Thursday, 16 January 2020

Bergoglio visits his confessor, Scalfari

It the news is not insane enough out of Rome, we know find that once again Bergoglio has spoken with Scalfari.

More to come, no doubt.


13 comments:

M. Prodigal said...

Gotta keep the scandals constant!

philipjohnson said...

Intense relationship with his Holiness!!Says it all-you know what i mean.

Kathleen1031 said...

What obnoxious jackasses. They act more like teenage girls than anything.
I'm sick of the lot of them and getting embarrassed I spend any time on this.
I am concerned about Benedict's situation, however. It goes without saying Sarah is going to be out.

Johnno said...

Always right around the time of some synod gatherings or announcements too!

Like clockwork these two!

Maybe Bergolio will have told Scalfari that he believes it highly improbable that Mary and Joseph remained married without ever having relations the whole time... Because this is so important for maintaining marriages, don't you know? It helps with the cold nights of the loneliness... And this is why Francis now wishes of a change of this discipline for every priest... to marry and thus emulate something like the Holy Family. Also, no-one is going to force them to have relations either, don't you know? Just marry. In fact marry another man for the company, but avoid the relations, I, Francis will trust you, just don't do it in the Church, but go to the government office. So it's all an option! Therefore, his unholy synod is very orthodox, you see? And we'll save the Amazon!

This is my terrible terrible bet about what's coming next...

Anonymous said...

I knew there was going to be a heretical bomb coming the moment he made that orthodox speech on the Feast of the Epiphany on bending one's knee before Christ.

He's done it before, say an orthodox statement to put his enemies guard down, then kablooey.

Kablooey coming in 1...2...3...

TLM said...

It's called 'GASLIGHTING' Anonymous...he's a pro at it....abusers gaslight their victims, it's very common. Try and ignore it...

Anonymous said...

My lunch became unsettled in my stomach when I read that their relationship is "intense".

Peter Lamb said...

Why should we concern ourselves with the daily antics of a bunch of heretics? What do we achieve? These people are a waste of time. Let's go over the facts again:
No, dear Anonymous @ 8:36am, you are completely mistaken. We have been over this many times in some depth, so I'm gonna keep it short:

1. What is heresy?
“Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.” (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

2. Who is a heretic?
“Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic.”(C. 1325)

3. Let's bury this old canard that we laymen may not judge a heretic by an exerpt from chapter 32 of "Liberalism [Modernism] is a Sin":
This excerpt specifically addresses the objection that a layman cannot discover heresy on his own, and/or cannot accuse another of being a heretic. Nothing could be further from the truth dear Anonymous:

CHAPTER 32 Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases:
How is one to tell on his own authority who or what is Liberal, without having recourse to a definitive decision of the teaching Church?
When a good Catholic accuses anyone of Liberalism or attacks and unmasks Liberal sophisms, the accused immediately seeks refuge in a challenge of the accuser's authority, [just as Anonymous has done]:
"And pray, who are you to charge me ... with Liberalism? Who made you a master in Israel to declare who is or who is not a good Catholic? And is it from you that I must take out a patent on Catholicity?" Such is the last resort of the tainted Catholic on finding himself pushed to the wall.

How then are we to answer this opposition? Upon this point, is the theology of Liberal Catholics sound? That we may accuse any person or writing of Liberalism, is it necessary to have recourse to a special judgment of the Church upon this particular person or this particular writing? By no means.

If this Liberal paradox were true, it would furnish Liberals with a very efficacious weapon with which, practically speaking, to annul all the Church's condemnations of Liberalism.

Peter Lamb said...

The Church alone possesses supreme doctrinal magistery in fact and in right, juris et facti; her sovereign authority is personified in the Pope. To him alone belongs the right of pronouncing the final, decisive and solemn sentence. But this does not exclude other judgments less authoritative but very weighty, which cannot be despised and even ought to bind the Christian conscience. Of this kind are:
1. judgments of the Bishops in their respective dioceses.
2. judgments of pastors in their parishes.
3. judgments of directors of consciences.
4. judgments of theologians consulted by the lay faithful.
These judgments are of course not infallible, but they are entitled to great consideration and ought to be binding in proportion to the authority of those who give them, in the gradation we have mentioned. But it is not against judgments of this character that Liberals hurl the peremptory challenge we wish particularly to consider.

There is another factor in this matter that is entitled to respect, and that is:
5. The judgment of simple human reason, duly enlightened.
Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light.

Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it.

Peter Lamb said...

The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.
Is not perchance the part played by human reason so understood by those zealous prelates who on a thousand occasions exhort the faithful to refrain from the reading of bad journals and works, without specially pointing them out? Thus do they show their conviction that reason, this natural criterion, illumined by faith, is sufficient to enable the faithful to apply well-known doctrines to such matters.
Does the Index of Forbidden Books itself give the title of every forbidden book? Do we not find under the rubric of "General Rules of the Index" certain principles according to which good Catholics should guide themselves in forming their judgment upon books not mentioned in the Index, but which each reader is expected to apply at his own discretion? Of what use would be the rule of faith and morals if in every particular case the faithful could not of themselves make the immediate application, or if they were constantly obliged to consult the Pope or the diocesan pastor?

Just as the general rule of morality is the law in accordance with which each one squares his own conscience (dictamen practicum--"practical judgment") in making particular applications of this general rule (subject to correction if erroneous), so the general rule of faith, which is the infallible authority of the Church, is and ought to be in consonance with every particular judgment formed in making concrete applications--subject, of course, to correction and retraction in the event of [a] mistake in so applying it. It would be rendering the superior rule of faith useless, absurd and impossible to require the supreme authority of the Church to make its special and immediate application in every case and upon every occasion which calls it forth.
This would be a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism, like that of the followers of the unhappy Bishop of Ypres, who exacted, for the reception of the Sacraments, such dispositions as would make it impossible for men to profit by that which was plainly intended and instituted for them by Jesus Christ Himself.

Peter Lamb said...

The legal rigorism invoked by the Liberalists in matters pertaining to faith is as absurd as the ascetic rigorism once preached at Port Royal [the seat of the Jansenist heresy]; it would result even more disastrously. If you doubt this, look around you. The greatest rigorists on this point are the most hardened sectaries of the Liberal school. But how [to] explain this apparent contradiction? It is easily explained, if we only reflect that nothing could be more convenient for Liberalism than to put this legal muzzle upon the lips and the pens of their most determined adversaries. It would be in truth a great triumph for them, under the pretext that no one except the Pope and the bishops could speak with the least authority, and thus to impose silence upon the lay champions of the Faith, such as were DeMaistre, Cortes, Veuillot, Ward, Lucas and McMaster, who once bore, and others who now bear, the banner of the Faith so boldly and unflinchingly against its most insidious foes.
Liberalism would like to see such crusaders disarmed and would prefer above all to succeed in getting the Church herself to do the disarming."
(Translation from Spanish by Conde B. Pallen; imprimatur 1899.)

So, yes Anonymous, I as a Catholic layman have the duty and authority to recognize an heretic and to sound the alarm to my brothers in Christ.

4. An heretic excommunicates himself, ipso facto and automatically in terms of Divine law by committing the sin of heresy. Declaration by the Church is not necessary! There is no baloney here! Catholic doctrine (pre-VII) refutes you, dear Anonymous. Read and learn:

Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559:
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as
an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman
Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff
(whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election
as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or
fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: —
“Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement
and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally
invalid and void. — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or
election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception
of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor
even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself,

Peter Lamb said...

Vatican I: ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’
The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself."

St. Francis de Sales: – “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he
falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

St. Robert Bellarmine: – “A Pope who is a manifest heretic
automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases
automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore,
he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of
all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately
lose all jurisdiction.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should
fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If,
however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and
contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the
apostolic chair would be vacant.”

St. Antoninus: – “In the case in which the Pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without
any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a
body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body
from which it was cut off.”

Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950: "... If indeed such a situation
would happen, [a Pope became an heretic] he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one."

Marato — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1921: “Heretics and schismatics
are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself..."

Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927 – “Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a
pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without
hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power,
insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be
cast outside the body of the Church.”

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943: “Through notorious and openly divulged
heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very
fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of
jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church ..."

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 – “The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty
of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a
member of the Church.”

Peter Lamb said...

Pope Innocent III: "... if for example he [the Pope] should
wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already
judged, 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.’”

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950: “If
indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by
divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without
even a declaratory one..."

A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949 –
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as
a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any
declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he
would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no
longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”

Anonymous, formal declaration may be made by the proper authorities, for the crime of heresy against canon law, in terms of good Church governance, but the heretic has long before been deposed by God. There is no balony here, nor is there any twisting of Catholic doctrine. If you are who I think you are, you have heard all the above many times before. You have a lethal dose of willfull blindness. Remember, abettors of heretics suffer the fate of heretics. I pray to God that He will open your stubborn ears.