There is no denying.
Some Catholic media outlets won't say it publicly but they know it just like the rest of us who aren't ostriches.
For example [there are so many to pick from] a pope who says hell is not eternal because any soul that has been damned will be destroyed, is speaking heresy.
This is wrong because 1) damnation is eternal, 2) souls are not destroyed they are eternal, and 3) this is a basic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that must be accepted and believed because Jesus Christ himself stated such in Sacred Scripture (Matthew 25:46).
Catechism: 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." 617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
Catechism: 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." 11
That said, we, the faithful (key word here) should not abandon ship.
Our first pope, Saint Peter was corrected by Saint Paul when he was in error, he accepted the correction and that was that, as the saying goes.
Pope Honorius I, believed that Christ had only Divine Will (Monothelitism) during his time as pope. He pushed and taught this heresy through out his papacy and many followed and believed him- perhaps because...well, he was the pope!
They ignorantly thought that a pope could change the Faith and go against centuries of Sacred Teaching. They were wrong, and those who did not repent paid the ultimate price for it. Excommunication and death outside the Salvation found in Christ's Holy Catholic Church.
Pope Honorius I was not condemned as a heretic for decades AFTER his death during the Third Council of Constantinople. Yet he was pope and the Church did not collapse or self destruct because he blathered heresy. What did happen was he created a following of a bunch of heretics who like himself were eventually excommunicated. To those of you out there swallowing the heresies of any Catholic clergy, open your eyes. Your very salvation depends upon it.
Sadly, there were others like Honorius I in the history of our Church and unfortunately, there may be more in the future. Had Honorius I accepted correction, he would not have died an excommunicated heretic.
Now we have Pope Francis, preparing to celebrate...er...commemorate another excommunicated heretic who died outside the Church. Martin Luther.
Will Pope Francis accept correction (see yesterday's post HERE) before he dies and is (in my opinion) declared a heretic by some future council? I certainly pray and hope so.
Mr. Louie Verrecchio apparently disagrees with me on this -or am I reading this wrong? [my apologies if I'm reading this wrong]
Over at AKACatholic.com in his "Pope or Anti-pope: Does it matter?" post, Mr. Verrecchio wrote the following...
Over at AKACatholic.com in his "Pope or Anti-pope: Does it matter?" post, Mr. Verrecchio wrote the following...
Quote: Even so, let’s consider some of the arguments being floated to this end:– A future pope will have to sort this mess out for us; we are unable.
The Church is mired in an unprecedented crisis that has been festering for more than five decades now.
In such an environment as this, it is entirely unreasonable – irresponsible even – to simply sit back and wait for a new conclave to elect an intrepid defender of the Faith who will right the ship and set the record straight. I mean, let’s face it, folks – the papabile talent pool is no more than ankle deep at this point.
Rest assured, Our Lord is not asking us to set aside our intelligence and ability to reason in this matter; on the contrary, we need to make use of these God-given gifts all the more in the absence of true shepherds.[clipped]
My response is, look at previous councils! This is how the Church works and has always worked. The Third Council of Constantinople- decades after Pope Honoriuos I's, death declared him a heretic and his teachings heretical. This might very well be the case with Pope Francis himself should he refuse correction.
So what do we Catholics do when we have a current pope speaking heresy and commemorating heretics?
Mr. Verrecchio in his post says we have two options, "fight or flight"...
Quote:
It’s “fight or flight.”
In the face of this unprecedented attack on the Petrine ministry, the “visible foundation” of the Church, some Catholic commentators will flee, and it must be said that flight has its rewards. Others will dig in and fight, which is always carried out at a cost.
I choose the latter.[end]
Again I ask, am I reading this correctly?
I hope he means 'fight'...but if he means 'flight'...no!
Flight? Flight to where? Mr. Verrecchio does not elaborate- and after re-reading this a few times I am admittedly unclear as to which "latter" he is referring to. That said, my response stands for all who are considering "flight"- that is not an option for Catholics!
I hope he means 'fight'...but if he means 'flight'...no!
Flight? Flight to where? Mr. Verrecchio does not elaborate- and after re-reading this a few times I am admittedly unclear as to which "latter" he is referring to. That said, my response stands for all who are considering "flight"- that is not an option for Catholics!
We do not take flight. We are the church militant on earth. We fight! We stand with the teachings handed down to us from the Church. We reject heresy- even when it comes from a pope.
What we never do is take flight from Christ's Holy Catholic Church.
We are not cowards. Our Lord is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Holy Catholic Church is His Church and as such we must cling to Her regardless of who is pope or what heresy might come from his lips.
There is no where else to go folks. Please don't fear a heretical pope. Cling to your Faith as it was handed down to you over the centuries. Popes come and popes go. We have good ones, we have great ones and occasionally we have heretical ones.
Do not take flight. Fight.
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
***Addition: I truly hope that Mr. Verrecchio means "fight" and not "flight". My message in this post remains to those who have or are thinking of taking "flight" from the Church.***
Sources:
I think Louie was inadvertently ambiguous. First he mentioned Fight and Flight, in that order. Then he elaborated on what he meant by explaining Flight and Fight, in that order. Then he said, "I choose the latter." My assumption based on this and other posts, is that he meant Fight. But I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteThank you Oakes. I do hope he means "fight". Perhaps he will clarify for us all.
ReplyDeleteGod bless.
I agree with Oakes, I took this to mean that Louie meant fight.
ReplyDeleteJulie and Louie Verrechio are Cushingites.They intepret Vatican Council II with the New Theology, with Rahner's theology. They are not Feeneyites.They are part of the problem.Cushingism is not fighting but conforming with the enemies of the Church.
ReplyDeleteJulie- you'r still in a flight mode theologically.
CDF/ Ecclesia Dei would have to clarify that Cushingism from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is heresy and that Feeneyism is Catholic orthodoxy.
The laws of nature, like the laws of reasoning, apply to all.The laws of gravity apply to the two popes and all the cardinals and so does the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was heretical and it violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.It was overlooked by the two popes,cardinals and bishops since then.
A private letter from a cardinal at the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston was used to discard the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when it stated ' That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member'.1
This heresy was overlooked in the Catholic Church and so much of Vatican Council II is based upon it.It was so subtle that Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not notice it.
The Letter violated the Principle of Non Contradiction by assuming hypothetical cases like the baptism of desire were explicit,seen in the flesh.
Then after making this error in reasoning it was concluded that these 'explicit' cases; objectively seen cases of the baptism of desire were known exceptions to the dogma EENS.They were allegedly visible and seen in the flesh to be exceptions to EENS.We know that there cannot be any such known case.
Now with authority Catholics quote the popes from Pius XII to Francis and Benedict, on the baptism of desire, when really these popes overlooked an innovation in the Church.They contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction. So the present magisterium contradicts the pre-Council of Trent magisterium of the Church which did not interpret imaginary cases as being physically visible.
Like the laws of nature, the laws of reasoning also apply to the popes, and it is clear that they have erred.
Either it is because the Church has been infiltrated or there was a simple error an oversight - but an error was made.
So much of Vatican Council II is based on this false reasoning and the Council is re-interpreted with this 'new philosophy'.Imaginary cases are assumed to be concrete.Then they are inferred to be known exceptions in the present time for all to be incorporated into the Church de facto as members for salvation.
So the Council becomes a rupture with Tradition, in particular, the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE ERROR
Once this is clear we can look at Vatican Council II with a new perspective. We do not have to reject it.
We can interpret Vatican Council II with or without the false premise and conclusion, the choice is always there.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteSo lets choose the rational option.
First, affirm the orthodox texts in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14- all need faith and baptism for salvation).It is in accord with the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite).Then interpret LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as referring to non-explicit,imaginary and theoretical cases, accepted in principle in theory.They are speculation with good will. So not being explicit in 2016 they are not exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).Neither are they exceptions to the orthodox passages in Ad Gentes and Lumen Gentium 14( all need to be incorporated into the Church with 'faith and baptism' for salvation).
In this way we eliminate the innovation and Vatican Council II is in harmony with the pre-Councl of Trent magisterium of the Church.
The present and past magisterium could be reconciled with no violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction in the Catholic Church.
1.The SSPX could accept Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II and so there would be no hermeneutic of rupture.
2.The Franciscans of the Immaculate could offer the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass and reject Fr.Karl Rahner S.J's new theology, which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction with irrational reasoning.
3.The sedevacantists could become aware of the heresy in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and so affirm traditional Feeneyism, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.Then Vatican Council II would not be a break with Tradition.
4.The liberals will not be able to cite Vatican Council II as a break with the past.Since there present citations based on the New Theology violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.The Vatican Curia would have to admit its error.This would have to be pointed out to them by those who discern the error.
5.The CDF/ Ecclesia Dei would have to clarify that Cushingism from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is heresy and that Feeneyism is Catholic orthodoxy.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1467
Julie,
ReplyDeleteI believe Mr. Verrechio was responding to an article on 1Peter5 wherein the editor posits the notion that those who spend any time on looking at the realities surrounding the papacy of Pope Francis are not "trusting" God, but rather looking for an excuse to flee dealing with the problem.
What was proposed is that discussing the particulars of Francis's papacy was also not loving God.
What has been politely pointed out to 1Peter5 is that, despite what writers over there may posit, it is perfectly in line with being a devout Catholic to both do one's daily duty, to love God and neighbor, to be a good Catholic and to absolutely review any/all details that come to light with regard to whether or not Francis is truly the Pope. Of course, nothing will be declared until, in future, God sees fit to grace us with a sound pope once more.
So Mr. Verrechio is absolutely on board with fighting. That's precisely what he has been doing, right along with the folks at the Remnant and for quite some time. (Don't forget that there were those who implied an infidelity on Mr. Verrechio's part when he, quite rightly, pointed out the novelties of pastoral speak floated out in Vatican II documents. Novelties which are not binding, but rather obfuscating realities.)
What Mr. Verrechio is stating, in my view, that is is to flee or fly away from realities that has other news outlets pretend that being faithful means not looking at the realities surrounding our current Pope. And that, frankly, while some may enjoy appearing nice and cordial etc, is to fail as a journalist and a sound Catholic.
For nobody is making up the intrigue surrounding BXVI's quasi-abdication and Francis's increasingly sketchy grasp on what the papacy entails and what it precludes. That's just the news.
So should we fly from our duty because it is too hard to stomach? That is should we pretend that we are superior or love God more because we want to not look into unfolding mysteries that are currently all around us? Or are we flying, in truth, from our duty as Catholic men and women with an intellect and will by putting our head in the sand and just pretending that we don't have to deal with these realities.
Of course, no formal declaration of any kind will happen outside of the way the Church normally works. But hey, in light of the mess making going on, who can say what the Church normally working will look like in future? That's the question.
I know how I am supposed to think about the pope; what I'm supposed to believe. Yet it is difficult for me to discard the evidence. The only flight is the flight from the reality that Francis is very difficult to consider as a legitimate pope whose teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit. And there is a huge difference today from your old councils. Now, the Church is in an unbelieving age, and is utterly compromised. In other words, it has run out of gas here in the 21st century. I literally cannot imagine a future in which Vatican III puts everything straight. (Okay, obligatory disclaimer that a miracle can happen.) We live in an age perfect for the destruction of the Church, but very, very bad for the correction. The past is not prelude this time.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it will make the slightest difference in the tragedy at hand, but it would be great if we could orient our vexations in a helpful direction. By that I mean, what concrete thing can we do, if anything, to help out. I'd feel badly meeting the Good Lord and saying, sorry Lord, I know your Church was burning down but I couldn't think of one thing to do about it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, maybe there's nothing.
Louie is clearly saying he will fight....not sure why anyone is confused on this. Read what he wrote as it is written - there's no ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteIt still if flight when Julie and Louie Verrecchio cannot discuss this issue or affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).
ReplyDeleteSEPTEMBER 25, 2016
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has heresy and upon this heresy so much of Vatican Council II is based.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/the-letter-of-holy-office-1949-has.html
To condone heresy is also flight.
ReplyDeleteSEPTEMBER 26, 2016
Heresy results also when we assume hypothetical cases are personally known in the present times,example the baptism of desire:Bishop Fellay like the Vatican Curia violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/heresy-results-also-when-we-assume.html
ReplyDeleteCMTV, Steve Skojec, Louie Verrecchio proclaim the Catholic Faith -1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/cmtv-steve-skojec-louie-verrecchio.html
MAY 22, 2016
CMTV, Steve Skojec, Louie Verrecchio proclaim the Catholic Faith 2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/cmtv-steve-skojec-louie-verrecchio_22.html
JULY 29, 2016
No response from David Domet, Louie Verrecchio and Boniface when I say that they can interpret Vatican Council II with invisible for us LG 16, LG 14 etc being just invisible.That's all.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/no-response-from-david-domet-louie.html
APRIL 22, 2016
Louie Verrecchio too accepts the magisterium and the dispensation given to him as opposed to what the Church has always taught.: pre- figures Amoris Laeitia
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/louie-verrecchio-too-accepts.html
MARCH 22, 2016
Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the new theology of Rahner-Ratzinger
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/archbishop-lefebvre-interpreted-vatican.html
FEBRUARY 15, 2016
When will Louie Verrecchio respond to blog posts on Vatican Council II theologically or philosophically ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/when-will-louie-verrecchio-respond-to.html
We do not take flight. We are the church militant on earth. We fight! We stand with the teachings handed down to us from the Church. We reject heresy- even when it comes from a pope. -Julie
ReplyDeleteLionel:
Agreed!
Now plese tell me what is your position on this issue according to the teachings handed down to us from the Church.
All Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox Christians and other non Catholics in 2016 are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they are incorporated into the Catholic Church as members, with 'faith and baptism' (Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441, Dominus Iesus 20, Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed etc). So I affirm Vatican Council II with the old ecclesiology.
The difference between me and the First Signatories of the 'Declaration of fidelity to the Church's unchangable teaching on marriage' is :-
1.All the signatoris would be rejecting the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church 'which comes to us from the Apostles.'
2.All the signatories assume that the baptism of desire refers to visible cases and so is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
3.The signatories suppose that we can see these hypothetical cases objectively on earth. So they are exceptions to the Church's constant magisterium.
-Lionel Andrades
September 29, 2016
What about a Declaration of fideltiy to the Church's unchangable teaching on salvation which has been changed and accepted by all the signatories of the Declaration of fidelity to the Church's unchangable teaching on marriage ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/what-about-declaration-of-fideltiy-to.html