Skip to main content

Waldorf Shows Ignorance of Bible, Infallible Trent, Magisterium Authority, Thomism & Unwittingly says Pope is a Heretic

On January 4, Stephen Walford in his article for the Vatican Insider said:

"Pope Francis was asked directly in April 2016 the question: has sacramental discipline changed for the divorced and remarried? And his answer was yes. Since then, he has given the Church a document (the Buenos Aries guidelines) which obviously represents for him the way a discernment process should work for those not only who feel their first marriage was invalid but cannot prove it, but also those who for other reasons cannot live as brother and sister but who hope to reach that point through the grace of God, and an application of the law of gradualness." [http://www.lastampa.it/2018/01/04/vaticaninsider/eng/documents/the-amoris-laetitia-dissenters-lGWxh795fjt5DHh7Wx74WP/pagina.html]

On December 23, 2016 Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, one of the four Cardinals of the dubia, said:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic."[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dubia-cardinal-anyone-who-opens-communion-to-adulterers-is-a-heretic-and-pr]

In that article Waldord, also, said "Loyalty to the Holy Father and obedience to his magisterium has always been central to a spiritual life pleasing to God. To place oneself outside that requirement is not only defying the Successor of St Peter, but God himself."

Waldord, in his ignorance, thinks St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong and taught Catholics to defy... God himself." Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae taught :

"If the faith were endangered a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject,  rebuked in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith." (Summa Theologiae II-IIae, 33,4,2)

The Bible, Revelation, teaches St. Paul rebuked or corrected St. Peter for error. Does he think Francis can teach error when even Peter was rebuked for teaching error?

In the Vatican Insider article he said:

"Fr Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer from the Archdiocese of New York who stated on the 28th September 2017 edition that adultery is always a mortal sin “we cannot go by moral theology which minimises the gravity of that offence.” Fr Murray either doesn’t know what is taught in the Catechism, Veritatis Splendor, and various documents of the CDF [1]or he is choosing to ignore them creating a false magisterium that rejects the authentic magisterium in relation to moral theology, mortal sin and subjective guilt. The question is: if he does know these teachings (it has been pointed out to him), why give the false impression to every soul in these situations that they are definitely in mortal sin? Is that the Christian way of charity and mercy?"

Thomist scholar Fr. Basil Cole OP said it is not Fr. Murray that does not understand Catholic teachings, but Waldorf and the writers of Amoris Leatitia. They contradict Catholicism and Thomism:

"Another tangle one can encounter is when quoting Aquinas piecemeal or without full advertence to his theological project. St. Thomas was nothing if not a complete and consistent thinker. To pick and choose his statements without considering their context and relation to his other relevant insights would be about as disastrous as proof-texting Sacred Scripture."

"One might suppose that a situationist ethic is supported by Aquinas when he states, “In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. […] The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail” (ST I-II, q. 94, a. 4; quoted in Amoris Laetitia n. 304). Isolated from Aquinas’s other statements, it could seem as if the doctor of the Church is saying that no moral rule is absolute, but that discernment is needed in each and every situation to know whether or not a general moral principle applies in a particular situation. However, this is not authentic Thomism."

"Situation ethics contradicts Aquinas's firm affirmation that there are some moral norms that always hold for everyone: these are the precepts of the Decalogue (T I-94, q.100, a.8)... Aquinas's teaching is clear: a person should not receive Holy Communion or absolution from sin who does not intend to change his life and forsake public sin... (ST I-94, q.43, a.1)."
(National Catholic Register, "Is 'Amoris Laetitia' Really Thomistic?," December 16, 2016)

Waldord unwittingly shows that the official endorsement of the Argentine directive of Amoris Laetitia contradicted the infallible doctrine of Trent when he said:

"The I would suggest that the Pontiff’s interpretation of canon 915 is far more nuanced than those whose rigidity betrays a pharisaical intransigence to what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Churches at this time. Cardinal Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts seems to share this opinion also."

On January 2, Vatican expert Edward Pentin reported that Pope Francis's president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio unwittingly said that the official endorsement of the Argentine directive of Amoris Laetitia contradicted the infallible doctrine of Trent:

"In comments to the Register last month, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio insisted the Pope’s official endorsement of an Argentine directive on the issue did not contradict canon law."

"The president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts said it is true that 'divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) cannot be admitted to Holy Communion because they are ‘in manifest grave sin.'”"

"But he added that there are 'divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) who have the intention to change their condition but cannot. Therefore such faithful are only in objective sin, not subjective sin, precisely because they have the intention to change, even if they cannot. This intention makes a difference!”

He further noted that the relevant canon, number 915, states that Holy Communion cannot be allowed if the person remains “obstinately persevering” in grave sin. The word “obstinate” means “without any intention to change,” Cardinal Coccopalmerio said, “so these faithful can be admitted to Holy Communion because they have the intention to leave the condition of sin and therefore they are not in sin.'”

"He added that the “doctrine of sincere repentance” which contains the purpose of changing one's condition of life as a necessary requisite to be admitted to the sacrament of Penance 'is respected' because the faithful in such hypothesised situations 'are conscious, have conviction, of the situation of objective sin in which they currently find themselves.' They also 'have the purpose of changing their condition of life, even if, at this moment, they are not able to implement their purpose.'”

"'The cardinal added that the doctrine of 'sanctifying grace as a necessary requisite to be admitted to the sacrament of the Eucharist is also respected' because the faithful in this case 'haven’t yet arrived at a real change of life because of the impossibility of doing so, but have the intention of implementing this change.'”

"He said it is 'precisely this theological element that allows absolution and access to the Eucharist, always — we repeat — in the presence of an impossibility to immediately change the condition of sin.'”
[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/three-bishops-issue-profession-of-truth-about-sacramental-marriage#.Wkx_mDWIbqA]

The Cardinal in the above statement said it is impossible to "change the condition of sin" which is another way of saying Amoris Laetitia's "in concrete situations which does not allow him or her to decide otherwise."

Trent said "If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified  and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema." 

Finally, On February 2, 2017, Walford in another article for the Vatican Insider titled "The Magisterium of Pope Francis: His Predecessors come to his Defence," again, showed his ignorance of magisterium authority.

Walford's central argument in the piece is that Amoris Laetitia is a case of papal ordinary magisterium and to deny its authority is to "call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and the entire fabric of Catholicism."

He claims three great Church theologians "ruled out" that a Pope can teach heresy.

His claim that the great Fr. Francisco Suarez agreed with his thesis is worst than sloppy writing. It is the opposite of the truth.

Suarez taught "it is a given that a pope could be a formal heretic." (Crisis, "Can a Pope be a Heretic?," March 4, 2015)

Scholar James Schall, S.J. said:

"Bellarmine and Suarez considered a de facto possibility of an heretical pope. They granted that the Church would have to depose him if he did not self-declare his heresy." (The Catholic Thing, "On Heretical Popes," November 11, 2014)

Walford said St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori agreed with him.

As Schall's quote shows Bellarmine taught that the possibility of heretical popes could be piously believed despite what the saint personally believed.

As with Bellarmine, Liguori personally believed that popes could not be heretics, but like the former he did not disallow Catholics to believe in the possibility of heretical popes.

Villanova University theologian Jessica Murdoch explains magisterium authority for Walford:

"Responding faithfully to the trans-temporal magisterium of the Church (and not just to the magisterium of one's own time) requires holding in view two other principals of interpretation. First, 'the minor gives way to the major.' Second, the 'one gives way to the many.'.. Thus, Amoris Laetitia cannot supersede the encyclical Veritatis Splendor... One must privilege the harmony of the many pontificates in union with each other, and their unanimity with the Fathers and Doctors of the Church over the one seemingly dissonant voice." (First Things, "Creeping Infallibility," 9-27-16)

The article shows that to disbelieve papal teachings that are dissonant from every single magisterium teaching in the history of the Church is the only way not to "call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and the entire fabric of Catholicism."

Resisting such dissonant papal teachings, as Amoris Laetitia, is the only way not to bring about "dissolution, confusion, and death" into the Church.

In the same article, Murdoch said:

"By contrast, doctrinal evolution in which a new teaching sublates and eliminates the earlier teaching in a quasi-Hegelian fashion breeds dissolution, confusion, and death."

Comments

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