Skip to main content

The Catholic Monitor asks Steven O'Reilly: "Is Communion for Adulterers 'Explicitly a Here[sy]'? Answer: Yes or No" & "Are the Ten Commandments Infallible Catholic Dogma?

 Heretical popes & Limitation of Catholic Authority #sspx #catholic | Charles Carroll Society

 249: Pope Francis Accused of 7 Counts of Heresy by 19 Scholars [Podcast] - Taylor Marshall

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

- 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)
 

The Catholic Monitor (CM) was honored to have the publisher of .RomaLocutaEst, Steven O’Reilly, who is a former intelligence officer, visit its comment section in which he and the publisher of CM had a back and forth.

I asked Steve O'Reilly:

"Is Communion for adulterers 'explicitly a here[sy]'? Answer: yes or no" 

O'Reilly's answer in The Catholic Monitor comment section was:

My reply, first, "heresy/heretic" can be used in a strict canonical/theological sense, or in a looser sense (i.e., as Lamont suggests). I do believe communion for adulterer is certainly an error -- or 'heretical' in this looser sense.

Familiaris Consortio 84 repeats the perennial teaching of the Church on the question, and JP II speaks of the non-communion practice is what the Church 'professes in faithfulness to Christ' (that's a loose quote from memory)...so to say or allow the opposite, is to profess an error which is NOT faithful to Christ. So, what does it mean for Francis? John XXII was in error on the Beatific Vision, but as the doctrine up to that point had not been dogmatized...he was not technically a "heretic" in the strict sense. The next pope defined the question.

Might Francis' case in this sense be analogous to John XXII...possibly. It is for the Church to decide the question, to examine Francis words (or lack of them) in this matter. Lamont might be right, but I've seen arguments, such as made by Cardinal Muller, that the Buenos Aires Guidelines in the AAS can be read in an orthodox sense (I think theologian Dr. Fastiggi make similar point to Muller) which would neutralize the AAS controversy -- if they are right. Personally, I think Muller has a hard go of it to prove his interpretation.
[https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/the-catholic-monitor-aqua-debate-steven.html]

My response was:

Fred Martinez said…
Steve,

Thanks for the questions and your time and effort. As my regular CM readers know, I very rarely get involved in the comment section, but I consider you a gentleman and a friend whom I disagree with on some issues, but respect. I'm working and have a lot on my plate on top of that so I'm probably going to do a post or two on them. I may do a comment post on your comment on Cardinal Mueller's theory on Communion for adulterers which in my opinion is plainly ridiculous.
[https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/the-catholic-monitor-aqua-debate-steven.html]

O'Reilly's response was:

Steven O'Reilly said…

Fred,

to be clear...I wasn't saying I agree with Mueller's theory. My point is, there are divergent opinions on the question, even thought I have a hard time seeing how Mueller can hold his opinion. So, do not suggest I agree with Mueller.
[https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/the-catholic-monitor-aqua-debate-steven.html]

The Catholic Monitor, again, asks O'Reilly:

"Is Communion for adulterers 'explicitly a here[sy]'? Answer: yes or no" 

The Catholic Monitor, also, asks O'Reilly a question it asked Ed Condon, Phil Lawler, and Jimmy Akin on :

"Are the Ten Commandments infallible Catholic dogma?

Here is the  post that asked the above question:

Getting a few Laughs as Lawler, Condon & Akin in Attacking 19 Scholar say Ten Commandments aren't Infallible Dogma

I got a few laughs reading the snooty attacks on the 19 scholar heroes by pompous Catholic commentators who apparently don't think the Ten Commandments are infallible Catholic dogma.

Catholic News Agency Ed Condon very seriously wrote the "pope himself... content[s] that Amoris can and should be read in continuity with Catholic teaching."

But, Condon doesn't show us where Communion for those committing adultery is anywhere in previous Catholic teaching so there could be "continuity."

Catholic Culture Phil Lawler nonchalantly says "the claim that the Pope has committed heresy is at best a leap of logic."

But, Lawler doesn't show how it is a "leap of logic" to come to the logical conclusion that teaching Communion for those committing adultery is a heresy.

Finally, coming down from the mountain comes the National Catholic Register's Jimmy Akin who proclaims in "addition to demonstrat[ing] dogmas, the Open Letter also fails to demonstrate that Pope Francis obstinately doubts or denies dogma."

But, Akin doesn't show how Communion for those committing adultery which way back in 2017 was endorsed by Francis's Argentine letter that is called "authentic magisterium" by his Vatican and placed in the Holy See's AAS doesn't "demonstrate obstinately doubts or denies dogma."

It appears that these really smart Catholic guys with their really deep analysis of Catholic moral dogmatic theology don't think the Ten Commandments are infallible dogma.

Thanks for the laughs guys. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/05/getting-at-few-laughs-as-lawler-condon.html]

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

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- 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)


Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

- If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the"Roman Rite Communities" like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & "Eminent Canonists and Theologians" by "Resist[ing]" him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html 

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
 
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
 
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
 
Pray an Our Father now for America.
 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

Comments

T said…
Ah, the cognitive dissonance of finding yourself in the end times and finding out those ridiculed as conspiracy theorists were right.
Anonymous said…
@Fred

O'Reilly has never said that Amoris Letitia is a good encyclical...

Of course communion should not be given out to adulterers...this is the resist part of recognizing and resisting teachings that clearly do not align with past teachings of the church. It's not a "gotacha!' moment against O'Reilly because O'Reilly is not a cheerleader for Francis, like Tim Staples is...
Aqua said…
Anonymous 4:26

How can you *not* be a "cheerleader" for the Pope, if you are a Roman Catholic? That seems fundamental.

If he's the Pope, why not ... work for his success, glean nuggets of spiritual wisdom from his sayings, find ways to apply his Encyclicals in your personal and Parish life, study his writings, make pilgrimages to see him in person, purchase and display an Amazon Pachamama on uyour mantle, eliminate all divisive elements of Tradition from your home and family life, help to make sure his Pontificate is a roaring success?

"Not a cheerleader".
"Clearly don't align".
"Recognize and resist".
"Of course you don't do what the Pope clearly said we should do".

Strange Pope you have there. Strange relationship, also, between the Shepherd and Flock.

"Not a cheerleader": one of the many inconsistencies of the Frannypapist (hat tip SO'R).
Aqua said…
Heavy emphasis on *if*.
Debbie said…
Please forgive me, I've just returned from an evening out which included adult beverages...but I cannot reconcile the push for ecumenism by all the post conciliar popes,most especially with JPII and Benedict. Obviously "Francis" is beyond anything the others have done, but why is the modernist errors of the last two valid popes overlooked? I, as an Apostolic Catholic am forbidden from worshipping in and with non-Catholic churches (at least traditionally it's been forbidden)....and yet the last two popes did just that. What am I missing?
Anonymous said…
As a Catholic, I tolerate Francis out of obedience to the validly elected pontiff until he's a declared heretic...I'm not getting a pachamama statue, I'd toss it in the local river if one ever got gifted to me...his conclave didn't get challenged by a single Cardinal.

It's like when you have an awful President like Biden, you just endure the tough years and hope the next successor is better...
Debbie,

Buy the book "The Great Facade" by the historian Thomas Woods and Ferrara for an in-depth answer to your some of your questions.
T said…
I just know that to be say sedevacantism is true you have to say the Church lost the mark of apostolocity. None of those bishops were sent by the pope, but they just took the office. They could rectify this situation by calling a conclave, but it clarify they don’t have true. So if neither recognize and resist or sedevacantism are compatible with Catholicism, there must be a third option to explain Francis.

I now think evil penetrated the Church in the 1960s and most popes have been practical prisoners surrounded by evil men. Benedict tried to flee, and Francis was “elected” to finish the job of destroying the Church.

To put tha capstone on the counter church they are trying to scare away serious Catholics, who are at loss to explain what’s going, or make them become sedevaacsntists, which has the appearance of being the true traditional position, but contradicts things like apostolocity.
Aqua said…
Debbie

I agree with T.

The 2nd edition of Fred’s book recommendation has six additional chapters and includes the latest on Bergoglio. It does seem to address your (legitimate) concerns. It’s expensive, but I’m getting a copy, I think.

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Façade-Novelty-Catholic-Vatican/dp/1621381498/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=278T7ZOOAJTVR&keywords=the+great+facade+ferrara&qid=1654344977&sprefix=the+great+faca%2Caps%2C103&sr=8-1
Debbie said…
Fred and Aqua, I looked up The Great Facade and did see the second edition has the extra chapters. Right now I am being very cautious with money. And seeing as I am not a fan of Francis is definitely pope, Ferrara, not overly enthused in his spin on things. Fatima.org has scrubbed all mention of Fr. Gruner's belief in BiP (which I'm sure you're aware). I'd be more interested in the first edition to ensure the 2nd hasn't any "revisions" to the 1st. Just my thoughts.

I know I am waffling back and forth, and do not like it....but boy, it's getting really difficult. Just when I believe the sedes are correct, something happens to make me doubt. Today's incident was at Mass. My favorite canon offered a High Mass for First Saturday. As he was processing to the Altar it struck me how humble and good a priest he is, so much so it made me tear up....the sedes, I believe would say he's not a valid priest and I reject that. Yet, all the "errors" from ALL the post conciliar popes up to and including BXVI scream NOT Catholic.

This is why I've repeatedly asked that the likes of Ann, Mark, Super Nerd and another (who is sympathetic to the sede position) to do the round table as mentioned on Ann's last podcast. Basically, I want a good solid argument on why the sedevacantist position is wrong.
Aqua said…
Debbie,
What is the Sede position, as you understand it? What is it that you find compelling?
Debbie said…
Aqua, All the post conciliar popes were (still are?) modernists, including Benedict. How does this square with the Petrine Promise? I, like you did the Protestant thing and find the ecumenism from especially JPII, but Benedict too very problematic. How do we convince a prot the need to convert while our highest authority (the number two reason for most converts after Eucharist) demonstrate otherwise? Other than point them to tradition and pretty much ignore all post VII teaching....it's nearly impossible. Show them the need for authority, yet ignore said authority? How does that work?
Aqua said…
Debbie,
In regards to the Sede being Vacante, I need solid proof as to when, where and how. That's a big claim. I don't reject it out of hand - I just need solid proof that an invalid election gave us an antipope; and/or a valid Pope committed heresy such that he was ontologically deprived of Office. And then .... we're no valid elections accomplished since then, after the deprived Pope died? Is the Apostolic Line broken. If so, how and through whom will it ever be re-established?

IOW, in my understanding of the Sede position it is *extremely* hopeless. It can't explain how we got in, how we survive now (Sacraments please?) how we recover and emerge.

SSPX position is that tremendous deviations have occurred, and they remain faithful to the Church that transcends the moment. They accept my position, "I am not required to name the Pope, but only to submit to the 'Papacy'". And they allow me to receive the Sacraments. So I return the favor with tolerance for their position - not essential to agree on the name of the Pope to be a Catholic in good standing.

The alternative is ... what? "Where else would I go? She (Holy Mother Church) has the words of eternal life".
Aqua said…
I wrote my response prior to reading yours. It is not directly related - indirectly. In answer to your base question, there really is no satisfactory answer. We are being chastised - what else can we expect, right? I will stay as close to Jesus, Mary, the RCC as I possibly can. I will not Sede and separate, absent firm convincing proof. God gave us a "way out" of our trial when Arbp LeFebvre chose white martyrdom for the sake of the Faitnful *to come* (me, you). I choose his path. I will do what he did. I will follow his Society's Priests of Tradition.
Anonymous said…

Steve O'Reilly asks Catholic Monitor to answer the first of two Dubia directed at Fred Martinez...

...weeks later...

Fred Martinez still hasn't responded...

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaest.com)
Fred Martinez said…
https://www.thefredmartinezreport.com/2022/06/fred-martinezs-answers-to-steven-oreilly.html
Fred Martinez said…
Fred Martinez, again, asks O'Reilly:

"Is Communion for adulterers 'explicitly a here[sy]'? Answer: yes or no"

The Catholic Monitor, also, asks O'Reilly a question it asked Ed Condon, Phil Lawler, and Jimmy Akin on May 03, 2019 :

"Are the Ten Commandments infallible Catholic dogma?

Best,

Fred
Anonymous said…
@aqua

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-ordinary-mission-of-sspx-john.html

As far as sedevacantism goes...Lefebvre never said it's impossible, just hadn't been proven.
Fr. VF said…
Well, ackshually, the Ten Commandments aren't "infallible dogma," or any kind of dogma. They are mandates and prohibitions. A "dogma" is a proposition stating a fact.

The Ten Commandments and other mandates and prohibitions are authoritative, and the Magisterium infallibly defines them as authoritative or binding on the conscience. Thus, the denial that they are authoritative is heretical.

The moral mandate to deny Holy Communion to obstinate, manifest doers of grave sin goes back to St. Paul. It is the constant practice of the Church, and it is expressed explicitly in Canon 915. It was mandated in the 1917 Code and previous canon law. Calling for the violation of Canon 915 is heretical.

Bergoglio has refused, for more than 2000 days, to respond to the dubia. He is overtly, obstinately promoting bishops who have vociferously advocated the violation of Canon 915. It is clear that Bergoglio is a heretic.

Thus, it is clear, whether or not he ever was pope, that he is not pope now.
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

You didn't answer my questions. You dodged them.

Yes or no.

You answered the first..." I can't answer that until I clearly see what Dr. Mazza's answer is to your above statements and check if they are accurate or inaccurate."

That is insufficient, and actually baloney. It is clear from Coffin's interview of Dr. Mazza what he said, and I've quoted Ratzinger at length. It is clear Dr. Mazza misread Ratzinger.

So...give us a clear answer. You don't need to go running to Dr. Mazza.

Further...I have asked you 2 dubia thus far. As I noted a few weeks ago...I had at that point answered six questions of yours. So...I have four more to go.

Questions #3: Is Benedict still pope? Yes or no.


Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

oh...though I do not owe you any answers...there is nothing ambiguous about my position on communion for adulterers. Not sure why you are trying to play a "gotcha" game here. I've provided an answer already, and further more, it is clear in my critique of Stephen Walford's book in three parts:

https://romalocutaest.com/2018/10/08/the-errors-of-mr-walfords-pope-francis-the-family-and-divorce/

https://romalocutaest.com/2018/10/19/part-ii-the-development-of-mr-walfords-errors/

https://romalocutaest.com/2018/11/13/part-iii-mr-walford-and-the-magisterium/

Further, your question about the Ten Commandments is insane. These are God's commandments. They are absolutely true, and apply in all circumstances. I have no where cast any doubt upon them. Do you even take the time to read the views of those you seem to want to criticize? Again, what craziness possesses you to even ask such bizarre questions? Are you simply argumentative?

So...you've dodged on two of the six Dubia you owe me.

Here is Dubia #3: Is Benedict definitely, 100% still pope? Yes or no.

Regards,

Steven O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Steven O'Reilly said…

Fred,

again...regarding Dr. Mazza's representations of Ratzinger. He knows I've rebutted him. He has not provided a rebuttal. I think we know why.

Regardless...I am asking YOUR view of Dr. Mazza's citation of Ratzinger. Did he accurately and fairly quote Ratzinger in both places? Yes or no. You don't need to run to Dr. Mazza. I am interested you to apply some critical thinking of your own to this question. So you cannot duck the question. It is straightforward. Yes or no, Fred?

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

I also have to ask. Why are you posting your answers to my questions for you on a different site..."TheFredMartinezReport"? The debate is on this site. Here is where I posted my questions for you...and you continue to post question to me here. So, why you switching only now that you are being asked questions? Seems kinda weird, Fred. Explain.

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Aqua said…
Steve said: "there is nothing ambiguous about my position on communion for adulterers."

There is nothing ambiguous in Bishop of Rome Bergoglio's position, either.

Unfortunately for your position, you and and your Pope are on opposite sides ... as you are on almost every issue that matters.

Great, that you believe Communion for adulterers is a grave sin. The Pope who you follow wants you to change that view; HAS ALREADY, in fact, changed that view in his parallel church. So, that's a dilemma for you, as it is for everyone similarly deceived.
Aqua said…
Steven said: "Further, your question about the Ten Commandments is insane. These are God's commandments. They are absolutely true, and apply in all circumstances."

Again, as I pointed out above, the Bishop you accept as Pope disagrees with you and has struck at the heart of every single Commandment in quantifiable ways.

Wonderful, that you accept the Commandments. As you infer, it's inconceivable that anyone could even ask such a question of another Catholic. However ..... The Pope" is, in fact, leading the Church to reject these Commandments - every single one.

In this way, the standard of unity has become the vector of schism which is one of many proofs the second man in the two-headed Papacy is no Pope.

What is insane is insisting on the Divinely binding nature of the 10 Commandments while also insisting on a "Vicar of Christ", a "Pope", who insists on violating the 10 Commandments.

Schizophrenia def: "a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation." ... I think it fits. There is a disconnect between what you SAY, and what IS ... a very common malady these days.
Aqua said…
Fr. VF said: "... the Ten Commandments aren't "infallible dogma," or any kind of dogma. They are mandates and prohibitions. A "dogma" is a proposition stating a fact."

"Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. they are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)" (Fr. John Hardon def)

Based on the above definition, I see the 10 Commandments as *both*.

Mandates and prohibitions.
- Also -
"Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation ... formally revealed truth .... revealed in Scripture or tradition, explicitly (as the Incarnation) ...".
Fred Martinez said…
Steve,

Thanks for the laugh.

"Steven O'Reilly [the dodger who didn't answer my questions with a yes or no] said…
Fred,

You didn't answer my questions. You dodged them.Yes or no."

Best,

Fred
Aqua said…
Affixing a name or label to a thing (such as "Pope", as one of many current examples - there are legion these days), does not always make the thing that name, that label. It does if the name or label is ontologically true. But true requires more than merely wishful thinking.

Our Judge will give each of us a name on that dreadful day of final judgement - and there is no hiding from THAT Truth. It will precisely define who.we.are.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/108/166/699/original/fd64f81151f55fee.jpeg
Fred Martinez said…
Steve,

A writer friend of mine who has written for a Catholic newspaper and was a conservative talk radio co-host said the following:

"As I mentioned before, I always considered O'Reilly a reasonable man, even when I disagreed with him."

"If he persists in advancing the groundless notion that he himself has effectively rebutted the Mazza Thesis, in toto or even in any of its significant aspects, I will be obliged to revise my opinion of O'Reilly accordingly."

Best,

Fred
Aqua said…
Anonymous 7:37 said: "Francis teaching error, you and I are not obliged to adhere to anything that he teaches that is contradicting the deposit of faith."

You are correct - I am not obliged to adhere to anything that contradicts the Deposit of Faith - do you see *Pope Emeritus* anywhere within the Deposit of Faith? Because ... I do not.

I don't see Popes Emeritus there, "remaining firmly and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter" with others. And so, as you suggest I ignore it.

Pope Benedict XVI reigns.

I will continue to monitor the dumpster fire of Bergoglio's anti-church, and those unfortunates who follow him. It is quite a sight, the destruction under this man, and the ignorance of those who choose to follow him into the chaos of the burning.
Aqua said…
Funny ... the comment at 7:37 was there when I started writing and it was gone by the time I was done.

Methinks the author of this blog, Mr. Martinez, has had enough of the gaslighting.

Kudos to you, sir, for your blog and continued efforts in support of the Catholic Faith. A very, very interesting conversation over the past few days (at least to me).
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

Hearsay, Fred. Like I am really quaking in my boots that an unnamed friend of yours actually agrees with you. Surprise. Surprise. Does that really sound like a convincing argument, Fred? Shall I quote what my friends think about you? What does that prove?

The reality is...neither you...nor your conservative 'friend'...have provided an analysis and defense of Dr. Mazza's citation of Ratzinger versus what Ratzinger *actually* said. My article provides precise details.

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/04/22/a-closer-look-at-mr-coffins-evidence-dr-mazzas-thesis-3-0/

That is what is missing. Perhaps you and your conservative 'friend' can get together and actually look at the evidence and provide an answer. In fact...why don't you ask your readers to help you? The link is above. Dr. Mazza made his comments publicly. I provide a full citation of Ratzinger. Let's see if anyone steps up and actually attempts to address the question at hand. Your silence is deafening, Fred. If your friends wants to join in...please invite him.

If not, I will have to assume you and your conservative 'friend' don't know what they are talking about. Sounds like bloviating.

Regards,

Steven O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Aqua said…
Steven said: "My article provides precise details."

Your articles actually provide your opinions about details.

Munus = Ministerium is not an example of precision. "We know what he meant to say" - not an example of precision. Those are interpretations that fit your premise. Opinions, IOW.
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

I don't think you answered my third Dubia to you (I expanded it).

Questions #3: Is Benedict still pope, and if so, should Catholic rejects the results of any conclave in which cardinals appointed by Francis participate? Yes or no.

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Fred Martinez said…
Steve,

Why are you so obsessed with Francis being infallibly definitely the pope to the point you are a afraid of cardinals and bishops correcting your definitively non-heretical Francis on "communion for adulterers" which apparently may be the opposite of your position maybe if Aqua is reading you right and now you are apparently defending his "communion for adulterers" new cardinals? Would you love Pope Mcelroy as much as you love Francis? Would you be against correcting a future Pope Mcelroy? Would you be against correcting a future Pope James Martin? Would you love Pope James Martin as much as you love Francis?

LifeSiteNew: "But the Pope’s most radical [cardinal] pick is Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, known to faithful Catholics as arguably the most pro-homosexual, left-wing prelate in the United States.

In recent years, McElroy has sparked outrage for celebrating “LGBT Masses,” rebuking the Church’s position on homosexual acts, urging Catholic funeral rites for active homosexuals, and throwing his support behind dissident Jesuit Fr. James Martin while blasting conservatives’ “destructive” attitudes on sexuality... And on clerical sex abuse, even liberal activists are raising the alarm about his history." [https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-francis-newest-us-cardinal-has-a-horrifying-record-on-homosexuality-and-abortion/]

Aqua said it best on your never ending positions and questions:


Steve said: "there is nothing ambiguous about my position on communion for adulterers."

There is nothing ambiguous in Bishop of Rome Bergoglio's position, either.

Unfortunately for your position, you and and your Pope are on opposite sides ... as you are on almost every issue that matters.

Great, that you believe Communion for adulterers is a grave sin. The Pope who you follow wants you to change that view; HAS ALREADY, in fact, changed that view in his parallel church. So, that's a dilemma for you, as it is for everyone similarly deceived.

Aqua said…
Steven said: "Further, your question about the Ten Commandments is insane. These are God's commandments. They are absolutely true, and apply in all circumstances."

Again, as I pointed out above, the Bishop you accept as Pope disagrees with you and has struck at the heart of every single Commandment in quantifiable ways.

Wonderful, that you accept the Commandments. As you infer, it's inconceivable that anyone could even ask such a question of another Catholic. However ..... The Pope" is, in fact, leading the Church to reject these Commandments - every single one.

In this way, the standard of unity has become the vector of schism which is one of many proofs the second man in the two-headed Papacy is no Pope.

What is insane is insisting on the Divinely binding nature of the 10 Commandments while also insisting on a "Vicar of Christ", a "Pope", who insists on violating the 10 Commandments.

Schizophrenia def: "a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation." ... I think it fits. There is a disconnect between what you SAY, and what IS ... a very common malady these days.

Best,

Fred
Anonymous said…
And on that note...Benedict is not the Pope anymore...reality has to be brought back to the front here. Francis had no legal challenges to his conclave and like sedevacantists...people are just promoting conspiracies that have not been proven to advance a theory that Benedict is still Pope. He's not out there representing the church with heads of State...a Pope does that. He's not wearing any symbols of actual authority anymore. This is reality. Soon enough Aqua, Freddy and the rest of the gang are going to be in the sedevacantist camp...unless you guys refuse to be schismatics and realize that this foolish Benedict is Pope position is cutting you off from the church.
Aqua said…
Anonymous 7:47: “ Soon enough Aqua, Freddy and the rest of the gang are going to be in the sedevacantist camp.”

There’s nothing wrong with being in the Sede camp. That is just an ontological fact, under certain circumstances in various particulars.

There IS something * very wrong* with being in the *apostasy camp*, which is where all those are going who follow this quantifiable apostacised antipope.

Hard pass for me …
Debbie said…
Aqua 11:21, I see a little clearer now what you're saying. Thank you. With only looking at the results of the modernists errors, it's easy enough to believe the sede position, but the devil is in the details. My problem, like many I suppose, is in the ability to convince others the truth of Catholicism and need for authority and their conversion.
Aqua said…
Debbie - Arbp LeFebvre's Letter To Confused Catholics is a simple and highly readable little book that clearly lays out the crisis for Catholic novices like myself. I was trained to be anti-SSPX, which I enthusiastically was - until I read that book. After reading his letter, I saw that he not only defined the problem in a way no one else even saw, much less did anything about - he did so heroically, putting his soul on the line, for the sake of untold Faithful (like myself, who wasn't Catholic yet) to come. He was willing to risk White Martyrdom, he was so convinced in conscience.

And what I see now, is a tiny little spark of Catholic light amidst the enveloping darkness. There is no stopping it. My answer to the Sede is I go the light and I stick with the light. God gave us a life raft; an ark, perhaps - the OLS (Our Lord's Ship) SSPX, upon which the Faithful can survive the storm. They exist, as created by their brave founder to protect, as the Benedictines did during similar days of degradation and debauchery in ancient and dying Rome, to protect and defend the Sacred Deposit of Faith, just as all Catholics are called to do in our own small ways.

SSPX insists the lines of Apostolicity remain intact, however damaged and damaging they may now be. SSPX sees themselves as war medics - there to assist the injured within the Church in hour of need (those are almost verbatim the words of my Priest). They are not there to replace the Church, but to help Her heal. I am sticking with them.
Aqua said…
Debbie, and Fred ... have you seen this? It is making the rounds. Some friends of ours saw the premier with the director present. This is Part II. Part I is also good, but Part II is simply amazing - especially the part where they show what Vatican II Liturgists have done to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We suspect, but we don't really know the great, great evil done by Vatican II forces to Holy Mother Church. They graphically, visually demonstrate in a most powerful way how *vandals* destroyed our Lord's Mass with a will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XctfSR7SS4&t=3s
Anonymous said…
@Debbie give this a read before you embrace the SSPX...

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/what-if-traditional-priests-are.html
Aqua said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aqua said…
Anonymous 2:52

Another anti-SSPX diatribe.

Boring.

Arbp LeFebvre saved the Church from something worse than we now see. They are at the heart of the Catholic revival. They exist to heal the wounded and give directions to the lost (such as me). Invaluable service to the suffering and confused.

And what does your web site offer? Reasons to submit to a false Pope. Reasons to submit to false doctrine. Reasons to apostacize - "the episcopate in union with the Pope told me to". Reasons to avoid the Society of St. Pius X, created with the specific intent to protect innocent souls from the coming spiritual apocalypse - the one you say is binding on us. Hard pass.
Debbie said…
Aqua, I am definitely on board with the SSPX. After watching the documentary on the life of Ab. Lefebvre I bought the book to Confused Catholics and am certain he will be a canonized Saint. That being said, the SSPX, like everything else in The Church, seems to have deteriorated since it's founders death. Their stance on the jab, commemorating Bergoglio and this nugget on the Catechism: https://akacatholic.com/is-one-allowed-to-doubt-what-the-roman-catechism-says/ is troubling to say the least.

I remember a while back how recognize and resist was being heavily promoted by the Francis is definitely pope crowd and thinking how that was basically Protestantism....but in reality, that IS the epitome of the SSPX. Probably the catalyst to my looking closer at the sedevacantist position. It's certainly a mess.

As to part two of Mass of the Ages....yes, I thought it was very good and way better than part one. Part one has a glimpse of our then rector, Canon Stein and part two has a glimpse of our now rector, Cannon Commins plus a few of our altar servers...😊
Debbie said…
anonymous 2:52....thanks, but I am not at all interested in the anti-SSPXers view. At all. And unless a Saint from heaven says otherwise, I'm certain Bergoglio ain't the pope.
Anonymous said…
@debbie @aqua

John Salza had been as SSPX as it gets, I used to be SSPX. They have no jurisdiction or real mission from the church. Salza has proven this.

"Arbp LeFebvre saved the Church from something worse than we now see. They are at the heart of the Catholic revival. They exist to heal the wounded and give directions to the lost (such as me). Invaluable service to the suffering and confused.

And what does your web site offer? Reasons to submit to a false Pope. Reasons to submit to false doctrine. Reasons to apostacize - "the episcopate in union with the Pope told me to". Reasons to avoid the Society of St. Pius X, created with the specific intent to protect innocent souls from the coming spiritual apocalypse - the one you say is binding on us. Hard pass."

-Even Fr.Cekada had publically said that people put the Archbishop on this level where he didn't get anything wrong. He got plenty wrong...he also caved and let the society use the 1962 missal. At least the sedevacantists never gave in at all.

Anonymous said…
Quoting from trueorfalsepope.com

" The Church has always taught that Catholics are forbidden from assisting at illicit Masses, offered by clergy without juridical mission, and that receiving Communion from such clergy constitutes the sin of sacrilege. Mr. McCall would hopefully acknowledge this fact. Archbishop Pozzo of the Holy See – who has been the point man in attempting to bring the SSPX back into the Church – recently affirmed: “The priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X nonetheless exercise their ministry illicitly and illegitimately.” Cardinal Burke also recently stated that the SSPX “is not part of the one Roman Catholic Church throughout the world.” Mr. McCall is also surely aware of these weighty and consequential statements.

Because “at this precise moment in history” (using McCall’s words), Catholics are currently being tempted to leave the Roman Catholic Church for illicit Masses, due to the unjust suppression of the Traditional Mass, and because many traditional Catholics do not understand the gravity of such actions (due to a false understanding of the Church), I have chosen to speak up. By seeking salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church, from clergy who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, who reject the Church’s Profession of Faith, and who even attack Holy Mother Church for allegedly teaching doctrines she does not teach (among many other errors), these individuals are imperiling their salvation."
Debbie said…
The Church has always forbidden Catholics from worshipping with and in other "Christian" churches....and yet we see things like Assisi, Koran kissing and cozying it up with Lutherans.....by Popes! It's not the SSPX, nor dare I say the sedevacantists promoting these errors.

Fred Martinez said…
Scholar Michael Davies said that "Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre has been compared rightly to St.Athanasius:

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/09/25/pope-benedict-praise-michael-davies-who-totally-criticized-vatican-ii-and-the-new-mass/

Pope Benedict Praised Michael Davies Who Totally Criticized Vatican II And The New Mass...Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 9 November 2004

Scholar Michael Davies said that "Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre has been compared rightly to St.Athanasius":

He is the Athanasius of our times. Like St.Athanasius...

"In the fourth century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled thorough Eastern dioceses devastated by the Arians and ordained orthodox pastors for them, without having particular jurisdiction over them. These are evidently extraordinary actions, as were the Circumstances that gave rise to them." [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sdavies.htm]

Wikipedia explains that Archbishop Lefebvre's "Operation Survival" was "due to necessity":

Lefebvre argued that his actions had been necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments would become extinct without Traditionalist clergy to pass them on to the next generation. He called the ordinations "opération survie" ("Operation Survival"), citing in his defense canons 1323 and 1324 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the first of which says that "a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls" is not subject to penalty for violating a law or precept, while the other says "the perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed ... by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present."[34] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X]

Scholars Alon Harel and Assaf Sharon show how St. Thomas Aquinas sees the "state of exception" or "Case of Necessity":

In the Summa Theologica Aquinas addresses the case of necessity by focusing on the limits of legislation. Aquinas asserts that: The lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens more frequently by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore, if a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.11Furthermore, Aquinas recognizes that cases falling into this category are not “legislatable” and adds that:

He who in a case of necessity acts besides the letter of the law does not judge of the law but of a particular case in which he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed.

Last, Aquinas stresses that agents operating under these exceptional circumstances are not accountable to the law as in ordinary cases. In his view: “The mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” 11 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II, 1st part, que. 96, art 6. See also II, II, que. 110 art.1. [https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/conferences2/Constitutionalism09-Harel.pdf]
Anonymous said…
Paul Vi had some words for Lefebvre...

https://ronconte.com/2021/06/26/paul-vi-lefebvre/

https://www.archbalt.org/paul-vi-accused-archbishop-lefebvre-of-acting-like-an-antipope/?print=print
Anonymous said…
"You permit the case of St. Athanasius to be invoked in your favor. It is true that this great Bishop remained practically alone in the defense of the true faith, despite attacks from all quarters. But what precisely was involved was the defense of the faith of the recent Council of Nicea. The Council was the norm which inspired his fidelity, as also in the case of St. Ambrose.

How can anyone today compare himself to St. Athanasius in daring to combat a council such as the Second Vatican Council, which has no less authority, which in certain respects is even more important than that of Nicea?

We beg you therefore to meditate concerning the warning which We address to you with firmness and in virtue of Our Apostolic authority. Your elder (brother) in the faith, He Who has received the mission of confirming His brothers, addresses you, His heart full of hope.

He wishes He could already rejoice in being understood, heard and obeyed. He awaits with impatience the day when He will have the happiness to open to you His arms, to make manifest a refound communion, when you will have replied to the demands He has just formulated. At present He confides this intention to the Lord, who rejects no prayers.

In veritate et caritate,
Paulus PP VI"


-Now I'm not fan of seeing JP 2 kissing a Koran, or the incident at Assisi, I just want that to be clear.
Aqua said…
Anonymous:

It's not even worth it to refute your position. It is ridiculous.

Arbp LeFebvre is a hero of the Faith. Yes, quite possibly at the level near Athanasius.

His Society is a refuge. His Priests are missionaries within the Church and without - bringing the light of Christ's Gospel to "the peripheries" ... not excluding within Holy Mother Church herself.

I am sorry you have issues with the Society. Your views do not impact mine in the slightest. I have been convinced by fact, reason, experience and long, long consideration of the issues similar to those you raise. I have no doubt. I am blessed by God and thankful for the Society of St. Pius X - missionaries of Sacred Tradition.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: It is not difficult to compare and contrast the fruits and belief of SSPX with the Concilliar Church. SSPX stands with the Concilliar Catholic Church, to the extent it can - where it remains in accord with constant Church Teaching and Dogmatic belief. Where there is separation - and there is obviously separation, which we all see either in support, ambivalence or in horror - they remain with Sacred Tradition and Dogmatic belief. And I with them.

If the Pope himself tells them to leave Dogmas behind and accept what is new in their stead - they stand with Dogma. And I with them.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "How can anyone today compare himself to St. Athanasius in daring to combat a council such as the Second Vatican Council, which has no less authority, which in certain respects is even more important than that of Nicea?"

Oh, it's similarly important to that of Nicaea, just not in the way you suppose.

It always amazes me,the religious fervor of those who have been moved by the V II. It was a valid Catholic Council. Deviations occurred. Significant deviations (heresy) flowed out of its aftermath in the subsequent Constitutions and the "spirit" that infected its implementation. It was one Council among two Millenias of Councils and an edifice of Sacred Tradition. Put it in its place. It is NOT the Faith.

The most you can hope for is that it fits INTO the Faith. The worst you can fear is that it is a departure from the Faith. Arbp LeFebvre saw this clearly and warned the Pope and the Faithful of the Church. As he said: "some of it is (1) orthodox; much of it is (2) marginal; some of it is (3) heretical" (paraphrase from memory). He accepted everything, in submission to the Pope and the Episcopate ... *except* 3, heretical. He even accepted the marginal. That is the heart of a Saint.

Catholic Time puts every Council in its proper place and corrects any deviations that occurred within. This Council will be remembered by the Catholic Church, in Catholic Time, but not in the way you suppose. It is already being exposed. There is no stopping it. The gates of hell cannot withstand Holy Mother Church, the body of Christ, Word, Truth.
Anonymous said…
Those quotes had been from Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre just to clarify, if you had not already noticed that.

I had sympathies for your position, but at the end of the day..ask yourself this simple question: Why did a sedevacantist and traditional Archbishop Thuc ask for forgiveness from JPII (2 times using formal letters) and asking for forgiveness? Especially right before his death. Arguably in the midst of the worst time for the Latin mass and the spread of modernism in the church?

Why would he desire to be apart of that church if he didn't believe it to be the true hierarchy/authority? Did he simply just lose his mind? Maybe...but there's no proof of that.

I desire to see a day when a Pius XIII is elected. It's a dream, but I'm not going to risk schism just because the SSPX claim to be the saviors of the church. They have no canonical status in the church...no real jurisdiction other than what Francis gave to them. Benedict hadn't even extended faculties to them during his reign. And sorry, he's not Pope anymore. It's tough for people that don't like Francis to accept...but he had a valid conclave.

If the SSPX simply desired to be a part of the church and in full communion...they'd stop trying to be independent and cut off canonically from the church. Lefebvre desired reunification, but he himself disobeyed his Pope. His excommunication had been avoidable.
Anonymous said…
"It always amazes me,the religious fervor of those who have been moved by the V II. It was a valid Catholic Council. Deviations occurred. Significant deviations (heresy) flowed out of its aftermath in the subsequent Constitutions and the "spirit" that infected its implementation. It was one Council among two Millenias of Councils and an edifice of Sacred Tradition. Put it in its place. It is NOT the Faith.

The most you can hope for is that it fits INTO the Faith. The worst you can fear is that it is a departure from the Faith. Arbp LeFebvre saw this clearly and warned the Pope and the Faithful of the Church. As he said: "some of it is (1) orthodox; much of it is (2) marginal; some of it is (3) heretical" (paraphrase from memory). He accepted everything, in submission to the Pope and the Episcopate ... *except* 3, heretical. He even accepted the marginal. That is the heart of a Saint.
"

-I can agree, but remember that Lefebvre signed all the documents at Vatican II.
Aqua said…
Anonymous says: “ … but I'm not going to risk schism just because the SSPX claim to be the saviors of the church.”

I’ll assume you are in a Traditional Mass community such as FSSP. I’ll further assume that you affirm reasonably orthodox Catholic belief.

The topic of this thread is - “Is Communion for Adulterers 'Explicitly a Here[sy]'? Answer: Yes or No" & "Are the Ten Commandments Infallible Catholic Dogma?”

So … your wife has an affair and sees nothing wrong with remaining Catholic while (insert word) around on the side. She goes to confession and claims that in accord with AL footnote 351, and in reference to her conscience and “lived experience”, she would like to pastorally continue to receive communion. The Priest agrees, because he wishes to remain in communion with the “Pope”, who is quite clear on the topic. Your wife subsequently separates from you, takes the kids, and you now witness your ex, her new fella and your kids - across the other side of the Church receive Communion while you now approach the same God alone.

THAT is your Pope.

He then tells your FSSP Superior, Latin Mass is only permitted on the second Sunday of even months, and the fourth Saturday of odd months, unless the local Bishop has further restrictions, which are binding, less restrictions are not permitted. All other Masses including daily will be in the NewForm, in the hand mandatory.

THAT also is your Pope.

You talk about disobedience. Do you obey such things? Or are you also a recognize and resist kind of Catholic … under emergency circumstances? Sound familiar? It should.
Aqua said…
One further twist, to make the analogy complete: anyone who dares to “recognize and resist” is called to account by the episcopate, under direct order of the Pope, who is aware and displeased, and who demands immediate compliance and a signed statement of obedience with all relevant topics in dispute listed as now recognized as repented of, agreed with and submitted to … on pain of excommunication for failure to comply.

Accept communion for adulterers or you are excommunicate.
Accept mandatory NewMass and Latin Mass forbidden or you are excommunicate.

Imagine that … it’s getting very personal now, very real … what would you do if required to violate dogmatic belief under orders of the Pope, under threat of excommunication. THAT is what Arbp LeFebvre is being insulted for doing - remaining true to dogma, rather than submit to error, even under threat if excommunication.

In such a case, in God’s eyes, truly, who is outside the Church and who is inside? Especially when the actions of LeFebvre were not for himself, but for those (like me) who were yet to come. He acted for the future, when he ensured the survival of Tradition against those committed to its extinction.
Anonymous said…
@aqua I sympathize with you, but at the end of the day I have another option that many don't have. The Eastern Rites...they basically do their own thing but they're in full communion. Francis's words have little impact on their practices. So I'm lucky in that regard.

Pope Pius IX made it clear that if a Pope tells us to do anything that we know is contrary to the Catholic faith...there's no obligation to follow those commands or orders. But he didn't say to reject the Pope and claim that his predecessor is still Pope because of a so called botched up resignation or the silly "Plan B" theories that have been laid out to us. Benedict is not the Pope period. That's the reality, and I really hate that the church has to endure a guy like Francis, but rumors of his resignation are coming around. The Lord may be granting us a favor by getting him off the Chair in a year or 2. There's hope for us.

I don't encourage anyone to do anything that they know goes against the Faith...nor do I support communion for adulterers personally. I'll never support something like that, but if Francis is forcing the clergy to comply, they have to obey him basically until another Pope comes along and says "This is ridiculous, heretical..not a teaching of the church" and they can fix the mess.

You make points that I can agree on, but at the end of the day I'll never let myself be in schism like the SSPX/Sedevacantists are. The SSPX are in schism simply because they do not have any canonical status in the church, nor do they have a mission from the Catholic church

To quote one of John Salza's points again about the SSPX: "“Catholic rite” of canon 1248 must be a liturgical rite that is celebrated in a Catholic church sui iuris (that is, a church lawfully erected by the supreme authority) and in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and not just an approved Missal"
Anonymous said…
@aqua Leaving the SSPX had been hard to do...I made a lot of the same arguments that you have presented...but at the end of the day one has to be open minded and look at the mistakes that Lefebvre made. He couldn't be a perfect man as the SSPX tries to paint him as such. Should he be a Saint? Yeah he should have been but his biggest mistake had been disobeying a man he recognized as the true Pope. I'd assume you recognize JPII as a true Pope, if you're not going towards the sedevacantist camp. They have some interesting arguments though like Assisi 1986 and the fact that the Latin mass had been limited greatly by JPII etc etc.

I'll never support Amoris Letitia publically, nor speak against a validly elected Pontiff either. Francis is possibly the worst Pope in the church's history. Not a good title to be shooting for!
Aqua said…
Anonymous:

- Quote -

State of Necessity in the Church

In the Church, as in civil society, it is conceivable that there arrive a state of necessity or urgency which cannot be surmounted by the observance of positive law. Such a situation exists in the Church when the endurance, order or activity of the Church are threatened or harmed in a considerable manner. This threat can bear principally on ecclesiastical teaching, the liturgy and discipline."

Fr. Patrick Valdrini, J.C.D.
Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris

- end quote -

Those who charge "not in communion" ignore this obvious logic, which was claimed by the founder, Arbp LeFebvre at the genesis of this crisis.

A selection of helpful quotations and links to answer all of the further questions anyone might have ...

https://sspx.org/en/what-canonical-status-sspx

The SSPX sees through the current crisis of general and growing heresy and apostasy and remain connected, help the Faithful remain connected with them, maintain and deliver the Sacred Traditions, the Depositum Fidei for today and future generations to come which, without SSPX efforts, risk losing it all; losing all memory of what was.

Eastern Rite is an acceptable answer. SSPX is mainstream Catholicism as it has been practiced for millennia in union with all valid Popes who have ever lived. And so SSPX is better. We await the restoration of the Monarch (valid Pope occupying the Office in communion with God as His Vicar) and the Kingdom of God in all its fullness and glory.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "Yeah he should have been but his biggest mistake had been disobeying a man he recognized as the true Pope."

Anonymous also said: "I'll never support Amoris Letitia publically ..."

And then Anonymous said: "Francis is possibly the worst Pope in the church's history."

That makes no sense whatsoever. Francis is Pope. It is the biggest mistake to disobey a true Pope. Yet you will not obey this Pope under AL (etc).

Schizophrenic: "... faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation."

Arbp LeFebvre did what you are clearly already doing yourself. Yet you blame him under one standard, but don't also blame yourself under the same standard. You leave the RCC and join the Eastern Rite ... and that's better ? Makes no sense.
Aqua said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aqua said…
And not just leave the RCC for another Rite (valid, true), but ignore (disobey) *everything* with which you *must* disobey.

Yet LeFebvre is in "schism" for doing precisely that - and thereby remaining in *communion* with the actual RCC which does not, can not ever change, because it is perfect because it is from God.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8
Aqua said…
Aqua said: "We await the restoration of the Monarch (valid Pope occupying the Office in communion with God as His Vicar) and the Kingdom of God in all its fullness and glory."

SSPX position is we have a valid Pope in Francis, another in the line of "Concilliar" Popes.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua I expected you to use that point as I said I'll never support Amoris Laetitia publically...

What's more schizo is that the SSPX claims to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff but in fact resists such authority from Popes that have never been declared Anti-Popes by the church (at least not yet). Paul VI especially...Archbishop Lefebvre argued necessity and I understand his reasons for the consecrations in 88. The fact is that he had been excommunicated by the 1983 code of Canon law...which he recognized as legitimate.

Even Cardinal Burke said that he'll resist Amoris Laetitia.

"Cardinal Burke: We must ‘resist’ those in the Church presenting false teaching on marriage, sacraments"

The cardinal also stated that Amoris Laetitia is not magisterial, but rather a “personal reflection” of the pope.

I'm under no obligation to accept Amoris Laetitia as magisterial/binding.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua

I'll keep you in my prayers. I used to defend the SSPX like you do..used to admire Lefebvre and still do in some ways.

The facts are this:

-The SSPX has no canonical status within the Catholic church, no jurisdiction...faculties that they do have were granted by the man you say is an Anti-Pope (Francis) in a limited manner.

-They operate independently and have no obligation to adhere to anything from Rome
-They have validly ordained Priests, who lack ordinary jurisdiction
-Lefebvre had been excommunicated for not having a papal maandate in 1988 , as required by Canon law.
-Lefebvre's excommunication never got lifted.
-Lefebvre tried to do a lot of good, but he created a schism in the process and a rebellion against authority.
-Paul VI revoked their faculties before Francis gave them some back (Benedict who you claim to be the current Pope never granted them faculties).
-Benedict XVI had said on many occasions that the SSPX had no canonical status even as Cardinal.
-Their teaching on the vincentian canon adds a condition for infallibility that they borrowed from the protestants in the 1800s. (I can send you a good lecture on that if you wish to hear it).
-Fr. Peter Scott has called the church flawed and with defects (Pius IX called the church the pillar and ground of truth...and that she has neither spot nor wrinkle)

The list goes on and on.

My advice: Leave the SSPX and go to eastern rites if you have them. Or FSSP/ICK.
Anonymous said…
@aqua

The SSPX recognizes Francis as Pope...so therefor if you are truly an SSPX guy...truly love Lefebvre then you must recognize and resist according to their beliefs. Since you publically and openly say Benedict is still Pope then you are defying the position of the SSPX and cannot claim to be a 100% all in SSPX member. You have to pick their side or sedevacantism.

rebel
ˈrɛb(ə)l
noun
a person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or leader.
a person who resists authority, control, or convention.
verb
rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or leader.
resist authority, control, or convention.
show or feel repugnance for or resistance to something.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua if you really are an SSPX guy, then you have to accept the society's position that Francis is the Pope. If you don't accept their position, then you're not true to Lefebvre's recognize and resist position.

Sedevacantism is on the horizon for you once Benedict is gone..

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

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

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t