Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)  (Read 1173 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23079
  • Reputation: +20237/-244
  • Gender: Male
Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
« on: June 10, 2017, 05:11:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Number DXVII (517)
    June 10, 2017
    Refined Hypocrisy
    Labels deceive. The truth is told by fruits.
    Francis pulls up the Church’s very roots.

    Let us assume then, with Fr Gleize’s first article here six weeks ago (EC 511), that it is not certain that a Pope cannot fall into heresy. To save souls from Luther down to today, God may have given to the authorities of His Church of the decadent Fifth Age special graces to resist that decadence, but that Age came virtually to an end with Vatican II. Conciliar Popes have been the death of the Church. But are they formal heretics? The interest of Fr Gleize’s second article is its highlighting of just how these Popes have managed to kill the Church by subverting Catholic doctrine while seeming to remain Catholic. What is their technique? Fr Gleize examines the case of the five “dubia” or doubtful points raised by the four Cardinals against the text of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia ( AL ): do these points make him a conscious and wilful denier of defined Church doctrine? Seemingly, no, says Fr Gleize, but in effect, yes.
    Seemingly, no, because on each of the five points Pope Francis does not directly deny Church doctrine, rather he leaves it ambiguous, or leaves it out. The first of the five points is an example of ambiguity: the Pope does not say, “Divorcees may receive Communion,” but, “In certain cases divorcees may receive Communion.” Here the “in certain cases” is open to a broad or narrow interpretation. It is ambiguous, and that ambiguity is apt to undermine Church Law, because there are many divorcees and all too many priests and prelates who will be happy to take the broad interpretation.
    In all four remaining points the Pope undermines Catholic doctrine not by denial, but by omission. For instance (fourth point), he does not say, “There is no such thing as an objectively sinful act,” because the Church has always named a series of objectively sinful acts, starting with God’s Ten Commandments. Rather the Pope says, “Objective sinfulness doe s not necessarily mean subjective guilt.” Now of course the Church has never denied that there can be circumstances for this or that act which take away its guilt, but to put the subjective excuse in the foreground is to put the objective sin in the background. Sinners will love it!Yet the Catholic Church has always ranked the objective nature and moral rightness or wrongness of acts above the subjective blameworthiness of this or that person performing the act. “The exception proves the rule,” says one proverb, and another, “Hard cases make bad law.” On the contrary the subjectivism of Pope Francis undermines Church law (and common sense) with hard cases, even while he avoids directly contradicting Church law. Fr Gleize concludes that the four Cardinals’ five doubts are fully justified.
    However, the Pope is covering his tracks by not making dogmatic or anti-dogmatic statements. He himself writes in AL that its purpose is to “collect in-put from the two S ynods on the family, together with further considerations capable of guiding thought or dialogue or pastoral practice.” This is professedly not a dogmatic purpose. Therefore it is difficult to pin on Pope Francis the ticket of “formal heretic.” But just as Vatican II professed to be merely a “pastoral,” i.e. non-doctrinal, Council, and yet it blew Catholic doctrine and the Church sky-high, so Pope Francis is in AF not professing that he is teaching doctrine, and yet he is blowing Catholic morals and the family sky-high. It is the classic Communist or Neo-modernist means of subversion, using practicalities to undermine truth, not in principle but in practice. Compare Rome to Bishop Fellay: “Get practical recognition first, we’ll talk about doctrine afterwards.” Compare Bishop Fellay to the SSPX: “We are not changing doctrine,” while he himself is hardly breathing a word of criticism any more of Pope Francis’ destruction of the Church. Would Archbishop Lefeb vre have kept silent? To ask the question is to answer it.
    Fr Gleize concludes that Pope Francis may not be a “formal heretic,” but he is certainly “favouring heresy.” “Formal heretic” should be the worse of the two tickets, but not at this wrong end of the Church’s Fifth Age, when the hypocrisy of the Church’s enemies is more refined than ever. Heaven help us more than ever! Pray the Fifteen Mystery Rosary every day!
    Kyrie eleison.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Barry

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 29
    • Reputation: +36/-24
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
    « Reply #1 on: June 12, 2017, 09:34:57 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    To save souls from Luther down to today, God may have given to the authorities of His Church of the decadent Fifth Age special graces to resist that decadence, but that Age came virtually to an end with Vatican II.

    So, is Fr Gleize saying that  popes had a "special grace" that kept them free from error until Vatican II?  And this "special grace" no longer operates, because God has withdrawn it?

    We certainly understand people wrestling with the crisis in the Church, during this Eclipse of the Church.  However, if we accept that the Church indeed did change at Vatican II, how are to know that we are right and the modernists are wrong?  Because we accept what the Church always taught?  But if this "special grace" has been withdrawn, that argument no longer holds - it's a new age with new rules.  This is supposedly the logic of the modernists, but it is an absurdity for a Traditional Catholic.

    And if this "special grace" that keeps popes free from error has been withdrawn, maybe one or more of the Four Marks is also a "special grace" that has now been withdrawn.  (Of course, in truth, they all of them are special graces, coming from God alone).  Maybe, say, Apostolicity no longer applies.  Or maybe the mark of being Holy?  That one certainly seems to have been diminished since Vatican II, so maybe it's on the skids also.  CathInfo could host some polls to see what other "special graces" are being retired to the Catholic Hall of Fame.

    And maybe whether you or your priest are "una cum" is not really a question anymore.  That's why there is so much discussion and division.  It wasn't an issue before Vatican II, because it was in the Church by a "special grace", and such grace has been withdrawn - so maybe we're arguing over a nothing, a once and former "special grace".

    In all honesty, I am NOT being overly sarcastic.  If you think that one or more "special graces" have been removed from the Catholic Church, you are looking at a different entity, and you have to look at it with different principles - not the ones that apply to the Catholic Church - the spotless Bride of Christ.

    This rationale is product of not being able to - or willing to - state the obvious truth:  Many (if not most) of these Conciliar folks are no longer Catholic.  The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.  However bad this crisis, this eclipse is, we must not offer up opinions which are contrary to Catholic teaching.



    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3559
    • Reputation: +4170/-317
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
    « Reply #2 on: June 12, 2017, 09:47:00 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Quote
    But are they formal heretics?
    .
    I see Bishop Williamson is asking the wrong question, too.  No one cares if he's a formal heretic, and no one is arguing that he (Francis or any of his predecessors) is.  It suffices that he is manifest.  If he's material and manifest, then he's not pope by virtue of that fact alone, since material manifest heretics (e.g. your average protestant) aren't Catholics (that is, they don't belong to the Church) and you'll find not a single Catholic source who says they are-- in fact, they all say they aren't (see the extant thread Matthew started about judging sedevacantism for thirty pages of crickets trying to find anyone who taught that material manifest heretics are Catholic).  In fact, Catholic theologians don't even entertain the idea of a "Catholic material heretic."  The term (material) itself pertains only to non-Catholics because the material/formal distinction indicates one's guilt before God, not one's membership status in the Church.  One can belong to the Church and be guilty before God of any number of things, and one can be outside the Church and not be guilty of being outside the Church (but can of course, and virtually always will be, guilty of something else, since a preponderance of grace is available through the Church which will be ordinarily unavailable to all of those outside her). 
    .
    Just more fuel for the committed sedeplenist and rabidly anti-sedevacantist tire fire, I guess.  Good shepherd, huh?  At least y'all won't get cold :)
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3717/-290
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
    « Reply #3 on: June 12, 2017, 02:22:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • .
    I see Bishop Williamson is asking the wrong question, too.  No one cares if he's a formal heretic, and no one is arguing that he (Francis or any of his predecessors) is.  It suffices that he is manifest.  If he's material and manifest, then he's not pope by virtue of that fact alone, since material manifest heretics (e.g. your average protestant) aren't Catholics (that is, they don't belong to the Church) and you'll find not a single Catholic source who says they are-- in fact, they all say they aren't (see the extant thread Matthew started about judging sedevacantism for thirty pages of crickets trying to find anyone who taught that material manifest heretics are Catholic).  In fact, Catholic theologians don't even entertain the idea of a "Catholic material heretic."  The term (material) itself pertains only to non-Catholics because the material/formal distinction indicates one's guilt before God, not one's membership status in the Church.  One can belong to the Church and be guilty before God of any number of things, and one can be outside the Church and not be guilty of being outside the Church (but can of course, and virtually always will be, guilty of something else, since a preponderance of grace is available through the Church which will be ordinarily unavailable to all of those outside her).  
    .
    Just more fuel for the committed sedeplenist and rabidly anti-sedevacantist tire fire, I guess.  Good shepherd, huh?  At least y'all won't get cold :)





    Our clerics and priests and their followers need to wake up!  You are never going to find a modernist heretic declaring a formal heresy. They are completely satisfied to simply go ahead and teach, speak, and act out heretical ideas without ever challenging the Church's settled doctrine DIRECTLY,  or do anything which might attach a formal status to their actions.
    The modernist popes have relied upon their adversary's legalistic approach to mask their heresy by avoiding those actions which would place them objective violation of the Church laws. They will always fall shy of stepping upon the threshold of formality leaving the Church without recourse to a canonical means of censure.

    It is akin to saying that a practicing Jew in your midst cannot be determined to be a Jew because he has not declared himself as such.  The modernists have used and played upon the Church's procedures and legal system like a symphony.

    Our leaders profess to know all about liberal modernism and yet they have not found any effective method of dealing with these people and to protect the Church and the Faithful from them.

    Modernists are cunning subversives, and they need to be treated as such no matter who they are.

    The sedvacantists have at least looked to other laws and teaching which can be applied as a remedy against the conciliar evil. The Remnant/Ecclesia Dei crowd and the others seem bent upon finding ways in which such remedies and protections cannot be used against the modernist heretics.

    They cannot even speak to each other and unity is non-existent. There will be no restoration until true unity in the Christian Faith is restored. All other issues and positions are subordinate to the ongoing destruction of the Church and the Holy Religion. Facing up to this reality is the only path which can lead to a united response to the revolution by what is left of Catholicism.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3559
    • Reputation: +4170/-317
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
    « Reply #4 on: June 12, 2017, 02:46:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • .
    But you're missing the boat, too, Jpaul.  Formal heresy doesn't matter to us.  It matters before God, not before us, and not even before the Church.
    .
    There's a man, and he can be two things: he can be Catholic, or not.  We're using the strict sense here: Catholic means "a man who belongs to the Church" and non-Catholic means "a man who doesn't belong to the Church."
    .
    A man, however evil, can belong to the Church if he professes the faith (and a few other things which aren't really debated, like whether or not he's baptized).  A man can be a hypocrite in professing outwardly when he does not so inwardly, and still belong to the Church.  A man can privately eat babies and belong to the Church.
    .
    A man, however ill or well-intentioned, who does not publicly profess the Catholic faith, cannot belong to the Church.  How can he rule her, then?
    .
    Everyone wants to talk about material/formal and it.just.simply.doesn't.matter.  We're not trying to figure out where, if Francis, were to die this instant, would go for eternity.  We're trying to figure out whether or not he is simply capable of ruling the Church-- not whether or not he can do it with courage or with cowardice or with a love of Christ or a hatred of Him-- but whether or not he can do it at all.  Do do it at all he has to be Catholic.
    .
    I think what you're pointing at, Jpaul, is the fact that modernists are like Arians.  They're slippery and they're slimy.  One of the main heresiarchs, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was present at councils with Arius and his role was quite literally to translate for Arius any time he got "too Arian."  It's important to heretics that they be viewed as faithful.  So in that sense it's true to say that the modernists will hesitate to "define" error-- they don't believe in error in the first place, because they don't believe in truth.  You can't believe fully in a thing if you don't fully believe in its contrary.  And I'll give you as much to say that it's certainly worth keeping in mind that modernists do not announce themselves as such (not usually, anyways-- Francis pushes that envelope), so a sort of hyper-vigilance is required to be on guard against them.  But that doesn't answer-- it doesn't even touch-- on whether or not the man is pope.  And if someone doesn't want to touch that question, fine.  St. Paul instructed us to flee from heresy and as far as I'm concerned that's enough to justify the flight.
    .
    But if you're going to try to get involved in the discussion of sede vacante, at least get your opponent's position right.  Somehow sedevacantists have managed, among the billion sedeplenist arguments on the planet, to realize that the infinitesimal minority which composes the SSPX (for instance) actually believe differently than what Walter Kasper, or Josef Ratsinger, or Karol Wojtyla believes.  Extend the same nominal courtesy to us and address the point, please?  Address our arguments, not those silly ones that are so easy for you to build out of straw and burn down while you all slap each other on the back.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3559
    • Reputation: +4170/-317
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
    « Reply #5 on: June 12, 2017, 03:09:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • But if you're going to try to get involved in the discussion of sede vacante, at least get your opponent's position right.... [/quote]

    This was directed at +W and the usual interlocutors, not Jpaul.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3062
    • Reputation: +1517/-2390
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
    « Reply #6 on: June 12, 2017, 07:37:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    I see Bishop Williamson is asking the wrong question, too.  No one cares if he's a formal heretic, and no one is arguing that he (Francis or any of his predecessors) is.  It suffices that he is manifest. 
    .

    You are wrong. Sedevacantists may not care if Francis is a formal heretic or not. But not all traditionalists are sedevacantists. You don't speak for all traditionalists.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3717/-290
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
    « Reply #7 on: June 12, 2017, 09:50:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I do fully agree that heresy matters deeply both in this world and to God. My point being that one does not have to meet a canonical and legal standard to be recognized as a heretic by other Catholics. And a heretic is objectively outside of the Church.  One is cast from the communion of the Church by doubting but one point of Christ's doctrine. What then of one who speaks and teaches against the Word Himself?

     SSPXism has never admitted to and continues to refuse admitting to what is manifesting itself before their eyes.

    As Father Faber once wrote, "There can be no holiness where there is no hatred of heresy".  There is incalculable disruption and damage done to the Divine order by every unchecked heresy whether it be private or public. It is  further multiplied when it directly corrupts souls and Christ's Holy Religion.
    It is logical to conclude that so many great evils which are being visited upon the Church and the world are direct consequences of these rebellions against that Divine cosmic order.

    Heresy in the clergy is very very serious business, that too many, in my opinion, do not take seriously enough.
    It is the end of order, and the harbinger of chaos.

    Whether heresy is found to be totally unacceptable to one, or some form of tolerance and accommodation is found in another, that is where each man stands before God and other men.

     In the end it comes down to Sheep and Goats.

















    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3559
    • Reputation: +4170/-317
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
    « Reply #8 on: June 12, 2017, 11:00:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    My point being that one does not have to meet a canonical and legal standard to be recognized as a heretic by other Catholics. And a heretic is objectively outside of the Church.  One is cast from the communion of the Church by doubting but one point of Christ's doctrine.
    .
    Indeed.  Ergo, we see that Christ responded to doubting Thomas, "Be not faithless but believing."  Thomas didn't apostatize; he held the whole faith-- except for one doctrine.  And he didn't deny it, either.  Just doubted it.  But that single doubt of just one teaching made him "faithless." 
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3717/-290
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Refined Hypocrisy (no. 517)
    « Reply #9 on: June 13, 2017, 07:54:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Indeed.  Ergo, we see that Christ responded to doubting Thomas, "Be not faithless but believing."  Thomas didn't apostatize; he held the whole faith-- except for one doctrine.  And he didn't deny it, either.  Just doubted it.  But that single doubt of just one teaching made him "faithless."
    You've got my vote!   Using the Divine gifts of reason and logic will bring most who are of good will, to the same conclusion.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16