I ahven't had a chance to watch this yet, but I have always frond Chris Ferrara worth listening too. Chris comes from very much a Traditionalist background. I haven;t really heard anyone yet talk about what Pope Francis's aims of his , 'Revolution', might be and am very curious. I will Listen to this tomorrow. I am sorry of the content upsets anyone. I will delete it tomorrow if it is OTT. But I like to listen to Chris; I don;t always agree with him but he makes me think.He is just about as smart as they come and a very good communicator and very well read and learned indeed in his subject matter.
Haven't heard this one yet, but I listen to Chris too. His style is a little harsh for me, but since I started listening to him about 4 years ago I have found that he is very on target with his analysis. Not perfect, but very good. Occasionally I cringe a little, but truth be told I cringe a lot less at him than what is coming out of many of our leaders.
Ferrara highlights the mechanisms of response now in place to implement Synodal documents. These mechanisms reach down into the diocesan level and present as movements of the Spirit, what are in actuality the dismantling of Sacred Tradition. Lord have mercy!
Awesome video, I think he has a real gift for cutting to the chase and I think his reading of Pope Francis changes and it's mechanism is spot on.
More on the topic of the Synodal Church: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/11/27/the-youth-synod-and-the-birth-of-the-synodal-church/ Some of the gems remind me of the drivel in Amoris Laetitia which we were expected to believe was a beautifully written theological masterpiece. I recall members of this forum denouncing as heretics those of us who pointed out that taking sodomy off the sin list was one of the aims of Amoris Laetitia. If the great unwashed like us could see that, there is absolutely no excuse for the Bishops who either endorsed it or remained silent about it. Reading the CWR article, it seems that the "Holy" Spirit has rested Bishop Heal-me-with-your-mouth who was the scribe on matters of marriage and family and drafted in Fr. LGBT Jesuit for his expertise on youth to impart this new interpretation of divine revelation. Some interesting facts about the voting members at the Synod: Of the total of 268 members of the Synod who had voting rights, only 181 had been elected by bishops’ conferences (or men’s orders) from around the world. The rest were members of Vatican offices or the Synod’s permanent staff (31), heads of the Eastern Catholic churches (15), and 40 members personally nominated by Francis. Every paragraph in the final document was separately voted on, and a two-thirds voted was required for passage. The results of each vote are included at the end of the final document. It is no hazard to conclude that the 71 members from the Vatican and Francis’ personal appointees voted as a bloc in favor of the paragraphs of the final document, which paragraphs, of course, was written by the staff of the Synod. The United States delegation, headed by Archbishop Chaput and by Cardinal Dinardio, the chairman of the USCCB, had five duly elected members, but Francis personally added Cardinal Cupich of Chicago. I couldn't agree more with the person who left this comment, except that I would replace the word "babble" with a word meaning bovine excrement: "With deep thanks to Thomas Ascik for his fine article and to the many who published wise comments already, I want to add a comment on a further aspect of the Synod’s “final document” and Pope Francis’ Apostolic Constitution, namely, their intellectual incoherence. One instance amongst scores: if synodality is a “constituent dimension of the Church” and “the Church and Synod are synonymous”, is it then true that the Church is a constituent dimension of the Church? Such babble is so sub-rational that it is almost impossible to criticize. It may be simple idiocy or, probably more likely, a deliberate device. I am reminded of Belloc’s crushing conclusion to his demolition of the Higher Criticism: “And with brains like that, they ask me to deny my God”."
On 7 December 2014, Pope Francis gave an interview to a journalist from the Argentinian newspaper 'La Nacion' in which he said, when asked how to define the magisterium, 'I am constantly making statements and giving homilies, that is magisterium. Check it out, it's very clear'. Here we have the Pope saying that his every public utterance is 'magisterial', even, presumably, when he contradicts either himself or one of his predecessors in office. A group of Spanish priests published a list of 129 public statements made by the Pope which they consider to be either heretical or heterodox but here the Pope says that they are 'magisterial'. I don't know whether or not the statement made in the interview was included in the priests' list but it must be the most heretical statements that he has ever made and which can be summarised as 'Everything I say or write is, by definition, the truth unless and until I say otherwise'. Is he crazy or am I?
I wish I were a theologian but I always understood it to be the Pope in conjunction with the Bishops. That is the Magisterium. But perhaps I am wrong? https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church by Fr. William G. Most By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation. A "theologian" who would claim he needs to be able to ignore the Magisterium in order to find the truth is strangely perverse: the teaching of the Magisterium is the prime, God-given means of finding the truth. Nor could he claim academic freedom lets him contradict the Church. In any field of knowledge, academic freedom belongs only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field. But one is not properly qualified if he does not use the correct method of working in his field, e.g., a science professor who would want to go back to medieval methods would be laughed off campus, not protected. Now in Catholic theology , the correct method is to study the sources of revelation, but then give the final word to the Church. He who does not follow that method is not a qualified Catholic theologian. Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." Taken from The Basic Catholic Catechism PART FIVE: The Apostles' Creed IX - XII Ninth Article: "The Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints" By William G. Most. (c) Copyright 1990 by William G. Most.
On the other hand I understand a document like, 'Humane Vitae', was magisterial was it not and did not Pope Paul promulgate this himself? I grow confused. I was going to write that I would ask the Jesuits across the street. But I suspect if I asked five different Jesuits I would get five different answers. I must look this one up
https://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html The Three Levels of Magisterial Teaching Goodness this is quite complicated. No wonder I was confused!! Not three but four levels. I will have to read and pray over this. I feel a headache coming on. I suspect the Holy Father was referring to the Third Level? ie: 3) ordinary teaching on faith and morals. This being so I would take it he could be either right or wrong , right if what he says is the true teaching of the Church and wrong if it is not. I mean he cannot change what is true, simply on his own say so. ..and the Teachings of the Church are true. So, by definition if what he says is wrong it cannot be Magisterial just because he himself says so..
1P5 ran an extremely in-depth article a couple of years ago about the different levels of Magisterial weight and there are something like 21 different levels I think even theologians are somewhat confused about it.
By the way, the group who puts together the website Catholicism.org that you just cited from has just been placed under restrictions by the local Bishop. They have been preaching that only Catholics are saved, rather than the more nuanced teaching that all who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church. I have no problem with them being sanctioned, what I do have a problem with though is that they are sanctioned and all of the liberal heretics can run around saying whatever they want. In fact, they are promoted. Why is it that to teach liberal heresy is okay in the Church today, but to have too strict an interpretation of Catholic teaching gets you put under interdict?
I have seen this, too. Very disturbing. Catholicism.org has run a number of really good articles, and seem to truly love the Catholic faith. They do not deserve to be sanctioned, or prohibited from calling themselves "Catholics". That is the weird part.
Exactly. I wonder how exactly does that work anyway? Is the Church Baptizing every man woman and child now in secret like the Mormon cult or is it a healy feely way of saying exactly what Catholicism.org said in plain speech?
Well, the idea is that everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church. There is, in reality, no "Baptist Church" and no "Episcopal Church". There is only one Church founded by Christ and that is the Catholic Church. So anyone baptized is baptized into that one Church, even if they do not realize it. That is why Catholics do not re-baptize people who enter the Church, if they have already been properly baptized in a Christian ceremony. There are a couple of sects who do have to be rebaptized because they do not use the correct formula. I forget which ones exactly. It might be the Mormons and/or the Jehova's Witnesses. I believe they use a different baptismal formula. I think the difficulty with Catholicism.org may be that they do not accept baptism of desire, but only water baptism. In any case, even if they are wrong it is not as big an error as running around teaching that homosexuality is not a sin. Should they be sanctioned, yes, BUT I think many others should be much farther ahead in the line. Putting them under interdict is like yelling at one child who is making a mess of his area at the dinner table while four others are having a big food fight at the other end of the table and they are let run wild.
Thank you for the explanation, that makes perfect sense and I should have remembered that because it related to my family when we entered into the Church. Our Baptism's were recognized because they were done in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To be honest, I was not thrilled about this though with regard to my children but I accept it on Faith. It does seem that sanctioning them is heavy handed. I wonder if there is more to this than BoD. Not that this is not a big issue because it is but BoD is something that the Church accepted that is impossible for any man to know about another. How can a man other than Jesus judge the heart of another man. A mystery at least t me that I have not spent enough time reading about to fully grasp.
If for some reason you think your children's baptism was done improperly you may be able to get a conditional re-baptism. This is not a second baptism, but in the case where there is doubt about the first one being done properly they can be conditionally baptized again in case there was some defect with the first one.
I liked your post, Dolours, but it wouldn't surprise me if, at first, I was one of the naysayers you mention. I do think I flipped pretty quickly, though. Safe in the Refuge of the Immaculate Heart!
The issue with the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart (Catholicism.org) goes back to Fr. Feeney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeneyism Fr. Feeney did not accept baptism of desire and acquired a small following. To be fair to him he did recant on his deathbed. Note: The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart in New Hampshire are the ones under interdict. Not the group in Still River Massachusetts who function under the same name. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart in Massachusetts are fully reconciled with the Catholic Church and have no issues whatsoever. At one time the two groups were related but they splintered and one reconciled with the Church (Massachusetts) and the other (New Hampshire) is in an "irregular" state, though they do work with the local Bishop. They are not Sedevacantists or anything like that.
