Posted on 11/27/2016 5:02:19 PM PST by ebb tide
As four cardinals publicly challenge Pope Francis to answer five dubia that reduce to the single question “Do you mean to preach heresy and subvert the entire moral order?”, Dr. Jeff Mirus has enunciated the latest “mainstream” position respecting a wayward Pope who can no longer be defended seriously by any believing Catholic: ignore him.
Mirus begins well enough by summarizing the grounds for legitimate, indeed morally obligatory, opposition to a Pope who seems intent on fulfilling his “dream” of “transforming everything” in the Church to suit an idiosyncratic “vision” that Antonio Socci has rightly dubbed “Bergoglianism.” Writes Mirus: We have tried to treat Francis as sons; to give Francis the benefit of every doubt… But we have also been forced to admit the Pope’s shortcomings, and in particular the confusion he causes when the faithful compare what the Church has always asked of them with what Pope Francis asks of them.
This has been a source of pain for many deeply-committed and well-informed Catholics. Moreover, the entire problem has been exacerbated by Pope Francis’ unfortunate tendency to dismiss his critics—or even merely those who ask for clarifications—as “rigid”, “nasty”, and suffering from “psychological problems”.
…. Suffice it to say here that it is not “proselytism” to want to bring non-Catholic Christians into the Church so that they can enjoy the full range of God’s gifts for our salvation; and it is not “rigid” or “legalistic” to affirm, as we say to God in the Act of Faith, that we believe “all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, because you have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
Contrary to what Pope Francis often implies, Catholic teaching on faith and morals is not a matter of “laws” or “rules” but of the conformity of the mind with reality, which is the definition of truth. When Pope Francis calls names, therefore, we can barely restrain ourselves from deploying the famous defensive strategy most of us used as children. I mean the little poem that begins “I’m rubber and you’re glue.”
Ponder what Mirus admits here: that the Church is afflicted by a Pope who spreads confusion, rejects efforts to convert non-Catholics, belittles Catholic teaching on faith and morals as mere “rules,” and publicly and repeatedly calumniates the defenders of that teaching as rigid legalists with personality defects and even psychological disorders. In short, Mirus concedes that we have a Pope who is attacking the Church! But then Mirus counsels that we ignore the attack:
Unfortunately, at a certain point, our serious concern about Pope Francis can become a preoccupation—an unhealthy preoccupation…. Satan desires nothing more than for us to become so engrossed by what we frequently perceive as the Pope’s recklessness that we forget our own vocations, our own Catholic mission, our own apostolates.
Worrying about the daily confusion and sorrow Pope Francis introduces into our lives can impede us from working on our first priority—which is living our Catholic life in Christ as fully as we possibly can….
I’d like to suggest that it is time to turn the corner on Pope Francis. Most of us have no cards to play in the game of improving the papacy….
I admit that there is no way to hide from these problems, and we should want to keep informed. The point here is that we should be able to take them in stride without losing our serenity. There is far, far more to the life of the Church than can be hindered or helped by any one person, even if that person is the Pope….
In essence, Mirus’s prescription for the plague of Bergoglianism is a kind of de facto sedevacantism. As Francis cannot be defended or followed in his errors, we must act as if there were no Pope and get on with our individual spiritual lives lest this disastrous pontificate become an unhealthy “preoccupation.”
But how is it possible for us to ignore “the daily confusion and sorrow Pope Francis introduces into our lives”? As members of the Mystical Body of Christ we cannot live for ourselves alone. The “daily confusion and sorrow” Pope Francis inflicts on the Church affects innumerable souls who are taken in by his reckless novelties, his incessant demagoguery, and his emotional appeals to a false mercy that would leave them mired in an objective condition of mortal sin which contradicts the natural law that even faithless pagans, deprived of the Sacraments, are able to follow according to merely natural virtue.
Francis cannot be ignored. On the contrary, the faithful must be ever vigilant respecting his every word and deed; and whenever he causes “confusion and sorrow” in the Church, he must be opposed by every Catholic worthy of the name according to the station and means of each member of the faithful. As Saint Paul admonishes us, the members of the Mystical Body must be “mutually careful one for another” for “if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it… (1 Cor 12:25-26).”
Our duty of opposition is not a warrant for spiteful recrimination against a Pope who does indeed call us names, thus shamefully debasing his august office as spiritual father of the Church universal. To that extent, Mirus has it right. But neither should we affect a pose of meek and humble perplexity, as if we did not know that, whatever his subjective disposition, this astonishing Pope is clearly determined to impose his errant will on the Church through one shocking abuse of power after another, while demonizing and marginalizing anyone who opposes him in the manner of a politician in the midst of a political campaign.
Such violence to the Mystical Body calls for the strongest possible response from its intended victims; courtly politeness is not adequate to the enormity of what Francis is attempting to perpetrate. To allude to the defense of the four cardinals just published by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, our spirit should be that of Saint Hilary, writing to Pope Liberius to protest the pontiff’s endorsement of a semi-Arian formula in the midst of the Arian crisis: “Anathema tibi a me dictum, praevaricator Liberi” (I say to you anathema, prevaricator Liberius).” Here we might remind ourselves of the historical example of the furious public opposition to John XXII regarding an error that seems almost trivial in comparison to the havoc Francis has been causing for more than three years.
No, we cannot just “turn the corner on Pope Francis.” We cannot remain silent while the few prelates who have had the courage to voice public opposition to his errors are (to quote Bishop Schneider) internally exiled by “hush-up strategies and… slander campaigns” conducted by papal sycophants and ecclesial subversives in miters, who have no concern for the integrity of the Faith. We cannot allow “intolerance, refusal of dialogue, and irrational rage” to wear us down to the point that we would simply allow the rest of the Church, following Francis, to “surrender to relativism in doctrine and practice, in faith and life,” which is happening at this very moment in nation after nation.
When Peter came to Antioch, Saint Paul “withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” When Francis comes to us incessantly through modern means of communication that broadcast his errors instantaneously to the whole Church, accompanied by the world’s applause, the last thing we must do is what Mirus recommends: “take them in stride without losing our serenity.” We do not have the luxury of serene acceptance of a Pope who is attacking the Church. An exhausted quietism must not be confused with a true serenity of spirit, which obtains even in the midst of battle.
The Pope is divinely ordained to be the Church’s center of unity—a unity in truth, not his personal will. Francis, on the contrary, is a source of constant confusion and disunity, which surround him like a hurricane surrounds its eye. He is almost certainly the worst Pope the Church has ever seen, even in the midst of the worst crisis the Church has ever seen. But as the grim reality of this destructive pontificate becomes undeniable, we see among the neo-Catholic commentariat a sudden adjustment of their longstanding approach to the papacy: the neo-Catholic dictum “never contradict the Pope” is being replaced by “never mind the Pope.”
The neo-Catholic polemic has found a whole new way to defend the indefensible—by ignoring it, which is now presented as the spiritually superior approach to the ceaseless Bergoglian onslaught. The neo-Catholic claim to the moral high ground will thus be maintained by suggesting that those who will not “turn the corner” on Francis—meaning traditionalists, of course—are suffering from a spiritually “unhealthy preoccupation” with the Pope’s doings. To recall what Mirus says of the new approach: “There is far, far more to the life of the Church than can be hindered or helped by any one person, even if that person is the Pope….” Despite decades of papolatry, now they want to tell us that the papacy is really not such a big a deal after all.
But that rhetorical ploy is one duck that won’t lift from the lake. That Mirus cannot bear any more of this pontificate and now attempts to justify downplaying the awful, seemingly endless spectacle of it all, only confirms the necessity not to “turn the corner” on Francis. On the contrary, as confirmed soldiers in Christ we must face up to him in defense of the truth—not only for our own good, but for the good of the Church, for the good of souls and, above all, for the glory and honor owed to Almighty God.
But how is it possible for us to ignore “the daily confusion and sorrow Pope Francis introduces into our lives”? As members of the Mystical Body of Christ we cannot live for ourselves alone. The “daily confusion and sorrow” Pope Francis inflicts on the Church affects innumerable souls who are taken in by his reckless novelties, his incessant demagoguery, and his emotional appeals to a false mercy that would leave them mired in an objective condition of mortal sin which contradicts the natural law that even faithless pagans, deprived of the Sacraments, are able to follow according to merely natural virtue.
Frankie isn’t no Pope. He’s a liberal politician.
I wrote to my Bishop, to the Diocese Family Life Director, to the Diocesan DRE, and to my own pastor, sincerely asking exactly what I'm to teach about this as a member of our parish RCIA teaching team.
I accompanied this with enough documentation to summarize Dr. Joseph Shaw's 19 points, which is basically a longer version of the Four Cardinals' Five Dubia.
Result: No response from the Bishop or the Family Life Director, a short but sympathetic, serious and relevant note from the DRE, and a long heart-felt discussion with my pastor, bless him.
We would do well to take this personally to every chief catechist in our parishes and dioceses. Personally.
Every one of us should present the "Five Dubia" (or Dr. Joseph Shaw's 19 points), in some form, to our official teachers. Every one of them owes us a YES or a NO.
No, this would not be a "de facto sedevacantism" given actual sedevacantists don't actually "ignore" Francis. And even if they did, they wouldn't be ignoring a true pope.
Having said that, I don't recall reading any Catholic teaching that states that a Catholic should/can ignore a true pope. I know some believe in "resisting" a true pope, but I don't remember coming across theological support for "ignoring" a true pope.
Does Dr. Mirus provide any such Catholic support? Or is he just encouraging others to keep their heads in the sand and allowing Satan to win by silencing those who hear his voice in those who claim to be Catholic hierarchy?
What will you do in the meantime while waiting for a response?
Follow Francis?
Or follow the traditional Catholic teachings?
Your students deserve the truth now. Don’t let them down.
I agree with you 100%.
Which is to say, I’m a Catholic teacher: I teach Catholicism. Evaluating the evidence, I must say Pope Francis is in serious error about some absolutely fundamental things: Sacraments, Commandments, Conscience -— and this list is not complete.
The rest of that tagline quote....
I am convinced that this is a time of testing for all Christians, but especially for Catholics, to sort out the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares, the victors from the lost. Read your Bible and pray! Especially the last part, as we are near the end in more ways than one. Hold fast until He comes! Amen!
1 John 4
1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.a
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God,b
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus* does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.c
4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.d
6 We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.e
http://www.usccb.org/bible/1john/4
Excellent, highly relevant Scripture message there, SubMareenrr. Thank you for that.
Thank you! May I also suggest Monsignor Charles Pope. Over the past several months, he seems to have shed every aspect of the Babylonian Mystery religions and is preaching and teaching the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.
http://blog.adw.org/author/cpope/
Who is Dr. Joseph Shaw and where are his 19 points?
The correct answers are no-yes-yes-yes-yes, right?
How about that as a bumper sticker?
NO-YES-YES-YES-YES
The correct answers ARE no-yes-yes-yes-yes.
1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?
2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
4. After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Very interesting article and discussion.
I know who wins in the end and it allows detachment from this fracas.
I’m grateful for the Four Cardinals’ intervention, but there is not much I can do about the Pope, and I’m trying to ignore him as much as I can while still keeping up with current events. We really can’t do much more than keep on keeping on as good Catholics regardless. I don’t think Mirus’ advice is so terrible.
Dear Pope Francis:
The correct answers are no, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Sorry I couldn’t get these to you sooner. I hope it hasn’t created any problems.
Sincerely,
“We must act as if there were no Pope.” False inference but probably the conclusion preferred by Mr. Ferrara.
The insight from Mirus is that we should focus more on the Lord’s passion in our lives and less on the politics external to us. Bergolio is the Pope and his Jesuit craziness should not mislead our focus on the Lord. After all, the Lord has Bergoglio on a very tight leash and it is fun to see Bergoglio buck like a bronco and try to get rid of the leash. Thankfully, we have a pope.
But I do not agree with completely ignoring the situation completely. Don't we have a duty to speak out against heresy and to help other Catholics to see the Truth? I tend to think those who think all they have to do is worry about their own salvation actually don't think as a Catholic should think.
If one is in a position to influence, then I agree there may be a duty, but the average person in the pews doesn’t care about Amoris Laetitiae, Familiaris Consortio or any of it, and while I’ll be happy to spell out my issues with the Pope if anyone asks me, I am not going to take on the task of remedying or be blamed for the failures of the Church leadership and clergy to ensure proper catechesis all these decades. At this point, I’m just waiting for the next conclave, or a massive change of heart by Francis a la Pio Nono.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.