Francis, the Society, and the 1988 Profession
In Cardinal Muller’s recent letter to Bishop Fellay outlining the
“necessary conditions” for the Society’s regularization, he said that
the SSPX must make the 1988 Profession of Faith
as opposed to the 1962 version; reason being, the CDF, with the
approval of Francis, has decided that the latter is “not sufficient.”
Think about that for a moment…
This is nothing less than a declaration that the conciliar “faith” isn’t the Catholic faith!
That’s the Devil for you – slithering, sneaky and subtle for sure, but so incredibly prideful that he simply cannot help but boast aloud; in this case, via his accomplices in Rome.
No news here, but still, it’s an amazing thing to witness.
If you think that’s something, get this:
According even to the Conciliarists’ standards as set forth in the 1988 Profession of Faith, Jorge Mario Bergoglio isn’t Catholic!
In light of Cardinal Muller’s letter, I decided to take a closer look at this Profession.
The text begins, “I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith, namely:” [the Nicene Creed and the three following propositions]:
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
Proposition number three is the “gotcha.”
You see, according to the conciliar mindset, “religious submission” is owed to every novelty that flows out of Rome like so much sewage; unless, of course, it happens to coincide with tradition (e.g., the salient portions of Familiaris Consorrtio).
In any case, attached to the 1988 Profession on the Vatican website is an explanation provided by the CDF, then headed by the future Pontifical Abdicator, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger.
With respect to the first proposition, the explanation states:
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law. [Emphasis in original]
No one disputes the fact that the Divine Law concerning adultery and fornication belong in this category.
As regular readers of this space are well-aware, the official SSPX position on Francis, as articulated in detail by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, is as follows:
“Not Heretical but Promoting Heresy”
In his treatment of Amoris Laetitia, Fr. Gleize states many times that the text (and therefore its author) “introduces doubt” – even on such fundamental matters as the intrinsically evil nature of the aforementioned acts (adultery, fornication) and the fact that no exceptions exist in their regard.
We have been living in the shadow of Amoris Laetitia (better known as “The Joy of Adultery”) for some 15 months now and Francis has done nothing to remedy the situation; indeed, on the contrary, he has only served to confirm his malicious designs.
I think it’s safe to say at this point that he obstinately places in doubt doctrines that require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful.
This means that even according to the standard set by the 1988 Profession of the Conciliarists, Jorge Mario Bergoglio belongs “under the censure of heresy!”
Fr. Gleize isn’t convinced, as he explained, that the “doubts” introduced by Francis qualify for such a censure. He writes:
“First, are the five truths* demolished by these five doubts so many dogmas? Secondly, does Amoris laetitia
negate these dogmas, or at least call them into question formally and
explicitly enough? The answer to these two questions is far from obvious
and certain.”
Note the strong language: Not only does Fr. Gleize recognize that the
truths under discussion are called into question, he sees very well
that they are “demolished”!Unfortunately, however, he isn’t willing to call said truths “dogma.”
* Bear in mind, Fr. Gleize isn’t even addressing what I consider the most egregiously offensive proposition in Amoris Laetitia; namely, the notion that God at times asks us to persist in violating Divine Law (cf AL 303). For some unknown reason, he chose to skip over it, and other magnificently heterodox portions of the text.
Be that as it may, just for kicks, let’s grant Fr. Gleize the point that we’re not discussing dogma, which he defined as “a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium;” i.e., as that which has been solemnly defined.
This brings us to proposition number two in the 1988 Profession of the Conciliarists, about which the CDF explains:
The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals”. The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.
Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a ‘sententia definitive tenenda‘. Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church. [Emphasis in original]
Overlooking for the present discussion the novel designation “full communion,” I think it is fair to say that based upon his steadfast unwillingness to affirm Catholic doctrine (for example, as requested via the dubia, but not exclusively), rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine applies to Francis.
This means that even according to the standard set by the 1988 Profession of the Conciliarists, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church!
The Society of St. Pius X does well to refuse the 1988 Profession of Faith, but they would do even better to re-evaluate their position on Francis and Amoris Laetitia in light of it.
Louie Verricchio "Antipope Francis: A Blessing In Disguise?"