Pastor Aeternus (1870): Can a Pope Ever Make Heresy Binding?

Last updated on: March 8, 2024 at 1:05 am By Dave Armstrong

Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Ron Conte; edited by Dave Armstrong, in Response to Timothy Flanders

This is an excerpt from my much longer paper, Dialogue #7 w 1P5 Columnist Timothy Flanders (Highlighting Papal Indefectibility, Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I in 1870, & the “Charitable Anathema”) [12-1-20]. Timothy Flanders’ words will be in blue.

*****

Did Vatican I Dogmatize Pighius?

You have countered my assertions by stating that any concept of error contained in a Magisterial Act is contrary to the First Vatican Council which you quote at length. You seem to assert that Vatican I dogmatized Pighius’ sententia regarding a heretical pope. His opinion was that a pope can never be a heretical [sic]. It is simply impossible. This was the opinion defended by Bellarmine, which he says is sententia probabilis in his famous passage on the five opinions on the question of a heretical pope. You seem to assert that Vatican I raised this sententia from probabilis to de fide at Vatican I. Please clarify if I’ve misunderstood you.

That is approximately Dr. Robert Fastiggi’s opinion, and I got this opinion from him (in fact, after he expressed it forcefully on your own webcast). I either didn’t realize it was in Vatican I or had forgotten it. He would be in a position to know, as editor and translator of the latest Denzinger and also the revision of Ludwig Ott. I think we can trust his scholarly authority on this, and the conciliar text seems utterly clear and unambiguous to me. Not that I claim to be any sort of expert on it . . . But it adopted and confirmed Bellarmine’s view on one point, not that of Pighius (which Bellarmine partially disagreed with), as Bishop Gasser clarified in his Relatio in 1870. More on that below.

This assertion, however, cannot be proved by simply quoting the passage you did from Vatican I. The phrases you bolded have been used by the Holy See for centuries, and known to the same theologians who argued against Pighius, and continued to do so after 1870. (I am relying here on the work of Mr. Ryan Grant, Bellarmine’s foremost English translator.) Ott even seems to say otherwise when he talks about the decisions of the Holy See:

The ordinary and usual form of Papal teaching activity is not infallible[.] … Nevertheless they are normally to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus religiosus). The so-called silentium obsequiosum, i.e. reverent silence, does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner assent may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.[3]

It’s apparent (in the second word) that Ott is talking about the ordinary magisterium there. But Pastor aeternus is referring to the extraordinary magisterium:

. . . matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing. (Ch., 4, 4) . . .

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their 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, . . . (Ch. 4, 6)

These portions lead up to the famous climax which defines papal infallibility. The preceding sections obviously refer in context to the same sort of thing: the highest levels of infallibility.

Since (ultimately) the particular canonical and dogmatic aspects of this matter are above my pay grade, I wrote to Dr. Fastiggi and he sent me three short articles he wrote about Cardinal Bellarmine and conciliar and papal indefectibility, and a long one about the larger topic, from a talk he presented in about 2003 (personally approved of by Cardinal Dulles, who was in attendance). He wrote about the question of papal statements that are part of the ordinary magisterium:

[T]eachings of the extraordinary papal magisterium are infallible as well as definitive judgments by the Pope. The question of the possibility of error in ordinary papal teachings is a delicate matter. In my article I cite Vatican I’s affirmation that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate and sacred doctrine honored” (Denz.-H, 3066) and the “See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error” (Denz.-H, 3070). Ordinary teachings of the papal magisterium are not definitive, and they are subject revision or reform. This is why the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its 1990 instruction, Donum Veritatis, speaks of such magisterial teachings as pertaining to matters “per se not irreformable.” If a papal teaching is not irreformable, it is subject to revision or change. For example, Pope Innocent I in 405 allowed for the use of juridical torture by Christian magistrates. Nicholas I, however, in 866 taught that neither divine nor human law allows such torture (cf. Denz.-H, 648). Innocent IV, however, approved the use of torture by the Inquisition in 1252. In 1993, though, John Paul II included torture among the acts which are intrinsically evil (Veritatis Splendor, no. 80). We can look back and say that Popes Innocent I and Innocent IV were in error about torture, but they were not opposing any definitive teaching on the subject at the times when they made their judgments. Their judgments were not irreformable, and when they made these judgments they were not opposing any settled truths of the faith.

It would take a long time to deal with all these matters in the depth they deserve, but these are some basic responses . . .

The divine protection of the pope that the Church adheres to clearly doesn’t include everything the pope proclaims. Hence, even though I have defended Pope Francis 178 times, I freely disagreed with him on several political matters when I commented (otherwise glowingly) on Fratelli tutti. And that’s because his opinion on political matters is not magisterial and has no binding authority. It’s not his domain (not in the fullest authoritative sense). He himself made clear that his opinions on science can also be disagreed with, in his encyclical Laudato si, and sure enough, in-between my almost endless praise of it, I respectfully disagreed with the Holy Father on nuclear energy and global warning.

In order to prove your assertion, you would need to show that Vatican I intended to address the well-known discussion on heretical popes and make a definitive pronouncement on this subject. However, the assertions of these theologians mentioned by Bellarmine and held by others before and after the Council are not addressed anywhere.

The council is under no obligation to do so, though I suspect in the discussions about the documents, those things were brought up.

Moreover, as Mr. Grant mentions in the above-linked discussion, the Acta show that the Council Fathers discussed whether to define one of the sententiae on the subject, but declined to do so.

You seem to assert that the dogma of indefectibility hinges on an alleged dogma of Pighius’ sententia, but this has not been proven. A good point to strengthen your case would be prove that Bellarmine (who held to Pighius) believed that if Pighius was wrong, then indefectibility was compromised. But this seems a tenuous claim, since he admits the other sententiae besides Pighius, and never accuses these others as compromising indefectibility.

I assert that the sententiae mentioned by Bellarmine have not been defined by the Magisterium. The most we can say about them is that one of them may be more probable than the others, but none of them can be said to be sententia communis, before or after Vatican I. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary, but as always I’m willing to be corrected.

Von Hildebrand Agreed with Davies on Vatican II

You assert that Deitrich Von Hildebrand “loved” Vatican II. It is true that in his first two books on the crisis you quote in your linked article, he made no direct critique of Vatican II but seems to place all the blame on the liberal interpreters of the same. To this I would not disagree in principle as I have said, but I do not say those who follow Lefebvre’s opinion of the Council are acting schismatically nor irrationally, since Vatican I did not dogmatize Pighius or your assertion about indefectibility.

I shall now happily yield to Dr. Fastiggi’s scholarly knowledge of dogmatics in order to present a full and adequate reply to your challenge. In one of his papers that I already cited above, he mentioned relevant magisterial material in Denzinger 3066 and 3070. He also referred in his personal letter to me, to “the indefectibility of Catholic doctrine under the special charism of truth and never-failing faith of the successor of Peter (D-H, 3071).”

Here is Denzinger 3071, from Pastor aeternus: from the latest revision (a copy of which always sits immediately to the right of my writing desk):

Now this charism of truth and of never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair in order that they might perform their supreme office for the salvation of all; that by them the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous bait of error and be nourished by the food of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be preserved as one and, resting on her foundation, might stand stand firm against the gates of hell.

For comparison’s sake, here is the translation from chapter 4, section 7, from the version of Pastor aeternus online at EWTN:

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.

In another paper of his, Dr. Fastiggi stated, regarding Bellarmine and Suárez:

What these two Jesuit theologians believed could not happen was confirmed by Vatican I’s affirmation of the “charism of truth and of never-failing faith” conferred upon Peter and his successors” (Denz.-H, 3071). We need to thank God for this charism given to Peter and his successors and have faith it this special charism.

Dr. Fastiggi’s paper from his 2003 talk is entitled, “The Petrine Ministry and the Indefectibility of the Church.” It was eventually published in Called to Holiness and Communion: Vatican II on The Church (edited by Fr. Steven Boguslawski, O.P. and Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D., University of Scranton Press, 2009). In it, he stated:

In the post-Tridentine era, theologians such as Bellarmine (1542-1621) and Suárez (1548-1617) affirm both the indefectibility of the Church as a whole and the necessity of the Petrine office for maintaining this indefectibility in doctrine. . . .

The Doctor Eximius [Suárez] [91] likewise upholds the indispensability of the Petrine office for the Church’s indefectibility. He observes that “the Roman Church” can refer either to the particular Church of Rome or to the See of the Roman Pontiff who, when assuming the posture of the teacher of the universal Church, can never err or depart from the faith. [92] For this reason, “the faith of the Roman Church is the Catholic faith, and the Roman Church has never departed from this faith nor could she ever so depart because the chair of Peter presides over her.” [93] . . .

To be sure, the Petrine ministry is not the only means for insuring ecclesial unity. Much could also be said about the indispensable role of Mary who is “intimately united to the Church” [186] and who cares for the faithful “by her maternal charity.” [187] The central point of this essay, however, is that the Petrine office is essential to the indefectible structure of the Catholic Church. As a “visible source and foundation” [188] of ecclesial communion, the Roman Pontiff fulfills a divinely ordained service of unity. Without the Petrine ministry, the Church would be lacking an essential aspect of what Christ willed for His Church on earth. Without the Petrine office, the Church ceases to be indefectible.

[Footnotes:

91 Pope Paul V (r. 1605-1621) bestowed upon Suárez the title of Doctor Eximius, the Exceptional or Uncommon Doctor.

92 Cf. Suárez, Defensio Fidei Catholicae Adversus Anglicanae Sectae Errores, chap. 5, no. 5-6 in Vivès ed., vol. 24, 21-22.

93 Ibid., chap. 5, no. 7; Vivès, vol. 24, 22.

[ . . . ]

186 Lumen gentium, 63

187 Ibid., 62.

188 Ibid., 18.

In his correspondence with me, he also recommended an article by Ron Conte, noting that he didn’t “always agree” with Ron (nor do I), but that “he understands papal authority and indefectibility very well.” In “Bellarmine, Taylor Marshall, and Ryan Grant on Papal Faith” (8-1-20), Ron commented:

First, a review of what Bellarmine says.

In the book On the Roman Pontiff, book 2, chapter 30, Saint Robert Bellarmine considers a proposition called “the tenth argument”.

“The tenth argument. A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some case.”

He begins by saying there are five opinions on the matter.

1. “The first is of Albert Pighius, who contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and hence would not be deposed in any case: such an opinion is probable, and can easily be defended, as we will show in its proper place.”

This opinion was that of Saint Robert Bellarmine as well as Pighius, and it was adopted and confirmed . . . by the First Vatican Council. When Bishop Vincent Gasser, in his relatio before the Council, says that the Council adopted the opinion of Bellarmine, not any extreme opinion of Pighius and his school, he means this opinion, where Bellarmine and Pighius happen to agree. . . .

And now we come to the fifth opinion, like the first, accepted by Bellarmine. But this fifth opinion is only “the fifth true opinion” if it is the case that Popes can commit or teach heresy. Bellarmine thinks that God does not permit this. He says the first opinion, that Popes cannot teach or commit heresy is probable and easily defended. And since this fifth opinion is predicated on a Pope being heretical, something excluded by Vatican I, it is only an intellectual exercise. One cannot base an accusation against Pope Francis on this fifth opinion.

Marshall and Grant

Dr. Taylor Marshall and Ryan Grant discuss Bellarmine on whether a Pope can be a heretic, in this video. Let’s consider what they say.

Taylor Marshall and Ryan Grant opine that a manifestly heretical Pope could be deposed by an Ecumenical Council. They note that the “first opinion” is the one held by Bellarmine, that a Pope cannot teach or commit heresy. This opinion is dismissed by them, in a common but erroneous manner, by accusing various Popes of grave failures of faith, including Honorius, John 22, and Marcellinus.

The enemies of the Church accused Pope Marcellinus of apostasy, of sacrificing to the pagan gods, which would be a grave sin against faith, even if under duress. But this is also the type of sin which the grace of God prevents. For if the Rock on which the Church is founded, whose faith is never failing, could, even exteriorly and under duress, worship pagan gods, the Church would not be indefectible. For many souls would be lost, following this example of the Pope. Therefore, based on the teaching of Vatican I, we must conclude that Marcellinus was innocent. See my previous post. He was falsely accused by the enemies of the Church, as a way to convince his flock to behave similarly. The fact that this Pope was a Saint who died a martyr, rather than worship pagan gods, is also proof of his innocence. The story that he worshipped false gods exteriorly, repented, and then died rather than commit the same act again is fiction.

But when Marcellinus was accused, he offered to be judged by an Ecumenical Council. Yet the Cardinals and Bishops refused to judge him, saying: “For the first See is not judged by anyone.” And his innocence is defended in this article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It is impossible that Marcellinus committed the grave sins against faith of which he is accused, as it is contrary to . . . Vatican I. And even from a mere human perspective, the accusations are untrustworthy and the account clearly spurious.

So Marshall and Grant err gravely by using their own fallible opinions to judge and condemn past Popes for grave sins against faith. Basing a theological opinion on a prudential judgment is a weak argument.

It is interesting to note that, before Vatican I declared the never failing faith of the Pope, they considered the past history of the Popes, looking for any Pope who failed in faith. They found none. Honorius was rather easily defended, as Cardinal Manning states. And the same was true for the other Popes. And the fathers of that Council were well aware of the writings of Bellarmine defending the Popes against accusations of failure of faith. Since the Council did not find any Popes guilty of heresy, this is further proof that the Council intended to define that Popes cannot commit heresy.

The First Vatican Council phrased this . . . in positive terms, that each Pope has a charism from God of truth and a never-failing faith. This is better than merely saying that Popes do not commit heresy and do not teach heresy; it is a fuller statement which includes the negative, but also includes the positive gift. The Pope has a charism from God ordered inexorably toward truth and faith. Unfailing in truth. Unfailing in faith. That is the Vicar of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit.

But Marshall and Grant err gravely by claiming that the First Vatican Council did not deal with the question of whether a Pope could commit or teach heresy. Grant states: “the Magisterium of the Church punted on the issue, refused to define it….” But if that is true, Mr. Grant, then what is the meaning of this charism of truth and a never failing faith? Grant ignores the teaching entirely. He gives no explanation. . . .

[I]f Grant believes that Vatican I did not decide the question of whether Popes can teach heresy, what does he think “this charism of truth and never failing faith” means? How can a Pope have a divinely conferred charism of truth and never failing faith, and also teach material heresy and commit formal heresy? Grant does not address the question. This is typical of the papal accusers. . . .

Teaching heresy from the Chair of Peter is an exceedingly grave failure of faith. It would do grave harm to the indefectibility of the Church. And so the grace of God does not permit this to happen.

The never failing faith of the Pope, the definition of Vatican I, certainly implies that the Pope cannot be a heretic, as then his faith would have failed. Also, the teaching that each Pope has the gift of truth implies that he cannot teach heresy. For material heresy is contrary to truth and formal heresy is contrary to a never failing faith. Thus the gift of truth and never failing faith utterly prevents any type of heresy, material or formal, in any valid Roman Pontiff. . . .

Consider the following argument. (1) If a Pope commits heresy, he would be automatically cut off from the Church and would lose his authority. (2) If God permits Popes to commit heresy, then the faithful would not know which Popes were valid and which teachings to believe. (3) Not knowing which teachings to believe, makes it all the more difficult to determine which Popes have committed heresy. (4) Councils are only valid if approved by a valid Pope. (5) Not knowing which Popes are valid causes us to not know which Councils are valid. (6) The end of this process is that the faithful would have no way to know which Popes and Councils were valid and which teachings to believe. They would be like lost sheep, and the Church would utterly lose Her indefectibility. (7) Therefore, God does not permit Popes to commit heresy.

The argument is predicated on the true premise that IF a Pope commits heresy, he is no longer the valid Pope. So the proposition is true, in the abstract, but also counter-factual. It is like the assertion: If Christ has not risen, then our faith is in vain. Christ has risen. But it is still true that IF He has not risen, then our faith would be in vain.

Marshall and Grant unfortunately take opinion five as if it were factual, as if a Pope could teach or commit heresy, and be deposed by an Ecumenical Council. This is not possible, as the Roman Pontiff is above the authority of an Ecumenical Council. . . .

Since the Roman Pontiff governs the whole Church, he also governs the body of Bishops and any Ecumenical Councils. This implies that Councils may not depose a Pope.

“Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.” [Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 3, n. 8] . . .

I am a fan of Ryan Grant’s work. Grant’s contribution to scholarship is invaluable to the Church. But he is not a competent theologian. The ability to understand and write theology is a gift. No matter how intelligent you may be, if you don’t have that gift, then you will not be a good theologian. Despite Grant’s own admission that he is not a theologian, he delves into theology by implying that a Pope can be a heretic and can be deposed by an Ecumenical Council.

Bishop Vincent Gasser, in his famous Relatio on infallibility at Vatican I, noted:

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. (section 40)

You wrote: “Vatican I did not dogmatize Pighius or your assertion about indefectibility.” In fact, it adopted and affirmed one portion of St. Robert Bellarmine‘s argument that agreed only in part with Pighius, and disagreed in part. That it in fact affirmed the notion that the pope could not ever bind the Church to error or heresy, is, to me, quite clear also in the inexorable logic (or logical result) of the wording: about which Ron Conte drives home the point in, I think, devastating and unanswerable fashion.

If you or my friend Ryan Grant, or Dr. Taylor Marshall disagree with Ron’s take, then by all means, take a shot at refuting it. I think you will end up in a tangled mess of self-contradiction. Something to seriously ponder, for sure . . . Dr. Fastiggi summarizes the clear Church teaching in this regard:

Any well-formed Catholic knows how essential the papacy is for the Catholic Church. To be a Catholic is to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Vatican II teaches that those fully incorporated in the Church “are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops” (Lumen gentium, 14). The authority of the pope comes from Christ, and it is divinely protected. Vatican I clearly teaches that “the See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples” (Denz.-H 3070; cf. Lk 22:32). This means that Christ and the Holy Spirit will insure that “in the Apostolic See” the Catholic religion will “always be preserved immaculate and sacred doctrine honored” (Denz.-H 3066; cf. the formula of Pope Hormisdas; Denz.-H 363–365). . . .

Popes, of course, can make mistakes in their prudential judgments, and they are liable to sin in their personal lives. Although popes teach with authority, not all of their doctrinal judgments are irreformable. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], in its 1990 instruction, Donum veritatis, acknowledged as much. . . .

Pope Francis has admitted his mistakes in regard to sex abuse in Chile, and he has also expressed his openness to constructive criticism. Some critics of Francis, however, go beyond constructive criticism and try to undermine his moral and doctrinal authority at every turn. . . .

Although prudential papal judgments require attentive consideration, papal teachings on faith and morals must be adhered to with “religious submission of mind and will” even when the pope is not speaking ex cathedra. (Lumen gentium 25). This religious submission “must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence,” and “the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will” (Lumen gentium 25). Many papal critics, however, fail to manifest proper reverence toward Pope Francis’s teaching authority. They appear to trust their own judgments more than they trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the successor of Peter. (“Pope Francis and Papal Authority under Attack”, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 2-18-19)

***

Photo credit: Portion of Head VI (1949) by Francis Bacon (1909-1992): reinterpretation of a portrait of Pope Innocent IX from 1650 by the Spanish painter Diego Velazquez (1599-1660) [Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0 license]

***

Definition of “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Dialogue

Last updated on: September 6, 2020 at 12:00 pm By Dave Armstrong

With Particular Reference to [Traditionalist] Timothy Gordon

This was a discussion on my Facebook page with Kyrby Caluna: a young zealous Catholic. His words will be in blue.

*****

To lump all “reactionaries” (a term that is unhelpful, and uncharitable) into one monolithic group is unjust, unfair, “reactionary”.

If indeed Timothy Gordon is not anti-Vatican II in the way that the standard reactionary, is, then he is not reactionary. I’d be delighted if that is the case.

I coined the term, “radical Catholic reactionary” in 2013 in order to differentiate extreme ways of thinking from legitimate traditionalism. It’s not “unhelpful, and uncharitable.” It’s a sociological necessity and act of charity towards millions of traditionalists (among whom I virtually include myself), who get lumped in with what used to be called “radtrads.”

I have taken extreme care and have been precise in the definition. If you don’t think so, then be my guest to take on my articles where I define it, point-by-point. I just had this very conversation with Timothy Flanders. But first, I’m curious as to what you think my definition of “radical Catholic reactionary” is. Why don’t you tell me? I’ll know in one minute whether you have actually read or understood my explanations of it or not.

Reactionary Trads or Catholic Radical Reactionaries believe the following:

1. The Novus Ordo is invalid or objectively offensive to God.

— This, Timothy Gordon rejects. That is why, as he said, even some Trads are skeptical of him for viewing the Novus Ordo as valid.

1. Incorrect. Reactionaries view the OF as valid, but “objectively inferior” to the EF. But it is true that now some reactionaries are so extreme (e.g., Abp. Vigano and Taylor Marshall) that they may indeed be rapidly moving towards the position you describe. It doesn’t follow, however, that the bulk of reactionaries, at least at this point, agree with their increasing anti-Catholic fanaticism.

2. Vatican II is qualitatively different from preceding Councils because it is either invalid, and instrinsically heretical because of modernistic ambiguity.

— To be honest, this definition of yours is so generalized. I think even some of the non-Trads would accept that Vatican II is different in some ways to the preceding Councils and that it is somewhat ambiguous and even optimistic.

2. Incorrect. Reactionaries (as I have categorized them, from long observation and experience) accept Vatican II as valid and not objectively heretical, but rather hampered by ambiguities deliberately injected into the texts by subversive dissident radicals. Again, as in #1, the cutting edge of reactionaries are moving further right at present, so this wouldn’t be true of them. But as a whole, it is as I have described.

3. Vatican II is the root cause of the modernist crisis.

— Timothy Gordon rejects that. By textualism, he believes Vatican II does not teach doctrinal error. It is the Intentionalism of the modernists that is the cause of the crisis after the Council.

3. Correct. This is one of the four hallmarks of reactionaryism, but it co-exists with the understanding that Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council. Reactionaryism (note closely) is all about going up to a “line” but not crossing over it; trying to have it both ways. So, e.g., “Vatican II is valid but we should simply ignore it, or it has harmed the Church,” “The New Mass is valid but it is objectively terrible liturgy and we ought not attend it (having a choice),” etc. etc. ad nauseam.

4. The Conciliar Popes are either materially or formally heretics.

— Nope! The Credo of the People of God by Paul VI and John Paul II’s CCC attested to their orthodoxy. As Timothy Flanders said, Paul VI was a moderate (like Jacques Maritain), but not a heretic.

4. Incorrect. Reactionaries accept all the popes as valid. But they want to bitch and complain about and rebuke and second-guess popes all the time (“more Catholic than the pope”). It’s primarily an attitudinal problem and not having an understanding of traditional reverence towards the pope (thinking like Protestants: particularly Anglicans).

5. Ecumenism, religious liberty are “radical” novelties.

— If we stick to the texts, they are not radical. But some of their implementations are radical, and that’s a different issue.

5. Correct. Your following statement is correct, but the reactionary rejects ecumenism as explicated in Vatican II and recent ecumenical encyclicals. They’re wrong. It’s a rather striking and rapid development, but is in line with past tradition, correctly understood.

So you get a 40% grade for understanding my definitions and conceptions of what reactionaries believe. That ain’t very good. It’s a failing score in any class I’ve ever been in.

Getting a grade of 40 for not exhaustively listing all characteristics of RadCathRs is okay. I never thought there is a grading system here.

Timothy Gordon is simply not a reactionary, if your report is accurate. He’s a traditionalist, perhaps on the line between the two groups, or holding one or two reactionary beliefs. I think Taylor Marshall’s atrocious behavior (including casting him to the wind) has been a wake-up call for him.

Again we can go on and on with all the radicalism of these reactionary traditionalists. But that isn’t Timothy Gordon. And I don’t know why I’m defending him. We are not even friends. But maybe because, I believe he is balanced in his assessment of Vatican II. As to his assessment of Pope Francis, that’s a different issue.

The gist of his traditionalism is that textually Vatican II does not contain errors. But we know that intentionally, some of the drafters of the texts are modernists, and their intentions were weaponized and implemented after the Council.

The crux of the matter with regards to Vatican II as Timothy Gordon sees it is: the need for a hermeneutics of continuity and the implicit presupposition why it is needed.

For Richard DeClue Jr. and Christopher Plance, the texts are clear. The hermeneutic was needed because there is already an on-going hermeneutics of rupture that is imposed on the texts by the modernists.

For Timothy Gordon, there are some ambiguities in the texts and that is why a hermeneutic of continuity is needed. I think, George Weigel implicitly sides with Gordon for he said in his The Irony of Modern Catholic History and The Next Pope, two of his latest books, that “it took 20 years before the hermeneutical key of Vatican II was discovered” in the 1985 Synod of Bishops. And that implies that Vatican II has ambiguities that even the “Word On Fire FAQ on Vatican II” admits.

Of course we need a hermeneutic of continuity; that’s simply how orthodoxy operates. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from falling into doctrinal error. The tradition is consistent with itself. That includes Vatican II and papal encyclicals. Duh! It’s simply self-evident for a faithful, orthodox Catholic.

Everything needs to be (ultimately) authoritatively interpreted, including ecumenical councils, that are protected from error, because human beings are ignorant and sinful.

It’s the same with the Bible. It’s perfect, inspired, infallible revelation, but without guidance from Holy Mother Church and Sacred Tradition, people believe all kinds of lies about the text and come up with Arianism, Sabellianism, Unitarianism, Christian Science, Mormon polytheism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy (insofar as they are in error), and who knows what else . . .

I am not saying that I have and need to exhaustively list down all the characteristics of the RadCathRs. That’s a whole chapter in one of your books. I simply quote some of the obvious.

And not only that, your whole book is all about them, just like the “bible” (as you said) of the RadCathRs written by Christopher Ferrara is all about neo-Catholics.

Both terms are not helpful. Not all those who you consider as RadCathRs “are radical” with ears closed. And not those Ferrara calls Neo-Catholics have no problem whatsoever with the texts of Vatican II.

Cardinal Ratzinger, for example, finds Gaudium et Spes as “too French” (referring to the implicit Teilhardism of some in the texts, i.e. too optimistic), and that it needs Luther (a German like him, whose theology of the cross balances the optimism). This Fr. Robert Barron (now a Bishop) explained in one of his talks. Ratzinger also have some problems with the Novus Ordo Liturgy. Though, when he became Pope he did not touched it. He simply encouraged the celebration of the TLM.

So here’s the point, as I said. Calling people names when one is not aware entirely of their views (i.e. Gordon) is unhelpful. Point to what you think is their error and not lump them into a group you wished to dismiss.

And if I am incorrect, maybe. Here’s where I quote some of your characteristics (again, this isn’t exhaustive):

[he was actually citing my 2002 book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries, and I didn’t realize it!]

Cute. So you were largely citing me. The problem is that this book was written almost 18 years ago now. Things have changed a lot since then, especially since Pope Francis, and my own views have evolved. My present views have developed mostly from my definitions formulated in 2012-2013. See also my recent dialogue with Timothy Flanders.

This is why I appealed to my views since that time, not back to my first book about it in 2002. Categories in actual life are often fluid and not always so clear cut in any given individual case. This is true of traditionalism and reactionaries as well.

So I spend money for an obsolete book. Kidding! If I am not aware of your development, then a grade of 40 is unfair too. Kidding. Okay, I’ll read those articles.
*

It still has some value. If anyone bought these books I would revise them. Mass Movements is more up to date.

I’m not merely “calling people names.” I’m doing religious sociology (my major was sociology in college) and apologetics both, and being charitable to legitimate traditionalists by noting that those with extreme views ought not to be called by their chosen title.

If reactionaries insist on bashing the Church, popes, councils, the Mass, and ecumenism, then by the same token they ought to expect to be criticized back. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Yup, Gordon is a traditionalist. You called him reactionary. Maybe simply because he teamed-up with Marshall before? Is that an implicit criterion? It’s not helpful.

I have already conceded that Timothy Gordon seems not to be a reactionary. He’s a traditionalist, who shows some similarity and commonality with reactionaries in some respects. In any event, reactionaries do form a distinct sociological group within the Catholic Church. Few theologians and apologists have analyzed it. Many more need to. I have, and I think my observations are valid and easily backed up by facts.

Well, when one (Gordon) is making 100 videos with one of the most wacko, conspiratorial reactionaries around, one assumes that there is general agreement between them. Like I said, when Taylor Marshall cast him to the wind, he probably reconsidered some things and perhaps became less reactionary, or never was and concealed some of his opinions.

I recognize that people sometimes change, and I do in his case. I haven’t followed him closely. I adjust my opinion if evidence and further information warrant it.

Exactly, we need a hermeneutics of continuity. No one is denying that.

I laid down some details about Gordon because your post accuses him of being a reactionary, which is unfair. So I clarified where he stood. He advocates for that hermeneutic like all of us. There is no questioning about a need for a hermeneutics of continuity. We all need it. The Pope said so. In fact, the Pope’s exact words are “a hermeneutic of reform, of continuity in the one-subject Church”. And as your friend Prof. Eduardo Echeverria said that because it is a hermeneutic of reform, there are reversals too but not the substance of doctrine but in the way it is explained.

And as Fr. John O’Malley said in his book What Happened at Vatican II, the real novelty in Vatican II is the change from a juridical-legislative to a more epideictic-panegyric genre in the composition of the texts.

I would definitely agree with you on Gordon being critical with the Pope. Scott Hahn too, is implicitly a papal critic, for vindicating Archbishop Viganó as an exemplary Bishop.

Vatican II was first discussed by Timothy and Taylor on their video of the same title. In the surface they agree that there are ambiguities in the texts that needs clarification. But as the two of them elaborated their views on their channels, Gordon is vocal that one cannot read from Nostra Aetate the ecumenical distortions we have today, contradicting Taylor, Schneider, and Viganó’s views.

Gordon will release a book on Vatican II soon. Maybe there he will clarify a lot.

When asked what should Trads do? Gordon said, since many of the Trads are not reading the Vatican II texts, they should read them or read his book when it comes out because it will clarify and correct many misconception of some Trads regarding Vatican II.

Maybe both you and Gordon are more and more in agreement on Vatican II. That’s how I see it. Although both of you are hundred miles apart regarding Pope Francis . . .

But unlike Phil Lawler who is quite questioning Vatican II now in some of his articles at Catholic Culture, Gordon is less concern with the text as containing errors, and more concern with the intentions of some of the drafters of the texts which havoc confusion after the Council.

Well, I am delighted to hear this about Timothy Gordon. I noted a few years back that Lawler was starting to waver on Vatican II (and his wife just signed the big “statement” criticizing it). I have repeatedly defended Vatican II against reactionary criticism: especially in my 12-part reply to Paolo Pasqualucci.

So I’ve done that work in that series and other papers: replying to what is being charged. I think it can help people who are trying to reconcile Vatican II with sacred tradition. I’ve never had the slightest problem doing so, whenever some [pseudo-]issue came up.

***

*
Photo credit: Timothy Gordon (right), with former sidekick Taylor Marshall [from The Libertarian Catholic web page]

***

Is Vatican II Analogous to “Failed” Lateran Council V?

Last updated on: August 11, 2020 at 12:10 pm By Dave Armstrong

Reply to Timothy Flanders

Timothy Flanders, who calls himself a traditionalist (I call him a radical Catholic reactionary), is a nice guy with whom I have engaged in pleasant and friendly dialogue four times (one / two / three / four). His latest article, “Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?” (7-30-20) was published at One Vader Five (aka One Peter Five) This is my reply. His words below will be in blue.

*****

I’ve defended Vatican II itself, in the course of my apologetics, at least 25 times; additionally, a dozen more times, in specifically addressing the many particular criticisms of Paolo Pasqualucci. I’ve also explained and defended the general notion of conciliar and Church infallibility at least 27 times, and explored the analogy of the Jerusalem Council ten times. That’s about 75 separate treatments of the topic (these all being found on my Church index page on my blog). And this doesn’t even include the related material from my 50 books (one of them devoted to Church and papal infallibility).

Thus I need not address these preliminary issues of the sublime authority of ecumenical councils (i.e., ratified by popes), to the extent that they form part of his article, nor the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: “after this, therefore because of this”) fallacy that is rampant among reactionaries and also many legitimate traditionalists. I already have, many times.

Timothy (whom I consider a friendly acquaintance) has been dialoguing with me since July 2019. The last one was dated 2-25-20. It was my reply. I’ve been waiting almost six months, then, for Timothy’s counter-reply. He says he is very busy with his work, which is fine, and I accept the explanation. I’m simply noting for the record that my last reply has not yet been responded to. This current article is not that, since my article was far more detailed and varied in content than what he is addressing here.

I thank Timothy very much for his gentlemanly charity at the beginning of this article. It’s also true (to the converse) that very few reactionaries extend even rudimentary charity and the benefit of the doubt to us orthodox Catholics who have honest differences with them. This lack of charity is seen in the combox below already (I comment eleven days after the article was published). Just in “Random Anonymous” ‘ comment alone, readers “learn” that I am supposedly “deranged” and “jealous” and “irrelevant” and am a “hyper papalist.” My “judgment is unsound” and “viewpoints not worth airing” and I’m similar to Japanese soldiers fighting on remote islands decades after 1945.

I was also shocked (well, just a little bit) to read that the same commenter thinks the Catholic Church is “increasingly indefensible.” That is — at a minimum — merely a Protestant or Orthodox outlook, and is certainly not traditional Catholicism, and knows nothing of what “indefectibility” means or requires or entails.

Yet I am the one who is supposedly “anti-traditionalist” (I am not at all; I am anti-reactionary)? In another comment, safely anonymous Random Anonymous gets into juvenile generational bias and goes after Baby Boomers (of whom I am one). Back in 1968 when we heard talk of the “generation gap” it was said that we should “trust no one over 30.” Apparently now the magic number is 45 or over (although the Boomers go back to about 1963, which would be 57) . Some things never change. Truth remains truth, no matter who states it. Such mindless insults are a classic instance of what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.”

But I digress. I’d like to specifically tackle the analogy that Timothy submits: that Vatican II is a “failed” council like Lateran V (1512-1517) allegedly was. I love analogies (that also comes from Newman), but I think this one fails, and I shall proceed to explain why I think so.

Timothy cites Cardinal Ratzinger (later, Pope Benedict XVI), from a L’Osservatore Romano article, dated 24 December 1984:

Certainly, the results [of Vatican II] seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XXIII and then of Paul VI: expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to dissension which — to use the words of Paul VI — seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored. Expected was a great step forward, and instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part precisely under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.

The quotation leaves the impression: “Vatican II bad!” / “Vatican II caused every evil known to man in the last fifty years!” But Timothy knows full well that Pope Benedict XVI was and is a big champion of the council, and doesn’t think it itself caused all of the bad things we observe today. Nor are “expectations” of people the equivalent of the teachings contained in the official documents. People expect and hope for all kinds of things.

The traditionalists and reactionaries hoped for a host of things that Pope Benedict (their big darling) would do, with which they agreed. But he didn’t do all of them. And what he did do, that they liked (such as extend and validate the availability of the Tridentine Mass) — which, by the way, I fully favored before he addressed it in 2007 — , didn’t go far enough for them, so that they basically are now bitterly disenchanted with him (especially after his resignation). Expressions of such crushed, disillusioned hope abound in reactionary circles.

Such comments above have to be balanced with others, lest they be misunderstood. As pope, he stated in his Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (12-22-05):

The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform”, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council’s deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim. . . .

Forty years after the Council, we can show that the positive is far greater and livelier than it appeared to be in the turbulent years around 1968. Today, we see that although the good seed developed slowly, it is nonetheless growing; and our deep gratitude for the work done by the Council is likewise growing. . . .

Those who expected that with this fundamental “yes” to the modern era all tensions would be dispelled and that the “openness towards the world” accordingly achieved would transform everything into pure harmony, had underestimated the inner tensions as well as the contradictions inherent in the modern epoch.

They had underestimated the perilous frailty of human nature which has been a threat to human progress in all the periods of history and in every historical constellation. These dangers, with the new possibilities and new power of man over matter and over himself, did not disappear but instead acquired new dimensions: a look at the history of the present day shows this clearly.

Timothy, to his credit, cites this very address and concedes that Pope Benedict would not reject Vatican II at all (as he and reactionaries, generally speaking, seek to do):

But if Ratzinger could concede in the ’80s that the “net result” of Vatican II was negative, he would hasten to assert (as he would in 2005) that this is not due to the Council ontologically.

Fair and correct, but of course readers who already agree with him will remember the long “negative” citation and probably not even bother to read (or even glance at) what is in the link. And so the impression desired is left. I think that’s a bit unfair. But (as he told me) he had a 2000-word limit, so that is at least some excuse for the too one-sided presentation. I understand that (as one who regularly writes 1000-word articles for National Catholic Register). But he could have cited both statements with roughly equal numbers of words. In any event, I have no word limit on this blog, and so have the opportunity to “balance the record.”

Ratzinger seems to be speaking of the Council from a historical perspective. I read him as saying (here in 1984) that the historical effect of the Council has been negative. Thus, a historical assertion takes into account the machinations of human sin that failed to bring about what the Council intended.

Well, he was simply saying that the ideals expected by the council fathers did not work out in reality, which is how the human condition usually (well, almost always) amounts to. Catholicism — following the Holy Scripture — represents the highest ideals known to man. It doesn’t necessarily (as a purely logical matter) follow that Vatican II was any sort of cause of the disappointing reality of post-60s decadent, perverted western culture.

It expressed truths that the secular culture simply rejected out of hand. Vatican II, after all, clearly didn’t cause or champion the sexual revolution (which is the leading force and cutting edge of ever-encroaching secularism), that really got off the ground shortly after its close. It directly opposed it, as I will document below.

Pope St. Paul VI heroically resisted the elephant in the room: the sexual revolution, in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reasserted the traditional Catholic ban on contraception as immoral. Was the sexual revolution caused by the text of Humanae Vitae? The very thought is ridiculous. Yet this is how reactionaries “reason” when it comes to Vatican II. They become conspiratorial and utterly irrational: juxtaposing and converging ideas and events that have nothing whatever to do with each other.

Did Vatican I “cause” the Old Catholics, who rejected its definition of papal infallibility, to leave the Church? No. There are always folks who leave religious groups when developments happen that they personally don’t like. They place their private judgment above the Mind of the Church and split, having adopted the Protestant conception of authority.

Did the Council of Nicaea in 325, which carefully defined the Holy Trinity, “cause” the outbreak of Arianism, which nevertheless persisted for several more centuries, followed by Monothelitism: another Christological heresy? Of course not. But if we reasoned as reactionaries do as regards Vatican II, we would have to say that it did, since what “followed” was a truly dreadful period of Church history.

Even Trent (perhaps reactionaries’ favorite council) did not stop Protestantism at all. The Protestants obliviously went their merry way. Trent made great internal Church reforms and offered wonderful clarity about Catholic doctrine and dogma, but had little or no bearing on the continued existence and vitality of the various Protestant sects. As soon as it came out, John Calvin and the Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz issued attempted refutations of it (I have refuted parts of both efforts).

So do we say that Trent also “failed” and should be discarded, because it had next to no impact on lessening the big “problem” of that day: Protestant schism and heresy (where it existed)? No. It cannot be expected to have done so. Even the Bible: God’s inspired revelation, is rejected by many millions of people, and its message distorted beyond recognition in many ways by the many anti-trinitarian cults and weird sects. It’s not because it doesn’t offer pure truth.

Here we may see a parallel with Lateran V, which addressed in 1517 the question of indulgences and corruption that spring, but not enough to prevent the Protestant revolt that autumn, necessitating a whole new council. From the historical perspective, we can confidently say Lateran V was a failure. This is because its decrees were not sufficient to address the heretical explosion of Protestant fervor,

I think this is filled with fallacies and failed analogies. The Wikipedia article on this council never even mentions the word “indulgences” as anything the council dealt with. Nor does the Catholic Encyclopedia article devoted to it. I ran across a more in-depth account of Lateran V, and it at least has the word three times, but only matter-of-factly, not in the sense that there is a big need to reform indulgences (with none even occurring in the 1517 session). It simply wasn’t one of the aims of the council.

Session 12 in 1517 occurred in March of that year. As most students of Christian history know, Martin Luther didn’t post his 95 Theses until 31 October 1517. It simply wasn’t the raging issue seven months earlier, that it was to become. So we can hardly fault Lateran V for that, since councils and apologists always deal with existing controversies, and clarify in light of them. Hence (to mention but one famous example), St. Augustine dealt with the Pelagians and Donatists because they were prevalent in his time (etc.).

Moreover, it’s inaccurate to characterize the Protestant Revolt as having been caused or driven primarily by the indulgences controversy that Luther focused on in his Theses. I’ve repeatedly dealt with this stubborn myth, and particularly with how the early Protestants were no more “pious” or “righteous” as a whole than Catholics were (even according to Luther’s own frank and disgusted reports). Some historians of the so-called “Reformation” go so far to say that it was even primarily a political movement. For example:

Medieval Catholic Corruption: Main Cause of Protestant Revolt? [6-2-03; revised slightly: 1-20-04; 10-10-17]

Luther Film (2003): Detailed Catholic Critique [10-28-03; abridged with revised links on 3-6-17]

50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated) [3-29-06]

Causes of the Protestant “Reformation” (vs. a Lutheran Pastor) [11-20-07; abridged somewhat on 10-23-17]

Martin Luther: “Our manner of life is as evil as is that of the papists” [12-29-07]

Luther on Early Lutherans: “Ingrates” Who Deserve God’s “Wrath” [2-28-10]

Luther on Early Lutheran Degeneracy & Bad Witness [3-2-10]

Luther: Monks & Priests More “Earnest” Than Lutherans [11-10-11]

and its bishops lacked the courage to implement the good decrees it did contain.

Of course, this is not the fault of the council’s documents, but rather, a lack of wisdom in the policies and actions of bishops. So it’s irrelevant as to being any sort of analogous argument against Vatican II, in which case our beloved liberal dissidents sought to implement the heretical so-called “spirit” of Vatican II.

It could be reasonably asserted that Lateran V could not have predicted the chaos that would ensure. To a degree, this is true, but on the other hand, a storm was indeed seen on the horizon and was publicly warned about at the council.

Okay; nor could those who participated in Vatican II be able to imagine in their wildest dreams a society (in just ten years) where childkilling would be legalized in virtually every “developed” country (even in fairly morally traditional America), or the massive fornication, contraception (the Birth Control Pill at the end of the council being then only five years old), illegitimacy, broken homes, divorce, pornography, substance abuse, and many other social ills that would arise; or, for that matter, same-sex “marriage” supported by the Supreme Court of the United States fifty years later. These things were unimaginable.

Thus, considered from a historical perspective, we can say that Lateran V was a failure for various reasons (from the “premature” end of the Council itself to the enacting of its “salutary decrees”) to the extent that no one remembers Lateran V, and everyone remembers the successful council instead, Trent.

Apart from the naive and overly simplistic logic already noted, this is unfair to the Lateran V council. There are other views of it. For example, I fond an article entitled, “The Last Two Councils of the Catholic Reformation: The Influence of Lateran V on Trent,” by Nelson H. Minnich, a Catholic historian who later wrote the book, The Decrees of the Fifth Lateran Council (New York: Routledge, 2016) . It appeared in the volume, Early Modern Catholicism: Essays in Honour of John W. O’Malley, S.J. (Univ. of Toronto Press, 2001). Here are a few excerpts (many similar and more detailed ones appear in the article):

[It] affirmed that the pope has authority over all councils and only he can convoke, transfer, and close a council. Thus Lateran V effectively put an end to the threat of conciliarism. (p. 4)

Even if the decrees of Lateran V were not widely received and enforced, repeated references to them were made by those advocating reform. (p. 5)

The fathers of Trent . . . had access to its printed acta and carefully scrutinized them for procedural precedents and decrees supporting their vision of church reform. The procedures followed at Lateran V were often cited to justify actions taken at Trent. (p. 6)

Lateran V achieved precisely what it can reasonably be expected to have achieved: reform of Church practice and development of Church doctrine, just as every other ecumenical council, including Vatican II has done.

We may observe as well that just like at Lateran V, multiple voices were raised in warning about the effects of Vatican II and the gravity of the storm of sexual revolution, most of all Our Lady herself at Fatima, but these warnings were ignored or literally silenced and mocked by the majority faction at Vatican II (led in part by Ratzinger). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assert on the historical level that, similar to Lateran V, the Second Vatican Council failed to “read the signs of the times” and thought the world was on the dawn of a new age of Christianity, instead of the reality of a new darkness of pornographic filth, mass murder of unborn children, and a worldwide clerical revolt in favor of contraception.

Vatican II dealt with these issues in Gaudium et Spes, Part Two, Chapter 1: ‘The Dignity of Marriage and the Family”: sections 47-52: taking up some nine pages in the Flannery edition. That’s not nothing. It spoke truth and was not heeded, just as the papal encyclical Casti Connubii did in 1930 (responding to the Anglican caving on contraception in the same year: the first Christian body ever to do so) and was largely ignored, and just as Humanae Vitae did three years later and was mocked and massively dissented against. “Heresy begins below the belt.”

The fault doesn’t lie in the documents, but in the rebellion of the rebels. If Vatican II is to be blamed, then so must these other two documents be blamed as somehow “negligent.” It’s a bum rap all around. If we want to play the “analogy game” there we are. Here are excerpts from this portion of Gaudium (with my bolding for emphasis):

47. The well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of that community produced by marriage and family. Hence Christians and all men who hold this community in high esteem sincerely rejoice in the various ways by which men today find help in fostering this community of love and perfecting its life, and by which parents are assisted in their lofty calling. Those who rejoice in such aids look for additional benefits from them and labour to bring them about.

Yet the excellence of this institution is not everywhere reflected with equal brilliance, since polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love and other disfigurements have an obscuring effect. In addition, married love is too often profaned by excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit practices against human generation.

***

48. . . . As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them. . . .

***

49. . . . Such love, merging the human with the divine, leads the spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves, a gift providing itself by gentle affection and by deed; such love pervades the whole of their lives: indeed by its busy generosity it grows better and grows greater. Therefore it far excels mere erotic inclination, which, selfishly pursued, soon enough fades wretchedly away. . . .

***

50. Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself Who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) and “Who made man from the beginning male and female” (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Saviour, Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day. . . .

***

51. . . . For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honoured with great reverence.

Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.

[Footnote: 14. Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 ( 1930): Denz- Schoen. 3716-3718; Pius XII, Allocutio Conventui Unionis Italicae inter Obstetrices, Oct. 29, 1951: AAS 43 (1951), PP. 835-854, Paul VI, address to a group of cardinals, June 23 1964: AAS 56 (1964), PP. 581-589. Certain questions which need further and more careful investigation have been handed over, at the command of the Supreme Pontiff, to a commission for the study of population, family, and births, in order that, after it fulfills its function, the Supreme Pontiff may pass judgment. With the doctrine of the magisterium in this state, this holy synod does not intend to propose immediately concrete solutions.]

I fail to see how this ignores the key aspects of the sexual revolution. It mentions and condemns all of them. There is nothing wrong in this analysis at all. It’s beautiful and profound. Pope St. Paul VI expanded upon it three years later, just as the footnote above foresaw. And Pope St. John Paul II blessed the Church and Catholic theology with his magnificent teachings on the theology of the body, which is no less than an extraordinary and exciting development in moral theology in our own time.

Rather than rejoice in those gifts to the Church, reactionaries would rather spend their energies (I have observed this myself, again and again) objecting to the canonization of both men (and Taylor Marshall even outrageously suggests in his pathetic book that Pope St. Paul VI had an ongoing homosexual lover). Timothy praises the “academic rigor of the traditionalist [i.e., reactionary] scholars such as De Mattei, Romano, and Ferrara” in his footnote #1. The first and last of these fought against the canonization of the three recent saint-popes:

Pope Bergoglio’s rapid-fire canonizations of John Paul II and John XXIII have understandably contributed to growing concerns among the faithful about the reliability of the “saint factory” put into operation during the reign of John Paul II. . . .

But now the seemingly imminent canonization of Paul VI, following approval of two purported miracles which, based on the information published, seem decidedly less than miraculous (to be discussed in Part II of this series), has provoked widespread incredulity about the canonization process itself, going even beyond the skepticism that greeted the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II.

. . . concerns of Roberto de Mattei over Pope Bergoglio’s canonization of John Paul II and John XXIII . . . (Chris Ferrara, “The Canonization Crisis, Part 1”: The Remnant, 2-24-18)

See also, “True and False Saints in the Church” (10-19-18), by Roberto de Mattei, who cites Ferrara.

God help us all! Like the Pharisees of old, reactionaries can’t see what is right in front of them: the “weightier matters,” as Jesus called them.

Most of the rest of the article was simply reiterations of the basic theme, which I believe I have shown to be profoundly fallacious and sadly mistaken.

***

Photo credit: Anne Worner: “BoogeyMan” (12-6-14) [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

***

Anti-Francis = Anti-Vatican II (You Heard it Here First)

Last updated on: July 16, 2020 at 2:24 pm By Dave Armstrong

[note: the title of this paper is a generalization; not meant to imply that there are no exceptions, but rather, to express a strong correlation]

As I’ve been saying for many years now, the endless lies about Pope Francis are almost always accompanied by “anti-Vatican II, anti-Ordinary Form Mass, and anti-ecumenism”: the four hallmarks of radical Catholic reactionaries.

I wrote eight months ago: “as always in these matters, ‘it ain’t just about Pope Francis.’ These people have had a dangerous, quasi-schismatic mentality and agenda for many years before anyone had ever heard of Pope Francis.”

And so I have been pointing out for over twenty years that these four things go together. The “Francis is a heretic” mantra is just a front and a subterfuge: as if that is all these radicals oppose, much as “Black Lives Matter” is a mere front for far-left revolutionary activism.

This worthless reactionary garbage we hear now can be directly traced to Chris Ferrara (of The Remnant) and his gossipy, destructive book, The Great Facade in 2002 (2nd edition: 2015). Note that that was eleven years before Pope Francis, and even three before Pope Benedict XVI. It’s the reactionary Bible. Taylor Marshall simply took that ball and ran with it further (“upped the ante”), into additional mindless conspiracy theories and outrageously scandalous, slanderous charges like, for example, that Pope St. Paul VI had an ongoing sodomite lover (an Italian actor).

“Nothing new under the sun,” as Ecclesiastes noted some 3000 years ago. Ferrara offered the slop of warmed-over Lefebvrism, and today’s radical quasi-schismatics like Dr. Marshall and Abp. Vigano offer warmed-over “Ferrarism.”

I’ve been trying to educate and warn people that the continual group statements against the pope are basically the same set of disenchanted reactionaries, who believe in the defectibility of the Church or at least — typical of reactionary equivocation and game-playing with words and dogmas — a quasi-defectibility (Church dogma tells us that the Church is indefectible). Here are my papers documenting this phenomenon of a small group of reactionaries trying to make themselves appear much larger and more important and influential than they actually are:
*
Radical Reactionary Affinities in “Filial Correction” Signatories [9-28-17]
*Reactionary Influence: Correctio & June 2016 Criticism of the Pope [1-24-18]*

Reactionary Signees of Easter “Heresy” Letter (13 of 19) [5-6-19]

Ecclesiological Errors of “Easter Letter” Reactionaries Summed Up (That is, Ones Not Specifically Related to Pope Francis: Especially Vatican II as the Big Bad Wolf) [5-9-19]

Now the latest “joint statement” is the Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider (July 9, 2020): a wholesale attack on the sublime magisterial authority of Vatican II. It was signed by 50 people. With just a cursory glance at the signatories, I found 19 or so that were familiar to me as having signed one or more of the documents above. And they include (not surprisingly) Christopher Ferrara.

The saddest one (to me) is Dr. Janet Smith: an excellent moral theologian (specializing in defense of Humanae Vitae) who has recently descended into reactionaryism, to the extent that she is now in favor of improper and quasi-schismatic criticism of an ecumenical council. How very sad. It’s a case study of a person who is far better than some false beliefs she has fallen prey to. I tried to persuade her otherwise, months ago, to no avail:

Viganò, Schneider, Pachamama, & VCII (vs. Janet E. Smith) [11-25-19]

“Pachamama” Redux (vs. Peter Kwasniewski & Janet Smith) [12-17-19]

For my part, I have repeatedly defended Vatican II as fully in line with previous Catholic tradition; particularly in a twelve-part reply to Dr. Paolo Pasqualucci: whose name also appears on this latest farcical document. Many other defenses of it may be found on my Catholic Church web page (word-search for the section: “Ecclesiastical Authority: The Second Vatican Council”).

The ubiquitous Dr. Peter Kwasniewski signed it. I have debated him several times in writing:

Peter Kwasniewski, Fr. Thomas Kocik and a Growing Chorus Disagree with Pope Benedict XVI Regarding the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass (Or, Reports of the Death of the Reform of the Reform are Greatly Exaggerated) [+ Part Two] [2-26-14]

Dialogue: “Bad” Bishops & “Confusing” Francis (vs. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski) [4-28-16]

Dialogue with a Traditionalist Regarding Deaconesses (vs. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski) [5-13-16]

“Postconciliar” Reply to Peter Kwasniewski & John Lamont [6-10-19]

Taylor Marshall associate Timothy Flanders appears also. I have debated him as well (and he says he wants to continue, time-permitting):
*
Reply to Timothy Flanders’ Defense of Taylor Marshall [7-8-19]

Dialogue w Ally of Taylor Marshall, Timothy Flanders [7-17-19]

Dialogue w 1P5 Writer Timothy Flanders: Introduction [2-1-20]

Dialogue w Timothy Flanders #2: State of Emergency? [2-25-20]

Alexander Tschugguel, Taylor Marshall, & God’s Wrath [3-19-20]

And, of course, I’m probably the biggest orthodox Catholic critic of Taylor Marshall (who banned me from his Twitter page upon my very first critique, after having recommended my books and website for many years). See numerous critiques under his name on my Traditionalist & Reactionaries web page.

Leila Lawler appears: wife of Phil Lawler, whose book Lost Shepherd I have critiqued 21 times (see his section on my Papacy page). I noted how Phil was starting to question — to some extent — Vatican II, himself, almost three years ago now. So here we are, observing his wife signing this document. No surprise to me! It’s part of my job as an apologist to keep track of these aberrations.

Henry Sire is on the list. I critiqued his book, The Dictator Pope.

I’ve had several exchanges with Chris Ferrara (almost always typified by his obnoxious mockery and ad hominem attacks), or regarding The Remnant:

Debate on the Reactionary Group, The Remnant [1-24-00]

Critique of The Remnant [2000]

Critique of Chris Ferrara’s Radical Reactionary Hit-Piece in Opposition to Pope Francis’ Christian Environmentalism [6-20-15]

Chris Ferrara vs. Pope Benedict XVI (New Mass) [12-18-15]

Reactionary Chris Ferrara’s Lies Re Pope Francis & Hell [3-31-18]

Coronavirus: Chris Ferrara vs. Science & Historical Precedent (Social Distancing Was Used in the 1918 Flu Pandemic and Has Been Shown Again and Again to be Highly Effective) [4-7-20]

And I have severely criticized Abp. Viganò and Bp. Schneider many times.

And so on and on it goes. I called all this and predicted it: basically 20 years ago. Remember, these four things are almost always found together:

1) Pope-Bashing (and not just of Francis, but from Pope st. John XXIII onward).

2) Vatican II-bashing.

3) Ordinary Form / Pauline / “New” Mass-bashing.

4) Ecumenism-bashing (falsely making out that all ecumenism is indifferentist relativism).

And a word to the wise: if you see these things, avoid them like the plague. It’ll do you no spiritual or theological good. And it won’t because these things run counter to the teaching of Holy Mother Church: whom God appointed as the Guardian of your souls. Don’t do it! I’m here as an apologist to warn you against error and to help you on your spiritual journey.

I’m not rich; I have no monetary or any other personal interest in saying these things (in fact, I have had to suffer loss for saying them). I do solely because they are true and good and because I care about people, and have observed what has happened to many good people through the years who have fallen into these grave errors. It’s part of my job.

2 Timothy 4:1-8 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: [2] preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. [3] For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. [5] As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry. [6] For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. [7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

*

2 Timothy 3:1-9 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. [2] For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, [4] treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. [6] For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, [7] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. [8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; [9] but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

***

Photo credit: image from the book’s Amazon page (original edition from 2002).

***

Denunciations of Incessant Bashing of Pope Francis

Last updated on: April 30, 2020 at 10:29 am By Dave Armstrong

1 Peter 2:17 (RSV) Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the [pagan, anti-Christian, persecuting] emperor.

Ecclesiastes 10:20 Even in your thought, do not curse the king, . . .

Titus 3:1-2 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, [2] to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men.

Acts 23:1-5 And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.” [2] And the high priest Anani’as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” [4] Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” [5] And Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” [cf. Ex 22:28]

Romans 13:1-4, 6 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. . . . [6] . . . the authorities are ministers of God . . .

*****

1) The time has come to cease the pope-bashing for misguided reasons, in public. If you don’t understand this pope, then start reading articles so that you do: at least read a different side than the suspicion and bashing and moaning and groaning. No one need be confused. But people would rather disparage the pope than read the stuff that might actually help them understand him. I’ve made it easy:

Replies to Critiques of Pope Francis (Dave Armstrong) [170 of my own articles]

Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused or Troubled Folks [articles from others]

2) And the stupidest thing is that they vehemently deny that they are bashing, the entire time they are doing it. Tired of this, I asked once, “if this isn’t bashing, what is? Calling him the antichrist or a jerk or a dope?” They’re already calling him a liberal and a host of other false accusations.

3) I’ve long noticed that those who want to bash him have no interest whatsoever in reading any other side. It’s Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome.

4) We truly “are what we eat.” If someone makes a conscious decision to only read negative material about Pope Francis, then what do we expect? They come out like clones of all the other myriads of clueless bashers.

5) People of this mindset want rumor and innuendo and gossip and second-hand trash. They wanna jump on the fashionable, trendy bandwagon and mimic the liberal media and liberal and radical reactionary Catholics.

6) My position has never been that popes cannot be criticized at all, or even in extreme cases, rebuked (or that they could never be heretics). Rather, it is that they should be accorded the proper respect of their office and criticized rarely, by the right people, in the right spirit, preferably in private Catholic venues, and for the right (and super-important) reasons. Virtually none of those characteristics hold for most of the people moaning about the pope day and night these days.

7) I’ve lived to see an age where an orthodox Catholic apologist defending the pope (for the right reasons) is some sort of novelty or alien from another galaxy. Truth is stranger than fiction!

8) I seek to do all I can to promote a normal Catholic, reverential atmosphere on this page, and historic, traditional, orthodox, observant, pious Catholicism shows extreme respect and deference to the pope. We see so little respect for the pope. It’s because people aren’t acting like Catholics or following the biblical and historical and saintly models.

9) There are a host of Scriptures about what we should say and think about; the tongue, gossiping, slander, worthless discussions. Perhaps I assume too readily that [most] Catholics are familiar with these. By their actions they either aren’t or they are and just don’t care (which is far worse).

10) Pope Francis has been massively misrepresented. He speaks spontaneously, and tries harder to speak in “common” (as opposed to “heavy theological”) language, and so context is more important. St. Paul did the same. He said, “I have become all things to all men.”

11) There is only a problem when people falsely assume that he is somehow a liberal and an anti-traditionalist, and then seize upon a word or phrase that they think “proves” this. It happens again and again so that now it has become a false “narrative” and a huge victory of the devil, who has created all this needless uproar, based on silliness and out-of-context nonsense.

12) Catholics allow themselves to be pawns and dupes of the devil insofar as they join in the calumnies and suspicions that have no serious basis in fact or evidence. Divide and conquer!

13) It happened with Pope St. John Paul II. He was excoriated by the radical reactionaries for the “Koran-kissing” incident and the Assisi conferences and other stuff. Not so much Pope Benedict, because he was always the darling of the theological right (due to his emphasis on liturgy). [since the time of these words, the reactionaries have savagely turned on Benedict, too, because 1) he resigned and 2) hasn’t denounced his successor] So this is really just a return to the status quo of suspicion of liberalism and anti-traditionalism, that St. John Paul the Great received. I know, because I defended him many times over against traditionalists and reactionaries alike. Because this trend was interrupted by Benedict, it seems like a new thing. It’s not.

14) I’m out here as an apologist (full-time). We apologists are given the task of explaining and defending, and I defend the pope because I have yet to see anything that makes me suspicious of his orthodoxy or traditionalism. Every time I have looked into a supposed “heterodox” statement or action [170 times, as of this posting], it amounted to nothing.

15) “Who am I to judge?” was a perfectly acceptable comment in context. It was taken massively out of context, which is almost always the problem with all these tempests in a teapot.

16) How ironic if the liberals are now figuring out that the pope is not for “gay marriage” (I recently linked to an article about that) while orthodox Catholics fall for this nonsense that the pope is compromising on the issue. That would be typical of the silliness we have witnessed again and again in the last two years.

17) It’s “interpreters” that are the problem. Many people are unable to read his words in context and prefer to read spin and propaganda about a few words taken out of context, with background ungrounded suspicion.

18) It’s an ongoing false narrative. People don’t care about facts, but only about trumped-up perceptions, and they are suspicious and cynical for inadequate reasons. I and many others have explained each “incident” satisfactorily, I think. It’s a bum rap.

19) My hero is St. John Henry Cardinal Newman. I’m going through 32 large volumes of his letters. Believe me, he was massively misunderstood on many grounds and many occasions. To this day he is outrageously regarded as a “liberal” by many, when in fact, he vigorously opposed that mindset both as an Anglican and Catholic, and chose to talk about that very topic when he became a Cardinal in 1879. But the myth and the lie persists because it is based on innuendo and rumor rather than solid facts. Is that because Cardinal Newman had some huge problem, or because he was brilliant and was, well, misunderstood? Jesus was misunderstood and lied about (accused of being possessed). So was St. Paul. They both had trumped-up trials and were put to death because of it. There was no real basis for any of those three instances. Nor do I believe there is any in this pope’s case. But the “narrative” is firmly in place now and it’ll get worse and worse.

20) I give the devil a great deal of credit for his ingenious strategy on this one. It’s very subtle and clever. He has to be laughing himself silly at how gullible Catholics are, and how easy to exploit for his ends. He gets us fighting against each other, making a mockery of unity and Catholic ecclesiology alike. I don’t form opinions based on the latest gossipy trends and fashions. I actually examine things.

21) If you read “news” through a liberal / dissident filter, then you will have an inaccurate picture. Read someone like Jimmy Akin, who, if he has a bias, is biased towards orthodoxy and observant Catholicism.

22) And now we’ll get the brainless drivel about how anyone who defends the pope is an “ultramontanist” who thinks he is infallible in his choice of socks in the morning and his opinions on soccer, etc. I’ve heard it all; dealt with it innumerable times. The same stupid stuff keeps being said anyway.

23) I think this rotgut comes from two sources: 1) Americanism (traditional antipathy to kings — transferred over to popes — and extreme rugged individualism overcoming Catholic piety). 2) Liberal / modernist and radical Catholic reactionary modes of thinking. Those who do this (insofar as they do it) are influenced (in these instances) more by these errors than by historic Catholicism.

24) I’ve been accused of claiming that no one can ever disagree with the pope for 18 years online, and it has been untrue all that time, and manifestly shown again and again to be untrue. No matter. It doesn’t go with the talking points of the bashers, so they keep saying it (about me) regardless of the facts of the matter. 95% of what is expressed online is bilge and imprudential, sinful bashing, not mere legitimate criticism.

25) Of course, there are no pope-bashers whatsoever in the world (by their self-report), just as there are no bigots and no one in the prisons who is guilty, etc.

26) The pope and “the papacy” are two different things (person vs. office). What is massively going on now is pope-bashing (Francis-bashing), not papacy-bashing.

27) We knew he would be different, as the first Jesuit pope) and other reasons (such as being Argentinian). And I knew that because he was different there would be a group who never would grasp what he is about. I predicted it from Day One.

28) I can understand someone being confused. There are many reasons for it. They might listen to the liberal media, or the radical reactionaries, or liberal Catholics who think the pope is one of them, or the increasing bandwagon chorus (among orthodox Catholics) of the pope’s detractors (what I have called “the [false] narrative”). They don’t study or don’t have time to. I do have a lot of time to devote to this, and I use it for a positive, edifying purpose. That’s why I offer my two collection of links [near the top of this article]. If people spent one-tenth of their time reading defenses of the pope instead of bashing, they could actually learn something and cease and desist.

29) It’s simply scandalous to engage in pope-bashing, for what should be obvious reasons. Then people disagree that it is bashing. If I’m wrong and it is not pope-bashing, surely God won’t condemn me for being (mistakenly) concerned about the papacy and honor and respect accorded to the pope. But if these people are wrong and they are indeed pope-bashing (if my classification of it is correct), this is serious sin. Calumny is mortal sin.

30) I care about the diabolical conspiracy of Satan to stir up unnecessary internal divisions in the Catholic Church, so that we have less and less effect on the lost and the hurting and those desperately seeking something transcendent and hopeful and true. We’re already being roundly mocked by anti-Catholic Protestants because of this sort of nonsense.

31) It occurs to me how ironic it is that I and others were blasted for criticizing a priest for being disrespectful towards the pope, while the point of the thread was blasting and bashing (and occasionally a legitimate criticizing of) Pope Francis (and said priest noting over and over that this was perfectly permissible, done in the right way). Thus, the far greater action towards the pope is winked at, while the far lesser and permissible action towards a priest is frowned upon. This is how screwed-up Catholic priorities can be. It seems that folks think it is fine and dandy to criticize the pope all day long, but it’s Chicken Little if we respectfully criticize a priest? What kind of alternate universe is that?

32) Yes, it is subjective to a large extent because there are fine lines here and reasonable good folks can disagree. What I think is disrespectful and bashing many do not. Whether I am being too strict and legalistic or the ones whom I think are bashing are sinning against charity and slandering and spreading gossip and being imprudent, etc., each person will have to judge. I call ’em as I see ’em.

33) Can pope-bashers agree with me that if they don’t like (or are confused by) some things Pope Francis does or says, and I give them information that helps explain those and remove difficulties, that this is good, right? They have nothing to lose by reading more of my writings and links along those lines. I spend multiple hours dealing with this as part of my job. I’m here to help folks. I offer the pope-bashers real and substantive aids and resources to understand the man. They can choose to read them (agree or disagree) or not. But most will not. You can take the horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink . . .

34) I recommended that the bashers ignore Pope Francis if he troubles them and they are tempted to bash on a daily or weekly basis. He won’t be around forever; then those who are so troubled by him can feel better after he is out of the picture.

35) If anyone has followed me as an apologist, and dislikes Pope Francis, it seems that they would have at least some slight curiosity to read what I have to say about this pope, and then maybe they would feel better about him, and I would have been allowed to do my job, including helping them a bit out of their confusion and frustration. It’s what apologists do.

36) Similar was said about Pope St. John Paul II. First we heard that he wrote in absurdly difficult language (philosophical phenomenologist lingo). Then as he got older it was implied over and over that he was a loose cannon, saying and doing questionable things. I saw it again and again, because I was there defending him, just as I defend this present pope. He was endlessly bashed by the traditionalists and the reactionaries over the Assisi ecumenical conferences, which were invariably distorted in their essence. He was bashed endlessly for kissing the Koran and people thought that he was compromised on the question of Islam and no salvation outside the Church. He was called a modernist and a liberal (just as I have been, dozens of times; I was again today by some nitwit in one of my threads). This has all happened already with him. He’s a saint. So is Pope John XXIII: who is widely (absurdly!) regarded as a liberal by the liberals.

37) People make all kinds of assumptions and generalizations about the pope, so why am I not allowed to do the same about the folks who do that? I don’t bow to extreme double standards. All these strong (usually unjust and erroneous) criticisms are made of the pope, but let anyone dare say strong words against that; give the other side, and all hell breaks loose.

38) [to a Facebook friend who became angry at me over this; whom I blocked and then unblocked] You are the one who freely said that you don’t come to my site anymore. I guess that means that being critical of the pope is far and away your highest priority, so that you don’t care all that much about the thousand other apologetics matters that I deal with (or else you wouldn’t feel compelled to avoid this page).

39) “Dave Armstrong defense of not wanting the pope to be critiqued or criticized”. This has never been my position, as I reiterate endlessly [see #6 and #24 above). Folks need to get my position right if they wanna discuss or critique it. That’s the #1 priority of any critique: know the position that you are critiquing.

40) My defenses of the pope are available for anyone to critique, but the ones who are most critical of the Holy Father rarely want to engage in actual discussion about him. So what can I do? My opinions are laid out for all to see and based on reason and what I think are the obtainable facts, as I always seek to base them upon.

***

The Ridiculous “Anti-Francis” Mentality: My Theory in Brief [12-7-15]

Ratzinger: Avoid Criticizing Church in “Mass Media” [6-26-16]

On Rebuking Popes & Catholic Obedience to Popes (+ Facebook discussion) [12-27-17]

“Nothing New”: Reactionary Attacks on Pope St. John Paul II [4-9-05; with tie-in endnote added on 3-2-18]

Negative Reactionary Views of Popes Since 1958 [3-18-18]

Honoring Popes / Scriptural Honor of Even Wicked Rulers [11-30-17; some additions on 3-26-18]

Pope-Criticism: Vigorous Exchanges w Karl Keating [3-27-18]

Do I Think Popes Can Never be Criticized for Any Reason? Nope. (I Respectfully Criticize the Prudence of Pope Francis’ Repeated Interviews with an Atheist Who Lies About Him [Eugenio Scalfari]) [3-31-18]

Honoring Popes (Even Alleged “Bad” Ones) as Persons [4-11-18]

Are Pope-Critics Evil? Reply to Karl Keating [4-13-18]

Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy [5-10-19]

Hysterical Reactionaries Opposed Pope Francis from Day One (The “inside story” — from Hilary White — of what happened among a cadre of well-known fanatical reactionaries on the very night Pope Francis was elected) [12-3-19]

Dialogue w Timothy Flanders #2: State of Emergency? [2-25-20]

***

(originally 2-22-15 on Facebook)

Photo credit: Tumisu (5-15-19) [Pixabay /Pixabay License]

***

Alexander Tschugguel, Taylor Marshall, & God’s Wrath

Last updated on: April 7, 2020 at 11:40 pm By Dave Armstrong

This is an exchange on my Facebook page with Timothy Flanders, who appeared in the videos with Taylor Marshall, that I critiqued in my paper, Taylor Marshall: Pachamama “Idolatry” Judged by Coronavirus (Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . .) [3-17-20]. His words will be in blue. Any further replies from him will be added to this paper.

*****

If I understand you correctly here, you have selectively quoted the OT, making your argument lack force, and sound more like a hit piece, with due respect. David asks God your exact question in the OT passage from II Kings that we discussed in this video.

24:17 And David said to the Lord, when he saw the angel striking the people: It is I; I am he that have sinned, I have done wickedly: these that are the sheep, what have they done? let thy hand, I beseech thee, be turned against me, and against my father’s house.

Again, if I’ve understood your argument correctly, this verse alone disproves your entire argumentation in this article. You contend that Marshall and myself have to explain why the Holy Father is not stricken with the virus but Alexander is, yet David himself asks this very question in the context of God’s wrath.

With respect,

Timothy

As I noted, these observations are only a tiny portion of my entire writing on the topic of both God’s judgment and disease. I’ve written many articles on both. I also stated that “the overall picture: taking all of the Bible into account, is far more complex and multi-faceted” and “I want to highlight one particular aspect of Marshall’s claims” [bolding presently]. I also cited you [from the videos], to be totally fair about this, saying, “This falls on many innocent souls who had nothing to do with any of this stuff.”

So I understand that. The main disagreement here is between you and Marshall and myself, along with all who believe in biblical inspiration, over against the modernist and liberal so-called Bible scholars.

My case here remains utterly unaffected by this critique, because it is of a particular nature. I think I explained it well enough (of course I always think that!). But to concisely summarize:

1) Taylor Marshall appealed to the OT teaching on judgment (mocking those who dismiss it), to explain and interpret the coronavirus.

2) He specifically applied it to the current situation as a judgment against the alleged “Pachamama” idolatry.

[claiming it is divine wrath, and that it’s because of the Vatican ceremony, are both sheer speculations]

3) I agree with this OT teaching on divine wrath, as one article of mine in particular, proves.

4) A key part of this judgment motif is that God (typically, but not always) judges individuals and groups for the sins that they themselves have committed. He “singles them out,” in other words.

5) #4 doesn’t fit the current state of affairs, under Marshall’s hypothesis (#2), insofar as the ones guilty of the alleged idolatry that is supposedly the initiating cause of the alleged divine judgment and wrath (especially Pope Francis) seem to be undergoing no great suffering.

6) On the other hand, the person most known for opposing the alleged idolatry (which in fact did not take place, as shown ad infinitum), Alexander Tschugguel, has himself contacted the virus.

This makes no sense under the paradigm you have set up. In effect, God would be judging the “Jeremiah” that He Himself has sent to warn about the coming judgment. Marshall mentioned in the video about the Jews being judged via the Babylonians, and losing their temple. Who was warning them about it? That was Jeremiah the prophet. And who is warning us today? Supposedly, the heroic Alexander Tschugguel, who fearlessly (after committing an act of theft) disposed of the alleged idols, Boniface-and Elijah-like.

Scripture teaches that in particular judgments, the ones committing the sins are judged; not the ones warning about the sins.

7) Therefore, the hypothesis of #2 (taking into account #4, which is entailed by #1), appears to be falsified, by Marshall’s own OT criterion.

8) Moreover, you two have argued that the cessation of Masses in Rome is part of God’s judgment for “Pachamama”. Thus, you yourself make a particular application of judgment in that case, yet you want to make an exception or create an “anomaly” when it comes to Alexander over against Pope Francis and all the other alleged wicked, apostate, heretical bishops.

Why? Extreme presumption and internal incoherence and inconsistency rule the day. I think you have to go back and reconsider your several false premises to see where your reasoning has gone awry.

I’m glad you brought up King David. In this instance, he did not suffer, and his people did. Sometimes that is how it is in Scripture. But of course, in the case of David’s murder and adultery, he did suffer terribly. One son died and another led a rebellion against him. Many other kings were struck down by God because of their sins.

So why wouldn’t God do this with Pope Francis, if he is so terrible?

I won’t even get into how utterly ridiculous it is to classify the temporary shutting-down of churches in a country [Italy] which currently has 35,713 coronavirus cases (the second-highest figure after China), with 2,978 dead so far (475 more since yesterday), in order to stop the spread of a super-infectious virus, as “God’s wrath.”

In fact, this is simply following biblical injunctions from the Mosaic Law, which indeed stopped the spread of infectious diseases 3000 years before modern science figured out germ theory and the laws of contagion.

If they didn’t do this during the Black Death, it was because they had no idea of how it was spread. It wasn’t necessarily heroic faith, but it had to do far more with massive ignorance.

A reasonable interpretation of the alarming spread in Italy is to note the fact that it has the third oldest average age in Europe, after Monaco and Germany (which is presently fifth in the world in numbers of infections), and the sixth-oldest population in the entire world.

We know that Coronavirus attacks older people exponentially more than young (virtually every one of the now 100+ victims in the US are over 50: most over 60, and the bulk of those 70 and older).

So the sensible and obvious thing to do is to stop public gatherings as much as possible, and that includes Masses. That’s not God’s wrath or “self-interdiction.” It’s a straightforward application of loving our neighbor, so that they won’t die from viral infection.

How is Alexander doing now? Have you heard news of any improvement yet?

[ received no reply, so I inquired on the Internet:

Alexander Tschugguel, 26, of Vienna, Austria, . . . has been hospitalized today due to having contracted the coronavirus.

Alexander has been at home in bed with fever for nine days and is very weak. He texted me yesterday only to say he was too weak to speak. Today, he was admitted to hospital, and first reports suggest that his life is not in danger. [3-18-20 on a reactionary site]

I had asked my readers to pray for him in my previous paper, and added: “Let’s continue praying. It sounds like he has some serious immune deficiency problems.” Then I found a message straight from Alexander himself:

After so many of you already know about my state of health I wanted to thank you all deeply for all the prayers and support I get.

It is now day 11 with the virus and up until now it did not get any better. After I have been in home quarantine until yesterday morning my wife and I decided that it got worse and that I have to go to the hospital. Now I am here and they take good care of me. Please continue to pray! Especially for the ones who got hit by the Virus as hard as me or even harder but who can not have all this help and this support. Let us always pray for the sick and old, for the ones who do not have families or friends which take care of them.

As soon as I am healthy again, God willing, I will write another update here.

Yours,

Alexander

Christ will win!

Ps:

I am sorry that I can not answer your private messages right now. It is too much.

Please continue to keep him in prayer]

***

Here is some more data about how God judges. According to Taylor Marshall and Timothy Flanders, coronavirus is His wrath for supposed idolatry in the Vatican, in the tree-planting ceremony. It would be very difficult to prove such a thing, but let’s accept it for a moment, for the sake of argument. It would mean that our loving God, Who became a man and died on the cross on our behalf, decided in His wrath to afflict (as of the latest statistics), over 222,000 people; 9,115 of them fatally, because of one ceremony in the Vatican (which I strongly believe — and have proven by fact and reason, many times –, was wildly and wrongly misinterpreted, and lied about by reactionaries, in violation of the Ten Commandments).

These figures include 8,154 cases in China, including 3,249 deaths, or 36% of all fatalities. Yet what would China have to do with a ceremony in the Vatican? That is not how God’s judgment works! I’ve already noted above the current figure for Italy, which has 33% of all fatalities. We now know that, according to a Bloomberg article (3-18-20):

More than 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities were people who suffered from previous medical conditions, according to a study by the country’s national health authority. . . .

The Rome-based institute has examined medical records of about 18% of the country’s coronavirus fatalities, finding that just three victims, or 0.8% of the total, had no previous pathology. Almost half of the victims suffered from at least three prior illnesses and about a fourth had either one or two previous conditions.

More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease.

The median age of the infected is 63 but most of those who die are older . . . The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

So, please note what this entails: we’re told that God is judging via the coronavirus. The biggest sin and alleged precipitating cause for this occurred in Italy. But did God go after the very ones who allegedly committed it (the pope, cardinals, bishops, and those who agreed with their acts?). No, not at all. Instead (in Taylor Marshall’s absurd scenario), God looked around for elderly people (average age of the dead: 79.5 years), and particularly those who already had two or three other diseases (high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease), and killed them, up to the tune of 33% of all worldwide fatalities. These are the people God in His omnipotence and providence decided to judge and kill by His wrath. That is supposedly just and loving.

Another of Taylor Marshall’s blasphemous theories is that God is also judging because the pope (so he pontificates) abandoned Chinese Christians. So who does God go after in retribution for that? Not Pope Francis, the alleged perpetrator, but . . . the Chinese (!): most of whom, no doubt (i.e., among the victims), are not even Christians: 3,249 deaths there, and 36% of all fatalities. That’s God’s judgment and wrath, you see! Does that make any sense? Of course not. It’s equal parts outrageous and absurd. It’s certainly not consistent with the God revealed in the inspired revelation of the Bible.

This is not only outrageously false and unbiblical, but literally blasphemous (how ironic, in the midst of a false charge that the pope and bishops were supposedly committing sacrilegious idolatry). If this is the nature of the God Whom Christians serve, count me out. I’m gone yesterday. Thankfully, it is not the God I know and the true God revealed in the Bible. He is fair and just in His judgments: terrible though they may sometimes seem from our perspective. If He judges a nation, it’s because most of the entire nation has gone astray, and are ripe for judgment, as part of the collective.

God used the Babylonians to judge even the Jews, the chosen people, after they massively engaged in idolatry and other sins and abandoned Him (Jeremiah chapters 49-52). But He also judged Babylon:

Isaiah 14:22-23 (RSV) “I will rise up against them,” says the LORD of hosts, “and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, offspring and posterity, says the LORD. [23] And I will make it a possession of the hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, says the LORD of hosts.”

Nations who opposed Israel became incorrigibly wicked, and God judged them:

Isaiah 19:17 And the land of Judah will become a terror to the Egyptians; every one to whom it is mentioned will fear because of the purpose which the LORD of hosts has purposed against them.

Isaiah 30:31 The Assyrians will be terror-stricken at the voice of the LORD, when he smites with his rod.

Isaiah 34:5, 9 For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgment upon Edom, upon the people I have doomed. . . . [9] And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into brimstone; her land shall become burning pitch.

Jeremiah 47:1, 4 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the Philistines, before Pharaoh smote Gaza.. . . [4] because of the day that is coming to destroy all the Philistines, to cut off from Tyre and Sidon every helper that remains. For the LORD is destroying the Philistines, the remnant of the coastland of Caphtor.

Ezekiel 25:2-3 “Son of man, set your face toward the Ammonites, and prophesy against them. [3] Say to the Ammonites, Hear the word of the Lord GOD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Because you said, `Aha!’ over my sanctuary when it was profaned, and over the land of Israel when it was made desolate, and over the house of Judah when it went into exile;

This is what God does: He judges wicked nations (including His own chosen people, several times). When virtually the whole world became wicked in the time of Noah, He judged it, too. What He doesn’t do, on the other hand, is judge people who had nothing to do with one alleged sin, for that sin. He judges individuals or relatively smaller groups for their own sins, as I documented last time. Here are a few more examples:

2 Kings 9:33-37 He said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down; and some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her. [34] Then he went in and ate and drank; and he said, “See now to this cursed woman, and bury her; for she is a king’s daughter.” [35] But when they went to bury her, they found no more of her than the skull and the feet and the palms of her hands. [36] When they came back and told him, he said, “This is the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servant Eli’jah the Tishbite, `In the territory of Jezreel the dogs shall eat the flesh of Jez’ebel; [37] and the corpse of Jez’ebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, This is Jez’ebel.'”

Jeremiah 29:21-22 `Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Ahab the son of Kola’iah and Zedeki’ah the son of Ma-asei’ah, who are prophesying a lie to you in my name: Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrez’zar king of Babylon, and he shall slay them before your eyes. [22] Because of them this curse shall be used by all the exiles from Judah in Babylon: “The LORD make you like Zedeki’ah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire,”

Acts 5:1-10 But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property, [2] and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. [3] But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? [4] While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” [5] When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. [6] The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. [7] After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. [8] And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” [9] But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” [10] Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

1 Corinthians 11:27-30 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. [30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Revelation 2:12-16 “And to the angel of the church in Per’gamum write: `The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword. [13] “`I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; you hold fast my name and you did not deny my faith even in the days of An’tipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. [14] But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. [15] So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicola’itans. [16] Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

I simply can’t find in the Bible a “judgement” or “wrath” such as Taylor Marshall and Timothy Flanders posit in the present case. There are plenty of very widespread sins that God might conceivably judge (and on a very wide scale): abortion, homosexual acts, economic exploitation, making riches or power into an idol, pornography, sexual trafficking, drug dealing, sexual abuse, terrorism, racial and ethnic prejudice, sexism, on and on and on. He could incinerate the United States to ashes in the next hour and we could say nothing in our defense: due to abortion alone; not even getting into many other serious sins we commit and even sanction by unjust, immoral laws. It would be perfectly just for Him to do so.

But none of that is mentioned when Marshall and Flanders talk about God’s wrath: only one ceremony which they (along with legions of reactionaries) never understood in the first place; which was a Catholic ceremony, without any idolatry at all. See my many articles regarding it. Such are so many falsehoods currently being spread about Pope Francis. May God open the eyes and have mercy on the souls of those who broadcast them, unwillingly or willingly.

Ecclesiastes 10:20 Even in your thought, do not curse the king, . . .

Titus 3:1-2 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, [2] to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men.

Acts 23:1-5 And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.” [2] And the high priest Anani’as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” [4] Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” [5] And Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

***

Taylor Marshall: Pachamama “Idolatry” Judged by Coronavirus (Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . .) [3-17-20]

My Outlook & Goals During This Coronavirus Crisis [3-24-20]

Explanation of Coronavirus Statistics (Dr. JD Donovan) [3-26-20]

“Black Death” Mentality On Display at Patheos Catholic [3-26-20]

Dialogue: [Irrational?] Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus [3-27-20]

Dialogue on Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus, Part II [3-27-20]

Why Has Italy Suffered the Most from Coronavirus? (+ Reflections on the Propriety of Using the Term, “Chinese Flu” / Condemnation of Anti-Chinese Prejudice) [3-28-20]

Reply to Unfair Criticisms of Trump Re Coronavirus [4-4-20]

Mini-Debate on Laying Blame for Lack of Knowledge of Coronavirus, and Irresponsibility (vs. Jon Curry) [Facebook, 4-5-20]

Coronavirus: Chris Ferrara vs. Science & Historical Precedent (Social Distancing Was Used in the 1918 Flu Pandemic and Has Been Shown Again and Again to be Highly Effective) [4-7-20]

Will US Coronavirus Deaths Be Far Less than Predicted? [4-7-20]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!

See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***

Photo credit: Queen Jezebel Being Punished by Jehu, by Andrea Celesti (1637-1712) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Taylor Marshall: Pachamama “Idolatry” Judged by Coronavirus

Last updated on: April 7, 2020 at 11:41 pm By Dave Armstrong

Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . .

Dr. Taylor Marshall, the notorious reactionary and conspiracy theorist, is on record arguing that the “coronavirus” is “a sign of divine judgment.” He did this in a video entitled, “Catholics and Corona: No Public Masses in Rome or Italy until APRIL 3 2020”: dated 3-9-20. This video was excerpted into a much shorter one called “Is Coronavirus a Sign of Divine Judgement?” (3-10-20).

Dr. Pedro Gabriel, in one of his uniformly excellent and helpful articles at the website, Where Peter Is, has already offered a scathing rebuke of this thinking (“Dr. Marshall and the coronavirus: suffering people deserve better!”: 3-14-20).

I want to highlight one particular aspect of Marshall’s claims. He wanted to make the argument that God (particularly as revealed in the Old Testament), exhibits wrath against sin, including (sometimes) diseases, and that the coronavirus is an instance of this. He goes on at length mocking those (“modernists” et al) who don’t believe in this general attribute / behavior of God.

I for one certainly do believe in it, and have written at great length about it (“Does God Ever Judge People by Sending Disease?”: 10-30-17), as part of my effort in teaching about how God’s judgment works, in many papers on the topic. Dr. Gabriel also acknowledged that this is a truth revealed in the Bible:

It is indeed true that there are many biblical examples of natural disasters and diseases as a manifestation of God’s wrath. I certainly do not exclude that this can be a reason why suffering exists in some cases.

He goes on to argue that “this is just part of the story” and that the overall picture: taking all of the Bible into account, is far more complex and multi-faceted. Again, I wholeheartedly agree. This has been my own “take” as well, in writing about both judgment and the issue of sickness and suffering, and how God (and our own sins) are related to that.

But back to my particular point. I submit that if Taylor Marshall wants to appeal to the Old Testament and God’s particular wrath, then he has to consistently abide by his interpretation. If he wants to argue Old Testament and what it teaches about judgment, then that is the hill he chooses to die on, and he must defend it. I can play that “game” with him if he likes (though we know he avoids me like the plague: no pun intended!).

I’ve already laid out much of this data in my article on this very topic. To be totally fair about this, Marshall and his friend Timothy Flanders, in these videos (I have dialogued fruitfully with Timothy now four times, and he has been a class act), acknowledge that God’s wrath and judgment (even if it is applicable to the current pandemic), strike a lot of “innocent” people. Timothy stated near the end of the abridged video:

This falls on many innocent souls who had nothing to do with any of this stuff [Marshall agreed, saying, “right”]. [8:11-8:16]

This is absolutely right, and (again) I have noted it many times in my apologetic treatments of God’s wrath. But if Taylor Marshall wants to appeal to Old Testament passages about God’s wrath, then he has to squarely face and incorporate the many that single out sinful individuals and groups in particular for judgment. Here’s an extensive sampling:

Exodus 9:11 (RSV) . . . the boils were upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians.

Exodus 15:26 . . . “If you will diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give heed to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon you which I put upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD, your healer.”

Leviticus 26:21 Then if you walk contrary to me, and will not hearken to me, I will bring more plagues upon you, sevenfold as many as your sins.

Numbers 12:9-10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed; [10] and when the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. [

Deuteronomy 7:15 And the LORD will take away from you all sickness; and none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict upon you, but he will lay them upon all who hate you.

2 Kings 15:5 And the LORD smote the king [Jeroboam], so that he was a leper to the day of his death, . . . (cf. 2 Chr 13:20)

2 Chronicles 21:18-19 And after all this the LORD smote him [King Jehoram] in his bowels with an incurable disease. [19] In course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony. (cf. 21:15)

2 Maccabees 9:5 But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him [Antiochus] an incurable and unseen blow. As soon as he ceased speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels for which there was no relief and with sharp internal tortures —

Acts 12:23 Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him [King Herod], because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.

Now comes the part where it is very difficult to apply such passages and actions by God to the current pandemic, with the interpretation that alleged “idolatry” with regard to supposed “pachamama” gods in the Vatican garden (that I and others have refuted over and over) has brought it on. We shall assume this is true for a moment, for the sake of argument, and in light of the above Old Testament passages that Marshall and Flanders directly appealed to.

Why is it, then, that the alleged purveyors and promoters of the “idolatry” (folks like, oh, Pope Francis and other Vatican cardinals and bishops) are not suffering, whereas the very person who tossed some of the statues (falsely alleged to be “Pachamama”) into the Tiber River, and who has been lionized for doing so (Alexander Tschugguel), has himself sadly caught the virus?

Isn’t that the opposite of what we would be led to expect, according to this conspiratorial hypothesis? Taylor Marshall announced in a video dated 3-15-20 (“Urgent Corona Prayer Request for Alexander Tschugguel”), that he has been struggling mightily with a terrible fever (even after being released from the hospital) and is in a “bad way.”

I wish him all the best, and urge prayers and penances on his behalf. He seems like an earnest, sincere, pious, and zealous young man. He was dead wrong about this, but that’s of course beside the point, as to wishing him a full recovery. In fact, I would like to apply my current acute suffering of right shoulder pain to the souls of Alexander and all sufferers from the virus: especially those who are critically ill.

I am not — repeat, NOT — claiming that he is a subject of God’s wrath (though he could possibly be, just as is true — or could eventually be true — of any of us). Austria currently has 1,332 cases of this quite non-discriminatory virus, and, sadly, Alexander is one of them. Please pray fervently for his full recovery. Since young people are the least affected by this virus, he very likely will get well.

What I am contending is that if Taylor Marshall wants to argue this way about God’s judgment, and apply it to the current pandemic tragedy (complete with absurd, ludicrous charges that the suspension of Masses — even in pandemic-ravaged Italy? — is also part of God’s judgment), then he has to explain this anomaly of the “good guy” being afflicted and the arch-enemy “bad guy” and antichrist, Pope Francis, walking the streets of Rome virus-free thus far.

After all, God struck down kings; He (the same God Who did all that stuff as revealed in the inspired revelation of the Old Testament) can dispose of a supposedly wicked, evil pope just as easily. If Pope Francis were one-tenth as bad as the mountain of lies and calumnies and scurrilous slander about him would have it, arguably he should have [biblically] been devastated by God and eaten by worms (or some similar such horrible fate) no later than five years ago.

***

Alexander Tschugguel, Taylor Marshall, & God’s Wrath [3-19-20]

My Outlook & Goals During This Coronavirus Crisis [3-24-20]

Explanation of Coronavirus Statistics (Dr. JD Donovan) [3-26-20]

“Black Death” Mentality On Display at Patheos Catholic [3-26-20]

Dialogue: [Irrational?] Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus [3-27-20]

Dialogue on Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus, Part II [3-27-20]

Why Has Italy Suffered the Most from Coronavirus? (+ Reflections on the Propriety of Using the Term, “Chinese Flu” / Condemnation of Anti-Chinese Prejudice) [3-28-20]

Reply to Unfair Criticisms of Trump Re Coronavirus [4-4-20]

Mini-Debate on Laying Blame for Lack of Knowledge of Coronavirus, and Irresponsibility (vs. Jon Curry) [Facebook, 4-5-20]

Coronavirus: Chris Ferrara vs. Science & Historical Precedent (Social Distancing Was Used in the 1918 Flu Pandemic and Has Been Shown Again and Again to be Highly Effective) [4-7-20]

Will US Coronavirus Deaths Be Far Less than Predicted? [4-7-20]

***

Photo credit: CounterDarkness (10-18-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Taylor Marshall Conspiracy?: 840 Amazon Reviews in Nine Days

Last updated on: December 11, 2019 at 1:59 pm By Dave Armstrong

Taylor Marshall’s Orchestrated Campaign to Flood the Amazon Page for His Book Infiltration with Positive Reviews

Within nine days (by 6-1-19), Marshall garnered 840 reviews of his book, Infiltration on the book’s Amazon page (89% of them 5-star reviews from his rapturous fan club of wide-eyed “sheep”). By the next day it was 917. The total is now (on 12-11-19) 1,405 reviews.

Taylor played the game of amassing an army of his “choir” to pump up the book for the masses on Amazon. That’s capitalism fer ya. I admire it in a weird sort of way. Many of us authors would love to have all these reviews of our books! It creates an appearance that “everyone!” is ecstatic about this ludicrous book.

My New Catholic Answer Bible has been a consistent bestseller for 14 years (published by the largest Catholic publisher: Our Sunday Visitor), but it has mustered up only 181 reviews: coincidentally also 89% 5-star, but these were spontaneous reviews, not arranged beforehand. No one else has anywhere near this number of reviews (and this fast). If we look at, for example, other big pope-bashing books, we find that The Dictator Pope (2018) by Henry Sire has 211 reviews, Lost Shepherd (2018) by Phil Lawler, has 69, The Political Pope (2017) by George Neumayr, 76, To Change the Church (2018) by Ross Douthat, 57, and The Francis Feud (2018) by Karl Keating (in which I was mentioned as a pope-defender, 99 times), garnered 21 reviews.

But of course, pro-Catholic Church apologetics is not nearly as sexy and fashionable as pope-bashing and now even Vatican II-bashing is. How sad, and how low we have sunk since I first had my conversion story printed in Patrick Madrid’s Surprised by Truth: a runaway 1994 bestseller, which even now has 164 reviews. It’s the same in all directions. No one has seen anything like it. For example, Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home has 729 reviews, but that’s since 1993, and he is the most well-known Catholic apologist. And even so, that’s only a little more than half of what “tin foil hat Marshall” has gotten in a little less than seven months. Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism (1988): an immensely important and influential apologetics book, has 208 reviews. Steve Ray’s Crossing the Tiber (1997) has 111. My other three bestsellers in the field have gotten 48, 42, and 21. Super-apologist Peter Kreeft rarely gets over 100 reviews (or anywhere near it) for any of his scores of books.

Regina Magazine‘s Facebook edition gushed on 6-2-19:

“Don’t buy it!”
“Don’t buy it!”

Okay, so this is pretty funny. It seems that ‘INFILTRATION’ by Dr Taylor Marshall has struck a raw nerve among ‘conservative’ Catholics — who are all loudly online insisting that it’s all ‘conspiracy theories’ and that they won’t read it and no one else should.

Unfortunately for them, their wailing is having the opposite effect — it’s DRIVING sales.

Take a look at this on Amazon: nearly 900 FIVE STAR REVIEWS in THREE DAYS!

Our sources say sales are through the ROOF.

That God certainly has a sense of humor, doesn’t he?

[four smiley icons]

But (sorry to inform them) it’s a flat-out falsehood. I let them know on their page, writing (in a comment — almost needless to add — that was removed within four days):

Yes, of course it has almost 1000 reviews, because this was all orchestrated beforehand in a campaign to give followers a copy in exchange for a review. It has nothing to do with opposition supposedly driving sales. I hate to bust your bubble, . . .

Don’t wanna believe me, cuz I am a critic? We know that he did this because it is documented from his website. It was called “Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration Launch Team”. The page was removed (for some odd reason), but fortunately, Internet Archive preserved one copy of it, dated April 5, 2019 (it was initially posted on 4-3-19).

Regina Magazine replied:

Er, congratulations on discovering what is a standard approach to publishing books these days. And, your flowery language aside, the pool of ‘desperate predeposition’ includes a whole LOTTA normal Catholics. But what interests us most is where YOUR paycheck is drawn from?

And I responded: “Nice try. You stated: “their wailing is having the opposite effect — it’s DRIVING sales.” I showed that it had nothing to do with that. Switching the subject doesn’t rectify your mistake.”

Dr. Jeff Mirus, in his scathing review of Infiltration, alludes to Taylor Marshall’s conspiracy

At the very end, the book includes a list of the alleged members of the “Infiltration Launch Team” who are said to have read the book prior to publication and to be helping in promotion. It may be an unprecedented step in publishing, since I estimate the number of names at over 2,000. But again, from what pool of desperate predisposition were these people drawn?

Here is the content of Marshall’s now-removed “Launch Team” web page:

Thank you for wanting to join our Launch Team for Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Catholic Church from Within. We are looking for 200 “Launch Team” advanced readers who are:

1. willing to read a private (do not share) advanced copy of the book in pdf format,
2. give us feedback,
3. write a review of Infiltration on Amazon.com
4. and help promote it when it debuts on May 20 2019 (tentative publish date).

If we select you, then your name will be printed on the last page of the book with a “Thank you” from me.

If you are willing to help me promote the book, please fill in the forms below and we will notify you within the week if you have been selected.

Godspeed,
Taylor Marshall

Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration Launch Team

Please apply to be one of the 200 members for Taylor Marshall’s new book: “Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Catholic Church From Within.” This book traces the infiltration of the Catholic priesthood going back to the 1800s and up through the 1960s and Sankt Gallen election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis.

Name*

First

Last

Best Email Address to which we can send the advance digital copy of the book*

Have you read a book by Dr Taylor Marshall before?*

Yes, I’ve read at least one.

No, I have not any of his books.

Dr. Marshall has 8 books? Have you already read one? You won’t be disqualified for not having read one of his books, but we’d like to know.

If you have read a Marshall book, which one? (select all that apply with right click or “command” click)*

I haven’t read one of his books The Crucified Rabbi / The Catholic Perspective on Paul / The Eternal City / Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages / Saint Augustine in 50 Pages / Sword and Serpent / Tenth Region of the Night / Storm of Fire and Blood

Were you Part of a Previous Book Launch Team with Taylor Marshall*

Yes, I was part of a previous Launch Team

No, I was NOT part of a previous Launch

Being part of the original Launch Team increases your chances for being chosen for this Launch Team.

Are you willing to have your name printed in the text of the book?*
Yes, print my name in the book as a Member of the Launch Team

No, I don’t want my name acknowledged in the book.

Are you willing to read your advanced digital copy of “Infiltration” book in under 1 week so that you have it read before it goes to the public?*

Yes

No

You will be thank by name on the last page of the book Infiltration.

I will promote the book on Social Media through Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, OR by emailing friends.*

Yes, I will help promote the book

No, I will NOT help promote the book

Are you willing to write a review of “Infiltration” book on amazon.com*

Yes, I’d be delighted to right a review of the novel on amazon.com

No I won’t write a review of the book on amazon.com

Do you have an account at amazon.com?*

Yes, I have an account (I’ve purchased or reviewed something on amazon before)

No, I’ve never used amazon.com before.

Where do you live in the world?*

City, State, Nation (eg, Dallas, Texas, United States)Thank you for submitting. If we choose you for a free book and your name in the book, we will be in touch soon. Please submit below:

*****

This is fully confirmed in the book itself, at the end:

“A Special Thanks to Our Launch Team

“A special thanks to our Infiltration Launch Team who read this book before publication and also helped us with promotion. Thank you for your time, input, and enthusiasm.

“Godspeed,
Taylor”

Now, to be perfectly fair, I have already stated (in one of my articles about the book) that there is nothing wrong per se, with asking folks to promote one’s book: on Amazon or elsewhere. And other Catholic authors have done this. For example, Karl Keating was asking people to write reviews of his book against geocentrism: and to do it as soon as it appeared on Amazon. I gladly complied and wrote a review.

So it’s nothing new or even blameworthy. It’s just that no other Catholic author that I’m aware of has been so wildly successful with the strategy.

My only objection is the leaving of an impression to the casual observer that 840 reviews in nine days’ time since a book has been published, are a spontaneous outpouring of the Catholic community as a whole, which is supposedly passionately responding en masse to this marvelous book that finally “tells the truth.”

That is not true, and it should be noted and made much more clear, therefore, that this was a deliberate, planned effort, and comes directly from his clonelike fan club, who clearly accept every word of his (or almost every one) as pearls of wisdom.

Gotta give the guy credit for the effort and the chutzpah. Again, that’s capitalism. But folks are also entitled to know why there are so many salivating reviews, and what originated them (free review copies for every reviewer: many of whom simply put up a sentence or two).

***

Anti-Vatican II Hysteria in Taylor Marshall’s Book Fan Club [5-30-19]

Dialogue on My Criticism of Reactionary Taylor Marshall [5-31-19]

Taylor Marshall Adopts Anglican Ecclesiology with Infiltration [6-1-19]

Debate on Taylor Marshall: Sensible Traditionalist or Reactionary? [6-1-19]

Are Followers of Taylor Marshall a Bunch of “Sheep”? [6-2-19]

Taylor Marshall “Refutes” My Criticism (Filthy Lucre Explains All) [6-3-19]
*

Abridged Amazon Review of Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration [6-3-19]

Have I Claimed that Taylor Marshall is Literally an Anglican? [6-5-19]
*

Taylor Marshall & Vatican II: Fer or Agin? (Alternate Universes) [6-5-19]

Freemasonry? I’ve Had Links About it On My Site Since 2000 (I have vigorously opposed theological liberalism all this time, too) [6-5-19]
*

Taylor Marshall’s Whopper: Pope Francis Denies Hellfire? [6-7-19]

Taylor Marshall Lies About Pope Francis & Divorce [6-8-19]

Taylor Marshall Fans Continue Insults, Sans Argument [6-8-19]

Taylor Marshall’s Courageous “Responses” to His Critics [6-13-19]
*

My (Censored) Amazon Review of Dr. Marshall’s Infiltration [6-20-19]

Reply to Timothy Flanders’ Defense of Taylor Marshall [7-8-19]

Dialogue w Ally of Taylor Marshall, Timothy Flanders [7-17-19]
*

Taylor Marshall Groupie Makes a Typical Personal Attack [11-2-19]

Taylor Marshall Conspiracy Theories: Why I Ignore Them [11-4-19]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!

(originally posted on 6-1-19 on Facebook; revised on 12-11-19)

Photo credit: ElasticComputeFarm (8-13-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Replies to Critiques of Pope Francis (Dave Armstrong)

Last updated on: May 3, 2025 at 11:27 am By Dave Armstrong

I have written a book defending Pope Francis as well, called Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition. That was published relatively early in his papacy (January 2014), but I think I still amply illustrate the false premises, dubious “facts” and inadequate logic and faulty interpretation often utilized in the ongoing critiques and outright bashing.

I wrote two articles that might be regarded as mildly critical of the pope. It has been my position that it would be good and helpful for him to reply as regards the five dubia: “I Hope the Pope Will Provide Some Much-Needed Clarity” (National Catholic Register, 9-30-17). I would say that this is “very gentle advice and encouragement.”

I was also quite critical (in March 2018) of his practice of repeatedly doing interviews with an atheist (Eugenio Scalfari) who has a lamentable record of distorting the pope’s alleged “words” in public, thus causing scandal (regarding the doctrine of hell). This involves matters of prudence and methodology, not theology (as with the other one).

See also my collection of 342 articles (as of 5-3-25) from others: “Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused Folks”.

I have categorized the many articles below under alphabetized topics, for greater ease of access and reference. All articles were published on my Patheos blog (Biblical Evidence for Catholicism) unless otherwise indicated.

*****

God bless you, brother! You are doing a great work! Defending Pope Francis from all of the caricatures and slander can be exhausting, as well as frustrating. And the anti-Francis mob has become fanatical. At times, it seems so many of them just end up angrily and incoherently rambling, and they tend to fall so far away from the pope’s actual words that one is left wondering… “Huh?” And the sheer volume of words can be daunting. But God bless you for cutting through the thick jungles of words and defending very simply “what the pope actually said…”

— Catholic Answers apologist and author Tim Staples on my Facebook page, 9-16-21

Amoris Laetitia

Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis’ “1968 Moment” [4-8-16]

Defenses of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia [4-9-16]

More Defenses of Amoris Laetitia & Pope Francis [4-26-16]

Satan Loves Divisions Re Amoris Laetitia [5-2-16]

Dialogue: Amoris Laetitia: Confusing or No? [5-3-16]

Amoris Laetitia, “Trads” & Reactionaries [5-4-16]

Buzzing, Mosquito-Like Trashers of Amoris Laetitia [5-6-16]

Amoris Laetitia Has Already Been Clarified Many Times, Including by High-Ranking Cardinals [11-16-16]

Dr. Robert Fastiggi Defends Amoris Laetitia Against Critics [10-3-17]

Review: The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia (Pedro Gabriel) [5-10-22]

Capital Punishment

Jesus, the Death Penalty, & the Adulterous Woman [8-2-18]

Burning Heretics, Frying Murderers, & Slavery (Analogies) [8-3-18]

Steve Skojec: Pope Sez Death Penalty is Intrinsically Evil (?) [10-8-20]

Death Penalty, Reactionaries, & a Devious Liar-Pope? [10-10-20]

Three Popes & Capital Punishment (vs. Ed Feser) (with Catholic Theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi) [10-20-20]

Celibacy, Priestly

Pope Francis: Strong Defender of Priestly Celibacy [1-14-20]

Chilean Sexual Abuse Scandal

Pope’s Chilean Abuse Apology Troubles Simcha Fisher [4-12-18]

“Confusing” Pope Francis?

Does Pope Francis Have “Foot-in-the-Mouth” Disease? [1-22-15]

Dialogue: “Bad” Bishops & “Confusing” Francis [4-28-16]

“Confusing” Pope Francis & Prudent Public Discussion [6-22-16]

Contraception / Procreation

Dialogue: Has Pope Francis Changed the Constant Catholic Prohibition of Contraception? [1-2-14]

Pope Francis and Catholics Reproducing Like “Rabbits” [1-21-15]

“Irresponsible” Pope Francis? (Woman Who Had Seven C-Sections) [1-23-15]

Pope Francis: 7 C-Sections is “Irresponsible” (Group Discussion) [1-23-15]

Criticism of Pope Francis and Other Popes / “Papal Bashing” / Honoring Popes

Folks Willing to Understand Pope Francis, Can; Unwilling Won’t [1-18-14]

Denunciations of Incessant Bashing of Pope Francis [2-22-15]

The Ridiculous “Anti-Francis” Mentality: My Theory in Brief [12-7-15]

Ratzinger: Avoid Criticizing Church in “Mass Media” [6-26-16]

On Rebuking Popes & Catholic Obedience to Popes [12-27-17]

On Rebuking Popes & Obedience to Popes, Part II [12-28-17]

“Nothing New”: Reactionary Attacks on Pope St. John Paul II [4-9-05; with tie-in end note added on 3-2-18]

Dialogue: Sharp Inquiring Protestant vs. Pope-Bashing Catholic [3-6-18]

Dialogues w Critics & Disparagers of Pope Francis [3-6-18]

Popes Leading the Church Into False Doctrine (E.g., Paul VI) [3-8-18]

Reactionaries Begin Savage Attacks on Pope Benedict [3-17-18]

Negative Reactionary Views of Popes Since 1958 [3-18-18]

Honoring Popes / Scriptural Honor of Even Wicked Rulers [11-30-17; some additions on 3-26-18]

Pope-Criticism: Vigorous Exchanges w Karl Keating [3-27-18]

Verrecchio Trashes Pope Benedict as Wicked Lying Hypocrite [4-2-18]

Olson’s Nitpicking, Persnickety Guide to Gaudete et Exsultate [4-10-18]

Honoring Popes (Even Alleged “Bad” Ones) as Persons [4-11-18]

Are Pope-Critics Evil? Reply to Karl Keating [4-13-18]
*

Why Have Popes At All if We Reject Papal Guidance? [8-4-18]

Reactionary Signees of Easter “Heresy” Letter (13 of 19) [5-6-19]

Ecclesiological Errors of “Easter Letter” Reactionaries Summed Up (That is, Ones Not Specifically Related to Pope Francis: Especially Vatican II as the Big Bad Wolf) [5-9-19]
*

Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy [5-10-19]

“Confusing” Pope Francis & Ignorant, Lazy Lay Catholics [11-27-19]

On the Widespread, Iniquitous Anti-Francis Mentality [originally 11-27-19; published at Catholic365 on 11-21-23]

*
Hysterical Reactionaries Opposed Pope Francis from Day One (The “inside story” — from Hilary White — of what happened among a cadre of well-known fanatical reactionaries on the very night Pope Francis was elected) [12-3-19]

Pope Francis (and Others) and Analogies to Jesus (Explanation of a Widely Misunderstood Aspect of Analogical Arguments) [1-6-20]

Dialogue w Timothy Flanders #2: State of Emergency? [2-25-20]

St. Paul’s Rebuke of St. Peter = Francis-Bashing? [8-19-20]

If We Have to Constantly Defend Holy Scripture, How Much More the Pope? [Facebook, 10-23-20]

Kwasniewski vs. Cdl. Newman Re Pope- & Council-Bashing [12-3-20]

Fr. Peter Stravinskas & Irrational Pope Francis-Bashing: Sad Case Study in Taking the Holy Father’s Words Out of Context and Indefensibly Misrepresenting Them [4-15-21]

Pope Francis: Popes Can be Respectfully Criticized [7-21-21]

Reply to Fr. Thomas Weinandy: Pope Francis a Heretic? [9-21-21]

Pope Francis Did Not Say EWTN = “Work of the Devil” (Case Study in “Conservative” Catholic Media Bias, Which is Becoming as Problematic as Mainstream Liberal Media Bias) [9-22-21]

How Dare Pope Francis Defend the Church! (He’s Supposed to Not Utter a Peep About All the Slanderous, Worthless Gossip & Rumormongering Today Among Catholics) [9-24-21]

Some Catholics Hope Pope Francis Dies? Yes . . . [9-25-21]

Erasmus’ Criticism of Popes = Today’s Pope-Bashing? [11-10-21]

Now Pope Francis’ Press Conferences are Supposedly Unprecedented and Somehow Objectionable? [Facebook, 10-6-22]

Pope Francis-Bashing Evolving Into Pope Benedict Tin Foil Hat Conspiratorialism (A Sad Case Study) [Facebook, 10-10-22]

Too Many Papal Critics or Bashers Exhibit the Heretical Spirit of John Wycliffe [Facebook, 8-10-23]

Leila Marie Lawler: Self-Appointed Pope-Basher / Papal Indefectibility Taught at Vatican I [Facebook, 9-27-23]

Tragic Bp. Strickland & Reaction from the Usual Suspects [11-14-23]

Bishop Strickland: The Writing Was on the Wall [Catholic365, 11-16-23]

“Respectful Criticism” of the Pope Quickly Morphs Into Impious Pope-Bashing [originally 9-30-21; revised for Catholic365 on 11-17-23]

Ed Feser’s “Respectful and Reserved Criticism” of the Holy Father (?) [Catholic365, 11-29-23]

Pedro Gabriel’s Masterful Heresy Disguised As Tradition [12-18-23]

So-Called “Conservative” Catholic Media and “Conservative” American Catholicism Have Gone to Hell (Big Pulpit and Fiducia Supplicans) [Facebook, 12-23-23]

Bible on the Disgraceful Attitude & Behavior of So Many Pope-Bashers [Facebook, 12-24-23]

Bible on Deference to Popes & Leaders, & Disobedience [12-26-23]

Get it Right! Yours Truly on Papal Criticism (from the Year 2000) and on My Distinctions Among Papal Critics (2018) [Facebook, 1-13-24]

Pope-Criticism: Ultra-Rare, Private, & Saintly (Reply to Clueless Accusations That I Supposedly Think Popes Should Never be Criticized At All, & Make No Distinctions Whatsoever Concerning Papal Critics) [1-15-24]

St. Ignatius of Antioch [50-110 or 117] on Submission to the Bishop [Facebook, 1-25-24]

Yes, James White; the Pope Is Infallible, Now, Just As He Always Has Been (I Educate Him as to Where Caving on the Nature of Marriage Has Actually Occurred) [Facebook, 2-26-24]

I Never Regarded Bp. Strickland Or Cdl. Burke As “Heretics”: Contra John Martignoni’s Repeated Claims to the Contrary [3-8-24]

Off-the-Cuff Comments on the Continuing Pathetic, Study-Challenged Pope-Bashing [Facebook, 9-27-24]

The Cynical “Narrative” Regarding Pope Francis from the Pope-Bashers and Papal Nitpickers (and Nattering Naysaying Nabobs of Never-Ending Negativism in General) [Facebook, 9-27-24]

Deaconesses

Deaconesses: Examination of Biblical & Patristic Data (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 5-12-16)

Development of Doctrine

Pope Francis, Cardinal Newman, & Fresh (Orthodox) Presentations [1-29-18]

Dr. Echeverria: Francis Wants Development, Not Revolution [5-28-19]

Divorce

Taylor Marshall Lies About Pope Francis & Divorce [6-8-19]

Pope Francis: Indissoluble Marriage & No Divorce (+ Analysis of Ed Feser’s “Doctrinally Problematic” Criticisms) [6-1-21]

Ed Feser, Pope Francis, Divorce, “Ambiguity”, & Implosion [6-3-21]

Did I Say Ed Feser Called Pope Francis a Heretic? (+ Further Exchanges Back-and-Forth with Ed Feser) [6-4-21]

Douthat, Ross / To Change the Church

Douthat’s Flawed Critique of “Conservative” Catholicism [3-2-16]

Douthat’s To Change the Church: Mini-Debate w Karl Keating [3-24-18]

Protestant Takes Solace in Douthat’s Pope-Bashing Book (also discusses Phil Lawler) [3-24-18]

Douthat’s Pope-Bashing Book Attacks Vatican II [3-24-18]

Debate on Ross Douthat’s Critical Views of Vatican II [3-26-18]

Dubia / Cardinal Burke

Pope Francis on Cardinal Burke (+ Discussion) [Facebook, 12-8-14]

Pope Francis Did Answer the Dubia (Dr. Robert Fastiggi) (It Was Also Answered [with the Same Answers] by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in 2019) [9-27-21]

Pope Francis Has Answered the Five Dubia in His Teachings (+ Legitimate Biblical & Spiritual Reasons for His Not Directly Answering Particularly Accusatory, Ill-Willed, & Wrongminded Critics) [8-3-23]

Cardinal Raymond Burke Appears to Deny the Indefectibility of the Church and the Pope; Virtually Calls Pope Francis an Apostate [Facebook, 12-21-24]

Ecumenism and World Religions

Pope Francis & the Diversity of Religions (The Sedevacantist Outfit Novus Ordo Watch Lies Yet Again About Pope Francis) [11-29-20]

Encyclicals

Are Modern Papal Encyclicals Too Long? [7-9-15]

Environmentalism / Theology of Creation

Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato si: A Beautiful and Profoundly Wise Statement of Christian Environmentalism and Theology of Creation [6-18-15]

Critique of Chris Ferrara’s Radical Reactionary Hit-Piece in Opposition to Pope Francis’ Christian Environmentalism [6-20-15]

Eucharist / Transubstantiation

No, Pope Francis Did Not Deny Transubstantiation (Phenomenological Language in Holy Scripture and in the Addresses of Pope Francis) [6-25-19]

Pope Francis & Transubstantiation (vs. Sedevacantists) [7-2-19]

Evangelism and Apologetics / The Gospel

Dialogue: Pope Francis Doesn’t Evangelize? [4-29-16]

Pope Francis Condemns Evangelism? Absolutely Not! [10-17-16]

Is Pope Francis Against Apologetics & Defending the Faith? [11-26-19]

Debate: Pope Francis on Doctrine, Truth, & Evangelizing (vs. Dr. Eduardo Echeverria) [12-16-19]

Dialogue: Pope Francis vs. Gospel Preaching & Converts? No! (vs. Eric Giunta) [1-3-20]

Abp. Viganò Whopper #289: Pope Forbids All Evangelism (?) [4-8-20]

Pope, Peter, & Paul: Evangelize; Don’t Proselytize [4-28-20]

Pope Francis vs. the Gospel? Outrageous & Absurd Lies! (Anti-Catholic Protestant James White and Catholic Reactionary Steve Skojec Echo Each Other’s Gigantic Whoppers) [5-26-20]

Pope Francis Talks of Gospel Freedom; Naysayers Go Bonkers [9-15-21]

Must the Gospel be Preached at Every Time & Place? (The Latest Bum Rap Against Pope Francis) [9-20-24]

“Filial Correction” / Correctio and Formal Criticism of June 2016

Is Pope Francis Wrong? Thoughts on the “Filial Correction” [9-24-17]

Radical Reactionary Affinities in “Filial Correction” Signatories [9-28-17]

Reactionary Influence: Correctio & June 2016 Criticism of the Pope [10-3-17; expanded on 1-24-18]

Foot-Washing

Pope Francis, Foot-Washing, & Humility [with Pete Vere, 3-13-13 and 3-30-13]

Pope Francis Foot-Washing Controversy Redux [3-26-16]

Fundamentalism: Catholic and Otherwise

Kwasniewski vs. Pope Francis Re “Fundamentalism” (Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI Fully Concur with Pope Francis) [12-9-20]

Pope Francis’ Proper Use of the Term “Fundamentalism” (. . . and the Similar Sociologically Proper Use of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II) [12-28-20]

Hell, Satan, and Demons / Demon Possession

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #3: The Pope Annihilated Hell? [1-2-18]

Pope Francis, Hell, Phil Lawler, Lies, Damned Lies, . . . [3-30-18]

Reactionary Chris Ferrara’s Lies Re Pope Francis & Hell [3-31-18]

Lame Reactionary Anti-Francis “No Hell” Argument [4-2-18]

“Everything Saved”: More Dim-Witted Bashing of Pope Re Hell [4-6-18]

Satan Referenced 24 Times in Gaudete et Exsultate [4-9-18]

Taylor Marshall’s Whopper: Pope Francis Denies Hellfire? [6-7-19]

Pope Francis’ Satanic, Demonic, & Hellish Views [6-7-21]

Yes, Virginia, There is a Hell, as Pope Francis Teaches [Facebook, 1-27-24]

Heretic Popes? / Papal Indefectibility

Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes (The pope’s teaching is indefectible and cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man: or even an ecumenical council) [7-23-20]

Pastor Aeternus (1870): Can a Pope Ever Make Heresy Binding? (Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Ron Conte; edited by Dave Armstrong, in Response to Timothy Flanders) [12-1-20]

The “Spirit of Defectibility” & “Quasi-Defectibility” [Catholic365, 11-22-23]

Did Pope Francis Succeed St. Peter? Reply to Steve Ray [5-3-25]

Homosexuality and Same-Sex Unions

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #2: Homosexuality & “Judging” [1-2-18]

Pope Francis, Same-Sex Unions, & Chicken Little Mass Hysteria [10-22-20]

“Gay Unions”: Leftist & Reactionary Catholics vs. Pope & CDF [3-23-21]

Pope Francis vs. Same-Sex “Marriage”: The Record [3-25-21]

Pope Francis’ “Endorsement” of Fr. James Martin, SJ (Does it Entail a Denial of Church Teaching on Gravely Disordered Homosexual Sex?) [6-30-21]

Fiducia Supplicans (On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings) (12-18-23) [Facebook, 12-18-23]

Further Off-the-Cuff Thoughts on the “Gay Blessings” Tempest [Facebook, 1-1-24]

“Insulting” Pope Francis?

St. Paul: Far More of an “Insulter” Than Pope Francis [4-11-18]

Jesus / Christology

Does Pope Francis Think that Jesus Was a Sinner? (. . . Beyond Bearing Our Sins on the Cross; i.e., Partaking / Entering Into Sin)? [2-27-14]

Christ “Became the Sinner”: Pope Francis and Bad Translators [Seton Magazine, 1-21-15]

Pope Francis Espoused a Sinning Jesus? Think Again [1-8-16]

Keating, Karl, The Francis Feud

Keating & The Francis Feud: Six Errors Documented [6-2-18]

Review of Keating’s Francis Feud Removed, w Apology [12-24-18]

Kissing the Papal Ring / Papal Attire and Related Customs

Papal Ring-Kissing, Gossip, & Pharisaical Nitpicking [3-29-19]

Legalism Re Pope Francis & Papal Attire (Mozzetta) [7-10-20]

Lawler, Phil / Lost Shepherd

Quasi-Defectibility and Phil Lawler vs. Pope Francis [12-28-17]

Dialogues with Karl Keating & Phil Lawler on Pope Francis [12-29-17]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #1: Critique of Introduction [1-1-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #4: Communion / Buenos Aires Letter [1-3-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #5: Jerusalem Council vs. “Ideology” [1-3-18]

My Critiques of Lawler’s Lost Shepherd / Exchanges w Karl Keating [1-7-18]

Shock! Former Catholic Rod Dreher Loves Lawler’s Pope-Bashing Book [2-22-18]

Phil Lawler’s Lost Shepherd: My One-Star Amazon Review [2-26-18]

Reply to Stephen Phalen Re Phil Lawler’s Lost Shepherd [3-10-18]

Phil Lawler’s Mythical Private Letter (Unfruitful Discussion) [3-10-18]

Merits of Phil Lawler’s Lost Shepherd: Three Common Fallacies [3-12-18]

Lawler Hypocritically Acts Like He Claims Pope Francis Does [4-28-18]

Keating & The Francis Feud: Six Errors Documented [6-2-18]

Phil Lawler: No Proof Pope Francis is a Heretic [3-5-21]

Liturgy / Mass

Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes is for the Sake of Unity [7-16-21]

Skojec Loathes Traditionis; Illustrates Why it is Necessary [7-19-21]

Catholics (?) Trash, Judge, & Mind-Read the Pope (In 1968, “all” the liberal Catholics rejected Humanae Vitae. Now in 2021, “all” the self-described “conservative” Catholics reject Traditionis Custodes — and none see the outright absurdity and irony of this) [7-20-21]

Traditionalist Fr. Chad Ripperger Critiques Traditionalism [7-21-21]

Traditionis Custodes: Sky Hasn’t Fallen (Bishops) [8-2-21]

Dialogue w Traditionalist “Hurt” by Traditionis Custodes [8-2-21]

Traditionis Custodes Results: No Fallen Sky (I Called It) [9-6-21]

Traditionis Custodes: Sky Still Intact After Two Months [9-14-21]

Marriage

Pope Francis: Pro-Marriage & Contra “Marital Skepticism” [1-29-18]

Marxism

Random Thoughts on Rush Limbaugh’s Comments on the Pope’s Alleged “Marxism” [Facebook, 12-5-13]

Mary, Blessed Virgin

Is Pope Francis Guilty of Blasphemy and Departure from All Catholic Mariological Tradition in His Comments on the Possible Momentary Temptation of Mary at the Cross? [1-19-14]

Yes, Virginia, the Pope Believes Mary is Immaculate [12-29-18]

Pope Francis vs. the Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? (+ Documentation of Pope Francis’ and Other Popes’ Use of the Mariological Title of Veneration: “Mother of All”) [12-16-19]

Pope Francis’ Deep Devotion to Mary (Esp. Mary Mediatrix) [12-23-19]

Merit

Does Pope Francis Deny the Catholic Doctrine of Merit? No [7-1-19]

Miscellaneous / General

Reply to a Critique of My Book, Pope Francis Explained, by Dr. Phil Blosser [8-24-14]

Exchange on Pope Francis and the Church [vs. Tony Jokin; Facebook, 12-17-14]

Jeremiad on Stupefied Anti-Francis Mentalities (w Paul Hoffer) [1-22-15]

Forcing Pope Francis Into Our Own Image [9-18-15]

On the Endless Second-Guessing of Pope Francis [2-25-16]

The Real & the Imaginary Pope Francis [6-27-16]

Dialogues with Karl Keating Regarding Pope Francis [12-29-17]

Am I a “Pope Francis Defender”? (Statement of Intent & Purpose) [11-5-19]

Fr. Z Asks for Pro-Francis “Compendium”. I Provide It [3-9-21]

“Pope Francis is So Confusing!”: A Spirited Reply (The Sad and Slanderous Promotion of a “False Narrative” Concerning Pope Francis’ Supposedly Massive Errors) [9-7-21]

Modernists / Theological Liberals / Dissidents / Heterodox / Heresy

Swishy Bishops, Liberal Dissidents, & “PR” Regarding Pope Francis [3-6-14]

Why is Pope Francis So Loved by Theological Liberals? [2-21-15]

Pope Francis: Obsessed with “Change”? [5-14-16]

Is Pope Francis a Heretic?: Options and Respectful Speculations on the Synod on the Family, Amoris Laetitia and Practical Applications [12-13-16]

The Orthodoxy of Pope Francis [9-6-21]

Pope Francis the “Heterodox Liberal” (?????) (He’s Against Contraception, Cohabitation, Same-Sex “Marriage”, Abortion, Euthanasia, & Biomedical Reproduction Technology: in Five Paragraphs) [9-29-21]

“Pachamama” Hysteria and Controversy / Amazon Synod

“Pachamama” [?] Statues: Marian Veneration or Blasphemous Idolatry? [11-5-19]

“Pachamama” Fiasco: Hysterical Reactionaryism, as Usual [11-8-19]

“Pachamama” Confusion: Fault of Vatican or Catholic Media? [11-12-19]

Anti-“Pachamama” Doc: “Usual Suspect” Reactionaries Sign [11-14-19]

Vatican II –> Alleged “Pachamama” Idolatry, Sez Fanatics [11-15-19]

Pope St. John Paul II Respectfully Referred to Pachamama (+ Orthodox Catholic References to “Mother Earth” and Similar Biblical Motifs) [12-13-19]

“Pachamama” Redux (vs. Peter Kwasniewski & Janet Smith) [12-17-19]

Dialogue: “Pachamama” (?) Statues & Marian Iconography [12-24-19]

Pope’s Querida Amazonia: Reactionaries Step in it Again [2-13-20]

Taylor Marshall: Pachamama “Idolatry” Judged by Coronavirus (Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . .) [3-17-20]

Alexander Tschugguel, Taylor Marshall, & God’s Wrath (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 3-19-20)

Priest Blasphemes God (Coronavirus = Judgment?) [4-10-20]

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis

Michael Voris on Pope Benedict’s “Immoral” Resignation, Questionable Illness [12-15-15]

Did Cardinal Burke Criticize Pope Benedict’s Resignation? [1-13-18]

Illogic & Silliness Re Benedict-Francis “Blurring” Incident [3-17-18]

Pope Benedict’s Enthusiastic Approval of Pope Francis [11-27-19]

Pope Benedict Eschews Co-Authorship; Ignatius Says “No!” [1-14-20]

Pro-Life / Anti-Abortion / Catholic Social Teaching

Must the Pope Explicitly Mention Abortion to Congress? [9-24-15]

Pope Francis’ Strongly Pro-Life Comments to the UN (“Both/And”!) [9-25-15]

Pope Francis: All Life: Preborn and Born, is “Equally Sacred” [4-9-18]

Reactionaries

Radical Catholic Reactionary Super-Site Rorate Caeli‘s “Cherished Friend” and Featured Pope-Basher, Marcelo González, is a Holocaust Revisionist [4-8-13]

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict Refer to “Extreme Traditionalism” [8-5-13]

Discussion on the Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, Especially in Relation to Radical Catholic Reactionaries [Facebook, 11-26-13]

Opposition to Extreme Anti-Francis Bias: Elliot Bougis [2-28-14]

Debate with Hilary White: Masonic “Bergoglianism” or Catholicism? [2-16-16]

Classic Reactionaryism: Skojec Disses Cardinal Burke (Over Amoris Laetitia) [4-12-16]

Dr. Fastiggi & Dr. Goldstein Debate Dr. Shaw Regarding Pope Francis [10-9-17]

Dr. Joseph Shaw Apes “Reformers” (“Ambiguous” Catholic Documents) [10-11-17]

Dr. Fastiggi’s “Exchange” with Correctio Signatory Chris Ferrara [10-12-17]

Is Pope Francis Opposed to Catholic Traditionalism, or Only to the Extreme Reactionaries? [Facebook, 9-13-19]

Pope Francis’ Emphasis on Criticizing Reactionaries (A Theory) [12-30-19]

Sire, Henry / The Dictator Pope

Henry Sire of Dictator Pope Infamy: Reactionary Extremist [3-27-18]

Temper / Anger

Pope Francis’ Slap & Loss of Temper (Close Examination) [1-2-20]

Ultramontanism / Papolatry (common charges against papal defenders)

My Supposed “Papolatry”: Outrageous Reactionary Lies [8-26-21]

Vatican I (1870)

Peter Kwasniewski: Gotta Exorcise Vatican I (1870) [12-4-20]

Newman on Infallibility & Vatican I (vs. One Peter Five) [Catholic365, 11-24-23]

“Vicar of Christ”

The Remnant’s Anti-Francis Insanity (“Vicar of Christ”) [4-7-20]

Bishops Viganò & Schneider: The Extreme Anti-Francis Fringe Among the Bishops

Bishops Viganò & Schneider Reject Authority of Vatican II [11-22-19]

Viganò, Schneider, Pachamama, & VCII (vs. Janet E. Smith) [11-25-19]

Abp. Vigan ò Descends into Fanatical Reactionary Nuthood (. . . Declares Pope Francis a Heretical Narcissist Who “Desacralized” & “Impugned” & “Attack[ed]” Mary) [12-20-19]

Abp. Viganò, the Pope, & the “Vicar of Christ” Nothingburger (with Catholic Theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Apologist Karl Keating) [4-6-20]

Thoughts on Abp. Viganò & the Continuing “Wacko-ization” & Fanaticism of the Anti-Francis Mentality [Facebook, 6-14-20]

Abp. Viganò: Fanaticism, Extremism, and Conspiratorialism (Summary from August 2019 Until July 2020: Alarming, Increasingly Quasi-Schismatic Spirit) [7-13-20]

What’s So Bad About Abp. Viganò? (Traditionalists Ask) [7-14-20]

Anti-Francis = Anti-Vatican II (You Heard it Here First) [7-16-20]

Bp. Schneider Evokes Luther’s Disdain for Councils [7-17-20]

Viganò’s Outrageous Lie Re Pope Benedict XVI & Tradition (Unwillingness to Make Even Rudimentary Efforts to Consult Context or to Understand a Pope’s Overall Thinking) [8-21-20]

***

See also my collection of 342 articles (as of 5-3-25) from others: “Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused Folks”.

***

Photo credit: Swiss Guard at the Vatican. Photo by gunthersimmermacher (9-8-15) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

***

Total of 242 articles.

Last updated on 2 May 2025

***

The Papacy and Infallibility (Index Page)

Last updated on: June 27, 2025 at 10:11 am By Dave Armstrong

[published in March 2012, 150 pages]

[see full book and purchase information]

***

[Papal Encyclicals Online: fabulous resource: includes Kindle / Nook / ePub capability]

***

Replies to Critiques of Pope Francis (Dave Armstrong) [242 of my own articles]

***

Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused Folks [342 articles or videos from others]

***

TABLE OF CONTENTS

***

I. PETRINE AND ROMAN PRIMACY / ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL

II. GENERAL PAPAL ECCLESIOLOGY

III. PAPAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUCCESSION

IV. PETER THE “ROCK” / “KEYS OF THE KINGDOM”

V. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, SUPREMACY, AND ROMAN PRIMACY

VI. PAPAL INDEFECTIBILITY

VII. POPES, COUNCILS, CONCILIARISM, AND COLLEGIALITY

VIII. DISAGREEING WITH OR TRYING TO PERSUADE POPES / HONOR AND RESPECT FOR POPES / POPE-BASHING

IX. PAPAL SCANDALS / “BAD POPES”

X. DID POPES CLAIM TO BE GOD? / POPES AS ANTICHRIST?

XI. VEN. POPE PIUS XII AND THE NAZI HOLOCAUST

XII. POPE ST. JOHN PAUL II

XIII. POPE BENEDICT XVI

XIV. POPE FRANCIS

XV. POPE FRANCIS: PHIL LAWLER’S HIT-PIECE, LOST SHEPHERD

XVI. POPE FRANCIS: ROSS DOUTHAT’S HIT-PIECE, TO CHANGE THE CHURCH

XVII. POPE FRANCIS: HENRY SIRE’S HIT-PIECE, THE DICTATOR POPE

XVIII. POPE FRANCIS: KARL KEATING’S TOME, THE FRANCIS FEUD

XIX. POPE FRANCIS: ARCHBISHOP VIGANO’S RANTINGS

XX. POPE LEO XIV

***

I. PETRINE AND ROMAN PRIMACY / ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL

The Papacy and Infallibility: Keys of the Kingdom (Chapter Ten of My Bestselling — and Probably Most Well-Known — Book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism) [9-16-93; rev. May 1996]

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy [1994] [+ French version] [+ Portugese version 1 / Portugese version 2]

Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars [1994]

Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy (+ the Ecclesiological Absurdity of Anti-Catholic-Type Eastern Orthodox Arguments Against Roman Primacy & Apostolicity) [1997]

Is St. Paul Superior to St. Peter? (Dialogue) [1998; expanded 5-13-02]

Why Peter’s Marriage Doesn’t Disprove Catholicism: A Dialogue [January 1999]

Reply to Critique of “50 NT Proofs for the Papacy” (vs. Jason Engwer) [3-14-02]

Refutation of a Satirical “Pauline Papacy” Argument (vs. Jason Engwer) [9-30-03]

Refutation of “Catholicism Refuted”: Pt. II (Tradition, Papacy) [12-10-04]

Paul Rebuked Peter: Disproof of Papacy? [2007]

Biblical & Patristic Basis for the Papacy (vs. Calvin #13) [5-21-09]
*

Petrine & Roman Primacy & Papal Succession (vs. Calvin #14) [6-13-09]
*

Peter & the Papacy & the Early Church (vs. Calvin #15) [6-14-09]
*

Popes & Early Ecumenical Councils (vs. Calvin #16) [6-15-09]

Pitting Paul Against Peter (Pathetic, Pitiful Pedantry): Reply to Failed Anti-Catholic Protestant Attempts to Tear Down St. Peter and His Papal Authority [8-10-12]

Top 20 Biblical Proofs of the Papacy [12-12-15]

“No Pope in the New Testament” & Other Such Myths Debunked [1-21-16]

50 Biblical Indications of Petrine Primacy and the Papacy [National Catholic Register, 11-20-16]

Did St. Paul Seek St. Peter’s Approval for His Ministry? (+ Does The Word Order in Galatians 2:9 Suggest a Lowering of Peter’s Primacy?) [4-27-17 and 9-4-17]
*

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #10: St. Peter & the Papacy [10-21-17]
*

Short Exchange on Peter as Pope [11-15-17]
*

Top 20 Biblical Evidences for the Primacy of St. Peter [National Catholic Register, 1-8-18; see also my video commentary on this article with Kenny Burchard on the Catholic Bible Highlights channel, 11-8-24]
*

D oes Paul’s Rebuke of Peter Disprove Papal Infallibility? [National Catholic Register, 3-31-18]

Vs. James White #1: “Papal Pretensions” & “New” Apologists [9-16-19]

Papal Passages Lk 22:31-34 & Jn 21:15-17 (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-12-20]

St. Peter Listed First in Lists of Disciples: A Debate (vs. Jason Engwer) [10-12-20]

Peter’s Primacy is Disproved By His Personality? (Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy) [10-18-20]

Is Peter’s Primacy Disproved by His Personality? [National Catholic Register, 11-30-20]

Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? (And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?) [5-21-21]

Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority [7-28-21]

Reply to Engwer’s Alleged “Absence of a Papacy” [8-25-21]

Christians Have Always Recognized the Pope’s Authority — Here’s Proof From the 1st Century (Pope St. Clement of Rome) [National Catholic Register, 9-18-21]

James Listed Before Peter (Gal 2:9)? (vs. Jason Engwer) [12-3-21]

Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter, Part I [5-26-22]

Lucas Banzoli’s 205 “Petrine Potshots”, Part II [5-27-22]

Lucas Banzoli’s 205 “Petrine Potshots”, Part III [5-30-22]

Lucas Banzoli’s 205 “Petrine Potshots”, Part IV [5-30-22]

Jason Engwer, Trent Horn, & My 50 NT Petrine Proofs [7-28-22]

No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer). With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of “The keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19) [8-1-22]

Defending 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [+ Part II] [2-13-23]

“Peter and Paul” Distorts Peter’s Life & Paul’s Teaching [2-25-23]

Reply to Rodrigo Silva on NT Evidences for the Papacy [2-27-23]

Reply to Steve Hays’ Caricatures of the Papacy [2-28-23]

Reply to Hays’ “Catholicism” #20: St. Peter the Rock; Hades; Peter & the Keys; Peter’s Betrayal & Jesus’ Prayer for His Faith; One Church vs. Denominationalism; Baptism in Acts [5-30-23]

Steve Hays is Dead Wrong Regarding Peter the “Pope” in the Bible (Including Massive Protestant Exegetical Support) + Explanation of “Hades” in Matthew 16:18 [Facebook, 5-30-23]

The Authority of Popes (chapter three, pp. 139-158, of my 2009 book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers) [10-16-23]

“Catholic Verses” #9: The Papacy [11-2-23]

St. Peter’s Sins vs. St. Paul’s: Anti-Catholic Double Standard? [Catholic365, 11-4-23]
*

New Testament Mentions St. Peter More Than St. Paul [Catholic365, 11-19-23]
*

St. Peter Wrote the First Papal Encyclical [Facebook, 1-31-24]
*

Jesus Telling Peter to “Feed My Sheep,” Etc. and the Papacy [Facebook, 3-8-24]
*

Papal Authority In The NT And The Fathers (Vs. Mike Winger): Incl. “Papal” & Patristic Exegesis of Matthew 16 and John 21; Relationship of the Bible & the Church [3-9-24]

History Of The Word “Pope” & Spiritual Fatherhood In The NT [3-11-24]
*

Biblical Arguments for the Papacy: Reply to Gavin Ortlund [3-12-24]
*

Reply to Commentary On Engwer’s “Pauline Parody” [5-15-24]

Eck vs. Protestantism Chronicles: Biblical Papacy [5-30-24]
*

The Ludicrous “Fellow Elder” Anti-Papal Argument from 1 Peter 5:1 [Facebook, 7-9-24]

The Preeminence of St. Peter (Especially in the Book of Acts): An Evangelical Anglican Take [Facebook, 8-16-24]
*

VIDEO: Was Peter REALLY the first Pope? [Dave Armstrong & Kenny Burchard on the Catholic Bible Highlights channel, 11-8-24]
*

Peter’s Primacy: Reply to Anglican Bishop Charles Gore [4-22-25]
*

Luke 22:32: “I Have Prayed for [Peter]” + Indefectibility [4-30-25]

John 21:15-17: Jesus Tells Peter to “Tend My Sheep” [4-30-25]

‘Feed My Sheep’: How John 21 Shows Peter Was the First Pope [National Catholic Register, 6-26-25]

*
***

The Origins of the Denial of Peter’s Roman Sojourn (Nicholas Gulda, The Crossroads, 9-4-22)

II. GENERAL PAPAL ECCLESIOLOGY

Biblical Argumentation: Same as Sola Scriptura?: Development of Doctrine, Tradition, and Implicit vs. Explicit Biblical Proofs (The Papacy as a Test Case) [10-7-03]

Biblical & Patristic Basis for the Papacy (vs. Calvin #13) [5-21-09]
*

How to Talk About the Papacy Without Offending Catholics [6-3-09]

Petrine & Roman Primacy & Papal Succession (vs. Calvin #14) [6-13-09]

Peter & the Papacy & the Early Church (vs. Calvin #15) [6-14-09]
*

Popes & Early Ecumenical Councils (vs. Calvin #16) [6-15-09]

Fathers (Esp. Jerome, Gregory) & the Papacy (vs. Calvin #17) [6-15-09]
*

Roman Primacy / Popes & Collegiality (vs. Calvin #18) [6-15-09]
*

Constantine / Universal Papal Jurisdiction (vs. Calvin #19) [6-25-09]

Gregory the Great & Papal Supremacy (vs. Calvin #20) [6-25-09]
*

St. Bernard & the Papacy / Pope as “Head” (vs. Calvin #21) [6-27-09]
*

Orthodox & Catholic Ecclesiology: Possible Synthesis? [11-23-11]

The Nature of Papal Leadership: “Servant of Servants” [from Karl Adam; Facebook, 2-2-12]

Christian Ecclesiology: Dialogue with a Mennonite (Especially that of the Early Church, and the Jerusalem Council) [5-30-12]

Are Modern Papal Encyclicals Too Long? [7-9-15]

Biblical Evidence for “Holy Father” & “Vicar of Christ” [9-12-15]

Can a Pope be a Heretic or Authoritatively Declare Heresy? [2-3-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #10: St. Peter & the Papacy [10-21-17]
*

Reply to Jordan Cooper’s Rejection of the Papacy [4-25-22]

Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs) (Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary’s Immaculate Conception & Assumption) [5-3-22]

Peter’s Wife, James Swan, Celibacy, & Catholicism (The Perfectly Sensible and Explicit Biblical Rationale for Priestly Celibacy) [3-15-24]

Why Are Popes Called Popes? [National Catholic Register, 3-27-24]
*

What the Bible Says About the Pope [National Catholic Register, 3-31-24]

III. PAPAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUCCESSION

The Development of the Papacy (St. John Henry Cardinal Newman) [Facebook, 1997]

Dialogue on Development of Doctrine (Esp. the Papacy) (vs. Jason Engwer) [2000]

Dialogue on Doctrinal Development (Papacy & NT Canon) (vs. Jason Engwer) [2-26-02]

Early Development of the Papacy: Random Reflections [2-26-02]
*

Petrine & Roman Primacy & Papal Succession (vs. Calvin #14) [6-13-09]
*

What Year Did Popes Become Antichrist? (vs. John Calvin) [3-11-10]

Papal Succession & the Bible: An Exchange [1-27-12]

Quick, Highly Effective Argument for the Existence of the Papacy in the First 200 Years [Facebook, 3-13-13]

The Biblical Argument for Papal Succession [12-12-15]

Papal Succession: A Straightforward Biblical Argument [4-28-17]
*

Papal Succession: Biblical and Logical Arguments [National Catholic Register, 5-26-17]
*

Apostolic Succession: Reply to Certain Misconceptions [7-1-20]

James Swan, St. Augustine & “This Rock” [4-19-22]

Yes, Jesus Founded The Catholic Church (vs. Jordan Cooper) [3-6-24]

Newman & Early Church Papal Infallibility & Supremacy (Reply to Jordan Cooper’s Miscomprehensions of St. Cardinal Newman’s Views on the Development of the Papacy & the 1870 Dogma) [1-2-25]

IV. PETER THE “ROCK” / “KEYS OF THE KINGDOM”

Peter the “Rock”: Protestant Contra-Catholic Exegetical Bias [7-7-09]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #10: St. Peter & the Papacy [10-21-17]
*

Vs. James White #1: “Papal Pretensions” & “New” Apologists [9-16-19]

Salesian Apologetics #6: Papacy (St. Peter the Rock) [2-7-20]

Salesian Apologetics #7: Objections to St. Peter the Rock [2-11-20]

Debate: Matthew 16:18-19 & the Papacy (vs. Steve Hays) [10-30-21]

James Swan, St. Augustine & “This Rock” [4-19-22]

Can Christ & Peter Both be “Rocks”? [4-21-22]

Jesus Christ and St. Peter — Are Both Rocks? [National Catholic Register, 6-29-22]

No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer). With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of “The keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19) [8-1-22]

Odd James White View Re Matthew 16:19 & the “Keys” [8-15-22]

The Meaning of the Keys of St. Peter [National Catholic Register, 8-25-22]

“Both/And”: Jesus is the Rock, and St. Peter, the Apostles, and Prophets Are the Foundation of the Church, Too [Facebook, 3-12-24]

Peter the Rock: Only a Catholic View? (vs. James White) [Includes Documentation of 14 Church Fathers Who Thought Peter Was the Rock] [5-11-24]

Treviño Misrepresents My “Peter the Rock” Argument (Why I Cited Protestant Scholars Who Believe that Jesus Thought Peter Himself was the “Rock”) [9-13-24]

V. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, SUPREMACY, AND ROMAN PRIMACY

Papacy & Papal Infallibility: Classic Catholic Reflections [1994]

Vatican I on Papal Infallibility: “Ultramontanism”? [3-29-04]

Dialogue on the Logic of Catholic Infallible Authority [6-4-96]

Dialogue on (Supposedly Fallible) Pope Honorius [1997]

Infallibility, Councils, and Levels of Church Authority: Explanation of the Subtleties of Church Teaching and Debate with Several Radical Catholic Reactionaries [7-30-99; terminology updated, and a few minor changes made on 7-31-18]

Döllinger & Liberal Dissidents’ Rejection of Papal Infallibility [11-28-04]
*

Cdl. Newman, Vatican I & II, & Papal Infallibility (Clarification) [12-10-05]

Honorius: Disproof of Papal Infallibility? [2007]

Bible on Papal & Church Infallibility [2007]

Papal Infallibility Doctrine: History (Including Luther’s Dissent at the Leipzig Disputation in 1519) [10-8-07]

Humanae Vitae: (1968): Infallible Teaching Against Contraception [12-31-07]

Infallibility of Papal Encyclicals, Etc. (“Irreformable”) [8-4-08]

Why Papal Infallibility Was Made a Dogma in 1870 [10-17-08]

Infallible Individuals: Scriptural Examples & Analogies [2009]
*

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) on Papal Supremacy [Facebook, 7-1-09]

Inspired & Infallible Prophets: Analogy to Infallible Popes [2-2-10]

The Galileo Fiasco & Catholic Infallibility (vs. Jon Curry) [8-11-10]

John Henry Newman on Papal Infallibility Prior to 1870 (Classic Anti-Catholic Lies: George Salmon, James White, David T. King et al) [8-11-11]

Reply to Protestant Difficulties Regarding Papal Infallibility [2015]
*

Luther’s Straw Man: Papal Infallibility = Personal Impeccability? [8-17-15]

Can a Pope be a Heretic or Authoritatively Declare Heresy? [2-3-17]

Did Pope Gregory the Great Deny Papal Primacy & Supremacy? [9-16-17]
*

Pope St. Leo the Great (r. 440-461) and Papal Supremacy [9-19-17]

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus [Turkey] (393-457), on Roman and Papal Primacy [Facebook, 9-19-17]
*

Shock! Former Catholic Rod Dreher Loves Lawler’s Pope-Bashing Book [2-22-18]

A Brief History of Papal Infallibility [National Catholic Register, 5-21-18]
*

Don’t Confuse Papal Infallibility with Impeccability [Facebook, 8-31-18]

Protestant Objections to Papal Infallibility [National Catholic Register, 2-29-20]

Did Pope Gelasius (r. 492-496) Deny Transubstantiation? [3-24-21]

Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority [7-28-21]

Explicit Papal Infallibility in 96 AD (Pope St. Clement) [originally from 7-30-21; posted at Catholic365 on 11-20-23]
*

My Supposed “Papolatry”: Outrageous Reactionary Lies [8-26-21]

The Pope is Not Impeccable (Free from Sin or Errors in Judgment, Prudence, Etc.) [Facebook discussion, 10-12-21]

Karl Keating Botches Cyprian “Infallibility Citation” [10-27-21]

Is First Clement Non-Papal? (vs. Jason Engwer) [4-19-22]

Thoughts: Jam es White & Cameron Bertuzzi & Catholicism (Primarily Concerning the Papacy) [5-17-22]

“The Catholic Monitor” Butchers My View of Papal Infallibility (. . . and Has the Impudent Audacity to Attack St. John Henry Cardinal Newman as a Modernist and Nominalist) [9-14-22]

Reactionaries Now Engaged in a Wholesale Attack on Vatican One (1870) / Pope- and Ecumenical Council-Bashing Will Continue After the Holy Father Dies [Facebook, 9-15-22]

Bp. Butler’s Refutation of Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 2: The Nature of Papal Infallibility & the Obligatory Discussion of Galileo [3-25-23]

Bp. Butler’s Refutation of Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 3: Gallicanism, Ultramontanism, and Petrine Primacy in the New Testament [5-12-23]

Steve Hays Foolishly Bashes the Biblical Doctrine of Infallibility [Facebook, 5-28-23]

Bp. Butler’s Refutation of Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 4: Roman Primacy in the Early Church; First Clement; Ignatius & Cyprian on the Papacy; Pope Liberius; Sozomen & Socrates on Papal Primacy; Pope Honorius [7-6-23]

Too Many Papal Critics or Bashers Exhibit the Heretical Spirit of John Wycliffe [Facebook, 8-10-23]

Fate of Unbaptized Infants, Dogma, & Infallibility: Refutation of the Polemical Claims of Brazilian Calvinists Francisco Tourinho & Frankle Brunno [8-11-23]

Is Papal Infallibility Contrary to Free Will? [Facebook, 8-21-23]
*

The Analogy of Inspired Prophets to Infallible Popes [Facebook, 10-16-23]
*

Bishop Strickland: The Writing Was on the Wall [Catholic365, 11-16-23]
*

Newman on Infallibility & Vatican I (vs. One Peter Five) [Catholic365, 11-24-23]
*

Papacy & OT Infallible Prophets Analogy (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [3-14-24]

Quick Refutation of James White Re Papal Infallibility in the Bible [Facebook, 5-10-24]
*

Papal Infallibility: Reply To Lutheran Jordan Cooper (Including Documentation of Popes’ Massive Consultation with Bishops and Others Before Declaring Dogmas, and Particulars of the Voting at Vatican I) [8-7-24]
*

*****

The Supposed Fall of Honorius and His Condemnation (J. H. R., American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 7, 1882, pp. 162-168)

The Condemnation of Pope Honorius (Dom John Chapman, O.S.B., London: Catholic Truth Society, 1907)

Pope Honorius I (Catholic Encyclopedia [Dom John Chapman])

The Truth about Pope Honorius (Robert Spencer, Catholic Answers, 9-1-94)

Was Pope Honorius I a heretic? (Ron Conte, Jr., The Reproach of Christ, 9-17-16)

The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius (P. J. Harrold, American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 8, 1883, 529-549)

Pope Liberius (Catholic Encyclopedia [Dom John Chapman])

The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy (James F. Loughlin, American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 5, 1880, 220-239)

Was Pope Vigilius a Heretic? (Mark Hausam, Where Peter Is, 4-12-20)

Papal Infallibility and the Case of Pope Vigilius (Lawrence McCready, Unam Sanctam Catholicam, 7-7-12)

The Transformation of Pope Vigilius (Warren H. Carroll, Faith & Reason, Winter 1982)
*

An In-Depth Examination of Pope Vigilius: Historical and Theological Insights [Video (2 1/2 hours) by William Albrecht and two guests, 9-6-24]
*

St. Thomas Aquinas and the Origins of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility (Emmett O’Regan, Nova et Vetera, Winter 2025, Vol. 23, No. 1)
*

VI. PAPAL INDEFECTIBILITY

Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes (The pope’s teaching is indefectible and cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man: or even an ecumenical council) [7-23-20]

Dialogue #7 w 1P5 Columnist Timothy Flanders (Highlighting Papal Indefectibility, Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I in 1870, & the “Charitable Anathema”) [12-1-20]

Papal Indefectibility: Dr. Fastiggi vs. Fr. Z [3-11-21]

Leila Marie Lawler: Self-Appointed Pope-Basher / Papal Indefectibility Dogmatized at Vatican I [Facebook, 9-27-23]

The “Spirit of Defectibility” & “Quasi-Defectibility” [Catholic365, 11-22-23]

Theologian Robert Fastiggi On Papal Indefectibility [3-11-24]

John Martignoni: “What the Heck is Papal Indefectibility?” [1-28-25]
*

***
*

The Indefectibility of the Church: A Response to the Defenders of the Filial Correction (Emmet O’Regan, La Stampa, 11-4-17)
*

The Heretical Pope Fallacy: The Official Relatio of Vatican I on the Dogmatization of St. Bellarmine’s “Fourth Opinion” (Emmet O’Regan, La Stampa, 12-11-17)
*

The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See: Was the Idea of a Heretical Pope Formally Excluded at the First Vatican Council? (Emmet O’Regan, Theological Studies, Volume 84, Issue 4, December 2023, 634-656)
*

VII. POPES, COUNCILS, CONCILIARISM, AND COLLEGIALITY

Pope St. Leo the Great, the “Robber” Council of 449, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman) [Facebook, 1993]

Pope Silvester and the Council of Nicaea (vs. James White) [August 1997]

Was Medieval Ecclesiology “Fallibilist Conciliarism”? [1-10-04]

Conciliarism: “Orthodox” Option in Medieval Catholicism? [1-20-04]

Does Papal History Contradict Catholic Ecclesiology? [1-20-04]

Council of Constance (1414-18): Triumph or Death of Conciliarism? [5-2-04]

Council of Nicea: Reply to James White: Its Relationship to Pope Sylvester, Athanasius’ Views, & the Unique Preeminence of Catholic Authority [4-2-07]

Papal Participation in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils [4-22-09]
*

The Papacy & Conciliarity (or, Collegiality): How Popes Routinely Consult & Involve Bishops, Priests, & Laity Prior to Momentous Decrees [9-13-14]

Peter Kwasniewski: Gotta Exorcise Vatican I (1870) [12-4-20]

Which Has More Authority: A Pope or an Ecumenical Council? [National Catholic Register, 5-19-21]

Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? (And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?) [5-21-21]

VIII. DISAGREEING WITH OR TRYING TO PERSUADE POPES / HONOR AND RESPECT FOR POPES / POPE-BASHING

***** Pope Francis Controversies: I Basically Stopped Explaining Things in Early 2022; Please Search What I Already Have; the Resources Are There For You [Facebook, 9-14-24]

Denunciations of Incessant Bashing of Pope Francis [2-22-15]

Is Pope Francis Wrong? Thoughts on the “Filial Correction” [9-24-17]

Radical Reactionary Affinities in “Filial Correction” Signatories [9-28-17]

On Rebuking Popes & Catholic Obedience to Popes [12-27-17]

On Rebuking Popes & Obedience to Popes, Part II [12-28-17]

Fr. Angel Sotelo on the Scandal of the Current Pope-Bashing [Facebook, 1-4-18]

Negative Reactionary Views of Popes Since 1958 [3-18-18]

Honoring Popes / Scriptural Honor of Even Wicked Rulers [11-30-17; some additions on 3-26-18]

Pope-Criticism: Vigorous Exchanges w Karl Keating [3-27-18]

Olson’s Nitpicking, Persnickety Guide to Gaudete et Exsultate [4-10-18]

Honoring Popes (Even Alleged “Bad” Ones) as Persons [4-11-18]

Are Pope-Critics Evil? Reply to Karl Keating [4-13-18]

Why Have Popes At All if We Reject Papal Guidance? [8-4-18]

Protestant Champion Jerry Walls Notes the Obvious: Many Catholics Think Like Protestants, With Regard to the Authority of the Pope and the Rule of Faith [Facebook, 8-7-18]

Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes (The pope’s teaching is indefectible and cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man: or even an ecumenical council) [7-23-20]

St. Paul’s Rebuke of St. Peter = Francis-Bashing? [8-19-20]

If We Have to Constantly Defend Holy Scripture, How Much More the Pope? [Facebook, 10-23-20]

Kwasniewski vs. Cdl. Newman Re Pope- & Council-Bashing [12-3-20]

Pope Francis: Popes Can be Respectfully Criticized [7-21-21]

Did Pope Francis Rebuke Pelosi Re Abortion? (And Why One Seeming Methodological Approach Towards the “Right” and a Very Different One Towards the “Left”?) [10-11-21]

Erasmus’ Criticism of Popes = Today’s Pope-Bashing? [11-10-21]

On the Last Three Popes’ Appointments of Cardinals: Traditionalists Have a Valid Point About Bad Appointments and the Disastrous Appeasement of Theological Liberals in the Church [7-18-22]

“Lying about the Holy Father is a mortal sin” [Facebook discussion thread, 8-22-22]

Pope St. Pius X on Obedience to the Pope + Great Group Discussion [Facebook, 5-19-23]

Ed Feser’s “Respectful and Reserved Criticism” of the Holy Father (?) [Catholic365, 11-29-23]

Bible on the Disgraceful Attitude & Behavior of So Many Pope-Bashers [Facebook, 12-24-23]

Bible on Deference to Popes & Leaders, & Disobedience [12-26-23]

Get it Right! Yours Truly on Papal Criticism (from the Year 2000) and on My Distinctions Among Papal Critics (2018) [Facebook, 1-13-24]

Pope-Criticism: Ultra-Rare, Private, & Saintly (Reply to Clueless Accusations That I Supposedly Think Popes Should Never be Criticized At All, & Make No Distinctions Whatsoever Concerning Papal Critics) [1-15-24]

St. Ignatius of Antioch [50-110 or 117] on Submission to the Bishop [Facebook, 1-25-24]

We Can’t Disagree with Mere Political Opinions of Popes? St. Cdl. Newman Disagrees [Facebook, 2-13-25]

In Case You’re Wondering What Steve Ray Really Thought About Pope Francis [Facebook, 5-4-25]

IX. PAPAL SCANDALS / “BAD POPES”

***** Pope Francis Controversies: I Basically Stopped Explaining Things in Early 2022; Please Search What I Already Have; the Resources Are There For You [Facebook, 9-14-24]

Dialogue on (Supposedly Fallible) Pope Honorius [1997]

Honorius: Disproof of Papal Infallibility? [2007]

Resisting Heretic Popes: Classic Catholic Reflections [12-1-07]

“Bad Popes”: How Many Were There? [12-17-07]

Bad Popes: Replies to a Sincere Inquirer [5-27-08]
*

Some Bad Popes = Ditch the Papacy? (vs. Calvin #22) [6-29-09]

Bad Popes / Indefectibility / John XXII (vs. Calvin #24) [6-30-09]

Can a Pope be a Heretic or Authoritatively Declare Heresy? [2-3-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #11: Good & Bad Monothelite Heretics (Honorius & Wm. Lane Craig) [10-22-17]
*

Don’t Confuse Papal Infallibility with Impeccability [Facebook, 8-31-18]

Reactionary Signees of Easter “Heresy” Letter (13 of 19) [5-6-19]

Ecclesiological Errors of “Easter Letter” Reactionaries Summed Up (That is, Ones Not Specifically Related to Pope Francis: Especially Vatican II as the Big Bad Wolf) [5-9-19]

Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy [5-10-19]

Reactionary Infiltration of Taylor Marshall’s Book, Infiltration [5-30-19]

Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes (The pope’s teaching is indefectible and cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man: or even an ecumenical council) [7-23-20]

Pastor Aeternus (1870): Can a Pope Ever Make Heresy Binding? (Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Ron Conte; edited by Dave Armstrong, in Response to Timothy Flanders) [12-1-20]

Kwasniewski vs. Cdl. Newman Re Pope- & Council-Bashing [12-3-20]

Pope Francis: Most Theological Errors? (Ed Feser) [8-26-22]

Post-Vatican II “Liberal” Popes [Ch. 13 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version) ] [11-25-23]

Ed Feser’s “Respectful and Reserved Criticism” of the Holy Father (?) [Catholic365, 11-29-23]

X. DID POPES CLAIM TO BE GOD? / POPES AS ANTICHRIST?

Debate: The Anti-Catholic “Pope as God” Argument [1-1-99]

Popes Claimed to be God? / Pope as Antichrist (vs. Calvin #23) [6-30-09]
*

What Year Did Popes Become Antichrist? (vs. John Calvin) [3-11-10]
*

Pope St. Pius V Claimed to be God (Say Anti-Catholics) [2-11-11]

Did a Bishop Say Pope St. John Paul II was God? [2-11-11]

“Pope is God”: Similar Rhetoric from Luther & Bullinger [2-24-11]

XI. VEN. POPE PIUS XII AND THE NAZI HOLOCAUST

[see the many links on my Jews, Judaism, & Old Testament page]

XII. POPE ST. JOHN PAUL II

Why Not Kick Modernist Dissenters Out of the Church? [3-7-02]
*

Pope St. John Paul II: Tribute & Many Links [4-2-05]

“Nothing New”: Reactionary Attacks on Pope St. John Paul II [4-9-05]

Neo-Scholastic Thomism & Popes John Paul II & Benedict XVI [5-5-06]

The Remarkable Joint Cooperation of Pope St. John Paul II and Campus Crusade for Christ [Facebook, 11-29-07]

Did a Bishop Say Pope St. John Paul II was God? [2-11-11]

Did Pope St. John Paul II Teach Universalism? [4-26-11]

Taylor Marshall: Looks Like Pope John Paul II Was a Stinkin’ Liberal Like All the Rest of ‘Em [Facebook, 5-30-19]

John Paul II Kissing the Koran: Dialogue with Traditionalists [2012; new Introduction added on 6-4-19] [6-4-19]

Was Pope St. John Paul II a “Modernist”? [Ch. 15 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version)] [11-27-23]

XIII. POPE BENEDICT XVI

Cdl Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI): Vatican II Authority = Trent [5-20-05]

Neo-Scholastic Thomism & Popes John Paul II & Benedict XVI [5-5-06]

Benedict and Clergy Sexual Abuse: Decisive and Aggressive Action (Judy Roberts; National Catholic Register, 3-5-13)
*

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict Refer to “Extreme Traditionalism” [8-5-13]

Who’s Defending Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum Now? [2-26-14]

Pope St. John XXIII & Pope Benedict XVI on “Prophets of Doom” [6-9-14]

Michael Voris on Pope Benedict’s “Immoral” Resignation, Questionable Illness [12-15-15]

Ratzinger “Banal” Quote: Traditionalist & Reactionary Misuse [12-17-15]

Chris Ferrara vs. Pope Benedict XVI (New Mass) [12-18-15]

Did Cardinal Burke Criticize Pope Benedict’s Resignation? [1-13-18]
*

Illogic & Silliness Re Benedict-Francis “Blurring” Incident [3-17-18]
*

Reactionaries Begin Savage Attacks on Pope Benedict [3-17-18]
*

Negative Reactionary Views of Popes Since 1958 [3-18-18]

Pope Benedict XVI’s Own “Who Am I to Judge?” Moment (Judas) [Facebook, 3-29-18]
*

Verrecchio Trashes Pope Benedict as Wicked Lying Hypocrite [4-2-18]

The Late John Vennari of Catholic Family News (Reactionary) Was Already Ditching and Trashing Pope Benedict in 2008 [Facebook, 4-3-18]
*

Benedict XVI essay: “The Church and the scandal of sexual abuse” (Catholic News Agency, 4-10-19)

Superstition About the “Preserved” High Altar at Notre Dame (And Continued Cynical, Highly Selective, “Pick and Choose” Acceptance of the Teaching of Pope Benedict XVI) [4-17-19]

Taylor Marshall: Pope Benedict XVI’s Love of Tradition is Mostly Mere Aesthetics, Not Doctrinal [Facebook, 5-30-19]

Pope Benedict’s Enthusiastic Approval of Pope Francis [11-27-19]

Bill Donohue Claims I’m on the “Left” & Dislike Pope Benedict (!!!) [1-3-20]

Pope Benedict Eschews Co-Authorship; Ignatius Says “No!” [1-14-20]

Pseudo-Pope Skojo III Rebukes Real Pope Benedict XVI [5-9-20]

Viganò’s Outrageous Lie Re Pope Benedict XVI & Tradition (Unwillingness to Make Even Rudimentary Efforts to Consult Context or to Understand a Pope’s Overall Thinking) [8-21-20]

Pope Francis Did Answer the Dubia (Dr. Robert Fastiggi) (It Was Also Answered [with the Same Answers] by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in 2019) [9-27-21]

My Response to Phillip Campbell’s (“Boniface” ‘) Criticisms of Pope Benedict XVI on his blog, Unam Sanctam Catholicam [Facebook, 1-29-23]

XIV. POPE FRANCIS

***** Pope Francis Controversies: I Basically Stopped Explaining Things in Early 2022; Please Search What I Already Have; the Resources Are There For You [Facebook, 9-14-24]

Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused or Troubled Folks [Links page]

Pope Francis, Foot-Washing, & Humility (Pete Vere & Dave Armstrong) [3-13-13 and 3-30-13]

Radical Catholic Reactionary Super-Site Rorate Caeli‘s “Cherished Friend” and Featured Pope-Basher, Marcelo González, is a Holocaust Revisionist [4-8-13]

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict Refer to “Extreme Traditionalism” [8-5-13]

Discussion on the Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, Especially in Relation to Radical Catholic Reactionaries [Facebook, 11-26-13]

Random Thoughts on Rush Limbaugh’s Comments on the Pope’s Alleged “Marxism” [Facebook, 12-5-13]

Dialogue: Has Pope Francis Changed the Constant Catholic Prohibition of Contraception? [1-2-14]

Folks Willing to Understand Pope Francis, Can; Unwilling Won’t [1-18-14]

Is Pope Francis Guilty of Blasphemy and Departure from All Catholic Mariological Tradition in His Comments on the Possible Momentary Temptation of Mary at the Cross? [1-19-14]

Books by Dave Armstrong: Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition (+ Introduction) [1-22-14]

Does Pope Francis Think that Jesus Was a Sinner? (. . . Beyond Bearing Our Sins on the Cross; i.e., Partaking / Entering Into Sin)? [2-27-14]

Opposition to Extreme Anti-Francis Bias: Elliot Bougis [2-28-14]

Swishy Bishops, Liberal Dissidents, & “PR” Regarding Pope Francis [3-6-14]

Exchange on Pope Francis and the Church (vs. Tony Jokin) [Facebook, 12-17-14]

Documentation: Pope Francis is Othodox, Pro-Tradition, and Against Modernism [Dan Marcum, Catholic Answers Forum, 1-9-15] [see also a compact, abridged 13-point Facebook version]

Pope Francis and Catholics Reproducing Like “Rabbits” (+ Facebook discussion) [1-21-15]

“Irresponsible” Pope Francis? (Woman Who Had Seven C-Sections) [1-23-15]

Pope Francis: 7 C-Sections is “Irresponsible” (Group Discussion) [1-23-15]

Facebook Threads Regarding Whether Pope Francis is Being “Bashed” (+ Part Two / Part III) [2-21-15]

Why is Pope Francis So Loved by Theological Liberals? [2-21-15]

Critique of Chris Ferrara’s Radical Reactionary Hit-Piece in Opposition to Pope Francis’ Christian Environmentalism [6-20-15]

Confused or Perplexed About Pope Francis? Possible Relief! [8-18-15]

Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato si: A Beautiful and Profoundly Wise Statement of Christian Environmentalism and Theology of Creation [9-11-15]

Forcing Pope Francis Into Our Own Image [9-18-15]

Reply to Dr. Phil Blosser’s Critique of My Book, Pope Francis Explained [9-24-15]

Must the Pope Explicitly Mention Abortion to Congress? [9-24-15]

Pope Francis’ Strongly Pro-Life Comments to the UN (“Both/And”!) [9-25-15]

The Ridiculous “Anti-Francis” Mentality: My Theory in Brief [12-7-15]

Pope Francis Espoused a Sinning Jesus? Think Again [1-8-16]

On the Endless Second-Guessing of Pope Francis [2-25-16]

Douthat’s Flawed Critique of “Conservative” Catholicism (and Pope Francis) [3-2-16]

Pope Francis Foot-Washing Controversy Redux [3-26-16]

Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis’ “1968 Moment” [4-8-16]

Defenses of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia [4-9-16]

Classic Reactionaryism: Skojec Disses Cardinal Burke (Over Amoris Laetitia) [4-12-16]

More Defenses of Amoris Laetitia & Pope Francis [4-26-16]

Dialogue: “Bad” Bishops & “Confusing” Francis (vs. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski) [4-28-16]

Satan Loves Divisions Regarding Amoris Laetitia [5-2-16]

Dialogue: Amoris Laetitia: Confusing or No? [5-3-16]

Amoris Laetitia, “Trads” & Reactionaries [5-4-16]

Buzzing, Mosquito-Like Trashers of Amoris Laetitia [5-6-16]

Pope Francis: Obsessed with “Change”? [5-14-16]
*

“Confusing” Pope Francis & Prudent Public Discussion [6-22-16]

Ratzinger: Avoid Criticizing Church in “Mass Media” [6-26-16]

Removal of my Post: “Prudence of Public Pope Criticism (Debate)” [Facebook, 6-27-16]

The Real & the Imaginary Pope Francis [6-28-16]

Pope Francis Condemns Evangelism? Absolutely Not! [10-17-16]
*

Amoris Laetitia Has Already Been Clarified Many Times, Including by High-Ranking Cardinals (+ very vigorous Facebook discussion) [11-16-16]

Pope Francis: Please Answer Cardinal Burke Et Al [12-1-16]

Is Pope Francis a Heretic?: Options and Respectful Speculations on the Synod on the Family, Amoris Laetitia and Practical Applications (+ Facebook discussion) [12-13-16]

Is Pope Francis Wrong? Thoughts on the “Filial Correction” [9-24-17]

Papal Answers Would Only Help Resolve the Growing Crisis [9-26-17]

Radical Reactionary Affinities in “Filial Correction” Signatories [9-28-17]

I Hope the Pope Will Provide Some Much-Needed Clarity (Re: Answering the Dubia) [National Catholic Register, 9-30-17]

Dr. Robert Fastiggi Defends Amoris Laetitia Against Critics [10-3-17]
*

Should Pope Francis Respond to all the Questioners, “Correctors” and Confused Masses? [Facebook, 10-4-17]
*

Dr. Fastiggi & Dr. Goldstein Debate Dr. Shaw Regarding Pope Francis (see additional Facebook discussion) [10-9-17]
*

Dr. Joseph Shaw Apes “Reformers” (“Ambiguous” Catholic Documents) [10-11-17]

Dr. Fastiggi Replies to Dr. Brugger Regarding Amoris Laetitia [10-12-17]

Dr. Fastiggi’s “Exchange” with Correctio Signatory Chris Ferrara [10-12-17]

Reactionary Influence: Correctio & June 2016 Criticism of the Pope [1-24-18]

Pope Francis, Cardinal Newman, & Fresh (Orthodox) Presentations [1-29-18]
*

Pope Francis: Pro-Marriage & Contra “Marital Skepticism” [1-29-18]
*

Dialogue: Sharp Inquiring Protestant vs. Pope-Bashing Catholic [3-6-18]
*

Dialogues w Critics & Disparagers of Pope Francis [3-6-18]
*

Illogic & Silliness Re Benedict-Francis “Blurring” Incident [3-17-18]
*

Reactionaries Begin Savage Attacks on Pope Benedict [3-17-18]
*

Reactionary Chris Ferrara’s Lies Re Pope Francis & Hell [3-31-18]
*

Lame Reactionary Anti-Francis “No Hell” Argument [4-2-18]
*

“Everything Saved”: More Dim-Witted Bashing of Pope Re Hell [4-6-18]
*

Satan Referenced 24 Times in Gaudete et Exsultate [4-9-18]
*

Pope Francis: All Life: Preborn and Born, is “Equally Sacred” [4-9-18]
*

Olson’s Nitpicking, Persnickety Guide to Gaudete et Exsultate [4-10-18]
*

St. Paul: Far More of an “Insulter” Than Pope Francis [4-11-18]
*

Pope’s Chilean Abuse Apology Troubles Simcha Fisher [4-12-18]

Are Pope-Critics Evil? Reply to Karl Keating [4-13-18]
*

Jesus, the Death Penalty, & the Adulterous Woman [8-2-18]

Burning Heretics, Frying Murderers, & Slavery (Analogies) [8-3-18]

Yes, Virginia, the Pope Believes Mary is Immaculate [12-29-18]

Papal Ring-Kissing, Gossip, & Pharisaical Nitpicking [3-29-19]

Reactionary Signees of Easter “Heresy” Letter (13 of 19) [5-6-19]

Ecclesiological Errors of “Easter Letter” Reactionaries Summed Up (That is, Ones Not Specifically Related to Pope Francis: Especially Vatican II as the Big Bad Wolf) [5-9-19]

Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy [5-10-19]

Dr. Echeverria: Francis Wants Development, Not Revolution [5-28-19]

Taylor Marshall’s Whopper: Pope Francis Denies Hellfire? [6-7-19]

Taylor Marshall Lies About Pope Francis & Divorce [6-8-19]

No, Pope Francis Did Not Deny Transubstantiation (Phenomenological Language in Holy Scripture and in the Addresses of Pope Francis) [6-25-19]

Brief Exchange with a Sedevacantist Regarding Pope Francis [Facebook, 6-25-19]

Does Pope Francis Deny the Catholic Doctrine of Merit? No [7-1-19]

Pope Francis & Transubstantiation (vs. Sedevacantists) [7-2-19]

Am I a “Pope Francis Defender”? (Statement of Intent & Purpose) [11-5-19]

Being Anti-Francis is Apparently Far and Away the Most Important Thing for Millions of Catholics These Days. God Help Us! [11-12-19]

Is Pope Francis Against Apologetics & Defending the Faith? [11-26-19]

“Confusing” Pope Francis & Ignorant, Lazy Lay Catholics [11-27-19]

Pope Benedict’s Enthusiastic Approval of Pope Francis [11-27-19]

“Ambiguity”: Classic Reactionary Talking Point & Mantra [12-5-19]

Pope St. John Paul II Respectfully Referred to Pachamama (+ Orthodox Catholic References to “Mother Earth” and Similar Biblical Motifs) [12-13-19]

Pope Francis vs. the Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? (+ Documentation of Pope Francis’ and Other Popes’ Use of the Mariological Title of Veneration: “Mother of All”) [12-16-19]

Debate: Pope Francis on Doctrine, Truth, & Evangelizing (vs. Dr. Eduardo Echeverria) [12-16-19]

Pope Francis’ Deep Devotion to Mary (Esp. Mary Mediatrix) [12-23-19]

Pope Francis’ Emphasis on Criticizing Reactionaries (A Theory) [12-30-19]

Pope Francis’ Slap & Loss of Temper (Close Examination) [1-2-20]

Dialogue: Pope Francis vs. Gospel Preaching & Converts? No! (vs. Eric Giunta) [1-3-20]

Reactionaries and Other Pope-Bashers Have a Ready “Answer” to Every Proof of Pope Francis’ Orthodoxy: He’s Simply Lying Through His Teeth! [Facebook, 1-3-20]

Pope Francis (and Others) and Analogies to Jesus (Explanation of a Widely Misunderstood Aspect of Analogical Arguments) [1-6-20]

Pope Francis: Strong Defender of Priestly Celibacy [1-14-20]

Pope’s Querida Amazonia: Reactionaries Step in it Again [2-13-20]

Dialogue w Timothy Flanders #2: State of Emergency? [2-25-20]

Dr. Fastiggi Defends Pope Francis Re “Pachamama Idolatry” [3-3-20]

Pope Francis vs. the Gospel? Outrageous & Absurd Lies! (Anti-Catholic Protestant James White and Catholic Reactionary Steve Skojec Echo Each Other’s Gigantic Whoppers) [5-26-20]

Legalism Re Pope Francis & Papal Attire (Mozzetta) [7-10-20]

Fratelli tutti: Love is Great; How to Best Apply It? [10-8-20]

Steve Skojec: Pope Sez Death Penalty is Intrinsically Evil (?) [10-8-20]

Death Penalty, Reactionaries, & a Devious Liar-Pope? [10-10-20]

Three Popes & Capital Punishment (vs. Ed Feser) (with Catholic Theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi) [10-20-20]

Pope Francis, Same-Sex Unions, & Chicken Little Mass Hysteria [10-22-20]

Pope Francis & the Diversity of Religions (The Sedevacantist Outfit Novus Ordo Watch Lies Yet Again About Pope Francis) [11-29-20]

Kwasniewski vs. Cdl. Newman Re Pope- & Council-Bashing [12-3-20]

Kwasniewski vs. Pope Francis Re “Fundamentalism” (Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI Fully Concur with Pope Francis) [12-9-20]

Pope Francis’ Proper Use of the Term “Fundamentalism” (. . . and the Similar Sociologically Proper Use of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II) [12-28-20]

Dr. Fastiggi on Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis, & Aquinas [2-1-21]

Fr. Z Asks for Pro-Francis “Compendium”. I Provide It [3-9-21]

“Gay Unions”: Leftist & Reactionary Catholics vs. Pope & CDF [3-23-21]

Pope Francis vs. Same-Sex “Marriage”: The Record [3-25-21]

Fr. Peter Stravinskas & Irrational Pope Francis-Bashing: Sad Case Study in Taking the Holy Father’s Words Out of Context and Indefensibly Misrepresenting Them [4-15-21]

Pope Francis: Indissoluble Marriage & No Divorce (+ Analysis of Ed Feser’s “Doctrinally Problematic” Criticisms) [6-1-21]

Ed Feser, Pope Francis, Divorce, “Ambiguity”, & Implosion [6-3-21]

Did I Say Ed Feser Called Pope Francis a Heretic? (+ Further Exchanges Back-and-Forth with Ed Feser) [6-4-21]

Pope Francis’ Satanic, Demonic, & Hellish Views [6-7-21]

Pope Francis’ “Endorsement” of Fr. James Martin, SJ (Does it Entail a Denial of Church Teaching on Gravely Disordered Homosexual Sex?) [6-30-21]

Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes is for the Sake of Unity [7-16-21]

Skojec Loathes Traditionis; Illustrates Why it is Necessary [7-19-21]

Traditionalist Fr. Chad Ripperger Critiques Traditionalism [7-21-21]

Traditionis Custodes: Sky Hasn’t Fallen (Bishops) [8-2-21]

The Orthodoxy of Pope Francis [9-6-21]

“Pope Francis is So Confusing!”: A Spirited Reply (The Sad and Slanderous Promotion of a “False Narrative” Concerning Pope Francis’ Supposedly Massive Errors) [9-7-21]
*

Pope Francis Talks of Gospel Freedom; Naysayers Go Bonkers [9-15-21]

Reply to Fr. Thomas Weinandy: Pope Francis a Heretic? [9-21-21]

Pope Francis Did Not Say EWTN = “Work of the Devil” (Case Study in “Conservative” Catholic Media Bias, Which is Becoming as Problematic as Mainstream Liberal Media Bias) [9-22-21]

How Dare Pope Francis Defend the Church! (He’s Supposed to Not Utter a Peep About All the Slanderous, Worthless Gossip & Rumormongering Today Among Catholics) [9-24-21]

Some Catholics Hope Pope Francis Dies? Yes . . . [9-25-21]

Pope Francis Did Answer the Dubia (Dr. Robert Fastiggi) (It Was Also Answered [with the Same Answers] by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in 2019) [9-27-21]

Review: The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia (Pedro Gabriel) [5-10-22]

Pope Francis: Most Theological Errors? (Ed Feser) [8-26-22]

Exchange w “Traditionalist” Apologist- & Pope-Basher [7-10-23]

Pope Francis Has Answered the Five Dubia in His Teachings (+ Legitimate Biblical & Spiritual Reasons for His Not Directly Answering Particularly Accusatory, Ill-Willed, & Wrongminded Critics) [8-3-23]

Leila Marie Lawler: Self-Appointed Pope-Basher / Papal Indefectibility Dogmatized at Vatican I [Facebook, 9-27-23]
*

Tragic Bp. Strickland & Reaction from the Usual Suspects [11-14-23]
*

Did Pope Francis Succeed St. Peter? Reply to Steve Ray [5-3-25]
*

XV. POPE FRANCIS: PHIL LAWLER’S HIT-PIECE, LOST SHEPHERD

Quasi-Defectibility and Phil Lawler vs. Pope Francis (see also more documentation of Lawler’s reactionary leanings, on the Facebook thread) [12-28-17]
*

Dialogues with Karl Keating & Phil Lawler on Pope Francis [12-29-17]
*

Dialogues with Karl Keating Regarding Pope Francis [12-29-17]
*

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #1: Critique of Introduction [1-1-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #2: Homosexuality & “Judging” [1-2-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #3: The Pope Annihilated Hell? [1-2-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #4: Communion / Buenos Aires Letter [1-3-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #5: Jerusalem Council vs. “Ideology” [1-3-18]

My Critiques of Lawler’s Lost Shepherd / Exchanges w Karl Keating [1-7-18]
*

Shock! Former Catholic Rod Dreher Loves Lawler’s Pope-Bashing Book [2-22-18]

Phil Lawler’s Lost Shepherd: My One-Star Amazon Review [2-26-18]

Popes Leading the Church Into False Doctrine (E.g., Paul VI) (+ Facebook discussion) [3-8-18]
*

Reply to Stephen Phelan Re Phil Lawler’s Lost Shepherd [3-10-18]

Yet Another Idiotic Personal Attack Regarding My Defense of Pope Francis That I Make Short Work of [Facebook, 3-10-18]

Phil Lawler’s Mythical Private Letter (Unfruitful Discussion) [3-10-18]
*

Merits of Phil Lawler’s Lost Shepherd: Three Common Fallacies [3-12-18]
*

Protestant Takes Solace in Douthat’s Pope-Bashing Book (also discusses Phil Lawler) [3-24-18]
*

Pope Francis, Hell, Phil Lawler, Lies, Damned Lies, . . . [3-30-18]
*

Lawler Hypocritically Acts Like He Claims Pope Francis Does [4-28-18]
*

Marshall, Keating, & Lawler: Exchanges Re Pope Francis (Setting the Record Straight: My Supposedly “Personal” & Unsavory Exchanges with Karl Keating, Phil & Leila Lawler, & Taylor Marshall) [7-28-18, 2-27-20, and 3-4 December 2020]

Chris Ferrara & My Debates w Keating & Lawler Re Pope Francis [1-1-18 and 1-2-18; minor additions and changes: 9-25-20]

Phil Lawler: No Proof Pope Francis is a Heretic [3-5-21]

XVI. POPE FRANCIS: ROSS DOUTHAT’S HIT-PIECE, TO CHANGE THE CHURCH

Douthat’s Flawed Critique of “Conservative” Catholicism [3-2-16]

Protestant Takes Solace in Douthat’s Pope-Bashing Book [3-24-18]
*

Douthat’s To Change the Church: Mini-Debate w Karl Keating [3-24-18]
*

Douthat’s Pope-Bashing Book Attacks Vatican II [3-24-18]

Debate on Ross Douthat’s Critical Views of Vatican II [3-26-18]
*

XVII. POPE FRANCIS: HENRY SIRE’S HIT-PIECE, THE DICTATOR POPE

Henry Sire of Dictator Pope Infamy: Reactionary Extremist [3-27-18]
*

XVIII. POPE FRANCIS: KARL KEATING’S TOME, THE FRANCIS FEUD

Keating & The Francis Feud: Six Errors Documented [6-2-18]
*

Review of Keating’s Francis Feud Removed, w Apology [12-24-18]
*

XIX. POPE FRANCIS: ARCHBISHOP VIGANO’S RANTINGS

Bishops Viganò & Schneider Reject Authority of Vatican II [11-22-19]

Viganò, Schneider, Pachamama, & VCII (vs. Janet E. Smith) [11-25-19]

Abp. Viganó Descends into Fanatical Reactionary Nuthood (. . . Declares Pope Francis a Heretical Narcissist Who “Desacralized” & “Impugned” & “Attack[ed]” Mary) [12-20-19]

Abp. Viganò: Fanaticism, Extremism, and Conspiratorialism (Summary from August 2019 Until July 2020: Alarming, Increasingly Quasi-Schismatic Spirit) [7-13-20]

XX. POPE LEO XIV

Pope Leo XIV (First American Pope) [Facebook, 5-8-25]

Will I be “Defending” Pope Leo XIV? [Facebook, 5-9-25]

Meaning[s] of “First American Pope”: A Mini-Would-Be Debate [Facebook, 5-9-25]

Pope Leo XIV’s Profound Early Missionary Activities in Peru [Facebook, 5-9-25]

Pope Leo XIV’s First Homily as Pope [Facebook, 5-9-25]

Information About the Augustinian Order [Facebook, 5-9-25]

*
***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Last updated on 27 June 2025

***