I have long argued that the rebellion against the Holy Father is at its core the same rebellion staged by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)  and other extreme traditionalists since the 1970s.

A recently released transcript of a meeting between Pope Paul VI further confirms my position, that radical traditionalists long ago cast aside any convincing pretense of respecting papal primacy, and demonstrates that the same line of argumentation used against Pope Paul VI is used against Pope Francis today. Instead of the today’s controversy about two synods and a footnote, Pope Paul’s dissenters rebelled over a council, its documents, and the liturgical reform that followed.

Ironically, as the SSPX is reportedly nearing an agreement with the Vatican to bring the Society back into full communion with the Church, a great number of Catholics who are currently in communion have adopted a philosophy very similar to the one that led to the SSPX finding itself in an irregular canonical position. Signs of recent progress between Rome and the Society include concessions by the Vatican on sacramental matters and the SSPX’s Bishop Fellay referring several canonical matters to Rome.

In some ways, today’s critics appropriating aspects of the old SSPX position is not surprising. Many of Pope Francis’ greatest detractors have long been sympathetic to the demands of the Society, whether they were liturgical traditionalists, had qualms with Vatican II, or have inculturated the strong anti-episcopal views of certain “attack dog” publications and websites (the outlets that are ready to pounce the moment any bishop mentions the words “social justice” or comes within 15 feet of a liberal politician or heterodox Catholic).

Critics of Pope Francis contend that they are orthodox, hold fast to the traditions of the Church, and view the papacy in its proper, historical context. While their views of Pope Francis vary from “I find him confusing sometimes” to outright sedevacantism, the most commonly shared view is that popes can make serious doctrinal errors or even promulgate heresy in the exercise of their ordinary (non-infallible) magisterium. This goes contrary to the traditional teachings of the Church on papal primacy, as we have demonstrated in the past, and as Stephen Walford discusses convincingly in this February 2017 piece for La Stampa.

As I wrote in a recent piece, those who oppose Pope Francis’s teachings appeal to their private reading of the Tradition as more authoritative than that of the Magisterium, and argue that plain reason or common sense should convince any halfway intelligent person to see the doctrinal contradiction between what St. John Paul II taught and what Pope Francis is teaching. This ignores the fact that Francis has assured us many times that the document itself is orthodox and completely in line with Church teaching. In other words, it is impossible to take the pope at his word.

Following this to its logical consequences, for the typical critic of Pope Francis, the primacy of the pope provides no certainty and no assurance that the official teachings promulgated by the pope or the Vatican are orthodox. What is true for this pope must also be true for his predecessors. Apparently our only assurance of orthodoxy is to rely upon those who claim the mantle of “Traditional” Catholicism. In other words, we must trust their assessment of the words and documents and disciplines coming from Rome. Unfortunately, finding two traditionalist or conservative Catholics who believe exactly the same about every doctrine is impossible. Some accept Vatican II, others reject part or all of it. Some reject the new Mass, others have no problems with it. Some think Pope Francis is a heretic or promulgating error, others believe he is either confused or confusing, and still others believe that malicious forces in the Vatican are manipulating him.

Pedro Gabriel talks about the serious flaw in the “Sola Traditio” mindset here.

This is nothing new.

Early last week, the official Vatican transcript of a September 1976 meeting between Bl. Paul VI and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was published in the Italian newspaper La Stampa. The account is fascinating because it reveals an unfiltered, emotional exchange between two men with dramatically different approaches to ecclesiology, Tradition, and papal authority. I must point out that the view of the Magisterium and the papacy that Paul VI advocates is identical to our own at Where Peter Is, whereas arguments almost identical to Lefebvre’s are being employed again to undermine the reforms of Pope Francis.

The French Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX in the 1970s as a fraternal society of priests ostensibly dedicated to preserving the practice and teaching of the Catholic Church as it was prior to the second Vatican Council. Throughout its existence, the Society and its leaders have resisted both the teachings of the post-conciliar popes and the hierarchy’s attempts to enforce discipline upon the society.

The Society was officially dissolved (with the approval of Pope Paul VI) in 1975, and its seminary in Ecône, Switzerland was ordered to be  closed. The SSPX refused to obey papal and episcopal authority, however, and remains in operation today. Our own Pete Vere provides much more historical background and recounts his own journey out of the movement here.

Lefebvre was summoned to Castel Gandolfo on September 11, 1976 to meet with Paul VI in the midst of the drama surrounding Lefebvre’s refusal to submit to papal authority and close the seminary. He had recently been suspended a divinis by Pope Paul, meaning he no longer had the approval of the Church to be an active bishop. He was not allowed to say Mass, hear confessions, or ordain priests, let alone run a seminary or oversee a priestly society. He was not yet excommunicated at that point – that would come in 1988, when St. John Paul II excommunicated him for the illicit ordinations of four bishops.

Father John Zuhlsdorf blogged about the meeting and provided a rough translation of the original Italian and French transcript. Fr. Z also provides a link to Lefebvre’s account of the meeting, which was made public years ago.

When analyzing the transcript of the meeting and the letters and documents that followed, it’s clear that the soon-to-be-canonized Paul held what I earlier described as the “Ecclesial” position on the Church, while the not-yet-excommunicated Lefebvre held the position that I described in my original piece as “fundamentalist,” but will call the Sola Traditio position going forward.

This deserves a much more in-depth analysis, which I will provide in the future, but here are some key quotes from Lefebvre and Paul that illustrate my point (quotes are from Google Translate, corrected for grammar and clarity [with added text in brackets]):

Archbishop Lefebvre:

“The situation in the Church after the Council [is] such that we no longer know what to do. With all these changes or we risk losing faith or we give the impression of disobeying. I would like to get on my knees and accept everything; but I can not go against my conscience.

“We [traditionalists] do not see how what is affirmed [by the Council] is consistent with the healthy Tradition of the Church. And again, I’m not alone in thinking it. There are so many people who think so. People who cling to me and push me, often against my will, not to leave them.”

(The above quote is eerily similar to Cardinal Raymond Burke’s oft-repeated “Everywhere I go people are saying to me…” )

“I am not against the Council … but I am against some of its texts”

“It is necessary to choose between what the Council said and what your predecessors said.”

“Today everything is permitted for everyone: why not allow something for us too?”

“I do not say that everything [that has come from the Council] is negative. I would like to collaborate in the building up of the Church.”

Paul VI:

“You have judged the Pope as unfaithful to the Faith of which he is supreme guarantor. Perhaps this is the first time in history that this happens. You told the whole world that the Pope has no faith, that he does not believe, that he is modernist, and so on. I must, yes, be humble. But you are in a terrible position. Performing acts, before the world, of extreme gravity.”

“We are the first to deplore excesses. We are the first and the most prompt to look for a remedy. But this remedy can not be found in a challenge to the authority of the Church. I wrote it repeatedly. You did not take my words into account.”

How can you consider yourselves in communion with Us, when you take a stand against Us, facing the world, to accuse us of unfaithfulness, of the will to destroy the Church?”

If you are not against the Council, you must adhere to it, to all of its documents.”

“We are a community. We can not allow autonomous behavior to various parties”

“But it is not so, of course, that you contribute to the building up of the Church. Are you aware of what you are doing? Are you conscious that this goes directly against the Church, the Pope, the Ecumenical Council? How do you have the right to judge a Council? A Council, after all, whose decrees, in large part, were signed by you. We must pray and reflect, subordinating everything to Christ and to his Church.

The conflicting views of the Church between the two men deserves much more discussion. Consider the above a foretaste. But I will leave you with this, from the letter that Paul VI sent to Archbishop Lefebvre one month after the meeting. I have said repeatedly that the main problem with the position of Pope Francis’s critics is a distorted view of the doctrine of Papal Primacy. Paul takes it one step further in his critique of Lefebvre and accuses him of holding to a “warped ecclesiology.” As Pope Paul explains in his refusal to accommodate Lefebvre’s demands:

We cannot go back on the juridical suppression of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. This has inculcated a spirit of opposition to the Council and to its implementation such as the Vicar of Christ was endeavoring to promote.

….Upon such a foundation, … one cannot build an institution or a priestly formation in conformity with the requirements of the Church of Christ. This in no way invalidates the good element in your seminaries, but one must also take into consideration the ecclesiological deficiencies of which We have spoken and the capacity of exercising a pastoral ministry in the Church of today. Faced with these unfortunately mixed realities, We shall take care not to destroy but to correct and to save as far as possible.

This is why, as supreme guarantor of the faith and of the formation of the clergy, We require you first of all to hand over to Us the responsibility of your work, and particularly for your seminaries. This is undoubtedly a heavy sacrifice for you, but it is also a test of your trust, of your obedience and it is a necessary condition in order that these seminaries, which have no canonical existence in the Church, may in the future take their place therein.”

In a future piece, I will delve deeper into the similarities of thought between the Archbishop Lefebvre and many of Pope Francis’s critics today.

Mike Lewis is a writer and graphic designer from Maryland, having worked for many years in Catholic publishing. He’s a husband, father of four, and a lifelong Catholic. He’s active in his parish and community. He is a founding editor for Where Peter Is.

303 Shares

41 Responses

  1. Hans Georg Lundahl says:

    Tradition and Bible are higher than the Magisterium, insofar as the Magisterium is there to protect them – not primarily itself – from neglect or abusive misunderstandings.

    • Mike Lewis says:

      Fixed that sentence. I agree. I initially put the word “Tradition” in quotes to denote that it was their private interpretation of/appeal to Tradition, but I can see that my meaning wasn’t clear.

      • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

        If your line of Popes were to say “two plus two make five” and I insist it makes four, does that become my private interpretation of mathematics?

        If Magisterium habitually makes Bible and Tradition actually accessible, it follows they remain accessible even if Pseudo-Magisterium would seem to reduce their actual content to private interpretation. If it doesn’t, it follows Bible, Tradition and Magisterium are useless since incomprehensible, inaccessible.

          • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

            The post does not adress the issue.

            The issue was the precise level on how far obedience can force you to go against your most basic intuitions. Saying the argument “can backfire” because someone could erroneously apply it to so and so, or saying it does not apply where we think it applies are other levels.

            Also, I argued elsewhere, when it comes to an adulterous couple, we can perhaps hope they are not in mortal sin every sex act both of them, we can perhaps hope there are intermittent moments of the state of grace, but we cannot hope there is a continuous state of grace for both of them in moments where they chose to continue a cohabitation which will lead them to sin.

        • carn says:

          “If your line of Popes were to say “two plus two make five” and I insist it makes four, does that become my private interpretation of mathematics?”

          Doesn’t matter what the Pope says about mathematics. As a more relevant example:
          http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

          number 23 sentences 3 to 5:

          “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.”

          First and second quoted sentences are statements about what is known by science, just like 2+2=5 would be a statement about mathematical knowledge.

          A catholic might decide that Pope Frances is writing in these two sentences complete utter nonsense and that he will completely disregard what the Pope says there; that would not be disobedience to the Pope (it might be “disobedience” to logic, facts and science, but that is not necessarily sinful).

          In the third sentence the Pope draws effectively a moral conclusion; namely that if quoted sentences 2 and 3 are correct, that then there is a moral duty to do something about climate change.

          If a catholic presumed it to be true that there is climate change, it would be disobedience to the Pope if said catholic concluded, that due to this facts he has absolutely no duty whatsoever to do anything at all; as the question of “Need we do check whether to do something if there is manmade and potentially problematic climate change?” is not one of science but a moral one.

          (Of course the issue gets complicated if some clever catholic thinks: “Socialism always causes more pollution than capitalisn; all the eco politics will lead to socialism; hence, to minimize pollution every eco-politic must be opposed”; such a catholic might appear disobedient, although in a very technical sense he isn’t, if he arrived after honest and careful thinking at said ideas; as he would have followed his moral duty to consider adjusting his liefstyle and concluded that doing nothing at all than good old Repbulican politics is best course of action).

          • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

            You did not adress those who say “we have no such duty since there is no evidence of global warming”.

            By the way, my own take on it, some things which would reduce emission of fossil fuels are desirable on other grounds, which would therefore coincide with the ecological agenda in some applications.

            Not in others, like when people are now in Paris forbidden to light a fire in the fireplace.

          • carn says:

            “You did not adress those who say “we have no such duty since there is no evidence of global warming”.”

            You are correct; it should have been “namely that if quoted sentences 2 and 3 are correct and the scientific consensus does not err”

          • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

            Oh, so a Pope’s recommended or commanded action is in fact subject to the rights and wrongs of why he thinks so?

            That opens the gate for quite a lot of dissent.

    • jong ricafort says:

      Hans Georg Lundahl,
      Good day!
      Please reflect on the statement below of Arch.Lefebvre:
      As scriptures said “from the fullness of the heart a mouth speaks”

      “The situation in the Church after the Council [is] such that we no longer know what to do. With all these changes or we risk losing faith or we give the impression of disobeying.I would like to get on my knees and accept everything; but I can not go against my conscience.”
      (Arch.Lefevbre)

      Look closely on this words
      1. “The situation in the Church after the Council [is] such that we no longer know what to do..
      (DUBIA/Confusions set’s in)
      2.”I would like to get on my knees and accept everything…(PRIDE; cannot & will not bend his knees)…”
      3. …but I can not go against my conscience.”
      (FREEWILL, don’t want to submit his will to abide God’s Will…Unsubmission or Disobedience)

      So you see the very words that comes out of Arch.Lefevbre is the same opposing spirits that Lucifer manifested when God presented His Will. The Son of Man is willing to remove His Glory & Majesty in Heaven to become a GOD-MAN….
      This is paralleled to TLM vs. Novus Ordo….
      The Holy Spirit is also willing to be stripped of Royal Robe in Worship, the Holy Mass removed of it’s external beauty for the sake of Ecumenism, to follow the Will of the Father “that they maybe ONE as we are ONE”(John17:22)

      This is my personal reflections…you may not agree with it…but certainly Arch.Lefevbre ignores the Breathe of the Holy Spirit in forming His Church to face the Third Millenium…
      Tradition must be ALIVE to follow the BREATHE of the Holy Spirit where it WILLS…

      The three opposing spirits took place in the following sequence DUBIA, PRIDE and DISOBEDIENCE…

      As Ted Flynn in his article stated “Dubia belong to Satan, and Faith belong to Christ”…
      And our beloved Pope Francis said only thru CONVERSION the DUBIA will be clear-out, by seeking the Light of the Holy Spirit.

      Godbless.S&IHMMP4us.Amen

      • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

        If there was some pride, I’d say it was rather about his caution not daring to call out Paul VI / Montini as a sham Pope.

        Do you know what Rev. Georges de Nantes did?

        He made a long documented case file against Pope Paul VI and put it before Pope Paul VI. A real Pope would have taken that and handed the accusation over to judges he appointed over himself. Montini called the Carabinieri to get Rev. de Nantes out.

        It seems he also sent a pill (known to be abortive as part of its effect) to nuns having been raped in Congo.

        • Jong ricafort says:

          Proverbs18:2
          Ofcourse how can he say that word “sham” infront of a Pious Pope, remember Pope Paul VI will be ecanonize soon to Sainthood.
          That documented allegations backfired now it has no merits to a pious pope recognize by the Church as Saint.
          While Arch. Lefevbre is also prematurely proclaim by Trads as candidate for Sainthood, the only question is who will canonize him, but more problem is to what church? The Vatican II Church which some Trads doesn’t recognize..
          St. Pope Paul VI had won the prize of Heaven and his life is a witness to God given victory over his Pontificate while supporters of Arch. Lefevbre will have a long journey to sainthood if ever Heaven will approved the binding.
          It wont happen belonging to a church without a Living Pope and Church Magisterium.
          As St. Ambrose said…
          “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclessia, Ibi Deus.
          Godbless

          • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

            “Ofcourse how can he say that word “sham” infront of a Pious Pope, remember Pope Paul VI will be ecanonize soon to Sainthood.”

            For those who consider Bergoglio a Pope. If we rather think David Bawden was validly elected in an emergency conclave, validly accepted and validly took the name Pope Michael, I am fairly sure Paul VI will NOT be canonised.

  2. jong ricafort says:

    Thanks for the great article….
    I see clearly now how to connect the words of Arch.Lefebvre to Lucifer words in Heavenly Realm, as St.Pope Paul VI stated Lefebvre has taken “the spirit of opposition”….
    What can we reflect on this?
    When God the Father shows His “Divine Plan in the Salvation of Man”…How does Lucifer manifested his behavior?… by “strong opposition” and says the famous word “NON-SERVIAM/I WILL NOT SERVE”…
    For me this is the ROOT of the spirit manifest by Arch.Lefebvre…”I WILL not go against my conscience…meaning he wants only to OBEY his OWN WILL”…
    How can we confirm this actions?
    Vatican II Council is the BREATHE of the Holy Spirit inspired to the Church to prepare it’s new task in the coming Dawn of the Third Millenium…the New Evangelization focusing on Pastoral Care & Ecumenism…this would mean only ONE THING, both the Clergy & Faithful must be docile to the Voice of the Holy Spirit and must allow TRADITION to Breathe IN New Life it cannot be stagnant it must develop/progress to allow the Breathe of the Holy Spirit to move where it WILLS”….
    This was the core message of Pope Francis to the DUBIA Clergy Theologians, Lay faithful to seek CONVERSION of mind and heart.
    This WISDOM of Pope Francis was so great it is BIBLICALLY True..Why? it can be paralleled to the DUBIA/Confusions suffered by the body of believers and even the Apostles in John6:66…But Jesus does not offer explanations or compromise the HARD TRUTH, Jesus simply let them go separately…and what did Jesus do to clear-out the DUBIA to the remaining Apostles & Disciples, the Spirit of Truth descend to Lighten Up their Confusions.
    This is exactly what is needed by the Clergy now Conversion,a personal Pentecost.
    That’s why we can see that Traditionalist in some channel does not believe in the coming Second Pentecost, first they choke the Breathe of the Holy Spirit in the Vatican II Council and now they are preventing the faithfuls to seek the Light of Conversion offered by Pope Francis.
    Pastoral Care and Discernment needs a lot of graces and strength from the HELPER/ADVOCATE….but who is the Helper it is always been the Mother of the Church…Advocata Nostra…and in my prayerful reflections the SPIRIT OF TRUTH in John14:16 chose to DWELLS in a Maternal Heart to reveal the TRUTH…
    The Holy Spirit had CHOSEN from eternity His Advocate too…in the humble Jewish Woman…who said to St. Bernadette ” I AM”…the Immaculate Conception…
    OVERSHADOWED…

    Sweet Heart of Mama Mary be my salvation.S&IHMMP4us.Amen

  3. carn says:

    “, the most commonly shared view is that popes can make serious doctrinal errors or even promulgate heresy in the exercise of their ordinary (non-infallible) magisterium. This goes contrary to the traditional teachings of the Church on papal primacy, as we have demonstrated in the past, and as Stephen Walford discusses convincingly in this February 2017 piece for La Stampa.”

    The words “non-infallible” are misplaced if in ordinary magisterium a Pope cannot make serious doctrinal errors.

    “In a future piece, I will delve deeper into the similarities of thought between the Archbishop Lefebvre and many of Pope Francis’s critics today.”

    Similarities between Pope Francis and Pope Paul VI in this regard would be nice:
    “We are the first to deplore excesses. We are the first and the most prompt to look for a remedy.”

    especially in respect to excesses that are and will be made out of AL.

    ““I find him confusing sometimes””

    Never understood, what the fundamental problem with such statement should be. If someone finds some other person confusing sometimes, why should one not say so?

    After all, i know for certain that if i would say: “I fully understand what Pope Francis teaches in AL.” that i would be lying.

    The usual solution – simply ask the one one does not understand a few questions for resolving unclear issues – is unfortunately not possible with Pope Francis. And there i find him completely confusing, cause i cannot wrap my head around why one should not answer questions of confused subordinates; after all, they are going to completely ruin any good plan, if they are too dumb/confused to follow it, so giving them some answers which resolve their confusion and get them back in line is usually paramount.

    • Jong ricafort says:

      Pope Francis akready answered the solution to Dubia remember it is paralleled to John gospel chapter six.
      When the body of believers was confused even all the apostles were troubled. But thanks to St. Peter contemplative heart saying “to whom shall we go”
      In times of confusion one must not leave the Church nor attack its leadership.
      What did Jesus promised to them to ckear out their confusions.. Jesus said He will send the ParacleteAdvocate.
      Pope Francis encourage Dubia Clergy to undergo Conversion, their Dubia will be clear out by seeking the Light of the Holy Spirit. Pope Francis is calling all Clergy to be docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit.
      Discernment is a gift one must possessed to understand AL.
      And Pope Francis declaring Mama Mary as Mother of the Church is a clear sign the help will come, remember Mary is the Spouse of the Advocate the Spirit of Truth resides fully and mystically to the Woman… Overshadowed!
      As St.Kolbe teaches that the word “I AM” the Immaculate Conception transcends mystically.
      As Pope Francis beautifully expresses his reflection in saying ” the Church as a Teacher and Guide always look to a Loving & Merciful Mother”…Mama Mary is truly the Helper/ Advocata Nostra in this end times.
      Godbless

      • carn says:

        “Pope Francis encourage Dubia Clergy to undergo Conversion”

        Conversion from what to what?

        Also, if someone i asked to convert away from X, but does not hold X, then said person cannot follow the request. And, if someone is asked to convert to Y, but has no idea what Y is, then again said person cannot follow the request.

        “In times of confusion one must not leave the Church nor attack its leadership.”

        So do nothing and wait is the plan of the day. Ok.

        “Discernment is a gift one must possessed to understand AL.”

        Regarding the secular definition of discernment, i am quite competent at discernment. Yet, that helps little.

        So at best, i do not understand what “discernment” means in this context.

        “Pope Francis akready answered the solution to Dubia remember it is paralleled to John gospel chapter six.
        When the body of believers was confused even all the apostles were troubled.”

        Difference is that the hard to understand teaching was clarified by Jesus himself during the last supper and by subsequent events.

        On the other hand supposedly said clarification already happened in respect to AL (e.g. the letter to Argentine bishops); but that does not resolve the issue.

        On this site there are some people, who maybe have an explanation that resolves nearly all problems; unfortunately, it is similar to what Cardinal Müller said and says; which would be fine, if Pope Francis had ever implied “Listen people, Müller got it right and understood how to work out AL in line with doctrine; I’ll make sure he has a position in which the Church can make good use of his excellent skill resolving dogmatic questions”; unfortunately, it seems Pope Francis actions imply rather the opposite.

        • Jong ricafort says:

          You answer seems to confuse yourself.
          Conversion means humbling oneself to God, aaking God’s help to enlighten us.As scriptures said “God resist the proud and give more graces to the humble. ”
          That’s what Pope Francis is saying the Dubia Clergy lack the GRACES for understanding the Holy Spirit inspiration in this Time of Mercy.
          The Dubia cannot & must not insist their will on orthodoxy as the Holy Spirit inspiration is Conversion.
          The Clergy must provide Pastoral care or accompaniment and discernment without God’s graces and Light coming from the Holy Spirit the Clergy will be subject to human error and judgement.
          Your understanding that the confusion of Apostles was cleared at the Last Supper was a great error. Why?
          All the Apostles hide except for Peter and John… The mission of Jesus is not cleared to them. It was in the Upper Room where all of them was given the GRACES to know and proclaim the Truth of who Jesus is.
          So the Dubia Clergy must seek Graces and Light thru humility not orthodoxy.
          Hope this is now ckear to you.
          Godbless

          • carn says:

            “Conversion means humbling oneself to God,”

            And if after humbling oneself to God the confusion remains? Then what?

            “Your understanding that the confusion of Apostles was cleared at the Last Supper was a great error. Why?
            All the Apostles hide except for Peter and John… The mission of Jesus is not cleared to them. It was in the Upper Room where all of them was given the GRACES to know and proclaim the Truth of who Jesus is.”

            I did not say, that the Apostles understood; i said that the potentially unclear teaching –

            “Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’

            53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

            was resolved by institution of the sacrament of Eucharist; that the Apostles did not understand it at the moment and only later does not change that the somewhat challenging issue – we are to eat his flesh? what exactly are we supposed to do? – was answered at the last supper.

            “Hope this is now ckear to you.”

            Not the slightest bit; starting with you presuming that there is actually a lack of humility; i have no idea how you could even begin to discern whether or not and to which extent a lack of humility is a problem on my side.

            That is what makes my maybe scratch my head the most; people telling me its all about discernment and yet same people demonstrating that – unless they have telepathic powers – they have little skill in discernment; that is the basic first step of any discernment – what does the available information allow to discern?

            Which here must have at once among other things the answer: “Ok, whether carn has enough humility or not, cannot be determined based on the given information.”

            I suspect the same of course with some people and the dubia cardinals; scores of people saying that discernment must reign supreme and that these cardinals they have never met in person or talked at length to lack humility; ridiculous.

            Only with Pope Francis and other cardinals i give the benefit of doubt, that they might have the information to assess the character of Burke et al. lack humility or not; of course – as judging whether some individual lack humility is not a matter of infallibility – i also give the benefit of doubt to Burke et al. that Pope Francis et al. are simply erring in their character assessment of Burke et al.

            But as it seems that Pope Francis claims that thousands or maybe a few hundred thousands individuals, who have this or that problem with AL, all, every single one without exception lack humility and that this lack is in every instance the main cause of their AL problems and that at the same time it is highly important to only discern individual situations and avoid generalizations, the benefit of doubt given to Burke et al. is quite large.

          • Jong ricafort says:

            Ted Flynn simply answers your long discourse into two spirit forces.
            Dubia belong to satan and Faith belong to Christ.
            The Holy Spirit is both Light and Truth, Dubia cannot exist in the Heart who seeks Conversion thru humility.
            Godblesss.

  4. carn says:

    “Dubia belong to satan and Faith belong to Christ.”

    A claim that would require evidence or arguments.

    “The Holy Spirit is both Light and Truth, Dubia cannot exist in the Heart who seeks Conversion thru humility.”

    Again a claim that would require evidence or arguments.

    “your long discourse”

    Again an indication that some people talk about discernment without having the slightest idea what forms it might take.

    Are you able to formulate in words, what i (or someone else) would have to do to fulfill what you request namely “humbling oneself to God, aaking God’s help to enlighten us”?

    The only meaning i can see there is get on my knees before God and pray for humbleness, guidance and help.

    Been there, done that; resolved a lot of issues; but not the issues of AL.

    • carn says:

      That should have been an answer to:

      “Jong ricafort
      June 4, 2018 at 3:49 am”

    • Jong ricafort says:

      Ok, As a brother in Christ I will give you a clue on humbling oneself to God.
      St. Montfort Wisdom says… The Holy Spirit is only attracted in a heart that resembles the heart of Mama Mary..
      Read the True Devotion to Mary. That is the answer.
      Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary will lead a humble soul to receive the Light of the Holy Spirit.
      That is the answer to Dubia, and Pope Francis recently implore the help of Mama Mary declaring Her Mother of the Church… See the connections?
      Mary and the Holy Spirit are inseparable in Guiding and Teaching the Church to see the Light of Truth.
      Godbless!

  5. Hans Georg Lundahl says:

    To Jong ricafort and carn:

    “Dubia cannot exist in the Heart who seeks Conversion thru humility.”

    A heart containing a dubium said : “can something good come out of Nazareth?”

    Christ said of that heart : “he is a true Israelite in whom there is no falsehood”.

    • Jong ricafort says:

      Proverbs18:2

      • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

        A Pope, even a true one, is not guaranteed to be always and everytime speaking words of prudence.

        Hence, for those who do still take Bergoglio as Pope, I don’t, a dubium or two or three may be apposite ….

        • carn says:

          “Hence, for those who do still take Bergoglio as Pope, I don’t,”

          Is is not yours to decide who is Pope.

          Till their is some irrefutable evidence that for whatever reason he might not be Pope (note that even if he privately were an heretic/apostate he would still be Pope; only when doing so publically and attempted offically in his function as Pope, one might get at something) it is your duty to accept him as Pope, however much nonsense he might in your view say.

          And pray for him, he needs it.

          See it this way: not every Priest or Bishop we had and will have in our lifetime above us is a perfect shepherd (with me currently Priest quite ok and Bishop … well, better not say); if you think the current Pope is less than perfect, than accept the burden just as you would have to accept it if your Bishop and/or Priest would be subpar.

          Besides, i of course agree with you that insofar “dubia” = “doubt formulated into question”, it is of course nonsense to presume that dubia cannot exist in a humble heart seeking conversion. We all have doubt from time to time. Formulating it into a question and asking them to someone superior/more knowledgeable is no intrinsic evil and can be prudent.

          • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

            “Is is not yours to decide who is Pope.”

            It is everyone’s duty to verify who is Pope so as to submit to him.

            “Till their is some irrefutable evidence that for whatever reason he might not be Pope (note that even if he privately were an heretic/apostate he would still be Pope; only when doing so publically and attempted offically in his function as Pope, one might get at something) it is your duty to accept him as Pope,”

            It is on the contrary my duty to verify between those who are claimants, whoever is most probable or least improbable.

            Irrefutable evidence of public heresy previous to papacy is the view with Quarracino on validity of marriages while he was “archbishop of Buenos Aires”, as well as his “canonisation” of “John Paul II” for which irrefutable evidence of public apostasy is Assisi prayer meetings.

  6. carn says:

    “Irrefutable evidence of public heresy previous to papacy is the view with Quarracino on validity of marriages while he was “archbishop of Buenos Aires”,”

    I did not check whether their actually was some prior public heresy, since it is irrelevant; even an unrepentant murdered who literally said he was happy to murder in spite of the to be discarded ten commandments, could be elected Pope and only if he repeated his heresy or continued with murder sprees, he might lose the office.

    “as well as his “canonisation” of “John Paul II” for which irrefutable evidence of public apostasy is Assisi prayer meetings.”

    Even if the Assisi prayer meetings had been public apostasy, JPII might have repented later and hence his canonization would not prove that Pope Francis is not infallible.

    Besides, the evidence i googled for Assisi to be Apostasy seems to bit short of irrefutable evidence. It might even with the most negative view of the other religions/”religions” involved still be just a dumb and scandalous idea. Sometimes Popes in the past have literally shaked hands with people having the blood of millions upon their hands and yet smiled nicely and said some nice words to them.

    • carn says:

      Ok, i now checked JPII speeches at beginning and end of prayer meeting.

      Mind you, if one with respective authority to go through AL with red ink and mark anything i consider problematic, badly formulated or potentially having several interpretations of which some would be potentially heretic, you would find some chapters with a lot of red ink.

      On first glance i found in JPII speeches four problematic things:
      – the situation where different people pray on after another aloud might lack some clearness regarding that these are separate prayers; but the intent for officially separate prayers was there, so having that worded not clear enough is not a canonical problem

      – he says that all persons present are also aligned towards protection of human live from a mother’s womb to the deathbed; that is in my view might be a false statement, if persons of other religions present submit to their dogma/scriptures; but it is nothing about catholic faith, morals or dogmatism; he can tell complete nonsense about the intentions of people present and even about other religions and it is just a “political” problem of having a maybe uninformed, dumb and/or naive Pope (or maybe i am the uninformed); but nothing serious canonically

      – he says all persons present prayed for peace; that could be as above, as for some religions “peace” might have a serious different meaning than what JPII wanted to express

      – he says that all religions respect conscience; again see above

      Thats it.

      Also – and maybe that maybe will surprise others reading this – we have to consider the intent.

      The intent was a “lets have world peace”-happening with the presumed intent of preventing wars with piles of dead numbering in the millions. Again, maybe ill advised, naive, ineffective, whatever. But a through fully noble intent. That means that unless he did commit some intrinsic evil act, JPII did probably not even sin in organizing and partaking in the gathering, if after honest and carefully thinking he thought that the event might help regarding the piles of dead.

      Furthermore, if his actions did prevent a few piles of million dead here and there (which is hard to know) his successors should hurry to repeat the event if they also see some remote chance it can work. Just take care about that praying one after another (which in subsequent meetings was done in silence, so the problem was taken care of; even if loud praying was apostasy, canceling that would count as repentance).

      And very positive to note, he spoke numerous times about Jesus Christ and even once explicitly he proclaimed Jesus to be savior of all mankind (leaving out the detail, that it works only for the willing part); i presume i such a speech were held today by some “conservative” prelate every “liberal” catholic would go after him for the “evil thing” called “proselytism”; so in essence he not only tried to have some peace-event supposedly preventing some piles of dead, but also tried to drive the point home that Jesus is the savior.

      In total i do not see any clear evidence of JPII committing apostasy/heresy; actually if becoming holy was about scoring points on some heavenly scale and if the peace event did prevent some piles of dead bodies (which we do not know, but our Father knows this) he could have amassed quite some number of points with this event, with special bonus for it being a very delicate situation and yet he seemed to have avoided any serious slip (i presume the speeches were carefully drafted to avoid any of the issues that we discuss here today; probably then Cardinal Ratzinger was also doing his part there; if that were spontaneous speeches, then the Holy Spirit was with him, as any mere human holding a speech in such a delicate situation would certainly have a slips and would say something which by the words would be heresy/apostasy).

      Also, in general about praying with non-believers, let me tell a story.

      Abortion clinic. Pro-lifers doing there thing.

      A clearly muslim girl approaches the clinic with probably her father. The pro-lifers invite the two to pray the Lord’s Prayer. They agree and afterwards decide against abortion.

      Your position is that said pro-lifers committed apostasy/heresy? After all they prayed in public with two Muslims; while the words were the Lords Prayer it has to be presumed that said muslims in their hearts might actually have addressed the supposedly supernatural creature Mohammed preached about.

      And yet, if you happen to be next to them, knew about the story, they see again a muslim woman approaching and ask you “Maybe we should again invite her to pray the Lords Prayer? The last time this prevented a baby from being shredded into bloody pieces. Please give us your advice, whether there is any reason we should refrain from trying to attempt that way from being literally ripped to pieces. We will heed your advice”,

      would you advise them to not try it?

      I certainly would advice them to try, if they had no better plan, as there is nothing intrinsic evil about trying to teach a muslim the words of the Lords Prayer. As my intent would not be to commit apostasy/heresy, i hope that “insurmountable ignorance”-thing would lessen my guilt, if there is guilt in this advice.

      • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

        “[I]f his actions did prevent a few piles of million dead here and there”

        They seem to have done the opposite. Assisi II in 1994 (or late 93?) was held before the massacre of Srebrenica.

        “The pro-lifers invited the two to pray the Lord’s Prayer”

        Bad comparison with occasions which explicitly removed crucifixes so non-Christians could pray clearly non-Christian prayers.

        • carn says:

          “They seem to have done the opposite. Assisi II in 1994 (or late 93?) was held before the massacre of Srebrenica.”

          Tough luck, but bad outcome of something intended honestly with good intent and otherwise unproblematic, might not even be a sin.

          “Bad comparison with occasions which explicitly removed crucifixes so non-Christians could pray clearly non-Christian prayers.”

          Which is apostasy/heresy because?

          But i have to ask, inviting non-christians for common prayer in hope of avoiding baby-shredding is permissible?

          That would imply that inviting non-christians for prayers to avoid wars would not be in principle problematic (though of course the details could cause problems).

          But thanks for the interesting discussion anyway.

          • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

            It was not otherwise unproblematic.

            “inviting non-christians for common prayer in hope of avoiding baby-shredding is permissible?”

            If they had been invited to pray their prayer, like Shahada or Five Prayers towards Mecca, no.

  7. Hans Georg Lundahl says:

    “I did not check whether their actually was some prior public heresy, since it is irrelevant; even an unrepentant murdered who literally said he was happy to murder in spite of the to be discarded ten commandments, could be elected Pope and only if he repeated his heresy or continued with murder sprees, he might lose the office.”

    No, the fact of being a heretic at the moment of (not sure whether election or accepting papacy or both) renders the election and its acceptance null and void since a heretic is not eligible.

    It’s like the “birther” case against Obama, except there is better evidence for Bergoglio being heretic before accepting than for Obama having been born in Kenya, in a school board house called “Hawaii”.

    “Even if the Assisi prayer meetings had been public apostasy, JPII might have repented later and hence his canonization would not prove that Pope Francis is not infallible.”

    Might have repented is a case for “he might not be in Hell” not a case for “he can be canonised”.

    • carn says:

      “No, the fact of being a heretic at the moment of (not sure whether election or accepting papacy or both) renders the election and its acceptance null and void since a heretic is not eligible.”

      Source?

      And BTW, is this automatic requiring no legal action whatsoever?

      “Might have repented is a case for “he might not be in Hell” not a case for “he can be canonised”.”

      If the Pope doing the canonization is aware about repentance, that is enough.

      Besides, as we talk about maybe eternal law, what about St. Peter?

      He was made Pope (“rock”, etc.), said three times that he is not a Christian (whichis implied by not knowing Jesus) in public, and for him continuing to be Pope repenting was sufficient. How does that work out under eternal unchanging law?

      Or would you date his “election” as Pope to be of later date?

      • carn says:

        Besides, i think if you would be correct, that clearly there isn’t a Pope Francis, then maybe – if its the only recourse – it might be legit for any individual catholic getting aware about the situation, to go to Rome and drag the man known as Pope Francis literally from the Papal chair in front of the “Cardinals” and call all “Cardinals” to repent and line up with maybe pius brotherhood for them to check whether they are probably disposed to become Priests and/or Bishops (they might have validly ordained people; though that would have to be checked); after all the man called Pope Francis would be committing an ongoing crime against all catholics and hence every catholic individually would have the right to act in self-defense against this attack.

        The only caveat might be that dragging him literally from the Chair has to be the least serious cause of action.

        You understand that i would insist for a quite high burden of proof before implying that that course of action might be a last resort legitimate – especially as the Swiss Guard might intervene and things might turn bloody.

  8. Hans Georg Lundahl says:

    “Source?”

    Definition of material cause of a Pope : male, baptised, Catholic.

    Theology of St Robert Bellarmine.

    “And BTW, is this automatic requiring no legal action whatsoever?”

    Yes, like an invalid matrimony if they later discover they were brother and sister, it is invalid from start, not just by the later action ensuing the discovery.

    “If the Pope doing the canonization is aware about repentance, that is enough.”

    No, he must of so preach of the repentance.

    Canonising St Christopher doesn’t mean we can say “he was once serving Satan, and he’s a Saint” unless we also say that he repented of habing served Satan. A canonising Pope secretly knowing of repentance of a public sin won’t cut it.

    “He was made Pope (“rock”, etc.), said three times that he is not a Christian (whichis implied by not knowing Jesus) in public, and for him continuing to be Pope repenting was sufficient.”

    Since Pope is “vicar of Christ” St Peter was not Pope as such before Ascension. He was already going to be Pope, but was not formally such before Ascension.

    Or the occasion at Lake Genesareth when Jesus tells him “feed my lambs”.

    “Besides, i think if you would be correct, that clearly there isn’t a Pope Francis, then maybe – if its the only recourse – it might be legit for any individual catholic getting aware about the situation, to go to Rome and drag the man known as Pope Francis literally from the Papal chair in front of the “Cardinals” and call all “Cardinals” to repent and line up with maybe pius brotherhood for them to check whether they are probably disposed to become Priests and/or Bishops (they might have validly ordained people; though that would have to be checked); after all the man called Pope Francis would be committing an ongoing crime against all catholics and hence every catholic individually would have the right to act in self-defense against this attack.”

    I think David Bawden was telling cardinals to repent and line up to an emergency conclave … if not, he considered they had already apostasised by Novus Ordo.

    He considered the emergency conclave that legit act of self-defense. It took place in 1990, four years after Assisi I.

    And what took place there met a high burden of proof.

  9. carn says:

    “Definition of material cause of a Pope : male, baptised, Catholic.”

    To stop being catholic one must have at least formulated such intent in no unclear terms; committing heresy normally is no such declaration; usually it means intent to still be member of the Church and turn the Church into something it cannot be.

    So this cannot render the election of Pope Francis invalid.

    “No, he must of so preach of the repentance.”

    I cannot see any reason for this; a wrong canonisation would show the respective Pope to be fallible and hence a non-Pope; but wrong a canonization would only be, if said person would not be in heaven; hence, even if a Pope kept repentance private it would not be a wrong canonization; just a potentially confusing one.

    “And what took place there met a high burden of proof.”

    High burden of proof in respect to JPII having stopped being Pope.

    I cannot see that in his speeches of Assisi; nowhere did he seem to suggest to pray towards anywhere else than towards the higher authority above us – so God as trinity – and he several times tried to drive home, that salvation is through Jesus aka that the higher authority is God as trinity.

    He probably deliberately accepted and expected and it probably happened so, that some attendees prayed instead to some other real or imagined entities, but he did not ask them to do so.

    So he seems to be on the safe side and certainly had intent to avoid the problem you suggest (again intent could be relevant, as unintentional apostasy/heresy is as far as i know unheard of)

    • carn says:

      I think we can conclude from our discussion, that at least one of us is out in the dark and seriously needs a guiding light.

      Because either i am trying to be obedient to a fake Pope although you tried to warn me about this

      or

      you have found JPII and/or Francis guilty of something although they are innocent and based it on insufficient reasoning/evidence although i warned you about that.

      I suggest we pray at least for each other, for whoever is in error to find a way back in a direction towards truth.

      And also some prayer for the people in whose “backyard” we have this discussion, as they consider us to be both in error and – to some extent – vice versa.

      • Hans Georg Lundahl says:

        It is a pious suggestion, but I have difficulties with keeping up with even basics (like daily three Hail Mary’s), so I cannot take on habitually an obligation of praying for you.

      • Jong ricafort says:

        From the fullness of the heart a mouth speaks.
        Can blessings and curses comes forth from the same mouth? (James3:9-10)
        How can anyone pray to God and continue to slap the face of Christ with false accusations, false testimony and slander?
        God clearly said “Do not touch my anointed one”(Psalm105:15)
        And Jesus remind everyone an attack on Pope Francis and His Church is a direct attack on Himself.
        “Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me? “(Acts9:4)
        You cannot claimed to be Catholic and spread your Lies on Pope Francis.. Amoris us an approved Magisterial Teachung either you embraced the Holy Spirit Inspiration on God’s Infinite Mercy that transcends orthodoxy or you insist your OWN confusions.
        Your inability to grasp the Supernatural Teahing on Interior Conscience thru gift of Discernment does not make AL an unclear doctrine but a failure on your part to see that the Light of Truth is found only in Conversion.
        As God resists the proud and give more graces to the humble
        The prayer of the just man avail much.
        So dont expect graces when you cannot follow Psalm105:15 and Acts9:4
        Remember Dubia belong to satan and Faith and Clarity belong to Christ and found only thru Conversion by humbly seeking the Light of Truth from the Holy Spirit and not from the Dubia Clergy, to whom like you are confused too.
        Godbless

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *