The precise boundaries of infallibility: the Supreme Pontiff as a private doctor

- IN APPENDIX: INTERVIEW WITH ARCHBISHOP OF CHICAGO -

 

The EXACT BOUNDARIES OF

Infallibility:

THE POPE AS

PRIVATE DOCTOR

 

A delicate problem is given by the conditions for which the Pope can enter the industry without being infallible doctrinal. It is then the case in which he expresses himself as a private doctor or as simple theologian. Here he can not avail themselves of the charism of Peter, but what he says depends only on its human wisdom, although founded on faith. In this field he can formulate opinions or reach scientific certainty, but it can also err, is intende, theologically, but not in faith, because it is protected by the charisma of Peter.

 

Author John Cavalcoli OP
Author
John Cavalcoli OP
statue of Peter
Archbasilica Papale di San Pietro: the statue dedicated to the Prince of the Apostles

On the importance and meaning to be given to interventions, teachings, the claims and statements of the Supreme Pontiff Francis, you give today considerable dissension in the Catholic or non-Catholics among themselves which, as is known, are frequent and very diverse in form and content, addressed to the public and individuals more different, Catholics and non-Catholics, making use of the media more diverse, fruits of modern technology, unusual compared to the uses of previous Popes.

Many enthusiasts of Pope Francis, take everything he says with fanaticism or pretend membership, without critical scrutiny, only to do as they like or exploiting what he says the use of dolphins, especially if it satisfies their cravings and their ambitions. Other, attached to the style of previous Popes, follow or, you could say, pedinano step behind him every day up with sharp-eyed gaze and gunpoint, suspected he was an invalid Pope, to catch him at his word before unusual, seeing in it dull dark plots Masonic conspiracy or secret heresies Lutheran, ideas still suffering from that Council criptoereticale this was to say to them that the Second Vatican Council. They ignore that, as I will mention later, the Pope does not teach the truth of faith, that is, how do you say, it is not “infallible” or only when it proclaims solemnly defines or by itself or through a council a new dogma, but, albeit at lower grades and less authoritative, whenever he instructs us as teacher of the faith.

The essential condition for the value of these lower levels is that the Pope teaches the Word of God, the doctrine and the mystery of Christ and the Church, the data revealed (Scripture and Tradition), the sacraments, Christian virtues, the way of the Gospel and salvation, truths or dogmas of faith, the articles of the Creed, you express how you want to express, not interested. It does not affect either the circumstances, the manner and the means of these communications, from the encyclical, the pastoral letter, to the Motu Proprio, General Audience, the homily of the Mass, to speech, the journalistic interview or phone call. The important thing is that it is these materials, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly.

papa ride
The Holy Father Francis, film footage

A sensitive issue, and is the subject of this article, is given by the conditions for which the Pope can enter the industry without being infallible doctrinal. It is then the case in which he expresses himself as a private doctor or as simple theologian. Here he can not avail themselves of the charism of Peter, but what he says depends only on its human wisdom, although founded on faith. In this field he can formulate opinions or reach scientific certainty, but it can also err, is intende, theologically, but not in faith, because it is protected by the charisma of Peter.
In the past, the Popes have left us documents that were not an expression of the charism of Peter. If before climbing became Pope Pius II, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, like other popes, had published their writings, once elected Popes their teaching was not usually that expression of their office to the Successors of Peter and teachers of the faith. They wanted to erase the human aspect of their thinking and not be anything but tramiti of Gospel.
This enclose all its activities of thought and teaching within the limits of officialdom was probably motivated by the fear of the past Popes in the manifestation of their personal ideas could be exchanged for papal teaching, thing to the truth may actually happen in believers not sufficiently prepared to distinguish theological thought and teaching of faith, ie the Pope Francis.

01-00262187000002
The Holy Father Francis in one of his spontaneous informal greetings

Otherwise instead, with the last century, namely with St. John Paul II, begins with the use of the Pope is not limited to his papal office, but also produces literary or theological in a purely human. From this point of view is remarkable is the Christological trilogy of Benedict XVI, about which he himself invited scholars to discuss with him. A clear sign that he did not intend to show up with these writings as universal doctor and infallible faith, but also simply and modestly, as theologian among theologians, although he is great theologian.
I believe that this change in the activity Intellectual Popes was motivated by the fact that today the Catholic cultural education is more capable of a time to clarify the common faithful the difference between the Pope as the Pope and the Pope as a private doctor, However, although the current Pope, with the variety and the unusual appearance of his numerous and frequent, seriously put to the test those who want to distinguish him Simone - namely Jorge Mario Bergoglio - manifesting their ideas sometimes questionable, by Peter infallible teacher of the faith.

Pope Francis arrived in Brazil
The Pope Francis during an informal interview with a Brazilian journalist

Today is more than ever urgent problem of how we can distinguish with certainty, adequate and clear teaching of a Pope as Pope from a speech or written theological or literary occasional, impromptu or extemporaneous. The distinction is very important, as it is clear that while the word of Peter is always true and binding, what he thinks or says Simone, ie man Bergoglio, although always worthy of respect, it is said that it is always indisputable, unique and necessary for salvation. In this regard,, we can respond first that the Pope himself is careful Francesco usually let us understand manifesting his intentions and depending on the circumstances. Since its ordinary office is Petrine, ordinarily we have to think that what he expresses is manifestation of that office, especially when it comes to those matters of faith to which I alluded above. But the level of authority of his teaching we can deduce from its own content and the manner of expressing them. There are in fact known to theological doctrines and not magisterial, doctrines, if we find on the mouth or in the writings of the Pope, it will be obvious that express his thought simply as a private doctor.

Pope phones
The Pope Francis at a time with informal youth

We for example that the Pope gave Mary the title of “Redemptrix” or that would support with St. Augustine that damned outnumbers the beati or the Shroud is truly the imprint of the body of Christ or the Virgin Mary appears really to Medjugorje or that Judas is in hell or the resurrection there will be animals or that the angels have been subjected by God at the beginning of the world to a loyalty test or the transfer of Jews from the Red Sea was simply a miraculous phenomenon favourable tide or that Adam and Eve expelled from paradise had a Simian appearance or even embryos are baptized to Christ or that there were things that Christ did not know or that the Antichrist is a single person or two “witnesses” Revelation speaks of them are the Saints Peter and Paul, and so on. All these assumptions are clearly compatible with the data of faith. It is certainly respectable doctrines and probable, but which do not correspond in themselves to real truth of faith, because you can not find them directly neither in Scripture nor in Tradition. The sources of Revelation could endorse but also not endorse. Currently it is not possible to know for sure and that is why the papal Magisterium as such is not pronounced.

Pope passport
In February 2014 the Holy Father Francis wanted to formally renew the passport of the Republic of Argentina under the name of Jorge Mario Bergoglio

These doctrines, however, thanks to a further theological study, could buy a tomorrow such a degree of probability, certainty as to become. For this, it is entirely legitimate to support them with all due modesty, and it is equally legitimate to disagree with them with due prudence, waiting for a possible clarification. In this case, the debate and the confrontation between opposing opinions, conducted with mutual respect and with scientific methods, helps to discover the truth, But maybe that will never be discovered until the Parousia.
It can indeed happen that a theological thesis is well demonstrated so well accepted by the Church, enough to rise to the level of dogma of faith defined, as was the case for the thesis Thomistic soul only the form of the body in the Council of the Viennes 1312 or immortality of the soul in the Fifth Lateran Council of 1513.
Nothing and no one will restrict the Pope, as a private doctor, to fit into this research and participate in the discussion with other theologians on an equal footing and in his peril, advancing his own way of seeing things and letting contest if its arguments prove to be wrong or questionable.
It may also happen that his opinion becomes particularly authoritative and persuasive among theologians, but opinion remains; whereby, though expressed by Pope, absolutely can not rise to the level of official papal teaching and infallible, Whether dogma defined or undefined.

Pope clown nose
The Pope Francis at a time informal in Piazza San Pietro with a married couple

Note that throughout history the faithful have always gone subject to a double risk to the ideas expressed by the Pope. Or that of understating and diminish or restrict the authority, under various pretexts, or on the contrary the risk of that fanaticism and the subjection supine, indiscreet, dimly lit and also affected, that takes as indisputable also the positions of the Pope as a private doctor.
Among the first to recent times there are those that restrict the notes infallibility of papal teaching the very special and very rare conditions laid down by the First Vatican Council, waves feel authorized to deny the infallibility and then at least to suspect forgery or falsification of the doctrines of Vatican II, that would be only their second “pastoral”, as well as all the teachings and actions of the post-conciliar Popes at any level or in any form, not clearly marked by the characteristics.
They believe in the immutability of the dogma; but as the infallibility of the Pope and the Council, reject the aforementioned Instruction of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, addition to the Apostolic Letter To defend the faith St. John Paul II 1998, in which you teach, stating the doctrine of Vatican I, that the Magisterium of the Church (Pope or Council), below infallibility outstanding and solemnly defined, is expressed according to two other lower grades of authority, about which the Catholic Church says it is certain that the true authentically, definitely, irreformabilmente and immutably. Now, the level of authority of the conciliar doctrine and teaching of the Popes subsequent to the current, belongs to one of these two levels.

General audience in Saint Peter's Square
The Pope Francis during an informal moment in St. Peter's Square

Others, is a case of our time, infected gnoseologies relativist, soggettiviste the evoluzioniste, do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, whereby, if they think that the Pope is in conflict or break with traditional doctrines previously defined or, and the new, as well as the means, to their liking, no qualms to enhance a Pope Francis, which eventually updated, a pope “revolutionary”, which eventually embraced “modernity”, a Pope who knows “converse” with all.
From these facts we understand how easy it is for the faithful and it is also possible for a theologian imprudent, this is a conservative or a liberal, Judging is not based on objective criteria, but with your taste, for you deny the infallibility or the truth to papal doctrines that do not like, although absolutely true; and conversely are considered indisputable or “Advanced” or even “Revolutionary” ideas of the Pope, fraintese e times digerite, that the Pope expressed maybe passing and without the intention to teach the truths of faith or just to express an opinion or a personal impression.

They, the reader will have already realized that they are the modernists, Actually, soaked historicism, do not believe in the infallibility papal, because they do not believe the immutability of truth. But that does not stop them as they were to make an absolute dogma certain statements of Pope purely contingent and occasional, however, interpreted as if the Pope would give space to the modernist ideas.
In fact, the historicist, as for example the Hegelian, believes in his own way in the absolute, just that for him the absolute non transcends history in metaphysical un'immutabilità, but it is nothing but the absolutization of the historical event that interests him. So for example, for the School of Bologna, the doctrines of the Council do not refer to anything immutable and supra, but represent the epochal event, revolutionary, eschatological and prophetic of the present time. In this sense, for the historicist, the Absolute itself becomes with the historical development. Nothing remains, nothing remains, but everything evolves in history, as history and as Absolute in history. No story without Absolute, but also nothing Absolute no history.

Pope kisses the hand
The Pope Francis during a spontaneous gesture toward a group of elderly Jewish survivors from the death camps

Modernists have no respect for the Pope as teacher of the faith, that tend to solve all his teachings in simple theological opinions, they then allow time to accommodate, now to challenge, how they like it, as if they were those of any other theologian. And that is because, as already pointed out sharply in the St. Pius X Pascendi Dominici Gregis, they are “fenomenisti”, which replace the appearance being, what seems to what is. For them no harm then certainties objective, universal and immutable, but everything is debatable, changeable dependent on time, from places and points of view.
Modernists pretend disciples and admirers of the Pope for some of his sentence or gesture that would seem to meet them. And unfortunately, the Pope does not currently seem to do much to dispel this interpretation and take the distances from these false friends. But the misunderstanding can not last forever. Soon the Pope, tired of their approaches increasingly prying, will speak in a voice frank and clear. There is a fear that at this point they pretended admiration will be turned into hatred. This about-face of the rest will be in line with their own moral principles chameleon. It is the idea that the Pope could run danger to his own life. Thus, apparently, succeeded in killing pain Pope John Paul I.
If it instead of other topics, practical or moral, starting with the most important acts of the papal government, liturgical directives, the provisions pastoral, legal, administrative or disciplinary, Here the Pope is fallible and may even fail to virtue, courage, charity and prudence. But it is always a duty, if it is deemed useful or necessary, play a critical polite, modest and respectful, as children to a father.

Pope maradona
The Pope Francis during an informal greeting to golden boy Diego Armando Maradona

We observe at this point that, as it emerges from the ducts studies Antonio Livi to which reference, theology is a science, as such, accompanies opinion. For this, the Pope as a private doctor, can reach conclusions theological scientific, that is proven and demonstrated, as may be limited to the field dell'opinabile, the likely, hypothetical, uncertain.
Science gives us the evidence mediated, riconducile to the first principles of reason, common sense or faith; irrefutably shows us what is true. The opinion, instead, without being able to redo those principles, but based only on appearance (glory, Doxa), advancing arguments likely or, Phys, “dialectical”, namely that further research is necessary to check with. In fact, they have only the appearance of the true and therefore the opinion does not reach certain conclusions, but only probable.
Science is the appearance or manifestation (phenomenon fainòmenon) mediated the true. The opinion (glory) instead it gives what seems true (seems). For further inquiry you can discover or that it is true or it is false. The opinion apparently stops. Only science makes us distinguish with certainty the true from the false.

dad orangeade
The Pope Francis greets the Queen Ranja of Jordan during an official meeting

Science is a, or because something is or is not; can not coexist two sciences opposed about the same thing. The views however are many and can legitimately coexist and oppose each other, because from opposition is supposed not to know what is the real one, but both have the appearance of truth.
By principles of faith is possible to obtain the opinion in theology or science: opinion, if the theologian can not make a rigorous deduction; the scientific conclusion, instead, if he can make that deduction. A theologian Pope can be in one as in the other direction. The infallibility of his charisma as a teacher of faith helps him for nothing in these investigations and in these conclusions, remittances that are totally contrary to his human wisdom, his scientific and logical rigor of his method.

Petrus grave in St Peter's in Rome
Archbasilica Papale di San Pietro: the Tomb of the Prince of the Apostles under the Altar of the Confession

Pope Francis is not an academic theologian, as it was Benedict XVI, he left us as a private theologian precious books of Christology, to which I have already mentioned. Pope Francis instead is a theologian kerygmatic, a tireless preacher of the God Incarnate, Jesus Christ and his Spirit, feeding his intellectual life, his heart, his passion of an apostle and pastor, prosthesis to salvation of all men. He reminds me of my Founder Order, St. Dominic of Guzman, of which it was said that “or talking to God or God”.
Even Pope Francis, as for the previous Popes, must be able to discern the time of his personal approach to Christ, his theological sensitivity, his private devotion, his human standpoint particular - we can also accept or not accept, we can discuss freely or deepening of our choice - the teacher of the faith, by the pastor and doctor of the Church Universal, Vicar of Christ, Peter's Successor, Witness to the Word of God, Scripture and Tradition, that infallibly assisted by the Holy Spirit, preaches officially and publicly for Christ's mandate calling all men to salvation.

Fontanellato, 23 November 2014

_____________________________

EDITORIAL Author
Author
DRAFTING

 

RETIRED ARCHBISHOP OF CHICAGO:

"THE HOLY FATHER HAS CREATED THE EXPECTATIONS THAT CAN NOT MEET"

 

Cardinal georgeAfter a couple of days of publication of this article of Father John Cavalcoli, was published an interview with Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago, recently stepped down as chair of the archdiocese for serious health reasons; the cardinal, ill with cancer, is in fact to live the culminating phase of his illness.

The full original article is available WHO

Below,, comes from the famous blog by Sandro Magister, the Italian translation of the interview of the Cardinal that we felt should be included in the appendix to this our article.


di Francis George, own

I can understand the anxiety of some people. At first glance not close, you may seem that Francis questions the doctrinal statements. But if you look back, especially when you listen to his homilies, see that it is not so. Very often, when he says certain things, its intention is to enter the pastoral context of someone who is taken, as it were, in a trap. Perhaps this expresses his sympathy in a way that causes people to wonder if he still supports the doctrine. I have no reason to believe it does,. […]

This raises the question: Francis does not explain why these things himself? Why is it necessary that the apologists to bear the weight of having to do every time a good face? He realizes the consequences of some of his statements, or even of some of its actions? He realizes the repercussions? Maybe not. I do not know if he is aware of all the consequences of his words and gestures of those who raise such doubts in people's minds.

This is one of the things I'd like to have the opportunity to ask, if I happen to be there for him: “Do you realize what just happened with that phrase 'Who am I to judge?’, of how it was used and abused?”. It was really abused, because he was talking about the situation of someone who had already asked for mercy and received absolution, someone he knew well. It's a completely different thing from talking to someone who claims to be approved without asking forgiveness. You constantly abused, that sentence.

Raised expectations around him that he can not possibly meet. This is what worries me. At a certain point, those who have painted him as a pawn in their scenarios on the changes in the Church will find that he is not what we believe. That does not go in that direction. And then maybe you will become the target not only of a disappointment, but also an opposition that could be detrimental to the effectiveness of his teaching. […]

Personally, I find it interesting that this pope cites that novel: “Master of the World”. It's something that I would like to ask: “How do you put together what she does with what she says is the hermeneutic interpretation of his ministry, that is, this eschatological vision that the Antichrist is among us? Is that what you think?”. I'd like to ask this question to the Holy Father. In a way, This could perhaps explain why he seems to have such a hurry. […] What do you think the Pope about the end of time? […]

I do not know him well before his election. I knew him through the Brazilian bishops, who knew him more, and to them I asked many questions. […] Have not visited him since he was elected. […] Pope Francis did not know enough. Certainly respect him as pope, but I still lack an understanding of what it intends to do.

translation by Sandro Magister [see which]

Avatar

About isoladipatmos

36 thoughts on "The precise boundaries of infallibility: the Supreme Pontiff as a private doctor

  1. Rev.mo P. John Cavalcoli, an article masterful in all senses in all respects.
    I do not know if it was planned, but his writing seems to deepening the previous father Ariel (Service firefighters …) in which mention is made in several parts to “private doctor”, perhaps leaving her, Father John the deepening of this concept.
    I can tell (but maybe already knows some time,well and better than I) that we priests we are in great difficulties for various “shoot” arm of Pope Francis. But he knows what is really paradoxical? That if we raise calm and respectful doubts on claims of Pope Francis, who have nothing to see and do with the doctrines of the church binding, we are left with people who all their lives have made profession of anticlericalism, anti-Catholicism, untralaicismo, Atheism etc.. we are saying to rimprovevare: “but as? Do you not know that the pope is infallible?”.
    Thanks and deep gratitude to her, Father Ariel, Mgr. Livi for giving us support in the Isle of Patmos!

  2. Great father John, Great! In this “dark forest” of traditionalists crazy, of pizzettari&merlettari sad and depressed, sedevacantists of psychiatric speaking of popes antichrists apostatici and heretics, read the articles of the now legendary trio Cavalcoli-Levi of Gualdo-Livi, is like taking medicine that cures the disease and healthy.
    Long live the island of Patmos and its inhabitants !!!

    1. Dear Don Stefano,

      I, Don Ariel and Mons. Livi we are very united in our ideas, so often that we are spontaneously in harmony without any prior programming.
      The support given by the modernists to Pope Francis is entirely instrumental, because they would like to get him on their side, and unfortunately the Pope does not always distanced.
      It's up to us theologians, therefore, clarify the meaning of his actions, and help the faithful to distinguish when he speaks veramte as the Successor of Peter and when it expresses its positions, improvised, totally discutiubili, not to say wrong.
      So the reproach that make us the modernists of not being with the Pope is pure hypocrisy. We instead we the true believers of the Pope, us that on one hand we use against him the freedom of children on matters of opinion or pastoral, while then welcome smoothly that teaching infallible that he gives us,about which they will then take around.

  3. I know the Jesuits because I was a student and I know how their historical Livoro have towards them Dominicans, as understood by many subtleties of this article of the Dominican Cavalcoli …

  4. Dear Anonymous,

    and his talented teachers the Jesuits also taught to throw the stone into the pile from perfect anonymous and withdraw the hand so that the stone hit but no one knew where and by whom arrived? I'll tell you why: I recognize in this style all that their.
    Given that the Dominican theologians had a sacrosanct right when their time accused the Jesuit missionaries of syncretism and when raised reservations about the philosophy of Suarez, I must say that I too have been a pupil of the Jesuits, enough to learn that you can stay in contact with them for years and years without ever really understand what they think and if anything, one day, as if by magic you can find yourself suddenly in front, after a decade of continued relationship, a totally different person from the one you've always believed that it was ending so much shocked by wondering: “But this, who is it?”.
    Of course: not generalize, I think simply that the “evil” is inherent in the style of their training they receive, just look at what they have sown around the world from the Sixties onwards; and that's a fact.
    For this I am reminded of an information campaign on AIDS saying: “AIDS? If you know how to avoid”. Here, having them tested on my skin, the campaign against AIDS, I applied to the Society of Jesus: “JESUIT? If you know avoid them”.
    How do you see the opinions arising from our experiences are always different and, above all, in this are always very subjective, therefore as such quite questionable, from this free my opinion, it is and remains entirely moot, but this is, and this is my sad and painful personal experience, paid “full price” on my skin with lapels so shameful and painful on which I decided to shut up and that I will take with me into the grave, I hope of course as late as possible.
    On the other hand, and always talking about subjective experiences, I can tell you however that as far as I could ascertain, the Dominican is instead structurally formed to betray and lie with masterful duplicity feeling but just for this with a clear conscience perfectly okay, believed to have acted in this for the greater glory of God.

    1. But father… “The Jesuits, as AIDS? If the [that] been to the [that] avoid”… aren't you exaggerating?

      1. I've been their pupil and I owe him a lot: Thanks to them I had confirmation that hell exists and is not empty …

  5. When Bergoglio telephoned a lady Argentina divorced remarried “advising” to receive the Eucharist by another priest who do not know it, as acted in that circumstance? from a private doctor or not?

    1. This we must ask him, because if we had the power to read minds, the hearts and consciences deep, we will be in a sense the perfect substitutes of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

  6. Then we say that it has acted as a private doctor expressed “huge nonsense”; if he has not acted as a private doctor also disproves the thesis that Cavalcoli Bergoglio is always infallible when he speaks of faith regardless of the means used to express (in this case the phone).

    1. … then we say that has not read the article of Father John Cavalcoli, who also has the gift of clarity evident even when he speaks of the most complex metaphysical questions, which is witnessed by generations of his students.

  7. “The essential condition for the value of these lower levels is that the Pope teaches the Word of God, the doctrine and the mystery of Christ and the Church, the data revealed (Scripture and Tradition), the sacraments, Christian virtues, the way of the Gospel and salvation, truths or dogmas of faith, the articles of the Creed, you express how you want to express, not interested. It does not affect either the circumstances, the manner and the means of these communications, from the encyclical, the pastoral letter, the motu proprio, General Audience, the homily of the Mass, to speech, the journalistic interview or phone call. The important thing is that it is these materials, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly.” I read this,among other things the intervention of P Cavalcoli

    1. No, this is not a reading: extrapolation is his beautiful and good in an attempt to tell the Father John what he said; and to do this she reports – extrapolating – just what the Dominican theologian wrote. In practice she does this, takes and properly report the words of Jesus who said to Madeleine: "Her many sins have been forgiven, because she has loved much " (MC 2,2-12).
      If, however, this phrase does not add that GESA said very clearly: "Neither do I condemn; will’ and from now on sin no more "» (GV 8,4-11), it could be inferred that the Lord blesses Maddalena to have loved so much during the year of the art of prostitution inviting her to do so to continue to “love” as before, and more than before its customers.
      The “because so loved” implies rather the love of Magdalene to the Word of God, to which she has faith, that faith that saved her.

  8. I have not brought over because it lacks space, I do not have extrapolated a damn, the thesis of P Cavalcoli I try to understand, and that is clear in all his writing is that infallibility is contemplated whenever the Pope expresses itself in matters of faith. I only ask to be certain, because “it seemed” (I may be wrong) that infallibility require a further condition to be such and that is the will of definition as determined by dogmatic CVI.

    1. … look, I have understood perfectly what she wants: it proclaimed heretic Vatican II, disavowed the whole teaching of the Church of the last fifty years, that are declared illegal all the popes elected by 1958 on, it is again pulled out the chair gestatoria the Vatican museums and the Roman Pontiff is carried in triumph among the aristocracy and flaubelli skullcap, Finally it is rigorously applied, in 2014, as an authentic dogma of faith, the encyclical Mirari Vos published in 1832 by Gregory XVI. Obviously: the canonization of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre and his proclamation as Doctor of the Church.

      Father John was very clear in his article, with all the rigor of philosophical method, metaphysical and theological that distinguishes. And if she does not want to understand, This is his problem, not ours.

  9. All the Popes until Benedict XVI are legitimate Pontiffs. For the rest I think the dogma of Papal proclaimed by CVI is still valid is indeed a proposition infallible Catholic Church, so I think that is reckless disregard

  10. To better understand one must distinguish between infallibility and inerrancy of the Magisterium and the pope regarding faith and morals, otherwise you can not understand, Always Gianlub is really interested.

  11. Reverend Father,

    The distinction about the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and the teaching of the private doctor is sacrosanct, but I do not think has ever been questioned by some.

    Singular appears instead thesis dell'infallibilismo total of the Roman Pontiff, a thesis that – personally – I heard from her only support; I would be much more cautious in proposing it as “common sentence”; I propose instead is unacceptable as “defined dogma of faith”.
    That view, indeed, appears to reduce the conditions of infallibility posed by the Vatican to one: the “matter of faith and morals”. Consequently, is undercut the whole teaching of the Vat: what is the point, indeed, determine certain conditions if infallibility, instead, This infallibility extends to the whole teaching of RP?
    In addition to, this argument seems to me to confuse the concept of “charisma” with that of “habits”, cioè a transitional accident with a permanent accident.
    At last, what would distinguish different degrees of adherence to the Magisterium (faith belief, Faith held, religious service) if every word of the Magisterium of the RP was equally infallible. What of the distinction between infallible teaching and authentic magisterium?

    1. Dear reader,

      I speak of the Pope's infallibility when teaching or exposes the truths of faith. In this sense,, any believer who testifies to his faith, foolproof. Even when Sunday Mass proclaim the Creed, we are infallible.
      “Infallible” simply means “always true”, “not fallible”, “unfalsifiable”: you can then think that the papal Magisterium of the Church, or at any level of authority teach us false or perhaps false?
      So these levels does not mean that the Church is infallible only in the first, while in the bottom two is fallible, but simply mean three degrees of authority with which the Church teaches us the truth of the Gospel:
      The degree: dogmas defined to believe with divine faith and theological; who does not believe it is heretical;
      Grade II: truth coming to faith to believe an act of faith in the Church; who does not believe, is close to heresy;
      III degree: the authentic teaching of the Church connected to the truths of faith, to believe with religious submission of will. Who does not believe, lack of trust in the Church assisted by the Holy Spirit.
      Papal infallibility is certainly an accident transient, but we may well call “charisma”, having a sense gift of the Holy. In fact, the Pope is infallible only as Pope, that is, as Master of the faith, not as a pastor, nor as a private doctor.
      The Church with the Vatican I defined the conditions of infallibility of the degree of doctrinal authority, without excluding those less authoritative, but always authentic, which have been clarified dalI'lstruzione attached to the Letter of the CDF To defend the faith St. John Paul II 1998. So the dogma of Vatican I is not frustrated, but supported and supplemented with the additional distinction of lower grades of infallibility or truth.
      And’ Clearly, if the Pope defines faith be a given proposition, we are absolutely certain that it is of faith. But these are very rare cases, as was the case for the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 or Immaculate in 1854. This does not mean that in all cases in which the Pope does not define (“will define“), what he says can be wrong.
      To this should be added to the criteria provided by the Vatican other criteria of certainty, which are precisely those provided by To defend the faith I inferred by step. The critero to distinguish the theological opinion from the teaching of the faith I have provided in my article.

      1. Reverend Father,

        Thank you for your attention and for the timely response; its position is very clear and expressed with great precision. I must however say that, personally, does not convince me and that I can not trace it in a weight that exceeds the mere theological opinion, lawful but questionable.
        As far as I know, the magisterium of III degree is authentic; it is due all respect intelligence believer, but it is not infallible teaching; consequently, given the assumption that “that can not be, sometimes not”, it might actually interfere error, albeit in very rare and exceptional cases.

        Will take at least grant that my opinion – anch'essa, I believe, lawful and questionable – is still supported by great theologians, such as Piolanti or Gherardini.

        1. Dearest,

          Also in the third degree, the Magisterium is a matter of faith, though actually only require religious submission of will.
          Now “infallible” simply means “always true”,”unfalsifiable”. You can imagine that a teaching of the Church in matters of faith may be or become false?
          The To defend the faith does not say that the third degree is NOT infallible. Simply NOT USE the word. But I do not think you have to stick to the word, but paying attention to the concept: the concept is that even to this degree the Church speaks of Christ and the Gospel.
          And then,?
          Is’ Attentive lefevriani recognize that the doctrines of Concilo belong to the third degree. If the Church can not go wrong here, end up in the trap of good Lefebvre! You insinuate the worm of doubt.

          Do not confuse the appearance of something that does not exist with blurry vision or blur of an existing thing, ie the truth. Remember fact that even the third degree is the Magisterium of the Church teaches that word that lasts forever. In no way be confused with the authority of the Magisterium of the theological opinion. If you already theologically certain can never be denied, let alone the Magisterium of the Church, which is assisted by the Holy Spirit! the fact that adherence to the doctrines of the III degree rhieda not an act of divine faith, does not mean that we should not adhere to them wholeheartedly and with certainty.
          I can never think of these things in one day the Church tells me with tears in his eyes: watch, son, forgive me, I was wrong? And’ just ridiculous.
          Unfortunately the third degree misconception is the crack through which enters the smoke of Satan. The lefevrismo express or implied, conscious or unconscious, voluntary or involuntary, declared or undeclared, guilty or innocent, enters through this slot.
          If in a room you want to prevent insects from entering, you must not let them any passage. As therefore prevent entry to the poison of doubt? Recognizing frankly against any vain distizione Byzantine or piddling that the Church, when we speak of the doctrine of Christ, can not sbgliarsi at any level. We can and we must fully trust.
          It's not that I can be in infaliibile and in the other is fallible. The To defend the faith says absolutely this. Instead we say that the doctrine of faith in all three degrees. The difference between the three is just a different degree of certainty and clarity, would like to see as the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome by four miles away and see her in St. Peter's Square. And’ always the church of San Pietro.
          Are the theological doctrines to be fallible and uncertain. But just when you have uncertainty, asks us the response of the Church. If this response is fallible, we will appeal to those who? And because we know the truth of the Church, do not have the solemn definition of first degree, but just the simple judgment of Chisa: those who have ears to hear, intends.
          Against the doctrine of the Church, must avoid fiscalismo: welcomes you with confidence and ease what it teaches and you put your heart at rest. Not formal notice of a good mother, but rather a stepmother. It is not that all the times that Jesus taught, the apostles were demanding a solemn definition: listened and just.
          And’ true that while I can to the Church requires adherence to divine faith, III to just the simple religious submission of will. But this is not to say that even at this level the Church does not teach us, albeit not with full clarity and certainty, The Truth Revealed, at least indirectly or implicitly (inirtualiter revealed). The Church herself in the story progresses in his knowledge and certainty of faith.
          The lefevriani are subjects for which, or the truth is absolutely certain, need, univocal, clear and distinct, or does not exist. Are the Cartesian, maniacs certainty. They, with apparent zeal for the truth and quirky theological preparation, can confuse even the great theologians.
          This doctrine sophistry of the fallibility of III degree is the trick they used to have a good game and an apparent reason to dispense from accepting the doctrines of the Council (are grade III!!). And’ operation objectively sly, unequal and unfair, that must be rejected.
          If there really was freedom to accept or reject, the Popes would require so severely by lefevriani adherence to the doctrines of the Second. Be careful and not be led by the nose when it comes to the Word of God.

          With affection and esteem

          1. Reverend Father,

            Thanks again for your kindness; the length and the articulation of his answers say the commitment and passion that she puts in teaching that deep.

            She tells me that denying the infallibility of the third degree corresponds to the thesis Lefebvrian; I could answer that admit such infallibility corresponds to the thesis sedevacantist. Between the two, sincerely, I prefer the first, because it seems more in line with the promises made to the Church of Christ.
            Let us turn to current events. In front of the Patriarch Bartholomew says Pope Francis: "I want to ensure that, to reach the desired goal of full unity, The Catholic Church does not intend to impose any requirement, if not that of the common profession of faith, and that we are ready to search together, in the light of the teaching of Scripture and the experience of the first millennium, the means by which to ensure the necessary unity of the Church in the present circumstances ".
            Pope Francis is certainly not speaking as a private doctor, but is making a statement masterful presumably belonging to the third degree. In all honesty it is possible for a Catholic to accept such…

          2. How can you say that the Church of Rome is not imposing anything schismatic churches of the East? As it can be stated that the only requirement is represented by the common faith, But that which is based on Scripture and experience (what do you mean? Tradition? Teaching?) of “first millennium”? If the First Vatican Council , eg, has infallibly defined sense of Mt 16, one can not exclude the acceptance of such a council from the research unit? A Catholic immediately aware that this declaration is unprecedented. Yet it is a masterly statement of the Roman Pontiff. It will therefore be forced to implement it as infallible?Definitely not. Can say that it is a statement of the private doctor who lives in Francis? It would be ridiculous.

            You speak of the severity of the popes towards Lefebvrians…. I think that in the light of these statements of the Pope, she should consider infallible, that objection falls by itself. Actually do not understand why they would be forced to accept Dignitatis Humanae, when the Orthodox can happily reject a millennium of teaching without leaving the Communion with Rome….

  12. Reverend Padre cavalcoli, think exactly like her; In fact, even I am afraid very time the so-called face of false friends of the Pope Francis. From personal experience I have to admit that the “Modernist” when they are disappointed in their expectations of a new church, Democratic, Free, but not at all Catholic sitematicamente become aggressive and uncontrollable.
    May God bless her and her brothers learned the online magazine.

    1. The turnaround of the modernists to Bergoglio? but look at that Bergoglio is the “head of the modernists”; is also a Mason, and figures lei

      1. Dear Friend,

        people we are also open to criticism and above, But she tries brawl controversy through the screams from the stadium; and everything is useless, much less to the salvation of the Church, and which will still be in each case saved by Christ, because it belongs to him that this mystical bride.
        I must tell you very frankly that sometimes his comments because I rejoice with his jokes lapidary can tear a smile, as in the latter case. Stating fact so strong and sure “the pope is a Mason”, sounds grotesque in the same way that would sound to say that Roberto Benigni usually goes to preach a retreat in monasteries of cloistered Carmelite nuns, where in each case, the state of the situation in the Church, would be far more serious than some preachers lot Popular, as for example by Enzo Bianchi, just to give you one name at random.
        Let us admit that the reigning pontiff is absurd to even the worst pope in history: all the more reason to be respected and honored for the sacred office that covers, attacking badly because the person – which attacks the private doctor or God forbid it attacks the pope – you are likely in either case to attack the mystery of faith holding his ministry, closely related to the fundamental mystery of the Church built on Peter.
        This is the reason why Father John Cavalcoli clarified so well certain roles and functions of the Roman Pontiff and the private doctor, masterfully stating that one should never take the chance to criticize or worse attack “private doctor” to go in fact to hit the Roman Pontiff.
        As some will understand, everything would be solved with a simple clik, cestinanto its epigraph just. Since, however,, the three of us, we are first and foremost of the shepherds in the care of souls who also use this online tool for pastoral purposes, what we want is to forward all the salvation of souls of Christi fideles. Then respond to those who persevere in error is never a waste of time, is the main purpose of our sacred ministry.

  13. Just because you are shepherds in the care of souls should find out “the wolf in sheep's clothing” and does not justify ,by climbing on the glass, what they say and makes against the Doctrine Cattollica. You this way rather than considering the serious danger to souls. bring these souls directly “Good luck”. She lives in a world of his own if he does not know (or pretends not to know) of “strong presence of Freemasonry ecclesiastical” between the upper hierarchy to which the current legitimate Pontiff Benedict XVI was forced to resign from this sect to have on the Throne of Peter their exponent: precisely Bergoglio. The council, among other things, read the prophecy of the Blessed Catherine emmerich about the Pope and the antipope and see that faithfully reflect the current situation.

    1. I have the utmost respect for the Blessed Catherine Emmerich, but at the end of its “private revelations” does not end the reading saying “Word of the Lord” the “Word of God”. So I prefer to read the “public disclosures” contained in the Book of Revelation of St. John the Apostle, finished reading which, as part of the liturgy of the word, concludes by saying: “Word of God”.
      The Antichrist is a reality linked to the mystery of good and evil that is inherent also in the Holy Church since its birth, living and present the Word of God Incarnate, suffice only think of ways and to follow through which Judas betrays Christ.
      What characterizes my faith and instead seems not to touch her, is the theology of hope, the theological virtue that is in the middle and read together faith and charity.
      Its not a Catholic thought but of gnostic matrix and Pelagian, typical of certain dark environments “Traditionalists” and certain drifts heretical sedevacantiste, and as such does not take into account a promise made by the Word of God in person: ” … and the gates of hell shall not prevarrano on it”.
      All this is confirmed by the succession of pictures that make progression in the entire Revelation of John, culminating in the defeat of the Antichrist, already marked since the dawn of time.
      Why Satan is increasingly furious, because he knows always to have lost.
      Be assured that I do I'll be passively with our hands to say: “so much, the forces of hell will not prevail”. I'll try to make my own and do it in an active way and by no omission, but without losing sight of the element of hope, without which there can be implemented and developed faith and truly received the Word of God, putting the Word of God in a position to produce fruit in us.

  14. Given the “prefer” read the Apocalypse of John S also read that in addition to the Antichrist is also the false prophet and a little guess who the latter character?

    1. The false prophet of Revelation, also said “male beast”, is as seductive prophet, but of course it is not. Actually fights against the forces of good, from which will inexorably defeated.
      I do not know, sincerely, who this character, over the centuries has been identified with various figures, including Mohammed, which undoubtedly is a false prophet. Several people who have been associated with this figure, but the answer I can give it just the Author, St. John the Apostle. If you want you can contact him by email, is always available to answer questions: apostologiovanni.ilprediletto@paradiso.org

      1. He who currently “rambles” to the right and lacks for its “show ecumenical” bowing in front of schismatics and heretics of every stripe while ago commissariare Catholics faithful to the doctrine as the case of the Franciscans of the Immaculate: that's who it is, Father expensive, the false prophet of Revelation.

        1. Right view and view from the left: the “false prophet” could be the Pope Clement V in 1311-1312 decreed the suppression of the Knights Templar with the Council of Vienna, or perhaps could be the Pope Clement XIV that with short Lord and Redeemer ( of 21 July 1773 suppressed the Society of Jesus …
          Applying his method, many in the course of history could have been the “false prophet” Apocalypse, having done things much “worst” the commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, within which she can naturally attestarci that everything worked absolutely perfectly from a canonical point of view, theological, religious, educational and administrative, true?
          Certain, before arriving to the Franciscans of the Immaculate went browse numerous congregations and also several historical orders, Jesuits included.
          Without Peter, my dear, you can not be faithful to any Catholic doctrine, because the supreme guardian of Catholic doctrine is he.
          The reigning pontiff can make gestures external questionable what we want – and performs them – but until now has never failed in any way to the truth and to the tenets of the Catholic faith.
          He wants it to him say clearly to close these fruitless polemical speeches?
          Soon said: if the Supreme Pontiff wore the solemn pontifical vestments of Blessed Pius IX, sit on the golden throne and wearing the tiara, then it overlooked the central loggia of St. Peter and proferisse an authentic Trinitarian heresy (is an example paradoxical), she and her would defend it to the hilt as coated outwardly of all that for certain are the true and only substances, that is: accidents external (formal and non-substantial) by their very nature are changing.
          Do not like me, either the old pants blacks transpiring sloppily from white robe of the Holy Father, nor I like wearing certain vestments cheesy with all the good things that's in the sacristy of St. Peter, where closets overflowing vestments that are mostly the result of love and art of the hands of so many artisans and embroiderers who have donated to the Holy See; but the old pants blacks that transpire from the white robe is not for me to object and theological and ecclesiological to question the authority of the Roman Pontiff based substances eternal and immutable: “You are Petrus”.

  15. From younger brother in faith, I find it useful comparison also “sour” with interventions gianlub, lashes are challenging its, I do not think animated only by polemic. Purses, perhaps too much crowd in some circumstances but equally immediate, passionate is your replica that allows you to reiterate in terms more intelligible what teaches the Church's teaching about the role of the Pope, the different natures of his utterances. Your right distinction: full, absolute respect and obedience to the Vicar of Christ. While there esimete dall'assestare now tiratine small ears, Pray fraternally, healthy corrections, now express firm, salacious disagreement with the utterances incorrect, erroneous or simply not appropriate for a prince of the Church, some pastors, of alleged priori, theologians fashion, etc..

    Today, you talk too much of the Church “worldly”, of its external aspects, factions, of the sides in the hierarchy, of “alleged novelty pastoral”…
    It says very little about the Church of God,the mission received from Jesus and almost forgotten: go and preach… the Church for the souls of…

  16. Thank father Cavalcoli for article. Fully agree with the fact that you want to introduce sophistical distinctions between degrees of the Magisterium on truth is error lefevriano: when he is called to the firm adherence of intellect and will to a formula of the Magisterium concerning faith or morals, pain of mortal sin, you can not believe that this formula is erroneous: to more, we admit that he could not understand it.
    Rather, I was surprised by the allusion to interviews: from sources that I consider reliable (old site totustuus) I had been taught that only the encyclical letter up there is certainly no this error. The issue had been raised in relation to the interview-book 'Light of the World’ when, however falsifying the meaning of the words of the Supreme Pontiff, you wanted to believe they have cleared through customs condom use in certain circumstances. Beyond tendentious interpretation, I remember that was also made this clarification.

Leave a Reply to gianlub Cancel reply

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

 characters remaining

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