Below is a link to my latest article on Where Peter Is, critiquing the provenance of a prophecy falsely attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, which has been used to attack the legitimacy of the papacy of Pope Francis:
LifeSiteNews uses false St. Francis quote to attack the pope | Where Peter Is
101 comments:
A really well thought-out and well-delivered argument that it would be very tough to fund any fault with (though I was sad at finding the Prayer of St. Francis is a modern invention). O/T but I couldn't help but think of the irony when my ex lived with her aunt in Co. Antrim, the stuff members of the FPCU would shout at Catholics as they tried to bar them physically from going to Mass are in essence the same attacks coming now from inside of the Church.
Good posting from you Emmett. Benedict warned all Catholics that the greatest persecution of the Catholic church would come from within. There are some who claim to be Catholic who are bad mouthing and misrepresenting what Pope Francis has said and some are saying that he is a heretic. These foolish people do not even understand their own faith. The Pope can never be a heretic. We must pray and support Pope Francis. And also remember the secular media are mostly unfortunately anti Christian and especially anti Catholic. Do not pay any attention to what they write about Pope Francis instead go to the Vatican website and read the truth of what Pope Francis has actually said.
God bless.
The sheer fact that you (Anthony W) call the people who disagree with your subjective evaluation of Pope Francis's leadership "foolish" indicates that your understanding of Catholic faith is not as deep as you think it actually is. Let me humbly remind you brother that Jesus warned you and me against calling anyone a fool (Matthew 5, 22), so think twice before you resort to name-calling next time. You see, you never know whom you have just insulted... Perhaps somewhere in China there is a poor Chinese Catholic who is suffering terrible persecution at the hands of Chinese communists right now and who feels forgotten and betrayed by the Vatican and by Pope Francis. Perhaps, right at this moment, he meets another member of his small persecuted community of faithful Catholics and they start talking about the persecution of their Church, their feelings of betrayal and abandonment, about Pope's deafening silence and the Vatican secret deal with China. Imagine Anthony that they dare to express some unfavourable opinions of Pope Francis and that they actually believe their criticism is more than justifiable by what they see and experience at first hand (in your words, this would probably exemplify "bad mouthing and misrepresenting" what Pope says and does, right?) I don't personally believe Pope Francis is a heretic but after seven years of his pontificate, I have read enough, heard enough and seen enough to know that blaming anti-christian and anti-catholic media for Pope Francis' extensive list of controversial and problematic (to say the least) statements, comments, interviews, footnotes, personal decisions and actions is absurd.... at least as absurd as the claim that Pope Francis is a heretic and false prophet of the Apocalypse. He is not a heretic but does it mean that Pope Francis is a good shepherd who protects his sheep from the wolves and feeds them in good pasture? Faithful, humble, God-fearing Catholics may have different answers to that questions and those who don't give a positive answer should not be called "foolish". God bless you Anthony.
Sylvestre
Just one word here says it all. Pachamama.
Bibbia e Corano sono due facce della stessa Medaglia? Lo ha detto Papa Francesco! Ma la riv elazione nn termina con la morte dell' ultimo apostolo e che nn ci dobbiamo aspettare un'altro
Messia perchè la Divina Rivelazione si è compiuta in Gesù Cristo?
Papa Francesco * non * l'ha detto. Per favore, controlla le tue fonti la prossima volta.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/05/usa-snich/fake-news-pope-francis-did-not-say-koran-and-holy-/
Unfortunately, I've forgotten most of the Italian I knew years ago, so I was only able to get a few bits and snatches of that. Translation, please?
Sorry there JMC, I should have translated (I don't speak any Italian at all, but I keep Google Translate handy on my address bar, haha):
Anonymous said...
Are the Bible and the Koran two sides of the same coin? Pope Francis said it! But the revelation does not end with the death of the last apostle and that we must not expect another
Messiah why was Divine Revelation fulfilled in Jesus Christ?
Jason R. said...
Pope Francis *didn't* say it. Please, check your sources next time.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/05/usa-snich/fake-news-pope-francis-did-not-say-koran-and-holy-/
Thanks. I had a rough idea of what Anon said, but not enough to make any sense out of it. ;D
Mo problem, I've seen, and I hope this doesn't come across as anti-Muslim, I don't mean anything derogatory, but this fake quote being used by some Muslims in Cathplic forums to argue that Pope Francis accepts their prophet as the final revelation from God the Father/Allah,so I have that fact-checking website article link bookmarked for quick access, haha.
In at least two of his comments posted on this blog, Anthony W advises those of us who so often feel perplexed, confused or downright shocked by Pope Francis' words and actions to simply "go to the Vatican website and read the truth of what Pope Francis has actually said". At first glance, this piece of advice sounds like a logical solution to the problem that many of Pope Francis' statements, comments, decisions etc. pose to at least some of the faithful. It is brilliant in its simplicity, isn't it? Of course, those of us who in recent years have made a genuine effort (and in good faith) to check the official Vatican media sources (like the Vatican website) for confirmation, explanation, or clarification of Pope Francis' controversial statements and actions know only too well that the Vatican and Pope Francis himself is known to "hunker down in silence when controversy mounts" (to quote from an article published on America Magazine's website... yes, even America Magazine admits that if you're seeking clarification of Pope's Francis words and actions, the Vatican media outlets are rarely helpful, to say the least). Would you like the Vatican website to explain to you precisely the meaning of Chapter VIII of "Amoris Laetitia"? Well, the Vatican website won't be of much assistance to you in this regard. You'll have to read Pope Francis' letter to a group of Argentine bishops. What about Pope Francis' comment on same-sex civil union featured in a recent documentary? You'll have to go to Archbishop Franco Coppola's Facebook page. What about Scalfari's articles based on a personal interview with Pope Francis? Well, you get the idea... and we can go on and on. But in fact, you don't need the Vatican website to explain to you that you have no reason whatsoever to feel concerned or confused or worried. There are other Catholic media outlets that will put your mind at ease even if your common sense, soul, intuition, life experience, Catholic tradition and sometime even the Catechism tells you otherwise. One of them is certainly wherepeteris.com. You don't like this year's Nativity Scene at the Vatican? Just go to wherepeteris.com and they will let you know there is nothing to worry about. It's beautiful. If your senses tell you otherwise, they are wrong. Is the current pandemic a divine punishment for our sins? No, not really. Wherepeteris.com will explain to you that this is not how things work and God is not "a petulant tyrant". What about Pachamama? Well, it's a complex issue according to wherepeteris.com While "the organizers of the event have made some references to Pachamama", it wasn't necessarily THE Pachamama. So again, don't worry! Did Pope called the idea of declaring Mary co-redemptrix "foolishness". Wherepeteris.com will explain to you that you shouldn't jump into conclusions... So while I have nothing but respect for Emmet's work, I have to admit that I have some reservations about the website where he has decided to publish his article. While some Catholic media outlets depict Pope Francis as a heretic, others (like wherepeteris.com) portray any criticism of Pope Francis' words and actions as completely unfounded and driven by ill will and ignorance. Both of them are biased and exacerbate the existing divisions among the faithful...at least in my humble opinion. God bless.
Sylvestre
I think Ppoe Francis will remain a topic that there will be people on both sides of the fence on here and elsewhere. Personally I love him and think hes exactly what the Church needed and when it need it, but I respect the opinions of those that don't as well. It would be a shame if we got stuck on this topic (yet again) when there absolutely will never be any meeting of the minds on the topic, and maybe that's OK.
There aren't many other websites who want to publish this kind of critique, Sylvestre. I think some websites are so focused on their opposition to Pope Francis, they don't want to actually delve into the ramifications of what the Magisterium of the Church has dogmatically taught about the office of the papacy in relation to public heresy. I'm not attempting to defend against the Pachamama incident, or the prudence of that particular footnote in Amoris Laetitia. I think the Pachamama affair was a serious error of prudential judgement, and obviously angered and upset a lot of Catholics. I think it is quite a stretch of the imagination that Pope Francis intentionally sought to commit idolatry though, or that he is a masonic infiltrator, as some websites would have you believe. I doubt he would have had any personal involvement in the orchestration of that ceremony. He should have distanced himself more from it though. Can the pope make mistakes in the area of prudential judgements and private opinions? Yes, certainly, he is a mere sinful man. Can a pope be a public heretic or lead the Church into open apostasy? No, for Christ prayed that the faith of Peter will not fail. I understand why some Catholics are upset and angry by some of these actions, but we all need to take stock of what the Church actually teaches about the nature of the office of the papacy.
Hello Emmett,
I've only known about you, your blog and your book (which I am about to order) for a few months, but you have already made a huge and positive impact on my spiritual life. You truly are an expert, who is well-read and has huge knowledge and I would like to thank you for what you are doing. This time, though, I decided I won't just read the article, that I need to ask you a question for a first time, and it is about Pope Francis. I am now a critic of him, so anytime I think I went too far, I rush to your website and to the comments under the articles to read you opinion. I am a fairly recent convert to the Catholic faith and I began, of course, as a huge supporter of the papal infallibility. In the next months, I began to doubt. The source of this wasn't the faith itself, it was its main expression - the Mass. In my country, the Czech Republic, we are blessed to be spared from the excesses of the 60's and 70's in the west and have many beautiful and historical churches. What began to bother me, though, was why were there beautiful old altars, with mere tables in front of them, where the Mass was celebrated? Why isn't the language of the Church, latin, used anymore? Why can't I hear beautiful Gregorian chants anymore? Why did the Church abandon its trasure and accepted so much of the liturgy of the Reformation, which it condemmed at the time? Then, I gradually began to see grave liturgical abuses I was warned about on the internet (before I understood Mass more) and as I traveled around Europe, I saw so many Masses that could only be described as clown masses. I was truly confused and I began my journey toward the traditionalists, which were the only ones to make sense, to believe what the Church always believed and celebrate how it always celebrated. With this came my increased hostility toward Francis. I am glad for your arguments in favor of him, because I can balance my opinion this way. It was Benedict XVI. who finally speeded up the "reform of the reform" of the Mass (which I know you are also a fan of) and allowed wider use of the TLM. Then, in 2016, Cardinal Sarah suggested to have every Eucharistic prayer to celebrate ad orientem, and then it happened - Pope Francis said no, and that there would be no reform of the reform. That is just a shock to me and so dissapointing - I could clearly see God taking the Church back to the "law & order", restoring itself, and now this. This finally made my way to the traditionalists and the TLM. It isn't just Francis' controversial remarks, often twisted by the media, but actions like these too. I pray for him, but how can I remain optimistic, when every cardinal he appoints is somewhat like him, often hostile to tradition (for example Celestino Aós Braco, who refused to give Communion to kneeling faithful)? It will be these cardinals deciding the next Pope. How can I have faith in this Pope, when everything seems more and more human-centered and less and less God-centered? When it looks like this Church started only in the 60's and nothing good existed before it and has to be reformed? How can I not give into the theories of the anti-pope and anti-church? Please, Emmett, if you'd have some time to answer me, it would give me a great comfort, because I believe you truly have a special gift to read in the prophecies and signs of times. Thank you very much and God bless.
Sincerely,
Duke
Christ prayed that the faith of Peter will not fail. Yes, but why did Jesus need to pray so earnestly unto God specifically for Peter at all? It seems to me that Jesus prayed for him knowing that he, as a weak human being endowed with free will and subject to relentless and cunning attacks from the Devil, can abandon Him and fall away from Him. And as the Christ had prophesied, Peter did abandon and deny his Master. He abandoned Christ for a short period of time but he nevertheless deserted and disowned Him. Consequently, Christ did not pray that Peter would never abandon or deny Him. He prayed to His Father to bestow upon Peter the grace without which he would not have been able to repent, turn back again to Him and strengthen his brothers after he had fallen away from Him: "I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered, you in your turn must strengthen your brothers." If God allowed Peter to fall away from Christ, even if only temporarily and to draw greater good out of it, it seems to me that He can also allow his successors to fall into error for a limited period of time in order to accomplish some greater purpose. Can we really infer from this passage that the successors of St. Peter can never abandon or deny the Truth? I am aware that according to the Magisterium of the Church, the pope can never teach heresy ex cathedra but the reality of the Church in which we currently live clearly demonstrates that you don’t need to formally change the Magisterium in order to effectively alter it in the eyes of the clergy and the faithful. What really counts here is the practice of the Church. If the practice is changed, then the doctrines, the truths of faith or morals are nothing more than a dead letter to which you need to pay lip service from time to time to keep up appearances. God bless.
Sylvestre
Hello Duke,
I attend the TLM myself as often as I can, and definitely want to see a wider renewal of the liturgy which is proper to the beauty and reverence of the Mass. Again, I think the stripping of the altars etc. is an error of prudential judgement on behalf of the various prelates who have been involved in the implementation of the "spirit of Vatican II". I think it is important to distinguish between errors of prudential judgement from that of doctrinal errors. Papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church does not prevent against errors of prudential judgement concerning the practice of the liturgy or the exercise of pastoral discipline, etc., but it does prevent against a pope from publicly binding the entire Church to doctrinal error.
The Devil wants nothing more than to divide Catholics, and he knows that the best way to achieve this goal is by demanding to sift Peter like wheat. By striking the shepherd, the sheep are scattered. It is no coincidence that Satan's demand to sift Peter like wheat is made in the context of Christ praying for the never-failing faith of Peter in Luke 22:31-32:
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
This is why Satan appeared to a pope in order to demand a period of greater power, because it is Peter who is being tested, so that in the endgame, Satan can claim that Peter's faith has failed, with the ultimate goal of having his most ardent followers deserting him. This is why we must trust in Our Lord's prayer for Peter, and stay united to the pope as the visible head of the Church, and pray for him, so that we may all be one (John 17:21). Satan wants us to be divided against the visible head of the Church, and will use every trick in the book in order to convince us to leave the unity of the faith. So we must be very careful not to fall into this type of deception. It is possible to retain your love for the TLM and still be united to the pope as the head of the universal Church, while disagreeing with the various prudential judgments that have been made in the past 60 years.
Sylvestre, if you read St. Robert Bellarmine's De Romano Pontiface, he argues that Christ's prayer for the faith of Peter only came into effect when he commissioned him to feed his flock before His ascension into heaven - i.e. after his denial took place. Tradition and the Magisterium teach that a pope cannot fall into formal heresy in his authentic magisterium (not just the extraordinary magisterium or ordinary universal magisterium). The Fathers of the First Vatican Council were very explicit that they were elevating Bellarmine's "opinion" on this subject to the level of dogma in the offical Relatio of Vatican I, which is the dogma of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See. We simply cannot choose to reject the implications of a dogma of the faith because it is not compatible with a certain worldview.
Thank you very much Emmett. I expected no less from you, than a great response, which I got. God bless you.
Duke
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my posts Emmett. I very much appreciate it. I have one more question...If the implication of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See is that a pope can never teach anything contrary to the Truth and the Church's magisterium (even temporarily as was the he case with John XXII), how should an ordinary Catholic interpret and respond to a situation in which one pope contradicts another in the expression of doctrinal views and, in doing so, invokes his infallible teaching authority? In your previous post, you seem to share the opinion that Pope Francis' teaching on the admission of divorced and civilly remarried members of the faithful to Holy Communion is doctrinally dubious. However, you construe and interpret it merely as "mistake in the area of prudential judgements and private opinions". The problem is that Pope Francis does not seem to see it this way. During his visit to Thailand, Pope Francis made it clear that the eight chapter of Amoris Laetitia belongs to the Magisterium of the Church. Of course, someone could try to argue that his teaching does not contradict the perennial Catholic doctrine but sheer honesty demands to regard such attempts as sort of doctrinal acrobatics. So is Pope Francis simple wrong declaring his teaching on divorced and remarried as part of the Magisterium of the Church?
God bless
Sylvestre
I have long suspected you were the "Las in Ulaidh".
I think I'm right too.
There is a glaring omission in the comparison of Christ praying for St. Peter vs. every single pope that came after him because the Paraclete hadn't arrived; remember the Apostles casting lots after the Crucifixion because they were completely lost without Jesus and had no idea what to do? Again, because Pentecost hadn't happened yet, they didn't have the Holy Spirit in them to guide them, nor did St. Peter, which is precisely why Jesus prayed for him. I learned this in grade 6 catechism in the Q&A before our Confirmation when a particularly sharp kid asked the Archbishop why the Apostles would engage in something that looked very much like divination by using dice to decide what to do, and that's the answer we got back.
Sylvestre, with the case of Pope John XII, his heretical beliefs concerning the resurrection were only expressed in a capacity as a private teacher. He did not attempt to extend these beliefs to be held by the whole Church. Bellarmine's position (which was adopted at Vatican I) was that a pope can hold to materially heretical beliefs, but that the Holy Spirit would prevent him from becoming a formal heretic by proposing heretical beliefs to be held by the whole Church.
The case with AL doesn't involve the change of Church doctrine, but the application of pastoral discipline. If AL stated that all divorced remarried people could receive Holy Communion because marriage was no longer to be considered as indissoluble, that would involve a change in doctrine. AL asserts that if someone was in a second marriage, and were personally convinced that a prior marriage bond was invalid (meaning the second marriage is potentially the valid sacramental bond), then they could discuss approaching the sacraments in the internal forum solution. Previously, introducing the internal forum solution was thought to be imprudent, because it can give the impression that the Church teaching on divorce and remarriage has changed, when in reality it cannot. You can certainly question the prudence of the Magisterium allowing this change of pastoral discipline. I don't think it is a good idea either, but it can't involve heresy, because no doctrine has been changed or denied.
If after the Pentecost St. Peter was divinely guarded and prevented from falling into any possible error pertaining to the Catholic doctrine, then why did St. Paul have to resist and rebuke him publicly for not consistently practising the gospel of grace? St. Paul writes in his letter to Galatians that "when Cephas came to Antioch, then I did oppose him to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong" (Gal 2:11-21)? Was St. Peter a heretic when he taught or, at least, believed that gentiles must become Jews in order to be accepted by God? Of course, he was not. Did he need the power of the Holy Ghost working through St. Paul to change his position and not to fall into error though? It seems to me that he did. God bless.
Sylvestre
Are you sure Emmett that your interpretation of AL is consistent with the Buenos Aires bishops’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which Pope Francis formally declared the "authentic magisterium" and the "correct" way to deal with the whole issue? In their letter, the Buenos Aires bishops did not narrow down its applicability to situations where, as you write, "someone was in a second marriage, and were personally convinced that a prior marriage bond was invalid". The bishops stated that in “more complex cases” the option of living in continence “may not, in fact, be feasible,” but a path of discernment is “still possible.” They added: “If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability, especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist. These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.” It seems to me that your reading and interpretation of this document differs from the Buenos Aires bishops' and Pope Francis' understanding of its implications. As I was trying to argue in one of my previous posts, it is possible to change the spirit, understanding and practical application of the Magisterium without formally changing its letter, for example by directly or indirectly legitimising doctrinally dubious interpretation of some Church doctrine. Thank you again for a thought-provoking and stimulating exchange. God bless.
Sylvestre
The dispute between St. Peter and St. Paul was over the application of pastoral discipline, not doctrine. I would say that the scenario where "someone was in a second marriage, and were personally convinced that a prior marriage bond was invalid" would explain the "limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability". I'm not saying that it is prudent to give this allowance, just that it can't be heretical, since it doesn't explicitly deny the indissolubility of marriage. To claim that a pope can fall into formal heresy by binding the entire Church to a doctrinal error is to deny the dogma of the indefectibility of the Petrine See, on which the dogma of papal infallibility finds its foundation. To me, that's just as doctrinally erroneous as explicitly denying the indissolubility of marriage.
The problem with that argument is, of course, that not everything a pope writes in an encyclical, or even in an ecumenical council for that matter, is binding on the faithful. Otherwise Latin would be the primary language of the mass, as Vatican II taught.
Emmett has written defending Pope Francis by extending papal infallibility beyond what Vatican I taught. He's written that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but he's still without error when speaking outside of ex cathedra statements, which is complete nonsense. The word "infallible" literally means "without error.". Saying "the pope is only infallible while speaking ex cathedra, but remains without error when not speaking ex cathedra" literally means "the pope is only without error when speaking from the chair, but he remains without error when not speaking from the chair." The argument is complete nonsense and depends upon the person reading it to not simply translate the terms into English (or whatever their tongue may be).
The indefectibility of the church simply means that the church will always retain the deposit of faith. It says nothing about whether or not an individual bishop of Rome can hold personally heretical views and even teach them outside of dogmatically binding statements. The dogmas are protected from error, their personal statements and writings are not.
Emmett,
What Francis is or is not may be the subject of debate. What is not in dispute is that John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio 84 taught that the Church's teaching denying communion to D&R's is a constant and universal practice of the Church based on Sacred Scripture (i.e., a discipline inextricably linked to a doctrinal truth).
If this is not clear in itself, JP II goes on to state that “by acting in this way” — i.e., the Church’s practice he just outlined — “the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth.” Thus, the implication is clear: to have acted or to act in any other way contrary to this practice (I.e., denying communion to public adulterers/D&Rs), the Church would be acting contrary to Christ and to His truth. The CDF under Ratzinger strongly reaffirmed this in swatting down a German dubia which posed the possibility of exceptions to the rule of FC 84. The CDF, with JP II's sign off, explicitly rejected that any exception was possible. All these were acts of the magisterium because JP II used terms such as "the Church reaffirms"..and "the Church professes"...and the CDF used similar expressions with his approval. No where does Francis speak in such a manner...not even close.
What do we find instead? Now, as to what Francis did with AL, he himself in AL 3 said he did not intend to make an "intervention of the magisterium." Dr. Fastiggi has called this out as well. The import of the AAS on the question of AL does not change this, the bottom line is Francis has not explicitly made a definitive ruling binding on the whole Church, thus, he seems to be in a similar position as John XXII relative to the Church's received understanding of the Beatific Vision of his time. That is, as Bellarmine put it as he did in the case of John XXII, he could be excused because the dogma 'has not yet been worked out', i.e., not formally defined.
There are many other things Francis has said and done which are gravely problematic (e.g., Pachamama, Scalfari's interviews, etc), but fortunately, as confusing as these truly are, he has not attempted to bind the Church definitively to these either. Another example, he wrote a preface to Stephen Walford's book...something I find quite scandalous, particularly in regard to the hypothetical case put forward by Walford (e.g., I discuss here: https://romalocutaest.com/2019/05/05/pope-francis-the-open-letter-and-the-pesky-preface/). JP II and BXVI and the magisterium were firm and clear that D&Rs engaged in adulterous acts *must* confess, and have a firm purpose of amendment. Francis does not appear to require this, as the condition to live as brother and sister is no longer required (e.g., read Walford's book).
In the end analysis...Francis in so far as he has not attempted to define an error and definitively bind the Church to it, appears destined to be John XXII plus Honorius times 1,000,000. I do think a future pope and/or council will look into Francis, and will treat him like an Honorius. But, before that happens, may God convert him so that he might confirm the brethren.
Regards,
Steve
The teachings of the papal magisterium are binding on all Catholics as obsequium religiosum - demanding submission of the will and intellect. If any pope taught heresy in the ordinary magisterium he would become a formal heretic. I've already explained to you at length KEP that infallible means that a teaching is definitive and irreformable, while the teachings of the ordinary magisterium are non-definitive (i.e. open to development of doctrine) and non-irreformable. The magisterial teachings of previous popes and the Tradition of the Church explicitly state that a pope is still offered Divine assistance in his ordinary magisterium. The view you subscribe to, where you need only give religious submission of the will and intellect to the infallible teachings of the extraordinary magisterium is the Gallican heresy.
Bellarmine was quite clear that the Church is only indefectible because the Petrine See is indefectible, in the same way that the Church is only infallible because it has an infallible judge in the successor of St. Peter, which is why Vatican I was able to proclaim the dogma of papal infallibility.
This is made explicit in St. Thomas Aquinas' Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:
"And the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And they will fight against you, and will not prevail (Jer 1:19). And who are the gates of hell? Heretics, because just as one enters into a house through a gate, so one enters into hell through these. Also tyrants, demons, sins. And although other churches can be reproached for heretics, yet the Roman church was not corrupted by heretics, because it was founded upon the rock. Hence there were heretics in Constantinople, and the apostles’ labor was lost; only Peter’s church remained inviolate. Hence, but I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not (Luke 22:32). And this does not only refer to Peter’s church, BUT TO PETER'S FAITH, and to the whole western church. Hence I believe that those in the west owe more reverence to Peter than to the other apostles."
sad commentary when catholics have to choose whether Francis is a material or a formal heretic. Do most catholics even know about this or even care? (Only thinking catholics concerned about their faith do. A minor % i would guess care). Or that we have to cringe almost every time he speaks. That even some red hats have to publicly question what the pope means, demand an answer only to get snubbed.
Or whether we should accept everything he espouses or have the right to resist. Gee, what would happen if everyone agreed with everything he says? Shouldn't be any problem here, right?
KEP makes a good point. It would appear that no matter what the pope says is to be taken as gospel. Error cannot be found regarding Francis because he is without error in and out of ex cathedra.
sam
Rhona: What's a "Las in Ulaidh"?
The claim that Pope Francis is a formal heretic is important to make note of, because it:
A)Falls into the trap of the Gallican heresy
B)Denies a de fide tenenda dogma (the indefectibility of the Apostolic See)
C)Places one in open schism for refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. (Canon 751)
So it renders the adherents of this claim both heretics and schismatics, and therefore not eligible for Holy Communion.
aren't sedes the only ones claiming the formal status of PF? Who here has defined themselves as sede?
Emmett,
The possibility a pope might fall into formal heresy, and doing so in such a way without attempting to bind it on the rest of the Church, has never been formally excluded. While Bellarmine was of the opinion this could not happen, and was of the same opinion as Pighius...he offered his opinions on what would happen should it happen.
While submission of mind and intellect is owed as you say, this cannot be used to sneak in a creeping infallibilism through the back door. Vatican I defined precise conditions for us to know a teaching is without the possibility of error. If **anything** the pope said on a matter even touching on faith and morals excluded the possibility of error; the precision of the conditions specified at Vatican I would be completely unnecessary, and indeed would be puzzling (i.e., why specify a precise dogmatic definition explicating the conditions for solemn declarations, but not less formal ones?).
Now, the teachings of past popes, BXVI and JPII only being the most recent, on the question of communion for public adulterers/D&Rs are certainly no less worthy of submission that]n Francis's AL. The difficulty is, the latter -- which says exceptions are possible -- flat out contradicts the former, which say NO EXCEPTIONS are possible (and this explicitly said to be founded on Divine Revelation, and being a 'constant and universal practice of the Church'). The Faithful Catholic is left in a conundrum. Either the former teaching, a constant and universal practice founded on Divine Revelation, is in error; or Francis is in error. It is one or the other. There is no "development" from "no exceptions" to "some exceptions" for that is a contradiction that does no qualify under Newman as a true development.
The problem is, there is an irreconcilable contradiction. If you want to say Francis has not made an error, then that only shifts the error to BXVI, JPII, etc. The problem remains. The simplest defense of Francis might say he is in a similar position as John XXII was to the doctrine of the Beatific Vision when he spoke erroneously about it, i.e., in as much as the teaching of FC 84 (and elsewhere) has never been formally dogmatized (to my knowledge). So in this sense, Francis is not a 'formal' heretic; in that the received teaching has not been previously dogmatized in a solemn sense, and Francis himself never intended to bind the Church to his teaching (and he hasn't, e.g., see AL 3).
That is a charitable take on Francis, who, imo, has been a disaster for the Church.
Steve
It seems that KEP has adapted the stance that Pope Francis is a formal heretic, judging from comments on previous posts. I just want to make the gravity of such a claim fully explicit, in the hope that he/she will revise this position. Do you think that Pope Francis is a formal heretic KEP?
The position of the signatories of the open letter aren't that much different, other than they claim that the teachings of AL aren't magisterial (which is untrue). If a pope was to teach a private heretical opinion as part of his public magisterium, he becomes formally heretical. That's why Pope John XXII wasn't a formal heretic. I find it interesting Steve that you admit that a change in the application of pastoral discipline is not "heretical" in that it does not deny a de fide credenda dogma, yet you still seem to endorse their claim that Pope Francis is a heretic? That position doesn't seem to make much sense? You seem to be aware of the three levels of assent required detailed in the Professio Fidei...
Emmett,
The practice of denying communion is not simply or merely a pastoral discipline (e.g., veils). The practice is *inextricably* linked to a doctrine of the faith. Ratzinger at CDF wrote of such practices inextricably linked to doctrine:
“It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. (Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, June 29 1998. (n. 17). Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)
If one reads closely how JP II, BXVI, the CDF, PCLT speak of the practice of denying communion to public adulterers/D&Rs, it is clear the practice defended in FC 84 is inextricably linked to Revelation, and is said to be what the 'Church professes in fidelity to Christ'. In many places both JPII and BXVI and CDF speak of what the Church 'reaffirms', professes, or what the Church "can only invite", i.e., D&Rs are not to receive. It is a practice in which a doctrine is implicitly expressed.
But the AL controversy has many other doctrinal threads, e.g., effectively allowing situation ethics. There are questions touching on the sacraments, e.g., the Walfordian interpretation says in certain cases that public adulterers/D&Rs could know and understand the Decalogue, and that their former marriage(s) are still valid, know what they are doing is evil, and yet still not need to confess their adultery, nor need to have a firm purpose of amendment if doing so before receiving Holy Communion. If you doubt that, read Walford's book. I gave a link to my article on the Pope's preface to it, and cited Walford's example.
Francis appears* to be in doctrinal error, perhaps several of them. Whether his error has risen to the level of being "formal heresy", this must be judged by competent ecclesiastical authorities (i.e., a future pope).
*I say "appears" because there are at least two views of AL among Francis "defenders". There is the Walfordian view which says something changed in AL, e.g., there can be exceptions where D&Rs need not live together as brother and sister. Then there is Dr. Fastiggi who seems to say nothing has essentially changed, i.e., he appears to say that D&R couples must still live as brother and sister as FC 84 taught. Given the confusion seemingly shared among Francis defenders (assuming Fastiggi has not caved to the Walfordian view); there still seems to be a narrow path to save Francis here from the charge of either material or formal heresy--but in my view, this path is rather strained, if not impossible at this point.
It seems to me, the *best* that can be said for Francis is that AL is confused, and can be read in an orthodox or heterodox fashion (thus it "Favors heresy" at a minimum). However, that Francis refuses to answer the dubia, that he provided a preface to Walford (surely knowing his views, or at least, should have), etc., it is difficult/near impossible to say Francis did not intend a Walfordian interpretation--thus opening up the can of worms.
In which case, that returns us to what I wrote before. AL is a flat out contradiction of the received teaching (cf FC 84)...something which is inescapable. In Vatican I, we are only guaranteed that if a pope attempts to definitively bind something on all the faithful, something to be definitively held, we are assured it is free of error. Francis has not attempted this...so "what" is going on with him is an open question.
Regards,
Steve
Thanks for clarifying that Steve.
As I have stated above, it is not my intention to defend AL, and I feel the teaching in FC 84 much more clear, prudent, and preferable. My point is that there are serious theological consequences with claiming that a pope can lapse into formal heresy. St. Thomas Aquinas didn't allow for such a possibility, and neither did St. Albertus Magnus. Their views of the papacy steered the Dominican Order against the concilarists, were refined by St. Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez and were dogmatized at Vatican I. In the official Relatio of Vatican I, Bishop Gasser made clear that it was not the views of Pighius that was being dogmatized, but those of Bellarmine. While Bellarmine agreed with some of Pighius' views, unlike Pighius he allowed for the possibility that a pope can teach material heresy in a capacity as a private theologian. As the Relatio makes clear, the dogma of papal infallibility directly depends on the dogma of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See. If a future pope was to condemn Pope Francis as a formal heretic, then he would have to conclude that the Apostolic See is not indefectible, with the consequence of denying a de fide credenda dogma (papal infalliblity), which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, which ironically would thus make such a hypothetical future pope a formal heretic. Do you see the seriousness of this problem? This has a knock-on effect to the very source of papal authority. Cardinal Muller is aware of this conundrum, which is why he has been very careful of his criticisms of AL. I would strongly advise following Cardinal Muller's critical take, in that it can be read in an orthodox fashion.
Hi Emmett. I think you have clarified things very well here. Those that accuse Pope Francis of heresy or deny the legitimacy of Vatican 11 have excluded themselves from the Catholic faith and are schismatics and are in danger of excommunicating themselves by their actions.
One point about the Amazon Synod and the Pachamama incident. If you watch the ceremony when the Pachamama are introduced you can clearly see the surprise in Pope Francis's eyes and i think it is clear that he did not know that they would bring the Pachamama with them. I would appeal to Catholics not to be so critical of Pope Francis. This is a storm in a tea cup as they say. It only becomes so important if people want it to be and want to read all sorts of devilish conspiracies into it all. This was not idolatry or blasphemy or heresy, it was only the Amazonian Indians bringing along some of their cultural artefacts. Come on lets all support one another and the Roman Catholic church. Unity is our strength.
God bless
Anthony W
Emmett,
Thanks very much for the discussion.
It does not pleasure me to consider the possibility of error and or heresy, material or formal, in Francis. But, as I see it, we must follow the facts, and then shape our understanding of what has happened accordingly. Here are four bits of evidence, as I see it:
(1) Gasser's Relatio, as Fr. O'Connor nicely summarizes in his translation of it, "treats" of the pope when he is defining (1) as supreme teacher of the Church, (2) a matter of faith or morals, (3) to be definitely held by the Church. This is clear from Pastor Aeturnus itself, particularly chapter IV.
Put in a NEGATIVE sense, Pastor Aeturnus' definition of papal infallibility does NOT treat of the pope, even as a public person, when he is NOT acting in his role of supreme teacher with the intent of binding the Church on some matter of faith and morals.
(2) Nowhere has Francis taught under the conditions taught in Pastor Aeturnus, even as a public person.
(3) In the teaching found in FC 84, we have a "constant and universal practice of the Church" and the constant teaching of JPII and BXVI and other popes of what the "Church professes", "the Church reaffirms", "the Church can only", etc.; which make it probable, if not certain, we are speaking of a doctrine taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church which is infallible. Indeed, the CDF under JPII said his teaching is "presented as binding" and there can be no "exceptions."
(4) If we accept that Walford has correctly interpreted Francis, as seems to be the case in my opinion; then it is clear Francis has fallen into "error" in AL, possibly in several or more ways. This is not excluded by #1, 2, or 3.
Until the papacy of Pope Francis, I would have agreed with you, as a matter of a pious opinion, that it is only possible for the pope as a "private person" to err materially, and as a public person to "favor heresy". Undoubtedly, history has given us such cases only (so far?).
Yet, in Francis, we have a barrel full of worms. Aside from AL, for example, the Scalfari interviews allege to show us a Francis who is something of a formal heretic, even apostate. Granted, Scalfari has much baggage...but why then does Francis keep going back to him, and why does Francis not correct Scalfari's account? I keep thinking of the latin phrase: Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (“who is silent seems to agree, where he ought to speak and was able to”). (see https://romalocutaest.com/2019/11/08/why-blame-scalfari/). But there are other issues as well.
CCC 675 speaks of an end-time "religious deception", and Scriptures speak of even the elect possibly being deceived. Therefore, as a matter of prudence, I think we should tread carefully in asserting, as if we really know, where the limits are for how far Divine Providence might allow things to go to test us--lest we deceive ourselves and others unintentionally. We only really know for certain what Vatican I (point #2) explicitly defined, which is where error is to be excluded, i.e., when the pope sets out to make a dogmatic definition with certain conditions present. Short of that, let's await the judgment of the Church. All this is to say, I don't think we can conclude it is certain a pope might not apostasize, effectively walking away from the throne of Peter, or that a pope in conversation with a journalist might utter something which is formal heresy. We can be certain a pope will not definitively teach apostasy, or a formal heresy...that is what we really know.
While I don't offer this final thought here as a "proof" by any means, but rather as a cautionary tale; I have always found it curious that Cardinal Ciappi, who read the 3rd Secret (I believe), said when speaking of the content of that secret, something to the effect of "...the apostasy in the Church begins at the top."
Regards,
Steve
Bishop Gasser made it clear that the dogma of infallibility was based on the dogma of the indefectibility of the Apostlic See. Papal infallibity is concerned with defining dogma, while indefectiblity prevents against a pope falling into heresy. They are separate, but related subjects. So the protection against heresy cannot be confined to the ex catherdra pronouncements of the extraordinary magisterium (which are very rare). Protection against heresy does not equal infallibility, but it does mean that a pope can make infallible definitions. This is why papal infallibility is a secondary object of the indefectibility of the Petrine See.
As Bellarmine states:
“The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of all Catholics.”
Below are Bellarmine's four propositions for defending the position that the Fathers of the First Vatican voted to ratify in the dogmatic constitution:
1) The pope can never err when he teaches to the whole Church in matters pertaining to faith.
2) “Not only can the Roman Pontiff not err in faith, but even the particular Roman Church cannot err”.
3)“Not only can the Supreme Pontiff not err in decrees of faith, but even in precepts of morals which are prescribed for the whole Church…”
4)“It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith.
This is why Pope St John Paul II could state that:
“Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, granted to Peter and his successors so that they would not err in matters of faith and morals, but rather shed great light on the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases” General Audience, March 24, 1993
Emmett,
Thanks for your response.
Please cite, specifically, where in Gasser he says what you say he says, including *his* references to Bellarmine in context to make the argument you allege. Also, please cite where the indefectability of the Apostolic See is *more* than the infallible judgments of the popes, i.e., those teachings that do not meet the criteria of Vatican I's Pastor Aeturnus.
While you are at it, please cite, in Gasser's Relatio where he says a pope is free from error when he does not intend to define something definitively for the whole Church to accept on a matter of faith and morals -- and that this, and not only the infallible teaching of the apostolic see, are a component of the indefectability of the Apostolic See as well.
Regards,
Steve
"These things are said about the opinion of Bellarmine. As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.” From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion." Relatio of chapter 4 of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, par. 40
If the indefectibility of the Apostolic See referred solely to the exercise of papal infallibility, it wouldn't be a separate dogma. You can't conflate both dogmas, and state that the pope is only indefectible when making infallible definitions.
Below is an excerpt from the Catholic Encylopedia on the indefectibiltiy of the Church, which is directly based on the schema of Vatican I:
"The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, "faithlessness cannot gain access" (Epistle 54)."
Emmett, instead if inquiring whether these are the words of St. Francis or not, take it as a "London Prophecy of AD 1882". After all, this prophecy was published 131 years before the Destroyer appeard in the Vatican.
Emmett,
The Vatican I definition says 'free from error under certain conditions', and Gasser says in the Relatio that Pastor Aeturnus treats of the pope as public person *when* he attempts to define a doctrine for the whole Church. The Apostolic See would defect from the faith if it were to make a dogmatic profession binding on the whole Church which is formally heretical. I agree this much is impossible. Whether it is possible for a pope to personally fall into apostasy or formal heresy is not resolved.
Prior to Francis, my pious opinion was this could not happen. However, given all that we have seen come out of Francis, I have "suspended" that opinion. The Open Letter, I think, makes a strong case for formal heresy, but even they say it must be judged by others.
FC contradicted by AL, potential for situation ethics, Pachamama, Scalfari, etc....We are in uncharted territory with Francis. It is natural that faithful Catholics, in the absence of papal or episcopal leadership, are trying to make heads or tails of it all. None of the choices are obvious or attractive at this point in time...but these Catholic reaching in the dark for a solution, just as much as you, accept the indefectability of the Church. At this point, pretty much the only 'solution' I absolutely reject is the theory that Benedict is still pope (I've written many articles rebutting that theory: https://romalocutaest.com/2020/02/11/summa-contra-the-bip-theory-why-benedict-xvi-is-not-the-pope/).
I will empathize with the future pope who will need to address this pontificate, and fix things because Francis has created quite the mess.
Steve
Believe, me Steven, I understand your dilemma. You seem like a good guy, and you can certainly follow this very complicated line of theological argument a lot better than the vast majority of Catholics. All that sort of stuff you mention bothers me as much as the next person. I'm glad you are not going down the Benevacantist or sedevacantist route, and you have clearly done your research on this topic. I have found your criticisms very engaging and respectful, and I hope we can discuss this topic in more detail in the future. I am currently writing an article on this subject, and I have found your perspective and insights quite helpful in this regard.
God bless you.
For myself, as I am no theologian, I've found that the safest bet is to stick with the perennial tradition of the Church, and follow the advice a very wise priest gave me many years ago: Pray the Rosary every day. Our Lady will never lead you astray.
.
God bless, and peace to all in this house. ;D
I've just came across this recent blog post by Dave Armstrong. In it, Prof. Robert Fastiggi also backs my conclusion that Bellarmine's opinion that a pope cannot fall into formal heresy was dogmatised during the First Vatican Council. Prof. Fastiggi is one of the most finest dogmatic theologians in the English speaking world.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/12/dialogue-7-w-1p5-columnist-timothy-flanders.html
Thank you all! I learned a lot!
I was under the impression the prophecy, which is not doctrinally-protected from error, was that there would be one, not canonically-elected pope, who would be the anti-prophet. Does “non-canonically-elected” necessarily mean “invalid”? If it does and Francis were not pope, the arguments of what a pope can or cannot do or say infallibly would not apply, right? We have had gaps between popes till the next became elected and we have had “the three popes” crisis, where some would have followed either false popes. Could it not also happen that a valid pope could step down and a false one become pope, though seemingly canonically? Would outside influence invalidate a pope’s election? Can there be a kind of annulment of an elected pope on any grounds?
Is confusion being sowed in areas in which doctrine does not cover, so that heresy is not even the issue, the work of The Devil? Those could be seeming confusions, as our enemies like to point out contradictions that actually don’t exist within Scripture and between Scripture and Church teaching. As one said, he won’t clarify them.
All that in consideration, should we not assume that Christ has let it happen and we should accept his leadership as a punishment or a test? We lay people either don’t have the knowledge attained by higher clergy and don’t have the authority to determine that and my questions are maybe half-intellectual, in that I would not mind having a way for Benedict 16th to remain pope. We would just have to teach children and others the magisterial truth and we should give PF the benefit of the doubt regarding his character. I would even suggest we should probably obey him in small matters where interpretations of doctrines of his are not perceived as inherently evil. I think we don’t feel heard by some zealous defenders of Pope Francis in all he says, such as those regarding the moral imperative of receiving the vaccines. Much could be left to the bishops for specifics, where the only vaccine was made of feral cells or where not all immigrants are family people trying to make a better life for themselves. Maybe our bishop or, if one’s bishop is problematic, a majority of them could fill in the details of the seemingly confusing wording of papal documents. I don’t know how much liberty they can take with them—especially if The Pope refuses to clarify them.
Regarding the silence as an admittance of guilt, I think one would also have to accuse Christ of guilt for sins levelled against him by the Sanhedrin and for claims of treason of theirs Pilate wanted clarified.
Emmett,
You keep on saying Vatican I dogmatized your position. Here is the dogmatic definition of Pastor Aeturnus, and the attached anathema TO THE DEFINITION:
"And so, we have the tradition from the Christian faith, and the beginning of the received have been faithfully adhering to the foundations, to the appearing of our Savior the glory, of the Catholic religion, exaltation and of the Christians to the faith, approval of the sacred council, teach, and be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when the Christian pastor and doctor office as the supreme Apostolic authority teaching on faith and morals throughout the whole Church be held by the divine assistance to him in blessed Peter promised that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer Church in his defining doctrine of faith or morals to be decided; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.
If anyone does not contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid, have the temerity; let him be anathema."
(see http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-pastor-aeternus-18-iulii-1870.html)
As the Definition explicitly states, and as Gasser says in the Relatio (see Fr. O'Connor on this point as well, which I quoted in an earlier response), it ONLY treats of the pope **when** he is defining a matter of faith and morals to be definitively held by all the faithful.
In other words, this DOGMATIC Definition above says nothing of when the pope is NOT speaking in such a way, i.e., short of a doctrinal definition. If you are suggesting otherwise, point out to me in Pastor Aeturus another **DOGMATIC DEFINITION** in addition to the one I quoted above which defines what you say is DOGMATIZED, as well as any attached anathema to that definition. Please quote such a DOGMATIC DEFINITION.
Regarding, Dr. Fastiggi...I am curious as to Dr. Fastiggi's opinion on Walford's interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. The two are in contradiction to one another (see https://romalocutaest.com/2019/03/01/confusion-at-vatican-insider/). Dr. Fastiggi, as I understand him at least, believes Francis has proposed no change to FC 84; i.e., D&Rs in an objective state of adultery cannot receive communion. To my knowledge, Dr. Fastiggi has not argued FC 84 is a simply a discipline that can be changed. Why then would go to the lengths to show Francis made no change to FC 84? What then does Dr. Fastiggi make of Francis' preface to Walford's book? What would Dr. Fastiggi say if Walford's interpretation turns out to be right one instead, i.e., Francis made a change to FC 84?
In fairness to Dr. Fastiggi, he may in fact have already commented on all these things in one fashion or another, and I may have missed them. If you know where, please point me to them, I'd be most interested.
Now all this is not to say I reject the theory a pope cannot fall into formal heresy/apostasy even short of a doctrinal definition; as I said, that was my pious opinion as well, for now "suspended." I just don't see it dogmatized as of yet, certainly not in the true sense of the word.
I am curious though, if it could be ever demonstrated to you, let's say hypothetically, that Francis had fallen into formal heresy or apostasy...what then would be your hypothetical 'escape hatch'? That he was never a true pope, or that you were mistaken as to whether a true pope could fall into formal heresy short of a doctrinal definition?
Regards,
Steve
The dogma of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See was not solemnly defined at Vatican I, which is why I have been careful to state it is a de fide tenenda dogma, rather than a de fide credenda. It was raised from sententia probabilis to de fide tendenda at Vatican I as a non-defined dogma in order for papal infallibility to be solemnly defined. This is why Bishop Gasser stated that Bellarmine's position ruling out the possibility of a heretical pope was being dogmatised. Papal infalliblity is a secondary object of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See, if that was being solemnly defined, then indefectibility was being automatically raised to dogma as a direct consequence. The dogma of indefectiblity didn't need to be solemnly defined, because it is an infallible teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium and is directly based on Scripture, which the CDF commentary on the Professio Fidei states only needs to be affirmed or reaffirmed in the ordinary magisterium, rather than being solemnly defined. The dogma of indefectibily was affirmed in Pastor aeternus in a non-defining act immediately before papal infallibility was solemnly defined - the section which mentions the never-failing faith of the successors of St. Peter. Bishop Gasser explicitly stated in the Relatio that papal infallibility was directly based on the indefectibility of the Apostolic See. De fide tenenda dogmas are by definition non-defined dogmas, it does not mean that they are not dogmas, and can be ignored because they have not been solemnly defined. Pope Pius X condemned the type of mentality that we need only pay heed to solemnly defined dogmas in his syllabus of errors.
There is no escape hatch. The CDF commentary on the Professio fidei states that the results of papal elections are infallible, which is in turn based on the infalliblity of the sensus fidelium. If you could successfully demonstrate that Pope Francis has committed heresy by changing doctrine rather changing the exercise of pastoral discipline, then the only thing you are doing is demonstrating that the First Vatican Council was wrong, the Apostolic See is not indefectible, and as a direct consequence there is no such thing as papal infalliblity.
Emmett,
Thanks again for the discussion.
Vatican I certainly enables us to see the Apostolic See is indefectible, which is it cannot formally **teach** a heresy to be definitively held by the faithful. It will never formally profess heresy. We may always depend on its extraordinary and ordinary acts intended to bind the faithful. Whether it is possible for a pope to personally fall into apostasy or formal heresy, remains IMO, unsettled. There I leave our difference.
Still, as I originally stated, my opinion on the question is similar to yours. However, I have 'suspended', but not rejected, my former opinion because of many things Francis has done (e.g., Scalfari interviews, AL, DP, etc). As I outlined in one my earlier comments, AL -- as interpreted by those who have spoken 'for' Francis (e.g., Coccopalmerio, Walford, etc.) -- contradicts all of what came before.
Cardinal Muller, on the other hand, appears to believe AL, *properly interpreted* could be seen in light of the magisterium; but he clearly does not believe in a Walfordian interpretation. So, even if Muller or others can manage to 'save' AL; then all of those whom Francis allowed to climb out on the heretical limb will find it sawed off behind them. What remains to be seen is on which end of the limb Francis will be sitting when the chainsaw is fired up. Personally, I tend toward the view he will receive the Honorius treatment; but it really would not surprise me if a more severe judgment is declared.
In the meantime, I do pray for Francis, that the Lord will convert him, so that he might confirm the brethren.
Regards,
Steve
Thanks for the interesting and cordial discussion Steven. It is a pleasure to debate with someone about such a divisive topic in a pleasant and respectful manner. I don't think our opinions are quite so far apart. My main concern is that all Catholics should remain united during these testing times.
Thank you, Emmett for shedding much needed light on this matter.
Carlos Caso-Rosendi
This was a long but very edifying read, good discussion.
Hi again, Emmett. I was thinking - could the second Pentecost be the restoration of Latin as the main language of the liturgy of the Church, maybe by the next Pope? That there would be only one language again?
Personally, I think the return of Latin would be a start. If nothing else, it would restore a sense of unity among all the various ethnic groups in any one parish. There's another phenomenon I've noticed in parishes where Latin is used, even if the Mass is the Novus Ordo (Yes, it can be celebrated in Latin!): People are somehow automatically more receptive to solidly orthodox Catholicism. Once, when I visited such a parish, in speaking to some of the people there, I discovered that many of them used to be "cafeteria Catholics," but, upon exposure to a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, found Something drawing them into a fuller practice of the faith.
.
Further, I think even the simple act of the priest turning around to offer the Novus Ordo ad orientem would have the same effect. There's one diocese in America that tried it (I think it was Chicago, but I can't be sure), and they noticed the difference in the congregations almost immediately. More people attended Mass. More youth started attending. And they've found that the usual half-hour provided on Saturday for Confession wasn't enough.
I've recently attended TLM and have found it calming, quiet and much more holy/reverent. Too much clutter in the NO. Latin in the NO would not make much difference IMO for there is still the commotion, the cacophony that goes on. I don't much like the readings in Latin, i'll grant you that.
bruce
Hi Duke,
I would love to see a widespread restoration of the Latin liturgy. It has crossed my mind that such an event could in some way lead to a renewal of the Church, and the one language aspect does bring to mind a reversal of Babel - which was the primary sign indicated by the speaking in tongues during the original Pentecost. I think the Second Pentecost will be about much more than the restoration of the liturgy, though. It will be initiated by the ministry of the Two Witnesses, who will bring the masses to a deeper understanding of the truth of Catholicism.
Beautiful and fresh article about the ultramontanism. I think it explains a lot about the current papacy.
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2021/02/04/my-journey-from-ultramontanism-to-catholicism/
This is for anyone who is maintaining, or thinking of starting, a Catholic blog site and would like some technical help doing so:
https://catholicsignalcorps.com/
I found this site through Fr. Zuhlsdorf's website (https://wdtprs.com/).
I find that paying attention to Francis a hinderance to my Faith (as well an an occasion of sin) unless I believe that he is infallible only when formally pontificating ex Cathedra. Otherwise I must believe that the careful Latin of Pope Benedict's "resignation letter" was an invalid abdication of the munus, and that the consistory which elected Bergoglio was therefore invalid. (Which would be a great relief!)
I would never leave the Church, but to keep my spiritual equilibrium I must resolutely ignore Francis when I am tempted to ponder his refusal to answer the Dubia; his coy ambivalence explaining the footnote in AL; his betrayal of the Chinese Catholics; his deceitful misuse of the Peter's Pence (to which I now prudently refuse to contribute) to support Hilary's Clinton's election campaign, etc.; his countless imprudent informal remarks which require intellectual contortions to square them with the magisterium, and his actions' indication that (despite his verbal disclaimers) he tolerates syncretism in the name of "ecumenism".
I ignore his proclamation of *new* sins against the environment and his orders to "obey the [culture of death] UN", and when he unequivocally orders us to accept the pandemic vaccines, all of which are experimental, of unproven efficacy and unknown short or long-term side effects, --and whose major developers (Bill Gates, the WHO) are professedly dedicated to population reduction; and which are either made with or tested with products of abortion; and which permanently alter (mutilate?) an individual's DNA.
A couple of years ago in confession, my confessor ordered me to pray for the Pope as a penance-- I told him that I did, every day, pray that the Bishop of Rome becomes a good shepherd, and that he not go to Hell for scandalising laity like me.
--Raven Wenner, UK
Heres a prediction - if Conchinta from Garabandal's prophecy fails, the Catholic Church will fail.
I've been a fence-sitter for quite some time about Garabandal. I realize that the case is still open, and we are still free to believe it or not as we choose. However, I realized something yesterday that has tipped me very strongly toward the believers' camp.
.
In 1960, the Pope was supposed to reveal the Third Secret to the world. In fact, I remember that day. The world was primed to hear it. In every home in my neighborhood, every member of the family was gathered around the radio, or TV if they had one (TV was still a luxury that few could afford), only to be deeply disappointed when the announcer informed us that the Pope had decided he would not reveal the secret after all. ONE YEAR LATER, in 1961, at roughly the same time as the Cuban Missile Crisis began, the first apparition at Garabandal occurred.
.
The Fatima apparitions occurred immediately before the Russian revolution that brought the Communists into power. The Cuban Missile Crisis was about Russia placing missiles in Castro's Cuba. I don't think it's a coincidence that both apparitions occurred at such key moments in history, and both contained warnings about wars to come. Fatima gave the prophecy of the Second World War, before the First had even ended. Garabandal showed the visionaries what was probably the Third World War. Those who had come to Garbandal on pilgrimage did not see that vision any more than they did the others, but they certainly heard the children's terrified screams. One witness reports that he heard one or more of them crying, "Not the children! Oh, please, not the children!"
.
Our Lady of Quito also said that, at some point in this, the third millennium, there will indeed be a Third World War, and it will be during that war when the Pope will finally consecrate Russia specifically to the Immaculate Heart, which will be the direct cause of the end of that war and will usher in the restoration of the Church, which Emmett calls the Second Pentecost.
.
My only question now is, Rhona, what do you mean by "If Conchita fails"? Fails at what?
This is from the Garabandal website: https://www.garabandal.us/prph_other
NO THIRD WORLD WAR
Our Lady Said at Garabandal:
NO THIRD WORLD WAR
Of primary concern to the people of today is the impending threat of a nuclear holocaust with the major superpowers (and lesser powers!) in possession of weapons that can turn the world’s centers of civilization into piles of rubble within a matter of minutes. Heads of State and Church leaders have labored under the burden of how to deal with the problem. But we know from what Our Lady said at Garabandal concerning another world war, that there is nothing to worry about. It will never happen.
On at least three occasions, Conchita has addressed herself to this question.
The first source of reference is Joey Lomangino who has known the visionary since 1963. Joey vividly recalls Conchita telling him that the Virgin said there would not be a third world war. According to Joey, there may be skirmishes or limited wars between countries but not a global conflict.
A second source of reference is Anne Mequeli from Brentwood, New York. Anne, a dedicated worker for the New York Center Scapular Committee, is a good friend of Conchita’s and frequently attends the visionary’s weekly holy hour to ‘pray for priests’. She gives the following testimony:
One night in Conchita’s house, everyone was talking about the ‘Cuban Crisis’ when Conchita said to me, “At that time in my village, all the people feared a third world war and everyone had radios close to their ears waiting to hear of such a war. But I had an apparition at the time and the Blessed Virgin told me, ‘No World War Three.”
A third source of reference is a taped conversation between Conchita and Bishop Franciso Garmendia, Auxillary Bishop of New York, on August 27, 1981. In answer to the Bishop’s question about the ‘end of times,’ Conchita responded:
....That same day—I don’t know if you remember but in France they were saying that in 1962 world war would break out—she (The Virgin) told us that there would never be another world war. Everybody, in fact, was frightened that day, including me, when the Virgin appeared and said, “Don’t be afraid because there will never be a world war.”
There may not be a world war, but there is still a great war coming. We don't know when, or which nations will be involved, but Our Lady of Quito did say that this would be the worst war in all of history. Even the Book of the Apocalypse speaks of such a war. So technically it may not be World War Three. But it will still be terrible, and it will be during that war that we will see the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
.
Remember that Our Lady of Fatima said that "various nations will be annihilated." The very word "annihilated" implies destruction, usually by war. She contrasted this by saying that, if Russia were consecrated, a period of peace would be granted to the world.
Fatima and Akita are similar. No mention of a warning in either. Garabandal and Medjugorje both mention a warning. Which one is right?
Does it have to be one or the other? Can't all of them be right? After all, Lourdes didn't mention a warning either. The one message that's common to all of them is the importance of penance and the daily Rosary. Fatima alone mentions the First Saturdays of Reparation. The fact that none of the others do, doesn't negate them. I can't speak for Medjugorje, because I don't know exactly what its messages are, but I do know that all the approved Marian apparitions are complementary. Each one adds to a bigger picture, and the common theme is the need for penance and reparation.
jmc, you assume all of them part of the bigger picture. Fatima and Akita are legitimately approved. Garabandal and Medj. are not so don't say they are all part of the bigger picture. That is an assumption, a wish. Lomangino died and that segment showed me Garabandal is all but dead. The warning has its singular attraction but that alone shouldn't be the sole reason for believing in any apparition.
Point taken. ;D But, ah, who's Lomangino? I've never heard that name before.
Joey Lomangino was the blind guy (due to an accident from his younger years) in the Garabandal narrative who died 'prematurely'. He was destined to live through this 'warning and miracle' of the apparition and his sight would be completely restored.
Thanks for telling me that, Anon. The narratives I've read and heard about Garabandal never even mentioned him. With all the questions still surrounding it, and the lack of details from the investigations, I doubt the case will ever be settled.
Firstly, what I meant by 'fails' is that Conchita is charged with announcing to the world the event (either miracle or chastisement) 8 days before it happens. It follows then that she will be alive to do this. She has just turned 72.
Its not illogical to suggest then, that these events will happen within a historically short period of time. Conchita may indeed live to be 100 but even with that taken into account these events - by the Garabandal criteria - are set to take place within a short period of time.
Secondly, I have some difficulty with the Garabandal/Medjugorge framework as they both promise more or less the same thing - a warning/permanent sign(miracle)/chastisement.
Surely both cant be true?
Anyhow, my point is that it cannot be long until we have concrete proof - one way or another - of the intervention of God and Mary in human affairs. If Conchita dies a without an announcement or if she makes an announcement and it fails to materialize, then the faith of many, many Catholics will collapse.
regards
As you've doubtless read above, a few important points have been brought up, especially the death of a man who was supposed to have lived through the warning and miracle, and have his sight restored (that didn't happen).
.
As for the warning/miracle/chastisement, IF the apparitions be true, then it is possible for all three to occur. I see it this way: The chastisement is CONDITIONAL, that is, is mankind does not heed the warning, then chastisement will come. The miracle would be the "proof" that the apparitions are real, as the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima proved that one; it would not be directly related to either the warning or the chastisement.
.
The official jury is still out on Garabandal. So is mine. I accept the Vatican's ruling on the first week of the Medjugorje apparitions, but I think anything since then is questionable at best.
.
All of that being said, I don't see how the Church would fail if Conchita never announces the miracle. They haven't approved or condemned Garbandal; the case is still open. Conchita was not the only visionary; there were several others. Are any of them still alive? If they are, then it's conceivable that, if Conchita should die before announcing the miracle, one of the others would do it.
.
And, of course, all of this hinges on whether or not the apparitions at Garabandal were truly of Our Lady.
Hi JMC, Thanks for the reply.
Couple of points here in an unordered typing-as-it-comes-to-me fashion.
1. "...the death of a man who was supposed to have lived through the warning and miracle, and have his sight restored..." This is the New Yorker - Joey.
I think here - and in all other situations - the wording is very important and should be read *exactly* as it was relayed/written - no interpretation, embellishment or assumptions should be made. In that vein, strictly speaking he was not told he would be alive only that he would have new eyes at the time of the events. I think the actual wording requires closer examination.
2. The castisement is indeed conditional but - in Garabandal lore - the other two event are definite.
3. The official jury is out indeed. However viewing of the footage clearly indicates something happened.
4. "I don't see how the Church would fail" - okay, I worded that badly.
I think the faith of very, very many Catholics would lapse if it turns out Garabandal is a hoax or a failure. It provides a tangible, of-our-own-time event where God acted overtly in our world and reinforced the message of the Catholic Church - even if the Church itself is nonplussed.
5. "..if Conchita should die before announcing the miracle, one of the others would do it."
Conchita is the only one who knows the date, the other children were not told. Incidentally one of the 4 died a few years back (RIP).
6. I agree on Medjugorje - even though I've been and witnessed.....an event myself.
There may have been an initial Visitation but since then...
Joey was a guest on Mother Angelica’s show in the late 90s and said he would see the miracle. He believed the miracle would happen in his lifetime and his eyesight would be restored at the miracle. Do you think he got the message wrong?
@Anonymous - Harsh as it may seem, I dont think Joeys beliefs are worth a damn; He - or his interpretations - are not the arbite, judge or yardstick of the matter in hand.
That said, Conchitas message to him - and this *does* matter - seems to have been unequivocal on the subject.
Again, we will know -definitively - within a decade or so, whether or not God and/or his mother has intervened in human affairs.
Of this much we can be certain.
If you could provide a link to the mentioned interview (or any other quoted material) I'd love to view it.
regards
R
Rhona, if joey's beliefs aren't worth a damn, why would you care to see the interview?
Look at : https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/alleged-apparitions-at-garabandal-3719
Apparently, ALL the bishops there have stated nothing supernatural occurred.
Then there are other problems that throw water on this thing. It said Paul VI would live to see the Great Miracle and according to Conchita he knew the date of the Miracle. Or that Padre pio would see this miracle. How about the prediction of three more popes until "the end of the times." Pope John XXIII was the pope at that time, then there was Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, and Pope John Paul II. Oh, don't forget Benedict and now Francis. Still no warning or miracle.
Still think there is validity to this?
@Anonymous -
"Rhona, if joey's beliefs aren't worth a damn, why would you care to see the interview?"
Youre the one citing it as evidence of something, not me. I'm questioning *your* arguement, not his. Do you have the link or not?
*None* of the bishops have stated that 'nothing supernatural' occurred. None. Not one.
You'd know this if you'd actually read the link you posted. The occurrences are non constat de supernaturalitate - that is, not established as supernatural.
That is a completely different from constat de non supernaturalitate - which means established as NOT supernatural. They are totally, wholly, separate and distinct categories.
Anyway, I'm not engaging any further with someone who either has not read or doesnt understand the material they've produced to support their position.
Anon: Please be careful. Because we can't see body language or hear tone of voice, an innocent statement can come across as snarky. The first last sentences in your last post could have been worded better.
As for why Rhona would want to see the interview, sometimes hearing the entire thing can make understanding clearer. As she pointed out to me in a previous post, you don't always get the entire meaning when a quote is merely paraphrased.
Rhona, the ewtn site makes the statement that the bishops cannot confirm as it supernatural. What changed? That's nine years to make a determination and still no change in this belief. The visions have ceased so how can that make it possible to cite otherwise? That is the same thing as saying there is nothing supernatural. 60 years is a long time.
1. "All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed."
2. In the month of December of 1977 Msgr. del Val, Bishop of Santander, in union with his predecessors, affirmed that in the six years of being Bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.
Found this: https://www.garabandal.us/joey# saying he would receive new eyes on the day of the miracle from a letter from Conchita , Joey has the assurance that he will one day see.
https://www.garabandal.us/joey_story Dear Joey: Today at the pines in a locution the Blessed Virgin told me to tell you you will receive new eyes on the day of the Great Miracle…
Joey Lomangino, who has dedicated his life to spreading the Message of Garabandal, is totally an incurably blind. But, through the above quote from a letter from the Garabandal visionary Conchita Gonzalez, Joey has the assurance that he will one day see. Conchita also quoted the Virgin as saying: The first thing he (Joey) shall see will be the miracle which my Son will perform through my intercession, and from that time on he will see permanently.
Conchita has further explained that her understanding of the Virgin’s term, “new eyes,” is eyes as we know them – not necessarily spiritual vision – and that Joey’s new eyes “are to be used for the glory of God.”
Found this ewtn audio: https://www.garabandal.us/mp3/motherangelica.mp3 Listen at the :25 minute mark to :27 minute where Joey makes the claim of new eyes with a letter from Conchita.
Now i used to be a firm believer in Garabandal, honest but since joey died and looking at other evidence i have changed my stance. As much as i still LOVE the idea that a worldwide warning would is needed for us all, i do not find it legit.
i hope this clears things up.
warmly,
anon
I have to agree with Rhona here. "Not established as supernatural" is in no way the same thing as "nothing supernatural." It simply means they're not certain. That's why the case is still open. And, since the visions have long since ended, we may likely never know the truth this side of Heaven.
.
We all see the condition the world is in. We know it's bad enough that it will take divine intervention to change things. It is not for us to know when that intervention will come, or even really how; just to keep ourselves spiritually prepared, pray, and trust that it will come.
I will have to go with EWTN's and all the bishops on this one. That plus the number of failed 'predictions' and the strangeness within this 4 year period during Garabandal. As tradition has, apparitions are in the domain/jurisdiction of the local bishop.
On October 11, 1996 the new bishop, Jose Vilaplana, again placed his prohibition on the alleged apparitions and said it is final.
"Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the alleged apparitions of Garabandal and especially for the answer about the position of the hierarchy of the Church concerning these apparitions.
I need to communicate that:
All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural validity for the apparitions.
In the month of December of 1977 Bishop Dal Val of Santander, in union with his predecessors, stated that in the six years of being bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.
The same bishop, Dal Val, let a few years go by to allow the confusion or fanaticism to settle down, and then he initiated a commission to examine the apparitions in more depth. The conclusion of the commission agreed with the findings of the previous bishops. That there was no supernatural validity to such apparitions.
At the time of the conclusions of the study, in 1991, I was installed bishop in the diocese. So during my visit to Rome, as limina visit which happened in the same year, I presented to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the study and I asked for pastoral direction concerning this case.
On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me an answer saying that after examining the documentation, there was no need for direct intervention (by the Vatican) to take away the jurisdiction of the ordinary bishop of Santander in this case. Such a right belongs to the ordinary. Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding. In the same letter they suggested that if I find it necessary to publish a declaration, that I reconfirm that there was no supernatural validity in the alleged apparitions, and this will make a unanimous position with my predecessors.
Given that the declarations of my predecessors who studied the case have been clear and unanimous, I don’t find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would raise notoriety about something which happened so long ago. However, I find it necessary to rewrite this report as a direct answer to the people who ask for direction concerning this question, which is now final: I agree with [and] I accept the decision of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See.
In reference to the Eucharistic celebration in Garabandal, following the decision of my predecessors, I ruled that Masses can be celebrated only in the parish church and there will be no references to the alleged apparitions and visiting priests who want to say Mass must have approval from the pastor, who has my authorization. It’s my wish that this information is helpful to you.
My regards in Christ,
Jose Vilaplana
Bishop of Santander
Oct. 11, 1996
19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzRrEgkfhG8
137
This comment pertains the the topic of this posting about whether the prophecy of Saint Francis regarding a destroyer pope is legitimate or not. Please note that it was revealed to Saint Francis of Assisi that one of his brothers, Brother Elias would be condemned. Please read this summary: https://biblehub.com/library/ugolino/the_little_flowers_of_st_francis_of_assisi/chapter_xxxviii_how_it_was.htm Only through great prayer was Brother Elias relieved of that terrible judgement. Therefore, I do not find it out of the question that Saint Francis would also be shown a vision of a pope (with his name) in the future that would be destructive to the Catholic faith.
Rhona McRoe said ...
"Heres a prediction - if Conchinta from Garabandal's prophecy fails, the Catholic Church will fail."
When, at the end of June 1962, a secret voice revealed to Conchita the date of the Eucharistic miracle [July 18, 1962], she began spreading the news. She sent invitations to priests to this event; she also sent a letter to her bishop in Santander, but he did not take the opportunity to learn for himself the nature of the apparitions at Garabandal. The Eucharistic miracle happened despite people's doubts.
The same will be true of the foretold great miracle that will occur in the pine grove above the village. Conchita knows the exact date of this event, set by God and precisely placed by Him in History of Salvation. She will announce the event eight days in advance.
What is the event about? The disclosure of the person of the Restorer, the second Christ, born by the Church through the holy sacraments. This figure was announced by Jesus Christ Himself: "“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! [Luke 12:49]" and "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. [John 16:13]". Prophets spoke of this figure in earlier times. Here are some examples:
Sister Mariana Francisca de Jesus Torres
Ecuador (1594-1634)
Servant of God. Spanish Conceptionists, abbess of the Convent of Quito. She received innumerable visions and revelations from Our Lord and from Our Lady under the invocation of Good Success.
“Oh, how I lament manifesting to you that there will be many and enormous public and hidden sacrileges profaning the Holy Eucharist!... My Most Holy Son will find Himself rolled on the floor and trampled by filthy feet.”
“Pray with insistence, asking our Heavenly Father to put an end to such evil times, for the Love of the Eucharistic Heart of My Most Holy Son, and to send this Church the Prelate, My dearly beloved Son, who My Most Holy Son and I love with predilection love, who exists to revive the spirit of Priests, therefore we will endow Him with abilities, humility of heart, docility towards Divine Inspirations, strength to defend the rights of the Church and a tender and compassionate heart so that, like another Christ, He can assist the great and small without disdain for the most disgraced who come with doubts and bitterness in search of the light of his advice…
In his hands will be placed the hierarchy of the Sanctuary so that everything can be done with weight and moderation, and thus God will be glorified…”
The Holy Virgin calls this mysterious figure "the Prelate, My dearly beloved Son" and in an apparition on February 2, 1610 She named him "the Chosen One":
"The merciful Love of My Most Holy Son to put to the test in the just this faith and trust will arrive in moments when seemingly everything will be lost and paralyzed, and then it will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration and the Church,
which as a tender girl will resurge joyful and triumphant and sleep quietly, rocked in the arms of the maternal heart of the Chosen One, My beloved Son of those times. We shall make Him great on the Earth and much more in Heaven, where we shall have reserved for Him a very precious seat, because without fear of men He battled for Truth and defended undaunted the rights of His Church for which they could very well call Him martyr." [..to be continued]
[...continued]
Sister María de los Dolores y Patrocinio
Spain (1811-1891)
Spanish Conceptionist, abbess, foundress and reformer of the convents of her order; stigmatized, favored with all kinds of graces and supernatural gifts.
The man of God…a great marvel… “Speaking with myself on a certain occasion, the Servant of God told me: ‘There will be worked so great a wonder, that it will fill the whole world with astonishment…Men are very careless…and the MAN OF GOD approaches; He will not be long now: it will not go well for those he catches off guard… I am thinking and He makes me bless God who as Divine Majesty for all the greatest things uses a handful of dust.”
Who is to think how the prodigy will be? A grave with a handful of bones; and at God’s voice all must see that they become
what they were before… No one can imagine it; and so will be the astonishment of the world. Nothing and no one will be able to advance the moment or the hour… So, well, Mother, I asked Her, it has a fixed day or only conditional? It is the express will of
God and it has a fixed year, month, day and hour. Before that triumph of God and of His Church, great punishments must
come…”
Blessed Father Francisco of Jesus, Mary and Joseph [Palau],
Spain (1811-1872)
Spanish Discalced Carmelite. Created the “School of Virtue”— a mode of catechetical teaching in Barcelona.
"From one moment to another there will appear a Moses, a man whom hell, the Heavens, the Elements, and all of Nature will obey. The wonders with which the Divinity of His Mission will be accredited will be so stupendous, that those which Moses realized before the King
of Egypt are nothing but a shadow and figure. At His orders the seas will rise from the deep and drown entire cities: the Earth will be covered in darkness so dense that not even the objects most near will be sees as shadows. At His voice fire will descend, sulfur from Heaven, and the Earth will open and hell will swallow alive the modern sacrileges Dathan, Core, Abiron, (Num 16) and those who contest His Mission. Under the direction of this Man, the entire Orb will fight against the foolish ones.
The chosen, only the chosen, will follow this restorer, those who have their name written in the Book of Life, and the rest of the Catholics will apostatize dividing themselves one from the other. What is written about the Son of man will be fulfilled in the person of this RESTORER “utcomtemnatur et multa palcatur.” He will be unknown, persecuted, despised by the Catholics whose names are not written in the Book of Life (…)
Satan will be locked up in the abyss by the new Moses and by His Apostles, and with him will be buried in hell the evil of the Earth(…), When will this RESTORER come? There is no other restorer known but Elijah Tesbites. “Elijah venturus est et eumvenerit, restituet omnia,” if true restoration is coming that consists in the conversion to the God of all Nations and of its kings, the RESTORER cannot be a king, but an Apostle; war does not convert but ruins, and this apostle will be Elijah, the promised Elijah, whatever the name He is given when He appears. Whether He call himself John, Moses, Peter, the name matters little: the mission of Elijah will restore human society, because God has it so ordered in His Providence."
I have only quoted the prophecies of three Spaniards to show the importance of the Spanish village of San Sebastian de Garabandal in these latter times. Through the great miracle that will happen in the pine grove, Almighty God will reveal the person to whom He applies the titles: the Spirit of Truth, the Second Comforter, the Fire, the Chosen One, My Beloved Son, the Restorer, the Prelate of the Sanctuary, the Promised Elijah, the New Moses.
Sister Patrocinio knew that this event has a fixed year, month, day and hour [and...hour!], while Conchita knew the exact date and hour [8:30 p.m.] and would reliably announce this date eight days in advance.
Source of the quotes: https://www.revelacionesmarianas.com/en/ANGEL%20OF%20PEACE.html
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
Did Benedict abdicate the Munus in any official spoken or written word?
Has Benedict ever been seen or heard stating that "Bergoglio is the Pope."
Why does Benedict continue to wear the Papal white and refuse to be seen and addressed once again as a Cardinal?
Anonymous 06:06 is asking: "Why does Benedict continue to wear the Papal white...?"
BXVI still dresses in white because he has a mission to fulfill, which the Holy Virgin of Fatima has provided for him. What is the mission? It is contained in the visual part of the third secret:
"...a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions."
The papacy in Rome ended on February 28, 2013 at 8 p.m. [CET]. Benedict XVI is no longer the Pope. He is the bishop in white.
https://deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/tribulation-times-unveiling-the-apocalypse-prophecy-of-pope-leo-xiii-update/
The contributor to this website has an interesting rebuttal to Emmett's view of the 75-100 year period spoken of by Leo 13.
I won't judge Francis to be a heretic or antipope yet, until he does something to prove it like changing the doctrine of the real presence. But I do think he maybe is being very clever but not doing outright something heretical that would expose him unequivocally.
If both God's prophetic warnings about apostasy in the Church is true and the dogma of indefectibility is true, then the only way both can happen is if the bishops are in communion with a counterfeit rock and can defect all they want without violating God's promise. I'm open to this possibility without asserting it. There is more than enough evidence to suggest, but not prove, that Francis believes in heresy. I won't prove it, but he's now speaking of a New World Order and seems to be on board with the Great Reset, United Nations and the Covid Cult; and people are just tripping over themselves to ignore it or dismiss it. Now this is how God might possibly separate the sheep from the goats, seeing who stays faithful and who happily obeys a false prophet who commands blatant heresy and apostasy. Not saying that this is in fact the case, but this seems to be a way that both apostasy could happen while keeping the Church indefectible.
At any rate I find it odd that Benedict still lives in the Vatican and dresses like a pope. He should get out of Rome and change his clothes to stop confusing the faithful.
Cardinal Oddi tells us that in the Third Secret Our Lady is warning us against apostasy. Cardinal Ciappi stated apostasy begins at the top. The 'top' has not been defined, by anyone. It's left open for us to speculate. Some still think Benedict remains pope.
Seems, seems, seems,... Facts are facts.It doesn't seem.It is! So much useless discussion about Facts... Fake Francis,but real Bergoglio Masonic Impostor!
Emmett,
I just wrote something which covers some of your arguments regarding Pighius, Gasser and Vatican I, so since this comment section appears to have some relevance to that, I thought I'd bring it to your attention here.
https://reducedculpability.blog/2021/10/30/friends-dont-let-friends-accidentally-dogmatize-the-extreme-opinion-of-albert-pighius/
Regards,
Scott Smith
Post a Comment