 June, and in the evening, Pope Francis said with regard to his exhortation:
For your consolation, I have to tell you that everything that is written in the exhortation [Amoris Laetitia] […] everything is Thomistic, from the beginning to the end. It is sound doctrine. [emphasis added]
For the purposes of substantiation, I will include here the original Italian text of the pope’s own words:
Per la vostra tranquillità, devo dirvi che tutto quello che è scritto nell’Esortazione – e riprendo le parole di un grande teologo che è stato segretario della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, il cardinale Schönborn, che l’ha presentata – tutto è tomista, dall’inizio alla fine. E’ la dottrina sicura. Ma noi vogliamo, tante volte, che la dottrina sicura abbia quella sicurezza matematica che non esiste, né con il lassismo, di manica larga, né con la rigidità.
And here is our translation:
For your own peace of mind, I have to tell you that everything that is written in the exhortation [Amoris Laetitia] – and here I refer to the words of a great theologian who once was a secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Schönborn, who presented it [Amoris Laetitia] – everything is Thomistic, from the beginning to the end. It is sound doctrine. But, so many times, we want it to be so that sound doctrine would have a mathematical security which does not, in fact, exist – neither in a lax and indulgent way, nor in a stiff and rigid way.
It is noteworthy here that Pope Francis also continues to claim that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn was once a secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, even though this is not the case. OnePeterFive noted this discrepancy at the time of our translation and subtitling of the pope’s press conference on the way back from Greece (see the parenthetical within the English transcript of his comments near the bottom.) Subsequently, none other than the Vatican expert Dr. Sandro Magister, in fact, corrected Pope Francis publicly:
Already on April 16, questioned by the journalists on the return flight to Rome from the island of Lesbos, Francis had indicated [Cardinal Christoph] Schönborn as the right interpreter of the document, recommending that his presentation be read and rewarding him on the spot with flattering titles, even mistakenly promoting him to former “secretary” of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.
But then [Cardinal Gerhard] Müller gave his talk in Oviedo, with the intention of bringing clarity to the carousel of contrasting interpretations and applications of Amoris Laetitia that had already gained a foothold. But for the pope, that talk of his wasn’t worth a thing. Just as it wasn’t worth a thing for L’Osservatore Romano, which completely ignored it.
What we see happening now is that Pope Francis – and with his close advisor and the ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia – are both now trying to defend the papal exhortation from criticism that it contains doctrinal ambiguities as never before seen in the history of the Church. Before speaking more about that ghostwriter – Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández – I would first like to focus on the pope’s additional answer to a question at the Lateran University on 16 June.
Pope Francis proceeded to explain to his audience that he himself, when he had first become a bishop, was given advice by his predecessor. He was told to give to a priest who “falters a bit, slips” (unspecific words, but in this context it means is somehow in a condition of sin) some space and time. “’Listen to me: go home, think about it, and come back in two weeks, and we’ll talk,’” Francis then said, quoting the words of advice of this other bishop. “And then this priest comes back and repents: “Yes, it’s true. Help me!” Again in resistance against a perceived “rigidity” and “strictness,” Pope Francis then added: “What was better? That the bishop had the generosity to give him fifteen days to reconsider, with the risk of celebrating Mass in mortal sin? Or, is the other , the rigid morality, better?” [emphasis added]
One might wonder what would have happened if such a priest, in the meantime, would have had a car accident or some other sudden form of death, without first having gone to Sacramental Confession? How would such a bishop then think about his earlier moral advice, especially with regard to the salvation of the soul of that priest? What a confusion.
It is once again such a confusion of offhand teaching that has caused the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, repeatedly and politely to correct his superior, the pope, and also his papal advisor, Archbishop Fernández. As the German philosopher, Professor Robert Spaemann, put it in a recent 17 June article:
If, in the meantime, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sees himself forced to publicly accuse one of the closest episcopal counselors and ghostwriter of the pope of heresy, things really have already gone too far. Also in the Church there is a limit to what is bearable. [emphasis added]
Professor Spaemann refers here to Cardinal Müller’s recent critique of Archbishop Fernández, as we reported at the time.
Archbishop Fernández, in his own later public reply (without mentioning the cardinal’s name) to Cardinal Müller also tried to come to the rescue of Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia by belittling the serious international criticism of the papal document, and by claiming that the majority of Catholics are quite pleased with the exhortation. When asked by the Italian newspaper La Stampa about the reaction to Amoris Laetitia, the Argentinian responds:
In some places it [Amoris Laetitia] was welcomed with a lot of enthusiasm, generosity and responsibility. In particular, many have taken seriously the central chapters which are what the Pope wanted to highlight more. Others are overly occupied – positively or negatively – with the question of Communion for the divorced and remarried.
It draws attention to the reaction of some Catholic groups which refuse to apply the document, with all the wealth it contains, just because they are angry about the eighth chapter. It was similar with previous documents. But thank God this is not the attitude of the vast majority of God’s people [sic].
Here we are once more reminded of the archbishop’s theory and claim that the majority of the Catholics, as well as the media, are together with Pope Francis in support of his “reform” of the Church. He had to repeat this here, once more, by referring to recent polls in his native Argentina. Fernández admits, however, that recently in Argentina, there were also some attempts made to deride the pope. He continues by showing, nonetheless, that a recent survey conducted by the Argentinian newspaper Clarín has proven that “the pope has a 75% positive image and that only 4% of the image is negative.” Here Fernández comes back to claiming as a fact the “discreet and silent loyalty of the people, despite the murmurs and criticism of a few.”
We all have to face the situation that doctrinal and moral ambiguity is now pervasively welcomed in our increasingly relativizing and more aggressively anti-Christian society. Therefore, when speaking of mere numbers, the archbishop is most probably right. The question, however, is not whether the majority is with Pope Francis, but, whether Pope Francis’ teaching is in accordance with God’s own teaching. We all remember very well how the majority, on that piercing Friday 2000 years ago, chose Barrabas instead, and not Jesus Christ, our Savior. So today. The majority might well be pleased with Pope Francis’ moral relativism and doctrinal confusion – but are they then also loyally with God?
In this context, it might be worth referring to a 12 June post written by the Italian journalist and Fatima expert, Antonio Socci. Socci tries to clarify the matter of two putative popes – Francis and Benedict – in light of the recent confusion caused by the speech by Archbishop Georg Gänswein. Socci thus attempts to put this claim into a larger geopolitical perspective. Although I myself cannot fully follow parts of Socci’s reflections here, one part seems very striking and sobering – and if true, it is also gravely shocking. Socci claims that, while still in his papal office, Benedict XVI was given an “opportunity” – a proposition. To him it was “proposed to accept an ‘ecumenical re-unification’ with the Protestants of North Europe and/or North America in order to create a kind of ‘common religion of the West.’” For the Catholic Church, says Socci, this would have meant to “enter the unified politically correct thought soup” and to become an “irrelevant folk museum within a ‘multicultural’ Europe.” Socci continues: “To this ‘dictatorship of relativism,’ Benedict XVI said ‘no!’ He answered: ‘As long as I am here, this will not happen.’”
The Italian journalist then adds that, subsequently, Pope Benedict “was forced to give up the ‘active exercise’ of the Petrine Office (only half-way?).” Later on, Socci puts the further development of Bergoglio’s election as pope into the larger context of the hegemonic reign of relativism in the West, which we now see to be growing. Moreover, he says: “Bergoglio has made the Obama agenda his own.” And Socci then refers to a speech by United States President Obama in May in front of the Catholic-Evangelical Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C., where he said that the Church should abandon “divisive terms” such as abortion and “gay” marriage and and that she should rather “dedicate herself to the problem of poverty.” Socci thus concludes: “The empire wants the Church to be a ‘social worker’ who comforts the losers in the field hospital of the strong powers, but does not disturb the handlers.” Additionally, according to Socci, US Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton herself had proposed a year ago, at a conference of pro-abortion feminists, that “the deeply rooted cultural codes, religious beliefs and the structural bias must be changed.”
Socci then piercingly and ironically says: “The churches must therefore surrender to the ‘liberal’ secularism of the imperium. In fact, Bergoglio has already abandoned the ‘non-negotiable principles [such as those found in Amoris Laetitia!].’” It is in this same context, that Socci sees the upcoming 31 October 2016 papal trip to Sweden, in order to “celebrate Luther and to ‘stitch up’ the 500 years exactly since the schism – evidence of a new imperial religion?”
It is impossible to know with specificity much of the hidden history of how the Catholic Church has come to the point where she now is. It is in fact futile, in my eyes, to speculate too much about this matter since we have neither the knowledge nor the authority to judge adequately. But, we do have our duty and own part to play. Our part is, analogously, the part of the Blessed Mother. We wish to stay at her side and help her to defend Her Son and His Truth. We must not allow fatalism to cause us to acquiesce, nor should we consider our present circumstances passively as God’s will, and thus simply something to be resignedly endured.
We shall fight. We shall resist. We shall give a Catholic witness.
In the near future, I hope to write concerning Saint Maximilian Kolbe’s beautiful spiritual insights about how one is to be or to become a Knight of the Blessed Mother. That is to say, how she wants to make use of us in order to combat those forces, also within the Catholic Church, that are promoting subversive ambiguity and moral confusion. She had come to the world in 1917 in order to warn us and in order to give us some of the additional means as to how to help save our own souls and how to help others – especially the children – to save theirs.
Together with the inspiring example of Saint Joan of Arc, who fought a battle that seemed to be hopeless – and who as a mere girl herself seemed to be so helpless – we also intend to continue, under Grace, to battle for God and His Truth. With prayers and with words and sacrifices. And we must not ignore the place of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in all of our efforts, for it is her Immaculate Heart, as Our Blessed Mother herself told us, that will triumph.
Sehr geehrte Frau Hickson,
ich bin nicht so firm in Englisch, aber ich würde meinen, daß diese Agenda zur Wiedervereinigung von Katholiken und Protestanten nicht allein von Amerika gewünscht, sondern ganz gewiß auch von der Kanzlerin Merkel vorangetrieben wird. Das scheint mir sehr klar zu sein. Sie hat mit Sicherheit über die deutschen Bischöfe großen Druck auf Papst Benedikt ausgeübt, was sich bereits im Vorfeld der Papstreise nach Deutschland im Jahre 2011 zeigte, wenn man etwa an Herrn Erzbischof Zollitsch denkt und an den damaligen Herrn Bundespräsidenten Christian Wulff.
Heute aber geht es offensichtlich nicht nur um eine falsche Wiedervereinigung der Christen, sondern um die Schaffung einer christlich-islamischen Einheitsreligion. Das ist das Anliegen von Angela Merkel, dem US-Präsidenten Obama + Hillary Clinton wie auch von “Papst” Franziskus.
If Merkel, Obama, Clinton & PF really think that the Muslims are going to join as equals a NWO religion they are all demonic nuts. ISIS are hell bent on wiping everyone out that is in direct opposition to Allah, Muhammad, Qu’ran and needles to say Traditional Catholics will have nothing to do with either them or the schismatics until they repent & accept the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic faith. It is no wonder these usurpers never had any intention of consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary – they most definitely never held the Catholic faith in the first instance.
Thank God that Pope Emeritus Benedict did reject that offer and hopefully will stay around for enough time to see off PF & mafia. We know that the Modernists governing the CC at present are out to establish a NWO religion for which they will be well recompensed, but if the Hierarchy permit Lund to go ahead then there must be a schism in order to preserve what’s left of Christ’s Church on earth. We will desperately need the Traditional Orders to come to our rescue & I’m hoping they are girding themselves for this task.
Still silence from Cardinals Burke, Sarah, Arinze, Pell.
The silence from Cardinals Burke, Sarah, Arinze and Pell IS DEAFENING. THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW. STANDING FOR CHRIST AND HIS TEACHINGS IS A MUST FROM VERY PRIEST, BISHOP AND CARDINAL…WHAT DO YOU THINK’S CHRIST’S REPLY WILL BE WHEN HE SEES HIS VERY OWN MINISTERS STANDING SILENT IN THE FACE OF SUCH HERESY. I CAN’T TAKE THIS. IT IS AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL. THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED. NOW IS THE TIME TO STAND FOR CHRIST ….CLEARLY, ….VOCALLY ….ON ROOFTOPS AND ,,,,FROM THE PULPIT. ,,,,,BUT NO, THEY DO NOT DO THIS!
The bottom line regarding Pope Benedict’s resignation is this: If ANYTHING in his resignation was coerced- the resignation is INVALID. Hence, he is still the pope. And that explains why he retained the wearing of the white papal garments, the title of “pope emeritus”, and why he is a resident (prisoner) inside the Vatican.
I believe so too. I believe also Benedict knows how all this will pan out but must suffer in silence until the measure of Francis’ wickedness is filled up.
I dont think anyone can say BXVI resignation was invalid. He says he resigned. The opposition may have worn him down but in the end I believe it was his free dcision that he no longer had the strength to continue. And so he left in the faith that God would not abandon the Church. We need now to stand by God no matter how rough the going gets. Who knows why BXVI is still alive and still praying for the flock. Maybe there is a reason which we just cannot see right know. But BXVI is still with his sheep praying daily for us and probably doing more good than any words could do. Dont be surprised when and how God acts but He will surely act
How many times does he have to tell Catholics that he resigned of his own free will?
Look, he just had an interview published during which interview he praised Jorge Bergolio and his focus on mercy.
Then look at everything Cardinal Danneels publicly revealed in his biography and what has since come out regarding the St. Gallen group of cardinals/bishops who, behind the scenes, conspired to elect Bergoglio and force Benedict out. Do some research.
That said, the premise still stands. I did not say THAT Benedict’s resignation was invalid, I was merely responding that, IF anything was coerced or lacking on his part that the logical conclusion still stands.
Whether or not Benedict’s resignation was truly valid, and whether or not Bergoglio’s election was valid is for the College of Cardinals to decide or for a future Church Council to decide in union with a future pope.
Dear Crusader. IANS is well aware of the state of that question- including the denials about it following its public revealing.
In any event, one must take a decision based on actual facts rather than misty conspiracies and the basic fact that ought to be in question is
;
Did Pope Benedict XVI freely resign?
More than once he has said publicly that he did.
So, why the desire to flee into fantasy and misty conspiracies?
A good friend of mine submitted an expose to 1Peter5’s editor with well over four hundred footnotes documenting the so called conspiracy. Perhaps it will get published. Until then, I stand by my remarks. The corroborated facts that my friend collected and researched took well over a year to obtain.
To the Editor: Please publish the series of articles.
Dear Silent Crusader. Conspiracies exist, of that there can be no doubt; Articles of Confederation meeting resulting in Constitution, Conspiracy at island off of Georgia. Jekyll Island, resulting in Federal Reserve, French Revolution, Russian Revolution. cancelling Green Acres and depriving Americans of the wit and wisdom of County Extension Agent, Hank Kimball etc etc).
But there is no reason to doubt the repeated statements that Ratzinger willingly resigned and he even foreshadowed that event by visiting Pope Celestine’s grave etc
http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/index.cfm?load=news&newsarticle=809
Look, it was Ratzinger who destroyed the Holy Office via the speech he wrote for Cardinal Frings which was read very early at Vatican Two.
Well, who had cautioned the Church about his liberalism in the 1950s?
The Holy Office.
Payback much?
And who cited questionable theologians (among whom, it is well known, was Ratzinger)
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm
A pope.
A cynical man might be tempted to make the case that Ratzinger’s revenge resulted in the destruction of the Holy Office and the diminishing of the Papacy to the moral equivalent of a CEO of large, um, corpus.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_009_HorizontalPapacyRatz.htm
That is, he treats as mere history the Dogmatic Teaching of Vatican One and so resigning from that thing – whatever he thinks the Papacy is – was no biggie.
He was not forced out of the Papacy, he resigned from whatever he conceived of as his job, not the actual papacy as infallibly defined.
I don`t believe Pope Benedict capitulated in the manner in which is described here. He does not strike me as a man that would throw in the towel, especially when he was so close to the finish line. I believe he genuinely felt that it was in the interest of the Church for him to resign, and that it was God`s will. I believe he saw that the enemies of the Church were gathering and that he felt he just simply did not have the ability to do what needed to be done. I`d say he hoped that God`s will would be done at the conclave. And who knows maybe it is being done. God`s gotta separate the wheat from the chaff somehow.
Very valid point. Somehow this all had to come to a head so as to ‘separate’ the wheat from the chaff. The battle lines have been drawn.
There is too much gnosticism–“insiderism”–about. If Benedict was “offered” this demonic “deal,” he should have gone to the balcony and told the whole story. One reads repeatedly of Popes who wanted to sign this or do that, but were “prevented.” Huh? By threats? JPII was told that if he did not make Kasper a Cardinal, the German bishops would cut off their assistance to the Church in Poland. This threat should have been told to the whole world from the balcony. Instead, Kasper became a Cardinal.
It is painfully obvious that Bergoglio is a sock puppet of the same international mafia of which Obama is a sock puppet. The next good Pope–one hopes this means the next Pope–will tell the whole truth about Bergoglio–from the balcony.
No,no,no. Bergoglio is not a sock puppet. He is one of the puppeteers.
Francis is going to do something weird in Sweden in October – will it be unilaterally revoking excommunication, announcing the canonization of Luther, or delivering his own view of the Eucharist (which, based on his behavior, is the Protestant view)?
I think Benedict was definitely forced to resign, but I think he would only have done so if he felt it was for the good of the Church. I can see the Germans and Northern Europeans and the UN demanding that the Church accept Protestantism and become some kind of super-religious quasi-state institution – URI, anybody? – but I don’t know what would have been used to pressure Benedict. (BTW, I don’t see the Americans, except possibly the Epsicopalians, who are very involved with the URI, supporting this – we have far more orthodox bishops and clergy that almost any place except Spain).
As far as Islam, Francis bends over backwards not only to accommodate it but to favor it, and I think he is actually stupid enough to imagine that the Muslims would be happy to become part of his new religion (I read about a book entitled “Francis and the Refounding of Christianity,” and that’s exactly what he thinks he’s doing. They won’t be, but his New Church of Francis will give them a lot of leeway and then eventually they’ll just take over.
Perhaps Francis will receive “communion” from a lezzie Lutheran in fancy dress whom he mistakes for the secretary of the CDF.
Lol! He’d regard it as his crowning glory, I’m sure….
“I think Benedict was definitely forced to resign”…
If this is true, then his resignation is null and void and he is still the Holy Father, and an imposter is on the Throne of Peter. This is the logical outcome of your view. Many others also believe this. Francis shows his “real cards” everyday without fear of any repercussions from the College of Cardinals who “elected” him.
That is false, period.
there is only one person that can make that determination that would be Pope Benedict himself. Until that happens were presume validity. thats the way we look at marriage. Until proven otherwise all marriages are valid. and you do not get sacramental graces from co habitation. So until Pope Benedict makes a public declaration we are to assume Pope Francis is the Pope
I do think that Benedict was forced to resign, not in ‘direct’ threats or coercion which allowed him to say truthfully that he was not coerced to resign. There are many ways to ‘skin a cat’ so to speak.
PFI doesn’t seem to like Catholics very much, based on all of his rebukes against the faithful. He really does seem to believe that HIS way is better than GOD’s. That somehow his own ideas are better than those thoughtfully formed over more than 2000 years. What a massive ego.
So much for ‘Francis the HUMBLE’.
Jesus speaking from the cross said to St. Francis. “Rebuild my Church, which as you can see is falling down.” The Pope is rebuilding the Church but perhaps is doing so in his own image rather than that of the Crucified. Was Heaven issuing a warning of vigilance to all when inspiring the Pope to chose the name Francis?
I read some place that Franvis thinks he is “refounding” Christianity. Chilling thought, no?
Given all I have read to date, such a statement of ‘refounding Christianity’ from our beloved pope would not be surprising. Perhaps his desire to fill the pews is admirable, but his seeming to flirt with popularist ideologies and a longing gaze toward accomdation of Protestant heresy to achieve this end, is as you say “chilling.” He is bringing down upon us the fulfilment of the Fatima Third Secret
Rorate reported that maybe Francis is showing signs of senility. However I have another suspicion. He is indeed losing his mind, but not due to senility. Rather, like Nebuchadnessar, he is being delivered up to insanity for mocking Almighty God. What an appropriate end to his wickedness that would be.
One way or another, let us pray his days may be shortened.
And for repentance.
A day will come when he can’t remember ever being Catholic. Oh, wait…
I have often referred to this ‘senility’ as ‘diabolical insanity’. I think I’ll stick with that one.
I am very concerned about Pope Francis going to Sweden in October, too. He keeps ramping up actions and statements that more and more are causing a rift between him and many of the faithful. My own idea is that, since he cannot possibly believe that the Eucharist is only for those who are Catholics and are not in a state of mortal sin and therefore worthy to receive the body and blood of Christ, whatever he does will involve the Eucharist. As a reminder, he has previously mentioned that Martin Luther has “done some good things”. Schism, yes, that is a good thing.
The first thing to understand about Total Consecration according to the Kolbean example and formula is what is indicated in this article: that it is THE answer, Heaven’s own answer, to the crisis we are now facing (as it is to every earthly predicament and moment, punto). But the second thing to understand is equally vital: namely, Total Consecration is not resistance. If we say: ‘we will resist; let us become Knights of the Immaculata,’ then we deceive ourselves like the character “Pam” in C. S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce.” She said, in effect “OK; what do I have to do, before I get to see my boy?” and it was explained to her that that doesn’t even count as starting. To start, you have to be willing to ask the right question.
Right now, we are all asking, “what do we do about this disastrous pontificate?” Therefore, we restrict ourselves to two possible responses:submit, or resist. What if neither of those responses are what God wants? What if neither of them will make any real difference in the end?
What we have to be willing to do is to abandon ourselves and everything that is ours–even our heartfelt and legitimate concerns about the Bergoglian phenomenon itself–completely into Her hands; so completely that we become willing to ask a new question. And Father Maximilian made no secret of what that question is. “Who are you, O Immaculate Conception?”
That is why, confronted with that fearful arch inscribed “Arbeit Macht Frei” (the “Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here,” of the modern world) he could still say: “She is the Manager. Let us allow her to direct us more and more perfectly.”
But he also said: “As long as there is strength left in us, we will fight til the last breath.” And he did; and so, following in his most sacred footsteps, must we.
Resistance is futile. Only Total Consecration is not. And it must be Kolbean Consecration, with its apostolic dimension as Father Maximilian insisted and as Heaven itself has both specified and provided for our times.
All we have to do, to paraphrase Gandalf, is to decide what to do with the time that is given us. So let us not waste another moment. Let us become Knights of the Immaculata ourselves. Ave Maria!
Amoris Laetitia is about as Thomistic as a sticky shoe.
My only thought about Pope Benedict’s resignation would be that he was blackmailed by the “St Gallen’s Group” ..probably a scandal that he was involved in as a younger priest and that they were willing to exploit… From what I can discern, the German Cardinals will go to any depth to achieve their goals,whether or not the Pope is complicit in their scheme is the question.Either way, I took to heart the essay today on “Rorate Caeli”,that we have the Pope we deserve… it makes sense.. God has a plan.. with a breath he created the Universe.. I imagine that we are all in for a painful and torturous ride..personally speaking I will continue to go to Mass daily and receive the sacraments.. I love the Roman Catholic Church, some of the people in it I could do without…unfortunately,the Pope might be one of them.
Wht you say is pure and unsubstantiated speculation. There is no doubt that he was always a model priest and that there was never any such scandal or blackmail. Take him at his word. He was convinced that he no longer had the strength to continue. Of course, you cannot blame him for the election of Francis. As for German Cardinals, there are good ones such as Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Brandmuller.
Thomas, good points the question is was the election of the existing pontiff valid? Schonborn is on the record and has bragged that he asked for advice from laypersons on whom he should vote for……. This is an odd thing to promote. The Faith is not a democracy however it seems to be heading this way.
I would love to take him at his word.. I love and respect him, but the group of jackals that do not love Mother Church as much and are obviously willing to scandalize it for whatever their goals are,are standing,lurking in the shadows. The scandal could have been anything from his german background to a family members problems. Pure speculation is all it is,but that’s what blogs are for.
The Jesuit Pope seems to have forgotten what St. Ignatius says in the meditation on sin in the Spiritual Exercises. He proposes that the exercitant ask God for grace “to know sin and abhor it”. A priest who has fallen into some mortal sin should seek confession as soon as morally posible. If he cannot, he could make an act of perfect contrition and celebrate Mass if necessary for his ministry, and confess at the first posible occasion. If the priest went to talk to the bishop, he was obviously repentent and I cannot understand the business of coming back in 14 days. If he was called in by the bishop ad audiendum verbum, it would be different.
As for Cardinal Schonborn having been Secretary of the CDF, it is false. He was Secretary of the Commission which drafted the Catechism, but he seems to have changed his tune since then, so he is not a reliable theologian by any means and he has done some strange things in Vienna, besides, proposing that the Chuch accept gay marriage.
“Exercitant”? Is that a real word?
everything that is written in the exhortation [Amoris Laetitia] […] everything is Thomistic, from the beginning to the end. It is sound doctrine. [emphasis added]
Jorge Bergoglio, (he no longer deserves even to be identified as a putative pope) has called shite shinola.
I do not know whether to laugh or cry……… (I am being sarcastic as the truthful answer is to cry).
A much better conspiracy theory is the Siri Thesis. Cardinal Siri was a hardline doctrinal conservative and was purportedly elected in the 1958 election and then forced under duress to resign giving way to Roncalli.
If this conspiracy theory is true, it means no new mass, no Vatican II, no JPII blasphemously asking God to protect Islam, no JPII kissing the Koran, no JPII at the Assisi meetings, no Benedict at the Blue Mosque, etc.
Only the Siri thesis goes to the very beginning of the rot.
But, the thesis was tethered to a fundamental error
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page77/cardinal_siri_thesis.html
Cardinal Siri:
“I say this because I have great remorse. I have faith in the forgiveness of the Lord, and, therefore, I am at peace. During the first two conclaves in which I participated, my candidature was presented by an influential cardinal. He himself told me that all the French were behind him. The others, then, followed the French. The Germans held back, but gradually, along the way, joined the rest. I said no, and if you elect me I will say no. I have made a mistake, I understand it today. Today? For some years. I did wrong, for I would have avoided completing certain actions. . . I wish to say — but I am afraid to say it — making certain mistakes. Therefore I have had great remorse and I have asked forgiveness of God. I hope that God forgives me.”
Do Catholics want sound doctrine to have a “mathematical security which does not…exist”?
This is a misleading statement because people may not know where “mathematical security” fits into the overall scheme of things and, at the same time, they are actually not in a position to reject the doctrinal integrity of our Lord’s teaching if they are not offered such teaching in the first place.
Christ gives us doctrinal and moral certitude which is even greater than mathematical security, for He is the Divine witness to Divine truth. For all its beauty and glory and soundness, mathematics is inferior to Divine truth, Jesus Christ Himself, the author and origin of all science and mathematics as well as all sound doctrine and faith. Therefore, to depict the doctrine of the faith as somehow inferior to mathematical certitude is misguided.
When Jesus says, “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock” (Matthew 7:24,25) you can be sure that this truth is greater and more secure than mathematical truth.
Remember that Jesus also said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:35). Yes, “heaven and earth”, which are created by God on mathematical principles, may “pass away”, but the words of our Lord Jesus will “never pass away”.
Where we had some sort of a spirit/ghost of intolerance within the Church (sometimes draconic punishments for smallest sins + corporal punishments for children) in the pre Vat. II. era, we now can see a dictatorship of tolerance and relativism with “pope” Francis just at the top of this iceberg.
Cardinal Bergoglio was brought into power not alone by circles within but also from those outside the church namely, I would say, the US-Obama-administration and others in Europe. One can see full and half- fascist regimes from Washington D.C. to Paris, Brussels and Berlin.
What we can see to my understanding in the Church of today is a wave of a new facisme since and with the election of “pope” Francis.
Can “tradition” help?- Yes, but not in the clothes of this old, dark spirit, which I think is partly responsible for the outbreak of 2 worldwars- or at least could not prevent them when one reads the messages of Fatima and those of other apparations of the bl. Virgin Mary.
St. pope John Paul II. often spoke of a new evangelization. This aim could be in my view achieved among other things with celebrating the traditional mass in a new, true brotherly, Christian spirit- not the old one.
A point on style: I would suggest dropping the word “piercingly” for a bit–you’ve used it twice here and twice in a previous article. More importantly, thank you for these articles! They are most helpful as we proceed to 2017 and Our Lady’s victory over these rubes.
I thought he didn’t remember what was in it.
Jesuit word trick, it’s not doctrine at all. It’s kind of like the “assumed close” from a cheeseball car salesman tactic “Are you driving home the green or the electric blue Buck tonight Mr. Smith?”
For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Deny that Ratzinger resigned of his own free will all you want but y’all are denying reality
“Benedict XVI divested himself of all the power of government and command inherent in his office, without however, abandoning his service to the Church: this continues through the exercise of the spiritual dimension of the pontifical munus entrusted to him. This he did not intend renouncing. He renounced not his duties, which are, irrevocable, but the concrete execution of them.”
if you know more than professor Stefano Violi, please I’d like to see your credentials.
O, then he had the duty to include that novel claim during his resignation;
For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce one-half of the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be sorta half-vacant and a Conclave to elect the new one-half Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Did your Professor explain to you the “logic’ of claiming that SUPREME PONTIFF means more than one pontiff?
What’n’hell does Supreme mean today? Is it true that the Principle of Non-Contradiction was sempiternally suspended during Vatican Two ?
(Don’t even get IANS started on the ABSURDITY of Lumen Gentium – -putatively a Dogmatic Decree – teaching that TWO Subjects (Pope and College of Bishops) are Both Supreme. Yes, that is the teaching we are supposed to be bound by. TWO SUBJECTS; BOTH DEFINED AS SUPREME
When a Priest is consecrated a Bishop an indelible character of the sacrament of orders is imprinted (if you will) in him and he remains a Bishop even if he no longer has any Jurisdiction after he has reached the age of mandatory retirement.
But, when a Bishop is elected Pope there is no new indelible character of order conferred on him; He remains the Bishop of Rome but, as also Pope, he has Universal Jurisdiction, among other aspects of the office of the Papacy
When Ratzinger resigned he retained nothing; zip, zilch zero, nada. He has no Jurisdiction, and, thus, no Ministry
Of course it is not surprising to learn he thinks his novel ideas are orthodox and defensible and imagines we will bow before these irrational claims but he is Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger and he did not preserve even one iota of any pontifical munus.
O, who is IANS compared to professor Stefano Violi?
He is a simple man uncorrupted by the New Theology of the Academy and one who was learnt NO JURISDICTION, NO MINISTRY
IANS is sure you have heard that Traditional axiom….
Ours is an exoteric Faith, not an esoteric Faith and Ratzinger clearly resigned if words have any meaning and it is not permissible – in the real world – to later divulge to the world – via hearsay – that he has some double secret probation status as a half a Pope but that is a half-assed claim.
One can not half-resign the Papacy and expect to be taken seriously anymore than a woman will be taken seriously who claims she is half pregnant.
Ramble much Ted Kaczinski? Who or what is IANS? You refer to yourself in the 3rd person? What the?
No, nevermind, I’m not interested. Professor Violi’s credentials are known, Professor of Canon Law at the Faculty of Theology in Bologna and Lugano.
I agree he can’t half resign meaning still pope and this is not even going into the latin grammar errors which themselves invalidate the document..Was he under duress? We’ll probably know that in time but when Cardinal Daneels comes out on the record saying the “mafia club” forced him to resign, well that’s something to think about.
IANS is the acronym of I am not Spartacus.
If your professor makes fundamental errors in logic, then of what use are his credentials?
But you and your professor are still convinced the opposite of what Ratzinger said is true – that he did not resign of his own free will as he said.
So his munus must be that of a pubic liar, right?
the only “sound” coming from this document is the “noisy propaganda of Liberalism”, to use the words of St. John Paul II the Great.