With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis (Part 3)

Written by  The Remnant and Catholic Family News

151003075258 pope francis meets hugs same sex couple 00000803 exlarge 169
Pope Francis holds a private meeting with a longtime friend from Argentina and his boyfriend inside the Vatican Embassy on September 23, 2015. 
The two laymen have been in a same-sex relationship for 19 years.

PART III
A “Pastoral Practice” at War with Doctrine

You have approved as the only correct interpretation of Amoris a moral calculus that would in practice undermine the whole moral order, not just the norms of sexual morality you obviously seek to subvert. For the application of virtually any moral norm can be deemed “unfeasible” by a talismanic invocation of “complex circumstances” to be “discerned” by a priest or bishop in “pastoral practice” while the norm is piously defended as unchanged and unchangeable as a “general rule.”

The nebulous criterion of “limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability” could be applied to all manner of habitual mortal sin, including cohabitation—which you have already likened to “true marriage”—“homosexual unions”—whose legalization you have refused to oppose—and contraception, which, incredibly, you have declared is morally permissible in order to prevent the transmission of disease, which the Vatican later confirmed is in fact your view.

Thus the Church would “in certain cases” contradict in practice what she teaches in principle regarding morality, meaning that the moral principle is practically overthrown. In the midst of the synodal sham, but without mentioning you, Cardinal Robert Sarah rightly condemned such a specious disjunction between moral precepts and their “pastoral application”: “The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice—which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions—is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology.”

Yet, as you would have it, based on “discernment” by local priests or ordinaries, certain people living in an objective condition of adultery can be deemed subjectively inculpable and admitted to Holy Communion without any commitment to an amendment of life even though they know the Church teaches that their relationship is adulterous. In a recent interview the renowned Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert, a friend of Pope John Paul II and one of the many critics of Amoris whose private entreaties for correction or retraction of the document you have ignored, has publicly noted the moral and pastoral absurdity of what you now explicitly approve:

How should that be applied? Should the priest say to one adulterer: “You are a good adulterer. You are in the state of grace. You are a very pious person, so you get my absolution without changing your life and you can go to Holy Communion.” And in comes another, and he [the priest] says: “Oh, you are a real adulterer. You must first confess. You must revoke your life. You must change your life and then you can go to Communion.”

I mean, how should that work?…. How can a priest be a judge of the soul [and] say that one is a real sinner and the other is only an innocent, good man? I mean that seems completely impossible. Only a priest who would have a kind of Padre Pio vision of souls could possibly say that, and he [Padre Pio] wouldn’t say that….

With your praise and approval, the bishops of Buenos Aires even suggest that children will be harmed if their divorced and “remarried” parents are not permitted to continue engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage while they profane the Blessed Sacrament. One casuitical defender of your departure from sound teaching surmises that this means adultery is only a venial sin if one partner in adultery is under “duress” to continue engaging in adulterous sexual relations because the other partner threatens to leave the children unless he is given sexual satisfaction. According to that moral logic, any mortal sin, including abortion, would be rendered venial merely by one party’s threat to end an adulterous relationship if the sin is not committed.

Even worse, if that were possible, the bishops of Buenos Aires, relying solely on your novelties, dare to suggest that people who continue habitually to engage in adulterous sexual relations will grow in grace while sacrilegiously receiving Holy Communion.

You have thus contrived no mere “change of discipline” but rather a radical change of underlying moral doctrine that would effectively institutionalize a form of situation ethics in the Church, reducing universally binding, objective moral precepts to mere general rules from which there would be innumerable subjective “exceptions” based on “complex circumstances” and “limitations” that would supposedly reduce habitual mortal sins to venial sins or even mere faults posing no impediment to Holy Communion.

But God Incarnate admitted of no such “exceptions” when He decreed by His divine authority: “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery (Lk 16:18).”   Every one.

Moreover, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under John Paul II declared in rejecting the “Kasper proposal” that has clearly been your proposal all along: “This norm [excluding public adulterers from the sacraments] is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion.”

That is, the Church can never permit those living in adultery to be treated as if their immoral unions were valid marriages, even if the partners in adultery implausibly claim subjective inculpability while knowingly living in violation of the Church’s infallible teaching. For the resulting scandal would erode and ultimately ruin the faith of the people in both the indissolubility of marriage and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. With your full approval, however, the bishops of Buenos Aires have rejected John Paul II’s admonition in Familiaris consortio that “if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.”

At this very moment in Church history, therefore, you are leading the faithful “into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” Indeed, so determined are you to impose your errant will upon the Church that in Amoris (n. 303) you dared to suggest that God Himself condones the continued sexual relations of the divorced and “remarried” if they can do no better in their “complex” circumstances:

Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.

In explicitly approving Holy Communion for select public adulterers in your letter to Buenos Aires you also undermine the ability of more conservative bishops to maintain the Church’s traditional teaching. How can bishops in AmericaCanada and Poland, for example, continue to insist on the Church’s bimillenial discipline, intrinsically connected to revealed truth, when you have dispensed with it in Buenos Aires on the authority of your “apostolic exhortation”? On what ground will they stand against a swarm of objections now that you have removed the ground of Tradition from beneath their feet?

In sum, after years of artful ambiguity regarding the standing of public adulterers with respect to Confession and Holy Communion, you now just as artfully declare the purported overthrow of the Church’s doctrine and practice of the Church by employing a “confidential” letter you must have known would be leaked, sent in response to a document from Buenos Aires you may well have solicited as part of the process you have been guiding since the sham “Synod on the Family” was announced.

As the Catholic intellectual and author Antonio Socci has written: “It is the first time in the history of the Church that a Pope has placed his signature on an overturning of the moral law.” No previous Pope has ever perpetrated such an outrage.

“Exceptions” to the Moral Law Cannot be Confined

Curiously enough, however, your novel moral calculus does not seem to apply to the other sins you constantly condemn while carefully observing the bounds of political correctness. Nowhere, for example, do you indicate that “complex circumstances” or “limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability” would excuse the Mafiosi you have rhetorically “excommunicated” en masse and warned of Hell, the rich you condemn as “bloodsuckers” or even the observant Catholics you ludicrously accuse of “the sin of divination” and “the sin of idolatry” because they will not accept “the surprises of God”—meaning your novelties.

Your entire pontificate seems to have centered on declaring an amnesty for sins of the flesh only, the very sins that, as Our Lady of Fatima warned, send more souls to hell than any other. But what makes you think the moral genie you have let out of the bottle, which you call the “God of surprises,” can be confined only to those moral precepts you deem overly rigid in application? To create exceptions to one exceptionless moral precept is effectively to undo them all. Your novelty attacks the foundations of the Faith and threatens to topple the Church’s entire moral edifice “like a house of cards”—the very outcome you accused observant Catholics of promoting on account of their supposed “rigorism” and attachment to “small-minded rules.”

But you are heedless of such obvious consequences. When asked about your approach to opposition from “ultra-conservatives,” meaning orthodox bishops and cardinals, you replied with the insouciant arrogance that is a hallmark of your governance of the Church: “They do their job and I do mine. I want a Church that is open, understanding, that accompanies wounded families. They say no to everythingI go ahead, without looking over my shoulder.”

In an astonishing display of haughty contempt for the Church of which you were elected head, you have dared to say: “the Church herself sometimes follows a hard line, she falls into the temptation of following a hard line, into the temptation of stressing only the moral rules, many people are excluded.”

Never before has a Pope declared that he will personally remedy the Church’s lack of openness and understanding and her “temptation” to take a “hard line” on morality so as to “exclude” people. Such alarmingly hubristic pronouncements give rise to the distinct impression that your unexpected election represents an almost apocalyptic development.

Ignoring All Entreaties, You Forge Ahead with Your “Revolution”

As you have gone about your work of destruction, you have ignored every private entreaty addressed to you, including innumerable requests that you affirm that Amoris Laetitia does not depart from prior teaching, as well as a document prepared by a group of Catholic scholars who identified heretical and erroneous propositions in Amoris and pleaded with you to condemn and withdraw them. It is evident you have no intention of accepting fraternal correction from anyone, not even the cardinals who have requested that you “clarify” the conformity of your teaching with the infallible Magisterium.

On the contrary, the more alarmed the faithful become, the more boldly you act. Continuing your programmatic loosening in practice of the Church’s moral teaching concerning sexuality, you have authorized the Pontifical Council for the Family to publish the first classroom “sex education” program ever promulgated by the Holy See. One of the associations of lay faithful that has risen to defend the Faith in the face of the hierarchy’s general silence before your onslaught of dissolvent novelties has published a summary of this horrific curriculum, which blatantly violates the Church’s constant teaching against any form of explicit classroom “sex-education”:

• Handing the sexual formation of children over to educators while leaving parents out of the equation.

• Failing to name and condemn sexual behaviors, such as fornication, prostitution, adultery, contracepted-sex, homosexual activity, and masturbation, as objectively sinful actions that destroy charity in the heart and turn one away from God.

• Failing to warn youths about the possibility of eternal separation from God (damnation) for committing grave sexual sins. Hell is not mentioned once.

• Failing to distinguish between mortal and venial sin.

• Failing to speak about the 6th and 9th commandments, or any other commandment.

• Failing to teach about the sacrament of confession as a way of restoring relationship with God after committing grave sin.

• Not mentioning a healthy sense of shame when it comes to the body and sexuality.

• Teaching boys and girls together in the same class.

• Having boys and girls share together in class their understanding of phrases such as: “What does the word sex suggest to you?”

• Asking a mixed class to “point out where sexuality is located in boys and girls.”

• Speaking about the “process of arousal.”

• Using sexually explicit and suggestive images in activity workbooks (herehere, and here).

• Recommending various sexually explicit movies as springboards for discussion….

• Failing to speak about abortion as gravely wrong, but only that it causes “strong psychological damage.”

• Confusing youths by using phrases such as “sexual relationship” to indicate not the sexual act, but a relationship focused on the whole person.

• Speaking of “heterosexuality” as something to be “discover[ed].”

• Using [a “gay” celebrity] as an example of a gifted and famous person.

• Endorsing the “dating” paradigm as a step towards marriage.

• Not stressing celibacy as the supreme form of self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality.

• Failing to mention Christ’s teaching on marriage.

The same association observes that the curriculum “violates norms previously promulgated by the very same pontifical council.” Another lay association protests that it “makes frequent use of sexually explicit and morally objectionable images, fails to clearly identify and explain Catholic doctrine from elemental sources including the Ten Commandments and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and compromises the innocence and integrity of young people under the rightful care of their parents.” Lay leaders in the Catholic family movement have rightly denounced it as “thoroughly immoral,” “entirely inappropriate,” and “quite tragic.” As one of them declared: “Parents must not be under any illusion: the pontificate of Pope Francis marks the surrender of the Vatican authorities to the worldwide sexual revolution and directly threatens their own children.”

But this radical departure from prior teaching and practice is only in keeping with the novelties of Amoris, which proclaims “the need for sex education” in “educational institutions” while completely ignoring the Church’s traditional teaching that parents, not teachers in classrooms, have the primary responsibility to provide any necessary instruction to their children in this most sensitive area, taking care not to “descend to details” but rather to “employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.”

Your “revolution” is hardly confined to matters sexual, however. You have also recently convened a commission, including six women, to “study” the matter of women “deacons,” which was already studied by a Vatican commission in 2002. That commission concluded that the diaconate belongs to the ordained clerical state along with the priesthood and the episcopacy and that so-called “deaconesses” in the early Church were not ordained ministers but only ecclesial helpers with no more authority than nuns, who performed limited services for women, but certainly not baptisms or marriages. The “deaconettes” you seem to contemplate would thus be nothing more than women masquerading in clerical garb, as women cannot possibly receive any degree of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

As you continue to undermine respect for the utter seriousness and supernatural character of sacramental marriage it seems you are preparing to undermine further an already drastically diminished respect for the male priesthood. What is next? Perhaps a “relaxation” of the apostolic tradition of clerical celibacy, which you have already declared is “on my agenda.”

And now, as your “revolution” continues to accelerate, you prepare to depart for Sweden in October, where you will participate in a joint “prayer service” with a married Lutheran “bishop,” head of the pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage” Lutheran World Federation, to “commemorate” the so-called Reformation launched by Martin Luther.

It is inconceivable that a Roman Pontiff would dignify the memory of this maniac, the most destructive heretic in the history of the Church, who shattered the unity of Christendom and opened the way to endless violence and bloodshed and the collapse of morals throughout Europe. As Luther infamously declared: “If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of the Mass is overthrown, then the whole will fall.” It is supremely ironic that the arch-heretic you intend to honor with your presence uttered those words in a letter to Henry VIII, who led all of England into schism because the Pope would not accommodate his desire for divorce and “remarriage,” including access to the sacraments.

We Must Oppose You

At this point in your tumultuous tenure as “Bishop of Rome” it is beyond reasonable dispute that your presence on the Chair of Peter represents a clear and present danger to the Church. In view of that danger, we must ask:

Are you not in the least troubled by the scandal and confusion your words and deeds have caused concerning the salvific mission of the Church and her teaching on faith and morals, particularly in the area of marriage, family and sexuality?

Does it never occur to you that the world’s endless applause for “the Francis revolution” is precisely the ill omen of which Our Lord gave warning?: “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets (Lk 6:26).”

Have you no sense of alarm about the divisions you have provoked within the Church, with some bishops departing from the teaching of your predecessors on the divorced and “remarried,” solely on your purported authority, while others attempt to maintain the bimillenial doctrine and practice you have labored without ceasing to overthrow?

Do you think nothing of the numberless sacrilegious communions that will result from your authorization of Holy Communion for objective public adulterers and others in “irregular situations,” which you had already permitted en masse as Archbishop of Buenos Aires?

Do you even recognize that reception of Holy Communion by people living in adultery is a profanation, a direct offense against “the Body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29)” worthy of damnation as well as a public scandal that threatens the faith of others, as both Benedict XVI and John Paul II insisted in line with all their predecessors?

Do you really think you have the power to decree “merciful” exceptions in “certain cases” to divinely revealed moral precepts in order to suit your personal notion of “inclusion,” your evidently benign view of divorce and cohabitation and your false notion of what you call “pastoral charity” in your letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires? As if it were uncharitable to require adulterers and fornicators to cease their immoral sexual relations before partaking of the Blessed Sacrament!

Have you no respect for the contrary teaching of all the Popes who preceded you?

Finally, have you no fear of the Lord and His judgment, which you constantly minimize or deny in your sermons and spontaneous remarks, even declaring—exactly contrary to the Creed—that “the Good Shepherd… seeks not to judge but to love”?

We must agree with the assessment of the aforementioned Catholic journalist concerning your insane pursuit of Holy Communion for people in immoral sexual relationships: “This whole affair is bizarre. No other word will do.” Beyond this, however, your entire bizarre pontificate has given rise to a situation the Church has never seen before: an occupant of the Chair of Peter whose remarks, pronouncements and decisions are blows to the Church’s integrity against which the faithful must constantly guard themselves. As the same writer concludes: “I say this in sorrow, but I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by bands of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright – schism. Lord, have mercy.”

Yet almost the entire hierarchy either suffers in silence or exultantly celebrates this debacle. But so it was during the great Arian crisis of the 4th century, when, as Cardinal Newman famously observed:

[T]he body of the episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; [and] at one time the Pope, at other times the patriarchal, metropolitan, and other great sees, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them.

If we are to be faithful to our baptism and our Confirmation oath, we members of the laity, unworthy sinners though we are, cannot remain silent or passive in the face of your depredations. We are compelled by the dictates of conscience to accuse you publicly before our fellow Catholics as demanded by revealed truth, the divine and natural law, and the ecclesial common good. To recall the teaching of Saint Thomas cited above, there is no exception for the Pope to the principle of natural justice that subjects may rebuke their superior, even publicly, when there is “imminent danger of scandal concerning faith.” Quite the contrary, reason itself demonstrates that, more than any other prelate, the Pope must be corrected, even by his subjects, should he “stray from the straight path.”

We know that the Church is no mere human institution and that its indefectibility is assured by the promises of Christ. Popes come and go, and the Church will survive even this pontificate. But we also know that God deigns to work through human instruments and that, over and above the essentials of prayer and penance, He expects from the members of the Church Militant, both clergy and laity, a militant defense of faith and morals against threats from any source—be it even a Pope, as Church history has demonstrated more than once.

For the love of God and the Blessed Virgin, Mother of the Church, whom you profess to revere, we call upon you to recant your errors and undo the immense harm you have caused to the Church, to souls, and to the cause of the Gospel lest you follow the example of Pope Honorius, an aider and abettor of heresy anathematized by an ecumenical council and his own successor, and thus bring down upon yourself “the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

But if you will not relent in the pursuit of your vainglorious “vision” of a more “merciful” and evangelical Church than the one founded by Christ, whose doctrine and discipline you seek to bend to your will, let the cardinals who regret the mistake of electing you honor their blood oaths and at least issue a public demand that you change course or relinquish the office they so improvidently entrusted to you.

Meanwhile, we are duty bound to oppose your errors according to our own station in the Church and to exhort our fellow Catholics to join in that opposition, using every legitimate means at our disposal to mitigate the harm you seem determined to inflict upon the Mystical Body of Christ. All other recourses having failed, no other way is open to us.

May God have mercy on us, His Holy Church, and on you as its earthly head.

Mary, Help of Christians, Pray for Us!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis (Part 3)

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    The nebulous criterion of “limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability” could be applied to all manner of habitual mortal sin

    A direct LIE. In fact, this criteria is not “nebulous” AT ALL, but specific cases where responsibility and culpability can be and are limited are clearly detailed in the Discipline of Casuistics, under the ordinary Authority of the Bishops.

  2. johnhenrycn says:

    From the Open Letter: “Your entire pontificate seems to have centered on declaring an amnesty for sins of the flesh only…”

    Who can gainsay that? Concerning those amongst us who are Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics, I understand the Pope has recently said we must go confession and seek forgiveness before Communion, which I cannot do because AGW is a crock of. Perhaps I can plead “diminished responsibility” because I’m not a qualified climatologist like the Pope? But what if my confessor also thinks AGW is a crock of? And if I throw an apple core out the window whilst driving down the highway? Lord have mercy on my soul, says His WholeEarthiness!

  3. You are putting episcopal dictates above Divine Laws. Many Catholics in Name only have adpted the Southern Baptist heresy that every word and punctuation mark in a modern translation of the OT and NT are literally true. I know too much abut the history of the “Bible” to believe that.

    But some of Jesus’ sayings in the NT clearly express God’s teachings. (Since Jesus is God.) Until about 1000, Jewish law in Western Europe allowed a man to have as many wives as he could afford. (It was Mohammed later on that severely limited male believers to only four wives.) Jesus and the apostles abrogated many OT practices. However, they never condemned polygamy.

    [This paragraph containing heresy has been deleted by a Moderator.]

    If you want to veto the word of God, you may. But I will stick with the teachings of Jesus in the NT.

  4. @Johnhenryen. Your argument is dumb beyond belief. What you are saying is the same as saying “I know that without question, one does not need to put gas into a (non-electric) car. An I know I am correct because I am not a auto mechanic, and I know I am correct because I know nothing about the internal combustion engine.”
    You may not believe gas is needed, but in fact, your car won’t go. You may not believe in Climate Change despite all the overwhelming evidence, but your children and grandchildren shall lives in a terrible world because of your arrogance.. Arrogance as extreme as yours clearly is demonic and a mortal sin.
    Another piece of evidence of rapid change. The wine harvest in the Bordeaux region now takes place every year an entire month earlier than it did a century ago. Which is why those that know about wine are buying land much further north–in regions where wine never has been grown in the past 2000.

  5. johnhenrycn says:

    Jan (16:18) says – [er, something]:

    La. Di. Da. Here cometh a man (or woman) who knows “too much about the history of the ‘Bible’ to believe that…” Jesus and the apostles disapproved of polygamy (I’m reading between the lines a bit, but not unfairly so). Reading further missives from this fedayeen should be more fun than a barrel of monkeys. But no, I shall leave it to Roger to slap some sense into Jan‘s head.

  6. johnhenrycn says:

    Jan (16:29) says – “Johnhenryen. Your argument is dumb beyond belief.”

    The politically correct word for your shocking slur (dumb) is “mute”. I’m hardly mute, as even a cursory glance at my WordPress commenting history will attest – and more’s the pity – but let me return the favour by stating that you know nothing more about motor vehicles than what you’ve learned from playing Grand Theft Auto video games for hours on end.

    Now, “Jan” (I’m so thankful my parents eschewed an absurd androgynous name like that when I was born) why don’t you start addressing the real subject matter of this particular thread, m’kay?

  7. johnhenrycn says:

    I have to say: this 3 part anti-secular, anti-Protestant letter of faithful complaint to the Holy Father is a veritable classic – arguably comparable, in terms of persuasiveness, to John Henry Newman’s Apologia. I intend to make a print copy, and after some months of re-reading and reflecting upon it, as well as upon any rebuttal of it which may forthcoming from supporters of the Pope’s temporal/pastoral/political worldviews (as distinct from his authentically magisterial pronouncements, which I will never oppose) I pray to heed its concluding exhortation:
    “Meanwhile, we are duty bound to oppose your errors according to our own station in the Church and to exhort our fellow Catholics to join in that opposition, using every legitimate means at our disposal.”

    God Save The Pope.

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    From the Open Letter: “Your entire pontificate seems to have centered on declaring an amnesty for sins of the flesh only…”

    Who can gainsay that?

    I can.

    Pope Francis : “The Prince of this world, Satan, doesn’t want our holiness, he doesn’t want us to follow Christ. Maybe some of you might say: ‘But Father, how old fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21st century!’ But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here… even in the 21st century! And we mustn’t be naïve, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan.

  9. JabbaPapa says:

    arguably comparable, in terms of persuasiveness, to John Henry Newman’s Apologia

    Oh don’t be ridiculous — it constitutes a direct attempt at justification for schismatic doctrines.

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    Pope Francis : “Either you are with me, says the Lord, or you are against me… [Jesus came] to give us the freedom… [from] the enslavement the devil has over us… On this point, there are no nuances. There is a battle and a battle where salvation is at play, eternal salvation. We must always be on guard, on guard against deceit, against the seduction of evil.

  11. kathleen says:

    Well, I was going to hold my tongue and not make any comment to this detailed, thorough and well-researched open letter (part 3) to Pope Francis, so as not to bring Jabba down upon me like a ton of bricks (as he did to poor mmvc in part 1, causing her a lot of stress) but now I think that would be cowardly.

    Jabba,

    (@ 10:02) I do not find any “lies” in the letter at all. With all the evidence we have, many cannot help but interpret the Pope’s numerous concessions to those living in varied sinful situations in no other way but as being equally applicable to “all manner of habitual mortal sin”.
    That the Pope does indeed come out with good authentically Catholic statements too, does not rule out the other times when he states the contrary, or uses double speak. What we cannot be sure of is whether this confusing and contradictory way of preaching is intentional, or not.

    Will anything come of this excellent three-part j’accuse we wonder? Probably not.

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    I do not find any “lies” in the letter at all

    The entire document is based on direct falsehoods, misrepresentations, and Error.

    Facts :

    1) Amoris Laetitia does NOT — indeed cannot — “authorise” Communion for Adulterers

    2) The document of the Argentine Bishops is NOT destined for the international general public nor for the universal Laity, nor is it written as a document for their (our) evangelisation

    3) It is in fact a document for priests, who are already fully trained and are therefore already fully aware that Adulterers have no access to the Eucharist, but that they may in some particular circumstances have access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation

    4) The Argentine Bishops described as particularly scandalous the exact manner of Sacramental violations that these Remnant idiots have seen fit to mendaciously accuse the Pope of

    5) The ONLY particular exception to these Rules and Laws and Doctrines that has EVER been seriously considered in the midst of all this seemingly endless flow of absolute rubbish and LIES that has been going on and on and on for about three years now involves the injustices that are suffered by those who are in a state of marriage that is putatively invalid according to the definite and precise conditions already described in the Canon Law, which have NOT “changed” by an iota, but who are unable to obtain the (rightful) annulment of those marriages because their spouses include utter refusal of subjection to the rightful Church Courts as part and parcel of their manifest inability to religiously provide the Sacrament of Marriage as clearly defined in Canon Law. BUT no putatively invalid marriage can be declared legally invalid without such subjection to those Courts — except by the Holy Father himself, who clearly has not the time to judge all of such cases personally. It involves those who are unjustly placed into situations of adultery by the evil and anti-catholic actions of hostile ex-spouses who have destroyed marriages, concurrently with the human need of the innocent abandoned, rejected, flouted, or even violently wounded spouses to live their ordinary, human, Catholic lives.

    6) It is a LIE to carry on spreading this propaganda about how “Adulterers” or “everyone no matter their sins” shall be “admitted” to the Eucharist by Pope Francis or by the ridiculous non-existent “Vatican II Church” (which might somehow be “separate” and “different” to the equally ludicrous but overtly schismatic “remnant church”).

    —-

    I am sorry if mmvc was disturbed by my rhetoric, but then I am greatly disturbed by the promotion of these evil LIES from the Remnant, just as much as I am disturbed by the tendency of some of my fellow Catholics, and my friends, to believe the lies, accuse the Pope of what he has not done, and propagate texts that are overtly promotional of schismatic ideologies.

  13. Magdalene says:

    I do think that the present pontiff is “not in the least troubled by the scandal and confusion” he has caused. He has told the young to make a mess and follow that example. I cannot see how the present pope loves the Mother of God even if some of his words claim to; I see a put down of her in a number of actions and her Son will only stand for so much of that. And I also think that the present pontiff will merely laugh and shrug at such attempts as this to hold him accountable. He has the keys and will do with them what he wills.

  14. kathleen says:

    I do think that the present pontiff is “not in the least troubled by the scandal and confusion” he has caused.

    Well said, Magdalene! I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he is unaware of this…. But, quite honestly, one would have to be pretty naive to believe that. It just seems to all be water off a duck’s back to him.
    Yup, he holds the keys, but they are the sacred keys to safeguard and promulgate the treasure-house of the Faith. They are not the keys to Pandora’s box!

  15. kathleen says:

    I am greatly disturbed by the promotion of these evil LIES from the Remnant

    Jabba,

    Lies are falsehoods. You cannot have the evidence staring you in the face – once again, read the links The Remnant gives; look at the pictures – and then say that they are “lies”. Even if one could read, at a stretch, a less calamitous interpretation of certain written texts (i.e., in Amoris Laetitia or documents from Vatican II), many have, and will, put a different spin on them as they are ambiguous and confusing in places. Take a look around and see the fruits!

    I repeat: you may not like the bold and harsh tone of these three articles, but that does not take away from the truth of their many valid protests.

  16. geoffkiernan says:

    Kathleen. Well said. keep fighting the good fight

  17. JabbaPapa says:

    You cannot have the evidence staring you in the face

    False interpretations do not constitute “evidence”, and a false Hermeneutic of Rupture is what creates those false interpretations in the first place.

    I know that the word “hermeneutic” is hard to understand — at University, only a minority could get their head ’round it, and not because these were “cleverer” than those who couldn’t, but seemingly because it needs a certain type of mind to do so rather than a certain degree of intellectual skill or ability or education.

    A hemeneutic is a strategy of interpretation, of anything at all — we each interpret weather forecasts according to one hermeneutic, shopping lists according to some other hermeneutic(s), newspapers, books, bank account details, gossip, family dinner table chats, the news, etc etc etc …

    Hermeneutics is the action of transforming data into meaning, and judging that meaning as either information to be accepted as truth, something to reject, or something to be held in doubt, etc.

    A hermeneutic is not some kind of “special” intellectual activity for “special” people, nor is it any kind of “magic wand” — you cannot read a text, including this very text I’m writing now, without a basis in a hermeneutic to determine its meaning or whatever validity you may conclude that it has or hasn’t. Hermeneutics are used by everyone, everywhere, all of the time, from our infants learning to speak to our elders on their death beds, from the bushman to the astrophysicist, by all Catholics and non-Catholics alike in every second of every occasion of thought about some data ; whether this data is an animal’s track, the aspect of some clouds on the horizon, some prices in vegetable trays, some lines of computer code, some visual markings on doors, a poem, the look and the smell of a stew in its cooking pot, a Church document, an internet article.

    But every hermeneutic is predisposed by multiple factors towards certain manners of interpretation — an animal’s track will be interpreted very differently by a hunter, a hiker, a zoologist, a weekend stroller, a bored 13 year-old, a person looking for their lost pet, and so on and so forth — so that while in each case the data is exactly identical, starkly different interpretations, meanings, understandings, opinions, and reactions will be created in the minds of those different people, because each of them is interpreting the very same data according to starkly different hermeneutics.

    This action of hermeneutics to engender variance in understanding and opinion on the basis of identical information/data but different interpretative strategies is universal to all of mankind :

    Genesis : {11:5} Then the Lord descended to see the city and the tower, which the sons of Adam were building.
    {11:6} And he said: “Behold, the people are united, and all have one tongue. And since they have begun to do this, they will not desist from their plans, until they have completed their work.
    {11:7} Therefore, come, let us descend, and in that place confound their tongue, so that they may not listen, each one to the voice of his neighbor.
    {11:8} And so the Lord divided them from that place into all the lands, and they ceased to build the city.
    {11:9} And for this reason, its name was called ‘Babel,’ because in that place the language of the whole earth became confused. And from then on, the Lord scattered them across the face of every region.

    (I could of course point to some more tedious sources of Philosophy, Semiotics, Literature and Language studies, neurolinguistics & etc. .. but the Bible gets the point across quite effectively enough)

    Dear Toad has also provided us with numerous examples of this human subjection to the confusion of Babel. 🙂

    What then is the Orthodoxy of the Faith, and the single Catholicity that all must cleave to ?

    The Orthodoxy is comprised essentially of the Catholic Faith in our agreement that our shared understanding of Truth in Revelation, called the Deposit of Faith, is One in Christ ; and that the authentic interpretation of the Truth in the face of doubts that must necessarily arise from our divergences of hermeneutics and from Babel and our Original Sin belongs to the singular Authority of the Holy Magisterium, and particularly in the person of the Holy Father — who in turn are instructed by the Tradition, by their predecessors in the Magisterium and the Throne of Peter, and by the Divine Revelation Himself, our Lord the Christ, Protector and High Priest of His Church.

    The Benedictine Hermeneutic of Continuity is the proper Catholic interpretative strategy that keeps all of these elements in balance — the Deposit of Faith, the Tradition, the Magisterium, the Revelation — so that when one encounters some local teaching, of whichever nature, including the non-magisterial teachings from the Holy See or the Holy Father that are intended not for all of time but only to address some difficulties in the here and now, not only must we understand, if we are to be Catholic, that such teachings cannot have any purpose to “change” the Deposit of Faith, the Tradition, the lessons of the Magisterium, the Revelation ; but we must also keep our understandings of these teachings within the Catholicity of these Divine and Ecclesial Sources, and we must limit our interpretations of such teachings to that which the Orthodoxy of the Faith and Our Lord Jesus Christ have demanded of us.

    On the contrary, a Hermeneutic of Rupture of the sort that Pope Benedict XVI so rightly condemned instead seeks to engage in interpretations that are strictly outside the Catholicity and the Orthodoxy of the Faith, by claiming that some pastoral teaching might be seeking to “overthrow” or “change” the Deposit of Faith, the Tradition, the Magisterium, the Revelation ; to claim that something uncatholic could be “added” to the Catholicity by these or by those ; and all manner of highly destructive claims that have their foundation in nothing other than bad interpretation — whereas in fact Error has no rights.

    Even this fact, that Error has no rights, is something that I’ve seen grossly misinterpreted on multiple occasions — properly, it means that Erroneous interpretations of Catholic Dogma, the Canon Law, and the teachings of the Magisterium and the Holy See are devoid of moral, religious, and legal validity. So for example a footnote in Amoris Laetitia CANNOT be validly interpreted as authorising Holy Communion for impenitent Adulterers nor to others in some state of Mortal Sin, because this is condemned by the teaching of the Magisterium (Catechism of the Catholic Church) and by Canon Law, and by all validly Catholic interpretation of Scripture. Of course, false statements by Heretics or atheists or others are also Errors that have no rights ; BUT the reason WHY they are Errors in the first place is that they fail to agree with Catholic Dogma, the Canon Law, and the teachings of the Magisterium and the Holy See.

    Statements on this or that, whether in matters of personal affairs, politics, science, or whatever domain that the Church does not pronounce on are not “Errors” in the sense of this principle, even if or when they may be factually or intrinsically incorrect. “Errors” in this sense refers solely to that which is false in some way to the Divine, the Dogmatic, and the Canon Law, as these are interpreted by the legitimate Catholic Authority.

    To make all manner of “exciting” claims on the basis of objectively false interpretations; of these or those statements, to assume that what is objectively false (Error not having any rights) must constitute the contents of such statements, even though the Catholicity, the Orthodoxy, and any proper interpretation must reject such interpretations outright, and to then launch outright attacks against the Pope because one absolutely insists on some gratuitously, objectively, heterodox false interpretations of statements that one has insisted on reading in the most negative and hostile, excited and imprudent manner imaginable is NOT the action of any Orthodox and Faithful Catholicity.

    that does not take away from the truth of their many valid protests

    Disliking Pope Francis is one thing, but OTOH I can and do reject the notion that the tone and the bulk of these “protests” are “valid” or “true”.

  18. JabbaPapa says:

    the good fight

    … is not the practice of Pope-bashing and propagating false interpretations of Church documents.

  19. kathleen says:

    the good fight

    … is not the practice of Pope-bashing and propagating false interpretations of Church documents.

    Pointing out error is not “Pope-bashing”! The accusations are valid ones, and not “false interpretations”. The Remnant and CFN are exercising their Christian duty to “admonish the sinner” to save the rest of the Church from falling into the same sins from the bad example and confusion they produce.

  20. Roger says:

    Yes Jabba
    Thank you for understanding the symptons

    Genesis
    {11:7} Therefore, come, let us descend, and in that place confound their tongue, so that they may not listen, each one to the voice of his neighbor.”

    The converse occured with the Apostles and St Peter at Pentecost. Where there was common understanding even although the languages were different.

    What I believe we are seeing is very serious because there is this global turning away from Christ. This will and I believe is causing mistrust between nations/ states/ even families. Very dangerous with modern weapons and shall I say the action of zealots.

    The strength of the St Peter and the Papacy was this Putting Christ first, in other words that through the Papacy we would hear and clearly understand Christ speaking to Us in Our Time. But as you can see the opposite seems to be the Case.

    The lesson of Pentecost really was the prayers and reparation within the cenacle and with Our Lady which brought down upon the Church the Spirit Of Truth (Holy Ghost). There really is a urgent need for genuine reparation and prayer.

  21. JabbaPapa says:

    What I believe we are seeing is very serious because there is this global turning away from Christ. This will and I believe is causing mistrust between nations/ states/ even families. Very dangerous with modern weapons and shall I say the action of zealots.

    I agree.

  22. kathleen says:

    Yes, I agree with Roger too, (though probably for different reasons to Jabba!) Roger has laid it out all so clearly. Nothing to do with “mistranslations”, rhetoric, Argentinian mind sets, modern times or whatever. The Truth is One, Whole, and Everlasting.

    The converse [of Gen.11:7] occured with the Apostles and St Peter at Pentecost. Where there was common understanding even though the languages were different.

    Thank you, Roger.

  23. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 8:38

    Hermeneutics is the action of transforming data into meaning, and judging that meaning as either information to be accepted as truth, something to reject, or something to be held in doubt, etc.

    Yes, I agree with this and some of what you say in this comment.
    However, I also see that it goes actually to make the very point of orthodox Catholics that you want to discredit!

    Certain “data” we are being confronted with, coming from the infiltrated Masonic mentality in the Vatican of some clerics, clashes violently with the Hermeneutic of Continuity of our Holy Catholic Church. Many wise and faithful Catholics, from both clergy and laity are calling out warnings. We must fight this demonic attack on the Holy Faith with all the tools available to us, like the holy saints, crusaders, priests and laity of earlier centuries.

    It is only in this way we shall avoid an Hermeneutic of Rupture we are being threatened with today.

  24. JabbaPapa says:

    orthodox Catholics that you want to discredit

    The actions of these “Remnant” in these particulars cannot be accurately nor realistically nor even broadly described as “orthodox”.

    Certain “data” we are being confronted with, coming from the infiltrated Masonic mentality in the Vatican of some clerics, clashes violently with the Hermeneutic of Continuity of our Holy Catholic Church

    I certainly agree with this !!

    It is only in this way we shall avoid an Hermeneutic of Rupture we are being threatened with today

    But kathleen, while the Hermeneutics of Rupture (plural — there are far, far more than just one) are more blatantly obvious in the claims, the deeds, and the actions of the “liberal”-“progressives”, the more or less subtle rebellions and rejections and radicalism of such as those in this so-called “Remnant” partake of them too.

  25. JabbaPapa says:

    hmmmm, one small correction :

    me : … is not the practice of Pope-bashing and propagating false interpretations of Church documents.

    I should have used “or”, not “and”.

    Clearly, there are many in the “liberal”-“progressive” camp are extremely keen Papolatres and zealous in their desire to propagate just the same false interpretations of Church documents, for opposite reasons.

  26. johnhenrycn says:

    I took the time to read the Our History section of The Remnant website. The origins of their paper go back to Der Wanderer founded by two Benedictine monks in St Paul, Minnesota 150 years ago. Joseph Matt, a young immigrant to the States from Germany and patriarch of the Matt family (publishers of The Remnant) became involved with it 120 years ago and owner/publisher of it 118 years ago. The Remnant, an offshoot of Der Wanderer, was founded in 1967 when Alphonse Matt and Walter Matt, two sons of Joseph, had a falling out (theological, not personal) over the implications of Vatican II, which Walter strongly opposed, and in which stance he was strongly supported by Dietrich von Hildebrand amongst other Catholic luminaries. The Remnant has been in publication continuously for 50 years, firstly under the leadership of Walter and now under Michael Matt, his youngest son, who took over in 2002 when Walter died: “… wearing his scapular, holding his rosary and the hand of his wife of almost 50 years [and with] his nine children and 35 grandchildren at his side. He was 87 years old.” He died with many Catholic honours bestowed upon him during his heroically faithful life.

    And now this iconic Catholic flagship is being accused of “direct falsehoods”, “misrepresentations”, “evil LIES” “and Error”. Suffice it to say, Joseph Matt, Walter Matt and now Michael Matt are people who’ve earned the right to a serious hearing and (in my case at least) a great deal of trust.

    With due respect to our own JabbaPapa, I think a strong case can be made that the current scion, Michael Matt, has probably forgotten more about the Faith than Jabba ever knew.

  27. johnhenrycn says:

    Moderator: can I beg the favour of a close italics after the words He was 87 years old.?

  28. mmvc says:

    Thank you, JH.
    I’ve just subscribed to the E-Edition of The Remnant.

  29. JabbaPapa says:

    With due respect to our own JabbaPapa, I think a strong case can be made that the current scion, Michael Matt, has probably forgotten more about the Faith than Jabba ever knew.

    An interesting combination of the ad hominem and false argument from authority fallacies …

    Alphonse Matt and Walter Matt, two sons of Joseph, had a falling out (theological, not personal) over the implications of Vatican II, which Walter strongly opposed … The Remnant has been in publication continuously for 50 years, firstly under the leadership of Walter and now under Michael Matt, his youngest son

    So these self-styled “Remnant” have been willfully disobeying Canons 752-754 for fifty years ?

    Can. 752 Although 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.

    Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

    Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

    Concerning both Authority and ambiguity, and how Faithful Catholics may not interpret a potentially ambiguous statement of the Magisterium, ordinary or extraordinary, in a heterodox manner, Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, instructed the Faithful as follows :

    Mysterium Ecclesiae : http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html

    It says the following on Authority :

    But by divine institution it is the exclusive task of these pastors alone, the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, to teach the faithful authentically, that is with the authority of Christ shared in different ways; so that the faithful, who may not simply listen to them as experts in Catholic doctrine, must accept their teaching given in Christ’s name, with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.For this reason the Second Vatican Council, in harmony with the first Vatican Council, teaches that Christ made Peter “a perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of the faith and of communion”; and the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI has declared: “The teaching office of the bishops is for the believer the sign and channel which enable him to receive and recognize the Word of God.” Thus, however much the Sacred Magisterium avails itself of the contemplation, life and study of the faithful, its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter; indeed, in the interpretation and explanation of the written or transmitted Word of God, the Magisterium can anticipate or demand their assent. The People of God has particular need of the intervention and assistance of the Magisterium when internal disagreements arise and spread concerning a doctrine that must be believed or held, lest it lose the communion of the one faith in the one Body of the Lord (cf. Eph 4:4, 5).

    And on false interpretations from some ambiguity, even though it does not actually use that word :

    With regard to this historical condition, it must first be observed that the meaning of the pronouncements of faith depends partly upon the expressive power of the language used at a certain point in time and in particular circumstances. Moreover, it sometimes happens that some dogmatic truth is first expressed incompletely (but not falsely), and at a later date, when considered in a broader context of faith or human knowledge, it receives a fuller and more perfect expression. In addition, when the Church makes new pronouncements she intends to confirm or clarify what is in some way contained in Sacred Scripture or in previous expressions of Tradition; but at the same time she usually has the intention of solving certain questions or removing certain errors. All these things have to be taken into account in order that these pronouncements may be properly interpreted. Finally, even though the truths which the Church intends to teach through her dogmatic formulas are distinct from the changeable conceptions of a given epoch and can be expressed without them, nevertheless it can sometimes happen that these truths may be enunciated by the Sacred Magisterium in terms that bear traces of such conceptions.

    In view of the above, it must be stated that the dogmatic formulas of the Church’s Magisterium were from the beginning suitable for communicating revealed truth, and that as they are they remain forever suitable for communicating this truth to those who interpret them correctly. It does not however follow that every one of these formulas has always been or will always be so to the same extent. For this reason theologians seek to define exactly the intention of teaching proper to the various formulas, and in carrying out this work they are of considerable assistance to the living Magisterium of the Church, to which they remain subordinated. For this reason also it often happens that ancient dogmatic formulas and others closely connected with them remain living and fruitful in the habitual usage of the Church, but with suitable expository and explanatory additions that maintain and clarify their original meaning. In addition, it has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium, presented more clearly or more completely the same meaning.

    As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more developed. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulas (or some category of them) cannot signify truth in a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort of alter it; secondly, that these formulas signify the truth only in an indeterminate way, this truth being like a goal that is constantly being sought by means of such approximations. Those who hold such an opinion do not avoid dogmatic relativism and they corrupt the concept of the Church’s infallibility relative to the truth to be taught or held in a determinate way.

    Such an opinion clearly is in disagreement with the declarations of the First Vatican Council, which, while fully aware of the progress of the Church in her knowledge of revealed truth,(38) nevertheless taught as follows: “That meaning of sacred dogmas…must always be maintained which Holy Mother Church declared once and for all, nor should one ever depart from that meaning under the guise of or in the name of a more advanced understanding.” The Council moreover condemned the opinion that “dogmas once proposed by the Church must, with the progress of science be given a meaning other than that which was understood by the Church, or which she understands.” There is no doubt that, according to these texts of the Council, the meaning of dogmas which is declared by the Church is determinate and unalterable.

  30. mmvc says:

    “So these self-styled “Remnant” have been willfully disobeying Canons 752-754 for fifty years ?”

    Oh come on! Even Pope Em along with other high ranking prelates had and continue to have qualms about the Council and its fallout:

    From Pope Benedict XVI’s ‘Last Conversations’:

    Seewald: “As a participant (in the Council), as a co-responsible person, did one not also have some qualms of conscience?”

    Pope Emeritus: One does indeed ask oneself whether one did it the right way. Especially when the whole thing went off the rails, this was certainly a question that one raised. Cardinal Frings later had very strong qualms of conscience. But I always had the consciousness that what we had factually said and implemented was right and that it also needed to happen. In itself, we acted correctly – even if we certainly did not correctly assess the political effects and the factual consequences. One was thinking too much in a theological way and one did not consider what consequences the things would have.”

  31. JabbaPapa says:

    But I always had the consciousness that what we had factually said and implemented was right and that it also needed to happen. In itself, we acted correctly

    Righty-o then …

  32. mmvc says:

    ‘….very strong qualms of conscience’

    Not so righty-o methinks.

  33. JabbaPapa says:

    Just more Hermeneutic of Rupture — your personal interpretation that some passing worries of conscience, that we all of us should feel as Catholics in ALLour actions,

  34. JabbaPapa says:

    … that we all of us should feel as Catholics in ALL of our actions, might somehow overcome his CLEAR statement that he “always had the consciousness that what we had factually said and implemented was right” is to put the intellective cart before its Catholic horse.

  35. johnhenrycn says:

    JabbaPapa (09:47) –
    It’s ironic that you accuse me of a so-called “false” argument from authority, and yet in the next breath you appeal to CCC 752-754 and accuse The Remnant of “willfully disobeying” the authority of the Pope and/or College of Cardinals. I’ve no intention of addressing your overly long comment in its entirety, but shall confine myself to a couple of points:

    1. An appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy. Resorting to an unqualified or unreliable authority is a fallacy. I happen to think The Remnant is more qualified and reliable than you.

    2. Vatican II was a “pastoral” Council, not a dogmatic one, and therefore, CCC 752-754 do not estop Catholics from criticizing or opposing its pronouncements and/or the implications of those pronouncements, as did Dietrich von Hildebrand (Ever hear of him? Sorry for appealing to an authority higher than yours or mine.) when he wrote to Alphonse Matt:
    “But unfortunately it is my conviction that the new ordo missae is the greatest pastoral mistake and that its consequences for the Church may be disastrous.”

  36. johnhenrycn says:

    …and it seems that Walter Matt and Dietrich von Hildebrand were both more prescient than even our esteemed Pope Benedict for whom it took many years to admit that “the whole thing [VII] went off the rails…” [cf. mmvc at 10:14]

  37. JabbaPapa says:

    Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .
    Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

    To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .

    I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?

    quoted in : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/731872/posts (“Syllabus of 60 “Traditionalist” Errors, Fallacies, and False Principles”) — a very good text, despite some points concerning the SSPX in particular that have lost their validity over the past 15+ years)

  38. JabbaPapa says:

    An appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy

    A false appeal to “authority” is a logical fallacy — Michael Matt has no “authority” in the Holy Catholic Church.

    Vatican II was a “pastoral” Council, not a dogmatic one, and therefore, CCC 752-754 do not stop Catholics from criticizing or opposing its pronouncements and/or the implications of those pronouncements

    Your characterisation of Vatican II is quite false, and you are simply trying to use this falsehood to try and “justify” the ghastly false statement that Catholics might somehow be “free” to “oppose” and “disobey” the entirety of an Ecumenical Council of the Holy Catholic Church.

    Your attitude is objectively schismatic and objectively uncatholic — and if that is genuinely a doctrine that you believe, profess, and teach to others, then you have slipped into a material and formal heresy.

  39. JabbaPapa says:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/731872/posts (“Syllabus of 60 “Traditionalist” Errors, Fallacies, and False Principles”)

    plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose …

    33 : If they can judge popes so severely, I can certainly judge them and their movement.

  40. johnhenrycn says:

    Your attitude is objectively monomanical, and you’re slipping into clinical hysteria.

  41. JabbaPapa says:

    46 : This is not the Catholic spirit; it is the spirit of disobedience, private judgment, and schism.

  42. JabbaPapa says:

    Your attitude is objectively monomanical, and you’re slipping into clinical hysteria.

    No it isn’t, and no I’m not.

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