To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I wrote some draft texts eighteen months ago that constituted a preliminary response to the signatories of a then recent so-called "correctio filialis" (filial correction) of Pope Francis. A variety of circumstances prevented me from publishing them at the time or in subsequent months. However, as we are about to enter into Holy Week 2019, it seems appropriate to address this matter but not in precisely the same way I originally planned.

The material below is close to seventy percent different than that original first draft with a different approach taken for the most part compared to my earlier intentions. The words from the so-called "correctio filialis" will be in bolded green font throughout. Without further ado...

With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness. 

There are many areas where these folks go astray but the one undergirding their entire enterprise is a fundamental one: they claim directly or otherwise that a pope can teach heresy. As I noted earlier in this year when addressing this issue:

The Church does teach and has always taught that a pope cannot teach heresy. However, to be clear, she has 'always taught' this the same way she has 'always taught' things like papal primacy, the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. This is not hard to demonstrate but because of the variegations of Church history, it can be tedious to do so.{1}

I realize that this claim will be shocking to not a few of those who support such enterprises as the so-called "correctio filialis" but as with traditional spiritual instruction, there is a lacuna of knowledge by self-identified "conservatives" and supposed "traditionalists" on these matters as they pertain to doctrine as well. A good degree of the misunderstanding is a plethora of works written by theologians of the Church setting forth various hypotheses on popes being heretics. The reason for this seeming difficulty was explained by the present writer as follows:

The aftermath of the Protestant circumstance shook the church's foundations in ways that were unprecedented. Unlike the schism between west and east which was centuries in the making[...], the breaks by the Protestants were sharper and more sudden in nature. This shook the Catholic Church to its core and in the process of looking for answers, the question began to be floated about what if this movement were to seat one of its own in the Chair of Peter, what would happen then? That is when the theological titans of that age began to posit various hypotheses to try and explain this.

In this environment, theologians like Tommaso Cajetan, Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Melchior Cano, Albert Pighus, and others floated various hypotheses of what one would do in the event of a heretical pope. However, the floating of a hypothesis does not mean you per se concur with it. The Church all along witnessed to the converse hypotheses by the fact that she never proclaimed anyone who professed the idea that a pope actually could teach heresy as a Doctor of the Church or elevated such persons to the altars via canonization. Furthermore, most of the proponents of heretical pope hypotheses attempting to explain what would happen if a pope was to teach heresy personally abhorred the very notion and did not believe it themselves. Suarez did not believe a pope could teach heresy, thought the very idea was inconceivable, and that the position that he could not do so was pious and probable, to be held[...], but not certain in his time. Because he did not view it as certain, he attempted to set forth some hypotheses on the matter. Pighus believed it was impossible period either to teach heresy or even for a pope to be a private heretic. Alphonsus Ligouri adhered to the Bellarmine position.{2}

And what became subsequently of these various hypotheses propounded by learned theologians like Suarez and Cajetan?

Suarez's attempted hypothesis was condemned in 1692 by Pope Alexander VIII when he proscribed the 4 Gallican Articles one of which was a variation of Suarez's pro-offered hypothesis. Similarly the hypothesis of Cajetan was no longer defendable formally after that time though Bellarmine claimed it could not be defended in his view prior to that.[...] Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."[...] 

To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.{3}

Because of the above facts, the core argument made by the so-called "correctio filialis" is itself doctrinally flawed and in need of correction. It is not possible for a pope to teach heresy, period. Yet what do the signatories by affixing their names to the aforementioned document claim? Well, from all objective appearances, the signatories have run afoul of Catholic doctrine. This is evident not only in the title of their manifesto{4} as well as what I have seen of the content of said manifesto. It also makes rational sense as well because to accuse the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresy is no different from accusing him of teaching material heresy. Furthermore, the claim that [t]he signatories do not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated the 7 heresies which they list. But they respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld is a subtle attempt to infer that Pope Francis may have taught formal heresy as well.

This is a position that no matter which way you go with it flatly rejects the fourth opinion of Bellarmine which was dogmatized by the First Vatican Council. And as to teach and to propagate are synonymous with one another; ergo, these signatories have objectively proclaimed with their words and actions a position that is proximate to heresy. What goes hand in hand with such a censure?

Theological Note: Proximate to faith. 

Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God... 

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error. 

Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.{5}

To put it bluntly: each of these signatories have by affixing their names to this so-called "filial correction" objectively committed a mortal sin indirectly against faith. They should therefore refrain from receiving Communion until they have repented of this sin, abjured their signature to this so-called "filial correction" and received absolution. Until they do these things, they are in the very definition of a state of mortal sin and would commit sacrilege if they were to partake of the Eucharist.

Frankly, no more needs to be said on their little charade than that.{6}

We are permitted to issue this correction by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of the Church, which three things Your Holiness has been appointed by divine providence to guard. By natural law: for as subjects have by nature a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful things, so they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore to insist, where need be, that their superiors so govern. By the law of Christ: for His Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to rebuke Peter in public when the latter did not act according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2).

St Paul never accused St Peter of propagating heresy so their analogy falls flat.{7} Furthermore, as these folks are themselves objectively in a state of mortal sin by asserting a claim proximate to heresy, they are unfit to present themselves at communion lest they profane the Sacrament. Now I realize there will be some vociferous objections to my claim here so I will conclude with the rationale behind it.

According to biblical principles, as judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy (James ii,13), it only makes sense that with the judgment one pronounces they will likewise be judged (cf. Matt vii,2). In light of their rigourous approach to how all of those who are in irregular marital situations should be treated, the Gospel is clear that what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you (Mark iv,24). Therefore, we cannot presume any subjective inculpability for these folks but must presume their objectively grave mortal sin is automatically a subjective (or actual) mortal sin as well.

It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith. [St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine As Cited By Bishop Vincent Gasser in His Vatican Relatio on Pastor Aeternus (circa July 1870)]

Notes:

{1} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2019)

{2} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2019)

{3} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2019)

{4} Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis which translates as Filial Correction on the Propagation of Heresies.

{5} Sixtus Cartechini, S.J: Excerpt From De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (circa 1951)

{6} For those wondering about the Dubia, I dealt in early 2017 with the theological problems in the missive of the four cardinals. That subject can be revisited in a 2019 Lenten Reflections thread HERE.

{7} St. Paul in his correction did not accuse St. Peter of heresy. Basically, St. Paul said his piece and that was that. There was no persistence in arrogantly opposing St. Peter until the latter accepted the presumptive correction. And while St. Thomas taught that subordinates could correct a superior, the so-called "filial correction" is not a correction of the type that St. Thomas proposed or that St. Paul utilized.

Not Impossible: 5 Ways Japan Could Have Won World War II (And Changed History)

Full text of Benedict XVI: 'The Church and the scandal of sexual abuse'

The Several-Storied Thomas Merton

Points to Ponder:

[P]ut away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. [1 Peter ii,2]

On Burying Hatchets, Building Bridges, Facilitating Authentic Dialogue, Etc. in 2019 and Beyond:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a continuation of sorts to a brief musing I posted at the start of Lent this year.

To pick up and expand on that thread, I have made it a point in recent years to seek to repair bridges where I had at least a hand in their falling into disrepair if not been destroyed altogether. With that in mind, it seems appropriate to revisit a template of sorts I set down in years past for dealing with these matters. To wit:

The present writer wants to take this moment to call attention to three topics in particular which were composed as a direct result of both public as well as private correspondence on key issues which affect proper dialogue.

As one who has seen certain disturbing patterns over and over again in many dialogues on a variety of subjects, it is only natural that eventually attention would be called to them by us in proportion to how little they were recognized by the parties utilizing them. That pattern started in late 2003, picked up steam in 2004, and then really came to fruition in 2005 and 2006 publicly in a number of postings as well as privately at times with certain individuals. We had presumed (naively in retrospect) that not a few people who should have known better would realize upon having those matters pointed out to them but some of them quite evidently did not.[...]

When considering that some of the persons in mind who were running afoul in key areas were not unintelligent, it struck us that the subjects in question would do well to be fleshed out individually in a series of postings dealing directly with certain approaches to argument in general rather than merely addressing them in the sequence of longer posts on other subject matters which was previously our wont. For one thing, in the latter form, they may not be as evident to a casual reader of those threads due to how many other interconnected issues were dealt with. But without further digression, here are four examples of exposition on often overlooked key factors that can impede authentic dialogue on a whole variety of subjects in order from oldest to newest:

On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)

More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof -Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)

On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)

Included in the above threads is a discussion thread from an astute friend who provided us with both some appreciated criticisms as well as the opportunity to clarify a couple of additional key elements in the overall matrix of the oft-misused "appeal to authority" (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam) in argumentation.

While those threads are hardly the only ones which could be noted, they were nonetheless significant in that the subjects they covered are almost never discussed directly. As a result of that informational lacuna, the problems the posts outline are rarely realized by those who fall prey to them: a failure that results inexorably in said problems being perpetuated across a broad continuum of subjects discussed. (To the detriment of authentic and potentially productive dialogue on subjects where passionate diversity of opinions can often persist.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2008)]

From nearly the beginning of this website once we found our footing here{1}, it has been my intention to facilitate dialogue across a sphere of subjects. While our understanding of these matters was less formed than it would later become, the study of and writing on these matters from an ecclesial perspective was only the start of the principles involved being applied across the entire spectrum of personal interactions. As warranted, guidelines for authentic dialogue would be further delineated in the cauldron of contemporary controversies until finally a more permanent template was set down in 2008 which explicitly embodied the principles we had written on in the five year period preceding it. I revisited that material in 2018 for what was intended to be a column in the abortive WherePeterIs project{2} and when the latter fell through, it was published to this website instead.

It is my hope that these principles of authentic dialogue can not only serve to help in building bridges and burying hatchets not only where the present writer is concerned but also that in some small way they will benefit others as well in their dialogual journeys.


Notes:

{1} Or as noted before in years past:

[Y]our host has refused to purge his archives of stuff which in retrospect he regrets posting. Part of the reason for this is principles as we have been critical of others for trying to airbrush the historical record at their own sites to avoid telling the truth about their past actions or statements in a given point of time. But another reason is that life itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests.

We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernible shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]

{2} For the background on that situation, see these links if interested:

Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (originally published on June 16, 2018)

On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc. (circa August 6, 2018)

Points to Ponder:
(From Yours Truly)

Unless I am at a place like a cigar lounge, I always smoke cigars outside. Its one of my rules if you will.

Jesus Was A Socialist (Hippie Heretic)

I was asked in private correspondence to respond to the link above so below is substantially what my initial musings on it were...

The writer of the piece attempts an anachronistic projection of later hypotheses and concepts into earlier biblical times and is a classic apples and oranges ploy. As a result, their essay comes off basically as an attempt to cut and paste verses to support a preconceived point of view. In the case of socialism, the guy is a socialist by his own admission but then refuses to define what that term means and he looks for similarities to some interpretations of socialism in the Gospels and treats those as if they are socialist. But as he has not bothered to define his terms in advance, he can basically make them say whatever he wants them to say. (Apologists of all sorts play these same kinds of games.)

Are there similarities in some socialist points and some Gospel passages? Sure there are. There are also similarities in some capitalist or market based points and some Gospel passages. (For example, the parable of the talents.) Similarity is not the same as identity however. I made the point in a recent Lenten reflection that the Gospel is not right wing or left wing but these terms are inadequate to explain the phenomenon involved. And a key point the socialist does not seem to point out is that socialism involves not voluntary sharing of ones goods and possessions with the less fortunate (that is charity after all) but involves some governing entity arbitrarily seizing ones goods and possessions and giving them to someone else without any concern as to whether the owner of said goods and possessions actually wants to do this or not. The key to the various Gospel passages he cites (as well as the Acts passage) from what I can tell is the importance of detachment from goods and possessions.

A phrase that can be said to apply here is this: "we can possess wealth, we should not however let wealth possess us" and that is they key. But wealth is more than money and property. In a certain sense, it can be said to be anything which stands between us and God. To the extent that anything stands between, it is a problem even if the good or principle is itself neutral or even good (i.e. spouses, children, particular liturgical preferences, particular religious devotions, favourite sports teams, particular political or social viewpoints, etc). That is the key that the writer of the piece above in attempting to promote a "Jesus was a socialist" hypothesis fails to grasp.

On Rash Judgments:
(A Lenten Reflection)

We must proceed to rectify rash judgments, according to their cause. Some hearts there are so bitter and harsh by nature, that everything turns bitter under their touch; men who, in the Prophet's words, "turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth." (Amos v, 7) Such as these greatly need to be dealt with by some wise spiritual physician, for this bitterness being natural to them, it is hard to conquer; and although it be rather an imperfection than a sin, still it is very dangerous, because it gives rise to and fosters rash judgments and slander within the heart.

Others there are who are guilty of rash judgments less out of a bitter spirit than from pride, supposing to exalt their own credit by disparaging that of others. These are self-sufficient, presumptuous people, who stand so high in their own conceit that they despise all else as mean and worthless. It was the foolish Pharisee who said, "I am not as other men are." (Luke xxviii, 11)

Others, again, have not quite such overt pride, but rather a lurking little satisfaction in beholding what is wrong in others, in order to appreciate more fully what they believe to be their own superiority. This satisfaction is so well concealed, so nearly imperceptible, that it requires a clear sight to discover it, and those who experience it need that it be pointed out to them. [St Francis de Sales: From Introduction to the Devout Life Ch. XXVIII (circa 1619)]

POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION CHRISTUS VIVIT

Points to Ponder:

With a cigar like in life, you got to have some length, and some girth. [D.L. Hughley]

Will It Stick? Examining the Hot Start of the Mariners Offense

The Seattle Mariners did a complete fire sale in the off-season and were preparing to take a step back this year to jump forward in the 2020-2024 years. So far, they are profoundly performing above expectations -honestly, I never saw this coming. And since I came into this season for them with literally zero expectations, this has been a most pleasant surprise up to now.

Points to Ponder:

We should not have an 'open mind' because that means we grant plausibility to anything, however, we should have a discerning mind. [Mike Mentzer]

Points to Ponder:

It's an art to enjoy living. Cigars enable you to enjoy living. [C.G.B. Bernard]

On the Subject of Conscience and Sacramental Reception:
(A Lenten Reflection)

It helps in the Lenten season for folks to reflect more on themselves and their particular tendencies to better get a grasp of where improvement is needed spiritually as well as otherwise. With those who at sundry times and in in divers manners have concerned themselves with the subject of conscience and sacramental reception, one area that I have never quite understood in the entire debate surrounding chapter eight of Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) is the problem not a few critics of it have with the idea of some folks who are divorced and remarried who have undergone a process of discernment with a priest who nonetheless in conscience feel they are "at peace with God" over their situation and who therefore receive communion.

Indeed, among the biggest bellyachers on AL are Catholics who in a number of other areas frequently slander, libel, denigrate, ridicule, and express contempt and/or profound disrespect for the Roman Pontiff and the last Ecumenical Council. There is no shortage of folks who do these things often (read: multiple times per day!) yet they still judge themselves as "at peace with God" and thus as fit to receive communion. The odds are pretty good that they do not accuse themselves of these sins in the confessional which means they receive unworthily themselves. They are therefore in no position morally or spiritually to judge anyone else yet they do it all the time.

Furthermore, unlike sex between divorced and remarried couples which while certainly sinful is nonetheless infrequent as a rule overall, these folks slander, libel, denigrate, ridicule, etc with far greater frequently. There is a true example of "look[ing] at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but not notic[ing] the log that is in your own eye" (cf. Matt vii,3) and yet those doing this are generally too proud to see or in any way acknowledge it. And even if they do, they inexorably make excuses for why what they did was somehow not making them unworthy of receiving communion unlike those heathen adulterers when in actuality their situation is even worse than that which they presume to pompously array themselves against.

It would seem appropriate for folks this Lent who spend their time obsessing on the matter above to honestly examine themselves and see if their attitudes really do match that of historical heretics and schismatics who also considered themselves more orthodox than thou and if they find themselves in need of repentance and conversion to do so.

THE UNKNOWNS: The Untold Story of America’s Unknown Soldier And WWI’s Most Decorated Heroes Who Brought Him Home

Points to Ponder:

There is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father. [Pope Francis]

Mending Wall

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.

I let my neighbour know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"

We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbours."

Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbours? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.

He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbours."

[Robert Frost]

Points to Ponder:

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. [Proverbs xv,1-2]

Points to Ponder:

[O]nce you decide to respond to a conspiracy theory, you have a very basic problem: the people who believe in this theory didn't reason their way into it, so it's extremely difficult to use reason to convince them that there's nothing to it. [John Hawkins (as posted to Facebook March 28, 2010)]

Points to Ponder:

A jealous ear hears all things, and the sound of grumbling does not go unheard. Beware then of useless grumbling, and keep your tongue from slander; because no secret word is without result, and a lying mouth destroys the soul. [Wisdom 1:10-11]

On Certain Pharisee Parallels Amongst the "More Faithful Than Thou" Crowd:
(A Lenten Reflection)

It helps in the Lenten season for folks to reflect more on themselves and their particular tendencies to better get a grasp of where improvement is needed spiritually as well as otherwise. With those who at sundry times and in in divers manners label themselves various ways and have a certain more faithful than thou disposition, they not infrequently get angry when others refer to such people as Pharisee-like in their behaviour. The initial reaction is understandable. However, is this claim really one without merit?

Consider this: who spends much of their time "thanking God they are not like other men" (cf. Luke xviii,11), extolling their perceived "orthodoxy" and "faithfulness", who is so concerned with "tithing the mint and ignoring weightier matters of law" (cf. Matthew xxiii,23), "straining gnats and swallowing camels" (cf. Matthew xxiii,24), etc? On Amoris Laetitia, who are like the folks who ask Pope Francis what should be done with the "people caught in adultery" (cf. John viii,3)? When it comes to the liturgy, who likes to "widen their phylactyries and lengthen their tassels" (cf. Matthew xxiii,25) so as to ensure everyone sees how "devoted" they are?

Who acts indignant as the son whose father said "Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fatted calf and kill it, let us feast and celebrate" (cf. Luke xv,11-32) in reference to the prodigal son? Or who acts as the day labourers who grumbled to the landowner that "These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat" (cf. Matthew xx,11)? In short, who kvetch frequently about the priority of the present pope in his attempts to reach out to the lost sheep? The mentality of the Pharisees who saw in everything Jesus did somehow something wrong or undesirable because it did not conform to their own puffed up self-righteous way of looking at things is shared by these folks who do the exact same thing to Francis who similarly does not act as they think a pope should act: namely, to ego stroke people like them. It is almost as if Jesus deliberately sought to poke the Pharisees in the eye to make a point to them. Should it surprise that his Vicar might from time to time do the same thing?

Now to be clear, I am not broad brushing here. There are folks who consider themselves faithful who do not act like Pharisees. But it seems right now they are in the minority. I do not even have a problem with someone having issues with a position or two taken by a pope -indeed it would be odd to find someone who did not. But there is respectful disagreement and there is acting like a pompous blowhard braying ass about such things. There is a difference between legitimate difficulties respectfully expressed and brazenly acting as if they are the determiners of orthodoxy or that they are the ones to "formally correct" the pope or whatever rather than actually being willing to be taught by the Vicar of Christ. It is true that not every statement is of equal weight and there is room for divergent views in different areas to certain extents. But the seeming attitude of many is that if the pope has not spoken infallibly on dogma that it means something is up for grabs. I guess that means at Nicaea only the divinity of Christ was required belief and everything for the first 325 years was optional. That is not how it works and the so-called "paragons of faithful orthodoxy" should know that if they are what they claim.

I admittedly have my own issues with Pope Francis. However, I am more and more seeing his election as a needed church corrective. The idea that only some traditional or conservative outlook is orthodoxy is wrong but for two prior pontificates this is what many of these folks deluded themselves into thinking. Now we have another pope but he is a bit more liberal. And rather than presume the orthodoxy of the pope and consider that maybe God wanted him to teach them some things, they presume if the pope does not fit their preconceived mould that the problem is him instead of perhaps them and certain deficiencies in their outlook. There are those who literally engage in the idolatry of worshipping a liturgical form much the way liberals often make an idol out of uninformed and overly autonomous notions of conscience. In the political realm, folks of these temperaments too often make an idol out of their particular preferences and wrongly equate them with the faith. The faith is conservative but its also liberal: these labels really do not do it justice and attempting to look at it this way is to too thoroughly confuse the City of Man with the City of God as St. Augustine might put it.

It would seem appropriate for folks this Lent who consider themselves of a a more faithful than thou disposition (i.e. traditionalist, conservative) to honestly examine themselves and see if their attitudes really do match that of the biblical Pharisees or other figures in Jesus' parables who also considered themselves more devout than thou. 

Revisiting the Controversial Dubia:

(A Lenten Reflection)

It helps in the Lenten season for folks to reflect more on themselves and their particular tendencies to better get a grasp of where improvement is needed spiritually as well as otherwise. The purpose of this reflection is to consider those who have repeatedly in social media and elsewhere agitated about the Dubia of the four cardinals and the explicit lack of an answer to it by Pope Francis. Though I addressed this matter years ago, it seems appropriate this Lent to revisit the subject anew. The core flaw of the Dubia can be summarized thusly:

• The presupposition from which the Dubia cardinals operate is that all objectively grave acts are automatically actual mortal sins. This error is reflected in the structure of the Dubia's various questions. Such an approach to moral theology is flatly contrary to centuries of Catholic understanding of what does and does not constitute an actual mortal sin. 

There are three factors that constitute an actual mortal sin. The first is the involvement of what is called objectively grave matter. However, there are two subjective factors as well. One does not by recognizing the variables which can subjectively affect an individual's culpability for a particular act ipso facto affirm that "divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio" (cf. Dubia Q1) are automatically in all cases guilty of actual mortal sin. Nor does such recognition of the aforementioned mitigating variables potentially affecting an individual's subjective culpability for a particular act ipso facto deny "the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts" (cf. Dubia Q2), the idea that there can be "objective situations of grave habitual sin" (cf. Dubia Q3), or consequently affirm that the aforementioned mitigations "transform[s] an objectively grave act into a subjectively good or defensible choice" (cf. Dubia Q4). And of course one who recognizes the variables which can subjectively affect an individual's culpability for a particular act does not necessarily affirm some "interpretation of the role of conscience...that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms" (cf. Dubia Q5). It is not an issue of legitimizing exceptions but instead one of not painting all objectively grave situations with the same level of subjective gravity.

If an objectively grave act is not automatically a subjective actual mortal sin, then the one who committed the act does not necessarily in all cases need to avoid taking communion. As for which situations this could be applicable, that sort of discernment is for individual penitents and their confessors, not those outside the specific situation no matter whom they are.

For those who want to read more on these matters, they can see my notes located here and here. It is actually not hard to answer these questions; however, there is also the factor of expending time on them when those asking the questions will not like or accept the answers given. As Pope Francis is likely aware that most of those who push the Dubia fall into this category and therefore his direct refusal to acknowledge it is actually something that arguably is the correct approach to take.

If You Are Afraid of Public Speaking

Points to Ponder:

In winter, I plot and plan. In spring, I move. [Henry Rollins]

In the ground. I put into it
The winter’s accumulation of paper,
Pages I do not want to read
Again, useless words, fragments,
errors. And I put into it
the contents of the outhouse:
light of the suns, growth of the ground,
Finished with one of their journeys.
To the sky, to the wind, then,
and to the faithful trees, I confess
my sins: that I have not been happy
enough, considering my good luck;
have listened to too much noise,
have been inattentive to wonders,
have lusted after praise.
And then upon the gathered refuse,
of mind and body, I close the trench
folding shut again the dark,
the deathless earth. Beneath that seal
the old escapes into the new. [Wendell Berry]

Dachau: An Overview

History of the Plague

Prosperity Gospel vs Living Within One’s Means

Excerpts From Literature/Writings:

One summer Aksionov was going to the Nizhny Fair, and as he bade good-bye to his family, his wife said to him, "Ivan Dmitrich, do not start to-day; I have had a bad dream about you."

Aksionov laughed, and said, "You are afraid that when I get to the fair I shall go on a spree."

His wife replied: "I do not know what I am afraid of; all I know is that I had a bad dream. I dreamt you returned from the town, and when you took off your cap I saw that your hair was quite grey."

Aksionov laughed. "That's a lucky sign," said he. "See if I don't sell out all my goods, and bring you some presents from the fair."

So he said good-bye to his family, and drove away.

When he had travelled half-way, he met a merchant whom he knew, and they put up at the same inn for the night. They had some tea together, and then went to bed in adjoining rooms.

It was not Aksionov's habit to sleep late, and, wishing to travel while it was still cool, he aroused his driver before dawn, and told him to put in the horses.

Then he made his way across to the landlord of the inn (who lived in a cottage at the back), paid his bill, and continued his journey.

When he had gone about twenty-five miles, he stopped for the horses to be fed. Aksionov rested awhile in the passage of the inn, then he stepped out into the porch, and, ordering a samovar to be heated, got out his guitar and began to play.

Suddenly a troika drove up with tinkling bells and an official alighted, followed by two soldiers. He came to Aksionov and began to question him, asking him who he was and whence he came. Aksionov answered him fully, and said, "Won't you have some tea with me?" But the official went on cross-questioning him and asking him. "Where did you spend last night? Were you alone, or with a fellow-merchant? Did you see the other merchant this morning? Why did you leave the inn before dawn?"

Aksionov wondered why he was asked all these questions, but he described all that had happened, and then added, "Why do you cross-question me as if I were a thief or a robber? I am travelling on business of my own, and there is no need to question me."

Then the official, calling the soldiers, said, "I am the police-officer of this district, and I question you because the merchant with whom you spent last night has been found with his throat cut. We must search your things."

They entered the house. The soldiers and the police-officer unstrapped Aksionov's luggage and searched it. Suddenly the officer drew a knife out of a bag, crying, "Whose knife is this?"

Aksionov looked, and seeing a blood-stained knife taken from his bag, he was frightened.

"How is it there is blood on this knife?"

Aksionov tried to answer, but could hardly utter a word, and only stammered: "I--don't know--not mine." Then the police-officer said: "This morning the merchant was found in bed with his throat cut. You are the only person who could have done it. The house was locked from inside, and no one else was there. Here is this blood-stained knife in your bag and your face and manner betray you! Tell me how you killed him, and how much money you stole?"

Aksionov swore he had not done it; that he had not seen the merchant after they had had tea together; that he had no money except eight thousand rubles of his own, and that the knife was not his. But his voice was broken, his face pale, and he trembled with fear as though he went guilty.

The police-officer ordered the soldiers to bind Aksionov and to put him in the cart. As they tied his feet together and flung him into the cart, Aksionov crossed himself and wept. His money and goods were taken from him, and he was sent to the nearest town and imprisoned there. Enquiries as to his character were made in Vladimir. The merchants and other inhabitants of that town said that in former days he used to drink and waste his time, but that he was a good man. Then the trial came on: he was charged with murdering a merchant from Ryazan, and robbing him of twenty thousand rubles.

His wife was in despair, and did not know what to believe. Her children were all quite small; one was a baby at her breast. Taking them all with her, she went to the town where her husband was in jail. At first she was not allowed to see him; but after much begging, she obtained permission from the officials, and was taken to him. When she saw her husband in prison-dress and in chains, shut up with thieves and criminals, she fell down, and did not come to her senses for a long time. Then she drew her children to her, and sat down near him. She told him of things at home, and asked about what had happened to him. He told her all, and she asked, "What can we do now?"

"We must petition the Czar not to let an innocent man perish."

His wife told him that she had sent a petition to the Czar, but it had not been accepted.

Aksionov did not reply, but only looked downcast.

Then his wife said, "It was not for nothing I dreamt your hair had turned grey. You remember? You should not have started that day." And passing her fingers through his hair, she said: "Vanya dearest, tell your wife the truth; was it not you who did it?"

"So you, too, suspect me!" said Aksionov, and, hiding his face in his hands, he began to weep. Then a soldier came to say that the wife and children must go away; and Aksionov said good-bye to his family for the last time.

When they were gone, Aksionov recalled what had been said, and when he remembered that his wife also had suspected him, he said to himself, "It seems that only God can know the truth; it is to Him alone we must appeal, and from Him alone expect mercy."

And Aksionov wrote no more petitions; gave up all hope, and only prayed to God.

Aksionov was condemned to be flogged and sent to the mines. So he was flogged with a knot, and when the wounds made by the knot were healed, he was driven to Siberia with other convicts. [Leo Tolstoy: From God Sees The Truth But Waits (circa 1872)].

Along With Youth

A porcupine skin,
Stiff with bad tanning,
It must have ended somewhere.
Stuffed horned owl
Pompous
Yellow eyed;
Chuck-wills-widow on a biassed twig
Sooted with dust.
Piles of old magazines,
Drawers of boy’s letters
And the line of love
They must have ended somewhere.
Yesterday’s Tribune is gone
Along with youth
And the canoe that went to pieces on the beach
The year of the big storm
When the hotel burned down
At Seney, Michigan. [Ernest Hemingway]

Points to Ponder:

Men prefer to remain in ignorance and to pronounce rash judgments on things which are difficult and obscure rather than to gain an understanding of them by diligent study. [Rufinus]

Briefly on Burying the Hatchet in 2019...

As I have grown older, I have been more conscious of the need in many spheres of life to be a bridge builder not a bridge destroyer. I have always prided myself on being generally pretty good in this area but on those cases when I have gone astray, it is usually not by a small amount. Sin and weakness have played a part in this but I believe through properly conducted dialogue that obstacles can be overcome for those who are of good will.

During Lent, I will make more than the normal degree of effort in this area as befitting the season in question.

Briefly...

Lent is upon us and while there are issues of far greater importance than what I am about to say, I will simply note very briefly that it is profoundly shameful before we start the Lenten season for certain serial provocateurs to try and rekindle old animosities instead of focusing on their own spiritual improvement. But enough on that distasteful stuff.

As far as my preparation for the season goes, among the things I am giving up and the things I will be taking up for this season{1}, one of the latter is that I am actually considering doing some apologetics during Lent. Why? Because I have for so long had a low opinion of most of what passes for apologetics on the web over the years. While ignoring it most of the time has long been what I have done, this Lent I will don a proverbial digital hairshirt and wade into this matter from time to time during the Lenten season as a form of penance.

Note:

{1} As there is more to Lent than just giving stuff up of course.

Points to Ponder:

There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are messengers of overwhelming grief…and unspeakable love. [Washington Irving]

Today would have been the 78th birthday of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. If readers could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul, I would appreciate it. For those who do not believe in this ancient custom, then prayers for my mother (who still has difficulties on anniversaries such as this) and the rest of the family would be appreciated.



Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Briefly on the Emerging New Site Formatting:

In the fiddling around with the template, I have decided to include as labels almost all the primary tags for the various archive postings. As I have explained before, all posts to this site have been tagged with primary and secondary tags, the primary is the main classification tag of sorts. There are some primary tags which either are not used anymore or which because of their nature, I simply do not want to include but out of the ones so included you can readily access 3221 of the 3284 published postings in one form or another. Make that 3222 of the 3285 if we include this posting.

Points to Ponder:

Smoking cigars is like falling in love. First, you are attracted by its shape; you stay for its flavor, and you must always remember never, never to let the flame go out!  [Winston Churchill]

Let Children Get Bored Again

Roberts again sides with liberal Supreme Court justices in disagreeing with lower court interpretations

To summarize this situation in sequence courtesy of SCOTUS Blog:

• The Supreme Court had previously ruled 5-4 that the Texas state court needed to revisit the death sentence of an inmate who had been argued had intellectual disabilities which they claimed was not in line with the most recent medical guide on these matters.

• The Texas state court retried the case and again sentenced him to death even after the local district attorney agreed the man was intellectually disabled.

• The case returned to the Supreme Court where the justices were asked to take up the case once again. The claim made was that despite the court's prior rebuke of the Texas lower court that the state basically carbon copied their prior analysis and rubberstamped the same verdict. 

• The local district attorney refused to defend the court decision so the Texas AG office sought to do so.

• The Supreme Court reversed the state court with a second rebuke.

• The Court in reversing the Texas lower court argued that the state court basically ignored their prior rebuke and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with the opinion rendered by SCOTUS.

• Though he had voted with the minority in 2017, Roberts recognized the scam the state court attempted to pull and wrote a separate opinion concurring with those who voted in the majority last time (sans Kennedy who is retired now) to throw out the death sentence in this case because though he had problems with the prior ruling, it was evident that the lower court here misapplied the prior court ruling from 2017. In short, he was recognizing what is flatly obvious in this case no matter what one thinks of the prior ruling.

• Alito along with Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the ruling mainly to bitch that the 2017 ruling was not clear enough the first time and to uphold the death penalty sentence. In short, it was a sour grapes dissent from them for not winning on the first go around not an fair accounting of how the Texas lower court thumbed their nose at the Supreme Court's prior ruling in their retrying of the case. In short, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch were engaging in judicial activism here whereas Roberts (who agreed with their position in principle) was not.

• Kavanaugh did not join either ruling on this one. 

In short, Roberts was right on this where the particulars of this case go after what the Texas lower court did in response to the prior SCOTUS ruling and Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch were wrong.

9-0: SCOTUS Rules That Eighth Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” Clause Applies To The State

I have written on civil asset forfeiture before{1} and it is a major issue with me. I am pleased to see the above unanimous decision of the Supreme Court which will serve as a good foundation for being able to go after civil asset forfeiture abuse at the state level.

Note:

{1} Here is one example from recent years:

Briefly on Civil Asset Forfeiture (circa June 3, 2017)

Points to Ponder:

“We should not have an 'open mind' because that means we grant plausibility to anything, however, we should have a discerning mind." [Mike Mentzer]

Tim Eyman has sponsored a number of good initiatives in Washington state over the years. However, what he did here sullies his reputation as far as I am concerned. The chair stealing is bad enough but lying about it when you are so plainly caught on camera? You are not fooling anyone Timmy boy and your credibility is now shot!

There is a place where the sidewalk ends
And before the street begins,
And there the grass grows soft and white,
And there the sun burns crimson bright,
And there the moon-bird rests from his flight
To cool in the peppermint wind.

Let us leave this place where the smoke blows black
And the dark street winds and bends.
Past the pits where the asphalt flowers grow
We shall walk with a walk that is measured and slow,
And watch where the chalk-white arrows go
To the place where the sidewalk ends.

Yes we'll walk with a walk that is measured and slow,
And we'll go where the chalk-white arrows go,
For the children, they mark, and the children, they know
The place where the sidewalk ends. [Shel Silverstein]

Points to Ponder:

"Ninety five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash." [Arthur Jones]

Alabama newspaper editor calls for KKK 'to night ride again'

Some parts of Alabama struggle to come into 1970...in 2019!

Points to Ponder:

"Not everything is fit to print. There is to be regard for at least probable factual accuracy, for danger to innocent lives, for human decencies, and even, if cautiously, for nonpartisan considerations of the national interest." [Alexander Bickel]

In perusing some ways to update this website in terms of general theme and other factors, the site may look odd from time to time over the next two weeks. The reason is because I am going to be making changes to this website. There have been site template additions, revisions, etc. throughout the history of this website{1} of course since I settled on a basic outline which I spent no small amount of time on getting the way I wanted it to look.{2} Even then there would be updates from time to time as needed or desired{3} but they were usually additions or omissions to existing structure.{4} In terms of substantial updates, there has been only one since the massive archive tagging project of 2007{5} and one aborted revision attempt in 2008{6} that was ultimately (if memory serves) abandoned and that took place last year. However, even that one did not affect the structure of the website.

The purpose of what is being worked on now will retain some of the more useful elements of the past updates but dramatically alter the appearance of the website. This is being done for at least two reasons:

I have long wanted to change the existing structure appearance as what is there is to my eyes far too dated. However, I have had neither the time nor the requisite knowledge to do it.

The growth of social media since my early Rerum Novarum days has resulted in changes which were not being accounted for in the current structure and a new structure would be needed to better handle that. While I have no intention of starting a new website{7}; at the same time, these realities eventually needed to be faced squarely and I have decided at the present time to do that.

I could probably think of more reasons if I bothered to sit down and do so but what is noted there is sufficient.

So with these notes in mind, this place may become a bit messier before the launch of the new look which I expect will be finalized on or before March 4, 2019.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.


Notes:

{1} For a recent example, see here.

{2} If memory serves, once I finally got it set up, it took a couple of weeks to get some semblance of a template that I liked.

{3} Though Rerum Novarum has gone through many permutations in its twenty months of existence, major structural adjustments have been rare.[...] Indeed, it is usually only when the previous format no longer succeeds in coping with the expansion of this weblog into various kinds of subject matter that adjustments of this kind are undertaken...

To note a few examples in recent months:
---The disclaimer was revised in April of 2003 in its first paragraph making what was once an ironclad policy into a more general one admitting of exceptions. (And of course the current disclaimer is applicable retroactively in case anyone wondered.) 

...

---At various times searching the archives for particular subject matter (usually to link to a post being written), this writer will find a post in the past where the paragraphs are cluttered or too long. In cases like that, the post will be spread out a bit by making more paragraphs of the original material. (Sometimes moving original material from the body of the text to footnotes.)

---Back in early February of this year, the author of this weblog sought to make the footnoting procedures in the post archives more uniform. This was done by going backwards through the archives and checking for inconsistencies in this area which were corrected...

---A major paradigm shift took place roughly around March of last year when the weblog writer moved to numbers in footnoting and away from astrisk markings. In uniformizing the weblog, this meant changing those notations to the number format that had evolved over the course of time and working backward until everything but roughly the first month or so was altered. (Time constraints preventing that from being tended to at the time.)

---The occasional misspelling being corrected or the occasional phrasing where either (i) a word was found missing or (ii) which read a bit convoluted -usually due to being typed in haste- have of course been corrected as they have been discovered either by this writer or by others. Unlike some weblog personages, this writer never sees a reason to revise previous texts from the archives viz. the arguments advanced. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa April 12, 2004)]

{4} For example, see footnote one as well as the update from 2017 and and the
four updates from 2018.

{5} See the links located here and here for details.

{6} See the links located here and here for details.

{7} I already did that in 2017 with the Jaded project material. However, for the moment that project is on a defacto haitus.

AOC wants to return to FDR roots of the Democratic Party and WHOA NELLY, this goes badly

I made several deletions from the side margin today including the graph outlining deaths since 9/11, various syndication buttons that were either no longer in existence or obsolete, and removed the St Blogs Webring since that webring is nothing but a ghost town now and has apparently been so for a long time.

More will be forthcoming in soon but I do not have time to go into it right now. 

Revisiting the Subject of Private Revelations:

Though I have written more completely on the subject in years past, the following was occasioned by the words in dark green below. Without further ado...

One often hears it said today that, "Fatima is [merely] a private revelation."  While many subjects who make such statements are well-meaning, and while the assertion is even true in a limited sense, often they are made with the purpose of minimizing the revelations at Fatima to the point of insignificance, by way of suggesting they may be ignored by any Catholic who wishes to do so.

Actually, no one is obligated to believe in any apparition, period. You would be wise to not take this beyond what the Catholic Church teaches on private revelation.

Someone is not more or less Catholic for accepting or rejecting any apparition. If anything, apparitions (even approved ones) can be a pathway to schism or worse when those who are devoted to them in any way place said devotions above their required assent to the Church's Magisterium. (Which is nor optional.)

Apparitions are not to be used as deciding questions of history, natural philosophy, philosophy, or theology and those that do engage in no small amount of abuse of them. (For example, the person on your thread criticizing Pius [XI] and Pius XII for not avoiding WWII and its aftermath because of not "obeying Fatima" or some nonsense like that.) Apparitions can actually do more harm than good unless those that follow them use them correctly. If they are used in any way for more than helping the person renew their own faith through repentance then they are being abused. If they are used as requirements of the Faith by anyone, they are being abused.

Yes, Fatima is merely a private revelation. If you personally find the arguments for it convincing, then you can give it the assent of human faith but that is all. This is what the Church since the time of Benedict XIV has taught on private revelations. It would be advisable not to go beyond that.

Briefly on the Christian Faith:

The words that occasioned this were ones directed at Rod Dreher who was accused of being an apostate. I responded originally as follows:

Apostasy is the repudiation of the Christian faith. Dreher did not do that by swimming the Bosphorus.

As for the rest, my words are in regular font.

Do the "orthodox" churches retain the Christian faith despite their numerous heresies? :)

A better question is, do the so-called "traditionalists"? :o

The answer to your question is yes because the Catholic Church has always recognized the Christian faith in the Orthodox Churches. There is 95+% concurrence in faith albeit often explained differently (as western and eastern theological approaches differ) and the differences boil down oftentimes to interpretations.

For example, the Orthodox believe usually in papal primacy but not in the manner that the west conceives of it, they believe by theological default in the immaculate conception as doctrine not dogma (long story here), they believe in prayers for the dead but not many of the medieval western accredations that are often attached to the dogma of purgatory, etc.

They retain the Christian faith albeit imperfectly. That also applies to the Protestants who though varying from group to group all are far more deficient in the Christian faith than the Orthodox. But the Church recognizes those of good will who profess a belief in the basic Trinitarian doctrines as Christians with varying degrees of deficiencies of course. Heck, she even recognizes the "traditionists" as Christians despite their varying degrees of deficiency too :)

More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc.
(Aka "Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor is In" Dept.)

This is a response to a response to a thread posted on Saturday. My words will be in regular font while words of sources either block quoted or in light blue font.

I can refute all of what you wrote in response with just one observation: It's simply not true that the Church teaches, or has ever taught, that a pope cannot teach heresy

Actually, that is no refutation because you are flat out wrong. The Church does teach and has always taught that a pope cannot teach heresy. However, to be clear, she has "always taught" this the same way she has "always taught" things like papal primacy, the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. This is not hard to demonstrate but because of the variegations of Church history, it can be tedious to do so. But since anyone can make sweeping observation claims without backing them up, I will take a few moments and touch lightly on this stuff.

As for your words:

And as to that allocution from Saint Pius which you cited: There's truth in it, but the ultramontanism of it is not authentically Catholic. It's hyperbolic pious piffle that is not grounded in the Scriptures or in the tradition of the Church, and any bishop of Rome who talked that way in prior centuries would have been laughed at and ignored as a pretentious crank, and rightly so. 

You sound like the Orthodox who say the same things about papal primacy. They point to the numerous and weighty examples of the popes over the centuries exhorting and commanding obedience to them in matters of faith as "hyperbolic", "exaggerations", "misunderstanding the ancient primacy of honour", and a whole host of similar claims. To apply your claim about Pope St. Pius X's words seriously, you should swim the Bosophorus because at least then you would be honest with what you evidently believe. Pius' words are in substance no different than Clement of Rome telling the Corinthians "[y]e therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue." Geez, what a pretentious crank he was! And do not even get me started on the more forceful claims of his successors in subsequent centuries.{1}

Actual Catholic doctrine, as dogmatized by ecumenical councils and actually taught and exemplified by the broader tradition, is much more modest. 

You are wrong. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know about the Deputation De Fide of the First Vatican Council where the schema that would later be promulgated as Pastor Aeternus would be explained in detail by Bishop Vincent Gasser of Brixen in his authoritative Relatio.{2} One of the subjects discussed there was the question of whether or not a pope could teach heresy. I will get back to this in responding to your later posting further down. Spoiler alert: it does not countenance your interpretation!

My observation from above still stands: Accusing us of resisting Pope Francis and his agenda simply because we do not "like" it is not an argument: It's a conclusory accusation that does not bother to engage the substance of our criticisms. It's intellectually and spiritually lazy.

Actually, you are merely regurgitating claims already dispatched in the earlier response which is a variation of the argumentation fallacy of argumentation ad nauseum and that is quite the definition of laziness{3} on your part to be blunt.

As to claims by the Catholic Church, there are no claims of the pope being able to teach heresy in the early church. The reason is of course because he did not. Originally, there was not the sort of full understanding of what was involved in the papal primacy as we have now but there are pointers and examples both of what was said as well as what was not said. Again, there is no evidence of record of the early church popes teaching heresy. And this was attested to by witnesses at the early ecumenical councils as well as in the Formula of Hormisdas which was a profession of faith prescribed by Pope Hormisdas as the requirement of his communion by the Acadians to end their longstanding schism in the early sixth century -part of which read as follows:

The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.{4}

This formulary was signed onto by the churches in the west and the bulk of the churches in the east as well. The words are clear and unequivocal: the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See. This would be an impossible claim to make if the Popes of Rome had ever taught heresy, could ever go into schism, or could ever go into apostasy. And as a Profession of Faith, it would fit the criteria of a dogmatic judgment by Pope Hormisdas or what would later be called an infallible pronouncement.

This was the standard understanding in the Church where the pope was concerned for a good thousand odd years. Pope Agatho re-affirmed this understanding after the sixth ecumenical council when he declared the following to Emperor Constantine IV after he dogmatically settled the chief controversy of his time:

And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.{5}

Can you believe that St. Agatho: river of tears, prostrated mind, fully embraced and followed in all things, etc? Gee, what a pretentious crank he was huh?

For a third witness, a subsequent ecumenical council of the Church in dispute with the estranged Eastern Churches reiterated the aforementioned Formula of Hormisdas in its profession of faith 350 years after it was first promulgated. I could cite a lot more examples but the three above are adequate to make the point that not only did the early Fathers and Doctors did not believe the Roman Church could err but the very idea that a Pope could be a heretic was both foreign and repugnant to them as it should be to any genuinely faithful Catholic.

The mere fact that there exists an entire corpus of traditional literature debating and discussing what recourse the Church has against a manifest and unrepentantly heretical pope goes to show that the mind of the Church has always envisaged the possibility of a pope being such.

Actually, this is also false. The mind of the Church did not always [envisage] the possibility of a pope being such as the examples from above well demonstrate. However, there did come to be some literature on this matter which requires explanation and here goes:

The literature you speak of had its origins chiefly in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation.{6}

The aftermath of the Protestant circumstance shook the church's foundations in ways that were unprecedented. Unlike the schism between west and east which was centuries in the making{7}, the breaks by the Protestants were sharper and more sudden in nature. This shook the Catholic Church to its core and in the process of looking for answers, the question began to be floated about what if this movement were to seat one of its own in the Chair of Peter, what would happen then? That is when the theological titans of that age began to posit various hypotheses to try and explain this.

In this environment, theologians like Tommaso Cajetan, Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Melchior Cano, Albert Pighus, and others floated various hypotheses of what one would do in the event of a heretical pope. However, the floating of a hypothesis does not mean you per se concur with it. The Church all along witnessed to the converse hypotheses by the fact that she never proclaimed anyone who professed the idea that a pope actually could teach heresy as a Doctor of the Church or elevated such persons to the altars via canonization. Furthermore, most of the proponents of heretical pope hypotheses attempting to explain what would happen if a pope was to teach heresy personally abhorred the very notion and did not believe it themselves. Suarez did not believe a pope could teach heresy, thought the very idea was inconceivable, and that the position that he could not do so was pious and probable, to be held{8}, but not certain in his time. Because he did not view it as certain, he attempted to set forth some hypotheses on the matter. Pighus believed it was impossible period either to teach heresy or even for a pope to be a private heretic. Alphonsus Ligouri adhered to the Bellarmine position.

Suarez's attempted hypothesis was condemned in 1692 by Pope Alexander VIII when he proscribed the 4 Gallican Articles one of which was a variation of Suarez's pro-offered hypothesis. Similarly the hypothesis of Cajetan was no longer defendable formally after that time though Bellarmine claimed it could not be defended in his view prior to that.{9} Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."{10}

To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.

In actuality, the principle had already had been settled prior to the sixteenth century but the chaos of the Protestant Reformation resulted in greater probing of this issue than had previously been the case{10} but the end result was the same as before except it is much better understood now. And while one can piously and probably hold that even in the recesses of his inner person a pope cannot be a heretic or believe anything heretical, Church teaching from what I can tell{12} only extends to the formal acts as pope: he cannot teach heresy period. By logical extension, he cannot be in schism from the Church either. Nor can he apostasize. Claims to the contrary{13} put those who make them in the company of the Acacian schismatics and others to whom as Pope St. Agatho put it are the heretics [who] have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. 

I thought about concluding this piece with Pope Agatho's words but in the interest of providing you with some comfort, will point you to an area where it is much safer to opine on these matters; namely that of lesser errors{14} and matters of the prudential order. The Church has stated the following in a very important Instruction that I recommend that you read when you can: Donum Veritatis from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published back in 1990. To wit:

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.{15}

The admission of some particular cases means that the Church's Magisterium takes a more nuanced approach to these matters in the prudential realm than prior statements might appear to say, dealing as they all did with fundamental matters of faith and church communion. While one should not rashly cast a wide net in this area of course, it nonetheless is permissible from time to time for someone properly informed and of the proper spiritual disposition to wade into those water. I would particularly recommend reading carefully if time constraints prevent you from reading the entire document focusing on sections 21-31.

Nevertheless, the views you have expressed up to this point in time are not orthodox ones. Hopefully you will consider the above material very carefully and revise your statements to be within the boundaries of acceptable Catholic orthodoxy.

Notes:

{1} I will not even go over how the Protestants reject Catholic doctrinal claims in the same fashion on a whole host of issues!

{2} There is no more authoritative exposition on the correct interpretation of the contents of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus than Bishop Gasser's Relatio.

{3} Intellectually as well as spiritually.

{4} From the Formula of Hormisdas (circa 519 AD)

{5} From the Tome of Agatho (circa 681)

{6} I am unaware of any place where St. Thomas Aquinas even discusses the possibility of a heretical pope and there were a number of controversial matters of his day where the subject itself would have been apropos. For that reason, the Angelic Doctor's silence on this matter speaks volumes. (My more limited understanding of Aquinas' work is reinforced by the claim of Dominican scholar Ulrich Horst, OP who has made the same observation.)

{7} The 1054 date is really more a fiction than a reality insofar as the schism of the Churches really only crystallized into permanence with either the Sack of Constantinople or the Fall of Constantinople (depending on how you interpret the evidences).

{8} Read: most likely.

{9} Cardinal Bellarmine died more than seventy years prior to Pope Alexander VIII's condemnation of the 4 Articles.

{10} Bishop Vincent Gasser of Brixen: From the Relatio of Vincent Gasser delivered to the Deputation De Fide (circa July 1870)

{11} The same thing happened with other apostolic beliefs which were settled early on and were later challenged in the cauldron of controversies. For example, the status of the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible was definitively settled by the Council of Carthage in 418 AD but challenged anew by the Protestant Reformers only to be re-addressed by the Council of Trent. Likewise, the idea that the supreme authority in the Church was the Pope was challenged by the conciliar movement that arose in the aftermath of the Western Schism (even hijacking the Council of Constance in the process) only to be put down again at the Council of Florence.

{12} Though one could I suppose piously and probably believe things extend further, my only interest is in what the Church teaches as required on this matter and that does not go beyond formal teaching.

{13} Read: the sort of claims you have up to now been making.

{14} This does not preclude from the possibility that there could be lesser papal errors in doctrine than heresy, schism, or apostasy of course. And by logical extension, there could thus also be errors in prudence viz church discipline and general administration of course.

{15} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian Donum Veritatis, Section 24 (circa May 24, 1990)

On Papal Dissent, Argumentation Fallacies, Etc.
(Aka "Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor Is In" Dept.")

My words will be in regular font.

I'm afraid your understanding of both Protestantism and of Catholic doctrine concerning magisterial authority is but evidence of lack of good catechesis in your upbringing.

You mean I do not engage in trad fantasyland. Actually, it is your profound misunderstanding of Catholic teaching that is the issue.

What makes Protestantism "Protestant" is not mere disagreement with the pope, nor mere disobedience to him or to another bishop, but the theological rationale for doing so.

You have set up a strawman here as what makes Protestantism "Protestant."

Luther, Calvin, Zwinglic, Cramner, Latimer, Ridley, and co. were not merely disagreeing with the popes of their day, they were dissenting from the traditional, common faith of all Christendom

I am sure the Orthodox will love to see you write them out of the common faith of Christendom as you have here.

and inventing new doctrines in the process.

Yes, they invented new doctrines but they also claimed they were restoring the Church from the corruptions of their period (both real and imagined) to a more ideal period in time. Gee, what groups make that claim today?

Papal primacy does not mean that a pope's heretical teaching is subscribed to,

You make the fundamental error of presuming that a pope could teach heresy. The Doctors of the Church were pretty firmly unanimous that what you are claiming could not happen and indeed the First Vatican Council accepted this interpretation. More on this in a moment.

nor does it mean that everything a pope says is always believed to be true,

Again, strawman. If you actually read what I wrote you would know I did not say this.

nor does it mean a pope has to be obeyed in whatever he commands.

Again, strawman. Assent is required in matters of faith and morals. Obedience is required in church discipline and church government. You need not agree with the latter but your agreement or lack thereof is not the basis for whether assent is or is not required. And of course matters of the prudential order allow a wider degree of possible viewpoints.

In just the same way that any legitimate superior -- from one's parents to civil authority, from the local parish priest to the local bishop -- may be criticized and may even be disobeyed when his commands are either intrinsically immoral or will imperil the very life of the community, so with the bishop of Rome.

Actually, your position above is not that of the Catholic Church:

"[T]heir Apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers, and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ [Lk 22:32]. 

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”{1} 

Those who claim a pope can teach heresy, be in schism, or apostasize flatly contradict the teaching of the First Vatican Council and are proximate to heresy. This does not of course mean the pope cannot err. However, he cannot err to the extent of heresy, schism, or apostasy if the words of the First Vatican Council have any real meaning to them and are not just pious slogans.

He's no different in this respect. He's not the Catholic religion's version of the Dalai Lama or the Mormon Prophet. He's an ordinary man, like any other, and we have no divine assurance that he will always be orthodox, or that he will always govern or teach rightly.

Actually, we have divine assurance that the pope will always be orthodox in his teaching -see the citation from above. While it is true that popes are not protected from lesser errors as well as defects in prudence; at the same time, prudence is to a certain extent subjective insofar as people of good will can differ on whether something is or is not imprudent.

Accusing us of resisting Pope Francis and his agenda

Your words betray you. Furthermore, they would not meet with the favour of Pope St. Pius X:

"The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine... 

When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, 'si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,' [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him. 

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt... 

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many...who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls."{2}

And far from a mere opinion, the above is a papal allocution which means it is part of Pope Pius X's papal magisterium to which religious assent is owed.

simply because we do not "like" it is not an argument: It's a conclusory accusation that does not bother to engage the substance of our criticisms. It's intellectually and spiritually lazy.

I have engaged the substance (to the extent there is any) of the criticisms of many of those in trad fantasyland over more than two decades. I have found almost all the arguments pathetic and self-serving as well as doctrinally and morally deficient. The mirrors many of these purveyors have with historical heresies and schisms is quite startling actually for anyone who takes time to study church history. But that is a matter for another time.

The bishop of Rome is not the sole recipient, within the Church, of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I never said he was.

He is not sole priest, prophet, and king:

See my prior comments. Boy, an army of scarecrows could be made from the straw you are supplying in your reply ;)

All baptized and confirmed Catholics enjoy the assistance of the Holy Spirit in discerning truth from falsehood and His assistance in prophetically resisting obstinately errant persons, both inside and outside the Church.

That is what I have been doing with you and your ilk.

This is not "protestant" in the least: I'm not starting my own rival sect, and I don't claim the authority to juridically depose an errant cleric. I remain firmly within the Church, as do all the other distinguished prelates and theologians who have taken Pope Francis to task for his many errors

Actually, the extent of your communion with the Church is debatable. There is a difference between someone who commits material error and those who are more obstinate in error. And the way you took it upon yourself to impute modernist heresy to a pope and canonized saint, I am not so sure we are dealing with innocent material error here.

Notes:

{1} First Vatican Council: Excerpt from the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (circa July 18, 1870)

{2} Pope Saint Pius X: Allocution (circa November 18, 1912)

Points to Ponder:

[T]o the liturgical prayer of the Christian Church, it is very evident that standing, not kneeling, is the correct posture for those taking part in it. A glance at the attitude of a priest officiating at Mass or Vespers, or using the Roman Ritual, will be sufficient proof. The clergy in attendance also, and even the laity assisting, are, by the rubrics, assumed to be standing. The Canon of the Mass designates them as "circumstantes". The practice of kneeling during the Consecration was introduced during the Middle Ages, and is in relation with the Elevation which originated in the same period. The rubric directing that while the celebrant and his ministers recite the Psalm "Judica", and make the Confession, those present who are not prelates should kneel, is a mere reminiscence of the fact that these introductory devotions were originally private prayers of preparation, and therefore outside the liturgy properly so called. It must not, in this connexion escape attention that, in proportion as the faithful have ceased to follow the liturgy, replacing its formulae by private devotions, the standing attitude has fallen more and more into disuse among them. In our own time it is quite usual for the congregation at a high Mass to stand for the Gospel and Creed; and, at all other times either to remain seated (when this is permitted) or to kneel. [Catholic Encyclopedia: Article on Kneeling and Genuflection (c. 1913)]

Points to Ponder:

 "Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father  to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." [Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto (circa 1894)]