The question of heresy and heretics, Yesterday and Today

THE QUESTION OF HERESY AND HERETICS, YESTERDAY AND TODAY

Any faithful firmly in faith, sensitive to the good of souls, well informed of the case, can pronounce, with caution and after careful consideration, the note of heresy against another faithful; can also report it, if you believe and if that can serve the good of the heretic and that of the faithful […]

 

Author John Cavalcoli OP
Author
John Cavalcoli OP
the question of heresy heresy today
the work of the Dominican theologian John Cavalcoli, The question of heresy today [see WHO]

A term delicate but important Christian language, use with caution, in appropriate circumstances and with knowledge of the facts, is to “heresy”, which consists in general in the choice (AIRESIS, heresy) a false proposition in doctrine of faith or in the suppression or denial or doubt volunteers of some truths of faith. Now, because faith is truth, heresy is a false proposition against the doctrine of the faith. The heretic does not welcome with true faith (fides through) everything (faith) The Church, at various levels of authority, gives us to believe as is contained in the deposit of Revelation, whose sources are Scripture and Tradition. Instead, he does a sorting arbitrary; that is, maybe considering themselves directly illuminated by God, subjectively choose between the contents of faith only those that please him or make him comfortable or is complying with its reason. Which shows the lack of a true faith, even if the subject accepts other content, because those who believe, welcomes with confidence all that the authority reveals. Vice versa, is precisely when it comes to unique data or homogeneous to reason, that reason has the right and duty to do a screen according to his principles and his method and take only what is in accordance with reason and can be intuited or proven by reason. Instead the truths of faith do not conflict with reason, but are however higher, as divine truths, so, if there can be harmony between reason and faith, given that the one and the other is based in God, such harmony does not allow the right to make themselves evident truths, who are most certain, but for her mysterious and transcendent.

giovanna bow
Joan of Arc led the French army against the English during the Hundred Years War. Captured by the Burgundians was sold to the English that on trial for heresy. The 30 May 1431 was burned alive at the stake. In 1456 the Pope Callistus III declared void that process. In 1909 was beatified by Pope Pius X and canonized in 1920 by Pope Benedict XV.

This inconsistency intellect heretic with the truth and therefore its false notion, which also appears true to him, can be conscious and intentional, or it may be unconscious and involuntary. In the first case gives a grave offense, because it suppresses or falsifies the faith under the angle of that proposition. And since every truth of faith is necessary for salvation, heresy compromises salvation, even if it is a single proposition, as just one mortal sin to take away the grace. So likewise in an organism, any corruption or dysfunction of a vital organ, although others remain healthy, causes the death of the subject.

In the second case, the subject does not know to be in error, why not to blame. Assuming that he loves the truth, if it is lit, easily corrects. Instead the heretic volunteer, since it is attached to its error, although refuted, persists in restargli attacked as it prefers its judgment for that of the Church, that warns him of his heresy, that he continues to profess no love for the truth, but because it suits them or for pride or for other interests unrelated to love the truth.
The heretic is not simply those who deny a truth of faith or dogma, but it is the Catholic who betrays the faith through heresy. For this, those subjects, as for example the Protestants, born in a Protestant and receive an education Protestant, though in their doctrines are contained objectively heresies, can not properly be called “heretics”, but, according to the expression coined by St. John XXIII, and entered into use, they are “separated brethren“, They, as the Council teaches, belong to the Church, but without being in full communion, for which the Bond hopes that one day they enter the Catholic Church [see WHO].

Donatist heretics
Sant'Agostino dispute with heretics Donatists, painting by Carl Van Loo (1753)

Heresy is opposed to revealed truth or faith, it is the Word of God, either dogma or is the doctrine of the Church. It questions the true and the false suspect; exchanges the true with the false and the false with the true; the appearance with the truth and the truth with appearance; relativize the absolute and the relative absoluteness; makes changing the unchanging and unchangeable the changing; confuses what is distinct; opposes that which is joined; takes the part for the whole (“ideology”) and the whole for the part.
The New Testament, while considering inevitable heresies because of the weakness and human malice [The Cor 11,19], considers heresies as “doctrines of devils” [The Tm 4,1] and warns against the heretics [Tt 3,10]. The heretic 'refuses to turn to the truth to give heed to fables " [II Tm 4,4]. It is a “Antichrist” which separates from the Christian community [The Gv 2,19]. Heresy is a wisdom “earthly, fleshly, evil” [GC 3,15]. San Giovanni is severe against heretics: must stay away from them: "Who goes further and does not adhere to the doctrine of Christ, do not receive him into your house nor greet; because who greets him, participates in his evil deeds " [II Jn 11].

heretic Giordano Bruno
the famous statue erected in honor of Giordano Bruno in Campo dei Fiori in Rome after the unification of Italy. The Bruno underwent a long process from 1592. In 1599 the Inquisition invited him to recant seven propositions heretical. After the sentence was made to spend another year during which the invitation was repeated several times. The judges of the Inquisition, in addition to condemning his heresies, for years tried to save him.

The Church from the beginning, in the decrees of the Popes and Councils, after an appropriate warning heretic, if these are not corrected, was always careful to point out the heretics to the community and possibly punish them, so that the same caution and avoided their mistake. A disciplinary canon is excommunication, the so-called anathema, which has the task of clarifying that the heretic, because of his heresy, can not be considered as a member of that community, which is founded on the truth that he refuses. However the Church, even in the case of heretics, not always resorts to excommunication, but it also has other means and ways to stimulate and induce the sinner to repent and abandon his error.

However, while an excommunication can be removed, when the Church condemns heresy, as is demonstrated by the story itself [see WHO], not ever withdraws his judgment [see WHO, WHO], because it is considered that the Church is infallible in this type of judgments, touching, albeit sub contrario, the doctrine of the faith.

In canon law heresy is configured as a felony or misdemeanor, which can then be punished after due process, initiated following a complaint made to the competent judicial authority of the Church, from the Episcopal and Roman. Today the heresy trials are very rare. The pastors prefer interventions less formalized and more soft or ductile, as the case, promoting the good qualities of the heretic and aiming more than punishment, correction. This style more evangelical and more respectful of the person of the heretic and confident in the ability of self-defense of a people of God duly informed in those truths that are denied heretic, originates from the pastoral and canonical reform promoted by the Second Vatican Council, which, while condemning serious errors of the modern world, not ever pronounce the word “heresy” preferring equivalent expressions. Nor are the traditional canons against heretics.

Aryan heresy
ancient fresco depicting the heretic Arius

Heresy in the strongest sense is the denial of a dogma solemnly and explicitly defined [doctrine ex cathedra]. But as the Magisterium of the Church teaches infallibly the truths of faith or related to the faith even at two levels or lower mode of authority, such was the case for the doctrines of Vatican II [see my previous article WHO], those who do not accept these doctrines of authority less, certainly not would sin against the divine faith and therefore could not be considered properly heretic; and yet his mistake could be qualified as “next heresy” (heresy neighbor), to heresy (heresy wise) or at least disobedient to the authentic Magisterium of the Church: offensive of the pious ears (pious ears relentless).

heretics agostino Pietro della francesca
St. Augustine in a depiction of Peter della Francesca. The Ipponate was staunch in combat heresy of Pelagius

Any faithful firmly in faith, sensitive to the good of souls, well informed of the case, can pronounce, with caution and after careful consideration, the note of heresy against another faithful; can also report it, if you believe and if that can serve the good of the heretic and that of the faithful, to the Bishop or to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [see our previous article WHO]. It is therefore not necessary to consider heresy or heretics only those doctrines or those who have been explicitly condemned by the Church. Certain, of these heresies you can have absolute certainty and condemn our part can give great strength to our judgment. But nobody prevents us, indeed the’love Christi that No urgencywith, urges us to take note of the heresies that are in circulation, and several, to see what can be done to remedy it.

Undoubtedly the scrutiny and judgment of heresies is not easy. You must have a great love for the truth and be animated by a great charity: must be well prepared in Catholic doctrine and know how to interpret the sayings and writings of others. Efforts should be interpreted in good, unless the error is not obvious. It should, however, always, in principle, put in mind of being able to make mistakes in interpreting or judging: or too severe or too mild. A proposition that seems heretical to the letter, namely, according to the objective meaning, own and coherent words, may not be heretical in intentions and in that meaning, that did not express the goods or property of language, but meant another thing, on balance, is Orthodox.

porridge heretics dante
Farinata Dante illustrates the condition of heretics condemned to eternal damnation

The Church condemns always, when it does, heresy to the letter, that is, in the literal meaning, as objectively causes harm to the faithful and inspires followers, perhaps without the author's name, not to address the issue of sometimes thorny what he meant exactly the author, but the thing from a pastoral point of view does not interest. The important thing is that the faithful be preserved from error and know what the truth is the opposite.

The Church is the author's name, when it is a doctrine of his own or intends to censor the leading exponent or the initiator of a heretical movement or when the adherents of this movement may be crafty in decline or hide their responsibilities. Today, however, the Church often avoids to name, to prevent an exaggerated opposition to the heretic, that a failure to recognize the qualities, which can be also great and beneficial for other reasons.

heresy rosmini
Blessed Antonio Rosmini

Today, however, especially - See for example the case of Blessed Antonio Rosmini - the Church, making use of the most advanced methods and means of hermeneutics, as for example the method of contextualization, historicizing, or the variety of languages ​​and ways of expression or the same psychology author, seeks to highlight any good intentions or good faith of the author, thus exonerating evidence least heresy “formal”, ie guilty and admit only a '”heresy material”, unconscious and involuntary, that saves the innocence of the author.

luterro heretics 95 thesis
Martin Luther affixes 95 theses on the church door in Wittenberg. Perhaps no one had ever explained that the door of the church is “Christ brings salvation” and “leads the flock“, if he had learned, would try another place to drive nails and heresies …

You can not admit instead that the Church is wrong interpreting the thought of an author, so as to convict him wrongly for heresy. The goddess then certain false ecumenists, according to which the Council of Trent would not understand Luther is absolutely false and the attempt to present it as a Catholic is not understood well because absolutely lost, after five centuries of studies most learned and numerous interventions of the Magisterium concerning him.

Ecumenism desired by the Council is certainly a blessing and a gift of the Holy Spirit, as agreement between Catholics and Protestants in the truths that were common; but let's not make the Trojan horse to let the heresies of Luther in the Church, this would no longer be the Holy Spirit, Demon ma. And we already have evidence of the confusion created by the modernists, which, as already observed in the St. Pius X Pascendi Dominici Gregis, students are Protestants [see our previous articles WHO, WHO]. If anything, are these false ecumenists, who have not understood neither Luther nor the Council of Trent. But they are causing a serious damage, as they prevent the authority that today we remember the heresies of Luther. But if circulate as circulating heresies Lutheran, in disguise, without the authority intervenes, the fact remains that they continue heresies; However, it is conceivable that in certain cases the inaction of authority is motivated by valid reasons, such an opportunity or avoid a greater evil and therefore also less noble reasons, such as negligence or human respect.

heretics Rota judges
seated judges of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura

Considering the content heretical or supposed such or para-heretical, necessary to determine the amount or extent or the weight of the error, to what degree of authority of the Church opposes it, than you away from the truth, the damage it causes, those that traditionally are called “theological notes”. The alleged error is opposed to a dogma or only to a doctrine of the Church or only a theological opinion? When satisfied that the magnitude of the error, must first groped to persuade the heretic face to face, as required by the Gospel. The public denunciation of error should be done only if the heretic refuses correction and if his heresy seduces many. For a small blaze may suffice two buckets of water. But for a fire, you have to call the fire department. This is why Christ says, if your brother does not listen in private conversation or in dealing with the thing between two or three, be given to the Church [cf. LC 17, 1-4; Mt 18, 15-17].

Heresy is not just a contrary opinion that does not affect the unity of the faith, but instead it corrupts the faith. Woe to eresiaq opinionstreated as a heretic who simply has a contrary or different! But woe to let it go heresies that send perishing souls under the pretext of freedom of thought or theological pluralism! Theological certainty and assurance of faith are two different things. Today we tend to reduce everything to opinion, the certitudes of faith: for this, if someone falls into heresy, you think that simply has a different opinion. You do not give weight to the fact that a certain modernism and a certain reactionary traditionalism are heresies. Or the opposite occurs: those who think differently from me is a heretic. Must recover the objective criteria for evaluations and not get carried away with prejudices, by emotion and partisanship. Otherwise, that Catholics, that “Universal” we are, if everyone wants to pull the sacred name of a Catholic on his side?

heresy error
to err is human, but to persevere is diabolical

Necessary to distinguish the error in the theological or exegetical heresy. The theologian and exegete deal some of the doctrine of faith or the Church, but by their science, which certainly is founded on principles of faith and dogma; but theology and exegesis build their knowledge by putting in place and using methods and cognitive methods elaborated by reason.
This involves the fact that the reason, being fallible, can not go wrong in two ways: or within his own proceed, and then we have the error; or as the reason interprets the truth of faith, the biblical data or dogmatic, and then we have the heresy. If for example an exegete is wrong nell'ubicare a city or in interpreting the nature of a musical instrument of the Old Testament, without this explicit about the Doctrine of the Faith, this is a simple mistake exegetical. If were to say that the Angerli in Scripture are merely symbolic characters and fantastic, it is clear that would fall into heresy.

And so, if a theologian prefer to divide the body into finite and infinite being rather than in the body for essence and heresy to learn from mistakesentity for participation, this does not compromise the Doctrine of the Faith. But if it were to resolve the human person in the relationship, would endanger the dogma of the Holy Trinity, for which only the divine person is subsisting relationship. And if it falls into heresy formally and directly, falls indirectly and consequently (next proposition heresy).

Heresy is properly a thesis rebellious to the doctrine of the Church infallible interpreter of the Word of God. But there is an error against faith even more serious, the maximum degree of the error: blasphemy, which is the verbal insult to the same Word of God, ie to God, to Christ and his teaching, with the attribution to God or Christ of derogatory epithets or attributes, offensive and insulting. Blasphemy, in practice, especially liturgical and sacramental, corresponds sacrilege or impiety.

taking dogma
click on the image to watch the video

Therefore, is given four degrees of authority in the Doctrine of the Faith and for consideration of rebellion to the truth of faith: the maximum degree is the Word of God, which opposes the blasphemy. Below the Word of God, that comes out of the same mouth of Christ, Then there are the teachings of the Church: the highest level is the dogma definit (ex cathedra), object of the Extraordinary Magisterium (Pope and Council) and solemn definition (faith belief).

Under the doctrine is the doctrine close to the faith, object of the simple and ordinary Magisterium (the Pope with bishops around the world); contains the truth logically connected, inferred or assumed, the dogma (Faith held). At this degree opposes the doctrine next heresy. At the lowest level we have the simple authentic Magisterium, which is always faith, but what the Church deduced or derived from his own doctrine. And so too is infallible, However, it was responsible for the religious submission of will. The opposite error is disobedience to the Magisterium of the Church.

Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Who today is concerned or interested in heresies, those who try to locate them and correct them, those who express opinions on them, those allegations formula, reliefs or notes of heresy; the only limit to talk seriously about heresies than those of the first centuries, is often frowned upon especially in environments modernists. We see immediately in him with some irony or discomfort the witch hunter, Cerberus inexorable, the aggressor windmills, a pathetic remnant of the past, the eager pursuer of ghosts, the surplus of the Inquisition, the mind incapable rigid elasticity or ductility, the narrow mind of those who see the enemy in different, the traditionalist retrograde, the arrogant and intolerant without mercy, closed in their outdated ideas, envious of those who succeed, the pedant who seeks nit, the Pharisee who pretends to judge others, he who seeks to dominate consciences, the aspiring bishop shearer's flock.

lord jesus
click on the image to read the text of the Declaration Dominus Jesus

In the name of a misunderstood ecumenism, of a false religious freedom, and a comprehensive dialogue, we have lost the awareness of the universality of the objective truth as well vital common. We are still sensitive, thank God, the sophistication of the food, the danger of epidemics, counterfeiting of currency, rightly together we seek to remedy these evils, aware of their objectivity. But when it comes to ideas, doctrines, intelligible content, truth of reason or faith, here appear the monster nice subjectivism and relativism and thus the indifference to the dangers our and other.

 

Cop_SanTommaso
an interesting work of St. Thomas Aquinas [see WHO]

How much awareness instead had the medieval Christendom of the damage done to all heresy. Not for nothing was spoken of “over heretics”. And St. Thomas did not hesitate to compare precisely the falsification of the faith for the counterfeiting of currency. What sense of the weight of spiritual realities in better or worse! Which vivid perception of the importance of faith in our lives! What consciousness of faith as a common good! There is much talk of truth and faith. And this certainly goes well. But there is little talk or do not know how to speak in due heresy. We have not yet released by the ghosts of the past, that weigh on this fateful word. Some may wish to remove it from the vocabulary; but it is wrong. The Church still uses it and will always use. It is to learn or relearn to use it. Indeed, it is most desirable that the Church organizes research centers, data collection, and care of heresies, as well as in the medical field, there are powerful organizations and structures that study and solve problems as a team and scientifically health.

retraction heresy heretic
pictorial representation of the retraction of the heretic before the Supreme Pontiff

Why would we notice the most flattering advances, with the presence of highly specialized personnel, in the care of the physical health, for which there are many structures, such seriousness and competence, while in the field of spiritual life and in particular the problems concerning the truth and its counterfeits seems to reign indifference, amateurism, backwardness and carelessness? Not only to the Holy See and in large academic institutions, but in every diocese, in every parish, in every religious institute, cultural center in every Catholic layman should exist offices and services well supplied, to help the faithful to discern and defend themselves or to defend others from the poison of heresy. The time has come to speak of heresy seriously, with serenity, objectively, responsibly, with pastoralità, in a climate of fraternal charity and service, without ironies, without anxiety and without hysteria, a powder’ as the doctor speaks of influenza or measles vaccine.

heresy lefebvre consecrates bishops
heresies and heretics modern: the schismatic bishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops illicitly in disobedience to Rome, he declared “fallen into apostasy” because of “heretical doctrines” of Vatican II [view movies WHO and WHO]

Sure heresy is a serious matter, but precisely because this, should be incorporated to talk seriously, calm and informed basis, without leaving it in the hands of seven or extremists, that disqualify and distort the meaning, use it to devour each other and to affirm a petty domination on the conscience of others. Operate against heresy for the victory of truth and then for the salvation of souls, is not a trivial matter.

We need a strong equipment not only cultural, but also spiritual, because, in addition to having to fight against ignorance, the malice and stupidity human, it is also to meet the dangers of the father of lies; from that back very advisable, if not necessary, recourse to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, winner of all heresies.

Varazze, 6 March 2015

Avatar

About isoladipatmos

35 thoughts on "The question of heresy and heretics, Yesterday and Today

  1. Good morning, I have a request for clarification to be addressed to Father Cavalcoli: I would like to know how you configure the pronouncements of a pope by Motu Proprio and, consequently, how to evaluate the position of those who fail to comply or is opposed to these same pronouncements. Thanks.

    1. Cara Giovanna.

      The Motu Proprio, as it says the same expression, are decisions, orders, permits or public pastoral-disciplinary provisions of the Holy Father, directed mostly to the whole Church, issued on his own initiative or the Pope's personal, the validity mostly temporary, no magisterial or doctrinal, why not put papal infallibility at stake.
      however, it is assumed in principle that they are impronati in wisdom and prudence and therefore must be obeyed.
      Disobedience or contempt in principle are objectively grave sin and, if Motu Proprio touches the Government, Business, laws or the pastoral care of the Church Official, It can also lead to schism.

    2. dear Grace.

      The Motu Proprio, as it says the same expression, are decisions, orders, permits or public pastoral-disciplinary provisions of the Holy Father, directed mostly to the whole Church, issued on his own initiative or the Pope's personal, the validity mostly temporary, no magisterial or doctrinal, why not put papal infallibility at stake.
      however, it is assumed in principle that they are impronati in wisdom and prudence and therefore must be obeyed.
      Disobedience or contempt in principle are objectively grave sin and, if Motu Proprio touches the Government, Business, laws or the pastoral care of the Church Official, It can also lead to schism.

  2. Thank you very much, Reverend father, for this light and dense article in its usual calmness exhibition. Certainly there will reflect. There is around, Species Network, such a jumble of words, often proposed as a final and irrefutable, it really becomes difficult to discern truth from falsehood, even hard to recognize the boundary between the Catholic and the fact heretic. Difficult because often the writer arrives with the leading apparel authority, or securities, or expertise, the logical rigor, etc. Come si then wet dritto, as it were, to the main road if you then not only in the secular world, but even within the same Catholic hierarchy emerge positions or different practices? What criterion can be within my reach for a healthy discernment? Therefore often form becomes substance, the way, and charity and authentic wisdom, which they are offered their knowledge and become dirimenti decisive in the choice. At least for me.

    1. Dear Mrs,

      the fundamental criterion for distinguishing the Catholic heretic are the articles of faith that we proclaim every Sunday in the Creed at Mass. A nice comment I think is the Credo of Paul VI, that the Pope published in 1968, readily available in Catholic bookstores, but also wanting to read here:

      http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html
      http://www.masci.it/files/All.%201%20-%20Credo%20del%20popolo%20di%20Dio%20di%20Papa%20Paolo%20VI.pdf

      A much more extensive comment is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
      Good is also the commentary on the Creed of St. John Paul II, published in volumes by Edizioni Piemme.
      To live our faith in the today are fundamental doctrinal teachings of the Second Vatican Council in the interpretation and explanation of the post-conciliar Popes, especially in encyclicals, up to Pope Francis.
      In particular, the Pope's homilies and speeches, when they touch doctrinal issues, are exhibitions of the truths of faith, that serve as a criterion to distinguish truth from falsehood, the dogma heresy.
      The documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), especially those of the post-conciliar, They are useful to know the errors and heresies, from which we must defend ourselves and to learn how to refute them or correct them.
      It would be very useful to be able to head, as a spiritual and theological guidance counselor, to a learned priest and experience, possibly he is teaching in some academic isitituto Church, in full communion with the Church and with the Pope.
      As for theology and morals, They are recommended by the Church especially the works of Santommaso Aquinas and his disciples, as for example the Maritains, Gilson, Fabro, the Sertillanges, the Congar, the Garrigou-Lagrange, Journet, lo Spiazzi, Livi, it Cottier, Parente, the Ciappi, the Cordovani, il Piolanti, Tomas Tyn.
      generally necessary to listen to the bishops and cardinals, which, in Union with the Pope, are teachers of the faith, which is based on divine revelation, whose sources are the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture in the interpretation of the Church.
      It can also read the works of non-Catholics, but be careful to take the good and reject the bad. Be cautious in ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, for example with Islamic, following the rules of the Council and the examples of the Popes.
      Do not listen to those who say that the doctrines of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Popes are in contradiction with Tradition, because it is false.
      But also watch and even more by the modernists, self-styled “Progressives”, who posing as interpreters of the council against the interpretation given by the Magisterium, put him at odds with the previous Magisterium they despised and pollute Difede truth with the errors of modern thought, under the pretext that we have to talk to the people of our time and that the doctrines of the Council constitute an improvement over those of Preconciliar.
      For the correct interpretation of the Council, I suggest my book Progress in the continuity, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2011.
      You look at it from the works of heretics – although famous – Modernist, come Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Kung and Boff and traditionalists as Lefebvre and so-called “sedevacantists”.
      Beware these theologians, maybe famous and respected, secular or ecclesiastical, whatever their hierarchical position, but, perhaps with fascinating art of cunning and ensnare the naive, It is in conflict with the Magisterium of the Church.
      And’ true that we need to be modern, but not modernist, because modernism is a heresy condemned by St. Pius X. In the modern and the new we must distinguish, in the light of the Gospel, good from bad.
      But we must also understand that Tradition is not firm to the time of Pius XII, but that the council succeed explains it and enables us to know better, despite the continuity of”immutabiler truth of faith, and always infallibly taught by the Church, not only in its exceptional Magisterium, rare, extraordinary and solemn, when it defines dogma (ex cathedra), but also in the current, simple and ordinary of all the bishops of the world united to the Successor of Peter.
      Strive to see in every Pope who speaks to us of Christ's Vicar of Christ, and Teacher of faith and morals, the herald of the Gospel, no matter if he speaks by phone or in an interview or Twitter, without bothering to make comparisons or criticism related to their conduct, to their character, their psychology, their human flaws, their government of the Church or to their pastoral. We must distinguish where it is permissible to criticize the Pope and where it is not lawful.
      Be cautious in the judgments, ready to let themselves be corrected when being aware of mistakes, but also brave and loyal in supporting and defending the truth of which is certain.
      Do not be attached to his opinions, but will not yield, when it is safe to know the truth. Respect the opinions of others, but you learn to correct fraternally who is at odds with the faith.
      At last, to get the discernment, as well as the study and meditation, need prayer, intense Christian life and great devotion to the Holy Spirit and Our Lady.

  3. I know what dogma denied mons.Lefebvure, to be called a heretic?
    and how it can be called a schismatic, if you are limited to “disobey” only against orders that opposed to other perpetual orders (cf., Bolla The first time) which then they have had confirmation by Benedict XVI, when he said: ” the Tridentine Mass was never Repealed?
    and how it can be called a schismatic, when citing the conciliar Popes in the canon of His Mass and all his priests, He did not want to ever be against the Pope of Rome such as. you are the real schismatics ( see c.d. Orthodox Russia) today called “separated brethren”?
    and how it can be called a schismatic if the consecration of His bishops -then- He had repeatedly requested the Holy See the famous Roman Mandate , that without a Christian because he has been denied?

    in the light of Certified as St. Thomas, Bellarmine etc.puo a pope to be schismatic and heretical?

    I really hope that does not make summary trials, with which a day, before God and history, We can regret it bitterly….always if we have the time to do it….” He…..It comes as a thief”!

    1. Dear Reader,

      Lefebvre denies four dogmas:

      1. Infallibility of the Pope (The Conc.Vaticano);
      2. Essence of the Church (Lumen Gentium);
      3. Essence of the Mass (Council of Trent);
      4. Essence of Tradition (Lumen Gentium).

      Lefebvre's schismatic because it identified the mass as such with the Tridentine rite. Why he thought the new world order It is a false Mass.
      You understand that the Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated, but as the Mass, not as the old order. The vetus ordo actually was replaced by new world order. but the the old order It remains a valid rite but extraordinary.
      Lefebvre is against Paul VI because it accuses him of being a liberal and modernist, that heresies are condemned respectively by Blessed Pius IX and St. Pius X. Now, accusing a pope of heresy is heresy in turn.
      As for the fact that Rome has denied permission to consecrate, Face a question: because the Pope denied it to him? You should understand from what I have said above, especially in points 1 and 3.
      Pope a schismatic? Definitely not. the schism, properly, It is separated from the Church and the Pope. But a Pope “schismatic” who you should separate? From himself?
      A heretical pope? Properly it is impossible, why has the charism of Peter. It ', by mandate of Christ, the only person on earth who is infallible in matters of faith. It has never happened that a Pope has said of heresies, as Pope.

      1. False, Father Cavalcoli, she consciously lies:
        1)Lefebvre never rejected the dogma of infallibility CVI, if anything it is you, Father Cavalcoli that do not fully accept the dogma of CVI because in the judgment of infallibility she excludes the definitional desire that she is a heretic and not Archbishop Lefebvre. For her magisterial pronouncements without will definitional they are infallible: which it is false, and in fact contradicts this dogma of CVI. 2) the essence of the Church as expressed in Lumen Gentium does not belong to the infallible pronouncements (and among other things it is not in line with the previous Tradition) so who does not keep it, and among them Archbishop Lefebvre, It is definitely not a schismatic nor a heretic. 3) The Vetus Ordo has never been repealed 4) the essence of Tradition in Lumen Gentium is not teaching infallbile then same point speech 2)

        1. Dearest.

          She is so hilarious that would have the ability to make people laugh even a mother to the son's funeral six years.
          It argues that John Cavalcoli is heretical, is credible to the same extent as would have said that Giacomo Casanova did not like women, and that all his life he lived as a Trappist monaco finally dying in the odor of sanctity and now, on his grave, pilgrimages take place to ask this mystical intercession with God for special thanks.

          Also we will ask her to San Giacomo Casanova protector of virgins intercession so this Dominican “heretic” Fix this heresy.

        2. Caro Bazzaar,

          Ariel S. Levi Gualdo has already placed a facetious tone in its done, given the inconsistency of the prosecution of heresy that she gives me. But I also wish to defend myself personally.

          1) I have no doubt that Lefebvre accept the dogma of papal infallibility defined by Vatican I. But the point is this. The point is that the heresy of Lefebvre is that it does not accept the infallibility of Paul VI, accusing him of liberalism and modernism, how you can see in my article “The theological demonstration“, forthcoming, where in fact I speak of Lefebvre. Now, accuse a heretical Pope, It is in turn heresy.

          2) The Lumen Gentium It is a dogmatic Constitution. Which is not to say that the Church gives a definition of definition so, ie with explicit will define.
          The conditions laid down by the First Vatican for papal infallibility are those of the highest level of infallibility. But the Church is infallible in lower grades, what are those of the Vatican II doctrines.
          The Church can define a truth of faith even so nondefining, but simply implied. But it still remains a truth of faith, infallible doctrine. Such is the case of the definition of the Church given in Lumen Gentium.
          It is not explicitly defined dogma or, but it is implicit dogma or definable. For this, Lefebvre, rejecting this definition, It falls into heresy at least implicitly.

          3) in Lumen Gentium there is also a dogmatic definition of the Sacred Tradition. For this is heresy even reject this definition, it is a truth of faith.

          4) Lefebvre also falls into heresy regarding the Holy Mass, because it claims that the Mass new world order is false, Protestant and heretical. Then sin of heresy against the definition of the Mass given by the Council of Trent, which also applies to the Vaicano II, because it would be heretical to think that a council falsifies the substance of the Mass.

          For two years I am saying these things unnecessarily. It's about time that the recepisse, also to make a good Lent.

          1. I reply as rightly wrote Bishop Livi in ​​his article “leave-taking”: how is it that she and Ariel you put on the same level the real heretics and schismatics (Protestant Orthodox etc.) with Lefebvre. And’ Clearly, you are making a very big mistake because you are both blinded by a “modernist hatred” to the Tradition. “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, né novatori, but traditionalists. (St. Pius X, Lettera Apostolica "Our apostolic office"). 1) But what does it mean: “Lefebvre does not accept the infallibility of Paul VI”; for the purpose of determination of heresy does not mean anything. If Paul VI ( like all the Popes) to pronounce infallibly Catholics and thus Lefebvre adhere smoothly, if Paul VI not pronucia infallibly who do not adhere definitely is not a heretic. And’ the doctrines expressed by the Magisterium which decides whether or not the heresy not on general allegations to a Pontiff.

          2. Dear Suresh Babu.

            I apologize if I post my comment on the article of Father John Cavalcoli, but sometimes she pulls me out with pliers …
            I'm sorry that you mention so inappropriately – and dare I say evilly – our dear and esteemed Mons. Antonio Love.

            Taking thus faithfully as she asserts here publicly and applying its policy on the same infallibility (which is what the de Mattei&C.) I reply that then It could easily be favorable to contraception, rejecting everything that the Blessed Paul VI wrote in Humanae Vitae, one of the few documents that “Traditionalists” exalt, including those who give to the Blessed Paul VI even of’ “apostate” and “destroyer of Chiesto”.
            Overflight on the consistency of these people …

            Blessed Paul VI, with this encyclical, He not sanctioned a new dogma of faith nor had recourse to a solemn dogmatic pronouncement which implies the highest degree of infallibility.

            Please, Also ask to Mons. Livi whether you agree and let us know, because I would be interested to know why, when it comes to sexual and related moral “proibizioni”, the “Lefebvrians” They would then be agreed and also recognize the infallibility of the more modernist country cared, when in fact it is the other acts of the Magisterium, including solemn acts and new doctrines sanctioned by an ecumenical council, in that case they put everything into question and questionano “doctrinally, philosophically and epistemologically” their infallibility, if anything, reiterating that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies – thing on which we fully agree – while Lefebvre who disavow an entire ecumenical council are not however previously been declared heretics, much to say that someone dares to even quibble about their “hypothetical heresies”.

            Not being, as these subjects, one mind borderline, I understand well that I need clarification, of which I am waiting.

            My question is therefore this – and please answer me in the strait about – : place that the Blessed Paul VI has not enacted Humanae Vitae through a solemn pronouncement that requires the highest degree of infallibility, We reject the moral doctrines contained therein, or put them into question as de Mattei&(C). call into question the “not infallible magisterium” of a council “Pastoral only”?

            I await response, by you or whoever she …

          3. Although not in itself infallible, l lo diventava when Humanae Vitae, condemning contraception, He reaffirmed a doctrine taught always by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church. The Constitution Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council established, in his cap. 3, that there may be truth which must be believed, with divine and Catholic faith in the Church, without there being the need for a solemn definition, as expressed by the ordinary universal magisterium.

            The conditions necessary infallibility of the ordinary universal Magisterium is that it is a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals, authoritatively taught in repeated declarations of the Popes and bishops, with unquestionable character and challenging. The universal word must be understood not in the synchronic sense of a spatial extent in a particular historical period, but in the diachronic sense of a continuity of time, to express a consensus that embraces all eras of the Church (Card. Joseph Ratzinger, Doctrinal Note on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei 29 June 1998, note 17).

          4. Two days after the publication of Human life, General Audience held in Castel Gandolfo, Blessed Paul VI said:

            «the Magisterium can and will perhaps return with larger design, organic and synthetic for a complete discussion of matters concerning the human being in the field of marriage, of the family, honesty of morals»

            This is to say that as regards the "degree" of the "infallibility" of this doctrine binding, it has been clearly expressed by Paul VI himself.

            For me, the criterion of "infallibility" not only goes from the waist down, but also and especially from the waist up.
            My answer is as follows:

            «Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, although they do not intend to proclaim by a definitive act».
            And yet:
            «Fermamente I accept and hold each and also the truth about the doctrine concerning faith or morals proposed by the Church in a definitive way».

            The entire document [Ad defend the faith] You can read it here:
            http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem.html

            All opposed to her that, while considering dogma certainly absolute faith and everything that goes from the waist down, however rejects all those doctrines, far more numerous and often a lot more important, ranging instead from the waist up, I refer specifically to the whole teaching of Vatican II that she refuses bloc, However, save as certain and absolute doctrine of the encyclical Human life that of Paul VI she accused on several occasions of having "protestantized the Church”; encyclical in which is expressed that it is morally illicit use of contraceptives.

            The Human life it also harks back to previous magisteria and as expressed on the specific issue Pius XI and Leo XIII, that goes back to the previous "tradition", just as the Second Vatican Council recalls faithfully to the tradition of previous councils, with the understandable innovations, because each council has always involved the innovations. but be careful, also there Humane vitae It involves a major departure from the previous magisterium, because if you did not know Pius XII, while essentially reaffirming the encyclical Chaste marriage Pius XI, He made a substantial innovation on it admitting the so-called "natural methods", while for his part Paul VI speaks for the first time the legitimacy of sexual relations between spouses outside procreative act provided it is not resorted to artificial methods to prevent the possible opening to life.
            That said: you read that right this encyclical? So it's safe to accept it and defend it? Because in it is enshrined in something much more innovative than she has often defined as the "Mass heretical"Paul VI, namely the lawfulness of marital relations is not for procreation, but "to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity» [cf. Human life, 16].
            So ... you think about it, before defending this encyclical ... "dangerous rupture" with the previous tradition thanks to the furrow opened by Pius XII, because in it is contained something a lot more "serious" use of the national languages ​​instead of Latin and the Missal of Paul VI in place of that of St. Pius V, according to a liturgical reform that actually was started by Pius XII.
            In conclusion: She intends to continue to hold good even Pius XII, or even put him in the cauldron of the popes “I conciliabolo” and then go back down by Pius XI, given that in the facts Pius XII opens the door to both a different approach to sexual morality is the next liturgical reform? In conclusion, Pius XII could be defined as a true pope crypto-vaticansecondista, do not you think?

            Now, if he wants to consult with his theological adviser, as for me I say: It is less serious than those who wrong and committing sin makes use of condoms but the obedience of faith, however, accept all the doctrines of the last ecumenical council, rather than someone who falls into public heresy and committing this sin far more serious declares "apostate"An entire ecumenical council, all doctrines binding on it enshrined, disavowing the entire Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs of the last half century, However, while not making use of condoms sinful, which I am bad but they are not the center of the whole mystery of evil.
            Then ask your adviser and then eventually let us know.

  4. Reverend Father,

    "The truths of faith are not in contradiction with reason, but are however higher, as divine truth ". By itself, reason can not conflict with faith, but our reason is decidedly fallible. So it could happen that the Church proclaim infallibly a proposition that, at the rate of one individual believer, appear absurd or inconsistent with the rest of the doctrine.
    The Church will not proclaim the dogma that Hypatia is a dog, but if you were to do that I am to see her hurt (or maybe I never understood what a cat and what a dog).

    I am wrong?
    In the case in which my reasoning is correct, it would not be appropriate to prepare the faithful the possibility of having to have such pure faith? In this way they would have no more excuses to embrace the heresy.

    1. Dear Reader.

      our reason is indeed fallible. But in certain cases not mistaken. The truth of faith may be contrasted with a false reason, Lier, corrupted, sophisticated or wandering, but not with a well-founded reason, healthy and honest, which is located in the truth, because faith is truth, and truth can not go against the truth.
      Sometimes instead of the Church to proclaim a truth which contrasts with the erring reason for a single, that does not make good use of his reason. In this case indeed the doctrine of faith may seem absurd. In this case, It needs someone to correct him and makes him understand that the truth of faith is not at all absurd, but it is in harmony with sound reason.
      You therefore should not consider the possibility that the proclamations of faith the Church as an absurd proposition, because this can not possibly happen, since the Church is a teacher of truth is in the field of faith and reason.
      The purity of the faith so it does not accept the absurd, but welcome the Mystery, that, as I said, but it is not against to the above reason and light for the reason.

  5. Reverend Father, only one question. How to behave as in the cases of Rahner's theories, Kung and the Theory of Liberation in South America? The latter was strongly frowned upon both by St. John Paul II to Benedict XVI and appears to have the favor of Pope Francis. We ordinary faithful not experts in theology and dogmatic we feel disoriented when we see different attitudes towards the same movements.

    1. Dear Adriana.

      Pope Francis has not approved of liberation theology errors condemned by Cardinal. Joseph Ratzinger. These are shameful chatter of uninformed journalists and intriguing. On these delicate things, fails to comply with what the papers say, but look to the authentic documents of the Church and the Pope.
      And’ true is that the Pope welcomes certain positive aspects of liberation Telogia, which incidentally also recognized Ratzinger.
      As for Rahner and Kung, are heretics. Kung was declared only non-Catholic from Rome. Rahner has so far managed to get away. But to be informed about his heresies, I suggest you consult my book Karl Rahner. The Second betrayed, Editions Faith&Culture,Verona 2009.

      1. bought today. just finished reading what I'm reading now, among other very interesting, on love of God and Jesus Christ, I will read. in the official church effects should be clearer and, Excuse the term simplistic, less “feel-good” , in the sense that today it no longer exists the index for books and media bombardment from which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish what they actually said the Holy Father or the bishops and what are interpretations of journalists or writers or c.d. theology, whose expertise we sometimes think we are high, yet you follow theories “dubious” (V.appunto Rahner, Kung, Bianchi(even appointed a consultor to the Vatican), Mancuso and other), it is difficult to extricate. These publications are distributed in Catholic bookstores and it is difficult for us at times to distinguish. My age makes me appreciate the Latin mass, although not lefebriana,but, if it has done well, no strange interpretations as is sometimes seen around, I also really like the ordo novo that allows me to better understand the whole course of the ceremony and especially the content of the readings.

  6. According to some scholars, the flourish of his Luther Car 95 theses on the door of the Wittenberg church, It would be a false history.
    Whatever, His Eminence Cardinal Marx said recently that Luther should be the inspiration of the Catholic Church reform. ma S.E.R. He has read at least the first of 95 thesis? The first of the Lutheran theses in fact states that “Jesus Christ willed that the whole life of the faithful was a penance”. I am not aware, however, that the intention of S.E.R. and its Teutonic brethren is to make the lives of the faithful a continual penance, anything…

  7. Lefebvure does not accept the infallibility of Montini, because these, he has not committed! seeing: is not what you want in the FOR SOPHISMS 3 degrees! .It is not heresy, accused of heresy a Pope: c'è la Since the Apostolate, Canon Law, the reason and the FACTS that claim. Lefebvre does not fall into heresy because it does not say that is false Mass according to the Novu ordo, but only this rite: similar to that Lutheran. Because it promotes the heresy towards Eucarescotia, beyond the validity of Transustaziazione, which may be from the form and the celebrating intentions regardless of other factors. It was not the Vat. II who wanted the new rite, but only Paul VI, arbitrarily and contradicting the Same Holy Spirit ostendato, seeing, the Holy Spirit in 1962 John XXIII had reprinted the Tridentine Missal, implying a will contrary to that of Montini in distorting the Rite and to say that it was the Holy Spirit: to want! I do not believe that the Holy Spirit change your mind within a few years!!! indeed not the changeless.

    1. My dear.

      The Holy Spirit does not change definitely idea, we who we evolve by virtue of his thanksgivings, because if not we would always twist and turn on the road in the desert waiting to come without ever get there to a promised land.
      And if by the grace of the Holy Spirit we had not evolved in faith and for faith in the Risen, we would not be Christians, but jew-gesuani, unable to understand and to grasp what really happened between Calvary and the empty tomb of the Risen. It not for nothing was necessary, after the Resurrection of Christ, It came the gift of the Holy Spirit and the light, because if not even the Apostles, who also were spectators of certain events, They would have the ability to catch them, or if satisfied that the women believed they had seen the risen Christ? Needless to idea, They took it, to the visionary …
      I fear that her, in the Gospel of the disciples on the road to Emmaus has not taught anything, so he is morbidly attached to its four pettiness pseudo-Catholic. She failed to grasp that the road to Emmaus starts a never ending journey until the parousia; and the disciples, the Lord, they recognized how broke bread, ie the Eucharistic essence centrality; They did not recognize the language they spoke, place that Jesus instituted the Eucharist according to the anaphora and the Latin words of the Missal of St. Pius V, Use l'Aramaic. And his words were later translated into greek, then in Latin, then in the various national languages, but the centrality remains that: “the breaking of bread” along the road to Emmaus, on the way to his kingdom will have no end.
      I have explained according to the mysteries of faith and the deposit of the Catholic faith, then if you do not intend or do not want INTED and prefer to continue living in confusion as he writes, know that unfortunately is in good company and that in any case the problem is all what his, certainly not my nor our.

  8. She says: “Humanae Vitae again refers to previous magisteria and as expressed on the specific issue Pius XI and Leo XIII, that goes back to the previous "tradition", just as the Second Vatican Council recalls faithfully to the tradition of previous councils, with the understandable innovations, because each council has always behaved innovations.” And’ true that Humanae Vitae goes back to the previous magisteria but CVII, in some of its doctrines, does not refer to the previous magisteria, indeed contradicts them. What she calls “comprehensible innovations” are contradictions in the previous Magisterium. That's why the Humanae Vitae is infallible unlike some doctrines of CVII who are not. Both are missing the will then definitional note that the curriculum makes infallible Humanai (continuity of the Magisterium) not found in certain conciliar doctrines.

    1. The Vatican does not contradict the previous magisterium and who firmly stated, consciously and willfully chooses the path of heresy.
      I am not suitable person with whom to play the pseudo philosophical sophistry that there are neither in heaven nor on earth, So you try another toy with which to play.

      1. The joy and hope 22.2: "For by his Incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man" What is this heresy written in CVII? there is no trace in the Magisterium and Tradition of the Church?. NO THERE is no trace. The only way to tell,how does she, that there are no conciliar doctrine in opposition to the previous Magisterium it is to deny the principle of identity and non-contradiction.

        1. You are an ignorant comedy in the etymological sense of the term: namely that ignores what is contained in the Gospels regarding the Incarnation of the Word, its purpose and its mission, expressed in the Gospels but especially in that of St. John the Apostle.
          In conclusion: she does not even know why the Word became flesh.
          I give advice: It puts your shoulder epaulettes, go on a pilgrimage to Predappio, pomps the Roman salute the tomb of “santo duce” the cry of all pretext of “God, Homeland, Family”, because that is his natural-aggressive-destructive environment, not the Catholic Church.
          Me by a really tremendous discomfort that today, People orphaned both of Lotta Continua and Proletarian Democracy, both the extreme right fascist, we have chosen as their outlet to “Theology” the A “Catholic Church”.
          And she is one of them, unfortunately.

  9. The Holy Spirit was given AFTER MEETING WITH THE RISEN! and for the priesthood power and the courage of the Apostolate -intanto!
    He realizes that his, Spiritualism is as: one “knowledge” almost all esoteric staff and sometimes even fantastic and semimodernista? To reverse the speech, beats always the question of Latin, as if I was a kind of fetishism, I see more in you ,”since he does not understand me and always beats”, I had the mania of the tongue and not speak instead of a more serious issue, that prevents to meet the Christ of “bread broken”! But for you that “Whoever listens to you, listen to me” It is to be followed with historicism and relativism, up omitting documents of the Magisterium because:”four pettiness pseudo-Catholic”? And as we evolve the souls, in believing that the Mass is not the Calvary, if you no longer need a rite that – according to Lex orandi- celebrated this drama, because it has to believe more in the empty tomb? But just because they believe in the empty Tomb Witnesses, celebrating the “heroics” Calvary: Catholics! Do not worry about the confusion, with. Teresa says: higher go, I am confused.

    1. Dearest.

      No one had ever accused me of being a spiritualist suffering from esoteric deviations, historicist, relativistic … and we bless God that stopped, otherwise he might have added that they are also Communist and at the same time also a Mason committed to contribute in building the new world order.

      Sigmund Freud had many respectable intuitions but also sowed a lot of damage, so much that always, the method born of her “science” psychoanalytic, I have strong reservations and doubts.
      One thing, however, I must admit with embittered intellectual honesty: perhaps, This Viennese neurologist, He wrote his essay on obsessional neurosis faith-based after having known some people like her.

      I therefore appeal to all those who thanks to those like her are presented by my fellow pastors to ask him … “sbattezzo” …

      Dear to aspirants “sbattezzo”, I beg you to consider that our Dear Fearing player does not represent the Catholic world, his faith and his feelings, but it represents only the psychopathology of himself, that instead vent in football or politics, He has decided, unfortunately for us, to vent in what he believed to be the Catholic Church and the feeling cum Ecclesia.

  10. Reverend Father,
    thank you for the answers I give me despite myself prefer writing in anonymity.
    The denial of a single dogma is sufficient to be heretics, because it means that you do not believe by faith even other dogmas. However, it could detect the passage heresy at another time, Previous to this though maybe typically less knowable, that is, the moment when a person decides that dogmas are not infallible.
    Believing that dogmas are not infallible makes heretics even if you are still denied any dogma?

    1. Dear Reader.

      Heresy is initially inwardly as an inner act of disobedience to a given truth of faith. Certainly it denotes an imperfect faith,faltering or not convinced, but somehow it remains for the other poverty of faith that you continue to accept.
      And’ true, however,, which it has shaken even the root of belief, because who really believes, He believes all that the Church presents as a truth of faith and not make choices between this and that.
      The conviction that dogmas are not infallible and they are changing over time is typical of modernists, condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
      This belief not only and not so much heretical, But suppose somehow the same total rejection of faith, and then the apostasy, as characteristic of dogma as such is the infallibility, whereby the refuse dogma as such means implicitly reject all, although the modernists know very well pretend to believe.

Leave a Reply to Giovanna 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.