Tucho and his boss trouble the House of God constantly. I pray for their conversion. Especially, I pray for the conversion of Pope Francis, as he is at death's door. But if we are going to take Scripture seriously, we must realize that one day they will be gone from power by God's grace. We must hope in God for it to come to pass and take Him at his word. Why? "He who troubles his household will inherit wind, and the fool will be servant to the wise." (Proverbs xi. 29, RSVCE)
What do public heretics, in this case modernists and their new sect have to do with the Catholic faith?
Nothing… They aren’t members of the Church because they publicly profess a new religion, nor can they hold offices in the Catholic Church.
Public heretics tacitly resign any offices they may have held by the sin of public heresy which is sufficient to separate them from the mystical body of Christ and end their membership in the Church.
Yet Priests like yourself continue to acknowledge them as legitimate authorities and this will continue until you get off the fence and start begging God for their defeat and the election of an actual Pope who will sort this mess out.
Please stop teaching your people that the Church can give bad universal disciplines and liturgical practices (yes the Roman Liturgy and Roman Rite canon law are universal disciplines because it is the universal rite). Her secondary infallibility protects her against unsafe teaching in both.
Please teach them what the Church teaches: to regard the Pope as their living rule of faith and that a doubtful Pope is no Pope at all. So that when we finally get a Pope they will follow him with docility and full confidence in the Church.
I’ve discussed this with you in the past. You didn’t actually refute the argument. You tried to brush it aside using a technicality but your interpretation was not according to Church teaching because universality refers to scope and not to rite and it is you who err in this matter.
Objection 1: The Code of Canon Law is Not ‘Universal’ because it is only for the Latin Rite
First, some will argue, as is often done mutatis mutandis with regard to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo Missae, that the Code of Canon Law cannot be protected by infallibility because it was issued only for the Western (Latin) Church, not for the Eastern (Oriental) Churches, and this is stated in Canon 1. Therefore we are not dealing with universal law, which alone is protected by infallibility.
We will answer this objection in three parts:
(a) What it means for Church Law to be ‘Universal’
To argue that a law is not universal on the grounds that it pertains only to the Roman liturgical rite, or that it is only made for the Western Church, is to misunderstand how Church law is divided.
The classification “universal” concerns scope, or extension across territory; it does not concern rite. As far as extension goes, the Church’s law is divided into universal and particular. The division into Eastern and Western is a matter of rite, not territory. In fact, what a diocese is in the Western Church, is called an eparchy in the Eastern Church, and where both rites are present, their territories overlap.
The canonist Fr. Francis Xavier Wernz, S.J. (1842-1914) was rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University before becoming Superior General of the Jesuits. His magnificent 7-volume tome Ius Canonicum was adapted to the 1917 Code by Fr. Peter Vidal, S.J. (1867-1938), who had succeeded him as the chair of canon law.
Fathers Wernz and Vidal explain the division of Church law at length.
Concerning the Division of Ecclesiastical Law (Wernz-Vidal)
III. By reason of scope, [ecclesiastical law is divided] a) into universal, which is in force in the whole of the Catholic world; b) into particular, which only has force in some limited territory; c) into general, by which all the faithful are bound, and into special-exception, to which only certain persons, for example, clerics, religious, minors under guardianship, are subject; d) into common, which constitutes a rule to be normally observed and can be general or special purpose, for example, the common law of regulars; e) into specific, which includes an exception, either favorable or vexatious, from the normal rule. But if that exception, for instance, be favorably regarded, it is said to be a privilege.
VIII. By reason of rite, [ecclesiastical law] is divided into the law of the Western Church and the law of the Eastern Church.
(Francis Xavier Wernz, S.J., and Peter Vidal, S.J., Ius Canonicum, vol. I [Rome: Gregorian University, 1938], n. 50, pp. 77-79.)
Thus we see that to say that a law cannot be universal on account of it pertaining only to the Eastern or the Western Church is to confuse scope with rite.
Another canonist who explains how Church law is divided is the Dominican Fr. Dominic Prummer (1866-1931):
Ecclesiastical law, taken objectively, can be divided by reason of matter, extension, [historical] time [period], form, and rite: …
b) By reason of extension, ecclesiastical law is divided α) into universal law that is binding in the entire Christian world, and particular law that is in force only in some limited territory; β) into general law that binds all the faithful, for example, the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays, and special-exception law, to which only certain persons are subject, for example, clerics, regulars; γ) into the common law that determines the legal order to be observed in general or for all the faithful, and thereupon the common law is at the same time the general law, or for a limited category of the faithful, and thereupon the common law is at the same time the special-exception [law]; in this way, we can, for example, speak about the common law of regulars and the specific law, which is the same as a privilege. Nonetheless, it must be mentioned that not all authors use these terms in the same way. Thus, for example, some divide particular law into patriarchal, provincial, diocesan, [and] regulars’ law.
…
e) By reason of rite, [ecclesiastical] law is divided off into the law of the Western Church and the law of the Eastern Church. — Several churches of the protestants or non-Catholics or schismatics also have their own legal codes, for example, the schismatic Greek church, but nothing about these is to be discussed by us in this Manual [of Canon Law]. Equally, nothing presents itself to be said here about the false acceptances both of law in general and of ecclesiastical law in particular, because the first [kind of law] belongs to [the discipline of] Christian ethics and the second to the [dogmatic theology] treatise De Ecclesia [“On the Church”], since from a false conception of the Church necessarily false conceptions of ecclesiastical law are also bound to emerge.
(Dominicus M. Prümmer, O. P., Manuale Iuris Canonici, Editio Tertia, [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder & Co., 1922], pp. 3-4.
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that one cannot say that Church law is not universal if it concerns only the Western Church or only the Latin rite. That is a category error, confusing territory and rite. It is perhaps like saying that someone cannot be female if she is also Austrian, thereby confusing sex with citizenship.
The objection that the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae by Paul VI in 1969 does not fall under universal ecclesiastical law on the grounds that it is only for the Roman rite is thus null and void because based on a misunderstanding of the division of Church law.
I hope that you learn father. It is human to err but this error is a serious one because it clouds your entire view of the crisis in the Church. I will pray for you 🙏🏻
Like I said, if you want to learn the truth on the matter, we are more than glad to refute the nonsense you put forward. It is the typical Sedevacantist argument that we have refuted many times over. Until then you are in our prayers.
I'm still waiting for a refutation. You haven't addressed the point made and have shown yourself to be in error, an error which in the opinion of many theologians is considered a heresy, even though it has not yet been explicitly condemned as heretical.
I’m listening. Link me to a refutation that has already been produced given you’ve refuted this argument many times over. It needs to address the specific point raised in full.
Disciplinary laws that can be modified don't per se come under the reality of infallibility.
"The infallibility of the Pope does not mean that he cannot sin; it does not mean that he cannot err in matters of science; it does not mean that he cannot err in political matters; it does not mean that he cannot err in his personal theological views; it does not mean that he cannot err in his private theological utterances relating to faith or morals; it does not mean that he cannot err in his personal decisions; it does not mean that he cannot err in his measures concerning the discipline and practice of the Church, for example: sanctioning or dissolving an Order, precepts of worship, ecclesiastical rules etc."
Illustrations for Sermons and Instructions,
Rev. Charles J. Callan O.P., New York, 1916, page 147
The imprimatur (guaranteeing the book is free from doctrinal error) of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
There are simply no words. The pope and his ilk are leading people into Hell. And, perhaps most disconcerting, when Bergoglio dies he will most likely be shortlisted into the Martyrology like JPII, where, with official approbation, he will continue to direct souls to their eternal damnation. “How long, O Lord?”
For a moment today, I was scared that readers will ignore my article thinking it is an April Fools joke. Then I sadly realised, to true Catholics of times gone by, most of the articles on this platform would have seemed like tasteless crude satire, a 100 years or more ago. Sadly, now it is our reality.
Tucho and his boss trouble the House of God constantly. I pray for their conversion. Especially, I pray for the conversion of Pope Francis, as he is at death's door. But if we are going to take Scripture seriously, we must realize that one day they will be gone from power by God's grace. We must hope in God for it to come to pass and take Him at his word. Why? "He who troubles his household will inherit wind, and the fool will be servant to the wise." (Proverbs xi. 29, RSVCE)
The reality is that these apostates have lost faith and hence they just use the faith to justify what they want.
What do public heretics, in this case modernists and their new sect have to do with the Catholic faith?
Nothing… They aren’t members of the Church because they publicly profess a new religion, nor can they hold offices in the Catholic Church.
Public heretics tacitly resign any offices they may have held by the sin of public heresy which is sufficient to separate them from the mystical body of Christ and end their membership in the Church.
Yet Priests like yourself continue to acknowledge them as legitimate authorities and this will continue until you get off the fence and start begging God for their defeat and the election of an actual Pope who will sort this mess out.
Please stop teaching your people that the Church can give bad universal disciplines and liturgical practices (yes the Roman Liturgy and Roman Rite canon law are universal disciplines because it is the universal rite). Her secondary infallibility protects her against unsafe teaching in both.
Please teach them what the Church teaches: to regard the Pope as their living rule of faith and that a doubtful Pope is no Pope at all. So that when we finally get a Pope they will follow him with docility and full confidence in the Church.
We have refuted this Sedevacantist argument many times over. If you open to learning the truth of the matter let us know. You are in our prayers.
I’ve discussed this with you in the past. You didn’t actually refute the argument. You tried to brush it aside using a technicality but your interpretation was not according to Church teaching because universality refers to scope and not to rite and it is you who err in this matter.
Objection 1: The Code of Canon Law is Not ‘Universal’ because it is only for the Latin Rite
First, some will argue, as is often done mutatis mutandis with regard to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo Missae, that the Code of Canon Law cannot be protected by infallibility because it was issued only for the Western (Latin) Church, not for the Eastern (Oriental) Churches, and this is stated in Canon 1. Therefore we are not dealing with universal law, which alone is protected by infallibility.
We will answer this objection in three parts:
(a) What it means for Church Law to be ‘Universal’
To argue that a law is not universal on the grounds that it pertains only to the Roman liturgical rite, or that it is only made for the Western Church, is to misunderstand how Church law is divided.
The classification “universal” concerns scope, or extension across territory; it does not concern rite. As far as extension goes, the Church’s law is divided into universal and particular. The division into Eastern and Western is a matter of rite, not territory. In fact, what a diocese is in the Western Church, is called an eparchy in the Eastern Church, and where both rites are present, their territories overlap.
The canonist Fr. Francis Xavier Wernz, S.J. (1842-1914) was rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University before becoming Superior General of the Jesuits. His magnificent 7-volume tome Ius Canonicum was adapted to the 1917 Code by Fr. Peter Vidal, S.J. (1867-1938), who had succeeded him as the chair of canon law.
Fathers Wernz and Vidal explain the division of Church law at length.
Concerning the Division of Ecclesiastical Law (Wernz-Vidal)
III. By reason of scope, [ecclesiastical law is divided] a) into universal, which is in force in the whole of the Catholic world; b) into particular, which only has force in some limited territory; c) into general, by which all the faithful are bound, and into special-exception, to which only certain persons, for example, clerics, religious, minors under guardianship, are subject; d) into common, which constitutes a rule to be normally observed and can be general or special purpose, for example, the common law of regulars; e) into specific, which includes an exception, either favorable or vexatious, from the normal rule. But if that exception, for instance, be favorably regarded, it is said to be a privilege.
VIII. By reason of rite, [ecclesiastical law] is divided into the law of the Western Church and the law of the Eastern Church.
(Francis Xavier Wernz, S.J., and Peter Vidal, S.J., Ius Canonicum, vol. I [Rome: Gregorian University, 1938], n. 50, pp. 77-79.)
Thus we see that to say that a law cannot be universal on account of it pertaining only to the Eastern or the Western Church is to confuse scope with rite.
Another canonist who explains how Church law is divided is the Dominican Fr. Dominic Prummer (1866-1931):
Ecclesiastical law, taken objectively, can be divided by reason of matter, extension, [historical] time [period], form, and rite: …
b) By reason of extension, ecclesiastical law is divided α) into universal law that is binding in the entire Christian world, and particular law that is in force only in some limited territory; β) into general law that binds all the faithful, for example, the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays, and special-exception law, to which only certain persons are subject, for example, clerics, regulars; γ) into the common law that determines the legal order to be observed in general or for all the faithful, and thereupon the common law is at the same time the general law, or for a limited category of the faithful, and thereupon the common law is at the same time the special-exception [law]; in this way, we can, for example, speak about the common law of regulars and the specific law, which is the same as a privilege. Nonetheless, it must be mentioned that not all authors use these terms in the same way. Thus, for example, some divide particular law into patriarchal, provincial, diocesan, [and] regulars’ law.
…
e) By reason of rite, [ecclesiastical] law is divided off into the law of the Western Church and the law of the Eastern Church. — Several churches of the protestants or non-Catholics or schismatics also have their own legal codes, for example, the schismatic Greek church, but nothing about these is to be discussed by us in this Manual [of Canon Law]. Equally, nothing presents itself to be said here about the false acceptances both of law in general and of ecclesiastical law in particular, because the first [kind of law] belongs to [the discipline of] Christian ethics and the second to the [dogmatic theology] treatise De Ecclesia [“On the Church”], since from a false conception of the Church necessarily false conceptions of ecclesiastical law are also bound to emerge.
(Dominicus M. Prümmer, O. P., Manuale Iuris Canonici, Editio Tertia, [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder & Co., 1922], pp. 3-4.
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that one cannot say that Church law is not universal if it concerns only the Western Church or only the Latin rite. That is a category error, confusing territory and rite. It is perhaps like saying that someone cannot be female if she is also Austrian, thereby confusing sex with citizenship.
The objection that the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae by Paul VI in 1969 does not fall under universal ecclesiastical law on the grounds that it is only for the Roman rite is thus null and void because based on a misunderstanding of the division of Church law.
- source with full references and links to the original text: https://novusordowatch.org/2023/05/catholic-church-infallible-in-disciplinary-laws-sacraments/
I hope that you learn father. It is human to err but this error is a serious one because it clouds your entire view of the crisis in the Church. I will pray for you 🙏🏻
Like I said, if you want to learn the truth on the matter, we are more than glad to refute the nonsense you put forward. It is the typical Sedevacantist argument that we have refuted many times over. Until then you are in our prayers.
Hi Fr,
I'm still waiting for a refutation. You haven't addressed the point made and have shown yourself to be in error, an error which in the opinion of many theologians is considered a heresy, even though it has not yet been explicitly condemned as heretical.
I’m listening. Link me to a refutation that has already been produced given you’ve refuted this argument many times over. It needs to address the specific point raised in full.
Disciplinary laws that can be modified don't per se come under the reality of infallibility.
"The infallibility of the Pope does not mean that he cannot sin; it does not mean that he cannot err in matters of science; it does not mean that he cannot err in political matters; it does not mean that he cannot err in his personal theological views; it does not mean that he cannot err in his private theological utterances relating to faith or morals; it does not mean that he cannot err in his personal decisions; it does not mean that he cannot err in his measures concerning the discipline and practice of the Church, for example: sanctioning or dissolving an Order, precepts of worship, ecclesiastical rules etc."
Illustrations for Sermons and Instructions,
Rev. Charles J. Callan O.P., New York, 1916, page 147
The imprimatur (guaranteeing the book is free from doctrinal error) of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
There are simply no words. The pope and his ilk are leading people into Hell. And, perhaps most disconcerting, when Bergoglio dies he will most likely be shortlisted into the Martyrology like JPII, where, with official approbation, he will continue to direct souls to their eternal damnation. “How long, O Lord?”
For a moment today, I was scared that readers will ignore my article thinking it is an April Fools joke. Then I sadly realised, to true Catholics of times gone by, most of the articles on this platform would have seemed like tasteless crude satire, a 100 years or more ago. Sadly, now it is our reality.
What's the date on this document?
The lecture took place on 17 February and L'Osservatore Romano published the lecture on 3 March. The lecture also appears on the Dicastery's website.
Novusordowatch has a podcast including this: https://content.libsyn.com/p/a/1/b/a1b36f768708001a/express206.mp3
Hi John. Thanks. By the way I did sign up to that messaging board you suggested.🙏
I hope you find the people and resources there helpful.