Discussion about this post

User's avatar
michael's avatar

"While it may appear to be the case that Francis and his recent predecessors were universally accepted as pope, we need to recognise that appearances can be deceiving, to understand what “universal and peaceful adherence” really means (and what it does not mean), and to have our certainties in order."

The above statement is what causes people like Peter Kwasniewski to bend over backwards to defend the "visibility" of the Church by saying that the Pope has to be the Pope, even if he is a manifest heretic. But what good is a visible Church if it leads the faithful astray. It would be more like a "honey trap" for the devil, which ironically, the Novus Ordo is.

The prophecies concerning an eclipsed church should make it clear that the visibility of the Catholic Church can be somewhat wanting at times, or in the End Times.

Pax et bonum +

Expand full comment
Peter Kwasniewski's avatar

An article with many interesting points in it.

However, I think you should take up the challenge represented in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Are-Canonizations-Infallible-Revisiting-Disputed/dp/1989905641

The case against the infallibility of canonizations is much stronger than you let on here.

The same would be true for the purported infallibility of universal disciplinary decisions, as Thomas Pink has well analyzed, here for instance:

https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/papal-authority-and-the-limits-of-official-theology

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts