Poor Mike Lewis commentator on “Where Peter Is”. He’s so wet behind the ears. He doesn’t know that the invention of dissent from papal and dogmatic teachings of the Church was invented in the post-Vatican II era by a cabal of liberal, progressive bishops and theologians. Bishops, in particular, dissented from Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae and in the most virulent ways. And certainly, bishops, theologians, especially women theologians, despise the dogmatic teachings of the pope and the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church on who can and can’t be ordained.
Mike Lewis would even follow a heretical pope that “ordained” women as deacons in the theoretical sense. Mike Lewis helps us to understand what was at the root of the Great Schism-uncheck papal power. So, it’s okay to dissent from Humanae Vitae, question the wisdom of Pope Paul VI and argue for Women’s ordination and a marriage-like solution for the LGBTQ++ members of the Church to welcome them and their sins.
But question the ambiguity and the sowed confusion of Pope Francis? OUTRAGEOUS DISSENT! Wow, Mike Lewis, just WOW!
(Crisis Magazine): Mike Lewis, editor of Where Peter Is, who was accurately described in a recent article in the National Catholic Register as being “known for his harsh criticism of those he perceives as disloyal to the late pontiff,” asserted (and the author who knows the situation first hand says the assertion is dead wrong) that the three (fired laymen from Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, without due process and usurping the role of the rector of the seminary to hire and fire, and who did so in the most autocratic and non synodal way possible):
…openly violated the doctrine taught in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium (no. 25), the Catechism (no. 892), Canon Law (can. 752), and the Professio Fidei (third paragraph) which teaches that religious submission of intellect and will must be granted to the pope’s ordinary magisterial teachings on faith and morals, even when he is not teaching definitively, according to his manifest mind and will. This leaves no room for devising creative interpretations that are more palatable.
23 comments:
When collections dry up in Detroit the Vatican will know that it is Weisenberger’s fault!
What really kills Mike Lewis’ Pope Francis ideologies is that Pope Francis followed the minority advice of bishops who dissented, and publicly, to Pope Benedict’s liturgical magisterium and especially followed the university theologian dissenter Andrea Grillo advice!
Father McDonald said..."Mike Lewis would even follow a heretical pope that “ordained” women as deacons in the theoretical sense."
Mike Lewis would stand on firm ground as that which a Pope may teach in regard to women as deacons would be orthodox. Mike Lewis would be correct to obey the Pope's Magisterium.
=======
In regard to Mike's statement about the ordination of women, he noted:
"I was given a hypothetical. I responded with a basic Catholic principle. It was a thought exercise. People often ask me what would happen if a pope taught "X".
"If a pope taught anything on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, it would be magisterial in principle."
=======
Andrew Likoudis noted the validity of Mike's point in question. Andrew Likoudis stated:
"1) The pope can’t officially teach false doctrine.
"2) If the pope can’t teach false doctrine, then by necessity, anything he does teach is orthodox, whether that teaching is about women priests, Satan being Jesus’ brother, or four persons in the Trinity.
"If you accept Catholic ecclesiology as true, then if the pope taught these things, you’d have two option.
"Either: a) accept that the pope is right, and your understanding is what is lacking.
"Or b) Catholicism is not true."
=======
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Barf, barf
MT, Eastern Orthodoxy did precisely what you describe at the end of your comment. Popes have apologized for the Catholic Church’s role in fomenting the Great Schism and The Protestant Reformation. An ecumenical council condemned Pope Honorius, post mortem, as heretical in a comment he made to a Nestorian heretic.
Mike Lewis is immature and out to lunch and does not know Church history .
If we could interview St. Pio, or St. Faustina Kowalska regarding ambiguity pertaining to universalism, I wonder what they would say?
These bishops cherry pick that which they embrace in the most random and incohesive of ways. Heaven help those who get in their way. And, the consistent application of synodality, obviously superficial if contrary to embraced ideology.
Why not trust what the Church taught from the beginning, instead of adhering with such verve to the ramblings of a modern pope? Why wouldn't modern popes just do the same instead of making statements, or generating paper, that confuses believers?
Last, popes might have apologized but, Fr. AJM, I'll challenge you to consider the emptiness of words verses the meaningfulness of actions.
Honorius was a monothelite heretic, not Nestorian.
I have a hard time understanding your justification for not accepting a pope's teaching if he decided to ordain women...
This is timely, Fr. Chad Ripperger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNx8p0S5ejM
Marc, My mistake thanks for the correction. I would never leave the Catholic Church founded by our Savior who said to Peter of all ages the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. So even if women are ordained and invalidly so by the pope, I would remain Catholic, avoid women priestesses like the plague. The Church has survived invalidly ordained clerics and worse over the centuries!
I understand what you would do, I'm asking how you would justify it... If the pope is the proximate epistemic justification for the truth of some doctrine, how can you justify not accepting a pope's doctrinal teaching?
It seems to me, Fr., that Catholic ecclesiology opens the door for such considerations and, despite religious assent that allows for other than blind obedience, one could easily suffer under the yolk of an agenda of a man, or men. I, too, wouldn't leave; I just find it troubling that the framework for these types of situations seems to exist.
Marc, I would not accept the pope’s teaching that contradicts the sacramental dogmas of the Church. I wouldn’t become schismatic because of Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church which means Satan will try to prevail but he’s conquered in eternity. In my 70’s I am not too long for this world. That puts current travails into context.
I respect that, Father, but the question still stands: on what basis would you not accept the pope's teaching? And how can you determine whether the teaching contradicts the sacramental dogmas of the Church?
Mike Lewis (and others, though his statements are most recent and notable) selectively reads Donum Veritatis and other documents to support his judgment, as Lay High Commissioner of the Holy Inquisition of Synodality and Ultramottramism, that people with whom he disagrees are obviously and clearly heretics. So glad we have his careful thinking and clear logic to protect us from the diabolical Satanists who are using their positions to try to destroy the Church (meaning, not sexual deviants being shielded or even employed by the Vatican, but a handful of professors).
Nick
That would be Andrea "Bl. Carlo Acutis was trapped in outdated medieval Eucharistic piety" Grillo, right? The one whose personal bloviating was bluntly disavowed by the Anselmo of all institutions? That Andrea Grillo?
/s
Nick
Marc, the Catholic Church isn’t gnostic. All our tea yard out in the open. One simply has to find them. The pope can’t invent a new teaching out of thin air or worldly allurements. Women’s ordination is a major doctrine change with nothing in common with the root teaching on Holy Orders. The same with blessing same Dec unions to validate sodomy.. Pope Leo is calling Catholics to think critically.
All our teachings are out in the open… dang spell cy!
Of course, a pope wouldn't have to give you his reasoning behind whatever doctrine he proposes for your belief in the first place, but let's assume he did deign to explain his reasoning...
While you might think it to be a major doctrinal change with no root in the teaching on Holy Orders, if the pope said that it is not a major doctrinal change and is rooted in the teaching on Holy Orders, how could you reject it?
You see, it is the avoidance of perceived gnosticism that has you tied in knots here. The pope is your epistemic support for the truths of your doctrines. So, if the pope was to change that doctrine, you either have to accept the change or question your foundational reliance on him as your justification. And that is Mark Thomas's point here... In this case, it's a good one.
Marc, the benefit of the doubt I give to the pope. At our personal judgments one or the other will be vindicated. Pride before the fall.
So far, Pope Leo is a HUGE upgrade over the former pope. Holy, Holies!!!
Father McDonald said..."Mike Lewis is immature and out to lunch and does not know Church history."
Father, I will leave it to you to determine the above.
But Mike, as well as Andrew Likoudis, are correct in that the Pope's Magisterium is unassailable. The Pope, thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, is protected from teaching error.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
We are talking theoretically. This presumes “ifs”! If a pope says women can be ordained, Mike Lewis, in a fundamentalist way says he would accept that. By way of extending his logic, he would accept a pope declaring Jesus to be an alien from outer space. That is not only fundamentalism but Catholic immaturity.
"The Pope, thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, is protected from teaching error."
It is simply not the Catholic position that the pope is protected from teaching error, full stop and without condition, and never has been. MT, Vatican I was 150 years ago and Vatican II 60, and you still haven't finished reading those councils' decrees?
Nick
Post a Comment