Dogmatizing Opinion

+

JMJ

One of the facets of this crisis is that the Church Authorities, in general, are either actively working to change the Dogmas / Doctrines of the Catholic Church (ie Heretics such as Kasper, Daneels, Cupich) or are undermining them by not promoting the same Dogmas / Doctrines (my Canadian Diocese appears to fall under this classification).

The result is the biblical: Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will scatter.



How is this manifested in the Church today?

Well first of all, we have the persecution of faithful Catholics who want to continue to believe what the Church has taught ... all of it ... not just the moral teachings (read: Sin Crying to Heaven for Vengeance, Abortion, "Legalizing" the access of public sinners to eat & drink judgement to themselves).

For those who've recently realized that all is not well within the Barque of Peter, I'm making a distinction between yourselves and the Catholics who recognized the seeds of the wicked tree which are now blossoming in the Church - seeds that were planted in the first Modernist crisis, watered during the Second Vatican Council.  The first fruit of which was, I believe, the Novus Ordo Missae (ie New Mass).

The second is true scandal.  People are scandalized by the words and actions of the leaders of the Church and make a collection of correct and incorrect conclusions.

Such as:

• There's a major doctrinal and now moral crisis in the Church of Christ (Correct)
• The Pope can't teach error therefore:
• This is all ok (the Pope is protected from error - Pope {J23,P6, JP1,SJP2,B16,F} are Pope so the Holy Ghost is in charge, we can't criticise the Pope etc).
• Incorrect: The actions of the Pope (kissing Koran etc) can be objectively wrong / sinful and therefore the Pope is not to be followed in these actions.
• This is not ok, there is objective heresy in the words / actions - Pope {J23,P6, JP1,SJP2,B16,F} can't be / have been Popes.
• Incorrect: 
• First Church Doctrine holds that the Universal acceptance of a new Pontiff by the Church Teaching (Bishops) establishes an infallible dogmatic fact that the election was valid  ... some theologians include the Faithful as well but the Bishops will suffice.
• Heresy is the denial of a de fide teaching of the Church. To assert that the Second Vatican Council taught explicitly a denial of a de fide teaching of the Church contravenes both the reality and the doctrine of indefectibility.
• The 'Visible Church' united under the Pope IS the Conciliar Church and no longer the Catholic Church
• Incorrect: The Four Marks have to exist somewhere and the Pope is one half of the Mark of Unity (Government).
• "... Catholics cannot accept (FYI: "resistor" speak)
• the Council "95% percent in light of Tradition"
• Incorrect: This IS what Archbishop agreed to do:. To accept the Second Vatican Council in the Light of Tradition, accepting those doctrines that repeat prior teaching, accept with the traditional interpretation those that are ambiguous, and require those that contradict prior doctrine be corrected (see Four Points).
• "new mass as legitimately promulgated" 
• Incorrect: This can be a point of legalism, the point is that the NOM was promulgated and this does not contravene the indefectibility of the Church.
• new hybrid TLM/NO Mass 
• I haven't seen anything promulgated at this point so I have no idea what the author of this post (who is given to significant outlandish conspiracy theories that make Bishop Williamson look good).
• these are all compromises of the Faith which may cost a soul salvation itself.  
• Incorrect: 
• This is an unsubstantiated opinion because firstly there are large tracts of the Second Vatican Council that are traditional or simply ambiguous.  Case in point, I've demonstrated the continuity between Pius IX and V2 on the teaching of Outside the Church there is no Salvation (aka EENS).
• How is the legitimate promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae a point of faith?  
• How can something that doesn't exist except in the mind of the 'resistor' be a compromise of the Faith?????
• "...  that Priesthood  (SSPX) suffered a terrible offence,  when the Superiors  of  the  SSPX began to recognize (FYI: "SSPX-MC Resistor Position)  
• the Council  of Vatican II, 
• Incorrect: 
• V2 was convoked by the Pope, attended by the Bishops of the Catholic Church, and closed by a Pope. It is an infallible dogmatic fact that it was a Council of the Catholic Church.
• Archbishop Lefebvre voted non-placet on only a few of the documents. What these 'faithful son's ("resistors") of Archbishop Lefebvre really saying that sedevacantists haven't said before???
• New  Mass 
• Incorrect: Accepting the New Mass as legitimately promulgated is not that same as saying that it is not 'evil' due to the absence of a due good.
• New Code of Canon Law
• Incorrect: This is the strangest point. It is was promulgated by the Pope and that's it ... unless the 'resistors' are really closet sedevacantists.
• This 'resistance' believes itself to be " ...A  remnant of  priests  willed to  fulfill  their Oath against modernism by  having nothing to do  with  such wicked and premature compromise. (Incorrect: what compromise??? ) They  began to resist the new  liberal tendencies, by  simply  remaining  “a little army  of rebuilders”, doing  what an army  does, fighting,  until
• the new  mass  is forbidden, 
• Incorrect: How is this a condition for lawful obedience to an authority?  (see obedience)
• Vatican II anathematized 
• Incorrect: This is interesting since this reflects a "sedevacantist" position on the Second Vatican Council  (see Which are the True Catholics?)
• the  old Code of Canon  Law enforced again by  the Eternal Rome; 
• Incorrect: See above.
• Tradition itself, not us, little soldiers, be  recognized by  a fully  converted Papacy. 
• Incorrect: Here we have the Liberalism showing itself.  Liberals put themselves over authority - looking to their feelings about a Pope instead of the order being issued by the Authority. (Liberalism is a Sin: Liberalism is the absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God's authority - God's authority is represented by the will of the Superior).
• One can never, ever, criticise the Pope - or as CMTV stated here, " ... ChurchMilitant.com does not and will not engage in public criticism of the Pope. Other Catholic apostolates do. We believe they should not ... It is our judgment that most Catholics should neither read nor have easy access to articles and essays that could be judged critical of the Pope. 
• Incorrect: The principle espoused here is that in the face of a Pope that speaks un-Pope like, promulgates ambiguous doctrines, etc the Faithful are left in their confusion.  This is more of a danger to their Faith than reading the Remnant, CFNEWS and SSPX websites.  
• Further: Taking their principle of the criticism of authorities within the Church, CMTV et al should cease and desist criticism of all authority within the Church.
• Correct Principle: What is sinful in a Sister, Nun, Brother, Monk, Priest, Bishop, Cardinal is also sinful in the Pope.  When a scandalous action is performed, the truth of such an action needs to be explained for the confused Faithful, explaining why it is a sinful or bad action.  

How do I know the opinions that I noted as 'incorrect' are actually 'incorrect'?  By simply comparing them and their conclusions with the Dogmas, Doctrines, and Principles of the Catholic Church.  This is the Gold Standard, and if the leaders of the Church today deny something authoritatively taught yesterday - "Vatican, we have a problem!".

In short, if an opinion or belief runs contrary to the actual Teaching of the Church - then it is well within prudence to declare it as error.

P^3