Why Catholicculture.org is a dangerous place on the web

JMJ

Over the years I've grown accustomed to Dr. Mirus' and Mr. Lawler's perspective of Catholicism (read: its annoying and usually pompous). While the content on their site is pretty good, their commentary is not.

Here's an example that caught my eye a couple of days ago:

However, although he favored the Kasper proposal (according to my assumptions) Pope Francis should also have recognized that he could not take such a dramatic step alone. The power of the Roman Pontiff is extraordinary but it is not unlimited. When he teaches with authority, the Pope must speak for, and in union with, the college of bishops. This year’s Synod meeting demonstrated that the world’s bishops are not united behind the Kasper proposal. By pushing the matter, then, the Pope would violate his duty to serve as the focus of unity within the episcopate. (Source)

What we have here is nothing less than a contradiction in theory of the Dogmatic Teaching of the other Vatican Council: #1.

Wherefore we teach and declare that,
- by divine ordinance,
- the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
- this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
  - episcopal and
  - immediate.
- Both clergy and faithful,
  - of whatever rite and dignity,
  - both singly and collectively,
- are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
  - not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
  - but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. (Source)

The problem with Mr. Mirus' assertion is that he has inverted the authority of the Church.

The Pope can speak on his own, without reference to or agreement from the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

A council can say all it wants, but if the Pope didn't convoke the meeting, it isn't ecumenical (in the correct sense). Further, if the Pope doesn't ratify the canons etc of a council, they don't pass into law.

To clear up the confusion that Mr. Mirus' has created:

The Pope can Teach Authoritatively when he wants, he is the Supreme Authority in the Church.
The Bishops cannot Teach Authoritatively when they want, even following Vatican II, they always need the Pope as the Head of the College of Bishops.

P^#

Comments

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

+ JMJ Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX. In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below) items 2 and 3 are key. Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess! This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

War: Civil Society

+ JMJ Society seems to be ripping itself apart, both morally and socially. Morally, the world continues its steady decline. Israel vs Hamas The confusion over the morality of the Israel vs Hamas War is one example. It is a war and, this time, in response to the October 7th attack. I've noticed two perspectives emerge from the two combatants. For the Israeli, it is that they are the only Nation that is not allowed to win a war. Public opinion is always at play in wars, but in the case of Israel against anyone in the area, public opinion quickly becomes a factor. For Hamas and its supporters it is embodied in the phrase: From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free. This is the goal of Hamas, the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel according to its 2017 Charter (link) . I understand that their original charter was more explicit. Tied to this is that Hamas obviously, prioritizes its goal over the Gazans that they govern. For this I recommend a read of Son of H

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Tradicat

Search This Blog