“It Gives The Feeling Of A Schism”, Plus Bonus Rant.


It’s good to watch videos like the one above. They tell you there are still Catholics around. Actually, they tell you there will always be Catholics around. To paraphrase St Athanasius, the heretics may occupy our churches, but we will keep our faith.


In this matter of so-called communion for adulterers, there are a couple of things that always give me a light case of nettle-rash. Not saying they are both happening in this video. I just want to get this out of my system. 

The first is describing the teaching of the Church as if had been created, or at least clearly affirmed for the first time, in Familiaris Consortio. I think I will scream next time I read that Familiaris Consortio is mentioned in this regard. As evidence of what the Church teaches, Familiaris Consortio is neither here nor there. The prohibition of communion for adulterers is based on the constant teaching of the Church, it is based directly on the words of Our Lord and has always been considered part and parcel of the Depositum Fidei. If, therefore, Familiaris Consortio introduced a novelty, then this novelty could be a heresy or a quasi-heresy like several other novelties introduced in V II-times encyclicals. If (as it is most certainly the case) JP II based his very words in Familiaris Consortio on the constant teaching of the Church, then it is this last element that must be constantly stressed, as it is infinitely more decisive than what one of the at times very bad, and at all times more or less questionable, V II encyclicals states.

Let the V II people try to explain everything with documents of the V II era. We should simply ignore them. Everything that is right and has a solid foundation in Catholicism can be explained without mentioning them, and everything that cannot be founded in pre-existing Church teaching is very probably wrong and in any way never to be trusted unconditionally. The only innovation not suspect of heresy or watering down of the faith  introduced by V II I can think of is the invitation to the faithful to denounce heresy. But this is a logical consequence of the rise in education and literacy. Educated laymen were never requested to shut up when confronted with heresy.  

Our (sound) Catholicism is based on what the Church has always believed, not on what JP II (rightly or wrongly) stated. If JP II alone can be the foundation of Church doctrine, than Francis can be it, too.

For this reason (and this is my second nettle-rush trigger), the mention from the man in the video that Francis might, in theory, announce a “change in discipline” is just plain wrong. Discipline cannot contradict doctrine. Therefore,  Francis could never change discipline in such a matter. The only thing he could do is to proclaim heresy. This is something that I would like to see stressed more in the public discourse. Truths are immutable facts that can never be changed by way of “discipline”. They can only be attacked by way of heresy.

We are in a de facto schism, in which the Pope willingly allows cardinal to contradict cardinal and bishop to contradict bishop in matters that every child old enough to know what “adultery” is would understand without any difficulty.

Francis and Satan observe this happening without any meaningful reaction, and laugh.

At least for now. 





Posted on February 19, 2017, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. We could say that Christ will have the last laugh but I’m sure He is in no laughing mood at the present time. The Pope and his minions are playing with fire and have the impression they are in charge of something. They are not. A reckoning is coming.

  2. “Our (sound) Catholicism is based on what the Church has always believed, not on what JP II (rightly or wrongly) stated.”

    Oh yes, this is extremely annoying and utterly nonsensical. (It is also a secular or at least Protestant way of looking at it, treating magisterial texts exactly like a Sola Scriptura Protestant treats the Bible, looking for “proof texts”. Which is why, for the post-conciliar conservative modernists, textual interpretation/hermeneutics of magisterial documents has become so utterly central to their argument.)

    If someone has been shot and the police find the murder weapon with fingerprints on it, they will see that as “evidence” pointing towards the murderer. But they will not arrest the pistol.

    In the same way as the pistol and the fingerprints indicate the murderer, magisterial documents *point towards* Catholic Truth, but they do not *constitute* it. If there was a magisterial document that contained errors, as compared to the actual Truth believed, it would be discarded as false, regardless of the identity of its author or his position in the worldly hierarchy of the Church, even if he claimed to be an angel from heaven or a messenger of the Holy Spirit…

    Tradition records, transmits and explains, but never invents or establishes Truth. The Authority of Catholic Tradition does not derive from anyone who humbly served as a transmitter – but from the Holy Trinity only.

    Lacking that foundation, and treating mere *expressions* of the Truth as its *source*, tradition comes to be seen as expression of personal preference by those powerful enough to have established it, and its proponents and defenders become Pharisees (which, by the way, explains why Bergoglio sees Traditionalists the way he does – as a secularist, he is unable to see the divine source, interpreting everything the Church teaches as arbitrary human imposition).

    Defenders of Catholic Truth need to point towards the *source* using as evidence and indicator the magisterial teaching, not the other way around, pointing to the evidence as *source* of the teaching. Because that would be arresting the pistol, which is common these days (just look at the “gun control” debate for evidence…)

  3. Dear Mundabor, off topic but very interesting thing here in bergoglioland (argentina) there is lots of talk about a man who is a close “friend” of jorgito, this man Gustavo Vera a very primitive person who has been the spokeman rather the voice of Bergoglio in the last 3 years and runs a a left oriented radical feminisit/homosexualist NGO that always had Bergoglio’s support, this new rich, caviar socialist who kept traveling to Rome practically every month since Jorgito became Francisco is (or was?) according to many people more than friends with him, I said was because the rumor is that they broke up.. the scandalous “gossip” made Vera write a letter which he published in facebook and twitter saying that he would not report more about Bergoglio because of the dimension of the “incredible calumnias that are circulating” his words quoted exactly, here is the letter https://twitter.com/gVeraLaalameda/status/833504999858700288/photo/1 many users in twitter called him boyfriend of the pope and other things that would make any decent person blush. The truth is finally surfarcing ! we’ll see him fall.

  4. “Our (sound) Catholicism is based on what the Church has always believed, not on what JP II (rightly or wrongly) stated. If JP II alone can be the foundation of Church doctrine, than Francis can be it, too.”

    This is what the vast majority of Catholics essentially believe about capital punishment after JPII’s arbitrary, revisionist approach to Catholic moral theology on the issue:


    “Educated laymen were never requested to shut up when confronted with heresy.”

    Unless it was the members of the Catholic Apologetics-Industrial Complex making that request to provide cover for JPII’s arbitrary revisionism.

    • The majority of Catholics contracept. You should not think when I say “sound Catholics” I mean the majority.

    • M, I understand entirely. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, no Pope (not even Francis) has advocated disregarding Humanae Vitae. JPII not only advocated disregarding centuries of moral teaching concerning capital punishment for murder, he had his revisionism encoded in the CCC (thanks to Cdl. Ratzinger), which has become a fig leaf for an abolitionist position the Church never held. The situations are qualitatively different.

    • If you consider JP II a bigger menace to the faith than Bergoglio you are beyond mine of anyone’s ability to help.

      I wish you well.

    • First, I never said that Bergoglio wasn’t or isn’t a menace to the faith. He most certainly is. But, as you well know, Bergoglio didn’t arise in a vacuum. And, most certainly, Bergoglio isn’t the first Pope to use his personality to effectively doctrine. He’s just a lot less subtle at it than Wojtyla was.

    • Agree. But I think we should agree that Bergoglio is, due to his aggressive heretic activism, a danger to the faith that dwarfs the errors of JP II.

  1. Pingback: CATHOLIC HEADLINES 2.19.17 – The Stumbling Block

%d bloggers like this: