But the neo schismatics declare that they do not oppose the Catholic Church’s principles in the least. Their sole aim is to protect the rights of their churches and their nation and even the rights of their supreme Emperor; they falsely allege that We have infringed these rights. By this means, they fearlessly make us responsible for the present disorder. Exactly in this way did the Acacian schismatics act towards Our predecessor St. Gelasius. And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy. For as the same holy Pontiff Gelasius wrote to the Emperor Anastasius on this matter, “a frequent characteristic of sick people is to reproach the doctors who recall them to health by appropriate measures rather than agree to desist from and condemn their own harmful desires.” These appear to be the main grounds on which the neo-schismatics gain their support and solicit the patronage of powerful men for their cause, most wicked as it is.

(scroll down for answer)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Blessed Pope Pius IX

Quartus Supra, #16

Pedro Gabriel

Pedro Gabriel, MD, is a Catholic layman and physician, born and residing in Portugal. He is a medical oncologist, currently employed in a Portuguese public hospital. A published writer of Catholic novels with a Tolkienite flavor, he is also a parish reader and a former catechist. He seeks to better understand the relationship of God and Man by putting the lens on the frailty of the human condition, be it physical and spiritual. He also wishes to provide a fresh perspective of current Church and World affairs from the point of view of a small western European country, highly secularized but also highly Catholic by tradition.

7 Shares

18 Responses

  1. Marthe Lépine says:

    Is that a typo? Paul VI lived in the 2oth century… I suppose you meant Pius IX, as per the image caption.

  2. Pat says:

    yes, you know I don’t know how many times I said to myself Pius ix with his syllabus of errors and Francis with his lack of concern for doctrine are really exactly the same.

    • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

      Glad to know you are coming around back to orthodoxy. You only have to ditch the “lack of concern for doctrine” part that you applied to Francis and you’re back on track.

      Also, I see you glossed over the Liberius part of the quote. It would be good for you to read it, since you mentioned Liberius in a comment in one of our articles this week. You should be prudent, lest you go against the teachings of a Pope that had so much concern for doctrine that he issued a syllabus of errors

      • Pat says:

        I wouldn’t want to be accused of having a punctilious concern for doctrine, though.

        if you don’t like the Liberius reference, there are others we could use. Alexander Vi for instance…for all his supposed faults though he never said that there is no hell…

        • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

          And neither did Francis
          🙂

          • Pat says:

            well then someone is lying… the reporter or … oh wait, no one ever contradicted the reporter…Eh…. what difference does it make, knowing whether or not the pope believes in hell is not as important as say his position on air conditioning, right?

          • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

            Yes, the reporter did not tell the truth. It is interesting you would give an atheist reporter the benefit of the doubt that you won’t give to the Vicar of Christ

            And of course the reporter has been contradicted. The Vatican has denied the Pope does not believe in Hell. But you don’t accept their explanation because of… reasons

            One of such reasons being that you need the Pope to have contradicted the teaching you agree with (Hell), so that you may contrast it with the teaching you do not agree with (air conditioning)

            https://wherepeteris.com/confusion-now-about-hell-is-the-hallmark-of-phil-lawler/

          • pat says:

            uh…. when did they deny that he said that? When did he? or is it just that humblest man on earth feels like if you don’t think he walks on water, you’re not entitled to an answer.

            What’s the big deal… anyway… liberal catholics who don’t believe in hell are as common as ants at a picnic, liberal catholics in the episcopacy who don’t are just as common… that the pope is one is not that much of a stretch… he is liberal..

            so no hell, empty hell, mostly empty but not eternal, immortal souls that aren’t really immortal… adultery that isn’t adultery…. what’s the answer. not important, just keep up the sentimental mush about bridges.

          • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

            Thank you for proving my last comment right. Now, please check this:

            https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-claim-pope-denied-hells-existence-unreliable

            Behold. An “evil”, liberal publication got it right. The Pope did not say he doesn’t believe in Hell.

            And the link I provided on my previous comment shows ample evidence that he does believe in (and preach) Hell

            It seems like you can’t hide behind those evil liberals, unless you want to be shown to be less reverent to the Vicar of Christ than them

            Finally, your mic time for this post is up. Thank you for your contributions and have a nice day.

  3. carn says:

    And?

    This would make sense, if any relevant party criticizing Pope Francis would be in schism, defined to canon law as: “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”.

    I personally would submit to the Pope in whatever he would declare to be the answers to the dubia. I do not know whether others would do so.

    But as he has not answered the questions, one cannot submit, as it is not possible to submit to an authority in a matter, in which the authority itself does not make its stance on the matter known.

    Any third parties arguing how the authority might want to have the matter understood, is useless, as these third parties are not the authority itself.

    And no, buenes aires guidelines etc. do not answer dubia 2, 4 and 5; at best they answer 1 and 3.

    • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

      I did not see anything on that canon law you cited about only giving submission to the Pope insofar as he answered dubia.

      As for the dubia 2, 4 and 5, they have nothing to do with Amoris Laetitia, or have the answers perfectly clearly explained in it, so you don’t need those answers to give submission to it. The “intrinsically evil sins” topic is not brought up on Amoris Laetitia, and the Communion issue does not put that topic in question, so there you go.

      You cornered yourself on a very neat wall of justifications, but you could give submission to the Pope and know what he teaches if you would really want to. Instead, you spend all your energy focusing on a non-issue, and eschew any people who point you to that fact as “third parties with no authority.”

  4. carn says:

    “But there have always been those people”, … “for them ideology is more important than doctrine: they leave the Holy Spirit to the side

    — Pope Francis

    Morning meditations in the Chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae”

    No idea whom the Pope is talking about. FSSPX? Card. Burke et al.? Card. Kasper? OneVaderFive?

    • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

      There’s no need to name names. The Pope doesn’t need to specify… and in fact, he can’t specify every single person with this problem. He must only find an error in thinking that is highly prevalent and point it out. It is up to us to try to identify that problem in the situations we face, and especially to make a conscience exam on whether we do that which the Pope advises not to do

      It is undeniable that many Catholics today see Catholicism as a political tool and try to use the parts of Catholicism that are politically expedient while shunning the rest of Doctrine. If you can’t see it all around us, especially in social media, then there is really nothing that I can say to you

      PS: I speak by myself, but I would urge people to avoid pre-made pejorative puns to undermine other sites, even those which are hostile to the Pope, in the combox of my articles. Please avoid expressions like One Vader Five, LieSiteNews, Killary or something like that. I don’t need these kinds of rhetorical devices to make a point. Their own arguments are sufficient for us to put them down

  5. QED says:

    Imagine if, say, Old Catholics (before the formal schism) had unstrained access to publish their beliefs and criticize what about the Church and the pope they don’t like because for X many years they were the respected Catholic media. Something like that is happening today. If the Catholic media criticizes the Vatican, so much worse for the Vatican.

  6. Marthe Lépine says:

    My question is not so much about the subject of the quote as about its author. He is called “Blessed” Pope Pius IX. But he lived a very long time before Saints Paul VI, John-Paul 2nd and John XXIII… Even Pope Pius X has been canonized, if I am not mistaken.Why does his possible canonization still appear to be on the “back burner”? One reason could be that the Vatican is still waiting for a confirmed miracle, although I find it difficult to understand why it still matters after all this time. And of course there are probably several other reasons or requirements that I don’t know about… This is why I am asking, just out of curiosity.

    • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

      Maybe, since he lived in the 19th century, not many people know him or are devout of him for him to be prayed at for a miracle intercession? I don’t know

    • Mike Lewis says:

      I believe Pius IX’s beatification is fairly recent. If I recall correctly, he was beatified in 2000 by St. John Paul II, along with John XXIII. I think there are a few political factors that could be playing a role in his canonization: for one thing, everyone who knew him (or was even alive during his papacy) is dead. This could have an effect on the size and influence of his “cultus,” and the level of devotion to him. Secondly, sensitivity to some of his actions, including his role in the Edgardo Mortara case, must be shown towards the Jewish people. Finally, due to the likely smaller group of devotees, there might be fewer people asking him for miracles and less overall momentum behind his cause.

      I believe for many saints, there’s an initial, quick push to canonize by those who knew the person and their work (St. Francis, St. Therese, St. Maria Goretti, St. Gianna, Mother Teresa, Romero, recent popes), whereas for other saints, once that initial enthusiasm dies down, the process can take centuries.

      While I don’t know for certain, I think it is likely due to some combination of these factors.

Leave a Reply

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