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.
Michael O'Hearn said…
I would take issue with the apparent dichotomy between munus and magisterium. Benedict’s resignation was complete if in fact he was using “munus” in an analogous sense when he said that he was keeping the munus with regard to the spiritual dimension only. One could ask whether Pope Celestine IV who resigned in 1241 and at whose grave Benedict mysteriously visited on several occasions before his own resignation, did in fact preserve some element of this munus in an analogous sense, especially while being under “house arrest” (not unlike Benedict) before his death that same year. What Benedict was really getting at was that any pope who voluntarily resigns does not lose a certain spiritual characteristic (munus) which he received as gift from God when he accepted the vocation to become pope. In fact, Benedict implies that it would be impossible for any pope to not have this gift after retirement.

As to Father Gruner, my recollection is that his priestly faculties were suspended for a time, and that he finally reconciled with John Paul II shortly before his death.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk