Jesus, the Second Person of the Triune God, wants a do-over. He messed up on the whole adultery thing. It’s a different era now, gotta roll with the changes. It’s what God wants, by golly. Deus Vult! Turns out, God isn’t perfect, the Truth isn’t immutable, and the Church isn’t indefectible.
Dear Stephen, if your argument were valid, both God and His Church would be a sham.
Certainly by now you’ve read his most recent piece of antipope apologetics over at Vatican Insider HERE. I’ll admit I’m pretty jaded about the entire Roman situation right now, and there isn’t much that I’m surprised by any more. I mean, with gay cocaine parties, gay nativity, and gay sex rumored to take place below the dome of St Peter’s itself, the bar for surprises has been set pretty high. But I must confess, I found this article to be breathtaking on a number of levels.
In charity, I do need to say this: Stephen seems sincere. He doesn’t come off as the Spadaro/Rosica type. We are living in a time of unprecedented diabolical disorientation, and if you sit back for a moment and consider everything that’s going on, it’s understandable for people to be confused. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I pray he reads this and sees the light.
He doesn’t waste any time. Here is the first sentence:
“If loyal Catholics around the world had hoped that the news of Pope Francis’ decision to raise the Buenos Aires Bishops’ Amoris Laetitia guidelines to the level of “authentic magisterium” would bring to an end the dissent, then they were sadly mistaken. If anything, the dissenters have dug their heels in even more.”
Notice the term “loyal Catholics”. Counting himself among them, these are those remaining loyal to Antipope Bergoglio at the expense of abandoning the perennial teaching of the Church. He also changes the meaning of the word “dissent,” referring not to those who refuse assent to perennial Church teaching, but rather those who refuse to follow a heretic antipope.
Get used to this. This is the diabolical inversion of truth, and it is the central theme of the revolution. Up is down, black is white, 2+2=5.
“The most poisonous aspect of this dissent– causing us to question where exactly it originates from– is that it chooses to ignore what the Pope has clearly taught and seeks to create confusion by making claims that are without any foundation. It also appears to be moving the goalposts on what constitutes the ordinary magisterium, Tradition and the dogma of the indefectible nature of the Church.”
“…causing us to question where exactly it comes from”… Clearly, he is insinuating the “dissenters” are under demonic influence. Follow that claim to its logical end, and you will understand what a rough ride we are in for. But then he throws out a gleaming nugget of truth, with the phrase “what the pope has clearly taught…” I couldn’t agree more! There is no confusion whatsoever about what “the pope” has taught, and has now enshrined in the AAS as “Authentic Magisterium.” The only confusion is the muddled, varying, and largely non-existent response from orthodox Catholics, both clerics and laymen.
“If we look at various examples of this dissent, a clear picture emerges that does not seem interested in the entire Truth of what the Church teaches. Take for instance the correctio filialis. The signatories claimed the Pope (through words deeds or omissions) denied Trent’s teaching that God always offers sufficient grace to keep the Commandments. Of course the Pope never said any such thing…”
False. Antipope Bergoglio directly contradicted Trent when he taught heresy in Chapter Eight of AL, claiming that people in “concrete situations” are incapable of keeping the commandments. In terms of exposing the how and why Church teaching is being “changed”, he is actually bold enough to come right out and say it. This is what has now become enshrined in the ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS as “authentic magisterium” by way of the letter from the Argentinian bishops and the subsequent positive response from Antipope Bergoglio. It appears in AL#301:
…The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin…
AL goes on to say that the “discernment of situations” can lead to the opposite conclusion of what JPII taught in FC#84, therefore Church teaching is being changed, and serial adulterers can indeed be admitted to Holy Communion, because their culpability has been mitigated to zero by their circumstances (aka Situational Ethics). It couldn’t be any more clear.
Now back to Walford:
“Another of the false accusations or insinuations and one used by the dubia cardinals, the correctio signatories and most recently the three bishops of Kazakstan is that Pope Francis’ magisterium is now “approving or legitimizing” divorce and promoting adultery as a good option in some cases. Of course these dissenters cannot find one quote from the Holy Father to prove their contemptible claim…”
False. In AL#298 and its Footnote #329, Antipope Bergoglio explicitly taught about “legitimizing divorce and promoting adultery as a good option in some cases.”
298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity (sic), generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate. 329
So already we have the conflating of adultery with “proven fidelity,” which is outrageous. Maybe someone can come up with a reading of Matt 19:9 that isn’t as pigeonholed nor as overly rigid as our Lord laid it out. Please let me know. But let’s have a look at footnote 329:
329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).
This entire footnote is a lie. See HERE. The first reference is to FC#84, which forbids Communion under the very circumstances which Antipope Bergoglio is now permitting it. The second reference is to GS#51, which refers to a totally different situation. Click the link for a broader explanation.
It also helps to understand that all of this is grounded in the fact that Antipope Bergoglio believes that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.” HERE Which would mean second “marriages” aren’t really second marriages, right? Couple that line of reasoning with his “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity” HERE. The astounding implication of this is that Antipope Bergoglio believes that public fornication is full of grace and is a real marriage, but chances are your sacramental marriage, full of fidelity, commitment, honor and sacrificial love… is not real. This is straight from the pit of Hell.
I could write another thousand words, but please go read the Walford piece; it’s very instructive. Lots of commentary already out there on the innerweebs for sure.
Oh wait, let me just leave this here:
The Canons And Decrees Of The Council Of Trent
SESSION THE SIXTH, 13 January 1547
CANON XIV. If any one shall say, that man is absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself to be absolved and justified… let him be anathema.
CANON XVIII. If any one shall say, that the commandments of God are, even for a man that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
CANON XIX. If any one shall say that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments in nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.
CANON XX. If any one shall say, that a man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if, forsooth, the Gospel were a bore and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments; let him be anathema.
CANON XXI. If any one shall say, that Christ Jesus was given of God unto men, as a redeemer, in whom they should I trust, and not also as a legislator, whom they should obey; let him be anathema.