Clarification appears in ‘Acta Apostolicae Sedis’…
Novus Ordos in Shock as Francis declares Permissibility of Communion for Public Adulterers “Authentic Magisterium”
Analysis & Commentary
After more than 19 months of reports, analyses, arguments, interviews, rumors, conjectures, accusations, excuses, warnings, “corrections”, promises, allusions, and plenty of spin, the “doubts” about the correct interpretation of Francis’ “Apostolic” Exhortation Amoris Laetitia have now been officially put to rest: In a tacit move behind the scenes, Francis ordered that his Sep. 2016 endorsement of the interpretation offered by the Argentine “bishops” of the Buenos Aires region for their flock become a part of his (putative) “authentic Magisterium” and be included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the official Vatican organ publishing papal texts and decisions. Semi-Traditionalists and conservative Novus Ordos are in shock, scrambling to figure out what this means and what to do next.
Before we proceed to analyze and evaluate this latest move on the part of the “Pope”, which puts an end to the debate over Amoris Laetitia at least de jure, let’s first recall the background and look at the raw facts:
- The Buenos Aires Guidelines on the Interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and Francis’ approval of them in letter to Buenos Aires “Bishops” on Sep. 5, 2016
- Full Text in Spanish and English of Buenos Aires Guidelines (PDF)
- Full Text in Spanish and English of Francis’ Approval of Buenos Aires Guidelines (PDF)
- Although these guidelines and Francis’ endorsement were originally leaked to the public, some time ago they were published on the Vatican web site
- The most offensive portion of the Buenos Aires Guidelines is this one: “If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability…, 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…. These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace. However, it is necessary to avoid understanding this possibility as an unrestricted access to the sacraments, or as though any situation might justify it. What is proposed is a discernment that adequately distinguishes each case” (nn. 6-7).
- Francis’ endorsement of the Buenos Aires Guidelines is clear and definitive: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”
- The Buenos Aires Guidelines as well as Francis’ endorsement have been published in the Oct. 2016 edition of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (vol. CVIII , n. 10; pp. 1071-1074). Francis’ endorsement is called an “Apostolic Letter” (p. 1071).
- Appended to the two documents is a “Rescript ‘from an Audience with His Holiness'” by “Cardinal” Pietro Parolin, dated June 5, 2017, which reads: “The Supreme Pontiff decreed that the two preceding documents be promulgated through publication on the Vatican website and in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium.”
- The Acta Apostolicae Sedis (“Acts of the Apostolic See”) is the “only official publication of the Holy See … in which all official acts and laws in whatever form are promulgated” (Michael Williams, The Catholic Church in Action [New York, NY: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1958], p. 155). It was instituted by Pope St. Pius X in 1908 with the Apostolic Constitution Promulgandi. Although not all decisions of the Roman Congregations are published in the Acta, nevertheless, “if they contribute to the interpretation of some point of canon law or are of interest in jurisprudence, they are published” there (The Catholic Church in Action, p. 90).
These are the facts. After catching up on covering all the news items from Francis’ recent trip to Myanmar and Bangladesh, Novus Ordo news sites began to report on this Amoris Laetitia development. Here are links to just a few:
- “Pope’s Letter to Argentine bishops on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ part of official record” (Crux)
- “Pope’s Letter to Argentine bishops is Magisterial Teaching, Cardinal Parolin says” (Catholic Culture)
- “Pope Declares Troubling Interpretation of AL ‘Authentic Magisterium'” (Church Militant)
Considering that the Novus Ordo Sect itself requires its adherents to hold that the “authentic Magisterium” of the man they recognize as Pope requires their “religious submission of the intellect and will” (see Canon 752 of Novus Ordo Canon Law), conservative Novus Ordos and Semi-Traditionalists now have an obvious problem on their hands, one they must either admit and seek to resolve or else deny and explain away.
Which is exactly what they’re doing. We look at a few of their efforts and evaluate them:
“Deacon” Nick Donnelly
In a tweet of Dec. 2, 2017, English “Deacon” Nick Donnelly asked: “Has Francis deposed himself as the successor of St Peter by attempting to make the heretical interpretation of AL Authentic Magisterium?” For a Novus Ordo cleric, this is quite a courageous question to raise, and it is refreshing to see. A great many of his colleagues do not have the guts to do so. Pray for all of them, that they may begin (or continue) to wake up.
“Bishop” René Henry Gracida
Likewise on Dec. 2, René Henry Gracida, a retired Novus Ordo bishop from Texas, wrote on his blog: “Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letters to the Argentine bishops in the ACTA APOSTOLICA SEDES [sic] making those letters magisterial documents.” The “bishop” has been republishing posts from other blogs that denounce or are severely critical of Francis. Earlier this year, Gracida became the first (and, so far, only) Modernist “bishop” to publicly voice doubt regarding Francis’ legitimacy.
David Domet at Vox Cantoris is willing to call Francis a “pernicious and filthy heretic” but still believes that “cardinals must now begin the formal process” of accusing/warning and judging him — an idea that is totally at odds with the Catholic dogma that the Pope — and this the blogger believes him to be — cannot be judged by any man, for all men are his inferiors. But while no one can subject a true Pope to an ecclesiastical trial, what can be done is recognize that a particular papal claimant is indeed a “pernicious and filthy heretic”, as obviously even Mr. Domet agrees with regard to Francis. But from this it follows with necessity that he is not the Pope of the Catholic Church, and for this cognitive (not legal) judgment, no authority is needed. It is the only possible and therefore necessary conclusion to draw from all the evidence.
Michael Voris of Church Militant fired up his spin machine and, unable to ignore this big of a story, he at least sought to focus his viewers’ attention away from Francis and instead directed it to those evil “bishops” who are basically doing what Francis has been doing. Not once but twice did Voris try this tactic:
- Vortex, “Critical Moment”, Dec. 4, 2017: “While this may appear to be a crisis regarding the papacy, we’d like to point to something even more critical….”
- Vortex, “The Real Deal”, Dec. 5, 2017: “…another much more important question needs to be asked. How is it — regardless of what the pope meant — that so many various bishops and bishops’ conferences seem to agree that those in an objective state of mortal sin can in some circumstances receive Holy Communion?”
We call his enterprise Church Disneyland for a reason. His Vortex is in reality a Distortex.
Over at One Peter Five, rhetorician Steve Skojec presented an “expert” assessment from Dr. John Joy on Francis’ move to have the Buenos Aires Guidelines and his endorsement added to the Acts of the Apostolic See. Joy advanced a rather curious thesis: Although the inclusion in the Acta “means that it is an official act of the pope rather than an act of the pope as a private person”, and although it is clearly “an official endorsement” of the Buenos Aires interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, nevertheless Joy claims that “this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” — and so religious submission of intellect and will wouldn’t necessarily be required. Apparently Joy missed the fact that Francis had explicitly decreed that the two documents be given the status of “authentic Magisterium.”
Resignationist Louie Verrecchio was also not impressed by Joy’s expert analysis. In fact, Verrecchio succinctly summarized the whole spectacle about the latest Amoris Laetitia development thus: “Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic; notorious, formal, pertinacious, and that, my friends, is hardly breaking news.” Being a Resignationist, Verrecchio already believes Francis isn’t a valid Pope (he thinks Benedict XVI is), so he finds his rejection of the Argentinian impostor corroborated.
In a convoluted post at Catholic Herald, columnist Dan Hitchens offers what sounds like a rather desperate attempt to persuade himself and others that it is best to move along because there is really nothing to see here. He maintains that Francis’ decision to include the Buenos Aires Guidelines and his endorsement in the Acta “may somewhat clarify what the Pope is saying” while noting “the ambiguity of the document” and concluding that “this episode leaves us pretty much where we were.” In other words: whatever.
The Semi-Traditionalist comedy site The Remnant failed to surprise in its commentary, which was provided by David Martin:
Hence Amoris Laetitia [Chapter] VIII, which proposes that people living in adultery can be guiltless and thus be admitted to the sacraments of Confession and Communion when “concrete circumstances” make it difficult to renounce their adulterous state, is now declared “magisterial” by the Holy See.
The problem with this is that heresy or sacrilege can never be declared magisterial, so that if it is, it not only has no binding force, but the faithful are obliged to resist and refute such a declaration. St. Thomas Aquinas says in his Summa Theologiae: “If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate [pope] even publicly.”
(David Martin, “Communion to Adulterers Promulgated as ‘Authentic Magisterium'”, The Remnant, Dec. 4, 2017)
And there you have The Remnant‘s entire theological “competence” on display. We may rephrase Martin’s argument thus: “What cannot be magisterial cannot be magisterial; so if it is, then it doesn’t count. And look over here, we found a nice quote from St. Thomas Aquinas. It has nothing to do with the subject matter, but don’t let the facts get in the way of our propaganda.”
Only if Francis were to issue his endorsement of the Buenos Aires Guidelines ex cathedra (i.e., meeting Vatican I’s conditions for infallibility) would Francis cease to be Pope, Martin assures his hapless readers — incorrectly, of course. Although even this much would be contrary to The Remnant‘s usual position, we must remind Martin that Francis has already done things a true Pope is divinely protected from doing — such as declaring John Paul II a saint of the Catholic Church, for the canonization of saints is an act protected by infallibility, as even Remnant columnist Christopher Ferrara once knew.
Speaking of Chris Ferrara, we would be totally remiss, of course, if we did not pay particular attention to what this professional spindoctor has to say about Francis’ declaration that the Buenos Aires Guidelines are now “authentic Magisterium.” As of the time of this writing, Ferrara has published three posts on the matter at the Fatima Network web site:
- The Amoris Laetitia Game: Keep Them Guessing While We Do What We Planned to Do (Dec. 4, 2017)
- The Authentic Magisterium Is Truth, Not a Trademark (Dec. 5, 2017)
- The Plague of Ecclesial Positivism: No Truth, Only Law (Dec. 6, 2017)
In the first post, Ferrara correctly shows that there is no reasonable way to absolve Francis of error here; but then he asserts that whether or not Francis has fallen into heresy is “ultimately … not for any of us, but only for the Church (an ecumenical council or subsequent Pope as in the case of Honorius I), to judge definitively.” This is nonsense, of course. Whether or not Francis has embraced heresy is not dependent on some authoritative judgment, definitive or otherwise, but on Catholic teaching applied to the empirically verifiable facts.
Interestingly enough, Ferrara knows this and acts accordingly when it comes to individuals other than the ones who claim to be Pope, especially when it is helpful to the case he’s arguing at a given moment. For example, consider what Ferrara said about “Cardinal” Walter Kasper a few years back, also in connection with Amoris Laetitia:
Kasper is one of the Church’s most notorious post-conciliar Modernists, who, among other heresies, has denied the historicity of the Apostolic Succession. Not surprisingly, then, his address to the cardinals calls for a “pastoral solution” that would allow certain divorced and “remarried” Catholics, living in a state of public adultery, to receive Holy Communion.
(Christopher A. Ferrara, “The Francis Effect: A Gathering Storm”, The Remnant, Mar. 11, 2014; underlining added.)
Here we see the lawyer Ferrara identifying Kasper as not only a heretic but in fact a “most notorious” one, correctly labeling the heresy he adheres to as Modernism. More specifically, The Remnant‘s chief polemicist accuses Kasper of denying the historicity of the Apostolic Succession and notes that this is but one “among other heresies” the “cardinal” holds. A little later in the same article, Ferrara even accuses Kasper not only of being a heretic but of deliberately “undermin[ing] [an] aspect of the Faith”.
So, when it comes to “Cardinal” Kasper, Ferrara has no problem detecting heresy and identifying and condemning him as a heretic. Yet when Bergoglio does the same thing Kasper does, suddenly we “don’t know” if it’s heresy. This isn’t principled Catholic commentary on Ferrara’s part — it is simply propaganda meant to persuade the reader in favor of The Remnant‘s editorial position.
As far as the case of Pope Honorius I goes, by the way, that argument has been refuted here.
Francis’ decision to declare the explanation of Amoris Laetitia given by the Buenos Aires “bishops” to become part of his “authentic Magisterium” is a devastating blow to Ferrara, who has maintained for years that none of the errors since Vatican II have ever been “official” or “binding” and therefore not truly “magisterial”; rather, the lawyer from Virginia maintains, there has been a “great facade” erected that makes it appear as though the regime of novelty since the council were official, binding, and magisterial, when in reality it is not so.
Ferrara argues this at length in a book he co-authored with Thomas E. Woods, Jr., entitled, The Great Facade: The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution (2nd ed., 2015). This book had appeared in its first edition in 2002. We will quote two sentences from this work, found in both editions, that have now come back to bite the authors: “Satan understands better than any other creature that the Magisterium can never officially teach error…. [W]e have the divine assurance that the Church can never officially teach error” (The Great Facade, 1st ed: p. 66; 2nd ed: p. 60; italics given).
But this is exactly what Francis has now done, and it is absolutely undeniable, since he explicitly used the phrase “authentic Magisterium” with regard to his approval of the Buenos Aires Guidelines and ordered them to be published in the official compilation of papal pronouncements, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. In other words: It doesn’t get any more official or magisterial than this (in degree, yes, but not in kind).
Faced with this unhappy refutation of his own position, Ferrara’s task was now to find a way around it all. This he did in his second post on the subject:
As the explosive new book on Pope Francis, The Dictator Pope, makes its appearance as a best seller in both English and Italian editions, the Church is confronted with an astonishing dictatorial abuse of the Magisterium itself by Francis and what some have called his “magic circle” of handpicked ultra-progressivists.
(Christopher A. Ferrara, “The Authentic Magisterium is Truth, not a Trademark”, Fatima Network, Dec. 5, 2017)
Notice that in the opening sentence already our lawyer calls Francis’ move a “dictatorial abuse of the Magisterium”. But if, as Ferrara believes, Francis is Pope, what should be “abusive” about ordering one of his own Apostolic Letters to be included in the Acta? Did not Pope Pius IX do the same thing when he commended the German bishops for their explanation of the dogma of papal infallibility in his Apostolic Letter Mirabilis Illa Constantia (see Denz.-H. 3112-3117)?
Of course, what constitutes the “dictatorial abuse of the Magisterium” for Ferrara is not the form of promulgation but the falsity of Francis’ teaching. However, the truth of a doctrine can never itself be part of the criteria for what constitutes an authentic exercise of the Magisterium, for that would result in absurdity: It would require the faithful to know ahead of time and independently of the Magisterium what is true and what is false in religious matters, when the whole point of the Magisterium is to teach people what is true and what is false concerning faith and morals. Thus the role of teacher and taught would be entirely reversed.
Ferrara proceeds to criticize Francis’ inclusion of the two documents in the Acta as follows:
This move is a blatant attempt to halt all criticism of AL (including the seemingly imminent “formal correction” by Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller) by cloaking the letter and the guidelines in the language of Canon 752 of the 1984 Code of Canon Law, which (citing Vatican II) provides “[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, 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.”
The ploy cannot succeed. Francis’ novelty cannot be part of the “authentic Magisterium” because it transgresses the fundamental divine limitation on papal doctrinal authority as enunciated by the First Vatican Council:
“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
Francis is here claiming to announce new doctrine, overturning the teaching of his own predecessor in keeping with all of Tradition. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under John Paul II declared in 1998, the absolution and admission to Holy Communion of public adulterers in “second marriages,” without a commitment to cease adulterous sexual relations, “is intrinsically impossible” and “The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.” That is because this is a norm “over which the Church has no discretionary authority. The indissoluble nature of marriage… goes back to Christ Himself and is thus identified as a norm of divine law,” and the admission of public adulterers to Holy Communion would violate that divine moral norm.
This is the usual line of argumentation used by the recognize-and-resist crowd: What constitutes the genuine Roman Catholic Magisterium is determined not by the (putative) Vicar of Christ, the Pope, but by some American lawyer with access to the traditional Denzinger, who routinely reviews the Pope’s pronouncements to judge their orthodoxy and then informs the populace as to what is and isn’t to be accepted from the man who is “judged by no one” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1556). No doubt, St. Pius X would have been impressed!
What is worse is that Ferrara thinks that Vatican I is helping his case, but this is not so. If we look at the words he quoted in their proper context, this becomes evident. Their source is Chapter 4 of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus. This document contains the council’s solemn teaching about the Papacy. Chapter 1 shows how our Blessed Lord instituted the Papacy and made St. Peter the first Pope; Chapter 2 explains how this primacy exists in all true successors of St. Peter, even until the end of time; Chapter 3 explains in what the papal primacy consists; and Chapter 4 defines the infallible teaching authority of the Pope.
We will now look at Chapter 4 in its entirety to see the full context. The words quoted by Ferrara we will mark red:
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This holy see has always maintained this, the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.
What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: “The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.”
Then there is the definition of the council of Florence: “The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.”
To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing.
The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions.
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4; underlining added.)
Clearly, what Vatican I is teaching is that because he is assisted by the Holy Ghost, the Pope will “religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” and will not “make known some new doctrine” by the revelation of the same Holy Ghost.
Mr. Ferrara, on the other hand, reduces this teaching to little more than a superficial banality: He claims it simply means that the Pope isn’t supposed to make new doctrines, for that is not why the Holy Ghost was given him. Such an interpretation of the text is not tenable because this much is true of anyone, not just of the Pope alone. In fact, even a Protestant would agree that his own self-styled pastor isn’t supposed to teach his own strange doctrines. That’s hardly a profound insight to be taught by a Catholic ecumenical council!
Secondly, notice that the conciliar constitution says that “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine…” (italics added). If Ferrara’s understanding of this passage were correct, it would mean that the Pope is not supposed to proclaim new doctrines that are nevertheless revealed to him by the Holy Ghost — a grotesque thing for a Catholic council to teach.
Thirdly, Ferrara’s interpretation does not jibe with the surrounding context, which establishes the prerogatives and uniqueness of the Papacy, protected by the Holy Ghost. What sort of divine protection would the Holy Ghost provide if the Pope were merely “not supposed to” invent new doctrines but nevertheless be quite capable of doing so? Wouldn’t that be true also of your local grocery store clerk and the grumpy bus driver on your morning commute? Aren’t they, too, “not supposed to” come up with a new gospel?
It is evident, therefore, that Vatican I teaches, not that the Pope ought not to teach new (or false) doctrine, but that he actually does not. That is the meaning of the special assistance of the Holy Ghost for the Pope. Ferrara turns the doctrine of Vatican I from describing a truth about the Papacy into a merely normative rule for papal conduct — but the idea that dogmas are merely normative and not descriptive was actually condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his Syllabus of Modernist Errors: “The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing” (Pius X, Decree Lamentabili Sane Exitu, error n. 26). This statement is to “be held by all as condemned and proscribed”, according to the Pope.
Ferrara concludes his Dec. 5 post as follows:
In sum, “authentic Magisterium” stands for the truth of Christ and what the Church has always taught in His name and by His authority. It is not a trademark that Pope Francis can blithely affix to his absurd novelties in order to declare them beyond criticism or discussion.
Never in the entire history of the Church has any Pope dared to abuse the Magisterium in this manner. There have been other papal tyrants in Church history, but never has there been a Pope who tried to tyrannize Catholic doctrine itself by demanding universal submission to his own errant ideas.
Several observations must be made here.
First, a man who believes the Vatican II Sect is the Roman Catholic Church can hardly speak about “what the Church has always taught”, for the Vatican II Church does not teach, for example, the social kingship of Christ, the absolute identity of the Church our Lord founded with the Catholic Church, or the necessity of the Church for salvation. Thus it is false to say that the church he believes in “has always taught” this. His church hasn’t taught it for the last 50 years — so “always” is simply not true. We notice that our lawyer from Virginia has now carefully added the caveat “in His name and by His authority” — this will allow him to argue later that whatever heresies or other errors may proceed from the Novus Ordo magisterium henceforth, cannot be considered as being taught “in [Christ’s] name and by His authority.” This may be clever on his part, but it is totally unworthy of Sacred Theology. People need to remember that when they read Ferrara, they are simply watching a skilled lawyer at work.
Secondly, notice that Ferrara shies away from quoting any Catholic dogmatic theology manual for a definition of what constitutes the “authentic Magisterium” — which would have been the natural thing to do. But where Ferrara fails, Novus Ordo Watch is happy to help out:
Authentic magisterium (from [Greek] authentia = authority) is the office of handing on doctrine instituted by a legitimate authority. Therefore, it implies in the teacher the power and office of handing on doctrine; but in the disciples [i.e. in the taught] the obligation and right to receive instruction. Magisterium can be authentic in two ways: in the broad sense and in the strict sense.
Authentic magisterium in the broad sense is that which by itself does not have the power to demand from the disciple the assent of the intellect. Such is, for example, the magisterium of a professor in a university. Authentic magisterium in the strict sense is that which has such power in itself to impose doctrine, that the disciples by that very fact are bound to give the assent of the intellect, because of the authority of the legate of God which the teacher makes use of.
(Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker [original Latin published by BAC, 1955; English published by Keep the Faith, 2015], n. 504; italics given.)
Why did Mr. Ferrara not see fit to quote a definition such as this for his “explanation” of what constitutes the authentic papal Magisterium? Quite simply, because it sinks his boat. Ferrara does not proceed from Catholic teaching in his argumentation and then reason to a necessary conclusion. Instead, he begins with his desired conclusion and then tries to find (highly selective) evidence to back it up — at the expense of traditional Catholic teaching if need be. This is why we call him a propagandist and rhetorician.
Ferrara’s position on the authentic Magisterium, which is held by virtually all recognize-and-resist adherents, is also blown to pieces by St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Papacy, who emphasized that the nature of the papal teaching authority is such that if God did not prevent it from teaching error, all the faithful would be led into such error precisely because of their divinely-mandated duty of submission:
The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.
Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.
On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err.
(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; translated by Ryan Grant as On the Roman Pontiff [Mediatrix Press, 2016], vol. 2, p. 160; underlining added.)
It’s just too bad that this Doctor of the Church did not take into consideration that there is quite an easy solution to this conundrum: an American layman could just declare on various online and print publications that the “Pope” has it all wrong — problem solved and gates of hell kept from prevailing!
Ferrara himself loves to quote Bellarmine whenever he can find a quote that supports (or so he thinks) the position he is arguing (see, for example, here and here — with a sedevacantist response here). But when Bellarmine clearly refutes him, Ferrara sides with…. Ferrara!
The same goes for the American lawyer’s quoting of Pope Pius IX, for example. He will be happy to quote certain parts of the encyclical Quanta Cura, but you will scarcely find him quote the following text from the same document:
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 5)
Little did the good Pius IX suspect that eventually there would be found the likes of Chris Ferrara, who refuse assent and obedience even to those judgments of the (putative) Holy See that do touch upon faith and morals — in the name of “Tradition”, of course!
Ferrara’s position is also dangerously close to that which was explicitly condemned by St. Pius X, namely, the following assertion: “In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced” (Decree Lamentabili Sane Exitu, error n. 7). But then again, if a layman from the United States gets to reject the “authentic Magisterium” of one man he accepts as Pope, why not also that of others?
Other high-profile individuals who have commented on Francis’ latest addition to the “authentic Magisterium” include Dr. Joseph Shaw, the official spokesman for the famous Filial Correction effort. He appears to be grasping at straws as he tries to persuade his readers that, in essence, nothing has really changed — totally ignoring Francis’ now “magisterial” statement that “[t]here are no other interpretations” of Amoris Laetitia‘s Chapter VIII than the one given by the Buenos Aires “bishops.”
Edward Peters and “Fr.” John Zuhlsdorf
Canon lawyer Ed Peters seeks refuge in an argument that can only be considered legalistic: Canon 915 in Novus Ordo Canon Law states that people “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion”; and since Francis has not explicitly decreed that this canon be revoked or considered superseded, Peters reasons, nothing has really changed. (Mr. John Zuhlsdorf, otherwise known as “Fr. Z”, agrees with him in essence.)
While this argument may work for a canon lawyer, who only considers what pertains specifically to the theological discipline of canon law, it is simply a red herring. The issue is not that Canon Law has or has not been changed — the elephant in the living room is that Francis has used his putative authentic Magisterium to impose the idea that reception of the sacraments is not per se impermissible for people who are in public mortal sin of which they have not repented.
In summary, we can say that the reactions among the conservative Novus Ordos and Semi-Traditionalists are quite varied. While some select few are willing to concede that Francis has squared the circle and therefore some serious questions now need to be asked regarding his legitimacy, others maintain silly positions that run the gamut from “he didn’t actually say it” to “he may have said it but he didn’t mean it” to “he said it and meant it but it doesn’t count.” But only Michael Voris managed to insult his audience so badly that he basically said, “Who cares? You should be worried about the evil bishops!”
Interestingly enough, Francis’ move doesn’t just leave prominent Novus Ordo and Semi-Trad commentators with the proverbial egg on their faces. “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Muller, too, doesn’t look too good now. Recall that Muller was interviewed about Amoris Laetitia in May 2017 by EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo:
ARROYO: Why do you think Amoris Laetitia has been so…It was a document intended, I think, to bring everyone together around the centrality of marriage and family, and yet it has caused such global division. I mean even the Pope himself, when he approves of the Argentine bishops interpretation, that seems to give credence and weight to the absolute opposite of what you’re…the interpretation that you’re advancing; that you can’t change this and that nothing has changed and that there is no possibility of this. The Pope seems to be giving a preference to the Argentines who say there is a path here…
MÜLLER: I’m not that clear with all that actions, bishops interpret the pope, the pope interpret the bishops. And, we have some rules in how to act in the Church. We have synods, coming together and then the pope make a summary and with his papal authority he gives his explanation or writes the documents and then must be…all be finished not with interpretation of the interpretation; that is not good for (the) Church. And I am saying (this) as a Catholic theologian.
(Interview with “Cardinal” Gerhard Muller, The World Over, May 25, 2017; transcript here; video here)
We’ll just leave it at that.
By the way, now that the Buenos Aires Guidelines and Francis’ endorsement of them are included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, we can expect that they will also show up in the next Novus Ordo edition of Denzinger. Think about that for a minute.
The upshot of all this is a very simple Catholic truth we have repeated here time and again: The Papacy has consequences. Recognizing a man as the Pope of the Catholic Church who is in fact a manifest anti-Catholic heretic or even apostate, has dire consequences because the office of Vicar of Christ is more than just a title. The Pope is a teacher, legislator, and administrator with genuine authority given him directly by God.
We would like to remind all our readers of some articles we have published here before regarding the Papacy, demonstrating that the true Catholic teaching about the Pope has been eclipsed by today’s self-proclaimed “traditionalists” who recognize Francis as Pope but then refuse him submission:
- The Stumbling Block of the Papacy: Why Bergoglio doesn’t fit
- Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon
- A Dangerous Experiment: Taking Francis’ Claim to the Papacy seriously
- Have the Gates of Hell prevailed? The Papacy and Sedevacantism
- The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope
Those interested in more sedevacantist commentary on Francis’ move to include the Buenos Aires Guidelines in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis may wish to read what Tom Droleskey has written:
“Go Ahead, Argue with Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton” (Christ or Chaos)
If there is indeed going to be a schism between the conservative and the liberal Modernist camps in the Novus Ordo Sect over Francis, this move should be the trigger point. If this doesn’t do it, there will be no schism at all.
The Papacy has consequences, and one of these consequences is that a true Pope cannot do what Francis has done.
Image sources: vatican.va (screenshot) / churchmilitant.com (spoofed) / istockphoto.com
Licenses: fair use / fair use / paid
Excellent! This is such a great article…. thanks for taking the time to capture all the reactions of the various clans of Novus Ordo and Semi-Trads. This is the moment we’ve been waiting for, I think. Now, the Great Semi-Trad Revolt will start… and the infighting will really start among the various Novus Ordo groups. Whose paradigm will prevail in explaining this to the confused Novus Ordo masses? Will they declare Francis an anti-pope, and try to resurrect Benedict? Will Francis take revenge and abolish the Indult? I guess we will see!
If “Pope” Francis ordained women, these numbskulls would say, “I won’t go to those churches with women priests.” If he canonized Martin Luther, they would say, “it was invalid because he didn’t go by a miracle.” Whatever heresy he imposes on his scattered flock, they will simply make up every excuse as to why Francis is still pope no matter how heretical or forceful he exhorts his authority. The end is always the same, they will call us sedevacantists, “mad, prideful, judgmental, blind, dishonest, heretics, schismatics, cultists, and Protestant.”
It really is astounding how they have locked their minds against sedevacantism.
Game, set, match (again!). Very good article. Very good work in coalescing all the various reactions (pipe dreams) into a single article.
Essentially the same thing occurred when Jorge (and The Rat) canonized Wojtyla and Roncalli. When one reads the language used for that ceremony, and when one becomes acquainted with the teachings of popes, saints, and theologians regarding canonizations, it was game, set, match on 04-27-2014.
Of course there are other examples, too.
Let the schisms begin. Look at how many variations exist in Protestantism. That variations in the Novus Ordo should arise, should surprise nobody. The folks whom Novus Ordites have been trying to please for 60 years, the Protestants, have set the precedent.
Don’t you think there are several Catholic variations existing right now: semi-traditionalists, progressives, or go with the flow Catholics etc? Are these what you mean?
Those are distinctions without a difference: they’re all non-catholics, and that’s what matters. And what makes it all the more deceptive.
I may have assumed too much and was too short in my comments. I am quite adverse to the Novus Ordo conservatives of whatever flavor, and the Recognize & Resist crowd (of whatever flavor). I refer to All these groups which I think have pipe dreams of having an heretical pope, which they can decide to obey or not obey, according to their twisted and perverted theological position.
Thanks for the correction on the other post regarding Canon 1240. I did quote from a canon law commentary book by Fr. Woywod I should of listed it as the source but I didn’t. It had it as Canon 1083. Here it is. https://archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft/newcanonlaw00woywuoft_djvu.txt
My copy of Woywood’s commentary is the eighth printing from 1944. It references canon 1240 in paragraph 1268. Bouscaren and Ellis do not number their sections.
No worries. I did see where you were correct of the actual 1240 in Canon Law. All is good brother
Game over indeed.
One of the best articles by NOW in 2017. Very good analysis and commentary. I’d like to make a prediction: we will see reactions similar to the ones here (all kinds), a few people MAY (big maybe) will go resignationist, some whining and hand-ringing, but all in all, nothing will happen. The hype will, as usual, die down, and there will be no significant anything done. Just like with Amoris Laetitia itself and everything following. And then of course, Francis is will just continue full-throttle unimpeded by the epidemic of sedevacantaphobia. If this doesn’t wake you up, what will? Kyrie Eleison.
PS: Make popcorn, lots will be needed for the New Year.
Ha… NovsuOrdoWatch…. you should make your own brand of popcorn! Oh… that is too funny…. I will have to develop a little MEME for your popcorn brand.
We had a “warning” that the Scarlet Letter, Amoris Laetitia, would be enforced as official magisterium of the church with the N.O.W. article: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/11/fr-thomas-weinandy-fired-critical-letter-francis/
In that article, there was a link to an open letter by John J. Strynkowski. That open letter stated that Amoris Laetitia was in fact the ordinary magisterium of the church.
Ferrara, Skojec and all the others are sorcerers of the Kabbala. There will be no schism amongst the Novus Ordo. Jesus, save me.
Just like mainstream media is fake news and a disservice to the people so to are these men fake reporters for mainstream Catholicism and a disservice to Catholics. Totally sad.
Over at One Peter Five, rhetorician Steve Skojec
The Remnant‘s chief polemicist, another good one.
Can’t wait to see what the official SSPX position will be! Or will they just ignore it?
For them, it will not matter. They do not believe in the infallibility of the church in her ordinary universal magisterium. Therefore, for the S?PX, if Jorge does not wear a papal tiara, and have the flabella fanning him while he uses strict wording, then they can ignore it, if ignoring it suits their agenda. They are a sick bunch.
They do not believe canonizations are infallible.
They do not believe the church is infallible in her liturgy.
They do not believe the church is infallible in her general discipline.
Again, they are a twisted, sick bunch of ecclesiatical perverts.
They have their “pope,” but they can disobey him in nearly everything.
Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us!
Saints Thomas More, Bishop Fisher, and Edmund Campion, pray for us!
Blessed Edmund Campion, pray for us.
Yes, having looked into it I see that Edmund Campion was canonized by a Novus Ordo “pope”. So if you reject such “popes”, I suppose you would revert Campion’s title to his previous status of “Blessed”.
Having said that, if you study the life and martyrdom of Edmund Campion, who could entertain any doubts that this man is a saint? In a similar way, Padre Pio was canonized by the Novus Ordo…but does anyone have a single doubt that Padre Pio is a saint?
So I hope you’ll understand and forgive the expression, if I refer to him as Saint Edmund Campion.
I am a stickler. Sorry. I mean no offense. I have a distant relative who was beatified by Pius VII, but “canonized” by Wojtyla. I have his relic, and he is incorrupt. Nevertheless, I refer to him as Blessed, and not Saint.
Blessed Edmund Campion was a great man. I have read the little book on him by Evelyn Waugh a couple of times.
Nevertheless, for me, the usurpers of the Chair of St. Peter have NO AUTHORITY for ANYTHING – not even strictly material or administrative things, let alone infallible pronouncements such as canonizations. For me, if Jorge should command the Swiss Guard to wear solid blue socks instead of multi-colored socks, I would consider such a rule null and void. If he were to rule that bishops must no longer wear amaranth, but revert back to the more ancient custom of green, I would consider it null and void. These inimical usurpers have NO authority for anything.
Therefore any “canonizations” attempted by Roncalli through Jorge, are to be ignored, in my opinion. We need to be consistent.
I understand your point about consistency. It just about makes me nauseous to realize that the Novus Ordo has “canonized” people like John XXIII and JPII, and will surely do the same for Paul VI one day. So clearly, their declarations of sainthood cannot be trusted, you are correct here.
Just seems so unjust that, as a result, truly great and holy men like Edmund Campion and Padre Pio will be denied the title of “saint” they so richly deserve. Nevertheless, title or no, I’m sure neither of us has a doubt that these two men are enjoying the Beatic Vision as we speak. At least I don’t.
So Blessed Edmund Campion, pray for us! And St. Thomas More and St. Bishop Fisher, pray for us! Padre Pio pray for us!
And God’s blessings on you, my friend.
So his letter to the Argentinian bishops went into the AAS?
The long sobs of autumn violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor.
(We must be nearly there now.)
I am NOT part of N.O.W. but I like the site. I would answer:
1)Because the salvation of souls has always been a priority with Catholics, whether laymen, religious, or clergy.
2)Because the NO pretends to be Catholic. As such, these inimical usurpers have enacted changes which have devastated the Catholic Church, and have led to a nearly utter destruction of Catholicism. (Just look at the stats.)
3)Because Catholics would like to see more folks INFORMED as to what is going on. The N.O.W. website does a good job in exposing the errors and heresies of the N.O. as well educating the ignorant about the truths of the faith. (There are other sites which are also very informative.)
4)Because much of this kind of news is NOT reported in the popular media outlets, and is whitewashed or adulterated in sites that try fool people into believing the Novus Ordo is one and the same with the Catholic Church (prior to the death of Pius XII).
5) Because if there are folks who have the faith still burning in their souls (e.g. they still believe in the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, they still believe the Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary in an unbloody manner, they still believe in the notion of heresy, they still believe in the deposit of the faith, they still believe in the sanctity of marriage, they still believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true, Church of Christ, and all others are false and heretical and therefore evil, etc. etc,) this site and a few others will show them that all is not lost, and that they are not going nuts, there are others who believe the same thing, and that there are priests and bishops trying to preserve the faith, in these terrible times of a great apostasy.
The site must have some good qualities to it, otherwise why would you be reading it for several years now?
While it is good to keep people informed, I do feel that the way things are often presented on NOW does give the impression that the NO is the Catholic Church gone wrong, and that if only some well-meaning clerics in the NO would repent, then everything could be restored to what it was. I don’t think that that is every going to happen. I don’t believe that the Church will be restored to its ancient places – that it will ever return to Rome, if you like. It is surely most likely that the Vatican “church” is the Whore of Babylon predicted in Apocalypse?
As to converting people from the NO, I don’t think that there is much more mileage in that, either. It seems to me that most people who declare sedevacantism do so from *outside* the NO, having already abandoned it because of its unCatholic nature. I don’t think that most people who are active in the NO today have any real problem with it, or any real desire to be Catholic (indeed, you’ve said this yourself in other posts).
If we can save a few souls it’s worth it, even though it’s not looking good
The N.O.W. is a good source for information, which is generally lacking in the world. I think that (humanly speaking) the Church is destroyed. Exactly how God will resurrect Her and bring Her to even greater glory remains to be seen. I do not think that any of the great cathedrals or Churches will be saved. I do not think that all of the various positions and offices (think of the Vatican in 1945) will remain.
But these terrible evils are allowed for a greater good. One of those greater goods may be that we Catholics study more intensely and love more piously the Catholic Church.
The Providence of God is inscrutable. Believe it or not, there are conversions even today (from the Novus Ordo). I will admit, the numbers are insignificantly small. However one soul which will see God for eternity is worth the effort.
My broad brush comments about the Novus Ordo followers are just that. The VAST MAJORITY see nothing wrong with it. The small numbers of folks who do see something wrong with it, do not really want the Church as it was prior to John XXIII, for the most part. But occasionally, by the grace of God, something clicks in a person, and then that person looks for the truth. May we be instrumental in God’s Providence for that person to find the truth.
Secondarily, we, as traditional Catholics, are multiplying. Our children and grandchildren, etc. will need to know, love, and serve God, in a world that gets exceedingly more hostile by the day. Perhaps the articles in this site, as well as the comments from educated Catholics will help strengthen our offspring to guard ever more closely the Catholic Faith, and even to die for it.
I agree with all that, I just think that the *presentation* can give the wrong impression – and thus a legitimacy to the NO that it doesn’t deserve.
I have occasionally thought that as well. But I think that stems from the mindset of trying to convert folks. People have had me listen to some episodes of True Restoration radio, or whatever it is called, and sometimes the questions from the host(s) are so silly (to us Catholics who “get it”) that it is sometimes hard to listen to it. It does give that impression, at times, that the N.O. Church has some redeeming qualities. But, I was told that it is because the host is doing it intentionally – putting himself in the shoes of a confused Novus Ordite who is looking for a consistent, logical, explanation which jives with the 2000 year old Catholic Church, in order to try to convert the Novus Ordites.
Personally, I think the tactic is dangerous. I would rather see an objective, relatively educated (without being highbrow), Catholic approach to the various issues, without bending over backwards to try to convert folks, and leave the rest up to the grace of God. But, I am just a layman, and “who am I to judge?”
That is why I continually harp on the fact that folks should get some good pre-Vatican II catechisms, and study them, as well as the pre-1958 Denzinger. I also have been very critical of private revelations, and the extraordinary mystical phenomena, in which some folks get so wrapped-up. We will not be judged on whether or not we know all about Our Lady of Walsingham, or how well versed we are in the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, but we will be judged on how well we studied the dogma, morals, and worship of the Catholic Church. As you may have picked up from previous posts, I could relate horror stories from personal experiences.
Since there is supposed to be a “hermaneutic of continuity” between the Catholic Church and the Novus Ordo Cult of Man, if one studies the harmonious, ordered, logical, homogenous teaching of the Catholic Church before all the changes, there should be no harm in that; and it should be for the betterment of all, regardless of their affiliation to the Novus Ordo or not. I contend that in so doing, one will necessarily come to that fork in the road, and will be forced to make a decision. Just the fact that it all jived in pre-1958 dogma, morals, worship, and discipline will be an eye opener for anyone seeking the truth. The new Cult of Man is all disjointed, and makes no sense in these same areas (certainly not harmonious and homogenous).
By the way, I have enjoyed most of your posts, and I get a chuckle out your snarky wit. Sometimes I have given too much of the benefit of the doubt to those who have demonstrated that they were in fact trolls. Live and learn.
“Personally, I think the tactic is dangerous. I would rather see an
objective, relatively educated (without being highbrow), Catholic
approach to the various issues”. Absolutely.
I also agree that it’s very important for people who are *genuinely* seeking truth to study pre-V2 catechisms. I didn’t really know how things were meant to be until I started to do that. Unfortunately, I don’t think that there are many people out there who really do want to know the truth (even if they start out that way, the truth quickly becomes too inconvenient). I get very bored with the people (trolls!) who keep on and on about seeking truth but resolutely turn their backs on any kind of truth they don’t like!
I’ll tell you the reasons why I care after I tell my brief past. When I was in the Novus ordo I was very involved (yrs ago), went to daily Mass, talked to several “Catholics” including “priests” and nuns (who wore habits) on a daily routine and became good friends with them. As I learned about the traditional Latin Mass (indult) it floored me by the differences between it and the Novus Ordo. I realized at one point that the Novus ordo mass was an imitation of the protestant service of Cranmer and Luther. As I showed interest in the TLM and invited people to come there was hostility right from the very start. A lot of those same people I became friends with, wrote me off as a schismatic even though it was the indult in union with their pope. It was explained to the “priests” and lay people but they still weren’t interested and it amazed me how stupid they were being. Once in the indult community for about three yrs. I noticed they rarely talked about the “pope” (at that time JPII) and yet I started seeing all the apostate things he was doing (the Assisi events, kissing the Koran, etc). Again the same people against liberalism, modernism, etc had a problem because the “pope” obviously fell under all these categories which was manifest, making him a non-Catholic. They agreed he was a heretic but somehow still the pope. If I showed them a Church teaching on how a non member of the Church couldn’t possibly be head of it they would pause and think and once they realized where it was going, they got hostile and couldn’t accept it even if the Church was clear. The same kinda thing happened as I left them as the first scenario. So I care because if there are people like me out there who are in the Novus Ordo and who are unaware of these things, I want them to know the truth because the Novus Ordo is like the Grinch who stole Christmas except the difference is their heart in the end doesn’t grow but gets smaller and colder.
Listened to the tradcast today and was intrigued by Ferrera invoking Satan as one who knows more than anyone that the Church can’t officially teach error. I am noticing this trend among anti-sedes: they’ll make a similar reference to Satan as if to lend weight to what they’re saying. Saw this recently from “Padre Peregrino” just awful treatment of sedevacantism: http://padreperegrino.org/2017/11/22/on-sedevacantism/
Marriages in the Novus Ordo Sect are typically valid, assuming of course that both parties are free to marry. That is because the sacrament is conferred by the two spouses on each other, and the priest is merely a witness, whose presence is generally but not absolutely required. Although he would have no jurisdiction, the Catholic Church would supply it because this would fall under “common error”.
Now, to answer your question directly: Why do I care? I care out of love for God and neighbor. This web site and the entire effort here exists for the glory of Almighty God and for the salvation of souls. This site is far from perfect, but that is the motivation behind it.
Skojec today on Twitter: “I’ll be an atheist before I’m sedevacantist. If I was so convinced that
God abandoned His Church for so long, I’d give it up as a hopeful fairy
tale before moving to crazy town with you.”
This is why he cannot be taken seriously. Somehow, even after all this time, he is either unable or unwilling to grasp the concept that sedes both do not believe God abandoned His Church and have an explanation for why that is the case (which isn’t really difficult to understand or accept emotionally).
Never Trump movement mentality applied to Sedevacantism.
Yep. And he will just continue to say this over and over without ever bothering to prove his case. And he has the gall all the while to claim sedes are crazy.
Really, the hypocrisy is unending. He’ll also maintain sedes are incapable of dealing with “complexity” yet complain that their arguments are too long and lead down a rabbit hole.
Jorge loves atheists. They are saved too! No wonder Skojec could become an atheist before becoming a sedevacantist. It would please Jorge!
I wonder if he was around during ANY interregnum. If he is anywhere near my age, even though he maintained is affiliation to the Novus Ordo, he would have been a sedevacantist for 86 days. (Death of John XXIII, Death of Paul VI, Death of John Paul I, Death of John Paul II, Resignation of The Rat – all added up is 86 days.)
Does the guy become an atheist every time one of his alleged popes die?
Skojec is by no means stupid. I think he is a prevaricator and a placeholder for ‘conservatives’ in order to keep them spinning either in the conservative Novus Ordo, or in the R&R orbit. This means I think he’s a paid disinfo agent. The fact that he throws in atheism as an alternative to sedevacantism speaks volumes. Also, the fact that he states that taking the position of an atheist would make more sense to him and be less “crazy” than the sedevacantist position means he’s run out of ammo.To my mind, he just admitted that he’s isn’t a Catholic.
Would a loving son allow the name and reputation of his good mother to be sullied by lies and distortions from her enemies? No. Would a good son allow some harlot to dress up like his mother, then go out and do unspeakable things (pretending to be that mother) with evil men who are the enemies of the father? No.
The good son would do all he can to preserve the reputation of his mother, and expose the harlot imposter who is posing as his mother.
Catholic are the sons of Holy Mother Church.
We we who are sedevacantists do what we can to preserve the reputation and the sanctity of our Holy Mother Church. We do all we can to expose the charlatans, and imposters for what they are: evil harlots fornicating with the enemies of God, Who is the Spouse of the Roman Catholic Church. The men who have done this are usurpers and heretics masquerading as Catholics. (Think: Whore of Babylon in the Apocalypse – or “Jorge of Babylon” if you will.)
Catholics in this time of great apostasy still love God, still love Holy Mother Church, and we do what we can to educate folks that this new religion (by definition) is NOT Roman Catholicism, but rather it is an organization run by evil imposters. We do what we can to defend the honor and glory of Holy Mother Church, the Roman Catholic Church. We do what we can to stay faithful to Her infallible and indefectible magisterium.
If you think sedevacantism is so infinitesimal, why are you here?LOL
And how someone could be reading NOW for several years and still not “get it” and understand this website’s purpose is beyond any rational explanation.
This is a good question. The answer is the same reason great Catholics like Irenaeus point by point recorded and denounced heretics and their heresies, trouble makers and their anti-Catholic agendas.
Bergoglio also wants to change a line in the Our Father. There is nothing these heresiarchs do not want to modify and make mutant.
Whoa! Give us the details.
They will be forthcoming on this blog shortly, but in the meantime, here is the story:
A friend sent me this: etymology of the word temptation is the Greek peirasmos
meaning a trial
off-topic: protestants & non-Catholics insist that Christ was tempted, since they believe that Christ was simply a very nice, very good man
Christ was not tempted- (such is impossible ) he was exposed to a trial —aka tested.
back on topic–Hence: “lead us not into trial”
Challoner notes here:
I saw that on fox and friends this morning. He wants to change the part “lead us not into temptation” to “do not let us enter into temptation.” They’ve changed so many other things (like the words of Christ during consecration of the wine) before that there will be more things to come. Make a bigger popcorn bag.
The Vatican 2 church is not the Catholic Church. It is the Whore of Babylon!