Was Christ a liar, or would a true pope have been prevented from inserting heresy into the Catechism?

Steel Cage Death Match!
In the white corner, Christ and his Petrine Promises from Matt 16:19, 18:18.
In the black corner, Bergoglio the Destroyer inserting heresy into the Catechism.
Who wins?
The following was left by an anonymous “Someone” in the combox this morning. The natural beauty of rational thought on full display.

someone says:
Cardinal Burke, Roberto De Mattei and others have always tried to save both Vat. I and the claim that “Francis is Pope” by stating that not everything that a pope utters is protected by infallibility. This seems pretty sensible to me.
A validly elected pope (e.g. John XXII) can say at table that the saints will not see God until the end of the world. But he would never be able to proclaim it as a dogma.
Between a dogmatic definition (like those of the Immaculate conception or of the assumption of Our Lady) and chatter at table there are lots of different types of utterences: private letters, public speeches, declarations, encyclicals, exhortations (like Amoris Laetitia) etc.
Here is the thing. EVEN IF we were to grant, with cardinal Burke, that Amoris Laetitia has no magisterial authority (pace Bergoglio’s letter to the Argentine bishops), how can we say that Bergoglio’s revision of the CCC is not an act of the universal magister (under the hypothesis that Bergoglio were to be pope)?
Vatican I says that a pope is infallible when he
“speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals [chapter 4:9]”.
So a pope has to:
(a) exercise of office of teacher;
(b) define a doctrine concerning faith and morals
(c) address the whole Church
in order to be infallible.
Even if we were to concede that one of these conditions is not met by Amoris Laetitia (i.e. we should grant that either he was not addressing the whole church – but he was – or that he was not speaking of faith or morals – but he was – or that he wasn’t exercising his alleged office of teacher – this is the tricky part, where Burke’s might have a point, cf. AL 3), how could we possibly say that in revising a cathechism for the universal church a validly elected pope is not exercising his office of teacher, addressing the whole church on matters pertaining to faith and morals?
John Paul II was certainly doing it while he promulgated the CCC.
Now “Francis” has inserted an obvious heresy in the CCC. Hence, he cannot be the pope, otherwise Vatican I is false (which it isn’t).
Cardinal Burke’s remarks that “Francis” is speaking as a private man while condemning the legitimacy of death penalty “won’t float”

50 thoughts on “Was Christ a liar, or would a true pope have been prevented from inserting heresy into the Catechism?”

  1. Yeah, this kind of reasoning drives the Skojecs and the Whites of this world into apoplectic fits. That’s why they have no choice but to quadruple down on hackneyed ad hominem pontifications (no pun intended). With apologies to Tacitus, error, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity. They’re audacious all right…

    1. @thewarourtime: If I understand you correctly, that is my point of clarification. Capital Punishment after 2000 years all of a sudden being ‘inadmissible’ is not precisely the same as saying that Capital Punishment is intrinsically evil. Also, Capital Punishment’s admissibility has never been dogmatically and infallibly stated.
      But here is another BiP-like thought that my brain is unable to parse at this time; so I put it to others here to take a look. Generous and truly kind Mr. O’Reilly has stated his genuine concern for dogmatically inclined BiPpers. What do you think?
      “My fear for BiPPers is that their dogmatism on the question will make it difficult to relinquish the theory if events move beyond them. Say Benedict dies. Francis lives for a few years, We get a great pope a couple or more popes down the line in succession from him. The logic of your theory would suggest you reject all these popes, even an eventual reforming, great pope. BXVI will have had no successor…thus you are in real danger of backing into a sede vacante position from which there is no alternative other than to admit you are wrong. That is easy at this point, but time and pride will make it more and more difficult to back down.
      My suggestion in this crisis is to believe no more and no less than what the facts and the Faith require of you. To my mind, process and procedure, plus Benedict’s own words he is a “former pope”, etc., make it impossible to accept BiP as *the* answer. It might be conceivable future evidence might arise, but current belief cannot be based on what *speculatively* might pop up as evidence. Thus, to me, the more rational BiP position might be something like: “Yes, I must accept Francis as pope; however, I do not exclude the possibility a future pope might explore the evidence and definitively rule on the validity of BXVI’s resignation — but excepting that…I have no choice but to accept Francis’ validity and no authority to reject it.”
      My reply thus far: Thank you for presenting your genuine concerns for dogmatical BiPpers and perhaps even for speculative BiPpers. On that matter of speculation, what about a combination scenario of what you have presented? Pope Benedict dies and Bergoglio lives on a few more years. The future great reformer pope that we all hope and pray for determines that BiP is all that proponents had been saying all along. As a great reformer pope that he is, in justice to process and procedure he rightfully steps down as an anti-pope successor and then in a new conclave is rightfully chosen to replace himself. I could live with that.

      1. CCC 2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. Cf. CCC 2051
        1) The only justification that is given for the new of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the pope quoting himself from his Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017. Where is the basis in the deposit of the faith?!
        2) Prevail against something means to triumph over it. How has this revision in the CCC defeated the Church definitively?

        1. @thewarourtime: You get no argument from me on any of your points. Thank you for the citations from CCC 2035 Cf CCC 2051. I too have noticed that Bergoglio tends to use himself as an authoritative reference in many instances including his August 4th Letter to Priests wherein paragraph 8 he states that “the Bride of Christ has been caught in adultery” and he cites his own speech to Italian priests that he made in March of 2019. Although a pope citing his earlier works is par for the course, unlike Bergoglio other popes also cite the works of past popes, Scripture, as well as Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
          I believe that the justifications for any of the maneuvering surrounding CCC 2267 stinks of Modernism and has simply been a test case for just how far the ones with authority–Cdls Burke, Brandmuller, Arinze, Sarah, etc–will be pushed. To be honest, I think they are all pushovers and am not persuaded that for all their talk they are truly on the side of the Bride of Christ. Who, by the way, will NEVER be an adulteress.
          As for your second point, I think there are two ways to think of this prevailing that the Gates of Hell will not do. First, as you state, those gates won’t overwhelm or triumph over the Catholic Church and second the Gates of Hell will not withstand the holy onslaught of the Church Militant–those gates will not prevail against the Bride of Christ.

      2. Benedict dies. Francis lives for a few years, We get a great pope a couple or more popes down the line in succession from him.
        Once Benedict dies, the see is empty. Any Pope elected after that would be valid (at least in the sense there is no current living occupant of the see to impede election). Bergoglio, never having been pope, it matters not if he lives, dies or resigns. He is completely irrelevant to a future election.

      3. Prevail against something means to triumph over it.
        Good point. Liverpool would not have prevailed over Sunderland until the final whistle is blown. It does not mean Liverpool won’t score goals, or be five goals in the lead during the match, even in injury time.

  2. I do not understand all the fuss about AL and no problem at all with such documents as Ut unum sint or Catechesis Tradendae (flowing out straightly from Unitatis redintegratio 3). The CCC? That CCC written most probably by sodomite lobby ( msgr Schoenborn was a secretary of the commission preparing that document) which is evident when you look at the original text in the CCC on so-called “homosexualism”, rewritten after several years by Ratzinger & co.?

  3. I think the reasonable position is that the legitimacy of “Pope” Francis is uncertain. Thus anything he has done or said has uncertain validity and needed not be obeyed.

  4. Dear Mr Docherty,
    thank you very much for post my comment.
    I would like to add one more point. I wanted to comment on Ann Barnhardt’s post on infallibility. I am in agreement with Miss Barnhardt and I would phrase the issue as follows:
    – in any magisterial document, we should distinguish the matter from the form. The sign of infallibility cannot possibly be the matter (i.e., what is stated in the document) because otherwise infallibily becomes a truism, as Miss Barnhardt eloquently points out. Hence, a document is infallible on the basis of its form, i.e. on the basis of the type of document we are talking about.
    In a nutshell, when I say “today is sunny” or “our Lady has been taken up to heaven in body and soul”, I am saying something true (today it is sunny over here). Since whatever is true is infalliby true, I am making an infallible statement. However, it just so happens that I am infallible in saying these things, because these things happen to be true. I am not infallible.
    If the pope were to be infallible the way I or anyone else is infallible, I don’t see why we should have added the dogma of the infallibility of the pope. There must be a difference. And the difference is (as far as I underdstand it) that a document signed by the pope is infallible (if it is infallible) because the pope signed it, not because the document includes true statements.
    Some sensible people (cardinal Burke, Roberto De Mattei etc.) rightly stress that not every utterance of a pope is ipso facto infallible. And this is obviously true as many historical examples show (John XXII etc.).
    In conclusion, the infallibility and in general the magisterial authority is indicated by the type of document, the expressions used etc.
    In the Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei (1998), the CDF was writing:
    “As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html)
    In my opinion, the above citation confirms my point.
    So the big issue is to determinate whether a document can have any magisterial authority based on its form.
    As cardinal Burke remarks, paragraph 3 of the satanic Amoris Laetitia seems to indicate that AL has no magisterial weight.
    But what about a CAtechism that is designed for the whole church?
    I see now that Miss White thinks that the CCC has no magisterial value at all (cf. https://twitter.com/hilarityjane/status/1170034349506473985).
    Pace Miss White, I am more ready to believe that “Francis” is an antipope than to believe that a Catechism for the whole Church cannot have a magisterial value.
    So is he a pope or not? I frankly don’t know (for sure). But all the indications (Benedict’s odd wording in the resignation, Bergoglio’s heresies) seems to point to a single conclusion: Benedict is still the pope.
    And yes, that is not an infallible statement, unless it’s true.

    1. I would be very cautious of believing any purported prophesies of Our Lady that are ongoing into the thousands of messages (Medjugorje and Bayside come to mind). Our Lady is notoriously succinct in her messages. She doesn’t need many words or many visitations to make her point. When a purported visionary receives messages for years on end and her name isn’t Sr., Anne Catherine Emmerich, then great skepticism is the order of the day.

      1. MIdwester: I did not use the prophecies of Anguera as evidence of my claim. By the way, they cannot be used, because it is not straightforward that they state that Benedict is the only living pope.
        However, I believe she is appearing in Anguera and in many other places in the world. You are of course free not to believe it, but, if I can, just keep an open mind. God and our Lady can intervene in our history and in fact I very much expect them to do so.

  5. So much wrong here. He didn’t define doctrine. He said something was “impermissible” – which isn’t even theological. He also contradicted tradition by the way he described the death penalty, and the Church has always taught, and Vat I understood, that any infallible teaching supports the Tradition, which is the job of the Pope. Also, he must say he is doing what he is doing. He can’t order someone else to say it (“put it in the Catechism!”), or approve someone else’s saying it (as in the letter approving heresy without mentioning it). The devil is very clever. We need at least to be clear.

    1. Mary Ann, he inverted the teaching. He took a moral good, willed by God, and called it a universal moral evil. That’s the equivalent of saying God wills evil, because God obviously wills the death penalty. I realize the CCC is not an infallible promulgation in the formal sense, but my question stands: Did Christ lie to us in Matt 16:19, 18:18, or should a true pope have been supernaturally prevented from inserting heresy into the Catechism. I would value your opinion on that.

    2. Heretics and modernists are deliberately unclear… when talking to you.
      Amongst themselves they openly acknowledge and signal their real desire – to completely change what the Church has always taught, but for the time being they need to simply neuter it to the point where the error can be openly proclaimed by the people, and then they’ll move on to step 2 to democratically change it. They know they only need one precedent to succeed in order to eliminate completely the rest.
      They know what they are doing. It is only the legalists like you who pretend otherwise. The legalists were hated by both Christ and the Devils. Shown by the fact that even Francis hates the precision of the legalese to the point that he is perfectly circumventing them and playing them all like fiddles.
      To say something is ‘impermissible’ is to say that it is WRONG! And there are no qualifications given as JPII did to vaguely suggest there might be alternatives to try, that we are afforded in our current day, before relying on such a sentence. Bergolio said ‘Impermissible’ (aka -NOT PERMITTED). Bergolio has been very clear. He has even openly stated that he knows what the Church has always taught. But he’s going to go against it anyway. So he is clear. It is rather, you who are straining at gnats to get him off the hook by pretending he has been unclear by the usual scribe and Pharisee recourse to word games.
      It’s time to stop pretending. This isn’t a game.

      1. “This isn’t a game”.
        Comment of the day. And everything else you stated.
        Not playing these games any more. I see them for who they are.

    3. Bergolio said ‘Impermissible’ Not just impermissible, but impermissible because we understand the morality better. That is the clincher: not because we have better prisons now, or we can protect society without resort to the death penalty or other prudential reasons, but because we understand the morality better! That is where he breaks from his predecessors.

  6. I think we have a terminological problem here.
    In Church documents (such as this: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html ) infallible is only applied to a rather limited set of statements. however, the ordinary magisterium, even when not infallible, is truthful, so much so that any contrary statement is erroneous. And this is certainly a consequence of the promise of our Lord to His Church.
    Here you guys are saying that whatever is not infallible (in the limited sense emloyed by Church documents like the above one) is FALLIBLE, i.e. possibly false. Now, how can the contradictory statement of a possibly false statement be erroneous?
    Simply put. Let’s grant that the CCC has some sort of magisterial authority (pace Hilary White and Steve Skojec). We are not saying it is “infallible” in the limited sense canonists adopt. We are saying: “it has magisterial weight” (per the third paragraph of http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html). So any denial of a statement included in the CCC is ipso facto erroneous. Hence, the legitimacy of capital punishment is erroneous.
    But capital punishment is legitimate. Therefore, either the CCC has no magisterial value whatsoever (per Miss White) or the 1998 CDF document is bogus or ….

  7. Since Jorge Bergoglio is an Antipope, therefore the “Cardinals” he made are Pseudocardinals in reality, and he will be making more Pseudocardinals.

  8. Pope Saint John Paul II promulgated the Universal Catechism which teaches that to give scandal is a mortal sin # 2284-2287
    That same Universal Catechism teaches that Jesus gave scandal Twice
    #588 Jesus scandalized…
    # 589 Jesus gave scandal..
    Gee, I am old enough to remember when we Catholics were taught that Jesus was innocent of even venial sin, say nothing about mortal sin.
    One imagines that two public heresies are about enough for any decent Church
    O, and don’t try and escape the plain meaning of these heretical teachings by referring to direct and indirect scandal because the Catechism failed to both teach that distinction and explain it.

    1. Not sure what the Latin says, or what other translations say. Obviously the effect of scandalization was based on a false premise, and thus erroneous. In other words, untrue.

      1. Dear Mark. Thank you for your patience and time and space to let me make my argument.
        In the next day or so I will send you a link to what I have posted about this and Id be grateful to read your reaction whether here publicly or to me in private.

    2. Puleeeeeze. Jesus “gave scandal” by being nailed to the Cross. St. Paul says the Cross is “absurdity to the Greeks and a scandal to the Jews.” Your position is that being crucified was a sin? So, either St. Paul is a heretic, or you need to learn to read sentences and paragraphs instead of isolated words.

      1. The Catechism of Saint John Paul II teaches that to give scandal is a mortal sin. It teaches that Jesus gave scandal – twice.
        Now, the Benedict Is Still Pope Gang is denying the obvious meaning of those words because hypocrisy.
        If Pope Francis is a heretic and false Pope for changing the death penalty (and, thus, not Pope) then so is John Paul II who changed the teaching on scandal
        The Universal Catechism, for the first time in Catholic history, identified one man who gave scandal and the one identified as giving scandal is the God-Man.
        So, point and shout “look, a squirrel” all you want but you are blind if you do so.
        The Universal Catechism also changed the teaching in indirect scandal – it now teaches that even indirect scandal is evil.
        Y’all can find “The Catechism Explained” by Spirago-Clarke online and tread it for free. Look at pages 386-387 ” and see that to give scandal is worse than murder.
        Read the entry Scandal at Catholic Encyclopedia and discover the same truth.
        Read The Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X and discover the same thing.
        Raed “Scandal” in Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary
        Read the Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide and his exegesis on giving scandal and note how Jesus – ex. having Peter catch the fish and use the coins in its mouth to pay taxes to avoid giving scandal – but the Universal Catechism teaches objectively that Jesus is also a hypocrite; Jesus both avoids giving scandal and warns others not to give scandal but, nonetheless, He gives scandal twice acrd to the universal catechism
        I could go on and on and on but the point has been made. The Universal Catechism’s entry on scandal is a change of doctrine in addition to being a novelty – identifying Jesus as one who gave scandal – and the reason y’all refuse to admit hat is because if Pope Saint John Paul II did what Pope Francis did then he too is a heretical antipope.

      2. Vermontcrank1,
        Very good points. One thing I’ve learned through all of this is the little alterations, here, there, everywhere that turn Doctrine in ever expanding ways, ultimately leading to two Popes and a new title not seen before: Emeritus Pope, co-sharing the Petrine burdens.
        I completely agree with you. I would love to see a counter argument to that.

    3. Jesus ‘scandalized’ in the same way that a sodomite gets ‘offended’ when you tell him that his sexual proclivities are sinful. These people were ‘scandalized’ and ‘offended’ by the Truth, or the fact that criminal status was passed upon the Truth by the world to the point that anyone who dares to speak out is guilty of scandal by breaking the worldly laws for the Law of God.
      If the Catechism ‘failed’ to make any distinction, then I would agree that the Catechism is ‘at fault’ because its authors failed to take into account that a future generation of idiots who arise who would be unable to discern the difference, any more they discern the difference between male and female.
      Some things are too simple to be explained, but there are plenty of morons with degrees and phds who would willfully strain so hard to broadcast their ill intent masked under entirely feigned confusion.

      1. Jonno, Your first paragraph is a complete rewrite of what the Catechism clearly teaches.
        Now, IF the Catechism promoted that truth – The others TOOK scandal, not that Jesus GAVE scandal – then there would be no problem, would there.
        But what you write is not what the Catechism teaches.
        And the Catechism is FAR worse when it teaches #589 Catholics to have sympathy for the devils who committed deicide:
        ….Jesus placed the religious authorities of Israel on the horns of a dilemma
        A dilemmas is a situation in which one is faced with two choices neither of which is good. I guess the religious leaders of Israel would not hav e made a goof choice in choosing Jesus.
        What is truly sickening is the lack of love shown in here for Jesus. Who amongst us would publicly charge our wife with giving scandal, even if she was guilty of doing that?
        If any man did it he would be a sissy ass creep but when it comes to the Catechism teaci g the Jesus gave scandal- everyone rushes to defend that evil heresy
        These responses are revealing what is in your souls and it aint pretty

      2. Mark,
        I would really like to see the counter to these Vermontcrank1 arguments.
        After seeing the ease with which Capital Punishment is banned in the CC, and seeing with new eyes the intent to alter Dogma through minor, imperceptible; but growing and expanding change; I find these assertions compelling.
        I view V II, now, as an ecumenical Council that gave key-bearing authority to non-Catholics such as Protestants and Jews, as evidenced by our insisted upon Liturgy, persecution of Tradition, promotion and protection of heterodoxy, these hidden little heretical statements (Jesus caused scandal) which cannot be explained away any more.

    4. @VermontCrank1: You forgot Original Sin. Jesus was like us in all things but sin including the slightest taint from Original Sin. After all, He is the New Adam and His mother the New Eve. Pristine humanity as it was before The Fall.

        1. Oh, sweet VermontCrank1, silly, silly. Scandal is your point under discussion. Your well intended yet willful choice to self-separate has affected not only your sense of humor but virulently heightened your observational skills–you find critics around every corner.

  9. Call me an ostrich, but in matters theological my destination of choice is Ludwig Ott, Aldephonse Tanquery, Reginald Garigou-Lagrange, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the Catechism of Pope St Pius X (raised to the altar when we could still trust the canonization process). I am not sophisticated enough to understand Aquinas – I leave that to my betters. I trust nothing post Vatican II.

  10. Arthur,
    2284: “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil”. “The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter”. (Etc … there is more, much more).
    588: “Jesus scandalized the Pharisee by eating with tax collectors and sinners …” (etc)
    589: “Jesus gave scandal above all when he identified his merciful conduct toward sinners with God’s own attitude toward them …” (etc)
    It says what it says. And it says Jesus gave scandal. And Catholics see that in the way Vermontcrank1 says above.
    Perhaps before these things slip under the radar, we miss them, explain them away (as you do here). Not any more. Not me, any way. Add it to the list and growing pile of bogus bull.
    BTW, are you referring to I Cor 1:23 in your connection of “scandal” to the Cross? DRB translation, St. Paul refers to “stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the gentiles”, *not* a scandal.

    1. @Aqua: Regarding sedevacantism, I was considering the visibility of the Church as one of the promises of Christ to us i. e. the city set on a hill, the light under the bushel basket, etc… that dissallows sedevacantism (except for interregnum) is impossible. What other solid grounds do you look to when/if the specter of sede wafts through the apostatic air?

      1. I don’t “look to” anything regards sede. The Seat is not vacant. The current “Bishop of Rome” is not the Pope, and he does not enjoy divine protection of connection. It is not relevant, at this time. It will be. Not yet.
        If Christ is true, and Satan is His enemy, then I am not surprised at all, especially *if* Time draws to a close, that Satan would attack his mortal enemy, against the means of his destruction (BVM and Holy Mother Church). Not surprised such attack would be ugly, violent, perverse and devastating and that he would naturally focus his forces on the Cornerstone. Take the General, and the army falls. That’s how it works. Pope St. Leo XIII foresaw it all as did others.
        But St. Michael the Archangel *protects our general* in Mater Eclessiae Monastery. He is safe. He prays for us. I stand (kneel) with him.
        After him? I give myself, as all faithful Christians do, to the Providence of God. I follow and trust in Him.

        1. Well said, Aqua. And I with you give myself to the Providence of God Whose understanding and wisdom are not mine.

      2. Islam_Is Islam, one further point I considered this morning reference your sede question is that when Pope Benedict XVI dies we do have a serious problem. And that is why, as Bishop Emeritus Gracida urges, (Abyssum) all Bishops and Cardinals who are so convicted must *act* with all haste to deal with this crisis before the Seat actually is vacant. His Open Letter To Bishops is currently posted on Catholic Monitor. His recommendation is the most important possible act for the Church’s Cardinals and Bishops.
        The next election, with invalid Cardinals, is a very serious problem.
        There must be schism acknowledged and a *true* election held with *valid* Cardinals only.

    2. The Latin version:
      588 Iesus scandalum fuit Pharisaeis comedens cum publicanis et peccatoribus 396 tam familiariter sicut cum illis ipsis. 397 Contra eos inter illos « qui in se confidebant tamquam iusti et aspernabantur ceteros » (Lc 18,9), 398 Iesus affirmavit: « Non veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores in paenitentiam » (Lc 5,32). Longius vero processit, coram Pharisaeis proclamans, cum peccatum sit universale, 399 illos qui salute non egere praesumunt, se ipsos obcaecare. 400
      589 Iesus scandalum praecipue fuit quia Ipse Suum modum misericorditer agendi in peccatores cum modo agendi identificavit Ipsius Dei respectu eorum. 401 Ipse processit usque ad insinuandum Se, mensam participando peccatorum, 402 eos ad convivium admittere messianicum. 403 Sed praesertim peccata dimittens, Iesus auctoritates religiosas Israel ante dilemma collocavit. Nonne recte in sua dicerent consternatione: « Quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus? » (Mc 2,7)? Iesus, peccata dimittens, aut blasphemat quia est homo qui se Deo facit aequalem, 404 aut verum dicit et Eius Persona Nomen reddit praesens et revelat Dei. 405
      My very limited Latin knowledge leads me to see the key as “scandalum fuit”, which when translating the full passage in Google (“Iesus scandalum fuit Pharisaeis” comes out as “Jesus scandalized the Pharisees”. But, if you just translate “fuit”, it comes out as “was”, so a fair translation could be “was scandalized”. In this sense, it is closer to the Pharisees taking offense or scandal rather than Jesus giving scandal. To say the least, it is a very poor choice of wording, and you would expect the CCC to do better. This same poor choice of phrase is carried over in the Spanish version as well.
      Other possibilities: gave = dedit, caused = fecit, neither of which were used, which if the intent was that Jesus caused or gave scandal, scandalum dedit or scandalum fecit would seem to convey that sense. So, I would have to go with the context of the Pharisees having been offended/being scandalized as opposed to Jesus giving scandal in the sense of 2284, in particular given that eating with tax collectors and showing mercy are not sinful activities (only in the mind of the Pharisees) nor should they lead others to sin, indeed, it should (in the context of 588 and 589) lead others to good.
      Personally, I have a bigger issue with the CCC’s equating the procreative and unitive ends of the marital act as opposed to giving primacy to the procreative.

  11. The real question to ask is whether or not Bergolio even believes in ‘Papal Infallibility’
    Clearly from every angle you examine it – Bergolio DOES NOT believe in Papal Infallibility, na din fact no modernists actually do even if they put out vague lip service.
    So if Bergolio does not believe in Papal Infallibility, then Bergolio is fundamentally incapable of ever EXERCISING Papal Infallibility.
    Thus nothing he does, no action of his as Pope will ever be ‘Infallible.’
    And subsequently it also means that Bergolio is a heretic and cannot be Catholic, much less a Pope.
    The ‘Infallibility’ thing is just a useful wooden board that Bergolio likes to put up in front of him to shield him from actual Catholic critics who are confused or tied by vows of obedience and respect towards the office of the Pope. Something he opens and shuts like a Venetian blind depending on who he wants to ‘dialogue’ with.
    All Bergolio’s heresies are impossible for him to hold unless he flat out doesn’t believe in Papal Infallibility.
    Put his butt before a trial, and this will easily be ascertained along with his lack of belief in the Holy Eucharist, given nobody who believes and understands the Eucharist would ever be capable of doing everything he has done.
    As Neumeyer is discovering in Argentina – the man is likely from the first day a Communist plant. A true wolf is sheep’s clothing.

    1. But, Johonno, whether anyone believes or not does not change the fact of grace that is there for him. Papal Infallibility is an automatic, protective gift that goes with the office and pertains to the office holder whether he believes it is there for him or not. I might be mistaken but it seems that any pope’s belief or lack of it does not change the ontological reality of the nature of infallibility that accompanies the one who actually sits in Chair of Peter.

        1. Ah, thank you, Mark. Thank you. It’s been clear to me for a while that Bergoglio and his reign are a distraction; Pope Benedict’s renunciation of the Petrine Ministry is the point of departure.
          Although I am not yet well versed in the language cues of possible sedevacantists to pick them up readily, it is apparent that VermontCrank1 is proudly clear of his sede-choice. Thank you for allowing a place for all to voice their observations, questions, and opinions.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.