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)]

Maybe its part of getting older but I find myself thinking more and more about people and places that are gone now, places such as The Last Exit which was a haunt of mine from roughly 1990/1-1995. Considering how society has become in recent years, we need more places like The Last Exit was: places where folks of every viewpoint imaginable could hang out, eat, drink, squabble about stuff, play games like chess/backgammon/go, listen to folks on open mic, etc. A sense of community that seems to be lacking more and more in this increasingly distant and digital age.

Points to Ponder:

"The promises made by God to the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give them the land of Palestine were realized when the land of Canaan was invaded by Joshua, son of Nun and his successors as leaders of Israel until the time of David and Solomon, that is, from the 12th to the 10th centuries before Jesus Christ. Similarly, the prophecies relative to the return of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian exile were realized when they were brought back home by Cyrus, King of Persia, in the 7th century BC. Consequently, these promises and these prophecies are today deprived of any reality, having been realized many centuries ago. It is not necessary to believe that they are valid forever and that they confer on the Jews an eternal right to possess the Promised Land." [Melkite Bishops Synod in Damascus: Note to the Central Commission (circa June 5, 1962)]

Rivera, Halladay, Martinez seem set for Hall election

When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense

#Facepalm
#Headdesk

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says She’s Going to ‘Run Train on the Progressive Agenda

Cats Who Have Access to Cardboard Boxes Are Less Stressed Out and Heal Faster Than Cats Who Don’t

Briefly...

Not having a State of the Union (SOTU)delivered in speech form is not the end of the world. For those who do not know, presidents have a variety of ways they have met this constitutional requirement. However, the manner of delivery was not uniform historically.

President Washington delivered his addresses at the old Federal Hall building in NYC from 1790-1796. President Adams followed suit for his addresses which were done in the Senate portion of the building from 1797-1800. President Thomas Jefferson who was a poor public speaker and also shy opted to write his and deliver it to the papers in 1801. That established a precedent for all subsequent presidents from 1802-1912.

President Wilson reintroduced the oral speech delivery in 1913. However, from 1918-1920, he was too ill to give it orally so he submitted it in writing to the press. President Harding returned to oral delivery of the speech in 1921 and 1922 and President Coolidge followed suit in 1923. Starting in 1924 though, Coolidge eschewed the oral delivery and submitted a text to the papers instead: something President Hoover did for all four of his SOTU's from 1929-1932. Then President Roosevelt in 1933 cemented the oral delivery of his addresses in 1933 in the House chamber before a joint session of Congress and all his successors followed suit through to 2018 with the time of said speeches being fixed to late January-early February in 1934.

Hundreds of People Are Saving Feral Felines From Death in NYC By Adopting Them as ‘Worker Cats’

Happy "New York Values Day" Folks!

(Also known as the anniversary of #TedECruzyote being pwned by Donald Trump in front of the whole country and his campaign ship being gashed with an irreparable tear below the proverbial waterline.)

Briefly...

For those wondering about all the huffing and puffing about President Trump's AG appointee's Catholicism and why the Democrats are doing that right now, its a trial balloon for SCOTUS. In a nutshell:

Chief Justice Roberts is Catholic
Justice Thomas is Catholic
Justice Alito is Catholic
Justice Kavanaugh is Catholic
Justice Gorsuch is Episcopalian but was raised Catholic
Amy Coney Barrett the likely next court justice to be appointed by Trump is Catholic

This is why they are field testing that kind of argument now.