Concern Over Pope Francis Grows: Schism Looms – Cardinals MUST Act!

From One Peter Five…

Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarried Given Official Status

A letter from Pope Francis praising episcopal guidelines that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in some cases while living in a state of objective grave sin has now been added to the official acts of the Apostolic See, conferring official status on what was formerly considered by many to be merely private communication — and raising the stakes on the Amoris Laetitia debate significantly.

Of the guidelines issued by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region that would open “the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” in “complex circumstances” where “limitations that lessen the responsibility and guilt” of couples who will not make the commitment to “live in continence” despite living in an objectively adulterous situation, the pope said in his letter that “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

In August of this year, this letter was added to the Vatican website as a papal document available for public reference. Concerns were raised that what had previously been viewed as only private correspondence — and thus, completely outside the realm of papal magisterium — was being given the appearance of an official papal act.

Others were quick to point out that the presence of such a letter on the Vatican website, while troubling in itself, did not grant the document any status, but only publicity. The concern, as I speculated at the time, was that the letter seemed likely therefore to find its way into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis  (AAS) — the journal of the official acts of the Apostolic See. Such a move would confer an official, and at least quasi-authoritative status to the document, in as much as the AAS “contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The contents are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue.”

As Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti reported yesterday, the addition of the letter to the AAS has now been confirmed*:

[T]he “private” letter of Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops was published in the October 2016 edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, after they had issued directives for the application of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (the chapter with the famous footnotes on giving communion to the divorced and remarried). Directives which, as has been noted and emphasized here, are anything but clear.
The publication of this letter in the Acta is accompanied by a brief note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, together with an official rescript from a papal audience in June 2017, announcing that the Pope himself wanted the two documents — the guidelines and the letter — published on the website of Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

The announcement can only serve to further fuel the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the controversial apostolic exhortation as well as the Pope’s way of doing things, which yet again appears to be a far cry from the clarity and straightforwardness that many of the faithful would expect [from the Holy Father]. He has given no response to the dubia Cardinals, no response to the letters, petitions and other initiatives written by scholars, theologians, and ordinary faithful people who have been confused by the deliberate ambiguity of the document. Yet, at the same time, he has given a veneer of officiality to one letter sent to one member of one bishops’ conference.

To what end? To obligate all to give religiosum obsequium [religious assent] to a magisterium expressed in oblique and ambiguous forms, or to respond without committing himself in a direct response which would express the mind of the Pope in an unequivocal manner to the doubtful and perplexed? One is given the feeling that the only thing this does is cause the simple believer annoyance with the Pope’s comportment, which may be defined as a “pretext” in the worst sense of that term.

You can view only the relevant section of the October 2016 edition of the AAS here (Spanish/Latin PDF). (The full edition is available here, but a word of caution – it’s a huge PDF document at nearly 1,200 pages and with a 300MB file size.)

Some outlets are already reporting that the presence of the Buenos Aires letter in the AAS elevates it to the level of “authentic Magisterium,” which would therefore require the aforementioned religious assent of mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium 25). Others are not so sure. We asked for an assessment from Dr. John Joy, co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies and a specialist in Magisterial authority. “It means that it is an official act of the pope,” Joy said, “rather than an act of the pope as a private person. So it cannot be dismissed as a merely private endorsement of their implementation of AL. It is an official endorsement. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” and thus requiring religious submission of will and intellect. Such a requirement, Joy said, would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals.

Inasmuch as the letter was in praise of pastoral guidelines that were anything but concrete, this seems unlikely.

Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way through establishing, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.
Marco Tosatti says that even some who have been ideological supporters of the pope are allegedly losing patience with his brashness:

And further, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, this annoyance extends to the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.

It would not be the first time such dissent has been reported from within the pope’s own camp. In March, The London Times reported that some of the cardinals who helped to elect Francis wanted Francis to step down out of fear that his agenda might cause a schism “more disastrous” than the one wrought by Martin Luther, and that the Church could consequently be “shattered as an institution”. That story indicated that at least some of the group had an interest in replacing the pope with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who heads up the aforementioned Secretariat of State.

Earlier this week, we also told you about a new book, The Dictator Pope, which alleges that many cardinals who helped elect Francis are experiencing “buyer’s remorse,” in part because Francis “is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”

It seems difficult to believe that just over a year ago, we were attempting to ascertain the veracity of the papal letter to the Argentinian bishops — which had been called into question nearly immediately after its publication — and we now learn that it was only the following month that it became an official act of the Apostolic See.

As reported in The Dictator Pope, the English Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor told journalist Paul Valley in 2013, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” Every day, we receive new evidence that this might have been a significant understatement.   Source – One Peter Five…

* Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Comment: 

Discussing this development after Mass today, one of our bloggers twisted my arm to post this thread because, he argued, next to the new Mass, this is the single biggest catastrophe to afflict the post-Vatican II Church.  Explain why you do, or do not agree…

163 responses

  1. First off, I don’t think there needs to be alarm. The pope is right to be prudent. Bishops know the situation best so they are best placed to exercise pastoral prudence and judge each case on an individual basis.

    • Petrus,

      Are you having us on? Bishops don’t have the authority to okay people going to Communion if they are living together in sin. So, for the pope to approve this and put it into official teaching using the Acta, is very alarming indeed. I couldn’t believe what I was reading in the intro, so your reaction amazes me.

      This idea that you can judge these cases on an individual basis is ridiculous. I’m stunned that you are saying that this is nothing to be alarmed about. It very much IS something to be alarmed about.

    • Petrus,

      Like Michaela, I take it you’re kidding – or you’ve gone soft in the head. If this isn’t cause for concern, let alone alarm, I’d like to know what it would take to get you on your knees and praying for the Cardinals to get their act together (pun entirely intended) and campaign to have that disgraceful letter removed from the… er… Acta… !

      • Editor,

        I can assure you that I haven’t gone soft in the head. I just think we need to trust. If the Pope has raised this matter to a Magisterial level, then surely we are obliged to give our assent?

        • Petrus,

          The Pope has NOT raised this matter to “a Magisterial level” – and, as I’m sure you know, we can never be obliged to assent to heresy. Here’s an extract from the 1P5 article:

          …from Dr. John Joy, co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies and a specialist in Magisterial authority. “It means that it is an official act of the pope,” Joy said, “rather than an act of the pope as a private person. So it cannot be dismissed as a merely private endorsement of their implementation of AL. It is an official endorsement. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” and thus requiring religious submission of will and intellect. Such a requirement, Joy said, would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals.
          Inasmuch as the letter was in praise of pastoral guidelines that were anything but concrete, this seems unlikely.”

          Here’s a heartfelt plea to the “old” Petrus …. Come back, all is forgiven!

        • Actually, Petrus is correct on this. If this is now the Pope speaking in his capacity as Vicar of Christ and not as a private individual we don’t have a choice but to submit to his authority and accept that this is coming from the Holy Spirit.

          The real scandal here, and the MASSIVE problem faithful Catholics have on their hands, is that we appear to have a Pope who has now used the full authority of the Church to state that adultery is no longer a sin. If Amoris Letitiae is the work of the Holy Spirit, then why did God give us the Sixth Commandment and why did Our Lord forbid divorce and remarriage?

          This has never happened before. We have had sinful popes in the past, and we have had popes that have held the wrong opinion on this or that issue but did not use his position to impose it on the rest of the Church. But never in the history of the Church have we been bound by the Magesterium to believe that something blatantly sinful, that will lead us to hell, is not sinful and will not lead us to hell. We are not free to do what the SSPX does, and simply ignore bits of the Magesterium we don’t like, or interpret it according to what we ourselves think tradition means. We can try our hardest, but I can’t see how any amount of theological acrobatics can get round the fact that we have a problem now.

          If Pope Francis is the Pope, and everyone on this forum believes that he is, then we have to accept that adultery is no longer a sin. There are only two possible alternative explanations, but I’m too tired to even think about them right now.

          I think this calls for A LOT of prayer and penance.

          • Alex F

            I’m afraid you and Petrus are wrong to assume that a declaration of the Pope entered into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis is infallible, i.e., directly inspired by the Holy Ghost.

            Subordinates in the Church are only obliged to give assent of the intellect and will to papal declarations entered into the AAS, they are not obliged to give assent by faith.

            This is not infallible papal teaching we’re talking about here, hence the reason why assent of faith is not obligatory. I hope this clarification expalins the apparent contradiction between Pope Francis’ entry and what the Church has taught infallibly for 2000 years.

            • Athanasius,

              Would you reconsider what you say here because I cannot possibly give “assent of the intellect and will” to this Argentine bishops letter. I don’t think it is a papal declaration, but even if it was, I couldn’t assent to it just because it is in the AAS – faith and reason are not in opposition, so if my reason (and my faith) tells me that the Argentine bishops are wrong in what they say in that letter, how can I assent to it? It makes no sense at all. I think the letter will be removed eventually. Until then, I am opposed to it and cannot give it my assent.

              • Lily, for what it’s worth, I agree! There is no assent by my intellect or will …or indeed wish! I don’t understand Athanasius’ take on this either. If my will assents to this, it’s assenting to the breaking of Christ’s commandments.

                • Heloisa and Lily

                  I trust you both read and understood my clarification of 24 hours ago? I would appreciate your feedback as I don’t want either of you to be confused by my original comment.

                  • Athanasius,

                    Yes, sorry, that was lazy of me. I was very pleased to read your clarification. Thank you very much for it. I am relieved!

                  • Hey, Athanasius! 24hours? I’m not married to this blog!

                    It’s OK, I wasn’t confused by your comment just very surprised it was you writing it! Thought you’d all been drinking something.

                    However, I do wonder why you write “Pope Francis appears to be seeking ways to excuse mortal sin” – Appears? and “He judges through the marriage tribunals of his Church, which examine and declare with authority on His behalf.” Aren’t all marriage tribunals run by NO Church? Do you mean you seriously believe they act on God’s behalf these days? OR were you just stating how such things should be done in line with tradition (even if it’s no longer put into practice)? Would you accept the decision of invalidity of marriage from a tribunal these days?

                    I’m not really looking for an answer, just musing, so don’t feel obliged to find time to answer this one!

                    • Heloisa,

                      Your response to Athanasius troubles me.

                      Your original question, I believe, was about how the Holy Spirit protects the Church during this terrible pontificate, and now it sounds like you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit IS protecting the Church.

                      There is no such thing as “the novus ordo Church.”

                      There is only Christ’s Church.

                      Modernist influence is dominating the Church right now, but I think you’ve been given ample evidence that the Holy Spirit has not abandoned the Church.

                      As for recognising annulments – of course we recognise them. As we recognise the absolution bestowed by priests at diocesan level. I’ve just been to Confession this very day and received absolution from a priest who, without doubt, is a priest who says the novus ordo Mass.

                      I think I’m correct in saying that you do not attend any SSPX chapel, so I can say, without being “personal” to you, that there are people with a schismatic mentality within the Society of St Pius X who have confused the dogma “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” with “outside the SSPX there is no salvation.” That is a heresy.

                      It is simply wrong to believe that every bishop or priest in the Church today is lacking the powers of the priesthood and the ability to judge on marriage tribunals etc. That, again, is to show a schismatic mentality.

                      Our position is quite simply this: we avoid the new Mass and all things new; and we resist and refuse to accept false teachings from whatever source. I would add to that, we refuse to accept the strains of extremism to be found in “traditional” groups and chapels. We are, in other words, straight down the line Catholics. Thus, where a pope or bishop pronounces within the limits of his authority, we accept that. That’s why we uphold the rulings of the Bishop of Mostar, on the Medjugorje phenomenon. He has the authority to pronounce on such things and we accept his ruling.

                      I’m rambling now, but I hope you reflect carefully on the way a certain use of language can lead us into heresy ourselves and into a schismatic mentality. The Church is the Church is the Church. There are certainly modernist priests, bishops and – in recent years – popes. But they are not “the Church”. Christ and His Church are one – the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

              • Lily

                I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote. I intended to convey that it is usual for Catholics to give assent of intellect and will to a papal declaration entered into the AAS. In the case of the one in question, since it at least confuses teaching once perfectly clear, and is therefore dangerous to faith, no Catholic can consent to it.

                Pope Francis appears to be seeking ways to excuse mortal sin in certain circumstances in relation to the divorced and remarried. We are obliged to utterly reject this attempt and cleave instead to the rigid divine teaching handed down.

                Pope Francis is not the author of divine revelation, just the custodian and gaurdian of it. He has no authority to change or confuse that which was until now perfectly clear. The AAS is there to clarify what may previously have been confusing and controversial, not the other way around!

        • Petrus

          In his ‘guidelines’ to the bishops of Buenos Aires on Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis makes clear his breach with the immemorial moral teaching of the Church, which absolutely forbids Holy Communion to those living in public and unrepented adultery.

          Here is the paragraph from his ‘guidelines’ that clearly demonstrates the breach with previous teaching, a breach Pope Francis now attempts to make authoritative by elevating to the status of universal apostolic teaching through insertion into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

          “6) In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option [living in continence] may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.”

          Now, let us consider the very serious nature of what the Pope seems to be suggesting here. First, he seems to intimate that God’s grace cannot always be insisted upon as a “feasible” option for avoiding mortal sins against purity. Secondly, he seems to put forward the idea that the observance of God’s divine law is not absolutely incumbent upon all people at all times, but is rather relative to man’s material circumstances and emotions. Hence the anomolous “limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability” in those who remain in a state of objective mortal sin.

          By this abuse of authority, Pope Francis makes obscure the previously clear moral teaching of Our Lord and His Church these past two thousand years in the matter of divorce and remarriage. This in turn opens up the possibility of numberless sacrileges being committed against the Blessed Sacrament.

          Traditionally when a Pope’s declaration is entered into the AAS, it is to clarify an important matter in which theologians have hitherto been divided. In other words, it puts an end to debate and controversy by virtue of the magisterial teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

          That’s why, while not obliged to assent by faith, subordinates are obliged to give the assent of their intellect and will to such Papal acts.

          But Pope Francis has turned this on its head by causing controversy and opening debate where once there was moral certitude. No one can be obliged under such circumstances to assent in any way to such a confusing and dangerous obscuration of previously clear moral teaching.

          Unless Pope Francis clarifies the dangerously ambiguous terms he has employed in this teaching, terms that clearly appear to encourage making excuses for sin, then we are actually obliged to resist him and cling instead to what has always been taught by the “authentic Magisterium” of 2000 years.

          • Athanasius,

            I have already asked you above about this business of assenting with intellect and will. You wrote “That’s why, while not obliged to assent by faith, subordinates are obliged to give the assent of their intellect and will to such Papal acts.”

            So, I repeat what I’ve just written above in answer to your reply to Alex F, – how can I give my assent of intellect and will to something I know to be immoral, and against the teaching of the Church. I don’t see how we can separate our faith and reason.

            Say, for example, the pope was saying abortion is allowed in some circumstances, and I know that to be immoral. Do I say well I assent with my intellect (my reason) and my will, as in I wish to believe this, but I know it’s not what God teaches? I find it nonsensical, but if I am not understanding, please explain.

            • Lily

              Apologies again for my less than clear responses to Petrus and Alex F. I was addressing the general question of assent of faith to papal teaching entered into the AAS, but I should have stated clearly that in this case we cannot even give assent of intellect and will. I think I have now made my position perfectly clear in this response and the one above.

              There is no way we can give any kind of assent to papal teaching that confuses or contradicts what has always been taught. No Pope has the authority to oblige us otherwise.

  2. I sure wish someone would put all this business in simple English. And as an example of us adultous Catholic, those who support or do not have absolutely no clue what its like. Nor can you simply put all of us in one basket. I feel i have very solid reasons for my marriages not to be valid. Abd furthermore, it up to no one to judge except the Lord. So there

    • I Can Fly,

      Actually, the Marriage Tribunals of the Church judge whether your Marriage is valid. However, I think you will find that these tribunals will be sympathetic and pastoral. That’s why I think we need to trust that the Holy Spirit is behind this latest development.

    • I Can Fly,

      Me, I think I have very solid reasons for holding up the local bank or burglarising my neighbours, who all seem to be way better off financially and materially in general, than moi, but would that make it OK?

      Our Lord said it very clearly indeed in the Gospels. “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery.” Clear as the proverbial bell.

      If, as Petrus says, you have genuine reasons for believing that your marriage is not valid, then you need to follow due process and allow the Church authorities in your diocese to check that out. You do that by applying for an annulment, and if granted one, then you are free to marry another.

      But unless you think that Our Lord got it wrong when he condemned divorce and “remarriage”, there can be no justification for engaging in marital intimacy outside of marriage. In that sense, those who go ahead and do what they choose, because their marriage didn’t work out and may or may not be valid, CAN be “put in the same basket”.

      That’s why Canon Law prohibits those who are living in a state of public scandal, from receiving Holy Communion. Pope Francis has muddied the waters on this, to put it mildly, and he is misleading souls all over the world, perhaps causing them to lose their souls. He is a terrible pontiff. God help him at his judgement. We should pray for his conversion and a very public statement of remorse for his disgraceful words and behaviour since being elected as Supreme Pastor.

      PS One of the things these couples tend to forget to do, insofar as I can tell (since it’s never mentioned) is to pray for the grace to be faithful to God’s law whether in the short term until their status is decided by the Church annulment authorities, or in the long term, by, if necessary, as the Church decrees, living as brother and sister. As remember, some have to do in the case of illness or accident/disability. It’s true love that matters, remember, not the particular physical expression of it. That grace will be given to those who ask. We have Our Lord’s promise.

    • I Can Fly

      “Marriages”? You mean you’ve had more than one go wrong?

      “…it up to no one to judge except the Lord. So there.”

      You’re right about that. He judges through the marriage tribunals of his Church, which examine and declare with authority on His behalf.

      • Granted, and true enough, what the His church decides I will follow with question or exception. I am 100 % down for the Churches authority. Nay! Its those without aithority, those that have no knowledge of my life, that think they can decide what’s best! In their humble opinion Im sure. Bull. Judge less you be judged. Dont you even think about looking at my life and come to a conclusion

        • I can Fly

          I have not the slightest interest in your private life, have enough to cope with in my own life. Truth be told, I don’t think most people would be interested. Quoting the Church’s teaching on marriage and divorce is not invading someone’s private life, it’s just stating the obvious. If anyone goes further than that, to judge you personally, then they are clearly wrong..

        • “It’s those without authority, those that have no knowledge of my life, that think they can decide what’s best!” So true. Often in marriage I think about those who are being abused, beaten, etc… as I once was. What are we supposed to do, stay there until we die????

          “Oh, I am a Catholic, so I cannot divorce so go ahead and beat me again so I can have another neck surgery where you almost paralyzed me, bc when you hit me, you hit me so hard, you almost severed my spine, in two!” Yeah, sounds good to me.

          Sorry to disappoint you all, but I got out of it, with my life, thank God! I might want to mention also I still have a knot on my upper thigh where I was kicked over thirty years ago! Now why would Jesus turn me away for something that was not my fault?

          “When you walk a mile in someone else’s shoes then tell me about them.” Just a little lesson my Dad taught us kids as we were growing up. See we were never allowed to gossip about anyone in my home. God Bless, SR

          • SR,

            When non-Catholics make these erroneous interpretations of Catholic teaching, that’s bad enough. When Catholics do so, it is really disappointing.

            Of COURSE the Church, Our Lord, does not expect you or anyone else to remain living with someone who is abusing you physically. You sure have been through the mill, and you did the right thing in escaping from that dreadful situation. The Church also permits divorce, where necessary, for legal purposes/property/children etc.

            What Christ forbids is divorce and “remarriage”. He called that “adultery”.

            I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

            • Editor,

              I did not make any “erroneous interpretation.” Trust me, I know what the Bible says and what the Church teaches.

              I am like ICF, it is not up “me” to decide the “state of others.” That is between them, God, and the Church.

              During this period in the Church the very best thing we can do as Catholics is support one another.

              I read what you wrote to Sarah, and not to be mean, but I really thought that was less than nice, to be kind. I will not write what I really thought it was. You mocked her, and I am sure hurt her feelings very much.

              All of this is getting us nowhere. If anything each and every single one of us should be so humbled that our Lord is in the Tabernacle waiting for us. He takes us just as we are.

              We are not Calvinist and I think we would do well to remember that. God Bless, SR

            • Ed, I did not realise that. Obviously despite any legal facilitation through civil divorce, the marriage remains intact in the eye of God. But does Canon Law explicitly recognise that, which to the outside world is an instance of cognitive dissonance, the simultaneous condition of sacramental marriage and civil divorce? I had always thought that whilst divorce was a reality for some Catholics, it was something that was imposed upon them and therefore accepted as legal imposition. To seek a divorce, was always something I had considered as prohibited by the Church, and instead legal separation without the “decree nisi” was the route for Catholics. In other words divorce was only ever passively imposed upon a Catholic rather than being actively pursued. So there you go, you learn something new every day! Of course with the worldwide abuses of the annulment process, this particular point of discussion is probably redundant anyway.

              • Summa,

                The Church does not mandate or recommend divorce, but permits it for very practical reasons if necessary. It is also essential in the annulment process.

                This does not, as you intimate, change the fact that (with the exception of a genuine annulment) the marriage remains indissoluble, in the eyes of God.

    • “Nor can you simply put all of us in one basket.” Hmmm, seems like to me that is what the Pharisees did? Had it right for everybody. Those who did not see it their way, well Jesus, they Crucified Him.

      We as Catholics need to remember this is the Church Jesus died for, and act accordingly. It is not “our” Church it is His. We have to have the “faith” that the “gates of hell will never prevail against it.”

      It has been through worse struggles then what we are seeing in the past, and she still stands.

      The best thing we can do as my Priest said last night in my Confession, “Follow Jesus and not everybody’s opinion.” Kind of said it all for me. God Bless, SR

      • SR,

        Since the discussion has been centred on those living in adulterous unions receiving Holy Communion (in defiance of Church Law #915) likening those of us who uphold that law to the Pharisees is to apply a false analogy.

        Christ criticised the Pharisees, not for upholding the Law but for their hypocrisy in not living up to it themselves.

        Our Lord insisted on the importance of the Law, saying that “not one jot or tittle of the Law” would ever pass away.

        So, let’s clear that up right away.

        Christ died for each individual soul, and promised sufficient grace for each one of us to live faithfully in accordance with His Law.

        You are right, of course, to remind us of Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church – but He gave no promise that the gates of Hell would not come pretty close to prevailing! That’s what is happening now, with a dreadful pope, the worst ever in the entire history of the Church, seeking to give the impression that God’s law doesn’t matter, that adultery is no longer a sin (if individuals don’t think it’s a sin!) and so on.

        As for your priest: it’s never right to quote priests from your Confession if it may give the impression that he is an unfaithful priest. “Follow Jesus and not everybody’s opinion” suggests that he is telling you to ignore the infallible teaching authority of the Church on some matter or other. So, if that is NOT the case, you ought to either divulge the entire context of his comment or keep it to yourself.

        Christ and His Church are one. As Blessed John Cardinal Newman said: “The Catholic Church IS the Christian dispensation.” Catholicism and Christianity are one; no relationship with Jesus exists which dispenses us from obeying the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church, whether on marriage or anything else.

        So, that priest’s curious (for a priest) comment should not “say it all” for you. It should have raised your eyebrows and made you realise that (if my guess at his meaning is correct) he is not a faithful priest and best to confess elsewhere next time.

        God bless.

        • You know what, if I wanted persecution I would go to a Calvinist okay? Do not shove the Church down my throat.

          You are judging a priest and telling me what I can and cannot do. That I will not stand for.

          I am a Catholic and so are you. We both deserve more respect than that. Are you “Pope Editor” are something?

          I will confess where and when I want to thank you very much. Gees! I have never ran into the such from a Catholic in all of my life!

          “Next time, you just need to go to confession period!”

          It is called humility. I am not saying I am the most humble of people, but I never take it upon myself to tell another Catholic where to go to confession, what their priest meant or the like. You were not even there! He told “ME” what he meant.

          I will keep to myself what I want to and what I do not want to I won’t. Since when did I need your permission to figure this out for me? NEVER!

          Do not ever think you will EVER tell me what to do, say or think. That will never happen. I am done! God Bless, SR

          • Gees! I have never ran into the such from a Catholic in all of my life!

            First of all, the first word in this sentence is a corruption of Our Lord’s name; I’m sure you weren’t aware of that, so I’m letting you know so that you can decide whether you want to continue using it in exclamatory form.

            Secondly, the fact that you haven’t heard such from a Catholic in all of your life is a great sadness, and a gross failure of duty in your priests and teachers to inform you.

        • yeah, me and Editor just got into it. Well there I go back into confession and humility out the window! 🙂 Ooooh, she/he made me mad! Texas mad I might add. I wonder if there is a Scripture in the Bible on that one? 🙂

          It is not “our church” ICF. We would do well to remember that. By the grace and love of God, we have been welcomed there to worship Him.

          Pope Francis has been made a Pope for this specific time and reason.

          I have had some struggles also, as my last post shows, but the priest really helped me during our penance service to get it all back in line. Take care dear friend and God Bless, SR

          • Not everyone here ir there is because if their jund concerned heart. Some just like to sound self important, rightous etc. i believe we’ve been around long enough to pay them no mind. My Priest cleared me if wrong doing, my heart, which I trust, my Guardian Angel, and indeed the whispers of the Holy Spirit, telk me I am inline with His wishes. So all this rabble rousing means doodly squat to me.
            Bless You Dear one. Stay warm. 22 here tonight! Yikes

            • ICF,

              So true and I am in about the same “doodly squat.” Like I said, “it is all between God, ourselves, and the Church.” If you have been cleared by two of those, you are “cleared.”

              So sorry the term was used on you being “another kettle of blogger.” I read the terms for this blog, and it would be nice if the administrators would hold up to their own terms when posting comments. Just one insult after the other.

              To me that is not Catholic, (traditional or modern) and is most assuredly not what the Church teaches. Now I have to get back into confession bc of it. I don’t blame anyone but myself for that.

              “Show them the way of their errors.” Maybe I am missing something but when I look in the mirror I have so many, who am I to show anybody anything. This is exactly what Calvin taught. Statements like that come from no other than John Calvin.

              In all my years of being a Catholic not one person, Priest, Bishop or Pope ever taught me that I had “no errors,” and to show everybody else’s theirs. Nope can’t find that teaching anywhere.

              I won’t be back here again, unless someone attacks one of my friends again and says unkind things to them.

              Trying to stay warm. Supposed to be 28 tonight which is cold for here. Yay! No more mowing. Was in shorts and flip-flops last week. God Bless, SR

        • I Can Fly,

          Obviously, Christ’s Church. That is why WE cannot change the rules! Christ said: “If you love Me you will keep My commandments.”

          Clear as a bell…

            • I Can Fly,

              I am finding your posts confusing. One minute you seem to be accepting of the Church’s teaching, the next you are asking “what rules would that be Brother” (when I am, in fact, a “Sister”! Slim, glamorous, witty, intelligent gal about town. But these days, that’s not an issue. If it helps, consider me gender fluid 😀 )

              The “rules” are, of course, (a) the natural moral law, including the Ten Commandments, of which the Church is the Guardian, not the author, and so has no authority to change, and (b) the infallibly defined teachings of the Church on matters of Faith.

              Them there are “the rules” er… Brother!

              • Dear Ma’am er Sir which ever you wish, which of course is irrelevant to me of course. it matters not. Ive never been confused about the law of God or the 10. What confuses me is what is being passed on to us from the top down. What one says is ok so long as you dont do this, the other says just the opposite. us grunts down here on the bottom of the food chain need leadership. i know my attitude directly correlates to the attitude rendered. Some here respond with concern, compassion, and offer advise or reference. So offer their opinion, based on teachings of course, but they do it with an air of superiority, condecesion, and accusation.
                Truly, I am here to learn, gather information, discern. I may or not jave a Parish Priest who is rendering meroper advice.

                • I Can Fly,

                  Some here respond with concern, compassion, and offer advise or reference. So offer their opinion, based on teachings of course, but they do it with an air of superiority, condescension, and accusation. .

                  Since I cannot see any evidence of any of our bloggers (myself included) exhibiting an “air of superiority, condescension and accusation”, would you name such blogger(s) and give at least one example of that “superior etc” air.

                  Then, perhaps, we can straighten out this misunderstanding, for, allow me to assure you, I know my bloggers well and none of us has any cause to be superior, condescending and/or accusatory. (Sorry folks, no offence intended! )

                  So, ICF, please do not worry about hurt feelings or anything like that – we don’t take offence. We’d rather you named and shamed us, in order to straighten out this – what I’m sure IS – misunderstanding.

                  Thank you.

                  • Ed, its not someone inparticular or even something specifically said. Its more like, and I hesitated to use the word in my initial post. Its more like smart ass remarks. And, it probably is me also wearing my feelings on my shirt sleeve about a matter that is always in the forefront of my mind.
                    Therefore: lets just put it to rest while we are at peace. I stand with you and a few of the others in all things. A sinner I am, yes: but also loyal to a fault.
                    kind regards and prayers for you.

        • Geesh I loved that: mot our church but His. Boom

          Quite right. And HE made the rules. They are not ambiguous; they don’t take account of our feelings; they are clear: they are for our eternal salvation, not for a pleasant life here on earth.

            • We’re all special, IFC. The majority of posters here love the Catholic faith, and we want everyone else to know and love it too. Sometimes that means pointing out errors; it’s done with love, and as a duty. It certainly doesn’t mean that we think we’re better human beings, or that we’re guaranteed a place in heaven (I wish). We wouldn’t be much good as friends, would we, if we allowed anyone to continue on the wrong path or with the wrong ideas? They aren’t our ideas, they’re God’s. I’m sorry if the truth offends you: I know it’s not always palatable.

              You write as if the bloggers here are little plastic saints who have never had to face any real conflict of faith versus real life. I can only speak for myself, but if that’s your view, you’re wrong.

              • The truth doesnt offend. But not knowing the truth worries me. Is there anyone here with actual authority to answer questions. Ive played by the rules my whole life. Now the waters are muddied and seems like everyone has the opinion, including my pastor. To rely soley on my conscience is dangerous

                • I Can Fly,

                  This blog often promotes the book written by the Fatima priest, Father Gruner, precisely because the waters have been so muddied and nobody knows what to believe any more. This book is called Crucial Truths to save your soul, and you can read it online
                  http://www.crucialtruths.com/read.html

                  If you click on chapter 1 it takes you through to the pdf and you can read the whole book for free.

                  I’ve read it and it is first class, really excellent. Father Gruner died suddenly in recent years but by all accounts he was a very holy priest, and going by this book, I have no trouble believing that. I read somewhere that he had been wanting to write such a book for ages and eventually got round to it. He died shortly after it was finished and published. Divine Providence!

                  I hope it helps you as much as it is helping me.

                • ICF,

                  Go to God. His is the only “opinion” that matters. That is where you are going to find the truth, and the peace which you need. Just go to Him. You know how He answered me in my morning prayers. That is enough.

                  Proverbs says: “God ponders the ways of man.” If He ponders it, He is going to fix it.

                  I often wonder if He ever says during His pondering, “I am so sorry I gave them a mouth!” God Bless, SR

                    • ICF, So are you! It is wonderful to be around those who are. Being a Catholic is the most wonderful thing in my life.

                      Those who teach the love, compassion, humility, and charity of the Catholic Church, cannot be beat! God bless, SR

                    • SR,

                      Was Our Lord lacking in “love, compassion, humility, and charity” when He took a corded whip to the money changers in the Temple, and threw them out?

                      Just curious….

                    • SR

                      What about those who teach the doctrine? Not so happy feely?

                      BTW, don’t worry about God pondering about giving a tongue to those who preach His words; He doesn’t make mistakes, so he won’t be regretting that. If He wasn’t God. though, I would imagine He might ponder about the ears of those who hear what they want to, and not what He says. God bless.

                  • SR.

                    No, God doesn’t regret giving us a mouth – his final words on this earth were “Go out into the whole world, baptising them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost…”

                    In other words, go out and use your tongues to bring everyone into My Church. He wanted everyone to know his “opinion” about everything which is why He gave us the Church to teach infallibly in His name.

                    • Yes, Editor you are correct, we are to spread the “Good News of the Gospel.” Yet, the Bible says over and over, “How a tongue can murder a soul./How we will be held accountable for every idol word spoken.” So I do think God has those moments. God Bless, SR

                    • Editor,

                      Before you go “correcting my error out of love,” I meant “idle word.” Please forgive the error? God Bless, SR

                  • SR

                    If by “Go to God” you mean pray to Him with trust while listening to those He has placed in authority over us to guide our souls, then yes, you’re right.

                    If, however, you mean “Go to God” like the Protestants, i.e., become your own prophet and interpreter of doctrine, etc., then you are very seriously misguided.

                    The answer to the present confusion lies in the Faith handed down and taught with rigid consistency by the Magisterium up to Vatican II. That’s where we got the clarity we sought, thanks to the rosary. It is the only trustworthy source for truth. God does not manifest Himself to individuals who don’t want to go through the effort to learn the truth by the normal means He has provided.

                    “Who hears you, hears me”, said Our Lord to St. Peter, by which He meant the authoritative Petrine teaching down through the centuries, the deposit of faith, the power to bind and loose, etc., not the personal opinions and fancies of individual popes as we have seen with the conciliar revolution.

                    It is a clear sign of God’s promise to protect the Church from error that He has not allowed one of these to enforce their so-called “reforms”, the New Mass, ecumenism, etc., on the Church with binding authority. Go read what the Popes before Vatican II had to say about Modernism and liberalism. Read what the Fathers of the Church taught about the Faith. This is how God speaks to us, they are His voice for the confused Catholic today.

              • Well Therese, that’s the best explanation I’ve ever heard. Simple and to the point. Mind you I was rather basking in the “special person” category!

  3. I presume people are joking on this thread but, please remember that there will be people – ?increasing numbers – who will be reading this blog and other traditional blogs because they’re trying to get a handle on the reality of the situation. Although it may be amusing and sanity-saving to have a joke about these issues, I don’t think it does any favours, unless of course one makes it quite clear that one is joking. ThrillahinManila over on the Remnant comes to mind – can be hilarious but some people think he/she is being serious and are scandalized.

    You ARE’NT being serious, are you, Petrus and I Can Fly? Please clarify.

    • Heloisa,

      Worry not about readers of the blog – we try to keep a close eye to make sure all errors or “jokes” are corrected, and I doubt if anyone will leave us thinking that error is truth…

      I suspect Petrus may be playing Devil’s Advocate, but I Can Fly is another kettle of blogger altogether, since I do not know him/her personally. So, we must take people at face value and correct errors.

      Nobody should be scandalised, Heloisa, at anything written on our blog since it is, above all, an educational tool. People ARE confused – heck, even the clergy are not properly knowledgeable about the Faith (in my editorial in the current newsletter, I call for them to be catechised, because they really don’t know the Faith and so can’t teach it or preach it.) Thus, people must feel free to ask questions or make statements as they see fit, understanding that errors will be corrected. That’s how we all learn.

      If you don’t mind me saying so, and I hope this doesn’t come across as patronising, but you are, your good self, an excellent example of an intelligent Catholic, not afraid to say “I don’t know” or to seek clarification – that, in itself, helps readers who are struggling to make sense of what is going on in the Church right now.

  4. Editor, my answer to your question is that, if I have understand correctly that this makes it sort of official so that we are in supposed to be in some way bound by it, then yes, I think it is the biggest catastrophe since the new Mass. Why? Because it makes heresy official, which I presume makes Francis guilty of something very serious ?heresy and we now know almost certainly what’s coming next – sacrilege and blasphemy will be made sort of ‘official’. Is it coincidental that this has happened before 2017 is up?

    I really don’t know much about these matters but I presume that if the Pope tries to make it all really official by taking the correct steps, the Holy Ghost will prevent that, but that begs the question ‘how will He prevent it and what if it is now already ‘quasi’ official? I feel we have passed another watershed.

    • Heloisa,

      I’m going to re-post the extract from the 1P5 article which I’ve just posted in reply to Petrus above, since it confirms that no Catholic is required to give religious assent to Amoris Laetitia (or the Argentine Bishops’ letter!):

      from Dr. John Joy, co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies and a specialist in Magisterial authority. “It means that it is an official act of the pope,” Joy said, “rather than an act of the pope as a private person. So it cannot be dismissed as a merely private endorsement of their implementation of AL. It is an official endorsement. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” and thus requiring religious submission of will and intellect. Such a requirement, Joy said, would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals.
      Inasmuch as the letter was in praise of pastoral guidelines that were anything but concrete, this seems unlikely.

      So, no, we are not in any way bound to accept the heresy in AL and while it is scandalous that the Argentine Bishops’ dissenting letter has been placed into the AAS, that is an aberration and will have to be corrected in due course (like so much else!) – for now, we lament the scandal but we must not think that the Pope is right, that AL is right or that Christ got it wrong when He prohibited divorce and “remarriage”, nor must be ignore Canon Law, rooted in Christ’s warning words about adultery, where it instructs against the divorced and “remarried” receiving Holy Communion.

      In the words of the UK Prime Minister at an awkward moment in her election campaign: nothing has changed… nothing has changed !

      • Editor, I’ve already read the 1Peter5 article – I said ‘quasi’ official which is what it is – many, many people will use this to claim it is now doctrine and dogma and must be adhered to. Or as I said to my husband – “I may soon have to commit adultery in order to be permitted to receive Communion”.

        We may not have to agree/consent/break out the champagne (as many will, unfortunately, not myself, needless to say!) but that doesn’t make it less ‘sort of’ official. Just one step short of making it doctrine – so I repeat my question which no-one seems to have answered. How exactly would the Holy Ghost prevent them adding it to doctrine and infallibly making it Dogma? By making sure they don’t follow correct procedure?

        Serious question – is there any traditional teaching about this? People always say we were promised the Gates of Hell will never prevail – but since the next logical step is indeed to make it Dogma, perhaps the question should be “Isn’t anyone concerned that that might trigger direct intervention by God?” Or does everyone think that the Holy Ghost will simply not let the idea suggest itself to the Pope and those who are trying to destroy Christ’s Church? I’d love to know if there is official traditional teaching on this point.

        Possible scenario: Vatican releases news that this is going to be made Dogma and North Korea fires a nuke and somehow Rome is flattened (not sure if NK itself can reach). That might stop them!

        For the record and with the greatest respect, if someone wants to play Devil’s Advocate, it’s my opinion they should make it clear that that is what they are doing. Even your regular readers were confused – visitors wouldn’t have a clue and I’m given to understand the Devil loves confusion!!

        • Heloisa

          In answer to your question. No, there is nothing of Traditional teaching in this, it is from first to last Pope Francis’ personal dangerous interpretations.

          As for entering it into the AAS, the idea is to give the impression that it is now official magisterial teaching with a view to spreading the new teaching. The liberals in the hierarchy have been pulling the same stunt since Vatican II, i.e., pretending that new doctrine, such as ecumenism, is official magisterial teaching when it actually contradicts 2000 years of official magisterial teaching.

          I have always said that it proves the divine promise that none of these scandalous conciliar changes to our holy religion, from the New Mass to ecumenism, to Communion in the hand, have ever been formally and officially imposed on the faithful. They only make it seem as if it has, and most people believe it.

        • Heloisa,

          I’m sorry you think that your question has not been answered. I’ll try again…

          The Holy Spirit works in various ways to protect the Faith as promised by Our Lord. You mentioned “correct procedure” and that is certainly one way; when Pope John Paul II dispensed with the Devil’s Advocate in the canonisation process, he immediately withdrew the guarantee of infallibility for canonisations. Thus, when the current madness passes, all the modern canonisations will be re-examined under the previous standard to see which, if any, would have passed the test before the strict procedure was eased. The Holy Spirit uses people, too, to correct popes and prelates – think of great saints like Catherine Benincasa, lay woman, Dominican Third Order, now known to us as St Catherine of Siena. She took popes to task in medieval times in order to do her duty to defend the Faith under attack at that time. There are many such examples.

          And, as I (and others) have said over and over on this blog and in our newsletter, there is a simple litmus test for Catholics seeking to know whether or not a particular teaching is binding and it is this: has this teaching [that divorce/”remarriage”it is a matter of individual conscience and adultery does not exclude from Communion] been taught and believed by Christians at all times, in all places and by all (everywhere, always, and by all) ? (St Vincent Lerins). The saint was speaking about the possibility of the entire Church falling into heresy, in which case, we test our beliefs by the above standard.

          Since no pope may ever introduce new teachings, that is a very easy way to test the veracity of claimed doctrines. When suspicious of a doctrine, and if you are being told that this or that apparent novelty is merely a “development” in our understanding, then, again, it’s easy to check. If the original meaning is not intact, then it is not a development, but a new teaching.

          A good analogy which I read years ago, has stayed with me. Very simple. Before medical knowledge progressed to the state of play today, a doctor would diagnose someone who was sneezing, shivering, runny nose etc as someone who was sick. Later, same symptoms were diagnosed as a “cold”. Later still, the symptoms were considered “flu” and further down the line some would suggest could be pneumonia. Nevertheless, the original diagnosis remains true.The person is sick!

          That’s how we test doctrine. Marriage is indissoluble. Cannot be dissolved. That is always what Christians have taught and believed. So, while there are sometimes cases of people in apparent marriages who, in fact, are not truly married, for whatever reason, and may be entitled to use the Church’s annulment procedure to declare that apparent marriage null, never was a true marriage, the teaching remains that marriage is indissoluble.

          Now, clearly, Amoris Laetitia (and much else spouted by Papa Francis the First, and we sincerely hope, the Last) is manifestly a break with Tradition. Christians have NEVER believed that “remarriage” after divorce is acceptable and that adultery does not exclude from Holy Communion. That has never been Christian belief and thus it is a novelty, poisonous to the Christian life. Therefore, no matter the form of words which a pope may use, or no matter the type of communication he chooses to use to convey this new teaching, he cannot make it binding on the faithful. Never. Impossible.

          Both in the New Testament – where we read that St Paul rebuked the first Pope, Peter, “to his face” because he was “in the wrong” – and in the writings of St Thomas Aquinas (who also comments on the above incident with St Paul/Peter) we find the right of the faithful to rebuke popes and prelates spelt out, and this is, again, how the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps it free from imposing false teachings, as binding:

          “There being an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if they should stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects’” (Summa Theologiae, Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1948, II-II, q.33, a.4).

          Heloisa,

          The writings of St Robert Bellarmine on papal authority are also important in clarifying the limits of a pope’s authority. Really, though, it is the elementary duty of us all, every Confirmed Soldier of Christ, to know the basics of our Faith, in order to avoid heresy and defend the Faith, and the St Vincent Lerins’ test is both simple and clear. Nobody needs to read up on the Doctors of the Church to know that Catholicism is built on two “pillars”: Tradition and Scripture, both of equal weight, so all we need to do in cases of doubt or confusion such as that prevailing in our times, thanks to this awful pope, is to know that St Vincent Lerins’ observations about Catholic Tradition are the litmus test. Unless a doctrine has always been held by Christians from the beginning, believed by all, at all times, in all places, everywhere, we can be certain that it is not binding. In various ways, this pope is having his heresy challenged – even some of those cardinals who elected him are asking him to step down, so there is no question of any of his errors ever becoming part of the body of Catholic doctrine. The Holy Spirit IS taking care of us – be assured.

          I do hope that’s answered your question now, because I’ve got other things to do…

          😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

          • Editor, Thank you for your reply. It was worth writing and I’ve copied it for future use!* I wasn’t querying whether the Holy Ghost is doing His job correctly, although it might have read like that. However, I understand what you’re saying (I think) about the way He works. It hadn’t occurred to me that challenges from the Hierarchy and the laity might be part of that.

            *I’m just wondering whether anyone read my post at the bottom of the General Discussion page about suggestions for reading material for lapsed Catholics etc? Nobody’s replied which surprised me on this blog. I thought you’d all be full of bright ideas!

            My long contribution is below – then I’m heading for the trenches!

            • Heloisa,

              I did reply to your question about reading material, albeit late and inadequately. Not sure if you’ve seen it yet.

              However, seeing Lily recommending Father Gruner’s excellent book Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul (above, in response to I Can Fly) it strikes me that since that is a very readable book, and fairly slim (plus it can be read online, in pdf) THAT might be a possibility. Click here to read it online or to find order details if you choose the hard copy. It’s an excellent read, so I would strongly recommend it.

              Let me know what you think…

  5. Well I am scandalized by Petrus’ remarks. If he’s having a laugh, it’s not funny. It’s so difficult as it is trying to keep on top of things and since the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, is hell bent on leading us astray, it doesn’t help if a previously admired blogger is joining in his aberrations!

    • Helen,

      Apologies! I was indeed playing “Devil’s Advocate”. On reflection, it maybe wasn’t wise if it was going to cause scandal!

      • Petrus,

        Did I doubt you? Not for a second. I have always known that you were too wise to go the way of the modernists. I say that because I remember your wise words to male friends about to follow you down the aisle (so to speak!)

      • Petrus, Petrus all is forgiven! You are a naughty boy so you are! I have to say that you did force me to think and that’s saying something…..

    • Helen,

      With respect, you are taking the short (and a tad obvious) view. The long view is that Petrus playing Devil’s Advocate has made us all think more carefully about the issues.

      So, I think he’s due a big “thank you” for that. No, Petrus’ “joke” wasn’t unfunny – here’s an unfunny joke…

      Still, you have to laugh – don’t you? 😀

      • I’ll have to check my funny bone – still not laughing. It may have been obvious to those who know Petrus well, but as he kept up his joke it wasn’t obvious to me, at least. Here was me thinking that the Scots don’t have a sense of humour…….. *

        Anyhow, I’m afraid that Petrus’ outrageous statement has probably hit the nail on the head for many so-called Catholics. And that’s not funny in the least!

        *Off to don my tin hat and hide behind the sofa.

        • Therese,

          Well, we all have different senses of humour. I can see the fun of it and editor is right to say that Petrus’ playing Devil’s Advocate made the discussion take off and become very interesting, but if you don’t see the fun of it, no problem. That’s a side issue.

          It’s the central issue that matters so I’m wondering what do you think about this development of the Argentine Bishops’ letter going into the official AAS?

            • Therese,

              I don’t understand what you mean. You were asked what you think of the Argentine letter going into the Acta – that’s more than heresy. That’s an attempt to make heresy formal Catholic teaching – isn’t that why putting the letter affirming heresy into the Acta where formal papal declarations go, so serious?

              • Lily

                I don’t understand your confusion. We both agree that It is heresy to affirm that adulterers can receive Holy Communion without first repenting and receiving absolution, and to teach the contrary is heretical, and cannot be accepted by believing Catholics. The fact that this erroneous “teaching” is coming from the Pope, who it seems is becoming bolder by the day in expressing his “beliefs”, is no surprise, surely? The fact that he is now attempting to formally enshrine one of his grave errors in Catholic Doctrine is shameless, but to be expected. I don’t think that there is anything more serious than heresy – whether this is taught “privately”, or shouted from the rooftops, although I agree that the scandal is enormous.

        • Therese,

          All I can do is apologise once again for the serious error of judgement I made trying to kick off a good discussion on the blog. I didn’t realise it would cause you such distress, so please forgive my transgressions.

          Let’s keep calm and unite under Her Holiness Pope Patricia!

        • Therese,

          How COULD you?! Scots DO have a sense of humour. Here’s a sample…

          So, come out from under that sofa and take off that hat – you look ridiculous! The dark glasses don’t fool anybody!

  6. THE BERGOLIAN CIRCUS REMINDS ME OF THE EVERYDAY MERRY-GO-ROUND OF FOOTBALL MANAGEMENT. HAVING A DUD MANAGER HAPPENS AND THERE COMES A TIME THAT EVEN SUPPORTERS OF THE CLUB ARE WILLING THE NEXT GAFF: THE ONE THAT WILL BE THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL’S BACK. PERHAPS THE POPE IS ONLY AN AIRMILE OR TWO FROM THE KARAOKE THAT WILL SINK HIM? ANYWAY, AS MY PARISH PRIEST IS FINE OF SAYING, A BAD LAW IS NO LAW.

  7. What is it exactly to which Catholics would have to assent with religious submission of intellect and will, if these documents were to become part of the authentic magisetrium? Is it the conclusion: “There is no other interpretation”? Problem is that he never specifies which part of the BA bishops’ guidelines to which there is no other interpretation. It rambles on and on and on, and he oculd be referring to any part of it.

    He will never get specific as he knows that once he does he will open himself to charges of formal heresy. He manipulates, hints and suggests, like the classical modernist that he is, in order to mislead, misdirect, confuse and “throw open the debate”. He is an evil old scheister who is wedded to Satan’s agenda which means that clarity and faithful teaching do not form part of his MO.

    At least, however, precisely because there is no clear affirmation of doctrine to which it is possible to give assent with religious submission of intellect and will, no Catholic can be obliged to assent to it. To what would we be giving consent? If we utterly reject these documents and everything they contain, which article of the faith would we be rejecting? I suggest we would reject nothing of the faith, because the damn things don’t contain anything of the faith in the first place.

    Ther only purpose they serve is to provide an historical record of the depths to which this lunatic papacy has sunk and hopefully will provide part of the evidence when Francis is eventually anathematized by Holy Mother Church.

    • Deacon Augustine,

      Well said. No way can any Catholic assent to AL or any document or letter pushing the heresy in it.

      I also agree completely with your final sentence – Well said!

  8. A very good treatment of the issues from the p.o.v. of Canon Law can be found here:

    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/04/on-the-appearance-of-the-popes-letter-to-the-argentine-bishops-in-the-acta-apostolicae-sedis/

    None of the documents admitted to the AAS touch in any way the continued prohibition of “divorced and remarried” Catholics from receiving Holy Communion. Unless and until the Pope revokes, removes or alters Canon 915, the legal situation remains the same as it has always been.

  9. Just to throw in my amateur opinion, I think Francis’ (or whoever’s) use of the term “authentic Magisterium” is meaningless. My understanding is that the Church’s treasury contains either the Ordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, or the Extraordinary Magisterium. There is no such term used as “authentic Magisterium.”

    Having said that, this sleight of hand is a typical M.O. of the Conciliar (Modernist) Church: use new terms never before seen but that sound legitimate, or re-define existing terms via vague language or de facto “pastoral” practices.

    I do not for a split second believe that there is any assent of any kind required to the excrement known as Amoris Laetitia, nor to any “guidelines” that apply to it. The only thing these documents call for is loud and vociferous resistance and condemnation from the faithful and the clergy.

    • RCAVictor, I believe you are onto something with the abuse of this novel term “authentic Magisterium.” IIRC it did not figure when Bl. Pius IX first officially taught the difference between the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium.

      If it is a real thing, I would like to know whether the documents of the heretic Pope Honorius which supported Monothelitism formed part of his “authentic Magisterium”? If they did, then what is it good for?

  10. I would like to clarify that I was NOT playing Devil’s Advocate and that I don’t think there is anything funny about this awful situation we’re in.
    I suppose it’s alright for SSPX people who are just going do whatever they want to do and ignore the awkward bits of the Magesterium they don’t like. But this leaves the rest of us in a terrible dilemma.
    We now have a Pope who is using the full authority of the Church to tell us that adultery is no longer a sin and that people who think it is can be accompanied on some kind of journey until they get over all their hangups. It’s a pity St John the Baptist had such hangups. If he could just have read Amoris Letitiae he might not have found his head served up on a platter. It’s a pity Henry VIII didn’t have Francis to deal with or he could have just married whomever he wanted without the bother of having to drag the whole of England into apostasy and poor old Sts John Fisher and Thomas Moore might not have lost their heads if only they had been a bit less intransigent.
    Until now, we have been able to delude ourselves on the state of the Church. Popes have said some bizarre things but we could just get along with trying to be Catholic by saying they weren’t binding on the rest of the Church. Popes could publicly worship false gods and we could excuse it as ill-advised but well-meaning attempts at diplomacy towards non-Catholics.
    Now there is nowhere to hide unless we are intellectually dishonest.

    • Alex F,

      The reason why uninformed Catholics in the past accused the SSPX of being schismatic, is because they did not have a correct understanding of the extent and limits of papal authority. That has begun to change under this pope because only the thickest among us, still think that the Pope is above criticism. That’s called papolatry (idolising a pope – sin of idolatry) and you can read a very clear explanation of it if you click here.

      Your concluding paragraph, where you say that “until now, we have been able to delude ourselves…” highlights perfectly the fact that while the rest of us allowed ourselves to be deluded, and went along with the new Mass, new rosary, new catechism, new everything, Archbishop Lefebvre did not. He was far from deluded; he had a clear mind and a truly Catholic soul and thus he did, from the beginning with Pope John Paul II, what the latecomers to the crisis are now doing thanks to Pope Francis – he resisted the Pope’s errors. Go to any SSPX chapel and see if you can find anyone taking Communion in the hand or encouraging inter-faith “worship”. You won’t, for, far from “excusing popes publicly worshipping false gods” [in the name of diplomacy, like Pontius Pilate], there ARE Catholics who are educated enough in the Faith to know that there is no pope on earth with the authority to teach us whether by word or example, to offend God, by breaking the First Commandment (or any other Commandment).

      I hope that clarifies the fact that the Society has been a refuge for years now, for those who refused to be “intellectually dishonest” all along, refused false obedience to a modernist pope from the beginning of this crisis, although those who are just catching up at the tail end, are most welcome. Better late than never, as the saying goes. Just don’t shoot the messenger (SSPX) who, in fact, if you choose to return to the Faith of our Fathers, are there waiting to offer you a place of refuge.

      Most, however, of those claiming shock horror at Francis’ scandals, will still go along with the other scandals – new Mass etc. Intellectually dishonest, or what?

      • Dear all…..

        At the risk of getting my head bitten off……..

        I’m not sure that Alex F is accusing the SSPX and its parishioners of anything serious – if he is, he’s free to correct me!! I think the problem is that whilst it is true to say that the SSPX is a refuge for those choosing to return to Traditionalism, it is not quite that simple.

        1) There are mighty few SSPX Priests/Churches in the UK (the US must be teeming given the number of times I’ve read someone saying that everyone could and should move if necessary and will be damned if they don’t sort of thing! – and yes, that’s me being sarcastic). The result is that on the ground, the SSPX is only a refuge if someone can reach it.

        2) That leaves most of us with the NO or Home Alone scenario. The internet is the nearest refuge – at least for myself. However, most people, even if they have the will, don’t have the time to spend their life online trying to reconnect or learn for the first time the True Catholic Faith.

        3) Many people can’t just sell up and move – and in the UK, (as I believe has happened down south) by the time you’ve moved, there’s a good chance the Church has closed or cancelled the TLM.

        4) All this can make those blessed with ANY access to the TLM seem as if they’re a breed apart and some of the comments I’ve come across online are very condescending (not to say sometimes downright rude) about people who don’t have that access, as if it’s their own fault – obviously they’ve not prayed hard enough!!

        4) I don’t agree that only the thickest amongst us still believe that the Pope is above criticism. Although I haven’t been to any Church for a long time, I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of intelligent people who still think the Pope can’t do wrong – for many reasons, whether it’s because they want to see all this false teaching take effect or simply because they have never been taught the Faith and don’t know there might be something wrong.

        I’d bet my last pound that if you randomly took 500 ‘practising’ Catholics, very few even now would have any idea there was anything wrong, let alone seriously. Why? Because I suspect most don’t read or discuss Catholicism and they won’t be getting any info from the pulpit. Those who do know will probably just leave or become ostriches – I can’t see many actually seeking refuge with the SSPX. I doubt most have even heard of the SSPX/FSSP/ICK. Heck, I hadn’t heard of the last 2.

        I am also now donning my tin hat. I’m just popping out … I may be some time…..

        • Something I meant to write but forgot to – about stupidity. Many people aren’t very bright and need to be spoon-fed and therefore need to be told from the pulpit very simply that there is a crisis; this, of course, is additionally why the idea of discernment is so dangerous and why the Traditional ‘obey the Church and you’ll be OK’ approach is much safer for souls- including those of intelligent people! That’s putting it a bit bluntly but I’m sure you all know what I mean.

          • Heloisa,

            I’ve been in a number of diocesan parishes in recent months, due to working with the Fatima group, and I’m very well aware of the ignorance among Catholics about the limits of papal authority and the immature state of mind that means they think it is wrong to criticise a pope. Unfortunately, there are priests who are every bit as ignorant. If you’ve not read it, take a look at my editorial in the December newsletter. Catechesis of the clergy is urgently recommended.

            It’s not about “intelligence” either – there are many academically intelligent Catholics who are immature in their understanding of papal authority. It’s not really that they are stupid, or, my word “thick”, but they simply do not know the Faith properly. They have failed to educate themselves – I was taught in secondary school that there is only a certain amount can be done in religion class, that we had a lifelong duty to keep ourselves educated in the Faith. Was that not universally recommended in Catholic schools before the Council or was I just very blessed to have a teacher with common sense. Rhetorical question! Answer seems obvious, seeing the ignorance among my peers.

        • Heloisa,

          “At the risk of getting my head bitten off……..I am also now donning my tin hat. I’m just popping out … I may be some time…..

          You know, this sort of comment is insulting in the extreme. We get quite a bit of this from people who apparently do not only NOT know the Faith (by their own admission, for whatever reason) but they also do not know how to engage in a discussion.

          If you think your head is being bitten off because someone responds to your comment without flattering you to death, or even, God forbid, that they actually say something that contradicts or corrects you, then you really need to buy a copy of “Debating For Dummies”.

          Sorry to be so brutally frank but what the heck. Replying tactfully and pleasantly hasn’t made any difference. We’re still accused of being “condescending” or “downright rude”. Goodness me.

          Look, if you feel that we are being condescending or downright rude, maybe – just maybe – you are misinterpreting what we are saying, and that a tad unkindly.

          The bloggers here give their precious free time to helping answer questions and doubts and if we sometimes don’t say things precisely as you would like, well, know what? That’s tough. How’s about a wee bit of charity, making excuses for them, remembering that not everyone has a degree in English or Theology. We all do our best. If it’s not good enough, well, sorry about that. Take Athanasius, for example. You would not believe the amount of travelling he does across the country every day, all part of his day job, and that, coupled with various other commitments, means that the amount of time he manages to devote to this blog is nothing short of heroic.

          Contrary to what you say, nobody here is in any doubt that there are people like yourself who can’t get to a TLM through no fault of their own. What is irritating however is when people come on for the first time, and don’t say that. They moan about the novus ordo and seek support. Naturally, we recommend that they go to the TLM, even if it means some effort.

          We’re not to know that there are folks living in the middle of the Irish Sea or wherever (I’ve no idea where you live, but you’ll get my drift) and if people were a bit more thoughtful and told us up front that there is no way they can travel any distance for whatever reason and there’s no TLM available, we would, of course, take that into account. Instead, it’s not the first time that various well meaning bloggers have sought to persuade newcomers to make that extra effort etc. only to be snapped at and told – very belatedly, usually – that this person lives in the back of beyond and would need a taxi, bus, boat, train, and plane there and back, to get to the nearest traditional Mass. Not exactly fair to expect us all to know that, now, is it?

          In summary, we are not perfect here at Catholic Truth. I’m certainly not perfect. But I’ve never knowingly bitten anyone’s head off, unless you confuse straight talking in discussion with “biting off heads”. In which case, you’re best to avoid engaging in conversation with me – I’m not good at dissembling. So, can we put an end to this “I’m off now…” as if we are thugs and villains ready to do critics bodily harm. We’re not. We’re simply straight talkers, giving as good as we get – and then some!

          As one friendly novus ordo priest once wrote about my unworthy self in a reference for a job: “With [editor], what you see is what you get.” I got the job. And that’s the way it is going to stay… not least in case I ever need another reference – who’s to say I won’t be offered a job in the Vatican one day… !

          Those with a nervous disposition are discouraged from blogging here 😀

          • I’ve absolutely no idea what the heck you’re on about, Editor. I haven’t insulted anyone here. Nor have I accused anyone on this blog of anything, unless it was yourself of writing a very useful post. Nor can I be responsible for your reactions to my comments and opinions. Although I wrote it as a joke, obviously one is really in need of a tin hat here. “We’re simply straight talkers, giving as good as we get – and then some”. Well, this is obviously true; seems though that only some people are allowed to be straight talkers and express their opinions without being bellowed at. “if people were a bit more thoughtful and told us up front that there is no way they can travel any distance for whatever reason and there’s no TLM available, we would, of course, take that into account”. Very gracious of you, I’m sure, Ma’am, but what has it got to do with the price of fish (in the Irish Sea or anywhere else)? The truth? I’ve had my head bitten off so many times in the world of online Traditional blogs for simply disagreeing with someone that I’m fed up of it.

            • Heloisa,

              Clearly I’ve picked you up wrongly – would you then explain why you wrote: “At the risk of getting my head bitten off……..I am also now donning my tin hat. I’m just popping out … I may be some time…..”

              Thank you

              PS “Fed up”? Me, too!

            • Heloisa,

              To be honest, I get fed up myself, of people saying things like that, as if we are always biting people’s head off etc. Somebody else said something similar yesterday, I think it was, about now I’ll hide behind the sofa, or whatever, and it does come across badly, as if we’re all bullies, but you maybe didn’t mean anything by it.

              I always enjoy your comments so you needn’t think you’re head will be bitten off, LOL!

  11. Alex F

    “I suppose it’s alright for SSPX people who are just going do whatever they want to do and ignore the awkward bits of the Magesterium they don’t like.”

    I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. Perhaps you could give examples of those bits of the Magisterium SSPX people like myself ignore.

    “Now there is nowhere to hide unless we are intellectually dishonest.”

    Traditional Catholics don’t “hide”. What they do is take refuge in the SSPX, which has been falsely castigated for decades for opposing all those scandals you’re now highlighting. Strangely enough, the most widespread lie told about the SSPX by the Modernists is that it does what it wants and ignores those bits of the Magisterium it doesn’t like. Of course there’s never any evidence put forward to substantiate the claim!

  12. I am with Deacon Augustine here. I have just read Fr. Z and he has an article by the Canon Law expert whose name just escapes me because I have had to switch off ….Ed Peters!!! And he says that Canon 915 stands unless and until it is revoked…which has not happened! Hence, [b] no one can give Holy Communion to anyone who is living an adulterous lifestyle[/b]. It is expressedly forbidden by Canon 915 and nothing that the Pope says in his “letters” can change that precept. He may call it “magisterial ” but it is not!

    • John R, I would expand on that to say that the situation we now face is of a Pope who is tacitly encouraging pastors to defy his own Code of law. It is the sheer nonsense of “autodemolition” and will be the unravelling of the Church’s coherence and credibility if it is not stopped.

      The fact that no more than a handful of bishops find this situation ridiculous/dangerous is testimony to the widespread infidelity and apostasy in the hierarchy. Even those who are aware that there is something really wrong behave like rabbits caught in headlights.

      • Deacon Augustine,

        What would your advice be to a sound, traditional leaning bishop, at this time?

        I ask because I know what my advice is likely to be – but that’s because I think that remaining silent in the spirit of “being wise as serpents…” – that is invoking the virtue of prudence – is sometimes, albeit not maliciously, used as a cover for inaction.

        What thinkest thou? If in conversation with a sound bishop who feels it wiser to remain silent at this time, what, if anything, would you say to him?

        • Whilst you’re awaiting the deacon’s reply I would say that the fictitious sound bishop you mention can’t be really wise if he keeps quiet in these horrendous times even if in the interest of whatever! So there you have it!!

        • I would say to him:

          My Lord bishop, yes, you are quite correct that the Pope has not changed Canon Law to permit those living in sin to receive the Sacraments. Yes, you are quite correct that he has not openly and explictly said that those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin are now eligible to be admitted to Holy Communion. However, we cannot deny the evidence of our eyes that he is clearly favouring such interpretations of his teaching by encouraging the publication of such interpretations in L’Osservatore Romano, Civilta Catholica, and now even publishing them along with his private correspondence in the A.A.S.

          It must be apparent by now that due to the widespread publicity of these acts, not only is there grave danger of scandal among your own flock, with the ignorant being led into the approval and acceptance of sin and the potential destruction of families and children’s lives, but the unity of the Church herself being destroyed by prelates who take the Pope’s examples to their logical conclusions.

          It is imperative, therefore, that action be taken now before more damage is done. With regards to your own flock your programme of Pastoral Letters can be used to restate unequivocally the dogma of the faith which are pertinent to the current crisis:

          1. Teaching on Pastor Aeternus and the correct understanding of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it is necessary to restate the limits of his authority and that the Church has never understood the Pope to possess the power to teach novel doctrine and alter the Deposit of the Faith. On the contrary, the whole diocese needs to hear what you said in a recent homily: “Yet as disciples of Jesus, we are always under the Word of God, not over it. Jesus Himself gave us the Gospel of the family, and as God the Son He is Truth. No pope, no bishop, no hierarchy, no one has the authority to change His Word, however much we rightly seek to reach out to, and care for those in difficulty.”

          2. On the correct disposition for the reception of Holy Communion. My Lord, the people need to hear again and again, that the Blessed Sacrament and the Precious Blood are indeed the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ. As such the correct disposition for receiving Our Lord is lovingly laid out in our Canon Law, based on Divine Law itself. This, both to protect the Sacrament from profanation and sacrilege and for the good of the souls who might otherwise receive Him unworthily and risk eternal damnation. Teach them of the necessity BOTH for a correct internal disposition (being free from mortal sin by prior absolution in the Sacrament of Penance as per Can 916) , and a correct external disposition (not persevering in states of MANIFEST grave sin such as permanent public adultery, publicly supporting abortion, “same -sex marriage” etc. as per Can 915). Re-emphasize that no pope, bishop or anybody else has the power to change Divine Law.

          3. On the true meaning of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. That marriage is freely, totally, faithfully and fruitfully giving oneself to one’s spouse in the sight of Almighty God, and that what He joins sacramentally no man can put asunder – no pope, bishop, hierarchy or anybody else. That God hates divorce (Mal 2,16) and that anybody who divorces their spouse and “marries” another commits adultery. (Matt 5,31 etc.) Re-emphasize that no pope, bishop, or anybody else has the power to change this. Anybody who attempts to “remarry” cannot, therefore, be in a position to receive the other sacraments unless complying with the commitment to continence and avoidance of scandal (if the latter be truly possible.)

          4. On the heresy of gradualism. My lord, it would be most opportune to lay the axe to the root of this crisis by attacking it at its source – namely the resurgent heresy of gradualism. Explain how it was identified and condemned long ago by St Augustine in De Peonitentia and its underlying thesis is that God does not give sufficient grace to His children to avoid sin. Essentially it not only denies that God is a loving God, but as Suarez said, it effectively denies that God is God. I know the people live surrounded by Prods and that gradualism was a key principle in Luther’s moral theology, but it was anathematized by the Council of Trent and we really cannot allow it to gain more ground. It is essential that the people know that the prohibitive commandments are absolutes, that virtue and the sacraments are not mere ideals, and that consequently one is not able to approach them by degrees while remaining in a state of grace. It is essential to be clear that one cannot grow in the life of grace at the same time as which one perseveres in a state of manifest grave sin.

          Ensure that these pastorals are received and published by the Catholic press and make sure too that the Congregation of Bishops and the Holy Father receive their own copies.

          With regards to the Universal Church, I would remind you my lord, that according to LG 25, you as a bishop have a share in the concern of the governance of the Universal Church in union with the College of Bishops and the Pope. This is a responsibility which you cannot delegate to any other and neither can you avoid answering to God for the way in which you have exercised this responsibility. Consequently you have the obligation to act when you see that the faith and unity of the Church is under threat. I know that you are very conscious of unity and hence very wary of acting in a way which would seem to jeopardize that unity. However, you know as well as I do that the unity of the Church is built upon the Truth of Christ, and where this Truth is lacking there can never be real unity. You know that there have been popes before who have threatened the faith and unity of the Church, and you know that it was good bishops like yourself who were able to correct them without fear for the consequences.

          Therefore, my lord, for the sake of the Church of God, it is now time to fraternally correct this pope and call him back to the fullness of the Catholic Faith – an unambiguous, clear, authoritative fullness – a fullness with authority like that of Our Lord’s, not the scribes. It is time to join with Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller, Bishops Schneider and Fellay and publish that correction in full so that the Church of God throughout the world may know clearly and fully what it is that Catholics believe. Ask the pope to profess this Faith with you and turn back from his errors and schism. If he continues to refuse, ask that he resigns under the terms of Canon 401c.

          • Deacon Augustine,

            WOW! And to think all I was thinking of saying was: “Bishop, please speak out without fear to correct Pope Francis…” 😀 Now, I’d be adding: “and to help you get your story straight, read this post from Deacon Augustine on our blog…” 😀

            I think you really said it all superbly, but my mouse instinctively moved to copy this key point:

            “I know that you are very conscious of unity and hence very wary of acting in a way which would seem to jeopardize that unity. However, you know as well as I do that the unity of the Church is built upon the Truth of Christ, and where this Truth is lacking there can never be real unity.”

            I think it is that fear of breaking unity that maybe holds back those few traditional leaning bishops from speaking out.

            We need to pray hard for them that they take courage and act, as a matter of urgency now, in the light of this latest development – at least I think it’s the latest development – not had time today to Google for Pope Francis Latest…!

            • Editor,

              I think the bishops are failing to realize that their silence does not preserve unity. Unity has already been shattered by Francis (and the entire Vatican II program, in fact), whether the bishops speak against his agenda or not. There is no unity at all in this disaster, since truth has been attacked: there is only fear-driven conformity, which is not conformity either. It is just an iron curtain which invites covert disobedience.

              For his deluded megalomaniac part, Francis is clueless as to the stark and incompatible difference between unity and conformity. He is also clueless to the fact that he has neither.

              • RCA Victor,

                You are right – “fear-driven conformity” just about sums up the state of play. Very well put.

                It’s all rooted, of course, in the spiritual blindness that has caused the diabolical disorientation foretold by Our Lady of Fatima. Why can’t they see that? Did I just say that? After “blindness” I asked why they can’t see?

                Time I hit the hay!

            • Editor,

              Yes, the “fear of breaking unity” is what paralyses the whole hierarchy.

              I have seen the questionnaires which Nuncios send out when they are touting for the names of possible new bishops. They are like a checklist and at the very top of that list is the assessment of the candidate’s commitment to “ecumenism”. Ever since JPII’s pontificate it has been a defining characteristic of the episcopabile.

              The problem is that ecumaniacs have a tendency towards cowardice and the anti-principle that “unity is more important than truth.” as CMOC loved to remind us.

              • Deacon Augustine,

                It’s crazy. For all the ecumenical events held at every opportunity, with bishops and priests attending Protestant churches to praise the heretic Luther, anti-Catholicism is as rife as ever – especially here in Scotland where anti-Catholic attacks outnumber attacks on every other religion combined. Incredible. Yet, still they press on with the illusion of moving towards Christian unity.

                Yes, I recall Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor saying that unity is more important than truth – pity he didn’t give us chapter and verse from that particular Gospel … Oh wait, I remember now – there isn’t one.

  13. I stand partially corrected regarding the term “authentic Magisterium.” Chris. Ferrara today cites this from Canon 752 of the 1984 Code of Canon Law:

    “[a]lthough not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium,[sic] even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

    However, I wonder if I am also partially vindicated, since this is from the 1984 Code, not the 1917 – that is, another manifestation of Vatican II gibberish. Does anyone know if the term “authentic Magisterium” appears in the 1917 Code?

    Here’s the Ferrara article: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1117.asp

    • RCA Victor,

      I can’t see anything wrong with the term “authentic Magisterium”, since authentic just means real, original etc. I don’t see that it matters whether it was in the 1917 Code or not, because it is important to know what is taught by the real or original Magisterium as opposed to more modern terms like the “living” Magisterium which can give the impression that change is possible.

      • Lily,

        That’s precisely the problem: the use of this imprecise term has enabled Francis to claim that heresy is “authentic.”

        • RCA Victor,

          I don’t think so – anyone arguing that pastoral (or any other!) approval of adultery is part of the “authentic Magisterium” only has to quote or cite from Scripture and/or Tradition to prove the case. Mission Impossible.

          The authentic Magisterium has consistently taught the indissolubility of marriage and the fact the “eating and drinking” [i.e. receiving Holy Communion] unworthily, has never been permitted in the Church, but, on the contrary, has been condemned straight from the lips of St Paul. If Pope Francis is using it to try to sell us false teaching, then he is seriously – very seriously – wrong to do so. AL can NEVER be part of the authentic Magisterium – not a million years.

          Thus, I don’t see what the problem is with “the authentic Magisterium” – it’s the same as speaking of the “authentic” (as opposed to the erroneous term “official”) teaching of the Church. Just means “the real deal” or the “real thing”.

          “Real deal” … Am I with-it or what?

          • Editor,

            But that’s exactly what Francis and his “Magicke Circle” are attempting to do, via the use of the term “authentic” Magisterium – i.e. sell us swamp land in downtown Glasgow.

            My problem is not with the word “authentic.” My problem is which Magisterium the “authentic” is supposed to be referring to. Are there not three levels of the teaching office, each requiring certain degrees of assent? To which level is Francis referring, when he so deviously describes his latest AL ploy as “authentic”?

            Here, for example, is C. Ferrara’s latest on the AAS controversy:

            “In truth, the one and only bulwark against the profanation and sacrilege that Francis is attempting to cloak with the false and misleading label “authentic Magisterium” is God’s law, not canon law, which in this case merely conforms to God’s law. Therefore, it would not matter in the least if Francis should dare to proclaim the outright “repeal” of Canon 915. Divine law would still forbid what he is attempting to do and render his effort void before God and man alike, as an immoral law is no law at all, to advert to the famous dictum of Saint Augustine.”

            Now, I’m not sure whether he is objecting to the term, or to its incorrect use, so I’ll finish by saying, “If I had a case, I’d rest it!”

            • RCA Victor,

              With respect, because I know Glasgow like the back of my hand, nobody’s ever going to sell me swamp-land where a ten bedroom luxury home should be! Don’t fall for his semantic games-playing. Using the term “authentic Magisterium” to cloak his heresy won’t wash with those of us who know the nature of the authentic Magisterium like the back of our hands… or should that be “back of our catechism”? 😀

              In the nature of things, there can only be ONE “authentic” Magisterium.

              The answer to those who claim that AL or the “teachings” of the Argentine Bishops, is part of the authentic Magisterium, is to say – NOPE! Sorry! Wrong! Again!

              As I have already said, unless these dissidents can quote/cite Scripture and Tradition, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in support of their claim that this heresy is part of the authentic Magisterium, then, very clearly indeed, it is NOT!

              It seems to me that this is precisely what Chris Ferrara is saying in that part of his quote which you highlight in bold. Pope Francis is attempting to cloak his heresy by attributing it to the authentic Magisterium. Readers of Theology for Dummies know that this is manifestly NOT the case – he’s wrong. Very.

              • Editor,

                Don’t worry, I’m not falling for anything Francis says. Just out of curiosity and after a lengthy search for an English version of the 1917 Code, I found a PDF and did an “Advanced Search” for the term “authentic Magisterium,” both with and without the capital M. Results: zero occurrences.

                However, it appears this is not a Vatican II made-up term as I previously suspected, since the Encyclopedia article on Canon Law uses it numerous times.

  14. Well done, CT, for not ducking the issue. For what it’s worth, my contribution to the discussion can be found here [link deleted – appears to be sedevacantist].

    • Sarah,

      I’ve just posted a very pointed comment on that blog – it seems to be schismatic, although I really did race through the article and comments, so if I’m wrong, apologies.

      In our House Rules section above, we state clearly that no links to sedevacantist sites are permitted and Novus Ordo Watch is a sede site, so I am going to delete your link now.

      Feel free to copy your own contribution here, but be aware that, horrified as we are by Pope Francis, we have no authority to pronounce him a non-pope, so – since there is no shortage of blogs which do permit just that – please refrain from such rhetoric here. Please and thank you!

        • Sarah,

          I’m sure you have a contribution to make that does not entail claiming we have no pontiff! Go ahead – look forward to reading your insights. Always remembering that while Our Lord promised to be with His Church to the end of time, he did NOT promise us perfect popes, saintly popes, or popes who did not fall into error. The promise is simply that no pope will bind us to false teaching. It’s really a very narrow safeguard – and it’s one reason why we all have a duty to keep ourselves informed and educated in the Faith.

          • Thank you for your patience. The whole thing has given me a headache so that I can’t think straight. If I ever get to the point of having anything useful to say I will come back and say it. 🙂

            • Sarah,

              Thank YOU for not taking offence – from time to time we have visits from TPD (The Professionally Disapproving) who take offence at everything that is not an outright compliment, and who tend to throw their toys out of the pram and disappear in a huff for a bit if challenged at all in any way, so it’s refreshing to see your measured and humble response to my reminder about our rules on sedevacantist site. Thank you for that!

              For the record, your posts are always “useful” – and then some – so I look forward to your return, as and when you find time.

              God bless.

  15. May I, by grace, help with your difficulties? The St Gallen Conspiracy against the Catholic Church got rid of Benedict XVI, pushing him aside and replaced him with their designated choice. Thus for several reasons, the resignation of Benedict XVI was irregular and likely invalid. Hence Benedict XVI remains our Pope. And for several reasons more, the election of Jorge Bergoglio was also irregular and likely invalid. Hence he is an Antipope (of which Holy Church has had @ 40 of them).

    Let me so briefly expand this argument: Reasons for invalidity of Benedict’s resignation include undue pressure, his fear, his resigning with the manifest error in his mind of a dual papacy (confirmed by Ganswein), and even at the suggestion of one canonist that he deliberately inserted error in the resignation. All of them (and there may be more!) invalidated the resignation. Of course if they are true (and they are well documented) then it would invalidate the subsequent election of Bergoglio, since Benedict XVI was and is – remains the Successor of St Peter.

    The reasons for invalidity of the subsequent election are even more clear: First, St Robert Bellarmine teaches that a heretic is automatically ineligible for election as Supreme Pontiff. Second, since Pope St John Paul II feared just such a future event, he proclaimed Universi Dominus Gregis, which if you study you will find that he outlawed just such a conspiracy (there have been an untold number of both political & ecclesiastical conspiracies in the history of civilization) as St Gallen. The St Gallen conspiracy goes even further back to Cardinal Martini who made a deal with Cardinal Ratzinger that if he assented to his election, it would have to be brief. The conspiracy was both real and well documented and John Paul II feared it might come and if you read Universi Dominus Gregus, he was meeting such with a series of apostolic level canons explicitly made for such an event, which if such took place, the benefactor and his supporters were to be excommunicated Latae Sententiae (automatic & immediate) and the Latae Senteniae sentence would also apply to the rendering of the election as de facto null and void. There are even other reasons (such as canons forbidding a Jesuit for instance) but I think the above ones are clear, in fact absolutely unambiguous. But suffice to say that Bellarmine besides invalidating a heretic being elected, the promulgation of material heresy during the antipapacy also invalidates such a pretender and renders him an Antipope.

    So alot of your arguments are beside the point. You must study all these matters prayerfully and through the gifts of the Holy Spirit simply discern the truth and then summon the moral courage to proclaim the truth: Antipope Bergoglio are two words which fit like a hand in a glove! You have to see the big picture, which is the fact that BOTH the sudden resignation (he had extensive travel plans) AND the subsequent election are two sides of the SAME conspiracy — which is an illegal & destructive, an evil USURPATION of the Holy Catholic Church which must be WON BACK by Our Lady’s gallant Chevaliers!

    There are now canonists who are in agreement with the above, but I’ll share two more general links:
    1. Jonathan Byrd:
    http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2017/09/03/the-time-has-come/
    2. Fr Paul Kramer:
    http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/09/breaking-fr-kramers-argument-francis.html

    • Monk Johanan,

      I only have time for a very quick response to you right now, so do not consider the reply to be exhaustive. It will be basic.

      You are very kind to suggest helping with our difficulties, but you then go on to repeat the arguments that we, as ordinary lay people, have no right to entertain or to promote. We discourage this discussion here because it is fruitless.

      It is not within our power to determine the status of Pope Francis. The Church works through public processes, words, actions.

      Pope Francis was duly elected in conclave, as is the custom of the Church, following the resignation of Pope Benedict. We can speculate all we like about the reasons for that, but we are bound to accept his public words and actions. He has pronounced himself very happy with Pope Francis and publicly – literally – embraced him on several occasions.

      In response to the public claims of pressure, Pope Benedict has insisted that he resigned of his own free will and again, HE does not have the power to create a “dual papacy” so reading that into his resignation statement does not hold water.

      I’ve no time for more right now, but I would ask you to respect our decision NOT to encourage this conversation. Pope Francis is the pope – a terrible pope, worse than even the worst of his predecessors (John Paul II being at the top of the list) – but pope he is: to say otherwise, is to let him off the hook at his judgment. He will be judged as Pope – and God help him.

  16. Okay I got so many of you coming at me at one time, I cannot even answer all of you, so I will do the best I can from memory.

    Editor, no I do not think Jesus was lacking in any of those things, but you nor I are Jesus, for one thing. I have heard that used so many times for Christians to justify their cruelty to one another, I am sick of it! Again, that comes from Calvinist, so are you a Calvinist or a Catholic? I have also heard it so many times for Christians to justify their pride, I am sick of it. I think your pride and arrogance knows no bounds. Look at all the complements you gave to yourself in one of your comments. That is the only person I have seen you be that nice to!

    Athanansius: At least thank you for being decent in your comment. What I meant about going to God, was this was not the place ICF needed to be to find what he was searching for. He wanted peace and understanding instead all he got was one blow after the other. That is why I told him, “To go to God.” Not here.

    Let us look at what you told him. “I have not the slighest interest in your private life, I have enough to cope with in my own life./Truth be told, I don’t think most people would be interested.” My question Athanansius is WHY NOT? According to Catholic teachings we are always suppose to care about others before ourselves. Do we tell someone who is crippled, “Sorry I cannot help you, because I have enough to cope with in my own life?

    You talk about errors, these are to me, some grave errors which go against everything our Church teaches. There is truth to our Church, yes. We must be careful on how we approach others who are trying to understand and learn, and are asking questions. Answer the friggin question and leave the personal stuff out of it! This is what that Scripture means, “Get the plank out of your own eye, so you can see the sins of others clearly.” You are not getting the planks out of your own eyes.

    As I have pointed out, all of us are “imperfect at best.” All of us say things which are not of God, and that “tongue” is the most evil of all things in us.

    If one wants to correct errors in love, then do it in love! I have showed you in my response how it can make someone feel when they are attacked over and over. The only reason I came on this blog in the first place is bc Ed, told a follower of mine something which did nothing but belittle her. I love this girl very much. Ed, did apologize but it took me to point it out to her. That told me right there if she had of been listening to the Holy Spirit she would have been convicted. She could not get over her having to be “right” to see how she hurt someone else.

    It is this holier than thou stuff that is making me sick. I am a very traditional Catholic. Though there is a lot wrong in the Church right now, there is also a lot of beauty in it. I hold onto that more than anything.

    We need to examples to the world that no matter what, as Catholics we do love and respect one another. We also respect Church teachings on ALL things compassion, love, charity and the like among them.

    As I told ICF, God said over and over, “The tongue can murder a soul/The wicked will be destroyed for their tongue.” Many more. We need to watch it, myself included. Again thank you for your kidness in your response to me. Your comment is the only one I have respected, to me.

    Therese, I just do not have time for you. Check your attitude, will be happy to converse with you.

    May all of us find the love of Christ in our hearts to do/say the right things in the right way, as to not destroy the soul of another. If we want to find a sinner with many errors all each and every single one of us has to do is look in the mirror! God Bless, SR

  17. Sorry, but I have answered you all in the best way I can. Now please leave me alone. My last conversation was with ICF, none of you. He is a dear friend of mine. You wanted your answers you got them. Talk to me about Jesus and the beauty of our Church, I will converse with you all day long. Do not come at me telling me, where to go to confession, judging my priest, telling me all of my errors in love, (one feels love and few feel it here) Yes, you do take people’s heads off, how many are going to have to tell you that before you listen. But that is right, we are the one’s in error never you!

    There is nothing about the arrogance that flows from the administrators on this blog that I respect. I am trying also to get through some of the things going on in the Church, but prefer to handle it in a different way, the way the Church teaches me to. God Bless you all and let us pray for one another. SR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: