Daily Archives: May 29, 2015
Many thanks to “Rex”, who comments on the Creative Minority Report post about the extremely strong smell of formal heresy with the following quotes:
Pope Pius IX: None [of the heretical and schismatic ‘communities], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity. (Jam Vos Omnes, 1868)
Pope Leo XIII: Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits — but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible — since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: “I believe in one…Church.” (Satis Cognitum)
Pope Pius XI: It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunct members…It is to depart from divine truth to imagine that a Church which one can neither see nor touch, which would be nothing more than spiritual in which numerous Christian communities would be united by an invisible bond, even though they are divided in faith. (Mortalium Animos)
It is always breathtaking how concise, accessible and nevertheless always extremely clear were the Papal documents of the past, compared with the diabolical disorientation we see today.
Still, you should not think that Francis is simply an idiot. There is no way he has never learned, or has forgotten, all this; there is also no chance he never understood what he meant, of never knew that this is what the Church teaches.
The point is, as I have already stated, extremely clear: the Pope states he does not know whether something is heresy, and then proceeds to expound and defend his opinion anyway.
This is John XXII all over again. Like John XXII, Francis knows (his ridiculous and rather rhetorical “I don’t know” notwithstanding) he is proposing a heretical doctrine, but he does not care. He does not care because he does go on expounding it, and he does not care for the very reason that he says what he thinks whilst admitting what he thinks might be a heresy.
St Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!
And here is the second part of our “Remnant” voyage into the realm of papal heresies: can the church depose a heretical Pope?
“Yes, she can”, is the answer. Follow the link to learn the why and how. An entire section is dedicated to the obvious mistake of the Sedevacantist perception.
Unfortunately, the absence of a true practical application of the principle (the interesting case of Marcellinius (or Marcellinus) would probably not apply to Francis, and perhaps some will doubt it happened in the first place) makes it very difficult to discern a clear path if Francis were to “go nuclear”.
Say: who would take the initiative of starting the convocation of an ecumenical council? How many bishops would take place? With what money would the entire exercise be financed? How would one know the council is legitimate?
View original post 626 more words
In the first of two blog posts dedicated to a series of beautiful articles taken from the “Remnant”, I will copy the link to four articles dedicated to the grave crisis in which Pope John XXII plunged the Church in the first part of the XIV Century.
The second blog post will be dedicated to a very actual issue: how a Pope can be deposed.
In both cases, I will add my short personal consideration.
The articles will, also, be put in a special “page” (this is how WordPress calls the fixed pages you see at the top) on my blog, in the hope that it will attract, in time, the attention of readers surfing the waves of the Internet in the search for some guidance in the present confusion.
I invite, here, to say the prayers…
View original post 787 more words
The “concubinegate” Reblog
Telephone calls ” do not in any way form part of the Pope’s public activity”.
The “media amplifications” “cannot be confirmed as reliable”
… And are “source of misunderstanding and confusion”
“Consequences relating to the teaching of the church are not to be inferred from these occurrences”