The Dubia of the Four Cardinals changes nothing: Francis and Spadaro are in total control

The Dubia of the Four Cardinals changes nothing: Francis and Spadaro are in total control

Posted by Barona on 11/14/16

null
Pray for Christ’s Church to His Holy Mother

With regards to the Dubia sent by four Cardinals to the Pope, a few reflections.

Firstly, the Pope is, canonically speaking, judged by no one, and the sending of the Dubia will not disturb him, obstruct him or offset him and his handlers in the least.

Secondly, if there is a response, it will be in the manner of the dismissal of the Abbe de Nantes – that is, the Pope will rule the Dubia out of order.

The Pope and his handlers – namely his Ghost Writer and the de facto “pope”, Antonio Spadaro S.J., will not feel incommoded in the least. To the contrary, even as I write, the “official” Catholic media is already speaking of “semi-retired” Cardinals etc.

Certainly, for these four Cardinals, they have done a service towards the Truth and those striving to live a Catholic life. May God reward them. However, we should not be deluded. We have received the Pope we deserve. Simply, Catholics could not handle a truly Catholic Pope. With the vast majority of Catholics off fornicating, self-abusing, engaging in unnatural acts within Holy Matrimony, such as oral and anal sodomy (encouraged and excused by the Theology of the Body crowd), unnatural sexual acts between persons of the same sex etc., they are simply not ready for a Catholic Pope. The truth is just too painful at this present time in history.

Do we honestly think God would send the Church another Pius X? Why? No one would obey him. When Paul VI began to Act in a Catholic manner: Humanae Vitae and the Credo, he was mocked, denigrated and ignored.

In conclusion, we must during this dark time realize that Christ is in absolute and total control of His Church. He is punishing Her presently for grave infidelity; for committing adultery with the world, the flesh and the devil.

Perhaps it is time for Catholics to increase their prayer life, such as making an effort to pray the Rosary every day, make a Holy Hour weekly etc.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/11/14/the-dubia-of-the-four-cardinals-changes-nothing-francis-and-spadaro-are-in-total-control/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

15 comments on “The Dubia of the Four Cardinals changes nothing: Francis and Spadaro are in total control

  1. “Firstly, the Pope is, canonically speaking, judged by no one,”

    This assertion is simplistic and incomplete.
    True — Old Code 1556 and New Code 1404: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur (The first see is judged by no one.) This law is based on the very hierarchical nature of the Church, and is supported by Dz 330, 352, and especially 1830, and then 1831, which pronounces an anathema (which means a dogma) against anyone who would say that the pope does not have “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those things which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…”

    Unfortunately, some read this, and assume that the pope has this “full and supreme” power only because he can be trusted to always exercise it in accordance with truth and justice. I mean, how could God give such fearsome power to any man, unless that man were safeguarded from its wrong use? Well, “My ways are not your ways”.
    Because the same Vatican Council I which made the definition in Dz 1831 also made the definition of papal infallibility (Dz 1839 & 1840).
    1839 states the conditions of infallibility:
    1) Pope must invoke his full authority
    2) To teach a matter of faith or morals (only — judgments of discipline et al are not included)
    3) With the clear intent to bind the whole Church to believe this teaching as a dogma
    EVERY Catholic should *memorize* these conditions for infallibility; they are hugely important in our day.

    We should carefully note the last part of Dz 1839: “…such [infallible] definitions of the Roman Pontiff, from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are *unalterable*.”
    This is the infallible Extraordinary Magisterium.
    Note: ‘infallible is from Latin ‘infallere’ = undeceivable = unable to be wrong.
    By definition of terms, this means that all infallible teachings of the Church — and keep in mind that there is an Infallible *Ordinary* Magisterium, which is the teaching of Tradition on faith and morals — are unable to be wrong…and that is why they are unalterable.

    This means that *anyone*, even a pope, who contradicts dogmatically defined Catholic faith and morals, is necessarily wrong. And a pope CAN and MUST be judged in this case to be wrong.
    But how is that possible, since the first see is judged by no one?!

    It’s really quite simple. Yes, the pope is the supreme authority, but…guess what? All the previous popes were also the supreme authority, and so far as they exercised that authority to make infallible definitions, or confirm infallible Tradition, what they decreed is *unalterable*. So any pope going directly against previously defined dogma proves by that very fact that he is NOT exercising his own authority at the supreme level — and therefore can be wrong (in fact, IS wrong, of metaphysical necessity). In other words, he is “already judged”…by his predecessors. For this reason, no doubt, Pope Innocent III († 1216) says:
    “The pope…can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because ‘he who does not believe is already judged.’ (John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men’.”

    Pope Innocent III makes therefore an exception in a pope’s immunity from judgment; in a case of heresy he *can* be judged, insofar as it is simply necessary for the cardinals and/or bishops to explain and declare that the accused explicitly and pertinaciously denies already defined dogma. Innocent is not alone in this; Pope Adrian agrees, and others. See True or False Pope, Salza & Siscoe, p. 239.

    All you Traditionalists, stand tall and hard as flint against the prideful Haters of Truth. In regard to the heresies alleged against Pope Francis, if Francis’ words are understood in their plain meaning, as explained by the critique of The 45, there are no “dubia” here. Those things which they have alleged to be heresies are indeed heresies, and they cite plenty of sources to prove it. It is the previous popes and Tradition vs. Francis — in matters of *dogma* — and that means Francis has already lost. It just remains for him to be formally judged, and deposed if he remains stubborn.

    May he convert, as St. Peter did. If not, he will continue until, like the Judas whom he presently emulates, he damns himself.

    “and the sending of the Dubia will not disturb him, obstruct him or offset him and his handlers in the least.”

    Oh, yes it will. Among other examples, we have seen already how annoyed he became, and how he publicly rebuked at the SinNod those who questioned his support for anti-Catholic morals.

    “Secondly, if there is a response, it will be in the manner of the dismissal of the Abbe de Nantes – that is, the Pope will rule the Dubia out of order. ”

    So what? Facts and truth do not change at the mere fiat of this fool. Anyone who suffers persecution from anti-Christs should glory in it.

  2. I fully support this action of the 4 cardinals in defense of the Catholic Faith. The dubia regarding basic moral principles are pertinent and should be a cause for concern for any genuine Catholic moralist. However, I think the cardinals are suffering from an inconsistency regarding the question of Holy Communion. It’s clear (at least for Traditionalists) that access to the Sacraments is prohibited by the traditional teaching of the Church (confirmed by Pope JPII) for those who, while bound by a valid marital bond, continue to live “more uxorio”. However, it seems that this is a matter of discipline and governance, which albeit applies to the Sacraments. Well if Tradition can bind in this case, why does it not also bind with regard to the Rites in the celebration of the Sacraments. In other words, if the cardinals grant the Pope the power to supersede a previous Pope’s infallible declaration on the normative nature of the Tridentine Mass, then by what basis do they reject the Pope Francis’ power to change the discipline regarding the admission to Holy Communion? The dubium regarding Holy Communion is still valid, but the inconsistency, I think, weakens their position.
    Thankfully, the point has been made by Fr. Hesse and others that Paul VI never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, nor could he ever do so.

  3. Anthony,

    It seems the difference is that allowing adulterers to receive Communion, though immediately it is a matter of discipline, and thus not immediately an object of infallibility, is nevertheless a discipline which in turn flows proximately and *directly* from infallible moral teaching. Therefore it can never be permitted, and this is confirmed by the fact that it never HAS been permitted.
    In regard to rites, Tradition clearly cannot bind in regard to accidental details, since through the centuries we have had plenty of minor changes in rites, and even different systems of rites (i.e. different Rites; Western vs. Eastern, etc.). One CAN argue quite strongly, based on Quo Primum, and the declarations of Trent following, that not even a pope is permitted to change a Rite *drastically* (as was done with the N.O.), even if he does not touch the essence (validity) of such a system of rites. But the arguments will never be as clear in this case as in the former, because the chain of connection to infallibility in the former case goes:
    Change in discipline of rite>clearly breaks infallible moral law
    whereas in the latter it goes:
    Change in discipline of a Rite>breaks Tradition(?)
    It is much harder to prove that changing a Rite wholesale breaks Tradition (with a capital T), than that giving Communion to adulterers breaks the moral law. In fact, in the latter case, no proof is necessary; it’s self evident.
    Therefore, the latter is not a case of the discipline of rites (the sacraments); it is simply the clear breaking of infallible moral law, by abusing the Sacrament.

    The *official* N.O. Rite or rites — assuming they were in fact promulgated, which is an interesting debate — contains changes in rites whose direct breaking of infallible dogma or moral law is far less clear. The argument there is simply whether there is any moral law that permits such wholesale changes, for any reason.

    So, it is harder to prove that even a wholesale restructuring of an entire Rite is an invalid act — unless that restructuring in some way directly implies denial of dogma or morals. Even though permission for adulterers to receive Communion is only an accidental change in a single rite, it directly implies denial of an infallible moral law of the Church.

    Sorry if this is repetitive or unclear.

    This isn’t really a question of Rite, or rites, but rights — vs. wrongs. Mortis Laetitia is a clear and direct attack on infallible moral law.

  4. Thanks, niceisnasty, for the thoughtful exchange.
    But my take is the converse. Namely, I think that the matter regarding the Tridentine Mass is actually clearer by both Tradition and solemn definition (by the Council of Trent and confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff). However, I do concede your point about the difference between accidental aspects of the rite and the substantial aspects. Fr. Hesse pointed out that this is why Popes, prior to Paul VI, always included Quo Primum at the very beginning of new editions of the Missal, in order to at least declare that they intended to be faithful to the substantial, unchangeable aspects of the Tridentine Mass.

    To take Pope Francis’ point of view for a moment. He could (not sure that he would) declare that he has no intention of changing the moral law. Rather, that he wants to take into account the unique moral situation of the parties who are seeking regularization, but because of circumstances beyond their control are impeded from receiving the sacraments. To attempt to change the moral law would be clearly contradictory to self-evident infallible moral teaching. But to attempt to change the discipline of who may receive the Sacraments and under what circumstances seems to be less clear, at least for those who don’t have the sensus fidei, or for those who are willing to jettison the teaching of Pope JPII.
    P.S. If I’ve written heresy here, I’m certainly willing to be corrected!

    Again, I am not agreeing with Pope Francis. But I do think that the cardinals’ position of allowed a pope to concoct a new rite for Latin Roman Catholics, weakens their argument against Amoris Laetita.

    • “the matter regarding the Tridentine Mass is actually clearer by both Tradition and solemn definition (by the Council of Trent and confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff). ”

      It certainly seems clearer, concedo. I think we ought to consider, however, that there are different ways that infallible doctrine is known in the Church, but there are not different degrees of infallibility. A doctrine is either fully infallible or it is not infallible at all. So the facts that it has always been held that living in adultery is a mortal sin, and that receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin is itself a mortal sin, even if they weren’t formally stated as such by any pope or council (and they probably have been; haven’t looked it up), makes these moral rules infallible by the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and this magisterium is just as infallible as the Extraordinary.
      Then too, the wording of Trent (Dz 856), though it has the anathema attached, and is therefore intended to be infallible, is not so clear as one might think.
      Here it is:
      “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor whatsoever of the churches to new ones: anathema sit.”
      I checked Deferrari’s translation against the original Latin, and it’s accurate, except that he omitted the important word ‘whatsoever’. That word would include the *Supreme* Pastor; the pope.
      The problem with understanding this is that it seems to be referring to individual rites, not whole systems, or Rites. But Trent could not really have intended to prohibit “any pastor whatsoever” from changing even individual rites, since that had been done many times in the past, and was soon to be done by Quo Primum, which ordered many changes of many individual rites, and that by the express previous decree of Trent itself. Dz 856 only makes sense if Trent, by the word “changed”, meant *essentially* changed.

      If you agree, it obviously doesn’t mean you are not still right that the failure to protest the introduction of the N.O. Rite did undercut the argument against Mortis Laetitia.

      • It is my understanding that Trent intended to both codify (or canonize) the Latin Roman Rite as it had developed over centuries and to leave intact other Rites that had been long established. Quo Primum did not introduce new changes to the Roman Rite, but only firmly established as normative the Roman Rite as it was found at the time of the Council of Trent. The reason being that the Latin Roman Rite was (and is) the supreme rule of faith for Latin Rite Catholics, and therefore the only reliable bulwark against heresy. The Council Fathers correctly perceived the terrible threat presented by the Protestant revolt not only to the contemporary church, but also to the church well into the future. (Boy, were they right!)

        But I do agree that “change” means “essentially change,” for, as I mentioned above, successor popes were careful to at least declare that they intended to be in continuity with Quo Primum when introducing any changes to the Mass.

        P.S. How could a translator omit the word “quiscumque/whomsoever”? That seems like the most important word in modern church history! As Fr. Hesse explained, it was as if the bishops at Trent were addressing the pope directly: “Yes, your Holiness…this means you too!”

  5. “It is my understanding that Trent intended to both codify (or canonize) the Latin Roman Rite as it had developed over centuries and to leave intact other Rites that had been long established.”

    I’m sure you’re right. I’d just add that councils, of course, don’t descend to the level of particular details in disciplinary matters like liturgy. It’s not that liturgy is not connected with Faith, as you point out, it’s just left to the competent authorities in the hierarchy to hash out the minutiae, so the council can avoid embroiling itself in something unnecessary to its larger duties. As I recall, Trent only stipulated that the Roman Rite be restored. Quo Primum was an act of Pius V alone, done after the council and at its behest, to get the detail work done. One example of this detail work was that, while Trent merely said that the Traditional rites of the Church could not be essentially changed, Quo Primum explicated that “Traditional rite” meant one in use for 200 years or more, and added that such rites could not be forbidden.

    Having taught Latin for a couple of decades, I’ve always been digusted with the “quality” of English translations. Being somewhat conversant in Spanish and French also, I’ve found that these languages (and I’ve heard also others) don’t play fast and loose like this.

    “P.S. How could a translator omit the word “quiscumque/whomsoever”?”
    A very good question, especially given that Deferrari, who did the 1957 Denzinger translation, is really quite good. He usually sticks to the principle: Be as literal as possible, while still using correct idiomatic English. This time he didn’t — and he did his work over a decade before the N.O. was introduced, so it would seem he wasn’t doing some lying retroactive revision.
    Hesse’s talk on this was good, wasn’t it?

    P.S.: I didn’t quite get the Latin/English right. The actual Latin is “Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in sollemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: an. s.”
    Literally: If anyone shall have said that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments [are] either to be contemned, or at will omitted, without sin by the ministers, or can be changed into other new ones through [the action of] whatsoever pastor of the churches: let him be cursed.
    Sorry. I’m a grammar nerd.

    • Thank you very much for this. I wish I had your Latin expertise! If I may ask:

      Is it correct to say that “quemcumque” is the singular, accusative declension of the relative pronoun “quiscumque”? In which case, is it not better translated as “whomsoever”?

      Also, do you disagree with Fr. Hesse’s opinion that the Council Fathers of Trent specifically intended to canonize the Mass that we have come to know as the Tridentine Mass, along with the other rites governing the celebration of the sacraments? For if Fr. Hesse is correct, then it does seem that Trent indeed intended to settle matters at a detailed liturgical level regarding the Roman Rite.

      I think that Fr. Hesse’s talk on the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments is monumentally important. For, as you probably know, he rescues the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments by affirming their non-liceity. And he provides evidence of their non-liceity in the normative nature of the Tridentine Mass for Latin Roman Rite Catholics, as decreed by Trent and Quo Primum.

      However, Fr. Hesse also made the point, which I think is shared by priests of the SSPX, that once one tampers with liceity there is the risk of eventually jeopardizing validity, especially with regard to the intention of the minister.

      Thanks again!

      • Hello,

        Yes, ‘quemcumque’ is the singular acc. case (masculine), and yes, most strictly it would be rendered ‘whomsoever’. In the context of this particular passage, I made a judgment call that “whomsoever pastor” would be ‘male sonans’ in English; that it wouldn’t be in accord with accepted idiomatic use. Using ‘whatsoever’ as I did seemed to allow for a decent English style, while not changing the meaning at all; I used the English relative adjective. Actually, in the Latin, ‘quemcumque’ is both the rel. pnn. and the rel. adj. In this particular case it is impossible to know which use the author intended — but it doesn’t make any difference to the meaning whether he intended to use the rel. pnn. in apposition to ‘pastor’ or the rel. adj. as describing ‘pastor’, since a pnn. in apposition also functions descriptively.

        I told you I was a grammar nerd.

        I don’t disagree with Fr. Hesse about Trent’s intentions. In fact, I would enlarge on them; it seems clear that they intended to canonize not just the Western rites, but all other Traditional rites, because Trent speaks of “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church”, and makes no restriction as to origins or locations.
        I would say that this intention was carried over into Quo Primum, which latter document added the details I mentioned above, plus made the codification of the Western Rite that we now may call the Tridentine Rite.

        AMDG

  6. For anyone: if you can, get a copy of A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, Based on The Summa Theologica and Selected Passages of His Other Writings by Roy J. Deferrari, along with a Latin-English edition of the Summa, go at it. Likewise with a Latin Vulgate edition of the New Testament. Teach a younger family member or friend.

  7. Those are good tips, for sure.
    Everything depends on two things:
    1) Your innate aptitude for languages
    2) Your previous training. In order to make good use of HA’s suggestions, you need to have a good command of Latin grammar already.
    Assuming #1 is sufficient, which I suspect it is based on your communication skills, but #2 needs some work, the second aspect can be approached in two basic ways: the deductive method or the inductive method. These are also called the grammar-translation method (less accurately), and the natural method (falsely). To my knowledge, the two Latin courses that most strictly exemplify these two methods are Henle’s Latin course and Oerberg’s Lingua Latina. I have taught both for a number of years. If you will be an autodidact (self-teacher) STAY AWAY from Oerberg. It will be at best useless and at worst totally confusing — unless you are both a genius and already a polyglot who is expert in universal principles of grammar, but even in that case Henle will be far faster and more efficient. ALL my experience tells me that, in order to have any kind of lasting mastery of a highly inflected language like Latin, you must memorize all the noun/adjective declensions and verb conjugations (patterns of formation). Most people can get a facile, conversational sort of fluency in a foreign language by the inductive method (which is really a sort of parroting). But if you don’t know the grammar you have no analytical foundation by which to keep yourself straight. I find that I can memorize Latin prayers as easily as English ones. That wouldn’t happen if I didn’t know the grammar. When you know the grammar, if you have made a mistake in your recitation, you can see the mistake, AND you’ll be able to correct it immediately, without reference to a written copy or someone else’s critique.
    Here’s a concrete example. I know someone who, when singing the Regina Caeli, sings at the end “Ora pro nobis Deus, alleluia”. She’s done it for years, not knowing that she’s actually asking God to pray for us, rather than Our Lady to pray [to] God for us. Never having learned the grammar, she’ll go on doing it forever, unless someone points it out to her.
    Fair warning: If you do think you need to complete your mastery of Latin grammar, you are facing a task that will be both more rewarding and more demanding than you probably guess; it’s a project requiring massive discipline and perseverance. If you have an average or better than average verbal memory, and the time, however, it is most certainly doable. It’s just a matter of proper method and… “gutta cavat lapidem” (a water drop digs out a rock).

  8. 52 Notandum autem, secundum Origenem, quod per hoc quod dicit verbum erat apud Deum, ostendit filium semper fuisse apud patrem. In veteri enim testamento dicitur factum esse verbum domini ad Ieremiam, vel quemcumque alium, ut patet in multis Scripturae locis, non autem dicitur: verbum domini erat apud Ieremiam vel apud alium; quia ad illos fit verbum, qui incipiunt habere verbum, postquam non habuerunt. Unde Evangelista non dixit, verbum factum esse apud patrem, sed erat apud patrem: quia ex quo pater erat, verbum apud eum erat.

    dhspriory.org/thomas/John1.htm

    Lectio 1

    1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,
    καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,
    καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
    2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

    dhspriory.org/thomas/SSJohn.htm



  9. Robin: Gosh, Batman, the controversies in moral theology at the Vatican sure are heating up!

    Batman: Indeed, they are, old chum. I hope you are keeping up with your studies of moral theology.

    Robin: I do my best, Batman.



    Batman Incidentally, how is your Latin homework at Fordham Prep coming, Robin?
    Keeping up with all of that Cicero, Vergil’s Aeneid, St. Augustine, and the philosophical treatises of Thomas Aquinas?

    Robin: It’s coming, Batman. We’re getting ready for Thanksgiving break.



    Batman: Let’s not slack off too much, Robin. You don’t want to fall behind just because modern society conditions people to think of this as a football holiday.



    Robin: Gosh, I know it, Batman! I guess this means you want me to practice reciting the proper third declension Latin case endings for rectitūdō again?



    Batman: Good thinking, Robin! It should leave you enough time for translating Cicero, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

    Robin: That much? On Thanksgiving weekend?



    Batman: Always remember, Robin: civilization begins or falls with whether we are learning the proper Latin case endings.



    Robin: Oh, boy…. rectitūdō, rectitūdinis , rectitūdinī , rectitūdinem ….


Leave a Reply