The extent to which a Pope who doesn't listen to anyone except himself may fall into error?

THE EXTENT TO WHICH A POPE WHO DOESN'T LISTEN TO ANYONE EXCEPT HIMSELF MAY FALL INTO ERROR?

 

The statement of the Holy Father: "I decided, Notwithstanding anything to the contrary ' should cheer the Bishops, that far from being questioned, You may have thus earned an essay about what is the real concept of "collegiality" of the Prince of the Apostles and Head of the Apostolic College, in case any of them meant to express opposition, because every apostolic college always ends up having to ineffable grace of the Holy Spirit Chief who deserves.

 

 

Author Father Ariel
Author
Ariel S. Levi Gualdo

The priest Ariel S. Levi Gualdo aggressively, the Dominican Giovanni Cavalcoli more mitigated, They have written harsh words against Lefebvre. Today Pope Francis said: «[…] I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to grant to all priests for the Jubilee Year the faculty of absolving from the sin of abortion and those who have procured contrite of heart will ask forgiveness […] Meantime, moved by the need to match the welfare of these faithful, for my own hand I establish that many during the Holy Year of Mercy come near to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation at the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, validly and lawfully receive absolution of their sins " [cf. document WHO]. Should it not apologize by you for all that you have written in the past against the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X?

Alessio Maffei

Dear Reader

Father Pio
Saint Pio in the confessional in San Giovanni Rotondo

First of all I tell her that I apologize to Lefebvre heretics - that these in fact are and remain - when I will impose my Diocesan Ordinary and after the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or his acting guardian will have shown me one by one the doctrinal errors, canonical and pastoral in which they are incurred during those past all of my writings found in the archive of 'Patmos Island; I hereby confirm that the writings in their substance on the floor dogmatic and canon from first to last.

The statement of the Holy Father: "I decided, Notwithstanding anything to the contrary ' should cheer the Bishops, that far from being questioned he may have thus earned an essay about what is the real concept of "collegiality" of the Prince of the Apostles, if any of them wished to express legitimate concerns, because every apostolic college always ends up having to ineffable grace of the Holy Spirit Chief who deserves, because between the lines - and even so between the lines - the Holy Father said to them all: “I do what I want and how I want, no matter what you may think of you”. And that unlike his predecessor too mild Supreme crucified for years even the worst criticisms of the bishops, not to mention those of the theologians or those at times furious that authentic ecclesial plague these are the feminist theologians. That is what we should remember that Benedict XVI proceeded to the remission of the excommunication in which incorsero the consecrating bishops and bishops consecrated without papal mandate in June 1988, only "after extensive consultation ', as reported in 2009 Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos at the time insider [see WHO].

At the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth century he reigned in France, Louis XIV [1643-1715], also known as Re Sole. He ascended the throne at the tender age of five years under the regency of his mother Anne of Austria. At the age of 13 year old, in 1651, He was declared an adult and therefore capable of governing, even if the government continued to be exercised by Cardinal Jules Mazarin [1602-1661], natural death which he assumed full royal powers. His government was marked by the so-called absolutism, soon imitated by most European monarchs. A Louis XIV is attributed the dubious phrase the state is me [the state is me] variously reported and disseminated by various authors as well the legislation is me [the law is me].

I sincerely believe that the Holy Father Francis is so humble that it never would behave as if "The Church is me"Come on up"Law is me”. Pope Francis is in fact so open to everything, including what is not Catholic, and is so "liberal" or "revolutionary" - to use two misnomers flush with the injury to the person of the Roman Pontiff used from that passionaria Argentine Elisabetta Piqué [1] and an international press that has not really clear the role of Peter's Successor - that never would behave in an arbitrary and impulsive; never would behave as if the Church was his or if he could safely go beyond the ecclesiastical laws, up to model a Church ad personam.

It is not by chance, until a few decades ago the Roman Pontiff spoke using “We “, or so-called the plural of majesty, which had nothing redundant or imperial but much rather a theological and pastoral, as demonstrated by the fact that once removed the “We ” inevitably it took over the’ “I“, up to the most extreme forms and exasperating to the pontificate customization. Not so “We ” that makes impersonal the holy Petrine ministry first reminding Peter that he is in fact Peter and no longer Simone, wrong’ “I ” Instead customizes the papacy and who may run the risk of making a hostage of Peter Simone whims.

Without worth clarify misunderstanding: being the Roman Pontiff covered with a power that to him comes from Christ and certainly not from God Sovereign people or from Democratic Parliament of Cardinals who elected him, he has full and legitimate right to say “No” also proposed, directives or reforms unanimously approved by an ecumenical council, because nothing could ever become binding law or doctrine of the Church without his approval. When in fact in the ecumenical councils or synods of bishops will vote, what happens to Peter has clear what is the thought of the College of the Apostles, but then, Who ultimately decides he is; and its decisions are not taken in majority of parliamentary votes but by the grace of the state of the Apostles Prince Successor [2] which it acts and which should always act as “We ” and certainly not as “I “.

As regards the law: the Roman Pontiff has full and immediate authority over the whole Church. He is the supreme legislator and as such has a legitimate right to abolish, to change, reformulate or otherwise disregarded the rules of the Code of Canon Law at any time you want [3]. What this usually occurs through decrees, papal bulls, or other specific acts of his supreme magisterium, not through interviews, speeches off the cuff or private messages, because the Roman Pontiff, supreme guardian of the deposit of faith is also the supreme teacher, and a teacher is such to the extent that explains and makes comprehensible his explanations through the pious teaching newcomers to pick prudence and wisdom. And here it is worth remembering that prudence is the first of the four cardinal virtues [4], Wisdom is the first of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit [5].

It pains me to say what others do not seem to have the courage to say: what the Holy Father has is unfortunately wrong pastorally. It is also an obvious error, one of many that day after day pass under the silence of the bishops, and that are intended to add to the confusion that winds in the Church and among the members already too confused the People of God.

A heart anything but lightweight I say that what is pastorally wrong for this simple reason: priests consecrated priests in the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, under the Code of Canon Law are valid but illicit [6], so they do not administer and can not lawfully administer the Sacraments, as explained by the Venerable Pope Benedict XVI clarified that the lifting of the excommunication does not erase the fact that so-called Lefebvrians can not precisely lawfully administer the Sacraments:

"To this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they were freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church " [7].

Said in other terms: their priestly ordination is valid, because it governed by a bishop who in turn has been validly but illicitly consecrated. This validity nothing detracts from the unlawful, precisely because it is illegal as well as serious priests consecrate the priests not in communion with Rome. And as is well known so-called Lefebvre deny the validity of the last council of the Church and almost all the new disciplines which followed them from the doctrinal, not only on what is "merely" pastoral.

I do not know what has prompted the Holy Father to give that option to the priests illicitly ordained and as such are suspended that fact from the exercise of the sacred ministry very act of their sacred ordination. Indeed, the so-called Lefebvre priests, still not in communion with Rome and derogatory today's Magisterium of the Church, they accused of being slipped for half a century apostasy [8], They may lawfully administer confessions in one case: to a person in serious danger of life. What this can do - and indeed must do - even an excommunicated priest and dismissed from the clerical state [9].

So the Roman Pontiff, which also can abolish laws, reform laws and create new laws as and when he wants, It is not at the same time above the doctrine of the Church, even if all the bishops, either for cowardice, Look for interest, on certain utterances confused and ambiguous silent so guilty; and that up to gravarsi for omission spirit dictated perhaps by the quiet life or some of their irrepressible career aspirations, such a liability that could throw open the gates of tomorrow to several of them. Can not be done, indeed, silent on the obvious. They should silence those of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and should not be silent canonists that inhabit the palace of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, because we are dealing with an error that it does not seem to take into account a blatant obviousness: the sacraments are not available right, even for the Church herself who received them in custody by God and that dispenses them as actions of supernatural grace; them pantry, but do not own them. No one is given the opportunity, even the Roman Pontiff, to dispose of them in an arbitrary manner, concedendone the “licit” Directors who in fact has erected its own being, exist and operate right on the unit's denial and the stubborn refusal of the Magisterium of the Church of the last fifty years. The Roman Pontiff is called to "confirm his brothers in faith" [10], not to legitimize them in error, has not confonderli, not to divide them with blows of ambiguity.

More complex still the discussion related to the dogmatic sacramental, before which seems shaky silence the army of monsignorini in force at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, most of whom also teach at various universities and pontifical universities: the essence of the sacraments and their metaphysical substance is based on the unit [11]. I celebrate the Mass and administer the sacraments because I am a priest in full communion with the Bishop, from which emanates and is dependent on the priesthood that I received for the mystery of grace, after a solemn promise to lend him "devout and filial obedience", because it is from the Eucharist the Bishop invested apostolic power which proceeds the validity of Masses celebrated by his priests. The bishop is not that just as such, but because in turn it is in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, and be in communion means above all accept, respect, apply and spread among the members of the People of God, the doctrine and the Magisterium of the Church, certainly not affirm and teach - as do instead Lefebvre - that the doctrines of the entire ecumenical council are misleading and the teaching that follows is even "apostate".

Regarding this last speech I would much more to add especially as it regards the nature and substance of the Sacraments. But I leave the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with which precisely worked an army of monsignorini variously doctors and professors, the answer to the following question: according to the discipline of the sacraments built on dogmatic sacramental, It may be granted right to lawfully administer the sacraments to priests and bishops who deny communion with Peter and with the College of the Apostles, and who for decades are accusing one another of apostasy from the Catholic faith, since the Supreme Pontiffs who have succeeded on the Chair of Peter from 1958 today? Why conventional canonical and pseudo farisaismi pseudo theology of Lefebvre we have been known for four decades: one part, They claim to be celebrated in communion with the Church (!?), spread across texts and documents that indicate as heretics the Roman Pontiffs and the Bishops.

It should be pointed out to all those who lack the gift of memory that the heretical Superior General Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X was not limited to apostrofare as “heretic” the Holy Father Francis … much more! The Roman Pontiff has given this public definition: "We have before us a true modernist!» [see WHO]. It said this memory, to always deficient in memory and perhaps even theological culture, that modernism, according to the wise and always current definition of the Saint Pius X, It is not a simple heresy, but the mother and the repository of all the heresies. From this we may conclude that to deserve respect, the pastoral care, the tenderness and mercy of the Holy Father Francis - it goes without saying, It is a paradoxical question - you have accidentally accuse him publicly of being “repository of all the worst heresies“, as did the Head of Lefebvrians?

If these subjects is made that concession, well as on the occasion of the Jubilee Year, without that they have repented and without first having publicly asked forgiveness from the Roman Pontiff from them insulted bad words, and held up as a true heretic; if they do not fall into the full communion of unity with Rome, how far you can run the risk of turning into an available Sacramento good of which you can use and perhaps abuse arbitrarily? Because the Church is "sacrament of unity" [12] and if the discipline of the sacraments has been reformed under the merciful pontificate of Pope Francis, who has decided to render lawful the administration also to those who disparaging the doctrine and the magisterium deny their communion with the Church "apostate" of the "secret meeting" Vatican II and which does not recognize the acts of the subsequent magisterium 1958 [see WHO], then I demand that the pundits of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments we do so knowing clearly and quickly as possible, so that we priests can take note of the fact that the state is me [the state is me] and that the legislation is me [the law is me], then act accordingly by increasing our prayers, our penance and, if anything, putting even shouting: every man for himself ! Because if the Holy Father was not clear the nature of the supreme apostolic ministry of which he is covered by the mystery of grace - ministry which does not belong to him but that he was given in comodato d'uso to serve the Church and guide her as supreme servant - to us the whole thing is rather clear: no concessions should be made of any kind to people who for four decades accuse the Church of apostasy from the faith and covering insults of Peter and the entire College of the Apostles, because this is not mercy; and if these are the premises of the Year Jubilee of Mercy, as I said above … every man for himself !

________________________________________

NOTE

[1] CF. Elisabetta Piqué, Francesco, Life and Revolution [see WHO].

[2] CF. dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 8 [see WHO].

[3] CF. Code of Canon Law, can. 331-335 [see WHO].

[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1806.

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1830.

[6] CF. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382-1384 [see WHO].

[7] Letter of the Holy Father Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of 4 bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, 10 March 2009 [see WHO]; Note from the Secretary of State about the four bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, 4 February 2009 [see WHO].

[8] Statement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre on the apostasy of Rome, see WHO

[9] Code of Canon Law, the Sacrament of Penance [can. 965-986], see in particular can. 976.

[10] CF. LC. 22,32.

[11] CF. Blessed Paul VI, Unitatis redintegratio [see WHO]

[12] CF. dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, NN. 1-8 [see WHO]; Code of Canon Law, can. 837 [see WHO]

About isoladipatmos

16 thoughts on "The extent to which a Pope who doesn't listen to anyone except himself may fall into error?

  1. I'm not a theologian nor a scholar, but I believe that Don Levi err. The lefvreniani administer the sacraments with invalid power, but not lawful, missing the ordinary consensus for the full-blown no communion of them with Rome. However, like the sacraments of lefevreniani priests are valid and lawful deathbed, the pope may extend this exception temporally for the Jubilee. Not being a permanent decision, but it dictated by the will to administer the Mercy to the many faithful, so that even wise up, It remains an exception that does not change the rule. Unfortunately it seems that the first reactions from the tradi-Protestants do not want to admit their heresy, on the contrary… Boh!

  2. Reverend and dear Father Ariel,
    I'm not here to power a fan of the famous Island Club… hum, scusi 🙂 dell’Isola di Patmos perchè non ne avete bisogno, but I would like to expose a question I also inherent to the subject.
    Time ago, as it is well known how – with the consent of Pope Francis – his successor in Buenos Aires, a fact probably fell like cheese on macaroni – because it was a political problem – has “due” show the merciful face of the Church recognizing the SSPX which hinged community (This is the term used) in the diocese of Buenos Aires and it does not show that the incardination has taken steps to specify that the SSPX could not exercise the sacramental ministry, give the sacraments to speak, in the Diocese that had welcomed.
    The question is why this: if the Pope did this (and perhaps the real reasons we do not know them or not we know them), is not consistent then even his choice to recognize that elsewhere these sacraments are valid? The problem is, if anything, this: because only for a Year? and those who are in Buenos Aires may continue?

  3. This time, Ariel expensive gift, I disagree with you. I state that I am not a doctor of Ius Caninicum, therefore “if I'm wrong you corrigerete”.
    I would say that the validity of the sacraments is ontological and substantial question, the lawfulness instead issue after all bureaucratic and formal accounts.
    Now,the Roman Pontiff has recognized the power to override any bureaucratic formalities, being able to dispense anyone from any norm of human right (and not divine, obvious). Therefore, if the Pope intends to use this power, I do not see what the problem is. We can discuss the advisability of such a measure, but I do not know if we can discuss the effectiveness of the act. Also because I have the impression that she will eventually place implicitly calls into question the very validity of these sacraments, which, however, it is out of the question.
    Do not forget that it is still an extraordinary and temporary measure, linked to a temporary and extraordinary event which in fact is a Jubilee.

    PS: beyond the sacramental, Now Lefebvre can no longer say that this Pope is merciful to all (potestanti, Communists, atheists, etc) except with…

  4. Father forgive me my ignorance. If I understand correctly, the Pope was wrong, form and substance, regarding lefreviani.
    It is not that the Pope – blackberries usually intolerant of rules, with instinctive impulse rather than prudence – pastorally wanted to put in a position to benefit from the Jubilee indulgence as many Christian sinners, including those who attend the Society of St. Pius X (faithful who certainly do not know all the canonical provisions and are certainly not to blame for the indiscipline of their pastors)? Given the extraordinary nature of the event, (Luca 15, 1-10), for the conversion and salvation of the sheep could not configure the danger was?
    The papal decision is curable ex ante before the opening date of the Jubilee or it could be ex post? And how?
    The case is not comparable to what he writes MARCO 2,23-28 “….. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath! Therefore the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath "?

    1. Dear readers.

      I respond briefly to the four comments on trying to make as much as possible the idea of ​​the problem:

      1. to a young man to his girlfriend he poses as a condition for marriage a solemn promise and the binding commitment not to have children, we should rightly be denied the wedding, for the simple fact that the marriage would de facto no;

      2. to a sick person who approves euthanasia and has itself consciously and decided euthanasia and that requires and demands, we should rightly be denied funeral obsequies;

      3. a German Catholic who does not pay the religious tax (church tax) They can be denied the sacraments, I myself I relate in my book 2011 when in Monaco of Bavaria I administered the sacrament of the sick to a dying person from whom the priest had refused to go because for years he did not pay more “cult taxes” and which, moreover, had ceased to pay for sacrosanct protest a grave injustice suffered really;

      etc. … etc. …

      By contrast, however,, to the schismatic Catholics who deny the validity of an entire ecumenical council, who do not accept its disciplines, who do not consider valid the Magisterium of the Church since the 1958 on, who took even the liberty to declare that the Catholic Church has fallen into apostasy, that the Supreme Pontiff is a modernist heretic and just as the bishops, but especially that often have, not a few of them, an erroneous theological perception of the same sacramental grace, It is instead granted authority to administer the sacrament of confession delicate, because the Church understood as “sacrament of unity”, probably it became a kind of optional.

      This is the issue that I raise, just this; and frankly it seems understandable, logic and also relevant.

  5. Not by the merits.
    I only say that the outcome of “question Lefebvrian” It is possible thanks to Pope Francis (and steps previously made, I do not want to remove merits to predecessors).
    I am deeply convinced that this solution will do good to the Church.
    Besides Bishop. Fellay seems to me from another planet compared to the Secretary of the IEC and the various “don” with the pastoral.

  6. Forgive me Father, the response and the examples given just not convincing.
    In the first two cases we speak of manifest will of individuals (I do not know how much free, conscious and responsible in choosing, but fragile, immature in faith) not to observe the discipline of the Catholic sacraments, they essentially them “refuse”, not recognizing the submission to God.
    The German case is more emblematic and serious; next to simony that rejection of Extreme Unction: the Church has perhaps not received the mandate to preach Christ and to administer his sacraments FREE? It was God's will that you were there and intervened for the salvation of that soul!
    Concretely, the Church can disregard the mandate received: feeding the sheep and save souls? Did not Jesus favored the simple, the poor in spirit, the humble sinners who understand little or nothing of the rigor of the law and of theological and dogmatic quarrels between their shepherds, disobedient and offensive, and the Pope? It does not belong to Peter, in the power of the Spirit, full authority even if casually expressed? Perhaps lacking the trappings? The Jubilee is a unique act of Peter for conversion.

  7. Porto to the attention of the beloved Don Ariel the counter-response to this article which provided Simon, one of the founders of the Cross-way blog.
    this Article, mind you, He does not want to be a fact but rather a starting point for further reflection that might also involve our two telematic warheads toward a collective effort of understanding of the Holy Father's actions, understanding that in our view must always seek to answer is the conscience that the Catholic faith, under the light of a tied hand in glove with a hermeneutic principle of charity.
    I take this opportunity to thank you, Father Cavalcoli and the whole island Editors for the work you do!
    here it is:

    http://pellegrininellaverita.com/2015/09/03/fsspx-in-stato-di-necessita-risposta-a-don-ariel/

    Enjoy the reading!

  8. Sincerely, canonically I'm talking with our Simon (and I trust in the fact that the souls of those concerned will benefit) but 'pastoral', are much more’ puzzled. At a 'son’ that disobeys and boasts of its disubbidienza..non is an award-granting; it si fa, I think loooong more’ reasonable to assume that such a premium is…misunderstood, not as a 'concession father’ but as a form of approval '. Non so, we'll see….

  9. Rev. Father,
    I would point out that this article contains interesting notes:

    There are a few canonical ambiguities in the Holy Father’s letter that need clarifications so that his desires can be implemented appropriately.

    for instance
    “..First, what is the canonical weight of this letter? It is not a law (Canon 8ff). It is not a general decree (Canon 29). It is not a general executory decree (Canon 31). It is not a canonical “instruction” (Canon 34). It is not indicated to be a motu proprio (of his own initiative). … ”

    Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/some-canonical-question-regarding-pope-francis-year-of-mercy-indulgence/#ixzz3kkSWnPtv

    1. Dear Ettore,

      Blessed Paul VI and John Paul II had all the more serious and proven reasons to dissolve the Society of Jesus. If they did they would first of all respected the memory of their holy Founder and the saints so that it has given in the past to the Church, before changing into another and often in serious harm to the Church, especially in Latin America and in the East. But they decided not to do so, although “tempted” to do so, having definitely all their good reasons dictated by prudence and wisdom.

  10. Rev. Padre Ariel,
    there is an enormous uproar sparked by Motu Papa Francesco Own, Even more than the letter of the Jubilee. Before a shot “merciful” the sacraments of penance and the priestly order, then the reception of migrants set to parishes, now a stronger blow to the sacrament of marriage (by simplifying the procedures for dissolution, the sacred bond is objectively debased in the perception of ordinary people) So that the media applaud the “indissolubility cancellation” and talk about “Catholic divorce 30 days” , even Avvenire – the newspaper of C And I get to owner: This innovation helps to live new unions (SIC)! Some on the contrary tear their hair judging permissive, lax and worldly such measures: instead of protecting the fence to protect the sheep in it kept, open the gates to facilitate the escape; more disoriented and confused silently suffer and pray,
    Mala tempora currunt, as in Babylon, then came the punishment of God

  11. Rev. Father,
    I read this news today, given the time likely.
    “In a small town in the Marche procession yesterday evening Mass in honor of Our Lady of Sorrows which is carried on a pilgrimage every night in a different church where the Eucharist is celebrated with a congregation. After the first reading and the responsorial psalm is announced second reading:”From the words of Pope Francis”, and it is read a passage from a speech. At the end of this “second reading”, as usual, It is told:”word…..of the church”. A moment of awkward silence, and eventually responds:”We give thanks to God” ”

    Maybe I'm wrong, I am aware that the celebrant can choose the texts of the readings (the first from the Old Testament and the Acts of the Apostles, the second by the letters of the apostles) only among those suggested by the lectionary, I understand that you can propose new texts at its discretion, even if it captured the papal speeches! This priest does not deserve a slap on the wrist?

Leave a Reply