A Pope cannot be Pope if he is a heretic and so self excommunicated anymore than a cat be a dog. It is illogical.
I found this enormously helpful in this situation, please watch it, it ties in closely with Mark Mallett's 'take' on things. SHOCK, DESPAIR & REASSESSMENT: 'FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS'-THE THREAT TO CATHOLIC INTEGRITY (youtube.com)
The Papal Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV teaches that: if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals. https://www.catechism.cc/articles/Pope-Paul-IV-Ex-Apostolatus-Officio.htm ' '6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
Teacher of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine addressed this question: https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Signed. Damage control in the aftermath of this document will be impossible without correction. The content may cause confusion, but the true intention for homosexual blessings is very clear. The document is a boatload of trouble, and I will stand by this. God bless all of our good and faithful shepherds who are left to navigate through this storm of storms. Like the meme that frequently circulates on social media, we cannot be like the dog sitting at a table surrounded by flames who says, “it’s fine”. It is not fine. We all know that this papacy has been marked by confusion and conflict from the very beginning. Prophecies are unfolding before our eyes. At the risk of facing papal wrath, every cardinal and bishop who has grave concerns with this document must join together to present a united front. This is not the time for clergy to be silent, to look the other way, or in any way minimize the spiritual damage that this document has already caused. It is our responsibility to support them through prayer and to use our voices, pens and even social media to make it very clear that they need to take action. I know that every one of our forum members, each in their own way, will fight to their last breath to save our Church. We were born for this moment.
--- Brothers and sisters in Christ and Mary, Can we please unite in praying a continuing chain of novenas for our Holy Mother Church (this, of course, includes every soul, starting from the top -- the Pope, the rest of the clergy, the nuns, other consecrated souls and down to us -- whether faithful, fallen away or lost flock, converts, those who are or were considering converting, etc.). Since this is the Christmas season, how about starting with a novena to the Infant Jesus of Prague (from December 23 to 31)?[/QUOTE] The novena idea sounds great!
Father Goring and other clergy may wish to give this a read.... https://www.markmallett.com/blog/a-...paign=a_watchmans_warning&utm_term=2023-12-22
Wow. This whole thing is quite the read. 3. Nonetheless, We also consider it proper that those who do not abandon evil deeds through love of virtue should be deterred therefrom by fear of punishment; and We are aware that Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors (who ought to teach others and offer them a good example in order to preserve them in the Catholic Faith), by failing in their duty sin more gravely than others; since they not only damn themselves, but also drag with them into perdition and into the pit of death countless other people entrusted to their care or rule, or otherwise subject to them, by their like counsel and agreement. Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity, in abomination of so great a crime (than which none in the Church of God can be greater or more pernicious) by the fulness of our Apostolic Power, We enact, determine, decree and define (since the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties are to remain in efficacious force and strike all those whom they are intended to strike) that: (i) each and every member of the following categories - Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors - who: (a) hitherto (as We have already said) have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these; (b) in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or provoke or commit either or both of these, or shall be detected or shall confess to have, or shall be convicted of having [so] deviated, or fallen into heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these; (since in this they are rendered more inexcusable than the rest) in addition to the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of:- their Orders and Cathedrals, even Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, the honour of the Cardinalate and the office of any embassy whatsoever, not to mention both active and passive voting rights, all authority, Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever, or by Apostolic Dispensations to title, charge and administration or otherwise howsoever, and in which or to which they may have any right whatsoever, likewise any whatsoever fruits, returns or annual revenues from like fruits, returns and revenues reserved for and assigned to them, as well as Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and Imperial Power; (ii) that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive, or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and positions of Imperial power; but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction; (iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess.
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html St John Henry Newman; letter to the Duke of Norfolk. 'Now, I shall end this part of the subject, for I have not done with it altogether, by appealing to various of our theologians in evidence that, in what I have been saying, I have not misrepresented Catholic doctrine on these important points. That is, on the duty of obeying our conscience at all hazards. I have already quoted the words which Cardinal Gousset has adduced from the Fourth Lateran; that "He who acts against his conscience loses his soul." This dictum is brought out with singular fulness and force in the moral treatises of theologians. The celebrated school, known as the Salmanticenses, or Carmelites of Salamanca, lays down the broad proposition, that conscience is ever to be obeyed whether it tells truly or erroneously, and that, whether the error is the fault of the person thus erring or not [Note]. They say that this opinion is certain, and refer, as agreeing with them, to St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Caietan, Vasquez, Durandus, Navarrus, Corduba, Layman, Escobar, and fourteen others. Two of them even say this opinion is de fide. Of course, if a man is culpable in being in error, which he might have escaped, had he been more in earnest, for that error he is answerable to God, but still he must act according to that error, while he is in it, because he in full sincerity thinks the error to be truth. {260} Thus, if the Pope told the English Bishops to order their priests to stir themselves energetically in favour of teetotalism, and a particular priest was fully persuaded that abstinence from wine, &c., was practically a Gnostic error, and therefore felt he could not so exert himself without sin; or suppose there was a Papal order to hold lotteries in each mission for some religious object, and a priest could say in God's sight that he believed lotteries to be morally wrong, that priest in either of these cases would commit a sin hic et nunc if he obeyed the Pope, whether he was right or wrong in his opinion, and, if wrong, although he had not taken proper pains to get at the truth of the matter. Busenbaum, of the Society of Jesus, whose work I have already had occasion to notice, writes thus:—"A heretic, as long as he judges his sect to be more or equally deserving of belief, has no obligation to believe [in the Church]." And he continues, "When men who have been brought up in heresy, are persuaded from boyhood that we impugn and attack the word of God, that we are idolators, pestilent deceivers, and therefore are to be shunned as pests, they cannot, while this persuasion lasts, with a safe conscience, hear us."—t. l, p. 54. Antonio Corduba, a Spanish Franciscan, states the doctrine with still more point, because he makes mention of Superiors. "In no manner is it lawful to act against conscience, even though a Law, or a Superior commands it."—De Conscient., p. 138. And the French Dominican, Natalis Alexander:—"If, in the judgment of conscience, through a mistaken conscience, a man is persuaded that what his Superior {261} commands is displeasing to God, he is bound not to obey."—Theol. t. 2, p. 32. The word "Superior" certainly includes the Pope; Cardinal Jacobatius brings out this point clearly in his authoritative work on Councils, which is contained in Labbe's Collection, introducing the Pope by name:—"If it were doubtful," he says, "whether a precept [of the Pope] be a sin or not, we must determine thus:—that, if he to whom the precept is addressed has a conscientious sense that it is a sin and injustice, first it is duty to put off that sense; but, if he cannot, nor conform himself to the judgment of the Pope, in that case it is his duty to follow his own private conscience, and patiently to bear it, if the Pope punishes him."—lib. iv. p. 241. Would it not be well for Mr. Gladstone to bring passages from our recognized authors as confirmatory of his view of our teaching, as those which I have quoted are destructive of it? and they must be passages declaring, not only that the Pope is ever to be obeyed, but that there are no exceptions to the rule, for exceptions there must be in all concrete matters. I add one remark. Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.'
'For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.' Pastor aeternus ("First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ") was issued by the First Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.
Imagine the situation of a catechist who, when teaching the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, will be faced with questions from children and teenagers involving this scandalous document supported by the current pope.
This is "both barrels". God love the Archbishop ~ and a Merry Christmas to him ~ https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/the-cost-of-making-a-mess
Thanks so much, Steve. An excellent presentation given with no trace of vindictive rebuttal. Clear and humbling.
Another insightful and accurate assessment. Thank you, Archbishop Chaput! Cardinal Fernandez has issued a decisively divisive exhortation. May it end up in the ash heap and not he in the ashes of hell!
https://catholicherald.co.uk/uks-co...nal-church-teaching-after-fiducia-supplicans/ UK’s Confraternity of Catholic Clergy publishes letter reaffirming traditional Church teaching after Fiducia Supplicans An organisation representing some 500 priests in Britain has released a signed letter reaffirming the Church’s teaching regarding marriage and same-sex unions after “widespread confusion” following the Fiducia Supplicans declaration released by the Vatican. The letter’s signatories at the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy explain they felt “impelled to re-assert the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church…which remains unchanged and unchangeable”. The Confraternity’s response follows Fiducia Supplicans giving guidance on same-sex “couples” receiving “spontaneous” blessings which, the declaration insisted, must not convey a validation of “their status” or anything contrary to the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. However, the British clergy reply: “we see no situation in which such a blessing of a couple could be properly and adequately distinguished from some level of approval”. They conclude “such pastoral blessings are pastorally and practically inadmissable”. Unlike a similar 2015 Confraternity letter released and published in the Catholic Herald in response to the family synod, this time the organisation is not releasing a list of all involved because collecting signatory names “takes weeks”, the Catholic Herald was told. Instead, the Confraternity chose to swiftly release an agreed statement, which follows similar actions by the US’s Bishop Barron and bishops’ conferences in Nigeria and Malawi. Full text of the letter: The British Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, responding to widespread confusion over Catholic doctrine on same-sex unions and sexual behaviour outside of marriage, feel impelled to re-assert the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) which remains unchanged and unchangeable: §2357 Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. § 2391 Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and a woman has been established. It is in this context that we must assess the recent document Fiducia Supplicans – which proposes a call for discernment which may lead to bestowing blessings on those in same-sex or unmarried unions. We note the noble pastoral desire to assist people to move forward by renewal of life and the call to conversion, building on all aspects of natural good will and virtue. Nevertheless, we see no situation in which such a blessing of a couple could be properly and adequately distinguished from some level of approval. Thus, it would inevitably lead to scandal – to the individuals concerned – to those involved directly or indirectly in the blessing – or to the minister himself. Furthermore, we fear that the practice of these blessings would confuse the faithful over the actual theology of marriage and human sexuality. Indeed, from the comments in the media over the past few days, and from concerns passed on to us by the faithful, we can already see such misunderstandings. We believe that genuine charity always follows true doctrine and that such blessings would work against the legitimate care a priest owes is flock. With honest parresia and from our own experience as pastors we conclude that such blessings are pastorally and practically inadmissable. –
