Skip to main content

How might Francis Trads & Conservative Catholics become Full-blown Modernist Heretics?

"Obviously there could be no more effective way of reducing the teaching on the necessity of the Church for the attainment of eternal salvation to an empty formula than the explanation advanced by  Newman [in "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk] in what are probably the least felicitous pages of all his published works. That explanation is certainly one of those reproved in the encyclical letter Humani generis."
(The Catholic Church and Salvation: In the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See, By Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, Member of the Pontifical Theological Academy, 1958, Page 126)

Francis apologist Mike Lewis of the Where Peter Is blog who is also an apologist for Communion for adulterers and pachamama worship has finally shown me how it appears some Francis traditionalists and conservative Catholics become first liberal Catholics, that is semi-Modernists, and finally full-blown Modernist heretics.

The answer appears to be that they reject Thomistic realism and it's principle of non-contradiction as applied to the infallible teachings of the Church.

Instead they believe in Cardinal John Henry Newman's speculations on "Development of Doctrine" as well as his nominalist philosophy which denies the principle of non-contradiction as more infallible than the actual infallible Church teachings against such teachings as Communion for adulterers, idolatry and others.

Most Francis Catholics don't have enough philosophical background or plain common sense to realize this is what they are doing.

But, seemingly some realize their nominalism even as they mask it in the religious language of GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT which apparently was condemned by the infallible Council of Vatican I.

Lewis explains Newman's nominalist thinking:

"Newman himself spoke of the need to understand that doctrine might not DEVELOP [my capitalization] in a way that we can anticipate or in a way that our preconceived notions are prepared to accept."
(Where Peter Is, "The shock of developing doctrine: A response to Fr. Dwight Longenecker, May 22, 2018)

Although, I respect Cardinal Newman as a historian for his chronicling of St. Athanasius as well as the Arian crisis and use his historical work as good history, it appears that there is a problem with his philosophy which make problematic his theological idea of development of doctrine.

According to two scholars, Newman's philosophy appears to be tinted with nominalism.

Cardinal Johannes Willebrands who took part in Vatican II said:

"Newman was in fact a convinced individualist. The individual always supersedes the universal, the individual is the only reality... This doctrine is at odds with the doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas and amounts to nominalism."
(So, What's New About Scholasticism? How Neo-Thomism Helped Shape the Twentieth Century," Last chapter, books.google.com)

Also, scholar Jay Newman wrote:

"When he tells us that common nouns stand for what is non-existing and speaks of the mind's gift 'of bringing before it abstractions and generalizations, which have no existence, no counterpart, out of it.' Newman is letting us know that he has rejected the metaphysical 'realism' of the scholastics in favor of the 'nominalism' of the British empiricist school."
(The Mental Philosophy of John Henry Newman, Page 40)

Nominalism according to Wikipedia is defined as the philosophy that there "is a concept in the mind, rather than a real entity [objective truth] existing independently of the mind."

In terms of truth and Catholic doctrine nominalism means Church teachings can change or GROW that is "DEVELOP," but in Newman's system the growth can't contradict the previous accepted doctrine, but THE BIG QUESTION IS how can one who rejects Thomism as well as realism by being a nominalist then seriously speak of contradiction.

Even more important, "Development of Doctrine" is a speculation that apparently contradicts the infallible teaching of Vatican I.

The important American theologian Monsignor Joseph Fenton who did his doctoral dissertation under the great Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and was a collaborator with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani explained the problem with this speculation:

"The statement that our Catholic dogma or doctrine is the growth or the development of the seed planted by the Apostles would seem to be seriously objectionable. According to the Vatican Council [Vatican I] the Holy Father has been empowered to teach infallibly, NOT the GROWTH or the DEVELOPMENT [my capitalizations] of the primitive Christian teaching, but the 'revelation delivered through the Apostles, or deposit of Faith' itself."
(American Ecclesiological Review article, 1953)

It appears that the so-called "conservative" and "moderate" Francis Catholics like Lewis by thinking Newman's "Development of Doctrine" is infallible dogma when it is only speculation by someone who was tinted with the false philosophy of nominalism eventually become liberal Catholics and finally Modernist heretics by rejecting the Law of Non-contradiction and immutable eternal truth.

The great theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange explained Modernism:

"One sees the danger of the new definition of truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality but the conformity of mind and life... Truth is no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it is evolved with him... One understands why Puis X said of modernists: 'they pervert the eternal concept of truth."
(Archive.org, Catholic Family News Reprint Series, "Where is the New Theology")

Moreover, Dante scholar and Editor in Chief of The Catholic Thing Robert Royal explained that Francis, Lewis and all Communion for adulterers Francis traditionalist and conservative Catholics need God to "repeal the Law of Non-contradiction":

"Pope Francis... listens to... Cardinals Maradiaga, Marx and Kasper. The last in particular seems more and more incoherent and yet as he tries to explain precisely why marriage is indissoluble and yet those in a second sexual relationship - though not a marriage - may be absolved and return to receiving Communion. The only way that's possible is if God repeals the Law of Non-contradiction. I don't think that's on his to-do list."
(Fr. Z's Blog, "Good comments on Card. Burke and a serious translation error," November 10, 2014)

Do certain types of Catholics reject the Law of Non-contradiction?

Remember that Francis traditionalists and conservative Catholics hold the positions that Francis is infallibly definitely the pope and reject the St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales and Cardinal Raymond Burke solution that manifest heretical popes can lose the papacy if the Church declares them "explicit heretics."

Might there be a problem for those holding these positions in terms of becoming Modernists who reject the Law of Non-contradiction?

Below we explained the problem with the Francis traditionalist and conservative definitely poper position. Felton in an 1946 article for the American Ecclesiastical Review wrote the following:

 - “Under no circumstances can the Supreme Pontiff be in error when he teaches the entire Church on matters of faith."

-  “The Roman Church as well as the Roman Pontiff is exempt from the possibility of error in faith."

- “The Roman Pontiff is incapable of error, not only in decrees of faith but also in precepts of morals which are prescribed for the whole Church and which deal with matters necessary to salvation.” (De Romano Pontifice, 1586; Lib. IV, cap. 5, col. 987).
(American Ecclesiastical Review, December 1946; “The Necessity of the Definition of Papal Infallibility by the Vatican Council”)

Moreover, Felton wrote in the article “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals":

 "The Church can teach infallibly by solemn judgment or by its ordinary and universal magisteriumcapable of issuing infallible definitions on matters included in what sacred theology knows as the secondary object of the Church’s magisterium [i.e.,] … theological conclusions…dogmatic facts, approval of religious orders, canonization of saints.”
( “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals,” Pt. II, American Ecclesiastical Review, September, 1949)
[https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/4-heresy/why-a-legitimate-roman-pontiff-could-never-become-a-heretic-but-could-only-appear-to-become-one/ ]

Is Francis' "official act as the pope" of declaring  Communion for adulterers a "authentic magisterium" teaching to "the entire Church on matters of faith" a heresy or can they escape the problem by denying the Law of Non-contradiction?

Remember that Felton stated: "Under no circumstances can the Supreme Pontiff be in error when he teaches the entire Church on matters of faith."

Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic."
(LifeSiteNews, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion  to Adulterers a Heretic and promotes  Schism," December 23, 2016)

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

Comments

mary_podlesak said…
Both those of us with thomistic loyalty and all those set adrift by the theological speculations of the 20th century must read this. Newman may be seen as the father of modernistic speculations and the active contradiction of traditional doctrine right down to local diocese and religious orders decisions.
Alexis Bugnolo said…
Nominalism, Subjectivism and Individualism: whatever ministerium means in Benedict's renunciation, it means whatever munus means in Canon 322.2, because it is the intent which counts (Burke, Brandmueller etc.), and you have to prove us wrong, we do not have to prove that we are right.

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