It is very unfortunate that so many conservative/traditional V2 adherents will focus on Leo, as they did on Francis, and be oblivious to the fact that John XXIII thru Benedict have all been betrayers of the Catholic faith & tradition. See "False Popes" at novusordowatch.org.
Prevost is not a megalomaniac for wanting to change doctrine, he is a total theological lightweight who has no idea of the gravity of the office he has usurped. When we imagined Big Apostasy, we thought of intentionally evil men, not bland bureaucrats. Perhaps this is most evil of all: a man who should be shepherd of souls is a mere HR officer.
Well put! While Ratzinger fooled me into devouring many of his books, Bergoglio and Prevost just seem to have fallen off of a theological turnip truck. Ignorant but still dangerous!
If the Novus Ordo priests and hierarchy think it's OK to ignore St Pius V and the Papal Bull at the Council of Trent, and do not fear anathema, I'm not worrying about ignoring them.
I used to have to drive 3 hours to a TLM, and only went twice a month. Now, I have one about an hour away so I can go every week. There is no way I'm going to attend a mass where sacrilege in handling the Host is taking place, or the other modernist nonsense.
To me, it's not the Church. They have gutted the actual Catholic Church and are wearing it like a skin suit. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed.
I have a similar situation. A true Latin Mass offered by a validly ordained priest is harder and harder to find. I have to drive 3.5+ hours one way in any direction from where I live to attend one. I'm open to suggestions.
It pains me to see Matt and Kwasniewski, both of whom I so admire, stick their heads in the sand. It's not just that they refuse to see what Leo is doing. It's the public groveling.
As the Catholic faith is being dismantled, they look the other way as long as Leo doesn't affirm Traditionis Custodes. They truly believe a "joyously" celebrated TLM with Cardinal Burke is going to change the hearts and minds of Leo and his Vatican. Trad Inc. is a hospital ward filled with battered persons suffering from persistent psychological abuse.
They have adopted an Anglican ecclesiology. I forgot to mention in this that a week ago, Prof Kwasniewski explicitly referred to the Anglican situation.
While I appreciate your comments and agree with them, I would like to see an article about what is truly immutable in Catholic doctrine that is of lesser certainty than infallible dogma. It seems the crux of Vatican II, and its preceding roots in what is hard to deny was liberalism, is that things of non-dogmatic certainly can be altered without destroying the dogmatic integrity of the faith. Are the post VII popes and almost all of the hierarchy correct in some fashion and if not what is the basis for that error, which they clearly all have made if indeed it is error, with full knowledge and assent. And while clearly fulfilling the standards of Modernism as condemned by Pius X, was Pius X's teaching infallible since he did not speak ex cathedra and therefore could have been mistaken, and which obviously most of the at least so-called hierarchy rejected even before but especially post VII?
All the Church's doctrine is immutable, whether it is taught by it in its solemn magisterium or in its ordinary magisterium. Doctrine is a sacred deposit of revelation left in the custody of the Church's hierarchy, especially the Pope, to religiously guard, explain and hand down to each generation until the return of Our Lord. St. Pius X or any pope can be mistaken as to peripheral matters, but not as to matters of faith, and the faithful are duty bound to submit to their teaching with religious and internal assent of mind and will; and cannot come to any spiritual harm for having done so.
One, what does immutable mean to you regarding the magisterial interpretation and application of Revelation? Or a corollary, why are there different degrees of theological certainty among doctrines if they are immutable?
Two, can non-infallible doctrine and the teaching derived from it contain error or do you assert that non-infallible doctrine can not have an error (for I do not see any specificity in what you describe as "peripheral")? Or as a corollary, if it is errorless, why is it not infallible?
Three, what is the difference to you between dogma and doctrine?
Immutable means to the Church that doctrine cannot change and evolve to mean something contrary to what it originally stated. The different degrees of theological certainty have to do with the extent that the doctrine has been defined and clarified by the Church in her magisterium; they also are immutable, but they are also susceptible to greater precision; I am currently reading a theological treatise on the nature of sacrifice as it regards the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; this doctrine underwent considerable refinement due to the attacks of the Protestants on it, and its necessary definition at Trent and the theological work done by its doctors afterwards; but the doctrine did not change.
The non-infallible teachings can contain contain errors of fact or of history, but cannot contain any errors against faith or morals; but it is not infallible in the sense of requiring Catholics to accept it as a dogma of faith. The History of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is another case in point; there was a time when Catholic doctors and saints disputed this teaching; then the Church decreed at a certain point that this doctrine could not be "safely-denied" yet did not impose it as a dogma until the 19th C.
If you have a copy of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott, you can verify for yourself that most Catholic doctrines have not been defined infallibly, yet all Catholics are obliged to believe them.
We are obliged to believe and submit to the Church Magisterium, not because she teaches infallibly, but because she is vested with Christ's very authority, so that in listening to the Church we are listening to Christ Himself.
You can consult two excellent works online one by Canon George Smith D.D. "Must I believe it?"
I'm afraid we find it very hard to wrote articles on request, it is just the way we are here.
I'll say this though. It is certain that Christ was "risible" viz had a sense of humour. That is not a dogma, but it is theologically certain and as such immutable.
Very useful to swap the phrasing in the 'verbal constructions' to underscore Prevost's intent.
The semi-trads and r&r's, etc, seem to have replaced Catholicism with 'replace the alleged pope's words a lot with Catholicism-ism'. It's not a stable religion and besides, it really tells them they ought to go forth keeping the faith (I'm assuming they don't keep V2) but not the antipope.
Trad Inc is the victim of their own faulty ecclesiology and their insistence in holding public heretics that nominally occupy the Petrine office as Catholics and true Popes, despite all Church teaching to the contrary.
Very insightful. Thanks.
It is very unfortunate that so many conservative/traditional V2 adherents will focus on Leo, as they did on Francis, and be oblivious to the fact that John XXIII thru Benedict have all been betrayers of the Catholic faith & tradition. See "False Popes" at novusordowatch.org.
Very good article
Thank you Father.
Prevost is not a megalomaniac for wanting to change doctrine, he is a total theological lightweight who has no idea of the gravity of the office he has usurped. When we imagined Big Apostasy, we thought of intentionally evil men, not bland bureaucrats. Perhaps this is most evil of all: a man who should be shepherd of souls is a mere HR officer.
Well put! While Ratzinger fooled me into devouring many of his books, Bergoglio and Prevost just seem to have fallen off of a theological turnip truck. Ignorant but still dangerous!
The whole situation is prevosterous.
I see what you did there... ;-)
Pope Leo suggests an attitude change by whom? And, he suggests that he may change doctrine? I wonder what St. Jude thinks about that (Jude 1:7)???
If the Novus Ordo priests and hierarchy think it's OK to ignore St Pius V and the Papal Bull at the Council of Trent, and do not fear anathema, I'm not worrying about ignoring them.
I used to have to drive 3 hours to a TLM, and only went twice a month. Now, I have one about an hour away so I can go every week. There is no way I'm going to attend a mass where sacrilege in handling the Host is taking place, or the other modernist nonsense.
To me, it's not the Church. They have gutted the actual Catholic Church and are wearing it like a skin suit. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed.
I have a similar situation. A true Latin Mass offered by a validly ordained priest is harder and harder to find. I have to drive 3.5+ hours one way in any direction from where I live to attend one. I'm open to suggestions.
It's not the same, but you can watch them online. At least today we can keep up with Tradition online, such as here. You can never read enough either.
Many thanks this excellent summary!
Thanks Zita.
Who says Catholic principles don't evolve?
Recognise and Resist
-> Wait and See
-> Zip It and See
-> Give the Best Possible Impression and See
It pains me to see Matt and Kwasniewski, both of whom I so admire, stick their heads in the sand. It's not just that they refuse to see what Leo is doing. It's the public groveling.
As the Catholic faith is being dismantled, they look the other way as long as Leo doesn't affirm Traditionis Custodes. They truly believe a "joyously" celebrated TLM with Cardinal Burke is going to change the hearts and minds of Leo and his Vatican. Trad Inc. is a hospital ward filled with battered persons suffering from persistent psychological abuse.
They have adopted an Anglican ecclesiology. I forgot to mention in this that a week ago, Prof Kwasniewski explicitly referred to the Anglican situation.
Ugh.
While I appreciate your comments and agree with them, I would like to see an article about what is truly immutable in Catholic doctrine that is of lesser certainty than infallible dogma. It seems the crux of Vatican II, and its preceding roots in what is hard to deny was liberalism, is that things of non-dogmatic certainly can be altered without destroying the dogmatic integrity of the faith. Are the post VII popes and almost all of the hierarchy correct in some fashion and if not what is the basis for that error, which they clearly all have made if indeed it is error, with full knowledge and assent. And while clearly fulfilling the standards of Modernism as condemned by Pius X, was Pius X's teaching infallible since he did not speak ex cathedra and therefore could have been mistaken, and which obviously most of the at least so-called hierarchy rejected even before but especially post VII?
All the Church's doctrine is immutable, whether it is taught by it in its solemn magisterium or in its ordinary magisterium. Doctrine is a sacred deposit of revelation left in the custody of the Church's hierarchy, especially the Pope, to religiously guard, explain and hand down to each generation until the return of Our Lord. St. Pius X or any pope can be mistaken as to peripheral matters, but not as to matters of faith, and the faithful are duty bound to submit to their teaching with religious and internal assent of mind and will; and cannot come to any spiritual harm for having done so.
Can you answer three questions?
One, what does immutable mean to you regarding the magisterial interpretation and application of Revelation? Or a corollary, why are there different degrees of theological certainty among doctrines if they are immutable?
Two, can non-infallible doctrine and the teaching derived from it contain error or do you assert that non-infallible doctrine can not have an error (for I do not see any specificity in what you describe as "peripheral")? Or as a corollary, if it is errorless, why is it not infallible?
Three, what is the difference to you between dogma and doctrine?
Thank you.
Immutable means to the Church that doctrine cannot change and evolve to mean something contrary to what it originally stated. The different degrees of theological certainty have to do with the extent that the doctrine has been defined and clarified by the Church in her magisterium; they also are immutable, but they are also susceptible to greater precision; I am currently reading a theological treatise on the nature of sacrifice as it regards the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; this doctrine underwent considerable refinement due to the attacks of the Protestants on it, and its necessary definition at Trent and the theological work done by its doctors afterwards; but the doctrine did not change.
The non-infallible teachings can contain contain errors of fact or of history, but cannot contain any errors against faith or morals; but it is not infallible in the sense of requiring Catholics to accept it as a dogma of faith. The History of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is another case in point; there was a time when Catholic doctors and saints disputed this teaching; then the Church decreed at a certain point that this doctrine could not be "safely-denied" yet did not impose it as a dogma until the 19th C.
If you have a copy of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott, you can verify for yourself that most Catholic doctrines have not been defined infallibly, yet all Catholics are obliged to believe them.
We are obliged to believe and submit to the Church Magisterium, not because she teaches infallibly, but because she is vested with Christ's very authority, so that in listening to the Church we are listening to Christ Himself.
You can consult two excellent works online one by Canon George Smith D.D. "Must I believe it?"
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/03/catholics-assent-non-infallible-teaching/
The other is by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton: The Authority of Papal Encyclicals
https://catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
I'm afraid we find it very hard to wrote articles on request, it is just the way we are here.
I'll say this though. It is certain that Christ was "risible" viz had a sense of humour. That is not a dogma, but it is theologically certain and as such immutable.
Very useful to swap the phrasing in the 'verbal constructions' to underscore Prevost's intent.
The semi-trads and r&r's, etc, seem to have replaced Catholicism with 'replace the alleged pope's words a lot with Catholicism-ism'. It's not a stable religion and besides, it really tells them they ought to go forth keeping the faith (I'm assuming they don't keep V2) but not the antipope.
It's a real shambles.
Trad Inc is the victim of their own faulty ecclesiology and their insistence in holding public heretics that nominally occupy the Petrine office as Catholics and true Popes, despite all Church teaching to the contrary.
Ps. Great article!
They don't care at all honestly. Their motto is "pray for the pope" no matter what he does.
I wish humans were that merciful that whatever I did, they just allowed me to do it by saying, "pray for him".