Is Voris now a Francis Creed Believer who believes that Communion for Adulterers is not Heresy because he is like Mike Lewis "Proximate to Heresy"?
Francis Talks Up Communion for Adulterers
The Francis Creed
"I believe in Amoris Laetitia, the Communion of adulterers, Francis's representation of globalist teachings which embodies the Soros gospel of unlimited mass immigration, climate change, a one-world government and the goddess Mother Earth everlasting."
After all, isn't it true that recently the leftist Lewis Catholics have joined hands with their Francis conservative brothers in using the Voris and Eric Sammons talking points of "schismatic" and "sedevacantist" against all Catholics who present evidence that the 2013 conclave Pope John Paul constitution was violated including Bishop Gracida and even Cardinal Raymond Burke for daring to imply that the Francis conclave could be invalid and that Francis's Communion for adulterers could be heretical.
While it is well known that Voris, Sammons and all the Francis conservatives feel uncomfortable with the Soros gospel part of the Francis Creed, they must endure this temporary discomfort.
They must remember that they do agree with the Francis liberals in the part of the creed that says it is a infallible dogma that Francis is a valid pope no matter what the evidence shows and moreover they must stay in communion with him even when by his "authentic Magisterium" authority he teaches Communion for adulterers without committing obstinate heresy.
They must never forget that they are in union with the Francis liberals in believing that he cannot be corrected nor can he as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales proclaimed be "deprived... of his Apostlic See" for being "explicitly a heretic":
"The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) - The Catholic Monitor
In 2017, Michael Voris' Church Militant apparently was against Communion for adulterers:
Church Militant is confirming that Pope Francis has officially approved the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia that opens Holy Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried in some instances, directly contradicting Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, arguably making this interpretation binding on the consciences of the faithful." [https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/breaking-pope-declares-troubling-interpretation-of-al-authentic-magisterium]
A few days ago, Voris said; "I know we're in a chaotic state and that the constitution of the Church is wan, but let's get back to the wholesome days where we bristled when we heard some bloke label the vicar of Christ [Francis] a heretic." [https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/taylor-marshall-defames-the-pope]
So, apparently Voris now believes Communion for adulterers is orthodox Catholic teachings and not heretical.
It seems that Voris may have joined Dave Armstrong and Mike Lewis in being "proximate to heresy":
It seems obvious that both Dave Armstrong and Mike Lewis, side-by-side, are on the Francis Team that "systematically defends [Francis] the pope." They both appear to believe that Francis's Amoris Laetitia teaching allowing Communion for adulterers is infallible and "ALL" his "statements... are infallible":
In April, Where Peter Is' Mike Lewis in his continued campaign for COVID tyranny called Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò a "dissident cleric" which is an approximate term for a "heretic." [https://wherepeteris.com/catholic-media-and-critical-thinking/]
Might Fratelli Tutti and Amoris Laetitia promoter Lewis be a "dissident" heretic or at least "proximate to heresy"?
Lewis (and his collaborator Armstrong) appear to believe that Francis's Amoris Laetitia teaching allowing Communion for adulterers is infallible and "ALL" his "statements... are infallible."
He seems to think Francis
cannot fall into heresy because he is the definitely pope and "ALL" his
"statements... are infallible":
Lewis (and his collaborator Armstrong) who are
Pachamama apologists seem to think Francis
cannot fall into heresy because they think he is definitely the pope
because apparently there has never been a anti-pope in Catholic history
and,again, "ALL" his
"statements... are infallible."
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book
"Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis and Armstrong who it appears are "proximate to
heresy":
"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is
proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the
conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by
essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of
conditions."
"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a
non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is
infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
Might Lewis be a heretic?
Lewis has seems to have shown how so-called
"conservative" Francis Catholics become first liberal Catholics and
finally 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 and believe that Cardinal John Henry Newman's speculations
on "Development of Doctrine" as well as his nominalist philosophy which
denies the principle of non-contradiction are more infallible than the
actual infallible Church teachings against Communion for adulterers and
idolatry.
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 Fr. 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 appear 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.
Dante scholar and Editor in Chief of The Catholic Thing Robert Royal
explained that Lewis and all Communion for adulterers Francis 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)
Also, is Armstrong calling his beloved Francis a liar?
LifeSiteNews reported these words of Francis:
"I would like to say a word about the pachamama statues that were removed from the Church of Traspontina."
(LifeSiteNews, "Full transcript of the Pope's comments on pagan 'Pachamama' statues," October 25, 2019)
The National Catholic Register's contributing writer Armstrong
(according to the journalism website muckrack.com) is in a dilemma
because either he is calling his beloved Francis a liar or he is saying
statues which Francis called "the pachamama statues" are not what he
called them, but instead "a strong case can be made that the naked
images "represent the [naked] Blessed Virgin Mary":
"There is a
strong case to be made that they [the naked images Francis called
"pachamama statues"] represent the [naked] Blessed Virgin Mary."
(patheos.com/blog/davearmstrong, "'Pachamama' [?] Statues: Marian Veneration or Blasphemy Idolatry?," November 5, 2019)
How dare the so-called pro-family National Catholic Register have a
writer who claims the naked images Francis called "pachamama statues"
can by "a strong case... be... [naked images of] the Blessed Virgin
Mary."
Maybe someone needs to organize a Catholic boycott of the National Catholic Register and Church Militant.
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.