Sunday, February 15, 2015

Michael Voris interviews John Allen, Edward Pentin, others on various defects in Catholic media coverage

[Advisory & Disclaimer: See Rules 7-9] "On this episode of Mic'd Up, Michael Voris breaks down the players in the UN-Catholic Media: various media outlets that present themselves as Catholic but undermine the Faith.

"Guests include Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register and John Allen of Boston Globe's Crux, along with CMTV's own Matthew Pearson, Christine Niles, and Peter O'Dwyer."


  1. [0.14] Voris' introduction to this episode of Mic'd Up
  2. [4.15] Interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register
  3. [10:05] Conversation with Matthew Pearson about anti-Catholic dissenting "Catholic" media outlets
  4. [34:33] Discussion with Chistine Niles and Peter O'Dwyer about the "Reactionary Catholic Media"
  5. [48:10] Interview with John Allen about secular media coverage of the Catholic Church [very interesting]
In the fourth section, Christine Niles summarizes how CMTV intends to position itself between two extremes it wants to avoid: (1) what she calls the "Church of Nice" Catholics, who provide the wrong diagnosis and the wrong cure for the current crisis, because they think everything is rosy, don't see the crisis, and regard everything coming from this pontificate as perfectly fine, and therefore see nothing to worry about; and (2) "Reactionary" Catholics, who provide the right diagnosis, recognize there are real problems that sometimes go all the way up to the top, but they provide the wrong cure, because their modus operandi is to mock, denigrate, bash and trash the Holy Father in ways that are absolutely unacceptable, and they drive people to independent Catholic communities that may be materially, if not formally, schismatic.

[I'm paraphrasing here, in the foregoing as well as in what follows.]

What, then, is the right diagnosis and right cure? Whatever the problems, says Voris, you can't depart from Peter ... even if Peter is wrong (and he won't be wrong on official teaching because that is protected by the Holy Spirit), and he can be wrong in the way he says something, even the way in which he understands things on the natural level. The doctrine of papal infallibility, stresses Niles, has very narrowly defined parameters. The Holy Father can say things that are vague, confusing, even wrong. But one must never depart from Peter. At one point, Voris refers to renegade bishops and stresses that even if they are notorious dissidents who are on the wrong side of major moral issues, one must respect the authority of their office and remain under their authority so long as they require of you only what is in keeping with Church teaching.

Related responses:


31 comments:








Anonymous

said...

'Reactionary' have the right cure but the wrong tone. OK, Perhaps. But they do NOT drive people to schismatic communities: the crisis in the Church does that all by itself. Truthfully, in any drama some people over-react, and so what? The line is NOT between Nice Catholics and Reactionary Catholics, and this mindset shows just how much of the Catholic Ultramontane Kool Aid Voris' crew has nursed and this how remote their solution is as a possibility. The mindset is between essentially sacramentalized pagans -- Catholics in name only who have been taught Modernism as Cathiolicism and thus wouldn't know the faith if they tripped over it and actually usually resent it -- and Catholics, believers whose worldview has been shaped by Christian doctrine and who get a little shrill because their situation provokes cognitive dissonance. And most of the folks in the latter camp -- including the Remnant's staff, are actually pretty nice Catholics. So can we once and for all drop the liberal canard that the Trads are meanies and everyone else the nice guys. I think weekly tithing receipts alone might show that stereotype up as the unhelpful on it is. Otherwise, let Voric and Co. march on...





Anonymous

said...

A follow-up ranting:
Church Militant is getting worked up over SSPX being in schism, and that because they have had actual cardinals confirm that diagnosis as fact? LOL, what else do Cardinals these days affirm? Thank Heaven they ARE in schism, or they would have been shut down. It is not only positive "analysis" the Angelus Press offers, but throughly Catholic doctrine that is close to impossible to find explained in comparably clear terms anywhere the USCCB exercises control. "You simply... cannot....depart.... from Peter" Voris keeps saying. But what if Peter effectively departs from you, which I am certain is how LeFebvre felt. Just rifling off the condemnation "You are in schism" accomplishes nothing.

It may be tragic, but it also seems that God is blessing the SSPC as a necessary witness, just as has he has used the Evangelicals in some quarters. If folks can be saved outside the Church, certainly God can use Catholics outside the organized, Modernist-friendly Church, people orthodox in every single regard except their legal cow-towing to an arguably unorthodox pope, to help save his own Bride as well. I think it is far safer to position yourself in a locale where you are fed by 'The Angelus' than by "Crux," even if the former is schismatic and the latter approved by Peter's favorite reporters. And SSPX marriages not valid? Come on. In which case, Protestant marriages are not valid either. And idea Peter would contradict! We are bound by the sacraments; God is not. In one breath here, they stress loyalty to the pope. "One...must.... not... depart!" On the other hand, they condemn his theological preferences and apparent underpinnings. The SSPXrs are in the same boat as Luther? That is patently false to anyone familiar with them or their work. Etc etc. Prior to recent times, Popes may have been wanton or had an off doctrine, but they did not leave the whole faith open to the compromises of modernism, which is what we are witnessing now, along with the hijacking of the liturgy under the banner of "All is well." No wonder the world is confused. The Church is confused. I am confused. Even Voris, if he tries to be consistent in connecting his dots, will become frantic. And it is thank to our Peter. Everyone will have a different take away from that, but the SSPXs seems as reasonable as any. They may be schismatics, but given the modern terrain I can't see how anyone can be so dogmatically sure that's a damnable thing.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

I pretty much agree. I think CMTV is right in recognizing there's a problem (and even that it can go all the way to the top, which I think is a striking admission on their part), and yet not wanting to fall into disrespectful speech about His Holiness.

That, essentially, is what I think they're trying to do here, and I'm sympathetic with that.

Having said that, whenever anyone positions himself as the Golden Mean between two excesses, I want to be careful about understanding just what they mean, because it can sometimes involved a false dichotomy, or at least a dichotomy that doesn't quite fit outside of very narrow parameters.

I think you are correct in identifying the more basic opposition as lying between (1) "Catholics" who are pretty much ignorant of the Faith (and I think some of those CMTV calls "Church of Nice" Catholics may fall into this group, as well as various other sorts of secularized and modernist-influenced Catholics who have pretty much lost the Faith) and (2) those who not only know the Faith but passionately embrace it and wish to defend and promote it.

I have little difficulty people like the Christopher Ferraras, Louie Verrecchios, Michael Matts, and John Venaris in that category. True, they are a bit shrill sometimes. True, they can seem a bit too chummy with groups like the SSPX for the tastes of many; but when Benedict pursued their regularization with such determination and even Bishop Athanasius Schneider is involved in continuing the informal doctrinal discussions with them under the decision made by the CDF last year, it's hard to be too critical.

The far greater danger to the Church, IMHO, is from the side of accommodation with modernism and a secularized "faith."






Anonymous

said...

A final comment ... and I am a Voris fan...
The Allen portion was a travesty. Voris speaks with him like they are on the same wavelength and even plugs CRUX. An Allen speaks of the non-negotiables of the faith. Um, sorry, but Allen is Assoc. Editor of CRUX. James Martin, call your office! What Voris should ask Allen is how Mary Eagan's columns square with the idea of non-negotiables. They don't, which is why although Allen sounds altogether reasonable (and just like Francis, btw), what CRUX actually pushes are many ideas foreign -- if not opposed to -- faith. But all impeccably in submission to Rome, that now allows almost anything. So the upshot is: Allen is in communion with Peter and our friend, and the SSPX is out of communion and not. This sort of appraisal is a very big reason we are in the mess we are in today. It insists on a sort of slavish devotion to our leaders even as they embrace Modernism.





Cuff of Coppee

said...

Funny thing is that if you had to fit MV's Vortex show into one of his own categories which would it be?

Reactionary.





Raider Fan

said...

Dear Doc. It is because they are, apparently, closer to Tradition that the SSPX is, by far, the more dangerous group.

It was said of Mr. Davies that his arguments were crucial in cleaving many from the Church (and Mr. James Larson has been quite right and courageous in taking on the errors of Mr Davies) even thought he maintained the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority but his support of the SSPX and Mons Lefevbre led many to think they can have their schismatic eucharist and eat it too as faithful traditionalists but orders absent jurisdiction means no ministry.

In fact, No Jurisdiction, no Ministry was the very thing Mons Lefevbre argued in favor of during the council.

But, after the council he began to cite the false prophecy of LaSalette that Rome would lose the faith etc and now many think that one can be a traditionalist and think that Popes teach error which if true, means that Jesus is THE biggest liar ever for He promised His Church would never fail and it is an infallible teaching (Vatican 1) that the See of Peter will perpetually remain free of error.

The Old Catholics are the permanent schism caught trailing in the wake of Vatican i and the SSPX are the permanent schism caught trailing in the wake of Vatican Two and so there seems little sense in pretending the SSPX are, as an entire cohort, coming home, rather, some will, by the grace of God, come home individually over time but the sspx is an annealed schism and it has dutifully taught three generations a terrible heresy - that modern Popes teach error and that one can not trust the Catholic Church.

Having been thought that by the SSPX, what child, having achieved adulthood, will be likely to turn their backs on the one institution they have been raised to believe is the sole protector of Tradition?

It ain't gonna happen.

One can (and by one, Raider Fan means his own self) quote the Early Church Fathers and Denzinger and Encyclicals and Infallible teachings until the cows come home on Pogo Sticks and it will not make any difference at all.

Raider Fan used to do such a thing (under a different S/nN at Free Republic for year after year after year afer year and it made no difference at all

A single personal opinion by Mons lefevbre canceled dozens of citations from the Early Church Fathers.





Charles

said...

I'm afraid I must cast my lot with those who would insist that the verdict is still out on the SSPX. The arguments are nothing like the simplistic caricature offered by CMTV here. I have heard an arguable case made comparing Lefebvre to the repeatedly deposed and exiled St. Athanasius. Time will tell.

We have the promises of Christ that he will always be with his Church. There is NO promise to the effect that the Church will ultimately be more than a small remnant, even a handful, or that a pontiff reigning at any given time will remain faithful. We have had antipopes in the past. We will have them in the future. We may have one now.





JM

said...

THE POPE, SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA, IS INFALLIBLE. Otherwise, I have yet to see a definitive argument that he can't err, screw up, or be on the receiving end of a close-to knock out punch from the other side. That does not mean Hell has won, but it may mean Hell has gotten the upper hand in more than one round. For all the fear of the SSPX and LeFebvre, I have yet to see what teaching they promote that is so alarming, other than the single one that the Papacy is a doctrinal mess, a proposition that pretty much every conservative already senses is correct, as much as they insist otherwise to keep themselves in the faithful mainstream Catholic mindset. I am not advocating schism, but I am saying that "mainstream Catholic" today means Confused-to-Modernist Catholic. Look at the votes at the Synod, read the literature of official AmChurch... Then try reading just about any of the literature from Angelus Press ...Whichironically is for the most part nothing more than the old literature of the American Church from 70 years ago! (No wonder Vaican II devotees feel justified in talking about 'new' and 'old' Churches!) Hard to call a bunch of people schismatic or bad news when they are defending all the essential Catholic doctrines using classic manuals, while the Pope and most pf Rome are talking what we all know is a lot of smack. It makes me want to go back and see exactly what took place with Fr. Feeney, to tell you the truth. Maybe it is my mindset as a convert who witnessed the Episcopal Church collapse under a bunch of hierarchal acquiescence, but come on. Marcel Lefebvre is about as dangerous as Deitrich von Hilderbrand, whereas most of Rome is about as dangerous as de Chardin or Rahner. I remain in the Church, but I am not about to get all chivalrous defending dubious men, or condemn others who are fighting the good fight. In my book the SSPX seems very much like a faithful remnant, whereas the rest of us seem more like subversives, spies, and holdouts on a ship whose bridge has pretty much been seemingly taken without acknowledgment. Hell can't win, I agree, but its vandals can do enough damage to make victory something achieved amidst the ruins. We will see how it actually all plays out, but I think Voris can't see through his lifelong Catholic blinders. Of course, he will say they same about my convey blinders, I know!





Raider Fan

said...

Admittedly, both were Catholics but the idea that Mons Lefevbre was a latter day saint akin to the great Saint Athanasius is aught but deceptive propaganda from the schism; ok, it is worse than that - it is a bald faced lie. (Well, what does one expect from a schism?)

Mons Lefevbre was excommunicated by a Pope who was not a captive being tortured whereas the Saint Athanasius situation was just that.

Mons Lefevbre never defended the orthodoxy of Pope John Paul Ii whereas Saint Athanasius publicly defended the orthodoxy of Pope Liberius.

This fetid lying propaganda is so successful because not enough traditionalists take the time to search out the truth of the matter.

It is quite easy to do so. Click on the link below and read the very words of the great Saint his own self and you will see that there is no similarity between the great saint and Mons Lefevbre.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28155.htm





Raider Fan

said...

Within Tradition, schism has always been thought of as an unthinkable evil and an act to be avoided at all costs; Saint Augustine, amongst others, taught that there is never reason to create a schism.

But with the rise of the SSPX and its popular propaganda machine, schism is no longer viewed as a grave evil, it is considered a blessing and a way that Jesus may save His Church.

Yes, Jesus will save His Church by Blessing a schism that severs His Church and exists in opposition to it; well, whatever, as the saints say.

The fact is that Mons lefevbre established his own petit ecclesia in opposition to the Church established by Jesus yet we are supposed to give thanks for his perfidy?

http://southernvermontcrank.blogspot.com/2014/01/mons-lefebvres-petit-ecclesia-exposed_24.html

O, and what about Mons Lefevbre dying EENS while knowing that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus as the Ark of Salvation?

Even Vatican Two says such a man can not be saved.

Raider Fan? He never judges the soul of another - especially his own -but he thinks that the poor Mons was mentally incapacitated and, thus, likely not culpable for his acts but one simply can not defend any schism if one desires to claim he defends Tradition.

Which is worse, the schism or the anthropological orientation of the neo-mods?

Schism. And it ain't even close





Raider Fan

said...

Angelic Doctor on Schism and its effects


http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3039.htmThe





Raider Fan

said...

Uncountable are the number of times Mortalium Animos is cited by those who succor the sspx schism but Raider Fan wonders how many have read it in its entirety?

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

According to the express teachings of one of their favorite Encyclicals the SSPX is out of the Church.

Now, they may be the new Old Catholics or, maybe, the new schismatics of the East - the so-called Orthodox - but they no more protect and defend Tradition anymore than do the ones previously cited





Raider Fan

said...

When the monks of Papa Stronsay reconciled with The Church, they made a point of saying they were in union with actual Rome not eternal Rome.

Only a ignorant man would fail to see the implied criticism of the sspx schism





Larry

said...

You want the TRUTH about schism?! You can't handle the TRUTH!!! Yes, there's a schismatic sect in the body of Christ, but it's not the SSPX, which is sworn to fidelity to Sacred Tradition and all that the popes have ever defined dogmatically. The schismatic sect is the cult of neo-catholicism nurtured with ambiguities and half-truths since Vatican II and brazenly declared by the current renegade claimant to the throne of Peter.

Take the professed beliefs of Francis and line them up side by side with those of Bishop Fellay. Fellay's will perfectly accord with the express beliefs and clear teachings of any pope prior to and including Pius XII. Those of Francis will come off as, at best, something resembling those of a theologically conservative, socially liberal, Protestant Pentecostal.





c matt

said...

so long as they require of you only what is in keeping with Church teaching

Where the rubber meets the road. MV is right if, and only if, Francis seeks to require of Catholics only what is in keeping with Church teaching. This is where MV's arguments fall apart. As Louie correctly points out, it is not bashing Francis if in his public pronouncements Francis seeks to require of us something that is not in keeping with Church teaching (eg, communion for divorced and remarried). Louie et al's approach is to shout at Francis "Dude, you are driving off a cliff" as he heads for disaster. Voris's illogical approach is to be silent until Francis drives off the cliff - and then what? Tell Francis's roasted corpse "Dude, you drove off a cliff." Helpful, that.





c matt

said...

Maybe I am a bit fuzzy on the whole schism thing, but if ex-communication has been lifted, how can they be in schism?





Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

It took a blasted lot of time for Voris to meander to his conclusions about such hugely important matters as which is the "safer" Matt brother. Not an opinion I needed to know.


The longer Voris persists, the more unsettled his convictions become. The more unsettled his convictions, the more Church Militant TV sounds like EWTN.





Charles

said...

The SSPX is NOT in schism. Darío Castrillón Cardinal Hoyos, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and president emeritus of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, when asked by Michael Matt on camera whether the SSPX should be called "schismatic," declared in no uncertain terms: No, they are not at all schismatic, but have an irregular canonical status we have been working together to try and resolve.





JFM

said...

"Within Tradition, schism has always been thought of as an unthinkable evil"

Up until Vatican II it was unthinkable for the Church to equivocate on doctrine or to couch it in Modernist rhetoric. If a schism is somehow taking place, it IS the official Church departing from its own doctrines, and not a sect or splinter group creating anything new, that is creating schism. If I stand on doctrine and the Church moves off it, who has moved away from the faith? If a body can redefine doctrine at will in the name of "Living Tradition," unity and communion mean nothing more than robotic institutional loyalty.

Likewise, Lefebvre did not defend John Paul II because, as admirable and saintly as he may have been, on doctrine he was fuzzy if not wrong. Same for Paul VI on the Mass: plain wrong. No presumption there, just careful reading of sources.. Unless you insist on chucking the law of non-contradiction and honest intellect at the door, too many statements contradict earlier official teaching. So calling the SSPX schismatic is simply throwing your own children under the bus to keep a seat on the new Greyhound Cruiser. OK, that is a little over the top, but it gets my point across. Out of communion is not good, butI'd argue God is using the separated group as a remnant of faithfulness. Where else do you find the Faith taught clearly now, other than a few conservative parishes and SSPX chapels? Faithful communion involves both head, heart, and parish membership list. If the first two are lacking, I am not sure how much good the last item does in the long run. The Church is in a sorry state, but it is unique in that it is doctrinally as well as morally at sea. Equating Modernism and Arianism confuses categories in my book.





JFM

said...

"Take the professed beliefs of Francis and line them up side by side with those of Bishop Fellay. Fellay's will perfectly accord with the express beliefs and clear teachings of any pope prior to and including Pius XII. Those of Francis will come off as, at best, something resembling those of a theologically conservative, socially liberal, Protestant Pentecostal."

In a nutshell and *exactly*!

(Well, almost. I don't think Francis is theologically conservative if he embraces quasi-universalism or a lot of other Jesuit sophistry. And if he doesn't, then his homiletic corpus resembles that of an schizophrenic preacher.)





Raider Fan

said...

A few weeks after Lefevbre's excommunication for here is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger publicly identifying the Lefevbrite schism

And the fact that when the chips were down Lefebvre denounced an agreement that had already been signed, shows that the Holy See, while it made truly generous concessions, did not grant him that complete license which he desired. Lefebvre has seen that, in the fundamental part of the agreement, he was being held to accept Vatican II and the affirmations of the post-conciliar Magisterium, according to the proper authority of each document....

It was conceded, in addition, that the Fraternity of St. Pius X would be able to present to the Holy See — which reserves to itself the sole right of decision — their particular difficulties in regard to interpretations of juridical and liturgical reforms. All of this shows plainly that in this difficult dialogue Rome has united generosity, in all that was negotiable, with firmness in essentials. The explanation which Msgr. Lefebvre has given, for the retraction of his agreement, is revealing. He declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the ‘Conciliar Church.’. The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the ‘Conciliar Church’ which has broken with its own past. It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II belongs to that....

“Without any doubt, the problem that Lefebvre has posed has not been concluded by the rupture of June 30th. It would be too simple to take refuge in a sort of triumphalism, and to think that this difficulty has ceased to exist from the moment in which the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church....

If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism
of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.”


http://unavoce.org/resources/cardinal-ratzingers-address-to-bishops-of-chile/





Raider Fan

said...

The leaders of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are in schism, and remain suspended from the sacraments, says the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046Catholic World News





Raider Fan

said...

Take the professed beliefs of Francis and line them up side by side with those of Bishop Fellay. Fellay's will perfectly accord with the express beliefs and clear teachings of any pope prior to and including Pius XII. Those of Francis will come off as, at best, something resembling those of a theologically conservative, socially liberal, Protestant Pentecostal.

This is an apt example why those who succor this schism will not reconcile with the Church.

For such men, a schism is not only defensible, it is necessary to save the Catholic Church Jesus established.

The fact that their personal opinions about the Catholic Church are seen as more consequential than the promises of Jesus illustrates the extent to which the protestants in Fiddlebacks (sspx) have been successful in their campaign to convince many that the Catholic Church in its Popes teaches error.

But, isn't it an infallible teaching of Vatican I that the Holy See of Peter will NEVER teach error?

Why yes, it is an infallible teaching but infallible teachings were no match for the willfulness of Mons Lefevbre and they are no match for those who think he is the Saint who saved the Catholic Church rather than a man who created a schism and a petit ecclesia whose decisions have supplanted that of the Catholic Church





Raider Fan

said...

The lifting of the excommunications was directed at individuals and not the sspx per se; thus they still do not exercise any ministry in the Church and, in fact, they are further away for reconciliation today than they were when the excommunications were lifted.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

Who would be surprised if the vagus Bishops were re-excommunicated?





Larry

said...

R.F.,

It would not surprise me at all if the SSPX bishops were re-excommunicated by Francis, what with confidants and advisers like Capuchin Father Fidenzio Volpi, Cardinal Kasper, Apb. Bruno Forte, and Fr. Thomas Rosica. The question then would be whether you wanted to continue squinting and pretending to see CLOTHES on these self-styled emperors, or quietly continue to practice the faith as you've received it.





Raider Fan

said...

Larry. Maintaining the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority is the sine qua non of Catholicism.

No matter what a Pope or prelate does one has no choice but to remain in Communion with his local Bishop and the Holy See of Peter which can never teach error.

Saint Vincent of Lerins taught us that these types of situations are the way God tests if our love for Him is authentic.

And it is not an authentic characteristic of love to flee the fighting anymore than it was heroic for draft dodgers to go to Canada and strut around in Army fatigues.

The SSPX is a cohort of draft dodgers who have fled the battlefield and just because they wear Fiddlebacks that makes them no more authentic Catholic than wearing fatigues made draft dodgers soldiers.

O, and to belabor the crummy analogy, when Carter dispensed amnesty, the draft dodgers came home whereas when Benedict XVI dispensed amnesty (lifting the excommunications) the SSPX refused to come home.

Now, if there were draft dodging men in Toronto continuing to oppose whomever it was who was elected POTUS, we would dismiss them as the world-class cranks they would be but in a much more existential situation - SOULS ARE AT STAKE - we are expected to applaud the protestants in fiddlebacks.

Yeah, that does seem harsh, doesn't it? But that is who they are. They have substituted their private judgment rather than submitting to the Church Jesus established.

Raider Fan hopes this doesn't come across as churlish :) but as Flannery O'Connor noted - to the nearly blind you paint with bold bright colors and to the nearly deaf you scream (paraphrase).





Raider Fan

said...

Dear JFM. Are Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Pertinent Papist, and my Bishop, Bishop Gerald Barbarito, faithful Catholics?

Yes they are and they differ from Fellay and the sspx schism in that they are in union with their local Bishop and Pope.

Poor Mons Lefevnre was emotionally labile as is easily seen by his wildly inconsistent actions as documented by several sites.

He whipsawed from pledging fidelity of Pope John Paul II to then calling him an antiChrist; he signed his name to a protocol that would give his movement life within the Church then reneged on his name and when he initiated his petit ecclesia, he was not an Abp (he was demoted from ABp when he was returned to France) but despite these well known facts, he continues to be identified as a latter day Athanasius.

C'est la vie.

Any man has free will to do as he desires but one day each man will stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ and what possible answer can there be if He asks us - why did you support a schism against my Church that I promised would never fail?

Good luck coming up with a explanation for that...





George

said...

"Maintaining the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority ..."

Exactly, Jesus said to do whatever the Pharisees tell you, because they sit in Moses' seat, but not to do what they do because they're hypocrites.

So you maintain the bonds of unity, worship, doctrine, and authority with your Pharisee bishops by doing whatever they tell you to do but not following their example, since they don't practice what they preach.

But if your Bishop (even the one in Rome) turns out to be Judas and tells you to approve of homosexual unions, communion for divorced and "re-married" adulterers, and deny the teachings of the Church, what would you then do?

Who is it then that would be breaking the bonds of unity in doctrine and authority, when Bishop Judas himself is telling you something contrary to the Lord and his Church?

So far Francis has avoided explicitly teaching heresy, although he has frequently opined heretical ideas and done things at odd with Church teaching, like supporting doctrinal saboteurs like Kasper and Bruno and Baldisseri.

In fact, when Cardinal Pell literally slammed his hand on the table on October 16th (last year at the Synod) and said to Baldisseri: "You must stop manipulating this Synod!" Francis, who was seated next to Baldisseri, was seen constantly passing notes to Baldisseri and reportedly stone-faced as Cardinal Pell launched his dramatic protest.

Yes, I agree: the office of any Bishop Judas must be respected, but his errors must be resisted to his face. Only thus can you credibly be said to be maintaining unity of doctrine and authority, since no bishop is authorized to alter church teaching.





Raider Fan

said...

Dear George. Yes, that is what Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke. Pertinacious Papist etc are doing - faithful opposition from within as is their Canonical right and, maybe, even duty.





JM

said...
This comment has been removed by the author.




JM

said...

You live by your best lights. When the Church cannot even clearly call sin by its name, you realize its indefectility as a doctrine might be as opaque a concept as has been "no salvation outside the Church," a doctrine once literally understood by later taught by the Church to be rather meaningless when looked at from earthly perspectives. Possibly likewise "the gays of hell shall not..." After all, where is its understanding even attempted to be explicitly spelled out. Consistency with papal cow towing would demand great leniency on this point! Fair is fair.