What’s one more at this point…
HERESY: Francis directly contradicts Council of Trent again
Francis with a statue of Martin Luther in the Vatican on Oct. 13, 2016
(WENN US / Alamy Stock Photo)
One of the wonderful things about Francis is that compared to his five predecessors of unhappy memory, he is fairly direct and much more open in his denial of dogma, thus making it easier to convict him of heresy. Here’s a recent example.
On October 13, 2016, the 99th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, “Pope” Francis addressed a number of Lutheran “pilgrims” from Germany at the Vatican. The British Catholic Herald reports as follows:
“You cannot be a Christian without living like a Christian,” [Francis] said. “You cannot be a Christian without practicing the Beatitudes. You cannot be a Christian without doing what Jesus teaches us in Matthew 25.” This is a reference to Christ’s injunction to help the needy by such works of mercy as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and welcoming the stranger.
(“Pope Francis: You can’t defend Christianity by being ‘against refugees and other religions'”, Catholic Herald, Oct. 13, 2016)
In case you are wondering what is wrong with these statements, you are not familiar enough with Catholic dogma. Although it is necessary for salvation that we live as Christians and don’t merely profess to be followers of Christ (cf. Mt 7:21), it is nevertheless heretical to say that a baptized man who professes the true Faith but lives an immoral life, is not a Christian.
The Council of Trent hurled an anathema at anyone holding to this error:
If anyone says that with the loss of grace through sin, faith is also lost with it, or that the faith which remains is not a true faith, though it is not a living one, or that he who has faith without charity is not a Christian, let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 28)
This isn’t the first time Francis has spewed this particular denial of dogma, so it isn’t “new” in that sense, but this particular occurrence is very recent. Benedict XVI is also attached to this particular heresy, by the way, and Michael Voris has uttered it too (see evidence of both here).
Let’s take a moment and explore why this point of doctrine — whether a man who is baptized and professes the true Faith is a true Christian even if he is in mortal sin and thus lacking in sanctifying grace — is so important.
Quite simply, the facts are these: If sanctifying grace were necessary to have genuine Faith, then this would mean that everytime a Catholic is in mortal sin, he is no longer a Catholic. It would mean that any and all mortal sin would expel one from the Church and cancel one’s membership. And this in turn would mean that, since we cannot know who is or isn’t in the state of grace at any particular point in time, we could never know who is actually a Catholic, who is a member of the Church. The inevitable result would be that the visibility of the Church would vanish and we would have an “invisible church”… which, by the way, is precisely one of the heresies of the Protestant Reformation, according to which the Church is an invisible communion of all the saved (cf. Denz. 627). No wonder Francis uttered it in the presence of German Lutherans!
Contrary to this heretical doctrine, Pope Pius XII taught in his beautiful encyclical on the Church:
Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23; underlining added.)
Catholic teaching is very clear on this point. Faith is not essentially tied to sanctifying grace; it can exist in the soul without it.
As already noted, it is certainly true that Faith alone does not suffice for salvation, for it is absolutely necessary to have charity (sanctifying grace) in addition to Faith in order to save one’s soul. Charity is what gives life to Faith, makes it fruitful and salvific. One can have all the Faith in the world, and yet, if one dies without charity, he will go to hell for eternity (see 1 Cor 13:1-3). With every mortal sin, charity is lost and so we no longer possess the supernatural life of grace; however, Faith is not lost, unless, of course, the sin was a grave one against Faith itself, such as heresy or apostasy.
So, with this latest denial of Catholic dogma, Francis is simply adding another layer to his ever-growing pile of damnable heresies, errors, blasphemies, and outrages, which we have collected here. By thus attacking, destroying, and preventing the true Faith in souls, he is responsible for leading them to damnation, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6).
Image source: alamy.com
License: rights-managed
;
How would one go about being absolved of a mortal sin if every mortal sin kicked you out of the Church? Oh, right, all the baptised are Christian, but you’re not Catholic, but … beatitudes… my brain hurts…
Almost the same with John Paul II and Benedict XVI:
https://gloria.tv/video/9R87YzBRYyh76zdok8arBvN4B
Profound Religiosity? The news site “Il sismografo” which is controlled by the Vatican, has republished John Paul II’s message written in October, 1983 for the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s birth. In this message John Paul II praises a – quote – “profound religiosity of Luther” and warns of considering Luther the only or main culprit for the schisms caused during the Reformation.
Radically Christocentric? Il sismografo also published Benedict XVI’s talk in front of Protestant leaders from September, 2011 in Erfurt, Germany. Benedict presents himself as the, “Bishop of Rome” and claims that the question about God was Luther’s deep passion and the impulse of his whole life. According to Benedict, Luther’s thinking and his entire spirituality were radically Christocentric.
The “charity” that Francis preaches is the devil’s love: high human respect, the Antichrist’s doctrine.
Well, if ya ‘stumbled’ into the Novus Ordo tumble weed, may angels swrest you up.
Fact – Novus ordo is to Catholocism as joker is to batman …. yes wretched comparison but one that might bite the conscience of would be Catholics.
Poor berg…. is there no one who can address the shite of the bilge that keeps satan thriving?
Luther quote: ““But Christ took upon Himself all of our sin, and thus He died upon the cross. Therefore he had to become that which we are, namely a sinner, a murderer, evildoer, etc….For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God’s
Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandoned by God for a short time. Psalms 8:6.” (Detailed Explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians, part 2, fourth argument, Walch edition, vol. 8, p. 2165, nos. 321-324).”
The filth from which I was able to escape-Lutheranism. Thanks be to God.
Je suis ravi de l’avènement du Pape François qui me semble moins rigoriste que son prédécesseur. J’espère un jour avoir la dignité d’être invité à visité l’Argentine, pays d’origine du Pape. En vous remerciant de rester hors de tout rapport de lucrativité au seuil de ma porte, marche anonyme parmi tant ..
En espérant un jour quitter l’insignifiance de ma qualité et me hausser à celle de ceux qui vaquent au sein du Vatican 🙂
Pius XII violated Session 7 Canon 13 by changing holy week & holy Saturday (1951 & 1955) and doing away with mandatory after midnight holy communion fast.
I know he did this to help mission priests but he took it upon himself to allow 3 hours for the entire church.
Don’t blame Msgr Bugnini he wasn’t the Pope.
This inconsistency is either deliberate as to divide or confuse Catholics or you all choose man (Pius XII) over the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church.
Stop condemning Jorge if youre not going to condemn Pius XII.
Anti-Pope Francis has a video on Rome Reports YouTube channel praising Pius XII changes from 1951-1958.
“Pius XII made changes many were scandalized” is the title.
So,you all agree with the Novus Ordo.
Nonsense. Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 13 forbids just “any pastor” to change sacramental rites, not the Pope himself, and I dare you to show any approved Catholic theologian who understands that canon any other way. The Pope is the highest authority in the Church and has full power over the rites of the sacraments within the confines of the divine law.
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, no. 58 (1947):
“It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM
The Pope is not forbidden from shortening the Communion fast to 3 hours. The same authority that instituted the Communion fast from midnight can also rescind it, or shorten it. If you admit the authority of the former, you must admit the authority of the latter. You don’t have to like it, but the Pope doesn’t have to consult you first to see if you think it would be a good idea.
The shorter Communion fast, by the way, also made it possible to have Mass in the afternoon and in the evening now, which he also permitted. You can certainly take the position that you wish the Communion fast had not been shortened, but you cannot say that Pius XII did not have the right to do it. Besides, no one is keeping *you* from keeping the midnight fast, and in fact, Pius XII himself encouraged people to still observe it. He merely PERMITTED the three-hour fast, which, by the way, results in more people being able to make good Communions, which is a blessing on them and all of us. Aside from that, remember that those who are seriously ill do not have to keep the Communion fast at all — it’s a Church law, and not a divine law.
Look, when Pope St. Pius X lowered the age for First Holy Communicants to the age of reason, a number of people were “scandalized” and figured that this would introduce much irreverence and, in any case, was a “novelty”. Pius X himself also made significant changes to the breviary, and I am sure not everyone liked them. That’s how it works in the Church: The Pope legislates, and the faithful submit. If he legislates for the entire Church, infallibility prevents him from being able to legislate anything that is per se harmful, evil, heretical, or anything of the kind. This is the problem with the Vatican II Church and its false popes: They legislated things that are intrinsically evil, invalid sacramental rites, etc., for which reason we know they were not true Popes.
It is essential to understand the Catholic teaching on the Papacy. Some people think that being a traditional Catholic always means that we must go with the more strict and never with the more lenient. But that reeks of Jansenism. Unless we get the Catholic teaching on papal authority right, we’ll never come to the right conclusions.
To add to the excellent answer already provided by N.O.W., here’s a look at the text of the Council of Trent, Sess. 7, can. 13.
The key phrase is “per quemcunque ecclesiarum pastorem”. It means “by just any old pastor of the churches.” This language was clearly meant to exclude the Roman Pontiff.
Also, even if you were correct that the prohibition in this canon applies to the Roman Pontiff, it would not follow that he lacks the authority to change the fast before Communion or to modify most of the ceremonies used in Holy Mass, because these are not “rites used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.”