What’s being done

What’s being done

JUN 28, 2016 by HILARY WHITE

The following comes from a theologian – yes, an actual professor of theology at a Catholic university who publishes things – who has helped me on occasion when I have been writing against Francis’ habitual blasphemies. He has assured me that I am not wrong in so identifying his various statements against the Faith, and that in calling publicly for Francis to repent his blasphemies I am helping this international group of theologians. Apparently it demonstrates that Francis is indeed causing public scandal.

Today my friend wrote this about what is being done. He repeats that it is necessarily very little because there is very little that can be done. But at least we know that someone is trying to do something.

I know there is a joint statement in the works that will cover both his heretical statements and his blasphemies and demanding that he recant.

Francis has said and written (even in papal documents) things that are materially heretical. So has BXVI (in Spe Salvi on merit contra Trent).

Thoughts:

1. The following criteria must be met to be able to be called a heretic in the strict sense:

a. the person must make an assertion contrary to a solemnly defined dogma (check);

b. the erroneous assertion must be “manifest” (i.e., public, to some degree) and he must be “obdurate” in making it; the Church’s practice for ascertaining obduracy comes from Christ’s instructions in Mt 18:15-17 – namely, to confront him with the dogma and his contradiction of it (standard is to do this “thrice” – but however many times is needed…); (NOT CHECK – this hasn’t been done yet with Francis) [HJMW adds: we don’t know if this has been done yet.]

c. failing his confrontation by the Church, the Church may then juridically declare him a heretic and excommunicate him; prior to this point, the person would be a material heretic; formal heresy requires the Church’s juridical investigation and official judgment of the case.

2. Francis is a material heretic – no doubt about it. He is not a formal heretic – no doubt about that either. AND THIS IS WHY HE’S STILL, OFFICIALLY, THE TRUE POPE.

3. I think I’ve mentioned this before to Steve, if not the whole group, but a number of theologians, canonists, and bishops have been discussing how Francis might be confronted and deposed. The principal difficulty is the fact that there is no higher juridical authority ON EARTH than the pope.

A number of us have been recommending to +Burke et al. that the Sacred College of Cardinals investigate the charges of heresy that have been and will be levelled against Francis, confront Francis on this, and if he shows himself obdurate then declare that he incurred automatic excommunication *latae sententiae* and is no longer the pope.

That would not be a juridical act that *caused* the excommunication and deposing of the pope; it would be a juridical act that simply states the facts that he excommunicated himself.

Some of the heretical proposals in Francis various statements and writings, in no particular order:

1. AL 83; ‘The Church … firmly rejects the death penalty’;

2. AL 156; ‘Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected’;

3. AL 159; ‘Saint Paul recommended virginity because he expected Jesus’ imminent return and he wanted everyone to concentrate only on spreading the Gospel: “the appointed time has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29). . . . Rather than speak absolutely of the superiority of virginity, it should be enough to point out that the different states of life complement one another, and consequently that some can be more perfect in one way and others in another’;

4. AL 295: ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law’ AND
AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin’;

5. AL 297; ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’

6. AL 299: ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all.

… Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel”.’

7. AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin’;

8. AL 303: ‘Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal’;

9. AL 304: ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations’;

10. AL 308: ‘I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”.’

Hilary White:

But I would add again that the question of whether Francis is or is not really an antipope is not that important. Of course, in an objective sense it is, but in the sense of what we are going to do with ourselves in this crisis it is less so. And in the sense of curing the Church’s problems, don’t forget that Francis is not the problem but a symptom of the problem. That being said, a document issued with some signatures that pointed to these statements as heretical and contrary to Christ would be of supreme value.

I believe that the only way forward is going to be a formal, public separation of the faithful from this man and his followers – ALL his followers, including the laity. I am not a canonist or a theologian, so I have no idea how such a thing could be accomplished, but I believe that without such a clear separation the Church will continue to erode as it tries to encompass that which is fundamentally at odds with itself. Matter and antimatter.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/06/29/whats-being-done/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

17 comments on “What’s being done

  1. Hilary White’s theologian-friend says of his international group:

    A number of us have been recommending to +Burke et al. that the Sacred College of Cardinals investigate the charges of heresy that have been and will be levelled against Francis, confront Francis on this, and if he shows himself obdurate then declare that he incurred automatic excommunication *latae sententiae* and is no longer the pope.

    Cardinal Burke would not get involved in such a mutiny. His Eminence might say of His Holiness’ teaching, “It’s personal not heretical.”

    • It’s not a mutiny. Cardinal Burke and other prelates in his position who remain Catholic need to confront the Pope. Francis is doing an incredible amount of damage and by rights should have been stopped by now. After Amoris Laetitia is anybody seriously in doubt regarding the Pope’s material heresies?

      • I used the word “mutiny” facetiously. I don’t think that Cardinal Burke has the guts to undertake or participate in such a rebellion (Am I speaking facetiously again?). I could have used another part of the male anatomy (not “back-bone”) to describe His Eminence’s lack of courage. The Lord Cardinal prefers friendly and comfortable settings in which to do his thing (for example, see AKA Catholic Louie Verrecchio’s “And the Banquet Bishop roared…“).

        null

  2. I believe that the only way forward is going to be a formal, public separation of the faithful from this man and his followers …

    Bottom line: no one besides Our Lord or the pope can remove the pope. We can confront him, shame him, and refuse his commands. But there is no way we can separate from him without loss of our souls. It doesn’t matter if the whole college of cardinals convicts him of heresy. The pope is higher than them, and us, and was placed in office by Our Lord. He’s the rock, the foundation of the Church, the center of unity. We are the subjects. And that’s that.

    • There’s no way one can save one’s souls united with him, Cyprian. I’m not a sede, I know he’s the legitimate pope. But he’s not Catholic. One must separate oneself from this devil. Our Lord said if one isn’t with Him, the one’s against Him. Is Bergoglio by any stretch of the imagination with Our Lord?

      • Define “separate.”

        “Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom.”
        — St. Catherine of Siena

        • It’s a good question, Cyprian, and a great quote– who can argue with St Catherine? I’ll look into the context of the quote though.

          By separate oneself from this Pope, it’s pretty simple. Keep as far from his heresies as possible.

          What times are these, huh?

          • Yo, quo!

            I googled the quote and it came from a quote from a book by someone I’ve never heard of.

            Anyway, a Dominican friar from EWTN answered as follows:

            “These are merely an examples of hyperbole which is defined as: obvious and intentional exaggeration. The second definition clarifies even further: an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

            Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

            __________________
            Recent apologetics answers by Fr. Vincent Serpa

            • Furthermore, Bl. Pius IX wrote to an Italian bishop who had asked what should be done in case a pope ever became a heretic.

              Bl. Pius IX gave a two word answer –

              IGNORE HIM.

              Yes, pray for Bergoglio and be grateful for whatever he does or says that is Catholic. But don’t pay attention to his obvious errors. And I think it fair to warn others to do likewise.

      • I agree Quomodo. While I can sympathize with the BLEEPS frustrations, they’re wrong.
        Bergoglio (or Benedict) is still the legitimate Bishop of Rome.
        Yet any 5th grade catechism student in a real Catholic school (if there is such a thing anymore) would know that Jorge Bergoglio is an apostate and a heretic by is words, actions and by his theology.
        It’s hard, but the best thing to do is ignore him and the other heretical fruitcakes he has around him.
        I pray for his conversion and for his time on the Chair of Peter to be brief, one way or the other.
        I also pray for the souls he (and all of the conciliar popes have to a certain degree) have jeopardized with his words and actions these last three years. The other conciliar popes were modernists, but Bergoglio IMO is the worst of the worst, not just in the last 60 years but in the 2, 000 year history of the Papacy.

    • We cannot “separate” from this or any pope – true.

      We must resist any and all errors, even Bergoglio’s.

      But he remains pope barring an authoritative intervention.

      At least the internet provides a means of getting hard facts out there for Catholics to learn and to spur them on to a more intense study of dogma.

  3. How many clergy at the time of changes to The Mass and eventual emergence of the NOM, against their better judgement bowed to Obedience and a ‘quiet life’? Look where they and we are now! Admittedly, those who did stand up to be counted were punished.

    • A lot. Some left because of the changes, others joined the traditionalist movement, some continued to say the Tridentine Latin Mass privately while not separating in any jurisdictional way from the institutional Church imposing Vatican II. Probably more than we will ever know. The graces from that continue.

  4. He may have been elected legitimately (emphasis on the “may”) but the loyalty we owe him is to the Faith and not to his personal views.

  5. “…the loyalty we owe him is to the Faith….”

    That’s it, Phaley. Even a body riddled with cancer still has some healthy cells.

  6. Protestants are already gloating and proclaiming victory. “See! We told you so!” Bloviating and persisting in the Protestant misunderstanding of papal infallibility. There has always been the possibility that a heretic or heretical progressive modernist could be elected pope. There have been antipopes in the past. There was an Avignon Papacy. Seven popes in Avignon under the influence of the French Crown (1309-1377).


    The Papal palace in Avignon, France

    A progressive modernist Pope under the influence of South American progressive modernism is not only a possibility but it has become a reality. Offer it up and pray for the Church. We may be in for a long haul.

Leave a Reply