Skip to main content

Why is Ferrara saying Communion for Adulterers isn't "Doctrine, but a Disciplinary Permission" & Running away from Fr. Gruner's Teachings

On Dr. Taylor Marshall's YouTube channel Catholic lawyer Christopher Ferrera said that Francis's teaching that adulterers may receive Communion is "not really a doctrine, but a disciplinary permission."
(Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube channel, "Is Pope Francis Against Fatima? with Christopher Ferrara, 42:57)

So it appears that according to Ferrera if Pope Paul VI instead of teaching contraception and abortion can never be permitted had taught that contraception and abortion can be permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a "disciplinary permission."

So it appears that according to Ferrara if Francis were to teach that pagan Pachamama idol worshipping in all Catholic churches is now permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a "disciplinary permission."

Moreover, in the YouTube show Ferrera said he "learned more about" theology from Fr. Nicholas Gruner than if he had went to a advance theological educational program.

But, as Ferrara knows Fr. Gruner agreed with canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation:

"Canon 17 requires that canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Why is Ferrara afraid to respond and running away from his great theological teacher Fr. Gruner's and Br. Bugnolo's reasonable canon law arguments about the apparent invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Comments

Alexis Bugnolo said…
Fred,

I too am totally shocked by what the Attorney just said. He has just thrown the entire Catholic faith into the dustbin. Does he think it is not heretical to teach that it is allowable in certain cases to permit those in the state of mortal sin to commit a sacrilege by receive a Sacrament of the living?

What kind of game is he playing at? That is heresy!

That is like a prosecutor saying, that it is permissible to allow murder in certain cases, so long as the local policemen thinks it will be more inclusive of the comunnity...
Justina said…
Dear Fred and Brother,

I think it is even worse than all that. In Frank Walker's headline at Canon 212, he said Ferrara stated that popes can make mistakes. If that was the full extent of the assertion, it wouldn't be so bad, because of course they can. Only Rex Mottram would deny it.

But that is not what Ferrara said. In fact, his rhetorical question specified--Who says popes can't make mistakes when teaching about faith and morals?

This not only contradicts his own contention that permitting access to the Eucharist for the invalidly remarried is a disciplinary matter alone. It even contradicts Our Lord who, when entrusting the Keys to Peter, specifically linked them to Heaven as well as earth. It is He who guarantees, through the Holy Spirit, that popes cannot commit the errors to which Ferrara alludes. If they could, or if such errors may be downgraded to merely negotiable matters at will, then why be Catholic at all? I'd rather follow my own private judgment than someone else's, if that is all there is.

If I have understood Ferrara and Marshall correctly, they sought to overcome this objection by citing popes like Honorius who did teach wrong things. The point these commentators fail to factor in is that such teachings were not tolerated by the Church. They were corrected, which apparently is exactly what Christopher Ferrara has now shown himself unwilling to insist upon.

God is not mocked. It must be one way or the other. Either Bergoglio was never the Pope in the first place or, as Pope, he has deviated so severely from the Faith that Cardinal Burke's long-awaited Formal Correction must come to pass at last. For us all to succumb to Bergoglio Derangement Syndrome like poor Counselor Ferrara, voluntarily warping our view of reality itself rather than dealing with the possibility that we have an anti-pope on our hands, is no solution at all.
Thank you for stating what must be deduced by Ferrara's statement...that he has thrown the Catholic faith away.

The confusion grows when one's premise is incorrect.

Islam_Is_Islam said…
To be clear, even Louie Verrecchio at akaCatholic questioned why Fatima Center seemed to bury Fr. Gruner's video comments from Deerborn, IL in 2014.

https://vimeo.com/228833627

A once hidden video rediscovered

As I prepared to write the aforementioned post, I went to the Fatima Center’s Youtube channel where I had previously watched a video wherein Fr. Gruner publicly called into question the validity of Benedict’s resignation, and likewise the pontificate of Francis.

The setting was Deerfield, IL; the date, 14 November 2014.

I was present for Fr. Gruner’s talk, but I wanted to post the video for the benefit of those who may have doubted the accuracy of my memory.

Strangely, however, upon returning to the Fatima Center’s list of videos taken at that conference, I discovered that the video I was seeking had apparently (as you may see for yourself) been made “private;” i.e., it was no longer available for public viewing.

I reached out to one of my friends at the Fatima Center for an explanation, but never received an answer as to why Fr. Gruner’s talk was no longer available.

Make of this what you will.

In any case, I am pleased to say that I have since been able to obtain a copy of Fr. Gruner’s presentation. The relevant excerpt (about 6 minutes in length in order to provide adequate context) follows; with specific mention of Benedict’s resignation beginning at roughly the 5 minute mark. [NOTE: Father misspeaks when giving the date of Benedict’s alleged departure when he says “2012.” It actually took place in 2013.]



One may have noticed that Fr. Gruner left precious little doubt that, in the celebration of Holy Mass, he did not pray for Francis as if he were a true pope!

Is the current brain trust of the Fatima Center embarrassed by this? Are they concerned that Father’s well-founded doubts concerning the so-called Bergoglian “pontificate” may scare off potential new supporters from among the ranks of the neo-conservatives?
Charmaine said…
How tragic that even Louie Verrecchio has abandoned Fr. Gruner's position that he had so valiantly upheld on his akaCatholic blog, as he has now succumbed to the error of sedevacantism; and worse yet, working to influence others to go along with it as well.
Codysmom said…
Thank you for the video!!
Sendero said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sendero said…
Very Sad but this is what happens (queue Barnhardt) when you start with the wrong premise. You end in cognitive dissonance. Pray that a warrior for the faith has enough intellectual honesty to correct his public statement. "For the worthy reception of the Eucharist, the STATE of GRACE as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary" Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma"
Fr. VF said…
Popes can teach error about faith and morals, when they are not solemnly teaching ex cathedra.
Fr. VF said…
Define "sedevacantism." It is not, as many people seem to believe, a heresy. It is the opinion that there is no pope. It may be erroneous at times to hold this opinion, but sedevacantism is not, in itself, an "error." The Church does not "teach" the name of the pope. Those who hold a minority opinion regarding the identity of the pope do not offend against the virtue of faith.
Fr. VF said…
Ferrara said nothing objectionable. He pointed out that Bergoglio resorts to the subterfuge that "I'm not changing doctrine; I'm only changing discipline." Ferrara nowhere said that this was an honest distinction, or that the laity should accept it.

At regular intervals, certain trads go crazy, accusing men who have written multiple books defending Tradition over the past fifty years of "throwing the entire Catholic Faith in the dustbin" and suchlike--because of a turn of phrase in a YouTube video.
guy said…
I agree with your assessment.
Badcatholic said…
The errors of Bergoglio are working quite well without resorting to solem ex cathedra statements, as he is well aware. I find it incomprehensible that one could believe that he will not do so in the future if he feels it advances his agenda. The explanation I have is that for his teachings to be binding, ex cathedra or not, they cannot contradict the prior magisterium of the Church. A simple application of the basic principle of all rational discourse, the law of non-contradiction, when seeking truth. What say you?
Thank you, and well said.
Extraordinary magisterium is used to sharpen the clarity of ordinary magisterium, for example the Immaculate Conception. If there was no solemn definition, the Immaculate Conception is still infallible doctrine because of ordinary magisterium, but a heretic pope might be able to make a deceptive argument against it. After the solemn definition, that tactic is no longer feasible. The problem the modernists face is that the particular teachings they want overturned have all been at one time or another, solemnly defined. So they must resort to a different tactic altogether; attempt to overturn solemn magisterium with what appears to be ordinary magisterium. And the reason that tactic has been effective (V2) is because, unlike extraordinary magisterium which was solemnly defined at V1, ordinary magisterium is itself only defined by ordinary magisterium (maybe because that council was never completed). So there is enough wiggle room to allow attempts at deception. The only doctrine I can see the modernists to ever consider defining solemnly, is the doctrine of ordinary magisterium. But it's proven much more effective to simply do what they've been doing. My 2 cents.
Nathan said…
Exactly. Thank you.

Popular posts from this blog

"Exorcist Fr. Ripperger is asking everyone to say this Prayer until the Election is Resolved"

A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said "exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved": Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature.  By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will.  I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit.  I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications.  I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protectio

High-profile Lawyer Barnes: Amy Coney Barrett would be a Disaster

High-profile trial lawyer Robert Barnes who deals in civil, criminal and constitutional law reported on Twitter that Amy Coney Barrett would be a disaster. The Barnes Twitter report shows that Coney Barrett has " sid[ed] with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations... [and] exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps... [and] hid behind precedent... to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech ." The Avvo.com lawyer directory reports that attorney "Robert Barnes embraces the challenge to defend the little guy and stand up for what is right. This is why he left the prestigious Yale Law School, whom publicly stated their unwill

If Kamala Harris' Father is part White & part Jamaican African and her Mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

  Is Joe Biden's running mate really Black? If Kamala Harris' father is part white and part Jamaican African and her mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black? Reason.com tries to figure it out: Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's pick to be the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee, is the daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican immigrant father. Her father, as I understand it, has ancestors of both European and African origin. [Welcome new Volokh readers. FYI, I've been working on a book on the American Law of Race, with this forthcoming article the first relevant output. My own opinion is that Ms. Harris should be deemed American, period, but there is no such box on government forms, and if you decline to state your race, someone will decide for you… First things first. There is no multiracial or mixed-race category in American law in any jurisdiction. Nor is there an Indian category. So Harris cannot be legally Indian, nor can she b