Contents

Chapter I Introductory clarifications.

Preliminary note: the official text is only the one in Italian, the various versions in other languages ​​are neural automatic translations.

At the beginning of our walk we pray as the Israelites prayed at the beginning of their walk in the desert "Arise, Lord,
and let your enemies be scattered and those who hate you flee from you. " (Psalm 67 (68) cf. Numbers 10,35)

May not Satan be my guide, the sacred Cross be light for me.

Let us pray again: “May God grant me to speak with intelligence and to reflect in a way worthy of the gifts received, because he himself is the guide of wisdom and directs the wise. In his hands are us and our words, every kind of knowledge and every operational capacity. "
(Wis 7,15: 23-XNUMX)

As seen above, some questions that people of our times, especially Catholics, ask themselves concern first of all the infallibility of the Pope and the possibility that he is wrong, but they also concern our response to possible errors of the Pope. synthetic, he wants precisely to answer these questions and in this way he wants to introduce what will be said in the following chapters.

1) The courage of the Truth is required.

In a famous speech to the Sacred College, Pope Paul VI affirmed: "... The courage of truth is more than ever imposed on Christians ...
The courage to proclaim the truth is also the first and indispensable charity that shepherds of souls must exercise. … The salvation of men is at stake. Therefore ... we want to appeal to all responsible pastors to raise their voices when necessary, with the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Act. 1, 8), to clarify ... to straighten ... to enlighten ... This, more than ever, is the hour of clarity for the faith of the Church. " [1]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith echoed the words of the Gospel by affirming: "The Lord Jesus said:" You will know the truth and the truth will make you free "(Jn 8:32). Scripture commands us to do the truth in charity (cf. Eph 4:15). "[2]

In a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith we read: “The truth that sets you free is a gift of Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 8:32). The search for truth is inherent in the nature of man, while ignorance keeps him in a condition of slavery. … Liberation from the alienation of sin and death takes place for man when Christ, who is the Truth, becomes the "way" for him (cf. Jn 14: 6). …. He also freed him from the snares of the "father of lies" (cf. Jn 8:44) and gave him access to his intimacy so that he may find there, in superabundance, full truth and true freedom. This plan of love conceived by the "Father of light" (Jn 1, 17; cf. 1 Pt 2, 9; 1 Jn 1, 5), carried out by the Son conquering death (cf. Jn 8, 36) is continuously rendered actual by the Spirit who guides "to all truth" (Jn 16:13). ... Thus, thanks to the new birth and the anointing of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 3, 5; 1 Jn 2, 20. 27), we become the one and new People of God who, with different vocations and charisms, has the mission to preserve and transmit the gift of truth. In fact the whole Church, as the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" (cf. Mt 5, 13f.), Must bear witness to the truth of Christ which makes us free. "[3] Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “If in the past in the presentation of the truth sometimes charity perhaps did not shine enough, today there is a great danger of keeping silent or compromising the truth in the name of charity. Certainly the word of truth can hurt and be uncomfortable. But it is the way to healing, to peace, to inner freedom. A pastoral care that truly wants to help people must always be founded on truth. Only what is true can ultimately also be pastoral. "Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" (Jn 8,32:XNUMX). " [4]

This Truth manifests itself in sound doctrine. St. Paul says very significantly in his letter to Titus: "The bishop, in fact, as God's administrator, must be blameless: not arrogant, not angry, not addicted to wine, not violent, not greedy for dishonest gain, [8] but hospitable, lover of the good, sensible, just, pious, self-possessed, [9] attached to secure doctrine, according to the teaching transmitted, so that he is able to exhort with his sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. " (Tit 1,7ss)

A little further on the same Apostle, in the same letter affirms: "Therefore correct them firmly, so that they remain in sound doctrine." (Tit 1,13:XNUMX)

And a little further on, in the same letter we read: "But you teach what is according to sound doctrine .." (Tt 2,1) In the first letter to Timothy s. Paul states: "... I am convinced that the law is not made for the just, but for the iniquitous and the rebels, for the wicked and sinners, for the sacrilegious and profaners, for parricides and matricides, for murderers, fornicators, perverts, traffickers of men, forgeries, perjurers and for everything else that is contrary to sound doctrine ... "(1Tm. 1,9s)

Still s. Paul writes in this line: "The day will come, in fact, when the sound doctrine will no longer be endured, but, out of the itch to hear something, men will surround themselves with teachers according to their wishes ..." (2Tm 4,3)

Precisely to witness this Truth and this "sound doctrine", often uncomfortable, which however lead to true healing and peace, just to testify to this Truth and this "sound doctrine" that make free I wanted to write this book.

2) It is necessary for the pastor to speak, when he must, and not be silent.

In the book of Isaiah we read: "For the sake of Zion I will not keep silent ..." (Is. 62,1)

The Gospel reminds us: "I tell you that, if these are silent, the stones will cry"(Lk 19, 40)

God free us from all sinful silence.

St. Augustine states: “Ego de rebaptizato deacon our silere non possum: schia enim quam mihi silentium perniciosum sit. Non enim cogito in ecclesiasticis honoribus tempora ventosa transigere, sed cogito me principles pastorum omnium rationem de commissis ovibus redditurum. "[5] which translated into Italian means “I cannot remain silent on the repetition of baptism to one of our deacon, because I know how pernicious silence would be for me. In fact, I don't think I'll spend my time in ecclesiastical offices satisfying my vanity, but I think I'll give an account to the prince for all the shepherds of the sheep that were entrusted to me " [6] ... I cannot be silent: I know that silence is harmful to me, I will give an account to the prince of all the shepherds of the sheep that were entrusted to me.

St. Gregory, in the Pastoral Rule states: "Whoever cares for souls should be discreet in silence and be useful in the use of the word, not to say what must be kept quiet and not to hide with silence what needs to be revealed … Often negligent shepherds of souls, in fear of losing popular favor, do not dare to freely proclaim the truth; and, as Christ himself warns us, they do not guard the flock with the zeal of the shepherd but as mercenaries, and flee when the wolf arrives, hiding in silence. " [7]

They are reprimanded, says s again. Gregory the Great, from God also through the words of the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel: through the words of Isaiah who defines them as dumb dogs (Is. 56,10), unable to bark to warn of danger, and through the words of Ezekiel (13,5, XNUMX) who accuses them of not having opposed the powers of the world with frank words to defend the flock and of not having been steadfast in the fight to resist the attacks of the wicked for the love of God and in particular of his justice. [8]

St. Gregory the Great adds that the divine word further reproaches these ministers of God because they do not reveal their sins to sinners when they avoid, by silence, condemning their evil deeds; precisely so that the minister of God reveals the sins of the wicked by condemning their actions in words, it is said in the Bible that the man of God cries out and raises his voice (cf. Is. 58, 1). It is obvious, in this line, that whoever accepts the ministry of priest accepts to be like a herald who precedes the Judge, that is, God, who follows him; therefore the minister of God gravely fails in his duty who does not raise his voice to condemn evil and prepare souls for divine judgment; the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues of fire on the first shepherds precisely to show that he enabled them to speak and tell the truth for the good of souls.[9]

3) Lawfulness of the correction of superiors

In charity it is lawful and sometimes necessary to manifest to Pastors and the faithful what concerns the good of the Church, the Code of Canon Law in fact states: "the faithful ... in a way that is proportionate to the knowledge, competence and prestige they enjoy, ... have the right, and indeed sometimes also the duty, to express to the sacred Pastors their thoughts on what concerns the good of the Church and to make it known to the other faithful ... "[10]. More precisely, as the Correctio Filialis states[11] ; both natural law and the law of Christ as well as canon law allow superiors to be corrected even publicly. Under the natural law the inferiors have the duty to obey their superiors in all the things foreseen by the law, but they have, on the other hand, the right to be governed according to the law and therefore have the right to insist, if there is any. were necessary, for their superiors to govern according to the law. By the Law of Christ, as explained by St. Thomas, correction is a work of mercy that belongs to all towards any person, towards whom we are bound to have charity, when in it we find something to correct; the superior must be corrected with due respect but this correction can also be made publicly in fact, Aquinas points out, when there was a danger to the faith, the subjects would be required to reproach their prelates even publicly, therefore s. Paul, who was also a subject of St. Peter, for the danger of scandal in the faith, rebuked him publicly in Antioch (Gal 2). St. Thomas Aquinas notes that this public reproach of an inferior to a superior was licit because of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith (cf. II-II, q. 33, a. 4 ad 2)

It says more precisely s. Thomas: "... ubi immineret periculum fidei, etiam publice essent praelati a subditis arguendi." (II-II q. 33, a. 4 ad 2) When a danger to the faith is imminent, the subjects should reproach their prelates even publicly .

St. Augustine comments on Gal. 2 saying: “As for Peter, however, he gladly accepted the intervention of his reprover and for this a single reproof was enough for him. He did not, like Christ, set an example of absolute perfection, but he certainly set an example of perfect humility. In fact, with a good spirit he accepted the reproach of one who was not superior to him in the apostolate but inferior. Forgive us the apostle Paul if we say that it was easy to do what he did, while it is difficult to do what Peter did. … Paul therefore acted with great frankness, Peter with even more admirable virtue. As for sincerity, I could not say if it takes more to notice the fault of others than to gladly acknowledge one's own. " [12]

Christ's words in Jn 17 are particularly illuminating in cases like this: “Sanctify them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world; for them I consecrate myself, so that they too may be consecrated in the truth. "(Jn 17,17ff) In Christ we are consecrated in the Truth and to the Truth which is He himself and the whole Trinity, the Truth is wanted and must manifest in us! ... I repeat: the Truth is wanted and must manifest itself in us!

According to Canon Law, as seen in this line, "the faithful [...] in a way that is proportionate to the knowledge, competence and prestige they enjoy, [...] have the right, and indeed sometimes also the duty, to demonstrate to sacred Pastors their thoughts on what concerns the good of the Church and to make it known to the other faithful ... " [13]

4) The Supreme Pontiff and his infallibility in sound Catholic doctrine.

a) The Church, its unity and its members.

Speaking of the unity of the Church, the Roman Catechism states: “The first property mentioned in the Symbol of the Fathers (Nicéni) is unity. It is written: One is my dove, one is my beautiful (Ct 6,8). Such a great multitude of men, spread everywhere, is called one for the reasons listed by the Apostle to the Ephesians; One is the Lord, one is faith, one is Baptism (Ep 4,5). One is also its head and moderator: the invisible one is Christ St. N., that the Eternal Father has made his mystical body head of the whole Church (Ep 1,22); and the visible one who sits on the throne of Rome as the legitimate successor of Peter, prince of the Apostles. The consensus of the Fathers was unanimous in considering this visible head necessary to build and preserve the unity of the Church. St. Jerome saw it clearly and wrote about it in these terms against Jupiter: Only one is elected so that, once the head is established, every occasion of schism is removed (1 Contr. Giovinian. I, 26). And to Damasus: Silence the envy, withdraw the ambition of the Roman dignity; I speak with the successor of the Fisherman, with the disciple of the cross. I follow none other than Christ as the first leader: but I unite myself in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the chair of Peter, knowing that the Church was built on this rock. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is a stranger; whoever does not stay in Noah's ark will perish in the waters of the flood (Ep 15,2). Long ago Irenaeus (Against heresies 3,3) and Cyprian had said the same thing. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church, writes: The Lord says to Peter: I, O Peter, say to you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. Build the Church upon one only; and, although she attributes to all the apostles, after the resurrection, equal power and says: as the Father has sent me, so I send you; receive the Holy Spirit; also, wishing to make the unity manifest, he arranged with his authority that the origin of said unity should derive from one only (Cipr. Unity of the Church, 4). Ottato di Milevi writes: You cannot excuse your ignorance, knowing well that in Rome, Peter was the first to be given the episcopal chair on which the head of all the Apostles sat, so that all would preserve in him only the unity of the see. , and the individual apostles did not extoll each their own. Therefore it is schismatic and prevaricator who places another against this one chair (Ottato, Schisma Donat. 2,2). St. Basil also writes: Peter was placed in the foundation. He had said: You are the Christ son of the living God; and in return he had heard that he must be the stone; but not in the same way as Christ. Christ is the truly immobile stone; Peter is immobile by virtue of that. Jesus gives his dignity to others; he is a priest and is priests; he is stone and constitutes the stone: thus he gives his servants his things (Basil. Vegetable gardens. (false ascribed) Of the penit. n. 4). Finally, Saint Ambrose affirms: Peter is placed before everyone, because he confesses only among all (the divinity of Christ) (In Lk 10,175). If one objects that the Church, pays for the one head and husband Jesus Christ, does not have to look for another, the answer is ready. Jesus Christ is not only the author but also the interior minister of the individual sacraments; because it is he who baptizes and absolves; yet he has instituted men as external ministers of the sacraments. Therefore he has appointed to the Church, which he holds with his intimate breath, a man as vicar and minister of his power. A visible Church needs a visible head: therefore our Savior, giving Peter, with solemn words, the task of shepherding his sheep, made him head and shepherd of the great family of the faithful; in the sense that his successor had the same power to govern and govern the whole Church. Moreover, the Apostle writes to the Corinthians, one and the same is the spirit that infuses grace on the faithful, as the soul gives life to the members of the body (1Co 12,11:XNUMX). And, inviting those of Ephesus to maintain this unity, he writes: Be anxious to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one spirit (Ep 4,3-4). As the human body is made up of many members, all enlivened by a single soul that gives sight to the eyes, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses their respective virtues, so the mystical body of Christ, the Church, is made up of many faithful. There is also only hope, as the Apostle testifies there, to which we have been called, since we all hope for the same thing: eternal and blessed life. Finally, one is the faith that all must receive and profess. [14]

The Catechism of St. Pius X equally speaking of the Church affirms: “151. Do you say clearly what it takes to be a member of the Church? To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the doctrine of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same sacraments, to recognize the Pope and other legitimate pastors of the Church. 152. Who are the legitimate Pastors of the Church? The legitimate Pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is the universal Pastor, and the Bishops. Furthermore, under the dependence of the Bishops and the Pope, the other priests and especially the parish priests have part in the office of pastors. 153. Why do you say that the Roman Pontiff is the universal Pastor of the Church? Because Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, the first Pope: "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and all that you bind on earth will also be bound in heaven, and everything you melt on earth will also be melted in heaven ». And he said to him again: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep". " ("Major Catechism of St. Pius X" n. 151 ff.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, speaking of the members of the Church, takes up the Code of Canon Law which in n. 204 affirms: "The faithful are those who, having been incorporated into Christ through Baptism, are constituted the people of God and therefore, made sharers in their own way in the priestly, prophetic and royal function of Christ, are called to carry out, according to a condition proper to each one, the mission that God has entrusted to the Church to carry out in the world ”While in n. 208 of the same Code we read "Among all the faithful, by virtue of their regeneration in Christ, there exists a true equality in dignity and in acting". Therefore, among all the faithful there is true equality in dignity and in acting but on the other hand there are also clear differences in fact, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in n. 873: "The very differences that the Lord wanted to establish between the members of his body are in function of his unity and of his mission." As the Apostolicam Actuositatem explains in fact: “… in the Church there is a diversity of ministries, but unity of mission. The Apostles and their successors had the office of Christ to teach, sanctify, rule in his name and with his authority. But the laity, made sharers in the priestly, prophetic and royal office of Christ, carry out their own tasks in the Church and in the world in the mission of the whole people of God ”. [15]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies in n. 874: “Christ himself is the origin of the ministry in the Church. He instituted it, gave it authority and mission, orientation and purpose "

And at n. 879 the same Catechism states: “… the sacramental ministry in the Church is a service exercised in the name of Christ. It has a personal character and a collegial form. ... "

In the Major Catechism of St. Pius X in a similar way, pointing out the diversity willed by Christ among the members of the Church and therefore the ministeriality with regard to the teaching of the Truth, states:

"180. Is there any distinction between the members who make up the Church? Among the members who make up the Church there is a very notable distinction, because there are those who command and those who obey, those who teach and those who are taught.

  1. What is the name of that part of the Church that teaches? The part of the Church that teaches is called the teacher or teacher.
  2. The part of the church that is taught what is it called? The part of the Church that is taught is called the learner.
  3. Who established this distinction in the Church? This distinction in the Church 1 'established Jesus Christ himself.
  4. Are the teaching Church and the learning Church therefore two distinct Churches? The teaching Church and the learning Church are two distinct parts of one and the same Church as in the human body the head is distinct from the other members and yet forms one body with them.
  5. Who is the teaching Church made up of? The teaching Church is made up of all the Bishops headed by the Roman Pontiff, whether they are dispersed or congregated in a Council. "

Among the ministries desired by Christ, therefore, that of the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Christ.

b) Origin and purpose of the papal primacy.

In Matthew's Gospel we read: "Simon Peter replied:" You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. " And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for neither flesh nor blood have revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you: you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and the powers of the underworld will not prevail over it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: everything you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and everything you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. " Then he ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. "(Matthew 16)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies on the basis of this text, interpreted in the light of Tradition, that: “Of Simon alone, to whom he gave the name of Peter, the Lord made the stone of his Church. He entrusted the keys to him; (Cf Mt 16,18: 19-881.) "(" Catechism of the Catholic Church "n.XNUMX)

Simon, to whom the Lord put the name of Peter (Greek Πέτρος) or Cephas (Gr. Kηϕᾶς, from the Aramaic rock) is precisely: the rock on which Christ wanted his Church (cf. Mt 16,18:XNUMX)

In John's Gospel we read: "When they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter:" Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? ". He replied: "Sure, Lord, you know I love you." He said to him: "Feed my lambs." 16 He said again, the second time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He replied: "Sure, Lord, you know I love you." He said to him: "Graze my sheep." 17 he said to him a third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was saddened that for the third time he asked him: “Do you love me?”, And he said to him: “Lord, you know everything; you know I love you ". Jesus replied, "Feed my sheep." (Jn. 21)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies on the basis of this text, interpreted in the light of Tradition, that Jesus constituted Peter "... shepherd of the whole flock. (Cf. Jn 21,15: 17-881)". (Catechism of the Catholic Church XNUMX)

In Luke 6, 13ff we read: “When it was day, he called his disciples to himself and chose twelve, to whom he also gave the name of apostles: Simon, to whom he also gave the name of Peter; Andrea, his brother; Giacomo, Giovanni, Filippo, Bartolomeo, Matteo, Tommaso; Giacomo, son of Alfeo; Simone, called Zelota; Judas, son of James; and Judas Iscariot, who became the traitor. "

In Matthew's Gospel we read again: “The names of the twelve apostles are: first, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James, son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Filippo and Bartolomeo; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; Giacomo, son of Alfeo, and Taddeo; 4 Simon the Canaanite and Judas the Iscariot, who later betrayed him. "(Mt 10)

As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explains, these passages of the Gospels, interpreted in the light of Tradition, are endowed with great witnessing power, in fact these lists and: "... other Gospel passages (Cf. Mt 14,28: 31-16,16; 23 -19,27 and par .; 29-26,33 and par .; 35-22,32 and par .; Lk 1,42; Jn 6,67; 70-13,36; 38-21,15; 19- XNUMX) show with clarity and simplicity that the New Testament canon has received the words of Christ relating to Peter and his role in the group of the Twelve. " [16]

The testimony of the ministry of St. Peter in the Church clearly emerges from the whole New Testament, interpreted in the light of Tradition. [17]

In Ut Unum Sint s. John Paul II, developing a reading of the Bible in the light of Tradition, affirms that in the New Testament, the person of Peter has a place of special importance; the Polish Pope shows, therefore, more precisely how this position, alongside the evident weaknesses of the Apostle, emerges in the Acts of the Apostles, in the Gospel of Matthew, in that of Luke, in the letters of St. Paul and in the Johannine writings[18]

Already in the first Christian communities, Peter appears as the Apostle who was expressly constituted by Christ in the first place among the Twelve and who from Christ received his own and specific apical function in the Church.[19]

As Cipriani writes precisely regarding the first Christian communities and the exercise of papal primacy in them: “The first and explicit claims of primacy do not begin to emerge until the end of the first and during the second century. There are two most significant documents in this regard: the letter of Clement Roman to the Corinthians and the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans. … The position of pre-eminence of the Roman church in the second century. it is also testified by the large number of Christians, Orthodox and heretics, who flock there ... The pre-eminence of the church of Rome in the second century. … Appears linked not so much to political factors, as to the memory of the residence, teaching and martyrdom of Peter and Paul in the city. … Even without speaking of primacy, Irenaeus and Tertullian had indicated the sure way in the Roman church, to ascertain the authentic apostolic tradition and guarantee communion between the churches. …. From the fourth century. we are witnessing a great development of the doctrine of primacy in the West, to an extent unknown in Africa and even more so in the East. " [20]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirms in this line that “4. Based on the testimony of the New Testament, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church ... this succession explains the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome, (Cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epist. ad Romanos, Intr .: SChr 10, 106-107; St. Irenaeus of Antioch, Adversus haereses, III, 3, 2: SChr 211, 32-33) also enriched by the preaching and martyrdom of St. Paul."[21]

The Petrine Primacy is therefore a: "... office by the Lord granted individually to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors." [22]

On the theme of the Papal Primacy in the first millennium, the Joint Coordination Committee for theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has published a text that points out both the importance of the Bishop of Rome in those times and some doctrinal conflicts that arose. between the Pope and some Bishops, including s. Cyprian of Carthage [23]

Why did Christ want the Petrine Primacy?

The end for which Christ wanted the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is very well specified in these terms: "the unity of faith and communion" of all believers in Christ.[24] Lumen Gentium explains that the Pope: "... is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of both the Bishops and the multitude of the faithful"[25] ... and that: "... the Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the whole Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the Church, which he can always exercise freely"  [26]

Precisely as chosen by Christ to keep the Church in unity, the Pope has a special grace from God to carry out this mission of his. [27]

It should be noted that: "... when the Catholic Church affirms that the function of the Bishop of Rome responds to the will of Christ, it does not separate this function from the mission entrusted to all the Bishops, also" vicars and legates of Christ ""[28]

Christ constituted the Twelve Apostles: ".. in the form of a college or a stable group, of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them, at the head".[29].

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith therefore specified that: "The Episcopate and the Primacy, mutually connected and inseparable, are of divine institution."[30]

The Episcopate and the Primacy according to the foundational will are understood as deeply united and in profound harmony [31]; the Pope 's activity must be carried out in profound communion with the Bishops: "95. However, all this must always be done in communion. When the Catholic Church affirms that the function of the Bishop of Rome responds to the will of Christ, it does not separate this function from the mission entrusted to all the Bishops, also "vicars and delegates of Christ"[32]. The Bishop of Rome belongs to their "college" and they are his brothers in the ministry. "[33]

In this unity and harmony, the College of Bishops: "... has no authority, however, if it is not conceived as united with the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, as its head, and without prejudice to his power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful . In fact the Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, that is, of Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the whole Church, has full, supreme and universal power over it, which he can always exercise freely. On the other hand, the order of bishops, which succeeds the college of apostles in the magisterium and in the pastoral government, indeed, in which the apostolic body is perpetuated, is also together with its head the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head, the subject of a supreme and full power over the whole Church [63] although this power cannot be exercised except with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. "[34].

In this unity and harmony, although all the Bishops are subject to the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum (2 Cor 11,28.), That is, to concern for all the Churches[35], the Pope is especially the subject of this concern: "In the case of the Bishop of Rome ... the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum acquires a particular strength because it is accompanied by full and supreme power in the Church: a truly episcopal power, not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, above all, both pastors and other faithful. (Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor aeternus", chapter 3: Denz-Hün, nn. 3060.3064; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 22 .) ... This interiority of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome to each particular Church is also an expression of the mutual interiority between the universal Church and the particular Church. (Cf. Congr. For the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis Notio, n. 13) "[36]

c) Exercise of the Petrine Primacy in the various spheres: teaching, sanctification, government.

In Ut Unum Sint we read that the: "... lesson of the Gospel must be constantly reread, so that the exercise of the Petrine ministry loses nothing of its authenticity and transparency." [37] In this line, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirms that the Petrine ministry is rightly understood in the light of the Gospel, as deeply inserted in the saving mystery of Christ for the edification and unification of believers in him, that is, of the Church.[38] The Pope must work for the edification of the Church in the charity and Truth of Christ and not to spread adultery, homosexual practice and the like, of course!

As s. John Paul II: the mission of the Bishop of Rome in the group of all Pastors consists in watching (episkopein) as a sentinel, so that the true voice of Christ who is the Pastor is heard throughout the Church and the Church is one in Christ Truth; more precisely: “With the power and authority without which this function would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches. In this capacity, he is the first among the servants of unity. This primacy is exercised at various levels, which concern the vigilance over the transmission of the Word, the sacramental and liturgical celebration, the mission, the discipline and the Christian life. " [39]

Obviously this communion is, I stress, in charity, in faith and not in perversions ... not in errors.

It belongs to the Successor of Peter the task of remembering and asserting the demands of the common good of the Church; he has the duty to assert the Truth of Christ and therefore can and in some cases absolutely must warn, correct, warn, judge, condemn, he can and in some cases must declare some opinions irreconcilable with the unity of faith that they spread. When circumstances require it, he can and in certain cases must speak in the name of all the Pastors who are in communion with him and in this line he can infallibly declare a doctrine as belonging to the deposit of faith. By bearing witness to the Truth of Christ and making it observed, the Pope serves the unity of the Church in Christ; a Pope who opposes the Truth opposes the unity of the Church and opposes Christ![40]

The Pope must act so that in each of the particular Churches entrusted to the bishops the una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia in Cristo Truth is realized. In the full and visible communion of all Pastors with the Pope in Truth, the Churches are in communion with each other and with Christ. The Pope, heir and continuer of Peter's mission, exercises a ministry that has its origin in the multiform mercy of God and is all for the service of God's merciful plan. His power is explained in the light of this mercy and service. . The Pope must not exercise power over the people as the leaders of nations and the great of the world do (cf. Mt 20,25; Mk 10,42) - but he must guide souls so that they can head towards peaceful pastures and towards salvation. eternal. This office can demand the offering of one's life (cf. Jn 10,11: 18-XNUMX) that is, it can demand suffering, death, martyrdom. [41]

The office of teaching, the office of sanctifying and the office of governing belong to the Bishops and in particular to the Pope.

On the basis of the Lord's command: "Go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature" (Mk 16,15:XNUMX) it must be said that the Bishops, and above all the Pope, with the priests, "have first of all the duty to announce to all the Gospel of God "[42]  … Obviously the true Gospel!

The Bishops, and above all the Pope, are and must be: “… the heralds of the faith who bring new disciples to Christ; they are authentic doctors, that is, clothed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people entrusted to them the faith to be believed and applied in the practice of life, they illustrate it in the light of the Holy Spirit, drawing new and old things out of the treasure of Revelation (cf. . Mt 13,52), they make it bear fruit and keep watch to keep away from their flock the errors that threaten it (cf. 2 Tim 4,1: 4-XNUMX). "[43]

More precisely and analytically, with regard to the Pope, it must be said that: “The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, considered his episcopal character, is expressed, first of all, in the transmission of the Word of God; therefore it includes a specific and particular responsibility in the evangelizing mission… The episcopal task that the Roman Pontiff has with regard to the transmission of the Word of God also extends within the whole Church. As such, it is a supreme magisterial office ... which also implies, in certain cases, the prerogative of infallibility. (Cf.ibidem: Denz-Hün, nn. 3073-3074; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 25; CIC can. 749 § 1; CCEO can. 597 § 1 .) " [44]

The Pope therefore has a mission which extends to the whole Church and which is expressed above all in the transmission of the word of God, includes a specific responsibility in the evangelizing mission, is a supreme office of the magisterium which in some cases, not always, involves the infallibility.

Through the office of teaching, the Pastors, especially the Pope, must work and ensure that the people of God remain in the Truth that liberates and sanctifies and precisely: "To carry out this service, Christ has endowed the Pastors with the charism of infallibility in matter of faith and customs. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 890) The Catechism of the Catholic Church itself specifies that the exercise of this charism of infallibility with which Christ has endowed the Church can have several modalities (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 891).

As we read in Lumen Gentium: "The Roman Pontiff, head of the College of Bishops, benefits from this infallibility by virtue of his office, when, as supreme Pastor and Doctor of all the faithful, who confirms his brothers in the faith, proclaims with a definitive act a doctrine concerning faith or morals. [...] The infallibility promised to the Church also resides in the Episcopal Body, when the latter exercises the supreme Magisterium with the Successor of Peter " [45]In Lumen Gentium itself we also read: "... the bishops ... when, however, even scattered throughout the world, but maintaining the bond of communion between them and with the successor of Peter, they agree to teach authentically that a doctrine concerning faith and morals is it imposes in an absolute way, then they infallibly express the doctrine of Christ… The thing is even more evident when, gathered in an ecumenical council, they are doctors and judges of faith and morals for the whole Church; then it is necessary to adhere to their definitions with the respect of faith. "[46]

The infallibility of which we speak: "... which the divine Redeemer wanted his Church to provide in defining the doctrine of faith and morals, extends as much as the deposit of divine Revelation ..."[47]

We will return later to talk about the infallibility enjoyed by the Pope in particular and we will specify the various levels of infallible sentences issued by the Pastors of the Church, we will also examine the remaining non-infallible Magisterium.

Now it seems interesting to me to note with Cardinal Müller that: ““ The doctrinal and pastoral authority of the Pope does not derive from the specific personality of the holder of the throne of Peter. We see this with the fisherman Simon that Christ made Peter but by virtue of his divine mission. His power, which requires the obedience of all Catholic faithful, consists exclusively in making manifest what the heavenly Father has revealed to him: that is to say that Jesus is not just any prophet or moral model, but the Son of God ( Mt 16,16). " (…) “The apostles and their successor teach only what Jesus taught them (Mt 28,20:25). Blind obedience to people, like the worship of the person towards the Fuhrer in totalitarian systems, is the opposite of the obedience of religion as a component of the supernatural faith that directly addresses God, who does not deceive and cannot deceive (Lumen Gentium, XNUMX). " [48]

As regards the office of governing: "The bishops govern the particular Churches entrusted to them as vicars and legates of Christ ... with advice, persuasion, example, but also with the authority and sacred power, of which however they are used only to build up one's flock in truth and holiness, remembering that whoever is greatest must act as the least, and whoever is the head, as whoever serves (cf. Lk 22,26: 27-XNUMX).  [49]

In particular, the office of government belongs to the Pope.

The exercise of the power of government of the Bishops is subject to the Pope. The ordinary and immediate authority of the Pope over the whole Church does not nullify that of the Bishops. Bishops must not be considered as vicars of the Pope, the power they exercise in the name of Christ is proper, ordinary and immediate, but their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope (cf. Catholic Church no. 895)

From the height of his primatial position, the Pope can place all the acts of ecclesiastical government that he deems appropriate for the promotion and defense of the unity of faith and communion and no one must juridically answer for the exercise of his ministry, but this: "... it does not mean that the Pope has absolute power. "[50]

It should be noted well: the Pope does not have to juridically answer to anyone for the exercise of his ministry but he does not have absolute power. We will already see at the end of this paragraph the limits within which the exercise of papal power must remain.

As regards the office of sanctifying: it must be said that the bishop, awarded the fullness of the sacrament of orders, and in particular the Pope, is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood" [Oration of episcopal consecration in the Byzantine rite: Euchologion to mega, Romae 1873, p. 139.], especially in the Eucharist; more generally the bishops, and in particular the Pope, with the example of their life, with their prayer and service for the people, in various forms, must be instruments by which the fullness of Christ's holiness can be abundantly poured out in souls : with the ministry of the word, in particular, the Bishops and above all the Pope, must communicate the power of the Truth for the salvation of believers and for their sanctification; with the sacraments, the regular and fruitful distribution of which is regulated precisely by the Bishops, they must sanctify the faithful.[51]

In the decree Christus Dominus we read: “15. In exercising their ministry of sanctification, bishops should remember well that they have been chosen from among men and that they have been invested with their dignity for men in all that refers to God, so that they may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. . ... The bishops ... are the main dispensers of the mysteries of God and at the same time organizers, promoters and guardians of the liturgical life in the Church entrusted to them ... they should make every effort, so that all those who are entrusted to their care may agree in prayer (cf. Acts 1,14 and 2,46.) And so that, by receiving the sacraments, they grow in grace and be faithful witnesses of the Lord. In their capacity as teachers of perfection they should try to make their priests, religious and laity advance in the way of holiness, according to the particular vocation of each one ... nevertheless they should remember that they are obliged to give them as the first example of holiness, in charity, in humility and in the simplicity of life. May the Churches entrusted to them lead to such a point of holiness that the sentiments of the universal Church of Christ are fully manifested in them. "[52] What we have just read obviously applies in a particular way to the Supreme Pontiff ...

The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the center and source of ecclesial communion, in it the unity of the Church at whose service the Pope is placed in a particular way with his ministry is manifested in a supreme way.[53]

I conclude by specifying that, as mentioned, the Pope does not have absolute power; the papal ministry, in fact, is subject to very specific limits:

“The Roman Pontiff is - like all the faithful - subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith and is the guarantor of the obedience of the Church and, in this sense, servus servorum. He does not decide according to his own will, but gives voice to the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in Scripture lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkopè of the Primacy has the limits that proceed from the divine law and from the inviolable divine constitution of the Church contained in the Revelation. (Cf. Collective declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hün, n. 3114.) " [54]

We will see these limits better later, especially in relation to the Pope's teaching ministry.

Christ reign!

d) Infallibility of the Church and of the papal Magisterium

God enlighten us better and better.

Let's say first of all that God wanted the Revelation made by him to remain forever in its completeness: "In his immense goodness God arranged for the Revelation, made by him for the salvation of all peoples, to remain forever in its entirety".[55]

In this line, God, absolutely infallible, wanted to give his people to participate in their infallibility with regard to faith and morals: “… it occurs precisely when all the People of God believe without uncertainty some doctrinal point relating to such things; again, she is in permanent dependence on the Holy Spirit who, with wise providence and with the anointing of her grace, guides the Church to the whole truth, up to the glorious coming of her Lord.[56]

Therefore the Church participates in divine infallibility in what pertains to faith and morals and this infallibility extends: "... not only to the deposit of faith, but also to all that is necessary so that it can be guarded or exposed as it should be.[57]

Let us ask ourselves: what is the deposit of faith? The answer comes from Dei Verbum: "Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture constitute a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church ..."[58]

Therefore the deposit includes the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition and infallibility extends to this deposit and to all that is necessary for it to be kept or exposed as it should.

Having received the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Jn 2, 20 and 27) the universality of the faithful has such infallibility, which concerns faith and morals [59] and which extends to Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition and to all that is necessary for them to be kept or exposed as it should.

Precisely the Holy Spirit gives the People of God true faith "... transmitted to believers once and for all" (Jude 3) and guides them, especially through the sacred Magisterium, to penetrate it ever more deeply and to apply it ever better to life . [60]

Therefore, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and more generally of the Trinity: "The perception of the realities and of the words transmitted grows, both through the reflection and study of believers who meditate on them in their hearts (cf. Luke 2, 19 and 51), both through the interiorly experienced intelligence of spiritual realities, and through the preaching of those who, with the episcopal succession, have received a sure charism of truth ”.[61]

Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium works to keep the faithful in the Truth and this work is not limited to ratifying those truths that the People of God already accept but can also consist in spreading interpretations and explanations of the deposit of faith to which the People of God still does not expressly allow. Further, the work of the Magisterium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, may consist in requiring the People of God to accept these interpretations and explanations of the deposit of faith which the People of God still does not expressly allow.

The work of the Holy Spirit who through the Magisterium keeps the People of God in the unity of faith is particularly necessary when disputes and dissensions arise regarding what is to be believed or held. [62]

Pastors must therefore be guided by the Holy Spirit and precisely in the light of divine Truth they must guide the faithful in following Christ the Truth and in this guide they can prevent and require the consent of the faithful with regard to matters of faith and morals. By divine institution, in fact, as seen above the Bishops: “… they are the heralds of the faith who bring new disciples to Christ; they are authentic doctors, that is, clothed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people entrusted to them the faith to be believed and applied in the practice of life, they illustrate it in the light of the Holy Spirit, drawing new and old things out of the treasure of Revelation (cf. . Mt 13,52), they make it bear fruit and keep watch to keep away from their flock the errors that threaten it (cf. 2 Tim 4,1: 4-XNUMX). "[63]  The Bishops precisely as heralds of the Gospel have been endowed by the Trinity with a particular participation in divine infallibility through a charism of infallibility in their Magisterium as regards faith and morals.[64]

I emphasize that this charism was not promised to the Bishops and to the successors of Peter to reveal, with their inspiration, a new doctrine, but to scrupulously guard and to make known the deposit of faith.

As we read in Pastor Aeternus: “The Roman Pontiffs themselves… defined that what, with God's help, they had recognized as conforming to the Sacred Scriptures and to the Apostolic traditions, had to be maintained. Indeed, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter to reveal, with his inspiration, a new doctrine, but to safeguard with care and to make known faithfully, with his assistance, the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the deposit of faith. ".[65]

Therefore this charism of infallibility, which is a gift of God, is strictly dependent, according to the divine will, on the deposit of faith and does not come from new revelations, which would be gratified by the Successor of Peter and the Episcopal College. [66]

Obviously this charism implies the commitment to scrutinize, under the guidance of God and with the use of appropriate means, the treasure of divine Revelation through which divine truth reaches us for our salvation.[67]

Let us ask ourselves now: when does this charism operate? The Pope, in particular, when is he infallible?

The answer is that the charism of infallibility operates in the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, as a famous text of dogmatic value says: "Therefore We ... with the approval of the sacred Council proclaim and define the dogma revealed by God that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he exercises his supreme office as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme Apostolic power he defines a doctrine about faith and morals, he binds the whole Church, for divine assistance to him promised in the person of Blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wanted his Church to be accompanied in defining the doctrine around faith and customs: therefore these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are immutable for themselves, and not for the consent of the Church. " [68]

The Pope is therefore infallible when he exercises his supreme office as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians and by virtue of his supreme Apostolic power defines a doctrine about faith and morals.

The Second Vatican Council echoes the dogmatic affirmations of the Vatican Council I just seen and affirms: "Therefore its definitions are rightly called irreformable by themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church, being pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit to he promised in the person of St. Peter, so they do not need the approval of others, nor do they admit any appeal to another judgment. "[69]

However, it is necessary to be very clear that: “… infallibility in matters of faith and morals is given only when a Pope proposes a revealed doctrine of faith to the faith of the whole Church. However, he cannot propose to the faith of the Church - as revealed to him - his personal life experiences, his subjective evaluations or certain philosophical or theological theories. Because the revelation in its constitutive reality ended definitively with the death of the last apostle. "[70]

It should also be noted that: “The Roman Pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the organisms of the Roman Curia and in particular of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as regards the doctrine on faith and morals. It follows that the documents of this Congregation expressly approved by the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter [Cf. CIC Can. 360-361; Paul VI, Const. Apost. Regimini Ecclesiae universae, 15 August 1967, AAS 59 (1967) 897-899; John Paul II, Const. Apost. Pastor Bonus, June 28, 1988, AAS 80 (1988) 873-874.]. "[71]

Bishops too enjoy the charism of infallibility when they exercise: “… the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. These definitions can never lack the assent of the Church, given the action of the Holy Spirit himself who preserves and makes the whole flock of Christ progress in the unity of faith [cf. the Gasser explanation to the Vatican Council I: Mansi 1214A.]. "[72]

More precisely, this charism of infallibility is implemented in the Bishops when, with or without collegial act, in communion of the Magisterium with the Pope, they definitively establish a sentence concerning faith or morals. [73]

In canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law we read: “Can. 750 - §1. By divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the written or handed down word of God, that is to say in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which together are proposed as divinely revealed, both by the solemn magisterium of the Church, and by its ordinary and universal magisterium, that is, that which is manifested by the common adhesion of the faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium; consequently all are bound to avoid any doctrine contrary to them.

It is also necessary to firmly accept and retain all and individual things that are definitively proposed by the Magisterium of the Church regarding faith and morals, that is, those that are required in order to keep holy and faithfully exhibit the same deposit of faith; Therefore, anyone who rejects the same propositions to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. "

Canon 752 states: "Not really an assent of faith, but a religious obedience of the intellect and will must be paid to the doctrine, which both the Supreme Pontiff and the College of Bishops proclaim about faith and customs, exercising the authentic magisterium , even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the faithful should try to avoid what does not agree with it. "

Then there are 2 levels of infallible sentences issued by the Pastors of the Church:

- a first level that concerns "those things which are contained in the written or handed down word of God, that is to say in the only deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which together are proposed as divinely revealed, both by the solemn magisterium of the Church, and from his ordinary and universal magisterium, that is, that which is manifested by the common adhesion of the faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium "(can. 750 I paragraph)

- a second level that concerns "the things that are definitively proposed by the Magisterium of the Church regarding faith and customs, that is, those that are required to keep holy and faithfully expose the same deposit of faith" (can. 750, second paragraph)

Then there is the remaining non-infallible Magisterium of Pastors which includes the doctrines which both the Supreme Pontiff and the College of Bishops proclaim about faith and customs, exercising the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act. (canon 752)

The doctrines proposed by the Pastors and pertaining to the first level of infallibility: “… involve the assent of theological faith on the part of all the faithful. For this reason, anyone who obstinately questioned or denied them would fall into the censure of heresy ... The doctrines proposed by the Pastors and pertaining to the second level of infallibility are sentences that must be considered as definitive ("sententiam tamquam definitive tenendam" Ecumenical Council. Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 25, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it .html) and can be defined either by the Pope in solemn form, by the Council or by the universal ordinary Magisterium of the Church: "Every believer, therefore, is required to give his firm and definitive assent to these truths ... Whoever denies them , would assume a position of refusal of the truth of Catholic doctrine (cf. John Paul II, Motu proprio Ad tuendam fidem, of 18 May 1998; cf. ibid., 9-13.) and therefore would no longer be in full communion with the Church catholic. " [75]

As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has rightly stated, the gift that God has given to the Church and for which she participates in divine infallibility must not be attenuated or eliminated: "All dogmas ... because they are revealed, must equally be believed by divine faith . (Réflexions et sugestions concernant le dialogue oecuménique, IV, 4 b, in Secrétariat pour l'Unité des Chrétiens: Service d 'Information, n. 12 (Dec. 1970, IV), p. 7 s.) "[76]Furthermore: the dogmatic formulas of the Magisterium of the Church were and remain suitable, although not to the same extent, for communicating revealed truth as long as it is correctly understood.[77]

Furthermore: “As for the very meaning of dogmatic formulas, it always remains true and coherent in the Church, even when it is better clarified and better understood. ... "[78]

Paul VI in the Mysterium fidei affirmed in this line that the dogmatic formulas: "... express concepts that ... present what the human mind perceives of reality in the universal and necessary experience: and yet these formulas are intelligible to men of all times and of all places. "[79]

Therefore these formulas can be known and explained better and better, paying attention, however, that as the knowledge and understanding of the faith grows, the truth of faith remains intact; therefore the meaning of these formulas should not be changed but must remain the same, explains s. Paul VI, in fact: "... Vatican Council I teaches that in sacred dogmas" we must always retain that meaning, which once and for all the Holy Mother Church declared and it is never permissible to depart from that meaning under the specious pretext of a more profound intelligence. "Cost. dogm. De fide catholica, c. 4) "[80]

According to the Catholic Magisterium: “The doctrine of the faith that God revealed is not proposed to human minds as a philosophical invention to be perfected, but has been handed over to the Bride of Christ as a divine deposit to keep it faithfully and teach it with infallible magisterium. Therefore that meaning of the sacred dogmas that the Holy Mother Church has declared must be approved in perpetuity, nor must one ever withdraw from that meaning under the pretext or with the appearances of a more complete intelligence. Therefore, along the course of the ages and centuries, may the intelligence and wisdom grow and vigorously progress, both of the centuries and of men, as of the whole Church, but in their own sector only, that is, in the same dogma, in the same meaning. , in the same statement [Vinc. Lir. Common., N. 28]. "[81] From the texts just cited it is evident that the meaning of the dogmas declared by the Church under the guidance of God is well determined and immutable. [82]

The Supreme Pontiff John XXIII, during the inauguration of the Second Vatican Council, stated: “What most of all interests the Council is that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be preserved and taught in a more effective way. … This certain and immutable doctrine, to which faithful obeisance is due, must be explored and expounded in the manner that our age requires. Indeed, the deposit of faith is one thing, that is, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, and the manner of their enunciation is another thing, but always in the same sense and meaning ".[83] The words of the Pope make it clear that, as mentioned above, the meaning of the dogmas declared by the Church under the guidance of God is well determined and immutable, in fact the Pope speaks of certain and immutable doctrine to be deepened more and more, to be made known in a convenient way. and to be stated in the same sense [84]

As regards the authentic non-infallible magisterium of which canon 752 speaks, it must be said that: "These teachings are in any case an authentic expression of the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require the religious respect of the will and of the 'intellect. (Cf. Vatican Ecumenical Council II, Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 25; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction "Donum Veritatis", n. 23: cf. . p. 10, n. 7.)… The proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified respectively as erroneous or, in the case of prudential teachings, as reckless or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest". (Cf. CIC cann. 752; 1371; CCEO, cann. 599; 1436 § 2) "[85]

In the "Donum Veritatis" Instruction, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith specified with regard to the non-infallible Magisterium that: "When the Magisterium, even without the intention of placing a" definitive "act, teaches a doctrine to help an deeper than Revelation and what makes its content explicit, or to recall the conformity of a doctrine with the truths of faith, or finally to warn against conceptions incompatible with these same truths, a religious respect of the will and of the intelligence [Cf. Const. dogm. "Lumen gentium", n. 25; CIC can. 752.]. "[86] This religious obedience to the will and the intelligence must be placed in the logic of faith and must be carried out under the impetus of the obedience of faith, as the Vatican instruction itself specifies.

Obviously this respect must be given as long as these doctrines remain, as mentioned, in the line of sound Catholic doctrine because if it becomes clear to the faithful that they are in contrast with the sound doctrine spread by Holy Scripture and Tradition, it ceases precisely under the pressure of faith. , the duty of obedience of the will and intelligence to these doctrines.

Further, in the same Instruction we read: "Finally the Magisterium ... can intervene on debated questions in which, together with firm principles, conjectural and contingent elements are involved ... the rule. However, it may happen that the theologian asks himself some questions… In this area of ​​interventions of a prudential nature, it has happened that magisterial documents were not without shortcomings. "[87]

Obviously this desire to respect must be implemented as long as these doctrines remain, as mentioned, in the line of sound Catholic doctrine because if it becomes clear to the faithful that they are in contrast with the sound doctrine spread by Holy Scripture and Tradition, it ceases precisely under the pressure of faith, the duty of obedience of the will and intelligence to these doctrines.

Where, therefore, we do not find ourselves in the field of infallibility in the Pope's teachings, it is usually necessary, under the guidance of faith, to welcome his words with respect for the will and intelligence to these doctrines, but if the Holy Spirit makes us understand that there are errors, obviously we must not follow those errors ... but the Truth!

St. Thomas Aquinas states in this line: “[The believer] must not give his assent to a prelate who sins against the faith (…). It is not entirely excused for ignorance, since the habitus of faith tends to reject such a preaching, as it teaches all that is necessary for salvation. Likewise, since one must not give credit too easily to any spirit, he will not have to assent when something unusual is preached, but instead he will need to inquire or simply put his faith in God, without trying to venture into the divine mysteries ".[88]

God always keep us in his Truth.

e) Clarifications on Tradition and its relationship with the papal Magisterium.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies in n. 76 that: "The transmission of the Gospel, according to the Lord's command, was done in two ways:

-Orally, ...

-In writing ... "

The transmission carried out "orally" is more specifically called Tradition, the transmission carried out in writing is instead Holy Scripture.

Dei Verbum specifies that the apostles: "... in oral preaching, with examples and institutions they transmitted both what they had received from the mouth of Christ living with him and watching him act, and what they had learned from the promptings of the Holy Spirit"[89] Through the writings of the New Testament and through Tradition, according to the command of the Lord Jesus, the work of spreading the whole Gospel has been carried out, therefore the apostles have commanded the faithful to remain firm in what through these writings and this Tradition they were taught; s. Paul states in this line: "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and keep the traditions you have learned both from our word and from our letter." (2 Thessalonians 2,15:XNUMX)

Furthermore, the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit chose successors who would continue their work of spreading the entire Gospel. " [90]

Dei Verbum also specifies that through Tradition the apostles passed on everything that contributes to the faith and holy life of the people of God; Tradition includes, in this line, the doctrine of the Church, her life and her worship, and through it the Church shows and "transmits to all generations all that it is, all that it believes."[91]

Tradition or Paradosis (παράδοσις) is therefore a reality of great importance for the Catholic Church "Catholic theology starts from the certainty of faith that the Paradosis of the Church, as well as the dogmas transmitted by it, are authentic affirmations of the truth which, in Ancient and New Testament, it was revealed by God. It also affirms that the revealed truth, transmitted in the Paradosis of the Church, is universally valid and immutable in its substance. "[92]

More precisely, the term Tradition comes from trado, and translates the Greek biblical term παράδοσις (paradosis) which means in particular transmission, tradition and which, with its derivatives, is found, in particular, in the New Testament (see for example Mt 15, 2-3. 6, Mk 7, 3 .5. 8. 9, Col 2, 8 etc)

In the text of 2 Thessalonians 2, 15, more precisely, it is stated: "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and keep the traditions that you have learned both from our word and from our letter", the Greek term translated with traditions is precisely παραδόσεις. In 1 Cor. 11, 2 we read: "I praise you because in all things you remember me and keep the traditions as I passed them on to you." The Greek term translated with traditions is παραδόσεις. In 1 Cor. 15, 3 s. Paul says he passed on (Παρέδωκα) the Truth he received. Above all we must quote this text by St. Paul “I, in fact, received from the Lord what I in turn transmitted to you” (1 Cor 11,23:XNUMX) because here we speak in a particular way of the Tradition received from the Lord.

In this line: "The apostles ... transmitting what they themselves had received, admonish the faithful to abide by the traditions they had learned both verbally and in writing (cf. 2 Thess 2,15:XNUMX), and to fight for that faith that was been transmitted to them once and for all ... " [93]

Tradition does not stop with the Apostles but continues with their successors and is defined as a living transmission, carried out under the guidance of the Trinity, of the Word of God, the Catechism therefore affirms: "This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, it is called Tradition, as it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, although it is closely linked to it. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church n.78)

One of the latest documents of the International Theological Commission states in this line: "Tradition is the faithful transmission of the Word of God, witnessed in the canon of Scripture by the prophets and apostles, and in the leiturgy (liturgy), martyria (testimony) and diakonia ( service) of the Church. "[94]

The Theological Commission also stated a few years ago: “Tradition (Paradosis) is ultimately nothing other than the communication that God the Father makes of himself through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, in view of an ever new presence in the community of the Church. From the very beginning this living Tradition in the Church assumes many different forms in particular traditions (traditiones). Its inexhaustible richness is manifested in a plurality of doctrines, songs, symbols, rites, disciplines and institutions. "[95]

More precisely, the communication that the Trinity makes of itself through Christ remains always present, through Tradition in the word of the Church and "... in her works, in her liturgy and in her prayer as well as in her whole life ..."[96]

The first Councils show that "the history of dogmas is the process of an uninterrupted and living interpretation of Tradition"[97]

The Second Council of Nicaea affirmed the doctrine of the Fathers according to which the Gospel is transmitted in the Paradosis, that is, in the Tradition of the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit.[98], The Council of Trent[99] defended this doctrine, the Vatican Council I (1869-1870) reaffirmed the doctrine of Trent[100] and, developing it, he recognized, in the footsteps of St. Vincenzo di Lerino, that there is progress in the Church in the understanding of the apostolic Tradition: "May the intelligence and wisdom, both of the centuries and of men and the whole Church, but in its own sector only, that is, in the same dogma, in the same meaning, in the same affirmation [Vinc. Lir. Common., N. 28] "[101]

The Second Vatican Council taught that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, there is in the Church a progress of the apostolic Tradition and thus the Church walks towards the fullness of Truth. The riches of this Tradition are widespread in the practice and life of the Church, the works of the Fathers indicate the presence of Tradition. [102]

In the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei (1988), Pope John Paul II spoke, along this line, of a living Tradition. [103]

Tradition is therefore not static and blocked but is alive and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Tradition and Sacred Scripture spring from God, and form one and the same thing between them ... "Both make the mystery of Christ present and fruitful in the Church ..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 80)

Sacred Scripture and Tradition constitute the sacred deposit of the Word of God.

Dei Verbum states at n. 10: "Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture constitute a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church" [104]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 84: "The deposit (Cf 1 Tm 6,20; 2 Tm 1,12-14) of the faith (" depositum fidei "), contained in sacred Tradition and in Sacred Scripture, was entrusted by the Apostles to the whole Church."

In adhering to this sacred deposit: "... all the holy people, united with their Shepherds, assiduously persevere in the teaching of the apostles and in fraternal communion, in the breaking of bread and in prayers (cf. Acts 2,42 gr.), so that, in retaining, practicing and professing the faith transmitted, a singular unity of spirit is established between pastors and faithful…. "[105]

The Church, therefore, draws certainty on all things revealed not only from Scripture but also from Tradition, therefore both must be accepted and venerated with an equal feeling of piety and reverence. [106]

The close link between the Bible and Tradition also emerges considering that: “The historical criticism of Scripture has been able to highlight that the Bible itself is ecclesial; it is rooted in the paradosis of the early Church, and the fixing of its canonical frontiers is an ecclesial process of decision. Thus exegesis leads us back to dogma and Tradition. "[107]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church al. 111, taking up the Dei Verbum, affirms that Scripture must be read and interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is its main author, Dei Verbum specifies in this regard that: "... sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit through which it was written [25], in order to obtain the exact meaning of the sacred texts, one must pay attention with no less diligence to the content and unity of all Scripture, taking due account of the living tradition of the whole Church and of the analogy of faith. "[108] … It is this same Spirit of Truth that, precisely to lead us to a correct biblical interpretation, also leads us to know what the hagiographers really wanted to say and God liked to manifest with their words.[109]

In an important speech to the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Benedict XVI affirmed that there are three valid criteria for an interpretation of Scripture in conformity with the Holy Spirit who is the main Author of it: "First of all, great attention must be paid to the content and unity of all Scripture ... Secondly, it is necessary to read Scripture in the context of the living tradition of the whole Church. … As a third criterion it is necessary to pay attention to the analogy of faith… To respect the coherence of the faith of the Church, the Catholic exegete must be careful to perceive the Word of God in these texts, within the very faith of the Church. … Furthermore, the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures… must always be compared, inserted and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is decisive for clarifying the correct and reciprocal relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church. ... there is an inseparable unity between Sacred Scripture and Tradition ...: "... Therefore both must be accepted and venerated with an equal feeling of piety and reverence" (Dei Verbum, 9). As we know, this word “pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia” was created by Saint Basil… It expresses precisely this inter-penetration between Scripture and Tradition. Only the ecclesial context allows Sacred Scripture to be understood as the authentic Word of God ... " [110]

There is therefore a profound inter-penetration between Scripture and Tradition. Only the ecclesial context allows Sacred Scripture to be understood as the authentic Word of God.

More broadly, it must be said that Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the communion of the Church are profoundly united with each other.[111]

In the liturgy the connection of Tradition with ecclesial communion is manifested in a particular way [112]

The Church is at the same time a place, a sign and an instrument of Tradition: “The Church is the sacrament, that is to say, at the same time, the place, sign and instrument of the Paradosis. It announces the Gospel of God's saving works (martyria); she transmits the confession of faith to those whom she baptizes…; she confesses her faith at the moment of the breaking of the bread and in prayer (leitourgia…); she serves Jesus Christ in the poor, the persecuted, the prisoners, the sick and the dying (diakonia […]). "[113]

In this line, with regard to the essential aspects of Tradition we read: “The lex orandi (the norm of prayer), the lex credendi (the norm of faith) and the lex vivendi (the norm of life) are all essential aspects of this Tradition. "[114]

The same document of the International Theological Commission specifies: "Vital components of Tradition are therefore: a constantly renewed study of Sacred Scripture, liturgical worship, attention to what witnesses of the faith have taught us throughout history, catechesis that nourishes growth in faith, practical love for God and neighbor, the structured ecclesial ministry and the service rendered by the Magisterium to the Word of God. "[115]

Fidelity to Tradition is obviously fundamental for the Church…: “Fidelity to the apostolic Tradition is a criterion of Catholic theology. This fidelity requires that the various testimonies and expressions of the apostolic Tradition still in progress be received in an active way and with discernment. It involves the study of Sacred Scripture, the liturgy and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as well as attention to the teaching of the Magisterium. "[116]

Tradition is therefore not static and blocked but is alive and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Obviously it is necessary to distinguish the living and true Tradition and its true progress from the errors that in the history of the Church have spread among the faithful also because of some Pastors ... The apostolic Tradition being preserved by the Holy Spirit is indefectible and incorruptible. [117]

Tradition must be distinguished from human traditions and the criteria for this discernment are:

1) the intrinsic coherence of the Tradition;

2) apostolicity;

3) catholicity;

4) lex orandi and lex credendi.[118]

The interpretation of Tradition is entrusted to the Church and in particular to the Bishops, especially the Pope, the authentic interpretation of Tradition belongs.[119]

The function of the Magisterium with regard to the interpretation of Tradition consists in stimulating, accompanying, directing and therefore ratifying and defining the process of interpretation in the Church so that this process is concluded and fixed by a declaration of the Ecclesiastical Authority and is binding. [120]

The function of the Magisterium includes, in the face of errors that endanger the faith and the eternal salvation of souls, the possibility of intervening, condemning and excommunicating.[121]

The function of the Magisterium with regard to the interpretation of Tradition must be carried out as a service to the Word of God, in fidelity to what has been transmitted: "The office of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or transmitted ..., is entrusted to to the living magisterium of the Church alone…, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This magisterium, however, is not superior to the word of God but serves it, teaching only what has been transmitted, insofar as, by divine mandate and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it piously listens, holy guards and faithfully expounds that word, and from this single deposit of faith he draws all that he proposes to believe as revealed by God. "[122]

This means that the Magisterium must interpret and not destroy or distort the deposit of faith.

In order for the interpretation of dogmas and the development of the doctrine to be carried out correctly and not be a distortion or destruction of the truth spread by Christ, St. JH Newman, a famous English theologian, offered seven principles: "

1) Preservation of the type ...

2) Continuity of principles ...

3) Power of assimilation ...

4) Logical consequence ...

5) Anticipation of the future ...

6) Preservative influence of the past ...

7) Lasting vigor ... "[123]

Christ reigns and his Light radiates powerfully in us.

5) The Pope is subject to divine law and bound by the order given by Jesus Christ to his Church; the Pope is at the service of the Word of God and not above it.

God enlighten us better and better.

We saw above that the Pope does not have absolute power.[124]

We said above that "The Roman Pontiff is - like all the faithful - subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith and is the guarantor of the obedience of the Church and, in this sense, servus servorum."[125]

We noted that the Pope must not decide according to his own will, but according to the will of the Lord, who speaks to man through Holy Scripture lived and interpreted by Tradition. Therefore the Pope's ministry has the limits that proceed from the law of God and from the inviolable divine constitution of the Church contained in the Revelation. [126]

On the other hand, the purpose of the Petrine Primacy is, as we have seen: the unity of faith and communion of all believers in Christ and for this reason the Pope has a special charism.[127] Obviously, the Pope must himself be the first to submit to the Word of God and to the Catholic faith in order to serve that unity of faith and communion which is necessary for the fulfillment of the Church's saving mission.

We also saw above that the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 85 that: "The office of authentically interpreting the Word of God written or transmitted has been entrusted only to the living Magisterium of the Church ..." but we specified that the: ".. Magisterium ... is not above the Word of God, but the it serves, teaching only what has been transmitted, insofar as, by divine mandate and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, he piously listens to it, holy guards it and faithfully exposes it, and from this unique deposit of faith he draws all that he proposes from believe as revealed by God ”. [128]

The Pope is therefore at the service of the Word of God; God speaks to man through Holy Scripture lived and interpreted by Tradition.

Pope Benedict XVI said: “The power conferred by Christ on Peter and his successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The power to teach in the Church implies a commitment in the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute sovereign, whose thinking and willing are law. On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but must constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to the Word of God, in the face of all attempts at adaptation and watering down, as in the face of all opportunism. "[129]. The Pope is and must be aware that, in his great decisions, he is linked to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations that have grown along the pilgrim path of the Church, that is, to the dogmas and definitive affirmations established by the Church in the course of the centuries. The power of the Pope does not lie above the Word of God but is at its service and the responsibility lies with him to ensure that this Word of God continues to remain present in its greatness and resonate in the purity of its Truth, thus that it is not torn apart by mistakes. The Chair is a symbol of teaching power, but this teaching must be carried out in profound obedience to the Truth that manifests itself in that Word so that this Truth may shine among us and show us the path to Heaven. [130]

In this line, the German Bishops affirmed: “The Pope is subject to divine law and bound by the order given by Jesus Christ to his Church. The Pope cannot modify the constitution that the Church has received from its Founder…. The Constitution of the Church rests its hinges on a foundation that comes from God and therefore cannot be at the mercy of human will…. As the Vatican Council expounded in clear and understandable words and and as the very nature of the thing manifests itself, infallibility is a property that refers only to the supreme Magisterium of the Pope; and this coincides precisely with the sphere of the infallible Magisterium of the Church in general and is linked to what is contained in Holy Scripture and in Tradition, as well as to the definitions already issued by the ecclesiastical Magisterium "[131]. I stress: the Pope is subject to divine law and bound by the order given by Jesus Christ to his Church… the Pope cannot modify the constitution that the Church has received from its Founder…. the Constitution of the Church rests its hinges on a foundation that comes from God and therefore cannot be at the mercy of human will; infallibility ... refers only to the supreme Magisterium of the Pope and this is linked to what is contained in Holy Scripture and in Tradition, as well as to the definitions already issued by the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

As s. John Paul II "8. The Roman Pontiff ... has the "sacra potestas" to teach the truth of the Gospel, administer the sacraments and pastorally govern the Church in the name and with the authority of Christ, but this power does not include in itself any power over the divine natural or positive law . Neither Scripture nor Tradition know a faculty of the Roman Pontiff for the dissolution of a ratified and consummated marriage; on the contrary, the constant practice of the Church demonstrates the sure awareness of Tradition that such a power does not exist. The strong expressions of the Roman Pontiffs are only the faithful echo and the authentic interpretation of the permanent conviction of the Church. " [132] Note: the Pope has no power over the natural or positive divine law! The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a text having the approval of the s. Pope John Paul II, said: "Faithful to the word of Jesus Christ (Mk 10,11: 12-1640:" Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; if the woman divorces her husband and marries him another, commits adultery ".), the Church affirms that it cannot recognize a new union as valid if the previous marriage was valid. ... the divorced have remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contrasts with the law of God and therefore cannot access the Eucharistic Communion, for as long as this situation persists ... the Church ... takes care to accompany them pastorally and to invite them to participate in ecclesial life to the extent that this is compatible with the provisions of divine law, over which the Church has no power of dispensation (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. XNUMX.) "[133]  …. the Magisterium must be faithful to Holy Scripture and to Tradition…. the Pope has no power over the natural or positive divine law!

A Pope who wanted to change the divine law, in particular, would be a heretic, as explained by St. Alfonso: "67 ... But we answer that there is no doubt that the Pope could be deposed by the council, when he had been declared a heretic, as he defined a doctrine opposed to divine law ..." [134]

God enlighten us better and better.

The Pope is at the service of the Word of God and enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit to interpret the Scripture and Tradition that are transmitted to him; the Pope, as Cardinal Müller said, “… is not, in reality, a Source of Faith. Revelation is not given to the living Magisterium of the Church in property, but is entrusted to it only to be explained in a binding way. The Pope enjoys only an assistance in Spiritus Sancti and not an illumination or inspiration from divine truth " [135]

I emphasize that the Pope is at the service of the Word of God, the Pope is not the source of faith.

The declaration Mysterium Fidei, of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, affirms in this line that the charism of infallibility of the Pastors: "... does not come from new revelations, which would be gratified by the Successor of Peter and the Episcopal College, (Conc. Vat I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor aeternus", chap. 4; Oec Council Decr. (3), p. 816 (Denz-Schön. 3070). Cf. Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution on Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 25, et Dogmatic Constitution on divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 4; Const. Decr. Decl., P. 141 et 426) dispenses from the commitment to scrutinize, with the use of appropriate means, the treasure of divine Revelation contained in the Sacred Books, which teach us intact the truth that God willed to be written in view of our salvation, (Cf. Conc. Vat. II: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, n. 11; Const. Decr. Decl., P. 434) and in the living Apostolic Tradition. (Cf. Ibid., N. 9 s .; Const. Decr. Decl. ., pp. 430-432)…. "[136]

The Pope, therefore, must scrutinize the treasure of Divine Revelation in order to interpret it and must not rely on revelations made to him or, much less, on his ideas or preferences.

The Magisterium must be faithful to Holy Scripture and to Tradition…. and therefore he has to teach only what has been passed on; therefore with the assistance of the Holy Spirit he must listen, keep and expose the Word of God, drawing from the sacred deposit constituted by Sacred Scripture and Tradition all that he proposes to believe as revealed by God.

Cardinal Müller said in this regard: “First of all, the Pope must remain in full agreement with revelation, as preserved and witnessed in the Holy Scriptures and in the apostolic tradition. Then he must also formally recognize all the dogmatic decisions of the councils and popes that preceded him. "[137]

The Cardinal himself then added: “Therefore infallibility in matters of faith and morals is given only when a Pope proposes a revealed doctrine of faith to the faith of the whole Church. However, he cannot propose to the faith of the Church - as revealed to him - his personal life experiences, his subjective evaluations or certain philosophical or theological theories. Because the revelation in its constitutive reality ended definitively with the death of the last apostle. "[138]

In the letter to the Galatians we read: “I am amazed that, so quickly, from him who called you with the grace of Christ you pass to another gospel. But there is no other, except that there are some who upset you and want to subvert the gospel of Christ. But even if we ourselves, or an angel from heaven proclaims a different gospel to you than the one we have announced, let it be anathema! We have already said it and now I repeat it: if anyone announces to you a gospel other than the one you have received, let him be anathema! "(Galatians 1, 6ff)

Not even the Pope can subvert the Gospel of Christ ... and indeed the Pope is called in a special way to keep this Gospel. The "deposit" of faith ("depositum fidei"), contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, was entrusted by the Apostles to the whole Church and the Magisterium is precisely at the service of the Word of God and must guard it and not deform it for the sake of true good of the Church.

a) It is necessary to distinguish well the true development of the doctrine from the alteration of it.

I emphasize that the Magisterium, as mentioned, is called to interpret Tradition and Scripture and that the Magisterium is not superior to Tradition or Scripture but therefore serves it the Magisterium must interpret and not destroy or distort the deposit of faith.

The words of s. Paul mentioned a little above are also valid for the Pastors and for the Pope.

St. Vincent of Lerins affirmed: “In the Catholic Church it is necessary to have the greatest care in keeping what has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone. This is truly and properly Catholic ... But this will certainly happen if we follow universality, antiquity, consensus.
We will follow universality in this way: if we confess as the true and only faith that which the whole Church professes throughout the world; (we will follow) antiquity in this way: if we do not at all withdraw from the judgments that our holy ancestors and fathers evidently proclaimed; (we will follow) the consensus likewise: if, in this very antiquity, we accept the definitions and doctrines of all, or almost all, the Bishops and Masters. "(my translation from Sancti Vincentii Lirinensis" Commonitorium "PL 50, 640 ).

The text of s. Vincent also adds that if a part of the Church moves away from the universal faith, it is necessary to prefer the health of the whole Church to some group that has become perverted; if heresy wants to infect the whole Church, the Christian must commit himself to adhering to the ancient doctrine which is unassailable by heresy; if it is discovered that in the past an error has been spread by a large group of people, the decrees of a universal council must be enforced against it; if a new opinion arises, never faced before by the scholars of the Church, it is necessary to remain firm in what was unanimously affirmed by all the true Fathers of the Church, approved by the same (cf. Sancti Vincentii Lirinensis “Commonitorium” PL 50, 640s).

Still affirms s. Vincenzo di Lerins that “Therefore, announcing to Catholic Christians something other than what they have received has never been lawful, it is absolutely not lawful and will never be lawful; and anathematizing those who announce something other than what was once received has always been necessary, it is absolutely necessary and will always be necessary "(my translation from Sancti Vincentii Lirinensis“ Commonitorium ”, PL 50, 649).

The same saint further explained that there will be progress in sound Catholic doctrine and will also be very great but we must nevertheless be careful that it is a true progress of the faith and not a change and therefore a deformation. As a child develops while remaining the same person, true progress occurs through internal development, "the genre of the doctrine, the doctrine itself, its meaning and its content must always remain the same."; the dogma of the Christian religion also progresses but must always remain absolutely intact and unaltered and, for true development, there must be no contradictions between the preceding and the following doctrine.[139]

The affirmations of St. Paolo and s. Vincenzo were taken from two fundamental documents of the ecclesiastical Magisterium: the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" of Pius IX and the dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius"

In the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" we read: "Christi enim Ecclesia, sedula depositorum apud se dogmatum custos et vindex, nihil in his umquam permutat, nihil minuit, nihil addit, sed omniindustria vetera fideliter sapienterque tractando si qua antiquitus informata sunt et Patrum fides , ita limare, expolire studet, ut prisca illa caelestis doctrinae dogmata accipiant evidentiam, lucem, distinctionem, sed retineant plenitudinem, integritatem, proprietatem, ac in its tantum genus crescant, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu eademque sententia. " [140]

Which means the following: "In fact, the Church of Christ, faithful guardian and guarantor of the dogmas entrusted to her, has never made changes to them, has not removed or added anything to them, but treated with all care, in a wise and wise way, the doctrines of the past to discover those that were formed in the early times and that the faith of the Fathers sowed, is concerned with filing and refining those ancient dogmas of Divine Revelation, so that they receive clarity, evidence and precision, but retain their fullness, their integrity and their specificity and develop only in their own nature, that is, in the context of dogma, keeping the concept and meaning unaltered. " [141]

In the Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" we read: "Neque enim fidei doctrina, quam Deus revelavit, velut philosophicum inventum proposita est humanis ingeniis perficienda, sed tamquam divinum depositum Christi Sponsae betrayed, fideliter custodienda et infallibiliter declaranda. Hinc sacrorum quoque dogmatum is sensus perpetuo est retinendus, quem semel declaravit sancta mater Ecclesia, nec umquam ab eo sensu altioris intelligentiae specie et nomine recedendum (can. 3). "Crescat igitur ... et multum vehementerque proficiat, tam singulorum quam omnium, tam unius hominis quam totius Ecclesiae, aetatum ac saeculorum gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia: sed in its dumtaxat genus, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu eadu".[142] Which in Italian is rendered with the following words: "The doctrine of the faith that God revealed is not proposed to human minds as a philosophical invention to be perfected, but has been delivered to the Bride of Christ as a divine deposit for him to faithfully guard and teach it. with infallible teaching. Therefore that meaning of the sacred dogmas that the Holy Mother Church has declared must be approved in perpetuity, nor must one ever withdraw from that meaning under the pretext or with the appearances of a more complete intelligence. Therefore, along the course of the ages and centuries, may the intelligence and wisdom grow and vigorously progress, both of the centuries and of men, as of the whole Church, but in their own sector only, that is, in the same dogma, in the same meaning. , in the same statement [Vinc. Lir. Common., N. 28]. "[143] The rule established by the First Vatican Council is also valid for the Pope: "that meaning of the sacred dogmas that the Holy Mother Church has declared must be approved in perpetuity, nor must one ever withdraw from that meaning under the pretext or with the appearances of a more complete intelligence. " ... indeed the Pope should give an example of the implementation of this rule ...

In line with these affirmations we remember that modernism with its errors has been condemned by the Church and the anti-modernist oath says, among other things: "Fourth: I sincerely welcome the doctrine of the faith transmitted to us by the apostles through the Orthodox fathers" in the same sense and always in the same content "; and for this I totally reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, which pass from one meaning to another, different from what the Church previously believed " [144].

The development of the doctrine implies that the faith remains substantially the same and that the doctrine must be understood "in the same sense and always in the same content" ... otherwise there is no development but a deformation and betrayal of the doctrine ...

The "Mysterium Ecclesiae" Declaration on Catholic doctrine on the Church to defend it from some errors of today published in 1973 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [145] reiterates what we are saying.

I emphasize that, as we saw above, to verify that the interpretation of dogmas and the development of doctrine is rightly fulfilled and is not a distortion or destruction of the truth spread by Christ, St. JH Newman, a famous English theologian, offered seven principles : "

1) Preservation of the type ...

2) Continuity of principles ...

3) Power of assimilation ...

4) Logical consequence ...

5) Anticipation of the future ...

6) Preservative influence of the past ...

7) Lasting vigor ... "[146]

The question we have examined is obviously of extreme importance considering also what s says. Thomas Aquinas: "Dicendum quod hoc pro firmo est tenendum, unam esse fidem antiquorum et modernorum: alias non esset una Ecclesia."(De veritate, q. 14, a. 12c). … It must be firmly maintained that the faith of the ancients and of the moderns is one, otherwise the Church would not be one. In order to always be one, the Church must profess only one faith; the unity of the Church implies the unity of faith.

Christ reigns and his Light radiates powerfully in us.

Christ reigns and gifts to his faithful to always remain in the truth ... and therefore also to his faithful to unmask and oppose the work of Pastors, especially Popes, who work for the distortion of sound doctrine. As we will see in the next paragraph, the history of the Church already knows various cases of Popes who have worked for the distortion of sound doctrine.

6) Errors of some Popes in history.

May God enlighten us particularly intensely in dealing with this difficult subject.

We have had various cases of serious errors by Popes with evident scandal, unfortunately, in the course of history.

Think first of all of the case of s. Peter mentioned in the letter to the Galatians of St. Paul: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him openly because he was wrong. In fact, before some came from James, he ate food together with the pagans; but, after their coming, he began to avoid them and to keep aloof, for fear of the circumcised. And the other Jews also imitated him in the simulation, so much so that even Barnabas allowed himself to be drawn into their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not behaving righteously according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all: "If you, who are a Jew, live like the pagans and not in the manner of the Jews, how can you compel the pagans to live in the manner of of the Jews? "" (Gal 2,11:XNUMX ff)

We note that already in the time of St. Augustine seemed to some impossible that the Pope s. Peter could have been wrong, as we can read in the episode narrated in Gal. 2, even s. Augustine had to defend the truth of the words of St. Paul set out in Gal. 2 with which Peter's error and the correction made by St. Paul [147] …. SO IT IS NOT STRANGE THAT EVEN TODAY TO SOME IT MAY SEEM IMPOSSIBLE AN ERROR OF THE POPE BUT THE HISTORY IS CLEAR IN STATING THAT THIS ERROR HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES… The error of s. Pietro was treated by various authors, s. Thomas in Super Gal., C. II l. 3, deals extensively with this passage from the letter to the Galatians and with the questions it poses.

The S. Doctor in particular affirms: “Ex praedictis ergo habemus exemplum: praelati quidem humilitatis, ut non dedignentur a minoribus et subditis corrigi; subditi vero exemplum zeli et libertatis, ut non vereantur praelatos corrigere, praesertim si crimen est publicum et in periculum multitudinis vergat. "(Super Gal., ch. 2 l. 3) The passage in question brings out some examples of Christian action: ai Shepherds St. Peter offers an example of humility that makes the subjects open to the correction implemented by the inferior, s. Paul offers an example of zeal and freedom to correct superiors in their errors, especially if the crime is public and becomes a danger of harm to souls.

Evidently yes. Peter was wrong, he behaved hypocritically and this caused a real scandal, therefore yes. Paul rightly corrected him in front of everyone; s. Thomas states: “Unde dicit dixi Cephae, id est, Petro, coram omnibus, quia simulatio illa in periculum omnium erat. Tim. V, 20: peccantem coram omnibus argue. Quod intelligendum est de peccatis manifestis, et non de occultis, in quibus debet servari ordo fraternae correctionis. " (Super Gal., C. 2 l. 3)

Manifest sins must be publicly corrected according to what St. himself says. Paul in 1 Tim. 5,20.

Think, then, of the case of Pope Honorius who was even condemned and anathemized by a Pope, Leo II, and therefore by other Popes and Ecumenical Councils, first of all by the III Council of Constantinople, after his death. [148], in the famous "History of the Church" directed by Jedin there is a lot of talk about Honorius' errors and his condemnation [149] On 9 August 681, at the end of the XVI session, of the III Council of Constantinople, the anathemas against all heretics and proponents of heresy were renewed, including Honorius with these statements: "Sergio haeretico anathema, Cyro haeretico anathema, Honorio haeretico anathema, Pyrro, haeretico anathema "(Mansi, XI, col. 622). [150]

Think, then, of Pope Liberius who succumbed to error by condemning and excommunicating St. Athanasius, a great supporter of the Nicene faith and signing a non-Nicene profession of faith… giving an evident scandal, albeit under the strong pressure of the emperor who had sent him into exile. [151]

As Simonetti points out: "L.'s failure is documented by four of his letters ... it is also confirmed by other sources (Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 89; Historia Arianorum 41; Girolamo, De viris illustribus 97)" [152]

St. Jerome practically states (De viris illustribus 97) that Liberius subscribed to the heresy ... Certainly Liberius gave in under the strong pressure of the emperor, this is clearly specified by s. Athanasius (Historia Arianorum 41) who points out that Liberius as long as he was fully free was on the side of Athanasius himself.

Think of the words with which St. Bruno di Segni defined: “… the treaty of Ponte Mammolo, signed by Pasquale II a 'heresy', recalling the determinations of many councils:“ Whoever defends heresy - he writes - is a heretic. Nobody can say that this is not a heresy "."[153] Let's see what had happened: "By yielding to the intimidation of the king, Pasquale II accepted a humiliating compromise, signed in Ponte Mammolo on 12 April 1111. The Pope granted Henry V the privilege of investiture of bishops ... The abbot of Montecassino, according to the Chronicon Cassinense (PL, vol. 173, col. 868 CD), he vigorously protested against what he called not a privileium, but a pravilegium, and promoted a movement of resistance to papal surrender. In a letter addressed to Peter, bishop of Porto, he defines the treaty of Ponte Mammolo a "heresy", recalling the determinations of many councils: "Whoever defends heresy - he writes - is a heretic. No one can say that this is not a heresy "(Letter Audivimus quod, in PL, vol. 165, col. 1139 B). …. Bruno invited the Pope to condemn heresy, because "whoever defends heresy is a heretic" (Letter Inimici mei, in PL, vol. 163, col. 463 AD). Pasquale II did not tolerate this dissenting voice and dismissed him as abbot of Montecassino. ... A few years later, in a council that met in the Lateran in March 1116, Pasquale II retracted the agreement of Ponte Mammolo. " [154]

For a meaningful study on the error of Pope Paschal II and on the opposition to it by St. Bruno and Vescovi and other saints see what A. Xavier da Silveira affirms in “Theological hypothesis of a heretical Pope” (Solfanelli 2016) on pp. 42ss.

Then think of Pope John XXII [155]. Regarding the error of the latter Pope, see the interesting article by prof. R. De Mattei appeared in 2015[156] and that of Christian Trottmann in Treccani's "Encyclopedia of Popes"[157] as well as what the famous "History of the Church" directed by Jedin states [158]. I think this statement reported in the article by prof. De Mattei "John XXII - wrote (blessed) Cardinal Schuster -" has grave responsibilities before the tribunal of history (...) ", because" he offered the whole Church the humiliating spectacle of princes, clergy and universities Pontiff on the right path of the Catholic theological tradition, putting him in the hard need to abandon himself "(Idelfonso Schuster osb, Jesus Christ in history. Lessons in ecclesiastical history, Benedictina Editrice, Rome 1996, pp. 116-117)."[159]

De Mattei writes: "Pope John XXII supported practically heretical claims." The case of John XXII and his error is very significant because it shows how the Pope condemned Fr. Although Waleys was right ... De Mattei writes: "The error according to which the beatific vision of the Divinity would be granted to souls not after the first judgment, but only after the resurrection of the flesh, was ancient, but in the 8th century it had been refuted by St. Thomas Aquinas, especially in the De veritate (q. 1 ad 12) and in the Summa Theologica (I, q. 1, a. 1270). When John XXII re-proposed this error, he was openly criticized by many theologians. Among those who intervened in the debate were Guillaume Durand de Saint Pourcain, bishop of Meaux (1334-1318), who accused the Pope of reproposing the heresies of the Cathars, the English Dominican Thomas Waleys (1349-1270), who for his resistance public suffered trial and imprisonment, the Franciscan Nicola da Lira (1349-1280) and Cardinal Jacques Fournier (1342-XNUMX), pontifical theologian, author of a treatise De statu animarum ante generale iudicium. " [160] However, I would like to point out that Fr. Waleys was not born in 1318, as R. De Mattei says, but he was born in 1287 and in 1318 he graduated in theology at Oxford [161], on January 17, 1332, he delivered a sermon from the pulpit of his Order in which he attacked the pontifical thesis[162]

In the famous "History of the Church" directed by Jedin [163] we read that John XXII scandalized the world with his sermons and the French ruler railed against these papal errors and threatened to act against him for heresy.

Other examples could be made of errors made by Popes in the line seen so far. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has admitted errors on the part of the Popes “In the history of the Papacy there has been no lack of human errors and even serious failings: Peter himself, in fact, acknowledged that he was a sinner (Cf. Lk 5,8.). Peter, a weak man, was chosen as a rock, precisely so that it was clear that the victory is Christ's only and not the result of human strength. The Lord wanted to carry his own treasure through time in fragile vessels (cf. 2 Cor 4,7.): Thus human frailty became a sign of the truth of divine promises and of God's mercy. (Cf. John Paul II, Lett . Enc. "Ut Unum Sint", of 25.5.1995, nn. 91-94.) "[164]

As can be clearly seen, faced with the errors of superiors, especially in the doctrinal field but also, in some cases, in the moral field, some subjects were not silent but effectively moved, the Holy Spirit who was in them could not tolerate that they and others with them let themselves be led on the path of error. The life of true Christians is guided above all by the Spirit of Truth who, precisely in the face of the errors of superiors, "arms" the inferiors in a holy way to lead back to the Truth those who make mistakes or at least to prevent their error from scandalizing others, the examples seen make it clear that this is true with regard to all superiors also with regard to the Pope. The Spirit of Truth does not tolerate that his faithful are estranged from the Truth not even by the Pope and in the face of his errors makes them strong and wise to correct him publicly, if the error is public and can harm souls, and to bring members of the Church back to the path of Truth.

7) The teaching of Tradition regarding the conduct to take when the Pope deviates from the faith; clarifications on the principle: "Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur".

St. Gregory the Great stated: “Subditi praelatos etiam malos tolerent, si salva fide possint… Igitur dum salva fide res agitur virtutis est meritum, si quidquid prioris est toleratur. Debet tamen humiliter suggested, fortasse valeat quod displicet emendari. " (St. Gregory the Great "Moralia in Iob" PL, LXXVI, col. 344-345) The subjects must tolerate even evil prelates, if they can do it without damaging the faith ...

Pope Adrian II stated that the Pope had never been judged except in the case of heresy, for heresy Pope Honorius had in fact been judged and condemned post-mortem, in fact, to inferiors, Pope Adrian continued, it is permissible to resist superiors in case of heresy and reject their wicked judgments.[165]

S. Roberto Bellarmino specified that it cannot be denied that Adrian II together with the Roman Synod and with the whole VIII General Council, Constantinopolitan IV, was of the opinion that in case of heresy the Pope could be judged. [166]

In this line, St. Isidore affirmed: “Si vero (quod absit) infidelis sit non manifeste, in nullo læditur obedientia nostra, nisi præceperit contra fidem. Praeterea pravis praelatis obediendum in jussionibus bonis Dominus præcipit, ubi lui dicit: Quod dicunt, facite, eorum prava opera præcipit evi tanda, cum subjungit: Quod autem faciunt, nolite facere (Matth. Xxiii, 5). In dubiis etiam præceptis, pravis prælatis obediendum est, quamdiu eos Ecclesia toleraverit, nisi ex manifesta prælati infamatione in præcepto juste possit hæresis suspicio come. De similibus quoque illaqueationibus idem videtur. In præceptis manifeste malis nullatenus est obediendum, etiam bonis prælatis, quia when Deus occultat majori quod revelat minor. "[167] So as s. Isidore: our obedience to the Pope, although he is not manifestly unfaithful, remains intact unless he commands against the faith; in doubtful precepts the prelates must be obeyed unless due to the evident ill reputation of the prelate, heresy can rightly be suspected in what he has been commanded; manifestly evil precepts should not be obeyed, even if they come from good prelates.

In Gratian's decree we read: “§ 4. Item Paulus Petrum reprehendit, qui princeps apostolorum erat. Unde datur intelligi, quod subditi possunt reprehendere praelatos suos di lui, si reprehensibiles fuerint. Sed hoc easy refellitur, si, unde lui sit reprehensus, advertitur. Petrus cogebat gentes iudaizare et a veritate euangelii recedere, cum Iudaeis gregem faciens, et a cibis gentilium latenter se subtrahens. Par autem est in se a fide exorbitare, et alios exemplo vel verb a fide deicere. Hoc ergo exemplo non probantur praelati accusandi a subditis, nisi a fide forte exorbitaverint, vel alios exorbitare coegerint. § 5 Item cum Petrus intrasset ad Cornelium, conquesti sunt fratres, qui erant in ludea, et reprehenderunt eum, quia ad gentilem diuertisset. Ecce, quod prelati iure possunt reprehendi a subditis. " [168]  Prelates cannot be accused by subjects unless the prelates themselves implement a deviation from the faith.

Furthermore, can. Yes Pope of the Decree of Gratian reports the affirmations of s. Boniface for which: “Huius culpas istic redarguere presumit mortalium nullus, quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide deuius; pro cuius perpetuo statu uniuersitas fidelium as much instantius orat as suam salutem post Deum ex illius incolumitate animaduertunt propensius pendere. "[169]

The Pope is not to be judged unless he deviates from faith; in the text of the Corpus Iuris Canonici just cited it is specified in a note that this canon is based on some affirmations of St. Bonifacio which were also attributed to him by Nauclerus, [170], from Ivone, from many many Gratian codices, and which were reported from a text by Card. Deusdedit published at the time of Pope Victor III [171]

In the critical edition of this book by card. Deusdedit, written by V. Wolf von Glanvell, the text that interests us by s. Bonifacio is found in another number, compared to Martinucci's edition, it is in fact always placed in the first book but at n. CCCVI and not at n. CCXXXI [172]

Precisely in the critical edition of the text of card. Deusdedit[173] it should be noted that the affirmations of St. Boniface is not known from some source that they were probably drawn, it is said in the note, from a work of s. Bonifacio which has been lost, the "De Unitate fidei". However, they are in the precise wake of Catholic doctrine in fact they follow what Hadrian II already said[174]  and s. Isidore[175], as we saw above, and another text by s. Isidore [176] quoted precisely in the notes of the critical edition of the text by card. Deusdedit[177], also follow the indications of St. Gregory the Great that we have seen above.

Moreover, in the text of Deusdedit there is at least one other quotation of words from St. Bonifacio[178] and also of this text the origin is not known, it is probably taken, it is said in the note, from a work of s. Bonifacio which has been lost, the "De Unitate fidei".

Also in the work "De Sancta Romana Ecclesia" by card. Umberto da Selva Candida (fragmentum A, 129) we find precisely the affirmations, which are in the Decretum (p. I, dist. 40, c. 6) and in the work of Card. Deusdedit, for which the Pope must not be judged unless you deviate from faith; S. Vacca in his text "Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur, genesis and historical development of the axiom up to the Decree of Gratian" (published by Pontificia Università Gregoriana 1993) on p. 176 reports precisely the text found in Card. Umberto's book, but Vacca's statements appear to be obviously wrong, according to which the Cardinal himself, despite all the contrary tradition that he would like absolute immunity of the Pope, affirms that this immunity ceases if the Pope deviates from the faith. As can be clearly seen in the text of Cardinal Deusdedit and in the Decretum, the passage in question comes from words attributed to St. Boniface which fully fall, as we have seen, in the wake of Catholic doctrine, for which, as we have seen, a few centuries earlier, in an Ecumenical Council, Pope Honorius had been declared a heretic, moreover, as we will see later, in the years ranging from About 960 to about 1050 some Popes were judged and deposed ... so it is evidently wrong, as Vacca does, to affirm that there was a well-established tradition around the year 1060 that affirmed an absolute immunity of the Pope ... Card. Umberto da Silva Candida with Cardinal Deusdedit and with Gratian they do not invent something non-existent but follow the course of the true Tradition by which a Pope who errs in the faith can be judged, as Honorius I was judged and condemned even after his death. In line with this Tradition, Pope Innocent III showed that he fully accepted the affirmation that the Pope who deviates from the faith can be judged, in fact he said: "In tantum enim fides mihi necessari est, ut cum de ceteris peccatis solum Deum judicem habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide committitur possem ab Ecclesia judicari. Nam qui non credit, jam judicalus est (Joan. III). "[179] For us it is important to translate, in particular, some words of this statement "only for the sin I committed in matters of faith could I be judged by the Church". shown as judged if he is missing for heresy, because whoever does not believe has already been judged. " [180]

The professor. Grohe specified: "... the ordinary gloss stated that the Pope can be deposed not only for heresy, but also for any other crime or notorious vice (Decretum Gratiani emendatum et notationibus illustratum una cum glossis, Gregorii XIII Pont. Max. Iussu editum, Romae 1582, col. 260). Medieval discussion established the following reasons for a resignation or deposition of a bishop: 1. notoriety of a crime; 2. averting a public scandal; 3. canonical irregularity; 4. physical weakness; 5. old age and illness; 6. inability to understand and discern; 7. mental infirmity and weakness of spirit or similar impediment; 8. total inadequacy and uselessness; 9. wickedness of the people that the pope cannot correct and can no longer tolerate; 10. desire to enter a convent, fear for one's own salvation; 12. order, good state and public good of the Church " [181]

St. Roberto Bellarmino stated: “As it is legitimate to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body so it is legitimate to resist the Pope who attacks souls or disturbs the State, and much more so if he tries to destroy the Church; it is lawful to resist such a Pope by not carrying out what he commands and preventing his will from being carried out, it is not lawful to judge or punish or depose him, this in fact belongs to superiors. " [182]

St. Robert deals extensively, in the same work, also with the case of a Pope who falls into heresy and after having reported various opinions on this point he considers the fifth opinion true that a heretic Pope ceases to be Pope and visible Head of the Church, therefore he can to be judged and punished by the Church; explains s. Roberto that this is the sentence of all the true Fathers: the manifest heretics lose all jurisdiction; this is the sentence, in particular, says s. Roberto, of s. Cyprian and this is the sentence held by some great experts of his time, including M. Cano who precisely affirms that the manifestly heretic Pope is not part of the Church while the occultly heretic Pope is still Pope; the basis of this sentence is that the heretic Pope is in no way a member of the Church either in terms of soul or body, neither by internal union nor by external union, (St. Robert "De Romano Pontifice" ... p. 835ss) . St. Alphonsus foresees the possibility that a heretical Pope be deposed by a Council: “63… We answer, do not doubt that in some cases the Council can be the judge of the Pope, but when? In only two cases: when the Pope is a declared heretic or when it is doubtful, as we have seen that the Pisan and Constanzian councils proceeded; but apart from these two cases the council has no authority over the popes, but the council is bound to obey the pope, as we have proved above with so many certificates from the same councils. ... 67 ... But we answer that there is no doubt that the Pope could be deposed by the council, when he had been declared a heretic, as the one he defined as a doctrine opposed to the divine law ... 68. Moreover, certainly Innocent did not intend with these words to say that the pope, apart from the case of heresy, was also subjected to the council against the authority of many popes of his predecessors, who had declared the opposite. St. Boniface wrote: A nemine (pontifex) est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide Devius (Can. 6. Si papa dist. 4.). " [183]

In the same text, s. Alfonso also states: “67. For 13. reports the p. Christmas that Innocent III. Philip Augustus was requested by the king of France to dispense from the dissolution of the marriage contracted by the king with Ingeburge, with which he had exposed adfuisse commixtionem sexuum, sed non seminum. The pope replied: Verum si super hoc absque generalis deliberatione concilii determine aliquid temptaremus, praeter divinam offensam quam ex hoc possemus incurrere, forsan ordinis et officii nobis periculum immineret. From which they derive having understood Innocent that the council could have deposed the pope if he had dispensed from such a marriage against divine law. ... But we answer that there is no doubt that the pope could be deposed by the council, when he had been declared a heretic, as he defined a doctrine opposed to the divine law; and this was the danger mentioned by Innocenzo (as Fr Benetti1 well reflects of being deprived of order and office: therefore he had written earlier in the same letter that he did not dare to define this point against the Gospel which says: Quod Deus conunxit, homo non separet. But because the danger was very remote, and at the meeting the pope wanted with some apparent excuse to free himself from the king's requests for the dispensation he was looking for, so he wrote those obscure and doubtful words: forsan ordinis et officii nobis periculum immineret. "[184]

In this line: a publicly heretical Pope must be deprived of his power, says the text by Wernz Vidal, and specifies "ut omnes fere admittunt"[185] … AS EVERYONE COMMONLY ADMITS.

More precisely, explain Wernz Vidal, who write, unlike s. Alfonso and s. Roberto, after Vatican Council I: "Per haeresim notoriam et palam divulatam R. Pontifex si in illam incidat, ipso facto etiam ante omnem sententiam declaratoriam Ecclesiae sua potestate iurisdictionis privatus existit" [186] The Pope who falls into a notorious and manifestly disclosed heresy, ipso facto and before any declaratory sentence is deprived of his power of jurisdiction. The purely declaratory sentence of the papal heresy, continues Wernz Vidal, does not make the heretical Pope be judged but shows him judged, that is, he declares the fact of the crime for which he is a heretic and separated from the Church, schism is equated to the crime of heresy.  [187] in this line one can consult with profit what A. Xavier da Silveira affirms precisely regarding the cases of a heretic or schismatic Pope, reporting the affirmations of great figures of Catholic theology [188].

G. Ghirlanda wrote in this regard that if: "... the Roman Pontiff did not express what is already contained in the Church, he would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and therefore with the other Bishops, successors of the Apostles."; if ecclesial communion were to fail on the part of the Pope: "he would no longer have any power, because ipso iure would forfeit his primatial office." Continue p. Ghirlanda specifying that the case he mentions is that: "... admitted in the doctrine, of the notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a" private doctor ""; if the Pope wanted to spread heresies by engaging his primatial authority "... he would lapse ipso iure from his office." According to p. Ghirlanda: "This eventuality, however, although foreseen in the doctrine, is considered totally improbable due to the intervention of Divine Providence in favor of the Church (Cfr FJ Wernz P. Vidal," Ius canonicum ", t. II," De Personis ", Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Romae, 1933, 517 ff.). " [189]    BUT ATTENTION, Fr. Ghirlanda's final statement is wrong…. THE TEXT BY WERNZ VIDAL DOES NOT SAY WHAT P. GHIRLANDA SAYS, IT SAYS THAT THE SECOND JUDGMENT OF ST. ROBERTO BELLARMINO IS GREATLY IMPROBABLE, NOT THE FIFTH, WHICH WERNZ VIDAL EXHIBITS TO FOLLOW ... SO IT IS NOT TOTALLY UNLIKELY UNLIKELY. On the other hand, we already have a Pope declared heretic even if after his death, as we have seen, by an Ecumenical Council [190], in the famous "History of the Church" directed by Jedin there is a lot of talk about Honorius' errors and his condemnation.[191]

Some of the statements of prof. Ghirlanda were taken up in an article by prof. Romano who stated: “Doctrine also considers the possibility of a vacancy due to the Pope's notorious apostasy, heresy or schism. For this case we refer to the article by Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, a Jesuit, who in La Civiltà Cattolica n. 3905 of 2 March 2013 published one of his studies entitled "Cessation from the office of Roman Pontiff" (pp. 445-462): "Can. 333, § 2, affirms that the Roman Pontiff, in the fulfillment of his ministry (munus) as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always united in communion with the other Bishops, indeed with the whole Church [...], to safeguard unity of ecclesial communion […]. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican I, cannot be proven by the consent of the Church and of the Bishops, as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (can. 331; "Explanatory Note Praevia »no. 4). The criterion then is the protection of ecclesial communion itself. Where this was no longer on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because ipso iure would forfeit his primatial office. This is the case, admitted in doctrine, of the notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a "private doctor" who does not commit the consent of the faithful, because by faith in the personal infallibility that the Roman Pontiff he has in carrying out his office, and therefore in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we must say that he cannot make heretical affirmations wanting to engage his primatial authority, because, if he did so, he would ipso jure forfeit his office "." [192]

Card. Journet, the great theologian of the last century, affirms regarding the case of the heretic Pope: "On rappellerait l'enseignement des grands théologiens de la fin du Moyen Âge et de l'âge baroque sur la thèse de la possibilité d'un pape personnellement hérétique ou personnellement schismatique, thèse qui ne contredit en rien la thèse, solennellement proclamée au concile du Vatican, de infaillibilité du pape définissant ex cathedra la doctrine de l'Église (5). Suivant Cajetan, un pape décidé d'agir avant tout comme prince temporel et qui, en conséquence, éluderait avec pertinacité les devoirs de sa charge of him, serait schismatique. … Selon la doctrine de Cajetan, un pape hérétique ou schismatique n'est pas encore déposé (depositus). Il faut le traiter avec les égards dus au pape. Mais il doit être déposé (deponendus). " [193]

Great theologians of the late Middle Ages and the Baroque age supported the thesis of the possibility of a personally heretical or personally schismatic Pope, a thesis that does not contradict the thesis, solemnly proclaimed at the Vatican Council, of the infallibility of the Pope when ex cathedra the doctrine of the Church . According to Cajetan's doctrine, a heretic or schismatic Pope is not yet deposed (depositus) by the very fact of the heresy but must be deposed (deponendus).

The French Cardinal then cites some writings of Savonarola that according to him would be theologically unassailable and specifies that Savonarola asked for the convocation of a Council to declare the Pope a heretic or schismatic as a private person, therefore he did not place the Council above the Pope. The Cardinal then affirms that according to Gaetano in the case indicated by Savonarola: “… the sentence du Concile n'est d'aucune façon auctoritative; elle est simplement déclarative d'un fait, par exemple que, pour avoir persévéré dans le schisme ou l'hérésie après un ou deux avertissements (Tite, III, 10), tel sujet s'est rendu en droit divin, inapte à conserver le pontificat (Cf. L'Église du Verbe incarné, t. I [2e éd.], p. 626-627 [dans la présente édition: vol. I, p. 982-983]) L'axiome: Où est le pape , c'est l'Église, continue Cajetan, vaut lorsque le pape if it involves as chef de l'Église: si tel n'est pas le cas, ni l'Église n'est en lui, ni lui en l'Église. "[194]

The sentence of the Council, in this case, is simply declarative of the fact that, for having persevered in the schism or in the heresy after one or two admonitions (Tt, 3, 10), this subject is, by divine right, unfit to maintain the pontificate. The axiom: where the Pope is, there is the Church, it applies when the Pope acts as the head of the Church: if this is not the case, neither the Church is in him, nor he in the Church.

The famous French Cardinal adds that: “D'autres théologiens estimaient que si un pape tombit personnellement dans l'hérésie, il serait, du fait même, déposé. Le Concile n'aurait même pas à le déposer, ma simplement à constater le fait d'hérésie, et à signifier à l'Église que celui qui fut pape est déchu de la primauté. ... La raison en est qu'en reniant la foi, celui qui était pape a cessé de faire partie de l'Église, d'être membre de l'Église: il ne saurait donc continuer, dès que le fait est déclaré patent, à en être la tête. Cette opinion, visant à sauvegarder au maximum les droits de la primauté romaine sur le Concile, était commune aux théologiens romains du temps de Savonarole. … Pour Savonarole, l'Église était déjà sans pape. The se poseit en accusateur, et s'engageait à faire la preuve de l'hérésie d'Alexandre VI. "(Journet, Charles. Oeuvres complètes volume X: 1938-1943 (Théologie) (French Edition) (p.347s). Lethielleux Editions. 2010. Edition of the Kindle) By denying the faith, he who was Pope has ceased to be part of the Church, to be a member of the Church: he cannot therefore continue, as soon as the fact is declared evident, to be the head of it. For Savonarola, in particular, the Church was already without Pope due to the sins of Alexander VI and therefore the Dominican friar asked for the convocation of the Council simply because it was declared that the Church was without a visible Head.

For the French Cardinal, the best way to free the Church from the errors of a Pope is prayer [195] Cardinal Journet adds, precisely in his famous text on the Church, that among the ways in which a Pope can lose his Pontificate there is, in addition to death and renunciation, the deposition, which occurs in two cases: when the election is uncertain and therefore it is doubted that a subject is truly Pope, when the Pope falls into heresy. Regarding the case of the heretical Pope, card. Journet: first of all reports the thought of St. Roberto Bellarmino and others who affirm that the heretic Pope is therefore himself deposed, then reports the thought of Gaetano and Giovanni di s. Thomas who affirm the need for a statement of deposition.

Precisely reporting the thought of these Dominican theologians, Journet states: “The remark on the one hand that in divine law the Church is to be united to the Pope as the body is to the head; and on the other that, by divine law, he who shows himself a heretic is to be avoided after one or two admonitions (Tt. 3. 10). There is therefore an absolute contradiction between the fact of being Pope and the fact of persevering in heresy after one or two admonitions. The Church's action is simply declaratory, it makes it plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer. In virtue therefore of Scripture the Church designates and God deposes. God acts with the Church, says John of St. Thomas, somewhat as a Pope would act who decided to attach indulgences to certain places of pilgrimage, but left it to a subordinate to designate which these places should be (II-II, q. i; disp. 2, a. 3, no. 29, Vol. VII, p. 264) "(Charles Journet" The Church of the Incarnate Word "Vol. 1, Sheed and Ward London and New York 1955 pp. 482ss) By divine law the Church must be united to the Pope as the body is united to the head; but by the same divine law whoever shows himself as a heretic must be avoided after one or two admonitions (Tit. 3, 10); there is therefore an absolute contradiction between being Pope and persevering in heresy after one or two admonitions. The action of the Church in this case is simply declarative: it clarifies that there is an incorrigible sin of heresy; then the authoritative action of God releases the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after the admonition, becomes, by divine law, unable to preserve it. By virtue of Scripture, therefore, the Church designates and God puts down. God acts with the Church, says John of St. Thomas, a bit like a Pope would have acted if he had decided to grant indulgences to some place of pilgrimage, but leaving the choice of such places to a subordinate.

It should be noted, however, that in the history of the Church there have been some cases of deposed Popes, as Professor Sol explains precisely: John XII was formally deposed on 4 December 963, following an accusation of sacrilege, simony, lust, violence, games, drunkenness, brought against him by the Synod of St. Peter, Pope Leo VIII elected following this deposition in 963 is indicated on the website of the Holy See among the Popes (https://www.vatican.va/content /vatican/it/holy-father/leone-viii.html); Benedict IX gave up while he was accused of having sold the pontificate to his successor Gregory VI, who was found guilty of simony. Gregory VI was accused at the synod of Sutri in 1046; the synod took note of the resignation of Benedict IX, deposed Sylvester III (elected after the resignation of Benedict IX and he was also a simoniac), the Synod accepted the resignation or deposed (it is not clear what really happened) Gregory VI and finally elected a new Pope who took the name of Clement II. [196]

In recent times, various authors have addressed the issue of the deposition of a heretical Pope.[197]

The Pope who falls into notorious and manifestly disclosed heresy, ipso facto and before any declaratory sentence, says the famous text by Wernz and Vidal cited above, is deprived of his power of jurisdiction; the merely declaratory sentence of the papal heresy does not make the Pope a heretic to be judged but shows him judged, that is, declares the fact of the crime for which he is a heretic and has separated himself from the Church.

God certainly does not want a heretical Pope to visibly guide his Church and give the Church the tools to intervene in such a case.

All this makes it clear very clearly that the principle: “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur” does not mean that the Pope can never be absolutely judged by anyone.

God judges the Pope, and those who have the Holy Spirit equally in the light of God and his Truth can judge the actions of the Pope and thus can claim that he is wrong, sin or even that he is heretic or schismatic and may come to realize that it fell from its function precisely because of heresy or schism; the history of the Church, the affirmations of the great theologians, the affirmations of Wernz Vidal, of Ghirlanda etc. they are very clear about it.

I also point out that the Pope also confesses and Confession is precisely a judgment to which the Pope submits ...

On the other hand, if the Pope is not always infallible, it is evident that the case of a Pope who makes a mistake can be given, and the error can also be serious and go against the salus animarum which is the supreme law of the canonical order.[198]

Canon 1752 is very clear: “Can. 1752 The dispositions of can. 1747, adhering to principles of canonical equity and bearing in mind the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church. "

Obviously, the salvation of souls involves the examination and judgment, in the light of the Spirit of Truth, also of the Pope's affirmations and involves radical opposition to a Pope who spreads errors and undermines this salvation of souls, as we have seen and such opposition can to arrive at the recognition of the real decline of the Pope from his office due to heresy or schism.

God enlighten us thoroughly on this point.

Concluding this paragraph and elaborating what the great theologians cited say, we can affirm that in the face of the real grave errors of a Pope in the doctrinal field, the faithful must first understand that they, guided by the Holy Spirit, can realize these errors and can judge them wrong. the statements of the Pope and above all have the power of prayer in order to change the situation. Prayer is to be understood here in a broad sense, that is, as life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; please, in this line, not only when celebrating s. Mass or the Liturgy of the Hours but also when guided by the Holy Spirit we act for the good of the Church to combat the errors in question, with conferences, books, meeting Bishops, intellectuals, etc. The Holy Spirit certainly does not want errors to be spread in the Church by his visible Head but, in some cases, he does not want to intervene directly, he wants to make use of us and precisely our prayer must be to let ourselves be guided in everything by this Spirit precisely. so that his will be fulfilled and this diffusion of deviant teachings in the Church cease. First of all it is necessary to intervene with the Pope himself to correct him, however in the event that the Pope has publicly endangered the salvation of souls, a public correction can be made (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas Super Gal., C. 2 l. 3); if the Pontiff shows that he does not want to accept the correction, it is necessary to take other paths. If the situation allows it and the Bishops and Cardinals are in agreement, it is possible to work to arrive at a declaration of forfeiture of the Pope for heresy but this can be difficult or impossible in various cases, in these cases it is necessary to follow more decisively other ways: first of all the celebration of ss. Put for this purpose, supplication to God in various forms, penitential practices, spiritual exercises, prayer meetings with groups of the faithful, conferences that explain well the errors the Pope has fallen into, catechesis, videos etc .; the Holy Spirit is extremely "creative" and wise in making us discover effective actions for this purpose, if they allow us to be guided by him. make prayer for this purpose particularly strong, widespread and insistent.

It is necessary to realize that if God allows a Pope to make mistakes and even gravely it is not for the damnation of the faithful but because they let themselves be guided by God and with God's help they grow in holiness and fervor and precisely with their intense prayer they reach obtain the grace of the Church's liberation from such errors.

8) What happened when a Pope got it wrong with regard to doctrine?

But let us ask ourselves: what happened when the Pope got it wrong with regard to doctrine?

Let's say first of all that in these cases the biblical precept clearly established in the Acts of the Apostles is obviously valid: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5,29:XNUMX).
And again: “We must obey God instead of men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. God raised him to his right hand as head and savior, to give Israel conversion and forgiveness of sins. And of these facts we and the Holy Spirit are witnesses, whom God has given to those who obey him ". (Acts 4, 29ff)

If a superior, even the Pope, is wrong and opposes the Truth, it is necessary to follow the Truth and not the superior. True obedience is to God and to those who legitimately command according to the Law of God. St. Thomas affirms in this regard that: “… there are two reasons why a subject may not be required to obey his superior in everything.

First, by the command of a greater authority. In fact, in commenting on that saying of the Apostle: “Those who resist bring condemnation on themselves”, the Glossa comments: “If the administrator commands something, will you perhaps have to do it, if he commands against the orders of the proconsul? And if the proconsul himself commands you one thing, while the emperor commands another, is there any doubt that we must obey the latter regardless of the former? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing, and God commands the opposite, one must obey God regardless of the emperor ”.

Second, a subject is not obliged to obey the superior if he commands things in which he is not subject to him. " [199]

Ordunque when the Popes, in the past have committed obvious errors, some prelates, guided by the Holy Spirit, such as St. Paolo, they noticed and denounced these errors.

And what did those Popes do in the face of such denunciations? Some Popes humbly welcomed the correction and changed their statements [200]… Other Popes do not seem to have accepted this correction with humility, let us think of the case of Pasquale II in the face of the correction made by St. Bruno of Segni[201], let us think of the case of John XXII in the face of the correction made by Fr. Waleys op; we remember that this Dominican was even condemned by the s. Office for defending the truth against the Pope's errors.[202] In these cases in which the Popes have not humbly accepted the correct correction, the famous affirmation of St. Anthony of Padua for which: Truth generates hatred. It says more precisely s. Anthony: "Christ says:" I am the truth "(Jn 14,6: XNUMX). Whoever preaches the truth professes Christ. On the other hand, those who are silent in preaching the truth deny Christ. "Truth generates hatred" (Terentius), and therefore some, in order not to incur the hatred of certain people, cover their mouths with the mantle of silence. If they preached the truth, if they said things as they are, as the truth itself demands and as the sacred Scripture expressly commands, they would incur - if I am not deceived - in the hatred of the carnal and perhaps these would drive them out of their synagogue; since they follow the example of men, they fear the scandal of men, while it is not lawful to renounce the truth for fear of scandal. " [203] True men of God have not been intimidated by the powerful and their supporters and have clearly spoken the truth even about the errors of the Popes; In doing so they also left us a splendid example of courage and strength which we are called to imitate in the Holy Spirit for the true good of souls and of the Pope himself.

Let us ask ourselves again: and the good and enlightened theologians who opposed the Pope's claims, how did they understand that the Pope was wrong? Guided by the Holy Spirit, based on the Bible and Tradition; in fact the Pope, as we have seen, cannot go against the Bible and Tradition ... The Pope is not God and he cannot go against God who speaks ...

Finally, let us ask ourselves: but when the Popes erred were there theologians who defended this error? Of course there were and probably they were not few ... because in the moments in which the "great" attack the sound doctrine it is not strange that so many follow the "great" and not the Truth!

In this line it is significant that: “Cardinal Wolsey of England, together with all the bishops of the country, with the exception of the bishop of Rochester, John Fisher, supported the king's attempt to cancel his first and legitimate marriage. Like Fisher, Thomas More, a layman and chancellor of the king, also refused his support. Both were martyred and later canonized. "[204]

Then Henry VIII followed in his errors the overwhelming majority of the English Bishops ... only the Bishop of Rochester opposed and died a martyr ... In the case of Pasquale II's error with the "pravilegium" it is very interesting to note how after a strong initial contrast of many Bishops against papal error in the end remained almost alone s. Bruno di Segni to oppose this "heresy" [205]

Even in the case of the error of John XXII many Bishops took the side of the error, and Thomas Waleys and Durand de Saint-Pourçain were tried and condemned for their opposition to this error ... as can be seen in an article by Trottmann on that question.[206]

9) Examination of some interesting statements of Msgr. Fernández, alleged ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia, regarding the change of doctrine made by the Pope through this exhortation.

In a commentary article on Amoris Laetitia, entitled "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta."[207] Msgr. Fernández, allegedly hidden author of the same exhortation affirmed that the change made by Pope Francis is possible and acceptable because an evolution in the understanding of the Church on its own doctrine and its disciplinary consequences is possible. Then he gave some historical examples: the Second Vatican Council substantially modified the strong ideas (cf. DH 2-3) expressed by Pope Gregory XVI, in Mirari vos (MV 15), and in the Syllabus of Pius IX (1864), in to which religious freedom is condemned as one of the main "errors"; the evolution on the question of the possibility of salvation outside the Catholic Church; the evolution on the question of slavery, taking into account the statements of Pope Nicholas V and therefore of the Bull Romanus Pontifex of 1455. These doctrinal changes brought about various changes in the discipline (p. 460s).

Faced with these examples that would show how evolution did not take place "on the same line" as previously said, the monsignor affirmed that those who maintain that these comparisons are not convincing and insist on fact that any evolution must take place along the same lines as what was previously said by the Church (cf. p. 461)… shortly after Msgr. Fernández must affirm, however, that Amoris Laetitia gives rise to a new change, which does not imply a contradiction with the previous teaching, but a harmonious evolution and creative continuity (cf. p. 462).

It is obvious that the Church grows in knowledge and acceptance of the Gospel, but, according to Msgr. Fernández, some have enormous difficulty in admitting that a certain evolution can occur in things related to sexuality (cf. p. 461) ...

In the same article, Msgr. Fernández attacks those who "sueñan con una doctrina monolítica defendida por todos sin matices" (EG 40), that is, they dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuances (cf. p. 465). So Msgr. Fernández attacks the opponents of Pope Francis who, in his opinion, try to force others to assume a certain logic, within which there is no exit and therefore subject the Gospel to a sort of theological and moral mathematics, so that it does not there is no choice but to accept all the logic and consequences of this way of using reason; they canonize, according to Fernández, “a” reason, a certain type of reasoning, a philosophy to which the Gospel and the whole Church must submit; for them a certain reason occupies the place of the Gospel and the action of the Spirit in his Church and the Scriptures serve only to illustrate the logic of "that" reason, administered by an oligarchic group of ethicists (cf. p. 465s).

The Gospel, however, continues the monsignor, is not enclosed in a philosophy and if a certain way of using reason is absolutized only those who possess that mental structure will be able to interpret that doctrine and that Revelation, and are also placed beyond above the Pope but in this way the supernatural vision of the Church and of the Petrine ministry would be lost (cf. p. 465s).

I will examine below the statements of Msgr. Fernández, allegedly hidden author of Amoris Laetitia, taking up what I said in this chapter; this examination appears important precisely because he is the alleged hidden author of this exhortation of Pope Francis.

a) Archbishop Fernández does not adequately establish the question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the changes made by the Pope.

In the letter to the Galatians we read: “I am amazed that, so quickly, from him who called you with the grace of Christ you pass to another gospel. But there is no other, except that there are some who upset you and want to subvert the gospel of Christ. But even if we ourselves, or an angel from heaven proclaims a different gospel to you than the one we have announced, let it be anathema! We have already said it and now I repeat it: if anyone announces to you a gospel other than the one you have received, let him be anathema! "(Galatians 1, 6ff)

As the German Bishops said: “The Pope is subject to divine law and bound by the order given by Jesus Christ to his Church. The Pope cannot modify the constitution that the Church has received from its Founder…. The Constitution of the Church rests its hinges on a foundation that comes from God and therefore cannot be at the mercy of human will…. As the Vatican Council expounded in clear and understandable words and and as the very nature of the thing manifests itself, infallibility is a property that refers only to the supreme Magisterium of the Pope; and this coincides precisely with the sphere of the infallible Magisterium of the Church in general and is linked to what is contained in Holy Scripture and in Tradition, as well as to the definitions already issued by the ecclesiastical Magisterium ". [208]. I stress: the Pope is subject to divine law and bound by the order given by Jesus Christ to his Church… the Pope cannot modify the constitution that the Church has received from its Founder…. the Constitution of the Church rests its hinges on a foundation that comes from God and therefore cannot be at the mercy of human will; infallibility ... refers only to the supreme Magisterium of the Pope and this is linked to what is contained in Holy Scripture and in Tradition, as well as to the definitions already issued by the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “The Roman Pontiff is - like all the faithful - subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith and is the guarantor of the obedience of the Church and, in this sense, servus servorum. He does not decide according to his own will, but gives voice to the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in Scripture lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkopè of the Primacy has the limits that proceed from the divine law and from the inviolable divine constitution of the Church contained in the Revelation. (Cf. Collective declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hün, n. 3114.) The Successor of Peter is the rock which, against arbitrariness and conformity, guarantees rigorous fidelity to the Word of God : the martyrological character of his Primacy also follows. "[209]

The Roman Pontiff is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith. He must not decide according to his own will, but must give voice to the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in Scripture lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkopè of the Primacy has the limits that proceed from the divine law and from the inviolable divine constitution of the Church contained in the Revelation. The Pope must be faithful to the Word of God, and the Lord speaks to man in Scripture lived and interpreted by Tradition.

The same Congregation continues: "Due to the supreme character of the power of the Primacy, there is no instance to which the Roman Pontiff must legally answer for the exercise of the gift received ... However, this does not mean that the Pope has absolute power."[210]

The Pope does not have absolute power but has a power limited by divine law and by the inviolable divine constitution of the Church contained in the Revelation. The Magisterium must be faithful to Holy Scripture and to Tradition. Not even the Pope can deform or destroy the sacred deposit!

The: ".. Magisterium ... is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been transmitted, insofar as, by divine mandate and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, he piously listens to it, holily he guards and faithfully exposes it, and from this single deposit of faith he draws all that he proposes to believe as revealed by God ”.[211]

The Pope is therefore at the service of the Word of God, Pope Benedict XVI said: “The power to teach, in the Church, involves a commitment at the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute sovereign, whose thinking and willing are law. On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but must constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to the Word of God, in the face of all attempts at adaptation and watering down, as in the face of all opportunism. "[212]

The Pope is and must be aware that, in his great decisions, he is linked to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations that have grown along the pilgrim path of the Church, that is, to the dogmas and definitive affirmations established by the Church in the course of the centuries. The power of the Pope does not lie above the Word of God but is at its service and the responsibility lies with him to ensure that this Word of God continues to remain present in its greatness and resonate in the purity of its Truth, thus that it is not torn apart by mistakes. The Chair is a symbol of teaching power, but this teaching must be carried out in profound obedience to the Truth that manifests itself in that Word so that this Truth may shine among us and show us the path to Heaven.[213]

What has been said in this paragraph and more generally what has been seen in this chapter allows us to affirm that Msgr. Fernández in his article first of all does not adequately establish the question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the changes made by the Pope, more precisely, he does not offer fundamental data, such as those presented above and in this chapter, to address this question with precision. In the article in question, Msgr. Fernández never uses the word Tradition and does not clearly specify the limits within which the Pope's action must take place.

His affirmation that Amoris Laetitia does not imply a contradiction with the previous teaching, but a harmonious evolution and creative continuity is very vague, as we can already guess and as we will see better in the next paragraphs, and precisely does not offer precise fundamental data on on which to base, precisely in Tradition, the limits of the Pope's action in the doctrinal field.

The legitimacy or illegitimacy of the changes made by the Pope through Amoris Laetitia must be judged with precision first of all starting from these fundamental data that I have indicated in this paragraph and in this chapter. It is these fundamental data which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have caused some Catholic faithful over the centuries to oppose the errors of the Popes. And it is precisely these fundamental data that, as we will see in this book, show the big errors that the Pope spreads through Amoris Laetitia and make it clear that the work of Pope Francis in various respects is a true subversion and not an evolution of sound doctrine. .

b) Archbishop Fernández does not specify the fundamental aspects of the true development of sound doctrine that allow us to distinguish it from its alterations.

Further, the statements of Msgr. Fernández should be examined taking into account the Church's doctrine on the true development of doctrine and on its alterations ...

As we have seen in this chapter, in the letter to the Galatians we read: “I am amazed that, so quickly, from him who called you with the grace of Christ you pass to another gospel. But there is no other, except that there are some who upset you and want to subvert the gospel of Christ. But even if we ourselves, or an angel from heaven proclaims a different gospel to you than the one we have announced, let it be anathema! We have already said it and now I repeat it: if anyone announces to you a gospel other than the one you have received, let him be anathema! "(Galatians 1, 6ff)

St. Vincent of Lerins affirmed: “In the Catholic Church it is necessary to have the greatest care in keeping what has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone. This is truly and properly Catholic ... But this will certainly happen if we follow universality, antiquity, consensus.
We will follow universality in this way: if we confess as the true and only faith that which the whole Church professes throughout the world; (we will follow) antiquity in this way: if we do not at all withdraw from the judgments that our holy ancestors and fathers evidently proclaimed; (we will follow) the consensus likewise: if, in this very antiquity, we accept the definitions and doctrines of all, or almost all, the Bishops and Masters. "(my translation from Sancti Vincentii Lirinensis" Commonitorium "PL 50, 640 ).

The text of s. Vincent also adds that if a part of the Church moves away from the universal faith, it is necessary to prefer the health of the whole Church to some group that has become perverted; if heresy wants to infect the whole Church, the Christian must commit himself to adhering to the ancient doctrine which is unassailable by heresy; if it is discovered that in the past an error has been spread by a large group of people, the decrees of a universal council must be enforced against it; if a new opinion arises, never faced before by the scholars of the Church, it is necessary to remain firm in what was unanimously affirmed by all the true Fathers of the Church, approved by the same (cf. Sancti Vincentii Lirinensis “Commonitorium” PL 50, 640s).

Still affirms s. Vincenzo di Lerins that “Therefore, announcing to Catholic Christians something other than what they have received has never been lawful, it is absolutely not lawful and will never be lawful; and anathematizing those who announce something other than what was once received has always been necessary, it is absolutely necessary and will always be necessary "(my translation from Sancti Vincentii Lirinensis“ Commonitorium ”, PL 50, 649).

The same saint further explained that progress in sound Catholic doctrine will be and will also be very great but…: “However, we must be very careful that it is a true progress of the faith and not a change. True progress occurs through internal development. … However, the genre of the doctrine, the doctrine itself, its meaning and its content must always remain the same. … Even the dogma of the Christian religion… It progresses…. However, it must always remain absolutely intact and unaltered.

… Indeed, it is right and completely logical to exclude any contradiction between the before and the after. "[214]

In the Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" we read: "The doctrine of the faith that God revealed is not proposed to human minds as a philosophical invention to be perfected, but has been handed over to the Bride of Christ as a divine deposit so that he may faithfully guard it and teach it with magisterium infallible. Therefore that meaning of the sacred dogmas that the Holy Mother Church has declared must be approved in perpetuity, nor must one ever withdraw from that meaning under the pretext or with the appearances of a more complete intelligence. Therefore, along the course of the ages and centuries, may the intelligence and wisdom grow and vigorously progress, both of the centuries and of men, as of the whole Church, but in their own sector only, that is, in the same dogma, in the same meaning. , in the same statement [Vinc. Lir. Common., N. 28]. " [215]

In line with these affirmations we remember that modernism with its errors has been condemned by the Church and the anti-modernist oath says, among other things: "Fourth: I sincerely welcome the doctrine of the faith transmitted to us by the apostles through the Orthodox fathers" in the same sense and always in the same content "; and for this I totally reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, which pass from one meaning to another, different from what the Church previously believed " [216].

The development of the doctrine implies that the faith remains substantially the same and that the doctrine must be understood "in the same sense and always in the same content" ... otherwise there is no development but a deformation and betrayal of the doctrine ...

I still remember that the International Theological Commission in an important document about 30 years ago recalled that St. JH Newman, a famous English theologian, offered seven principles that indicate whether the development of the doctrine is rightly fulfilled and is not a distortion or destruction of the truth. spread by Christ: "

1) Preservation of the type ...

2) Continuity of principles ...

3) Power of assimilation ...

4) Logical consequence ...

5) Anticipation of the future ...

6) Preservative influence of the past ...

7) Lasting vigor ... "[217]

True evolution takes place in the line of what has been said above ... otherwise there is perversion and change of doctrine ...

Unfortunately, the statements of Msgr. Fernández appear lacking, in fact, on the one hand he generically attacks the alleged "magisterial fixists" who repeat that development must go in the same line as in the past, on the other he affirms that Amoris Laetitia gives rise to a new change, which does not imply a contradiction with the previous teaching, but a harmonious evolution and a creative continuity ... but it does not clearly specify the fundamental aspects of the true development of the sound doctrine that distinguish it from the alteration of the same and that instead we have seen very well indicated by the fundamental texts that I mentioned in this chapter and in this paragraph… The term creative continuity used by Msgr. Fernández is quite significant of the vagueness of his statements ...

Mons.Fernández speaks (p. 452s) of the evolution that took place with John Paul II but does not point out that that evolution was prepared by studies of moralists and had already been presented several years earlier by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, during the Pontificate of Paul VI… on the other hand, the errors that Pope Francis opens the doors to, especially some, are radically rejected by the previous doctrine spread by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by the Popes. As we will see, Archbishop Hamer in his 1975 Letter[218], speaking of divorced and remarried couples whose marriage had not been declared null, when he stated that they could be admitted to receive the Sacraments ".. if they try to live according to the indications of Christian moral principles", he meant nothing other than that they abstain, as s. John Paul II, from the "proper acts of married couples" ... this severe norm is a prophetic witness to the irreversible fidelity of the love that binds Christ to his Church and also shows that the love of spouses is incorporated into the true love of Christ (Eph . 5, 23-32). And the "approved practice" of the Church referred to by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a 1973 document, by Card. Seper, is, as we shall see better, it is precisely that specified by Hamer in 1975, that if divorced and remarried he wants to receive the sacraments, in the event that for serious reasons he cannot cease cohabitation, he must repent of his sins and propose not to sin anymore and therefore abstain from acts that are proper to wife and husband as well as avoid any scandal. [219] … This approved practice was then taken up again in the Familiaris Consortio da s. John Paul II.[220]

Msgr.Fernadez talks about the evolution achieved with regard to slavery and the need to be part of the Church in order to be saved but does not point out that this evolution took place in fidelity to Tradition and through many centuries of in-depth studies also carried out by saints, by Doctors of the Church etc. and not in a few months and with "manipulated" Synods and precisely against clear data of Tradition, as we will see that Pope Francis did; in this line I note with regard to religious freedom that a document of the International Theological Commission states that through 130 years (note well, 130 years) of theological studies and also in very different political-theological situations, we have passed from Mirari Vos to the affirmations of the Council Vatican II and defines this homogeneous evolution[221] … And it should be noted that this document speaks of homogeneous evolution… not of creative evolution, as Msgr. Fernández.

Furthermore, when Msgr. Fernández affirms that Amoris Laetitia achieves a harmonious evolution and a creative continuity with respect to the previous doctrine presents a text by R. Buttiglione (cf. p. 462); we will see in this book of mine some errors of this Italian professor that emerge from various writings of him. Here it seems interesting to me to note that, as we will see, contrary to what appears from Buttiglione's statements, the alteration of sound doctrine with Pope Francis was also achieved through a deliberately imprecise doctrine on mitigating circumstances and on moral conscience that leads to falsely justify true sins. serious, practically to dispense from the divine law and therefore even to give the sacraments to those who are in notorious grave sin with great scandal. On Communion to notorious sinners, a document of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts was very clear in specifying what divine law affirms ... that not even the Pope can change ... [222]

However, I do not see in Msgr. Fernández in the article cited some serious words on martyrdom ... Veritatis Splendor speaks of martyrdom which the Christian must be ready to not give in to sin ... the Law of God is indispensable, therefore Catholic doctrine obliges us to die rather than sin, charity makes them ready for martyrdom, as we will see, but Msgr. Fernández does not talk about it and instead affirms indirectly but clearly that the evolution brought by Amoris Laetitia concerns sexuality since he affirms that an evolution similar to that which occurred for slavery etc. to some it makes it very difficult for it to occur in the sexual field (cf. p. 461). As we will see, in fact, through this exhortation true serious sins against the sixth commandment are justified and the dispensation from it is practically authorized, against what the Tradition affirms and with great scandal. Through this exhortation, against Tradition, notorious sinners who live in sins contrary to this commandment are granted the Sacraments without proposing not to sin and fleeing the next occasions of sin, that is, without proposing to live according to the divine law. , as we will see ... Through this exhortation the doors are opened, as we will see, to the legitimation of serious sins and serious theological errors ...

We understand well that in this situation of yielding to immorality, that Msgr. Fernandez does not criticize and to which he does not show he opposes, but who in a certain way supports, do not speak of martyrdom ...

Undoubtedly under the words harmonious evolution and creative continuity, used by Msgr. Fernández is simply an alteration and betrayal of sound doctrine.

It should also be noted that the generic attack by Msgr. Fernández to alleged "fixists" does not specify who are those he wants to attack, who are those who say what he says and therefore does not specify what they say precisely; Msgr. Fernández, on the other hand, does not precisely examine and refute the claims that have been made publicly against the Pope's claims ... so his response to them is vague and inconsistent ...

c) Archbishop Fernández does not in the least touch the question of the limits of the Pope's ministry and infallibility, nor that of the errors of the Popes in history.

As we have seen in this chapter, through the office of teaching, the Pastors, especially the Pope, must work and ensure that the people of God remain in the Truth that liberates and sanctifies and precisely: "To carry out this service, Christ has endowed the Pastors of the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 890) As we read in "Lumen gentium": "The Roman Pontiff, head of the College of Bishops, benefits from this infallibility by virtue of his office, when, as supreme Pastor and Doctor of all the faithful, who confirms his brothers in the faith, proclaims with a definitive act a doctrine concerning faith or morals. [...] The infallibility promised to the Church also resides in the episcopal body, when the latter exercises the supreme Magisterium with the Successor of Peter " [223]

The infallibility of which we speak: "... which the divine Redeemer wanted his Church to provide in defining the doctrine of faith and morals, extends as much as the deposit of divine Revelation ..."[224]

However, as we have underlined in this chapter, the Pope is not always infallible but only in certain cases: "The episcopal task that the Roman Pontiff ... is a function that implies a charism: a special assistance of the Holy Spirit to the Successor of Peter, who it also determines, in certain cases, the prerogative of infallibility. (Cf. ibidem: Denz-Hün, nn. 3073-3074; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 25; CIC can. 749 § 1; CCEO can. 597 § 1.) "[225]

More precisely, the charism of infallibility operates in the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra: "Therefore We ... with the approval of the sacred Council proclaim and define the dogma revealed by God that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he exercises his supreme office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme Apostolic power defines a doctrine about faith and morals, binds the whole Church, for the divine assistance promised to him in the person of Blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wanted his Church to be accompanied in defining the doctrine around faith and customs: therefore, these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are immutable by themselves, and not by the consent of the Church. " [226]

The Second Vatican Council echoes the dogmatic affirmations of the First Vatican Council and affirms: "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, benefits from this infallibility by virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and doctor of all the faithful who confirms his brothers in the faith (cf. Lk 22,32:1839), sanctions with a definitive act a doctrine concerning faith and morals [cf. Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution. “Pastor aeternus”: Dz 3074 (7.198) [Collantes XNUMX]]. Therefore his definitions are rightly called irreformable by themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of St. Peter, so they do not need the approval of others, nor do they admit any appeal to another judgment. "[227]

Some canons of the Code of Canon Law and various magisterial documents of the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have further explained various levels of authority involvement that can be found in magisterial documents  [228]

However, it is necessary to be very clear that: “… infallibility in matters of faith and morals is given only when a Pope proposes a revealed doctrine of faith to the faith of the whole Church. However, he cannot propose to the faith of the Church - as revealed to him - his personal life experiences, his subjective evaluations or certain philosophical or theological theories. Because the revelation in its constitutive reality ended definitively with the death of the last apostle. "[229]

The Pope is infallible on some occasions, not always, on other occasions he can make mistakes ... and spread errors that are obviously contrary to the sound interpretation of the divine Word. We have seen various cases in this chapter in which some Popes have affirmed wrong things with evident scandal, unfortunately. Particularly famous is the case of Pope Honorius who was even condemned and anathematized by a Pope, Leo II, and therefore by other Popes and Ecumenical Councils after his death. [230].

We have also seen the case of the error of Pope Liberius.[231]

We have examined the case of the error of Pope John XXII[232]

Further we have seen the case of the error of Paschal II.

S. Bruno di Segni defined: “… the treaty of Ponte Mammolo, signed by Pasquale II a 'heresy', recalling the determinations of many councils:“ Whoever defends heresy - he writes - is a heretic. Nobody can say that this is not a heresy "."[233]                                                                        The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has admitted errors on the part of the Popes “In the history of the Papacy there has been no lack of human errors and even serious failings: Peter himself, in fact, acknowledged that he was a sinner (Cf. Lk 5,8.). Peter, a weak man, was chosen as a rock, precisely so that it was clear that the victory is Christ's only and not the result of human strength. The Lord wanted to carry his own treasure through time in fragile vessels (cf. 2 Cor 4,7.): Thus human frailty became a sign of the truth of divine promises and of God's mercy. (Cf. John Paul II, Lett . Enc. "Ut Unum Sint", of 25.5.1995, nn. 91-94.) "[234]

The Pope is therefore infallible in certain moments and not always, his Magisterium must be faithful to Holy Scripture and Tradition, he has no power over the natural or positive divine law and cannot modify the constitution that the Church has received from its Founder ... . when the papal Magisterium is not faithful to Holy Scripture and Tradition, when it exceeds the limits set by the Church on his activity, here is the papal error which obviously is of very particular gravity ...

These very important truths that we have just repeated are completely set aside by Archbishop Fernández, he does not in the least touch the question of the limits of papal infallibility and of the errors of the Popes in history. The Argentine prelate in the article we are examining in certain passages takes it out on the opponents of the Pope who, in his opinion, subject the Gospel to a sort of theological and moral mathematics, for them a certain reason occupies the place of the Gospel and of the action of the Spirit in his Church and the Scriptures serve only to illustrate the logic of "that" reason, administered by an oligarchic group of ethicists who are the only ones capable of interpreting doctrine and Revelation, and also rank above the Pope and who therefore lose the supernatural vision of the Church and of the Petrine ministry. Msgr.Fernández does not specify who he is talking about and what those he attacks really say and precisely does not specify the limits of papal power ... his attack is vague and leaves the statements of those who, on the basis of sound doctrine, completely intact and fully valid. and Church history have harshly attacked papal claims. The fact that this article does not speak with precision of the limits of papal action and of the errors of the Popes in history and on the other hand that those who oppose the Pope are attacked by placing themselves above him, generates or can generate little in the reader. the idea that the Pope must always be followed and that he is practically always infallible and therefore it is absurd to put oneself above him, on the contrary, those who oppose the errors of the Pope seem to want to put themselves above him, therefore want to take a place that does not ha ... The Pope is infallible in some cases but not always and precisely out of cases of infallibility he can make a mistake, says the sound doctrine, and obviously when he makes a mistake one must not follow him in the error but rather one must with wisdom and courage oppose it, and history of the Church, to which Msgr. Fernández makes a strong reference, he teaches us clearly.

The Holy Spirit, who guides the Church, gives the faithful light to recognize errors in the statements of the Pope or other Pastors and gives the strength and wisdom to oppose them; St. Thomas Aquinas states in this line: “[The believer] must not give his assent to a prelate who sins against the faith (…). It is not entirely excused for ignorance, since the habitus of faith tends to reject such a preaching, as it teaches all that is necessary for salvation. Likewise, since one must not give credit too easily to any spirit, he will not have to assent when something unusual is preached, but instead he will need to inquire or simply put his faith in God, without trying to venture into the divine mysteries ".[235]

d) Archbishop Fernández does not in any way touch the case of the heretic Pope.

In the line seen so far, Msgr. Fernández is silent on the question of the heretic Pope ...

In this regard of the papal errors we have seen that Pope Adrian II already affirmed that the Pope had never been judged except in the case of heresy, for heresy Pope Honorius had in fact been judged and condemned post-mortem, to the inferiors in fact, Pope Adrian continued, it is permissible to resist superiors in case of heresy and to reject their evil judgments  [236] The can. Si Papa (p. I, dist. 40, c. 6) of the Decree of Gratian [237] it clearly says that the Pope is not to be judged unless he deviates from faith; in the Corpus Iuris Canonici [238] it is specified that this canon is based on some affirmations of s. Boniface which were confirmed by Nauclerus and reported by a text by Card. Deusdedit published at the time of Pope Victor III [239]

In the critical edition of this book by card. Deusdedit, written by V. Wolf von Glanvell, the text that interests us by s. Bonifacio is found in another number, compared to Martinucci's edition, it is in fact always placed in the first book but at n. CCCVI and not at n. CCXXXI [240]

Precisely in the critical edition of the text of card. Deusdedit [241] it should be noted that the affirmations of St. Bonifacio is not known from some source they were taken. However, they are in the precise wake of Catholic doctrine in fact they follow what Hadrian II already said [242] and after him s. Isidore [243], as we saw above.

Pope Innocent III showed that he fully accepted the affirmation that the Pope who deviates from the faith can be judged in fact he said: "In tantum enim fides mihi necessari est, ut cum de ceteris peccatis solum Deum judicem habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide committitur possem ab Ecclesia judicari. Nam qui non credit, jam judicalus est (Joan. III). "[244] For us it is important to translate, in particular, some words of this statement "only for the sin I committed in matters of faith could I be judged by the Church". shown as judged if he is missing for heresy, because whoever does not believe has already been judged. " [245]

Catholic Catholic doctrine also provides for the case that a Pope affirms heresies and for this reason he lapses from his position.

St. Alphonsus foresees the possibility that a heretical Pope be deposed by a Council: “63… We answer, do not doubt that in some cases the Council can be the judge of the Pope, but when? In only two cases: when the Pope is a declared heretic or when it is doubtful, as we have seen that this has been done in the Pisan and Constanzian councils; but apart from these two cases the council has no authority over the popes, but the council is bound to obey the pope, as we have proved above with so many certificates from the same councils. ... 67 ... But we answer that there is no doubt that the Pope could be deposed by the council, when he had been declared a heretic, as the one he defined as a doctrine opposed to the divine law ... 68. Moreover, certainly Innocent did not intend with these words to say that the pope, apart from the case of heresy, was also subjected to the council against the authority of many popes of his predecessors, who had declared the opposite. St. Boniface wrote: A nemine (pontifex) est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide Devius (Can. 6. Si papa dist. 4.). " [246]

A publicly heretical Pope must be deprived of his power, says the text by Wernz Vidal, and specifies "ut omnes fere admittunt" [247] ...

G. Ghirlanda wrote, as we saw above, an interesting article in this regard which contains some fairly serious inaccuracies.[248]. Some of the exact statements of prof. Ghirlanda were taken up in an article by prof. Romano who affirmed: "In doctrine, the possibility of a vacant see due to notorious apostasy, heresy or schism of the Pope is also considered. ... This is the case, admitted in doctrine, of the notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall , but as a "private doctor" who does not commit the consent of the faithful, because by faith in the personal infallibility that the Roman Pontiff has in the performance of his office, and therefore in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we must say that he cannot do heretical affirmations wanting to bind his primatial authority, because, if he did so, he would ipso jure forfeit his office "." [249]

Obviously it is on the basis of Tradition that the Pope is recognized as a heretic.

The Pope can fall into heresy and on the basis of precise data of the s. Tradition just a few weeks before the publication of this article by Msgr. Fernández a large group of Catholic Bishops, theologians and intellectuals had accused Pope Francis of spreading heresies ... question does not touch.

Mons.Fernández does not say that among the Popes of the past there are some who have made colossal theological errors (Liberius, Honorius, John XXII, Pasquale II etc.) and that one of them was also declared a heretic after his death in an Ecumenical Council (Honorius I) ... and does not deal with the question of the heretic Pope in the slightest ...

Mons. Fernández speaks of the Gospel but does not specify that Holy Scripture refers to Tradition… and that in Tradition Scripture is truly known; precisely strengthened by the indications of Tradition and therefore of Scripture in the past saints and theologians have opposed the errors of the Popes and on the basis of it they have affirmed in some cases the heresy of some Pope and equally on the basis of Tradition obviously it is possible to declare a heretic a Pope, as clearly emerges from what we have seen in this paragraph and more generally in this chapter!

And the Tradition, and therefore the s. Scripture, is clearly opposed to the errors of Pope Bergoglio as so many Catholic theologians and intellectuals have stated regarding Amoris Laetitia and as I say clearly throughout this book.

The article by Msgr. Fernández does not present the full historical and theological truth of things, it is theologically superficial and also contains some clear errors which I will examine in the course of this book of mine. An article of this kind is not only incapable of defending the Pope but leads us to think that behind the errors of Amoris Laetitia there is also the superficiality, the theological weakness and the errors that this article denotes ...

God intervene and very soon!

10) The grave duty of the superior, especially the Pope, to correct the inferior who sins or who spreads errors in the doctrinal field.

Come, Holy Spirit,

send to us from heaven

a ray of your Light.

The errors that Msgr. Fernández spread in the article examined in the previous paragraphs that they were not condemned by the Pope… this leads us to some important reflections on the correction that superiors must exercise on their subjects and on the action of Pope Francis in this regard.

St. Thomas states: “… there are two types of correction. The first, which is an act of charity, and which tends mainly to amend a brother who sins by a simple admonition. And this correction is up to anyone who has charity, subject or prelate. - Then there is a second correction which is an act of justice, in which one aims at the common good, which is obtained not only through admonition, but sometimes also with punishment, so that others who fear desist from sinning. And this correction belongs only to the prelates, who are responsible not only for admonishing, but also for correcting by punishing. " (IIª-IIae q. 33 a. 3 co. My translation)

So there is a twofold correction, one that comes more directly from charity and everyone is obliged to it and one that proceeds more directly from justice and this belongs to the prelates. This correction applies to both sins and doctrinal errors, as we will see better later. The responsibility of prelates for the correction of subjects is of particular gravity, as the Angelic Doctor points out: “Even in the fraternal correction, which everyone can do, the duty of prelates is more serious, as St. Augustine says. Indeed as a person primarily has to give temporal benefits to those of whom he has temporal care, so he is more bound to give spiritual benefits such as correction, teaching, etc., to those who are entrusted to his spiritual care of he. Therefore St. Jerome does not mean that the precept of fraternal correction concerns only priests; but that he concerns them in a special way. " (IIª-IIae q. 33 a. 3 ad 1 my translation) Priests and especially the Pope have a very special responsibility regarding the correction of their subjects who sin.

S. Alfonso, resuming s. Thomas, affirms regarding the fraternal correction that it is is an admonition with which an attempt is made to convert man from the sin in which he finds himself. We are all members of a body and we must help each other in charity also by correcting ourselves. Fraternal correction concerns in particular the mortal sin in which the person finds himself living, and although the obligation of such correction concerns everyone, it falls in particular on the prelates. [250]

May the sacred cross be our light.

St. John Paul II affirms: "In cases, then, of serious shortcomings and, even more so, of crimes that damage the testimony of the Gospel itself, especially when it occurs on the part of the ministers of the Church, the Bishop must be strong and decisive, fair and peaceful. He is obliged to intervene promptly, according to established canonical norms, both for the correction and spiritual good of the sacred minister, and for the reparation of the scandal and the restoration of justice, as well as with regard to the protection and help of the victims. . " [251] The same s. John Paul II, speaking of the Bishop as hearer and guardian of the Word, affirmed that the mission: “… of the teaching proper to the Bishops consists in keeping holy and courageously proclaiming the faith.[252] … In fact, the meaning of the episcopal munus docendi springs from the very nature of what must be kept, that is, the deposit of faith. "[253] The Bishop must guard the word with love and defend it with courage and this implies that he must watch over and correct the errors that spread. Continue s. John Paul II: "... the Word handed down, Tradition, has become more and more consciously the Word of life and, in the meantime, the task of its proclamation and its care has progressively been fulfilled ..." [254] Christ entrusted his Word to Pastors in a particular way so that it may be kept rightly and correctly transmitted, without errors! And the Bishop must, therefore, watch over the catechesis for which he is primarily responsible in the Diocese: “Even in the area of ​​catechesis it is evident that the Bishop is the catechist par excellence. ... it is always the duty of the Bishop to take over the top direction of catechesis.) "[255]

May the sacred cross be our light.

In the Code of Canon Law we read in can. 436: “- §1. In suffragan dioceses it is the responsibility of the Metropolitan: 1) to ensure that the faith and ecclesiastical discipline are carefully observed, and to inform the Roman Pontiff of any abuses ... "

In can. 810 we read that the competent authority must operate so that in Catholic universities: "... teachers are appointed who, in addition to scientific and pedagogical suitability, excel in integrity of doctrine and probity of life ... The Episcopal Conferences and Diocesan Bishops concerned they have the duty and the right to ensure that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed in the same universities. "

And the same Code of Canon Law affirms, with regard to the power of the Pope, in can. 331 - The Bishop of the Church of Rome ... by virtue of his office, has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power over the Church ... "

All this makes us understand that the superior and above all the Pope must correct his subject who makes errors in doctrine especially if such errors are public with evident scandal of the faithful, the Directory for the life of Bishops states in nos. 123.124 and 126 regarding the Bishop's task of supervising doctrinal integrity: "The task of the Bishop is not only to attend personally to the proclamation of the Gospel, but also to preside over the whole ministry of preaching in the diocese, and above all to watch over the doctrinal integrity of his flock and the diligent observance of canonical norms in this area (Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, cann. 386 § 1; 756 § 2 and 889; John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis, 29 ; 44.). … The Bishop is responsible for supervising the suitability of the ministers of the word, and has the faculty to impose particular conditions for the exercise of preaching (Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 764.). … It is the Bishop's main responsibility to watch over the orthodoxy and integrity of the teaching of Christian doctrine, without hesitating to make use of his authority when the case requires it. ... 126. ... it is the duty of the Bishop, by virtue of the authority received from Christ himself, to be vigilant in order to firmly defend the integrity and unity of the faith, in such a way that the deposit of faith is faithfully preserved and transmitted and that the positions details are unified in the integrity of the Gospel of Christ. " [256] If this is said of the Bishops, the more it must be affirmed with regard to the Pope… So the Bishop is gravely missing in his task and, even more, the Pope who does not correct the errors that spread among his faithful. We will see throughout this book how Pope Francis has radically disregarded his fundamental duty not only by not condemning obvious errors but also by praising and supporting in various ways those who implement them to the full advantage of the "paradigm change", that is, the radical change of doctrine that this Papa is implementing. Pope Francis did not intervene to correct the statements of Msgr. Fernández… and we will see how he will not correct many other statements and documents of Bishops; more precisely, he not only did not condemn obvious errors but also praised and supported in various ways those who implement them, such as Fernández, to the full advantage of the so-called “paradigm shift”.

In the Bible we read of the priest Eli who was punished by God because he let his children do evil (cf. 1 Sam. 2 and 3), I sincerely hope that the Pope will correct as his duty those who are making mistakes and repair the errors he is spreading. so that God does not have to intervene with his invincible justice as he did with Eli and his sons.

May God arise and his enemies be scattered (Ps. 68)

11) My response to an article by Fastiggi and Goldstein regarding the public criticism of the Pope's errors.

What I have written and what you will read in this book allows me to respond effectively to the affirmations of prof. Fastiggi and Dr. Dawn Goldstein collected in an article published in La Stampa [257]; this answer seems important to me because what the prof. Fastiggi and Dr. Goldstein say Correctio Filialis can also be directed against this book of mine.

The article states that various critics of Amoris laetitia in their contrast to the statements of Pope Francis do not follow the guidelines for theologians published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1990 in the document "Donum Veritatis" [258] in various aspects of their actions, as we will see below;

1) the "Correctio Filialis" reports the comments made by Pope Francis in press conferences, private letters, etc., without taking into account the authority of these declarations and their context;

2) the criticisms according to which Pope Francis does not want orthodoxy are therefore based on subjective impressions derived from mostly non-authoritative statements by the Pope and not on the true Magisterium of this Pope;

3) the authors of the "Correctio Filialis" omit evidence that would invalidate their claim that Francis is opening the door to errors;

4) many eminent critics of Amoris laetitia work against the unity of charity and against the need to avoid rash judgments because they give the worst possible interpretations to the statements and actions of Pope Francis;

5) the authors of the "Correctio Filialis" also present their opinions as if they were non-questionable facts rather than personal opinions when they say that "the words, actions and omissions" of Pope Francis, in combination with some passages from Amoris Laetitia "serve to propagate heresies within the Church".

7) the supporters of the "Correctio filialis" are creating a kind of "parallel magisterium" of theologians that can cause great spiritual damage as opposed to the Magisterium of Pastors; this attitude would indicate a grave loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church in such supporters;

8) certain critics of Amoris Laetitia present themselves as the spokespersons of an autonomous community that is opposed to an orthodox reading of the words of Pope Francis in a document of high magisterial level and operate outside the habitus of theology;

9) the sending of petitions accusing the Holy Father of directly or indirectly promoting heresies, as some critics of Amoris Laetitia do, does not seem to take place in the line of "intense and patient reflection" open to correction by fellow theologians; the critics of Amoris Laetitia do not seem to welcome constructive criticism of their statements.

I take the liberty of answering prof. Fastiggi pointing out first of all that the "Donum Veritatis" must be read in the light of all Tradition, it must be read, in particular, in the light of the fundamental rule of the Church which is the salvation of souls.

If a Pope clearly works to directly or indirectly spread errors that clearly endanger the salvation of souls, obviously the faithful, precisely for the salvation of souls, must also publicly oppose him and expose his errors.

St. Thomas states: "... ubi immineret periculum fidei, etiam publice essent praelati a subditis arguendi." (II-II q. 33, a. 4 ad 2) When a danger to the faith is imminent, the subjects should reproach their prelates also publicly.

St. Peter significantly stated: "We must obey God instead of men." (Acts 4:29)

When the errors of a Pope endanger souls, God leads us to act even publicly to unmask and condemn errors precisely to warn and save those souls.

St. Paul acted in this way against St. Peter, who was then Pope, as the letter to the Galatians says.

Unfortunately, the errors of Pope Francis are extremely pernicious for the salvation of souls so it is necessary to unmask them and publicly condemn them so that everyone knows and distances themselves from such doctrinal deviations.

Moreover, many have tried to correct this Pope privately, some cardinals have presented Dubia[259]  ... but the Supreme Pontiff insists on not answering.

We are faced with an unspeakable behavior of this Pope, behavior that is explained very well, however, considering that Francis is spreading errors directly and indirectly but with "discretion" also through his supporters ... and obviously if he answered directly, on the basis of the line he shows to follow, to those who have asked for clarification or those who have allowed themselves to correct him, his errors would be exposed in a more evident way and this would cause him big trouble and could lead a part of the Church to turn away from him because of precisely of such evident deviations from sound doctrine.

Responding more directly to the remarks made by Fastiggi and Goldstein to the critics of Amoris Laetitia, I say that the statements of various critics, including mine, as we shall see, are based not on subjective impressions derived from mostly non-authoritative statements by the Pope but by 'together with his words and actions for which we clearly see evident errors spreading in the Church in various forms even by Bishops and significantly not corrected by the Pope.

The current Pope operates in a "discreet" way, causing serious damage to souls and serious scandals with his direct and indirect action, as all this book of mine clearly demonstrates; very significant in this regard is the fact that important collaborators of the Pope have spoken, regarding his action in the doctrinal field, of a "change of paradigm" [260], a very strong expression which, correctly interpreted in the light of what is happening in the Church, indicates precisely not an evolution but a change of doctrine, that is, it indicates betrayal of sound doctrine through the spread of very serious errors.

The situation that has arisen in these times obviously does not appear to be contemplated by the "Donum Veritatis" precisely because this Pope is directly or indirectly spreading, as you can read in this book of mine, very serious errors which, in addition to making the Sacraments invalid, in various cases, they make the faithful believe that it has become practically lawful to commit true serious sins and even receive the Sacraments while continuing to commit such sins and without proposing not to do them anymore, in this line the eternal salvation of souls is in grave danger and the Holy Spirit invites the faithful who are aware of such errors to act in order, I repeat, to oppose them and unmask them clearly so that all the faithful undertake resolutely to distance themselves from such doctrinal deviations and to walk along the line of sound doctrine towards salvation; as we have said: the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church and therefore of every believer.

The serious criticism that is made of Amoris Laetitia, as you will see by reading this book, takes into account, contrary to what the article in question says, the authoritativeness of the documents of the Church and precisely on the basis of them recognizes the clear errors that Pope Francis is directly or indirectly spreading, in a "discreet" but effective way!

The serious criticism that is made of the Pope takes into account, as mentioned, what he, with his words and actions, is determining in the Church; the fact that the Pope may have said something right does not cancel the fact that he is working in various forms to spread serious errors; the right statements that the Supreme Pontiff might have said or said are not supported, as you will see, by the commitment to have them observed and therefore remain a dead letter! Moreover, the Pope's speech of January 2016 to the Roman Rota, of which the article by Goldstein and Fastiggi speaks:

1) was pronounced before Amoris Laetitia;

2) it is a speech, therefore it does not have the authority of a papal exhortation;

3) can easily be interpreted in a sense conforming to Amoris Laetitia and to the errors to which it has opened the doors, in fact this discourse is not clearly opposed to the errors that are spread through Amoris Laetitia, that is, it does not affirm that in order to confess one must resolve not to sin , does not affirm that adultery is forbidden always and forever, does not affirm that conscience cannot sincerely recognize that God allows it to continue to break the commandments with objectively serious acts ... etc.

The serious critics of Amoris Laetitia do not make rash judgments, as the article in question says, but, as you will see by reading this book or examining other texts in this line, judgments based on the words and actions of the Pope. clearly, as I clearly show in this book of mine, what Pope Francis is achieving in the Church directly or indirectly, that is also thanks to collaborators who, precisely in the line of his work, spread errors and produce scandals, without the Pope intervening to block them!

Furthermore, the serious critics of Amoris Laetitia present their opinions as non-questionable facts rather than personal opinions, precisely because they are based not only on the Pope's affirmations but on what he is concretely achieving directly and indirectly in the Church also with the help of his collaborators whose errors he obviously does not correct as they follow the "paradigm shift" that he himself is carrying out.

The serious critics of Amoris Laetitia with their action also on Internet sites are not creating a parallel Magisterium but, contrary to what the article in question says, they are reiterating the two-thousand-year Magisterium which the Pope opposes in a discreet but clear way, directly or indirectly, as his actions show; the "parallel magisterium" is therefore being created by the Pope not the serious critics of Amoris Laetitia ...

This behavior of the critics of Amoris Laetitia, contrary to what the article in question affirms, does not indicate a serious loss of the sense of truth and the sense of the Church, but manifests precisely the opposite, that is, it manifests attachment to the Truth and true sense of the Church. and more specifically it manifests that the Holy Spirit continues to speak in the Church even when a Pope spreads evident and very serious errors, also manifests that if a Pope with his errors endangers the eternal salvation of souls, the Holy Spirit commands to oppose him in a clear and public way precisely to save the souls deceived by such errors, s. Thomas, guided by the Holy Spirit, was therefore able to affirm, as seen: "... ubi immineret periculum fidei, etiam publice essent praelati a subditis arguendi." (II-II q. 33, a. 4 ad 2) When a danger was imminent for the faith, the subjects should reproach their prelates even publicly.

Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, wrote the following: "" Faith is normed on the objective data of Scripture and dogma ... the criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, insofar as it lacks support in Scripture and in the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church.
When neither the consent of the whole Church is possible, nor clear evidence of the sources is available, a definitive binding decision is not possible. If such an event had formally occurred, the conditions for such an act would be lacking, and therefore a question about its legitimacy would have to be raised ". [261]

In some cases, therefore, it is necessary to criticize the papal pronouncements ... and in some cases this criticism must be made publicly.

These serious critics of Amoris Laetitia, contrary to what the article states, present themselves as the spokespersons of what the Church has affirmed with supreme authority in 2000 years of Christianity and operate according to the indications of right faith and right theology in the line of the action also carried out by Pastors and theologians in other historical moments in the face of clear errors made by Popes.

History, as we have seen, knows various cases of papal errors, and even then men of the Church, making themselves spokesmen for sound doctrine, moved to counter these errors.

In the article in question, the commentators of Amoris Laetitia are criticized who claim to have the right to speak against Amoris Laetitia because the Pope has not made their opinion clear enough, I am not sure which critics are referring here Dr. Goldstein and the prof. Fastiggi but certainly I and various other critics speak after having understood very well what the Pope is doing directly or indirectly… the evidence is very clear, and this book of mine, together with the writings of other critics, highlights them; what has just been said refutes the affirmations of the article according to which the attitude of the critics of Amoris Laetitia does not seem to reflect an attitude of "intense and patient reflection" which is open to correction by fellow theologians, in fact the serious criticism based on Amoris Laetitia is not based on doctrines to be interpreted but on facts and words that support them and which clearly show how the Pope is clearly betraying sound doctrine and is spreading colossal and pernicious errors in various ways, unfortunately!

God intervene!

12) My reply to another article by prof. Fastiggi which does not point out that the Pope can make mistakes and even fall into heresy, as the sound doctrine and history of the Church teaches.

As for what Fastiggi says, in another article, to defend the current Pope [262] it seems to me that an effective and documented response to the American theologian's affirmations can be found in this book of mine ...

Alongside the truth, which Fastiggi presented, according to which the Pope is infallible on some occasions and other truths about the Pope and our relationship with him, it is good that Fastiggi points out that in history we also remember Popes who made scandalous mistakes , as I explained in the introduction to this book of mine; point out, for example, that Pope Honorius was convicted of heresy [263] ... what s. Bruno di Segni clearly opposed the errors of Pasquale II[264], you speak of Pope Liberius, of Pope John XXII etc. etc. ... and say that the doctrine clearly considers the possibility that a Pope could fall into heresy [265] ... also point out that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has admitted errors on the part of the Popes "In the history of the Papacy there has been no lack of human errors and even serious shortcomings: Peter himself, in fact, acknowledged that he was a sinner (Cf. Lc 5,8.). Peter, a weak man, was chosen as a rock, precisely so that it was clear that the victory is Christ's only and not the result of human strength. The Lord wanted to carry his own treasure through time in fragile vessels (cf. 2 Cor 4,7.): Thus human frailty became a sign of the truth of divine promises and of God's mercy. (Cf. John Paul II, Lett . Enc. "Ut Unum Sint", of 25.5.1995, nn. 91-94.) "[266] ... obviously if the prof. Fastiggi will want to study history in depth, he will remember that when the Popes committed "human errors and even serious shortcomings" even in the doctrinal field, there were often few who pointed them out and directly opposed them[267] … I see that prof. Fastiggi often quotes the "Veritatis Donum" but I invite him to consider this text in the light of the Bible and of all Tradition ... I remind him, however, that in the event of a scandal due to errors spread by Pope or Bishops it is entirely legitimate for theologians to warn the faithful of errors and therefore to intervene publicly, as I said above, because the fundamental principle of Catholic doctrine is the salvation of souls! By the Law of Christ, as explained by St. Thomas, correction is a work of mercy that belongs to all towards any person, towards whom we are bound to have charity, when in it we find something to correct; the superior must be corrected with due respect but this correction can also be made publicly in fact, Aquinas points out, when there was a danger to the faith, the subjects would be required to reproach their prelates even publicly, therefore s. Paul, who was also a subject of St. Peter, for the danger of scandal in the faith, rebuked him publicly in Antioch (Gal 2). St. Thomas Aquinas notes that this public reproach of an inferior to a superior was licit because of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith (cf. II-II, q. 33, a. 4 ad 2)

It says more precisely s. Thomas: "... ubi immineret periculum fidei, etiam publice essent praelati a subditis arguendi." (II-II q. 33, a. 4 ad 2) When a danger to the faith is imminent, the subjects should reproach their prelates even publicly . The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church.

… We know well that s. Thomas was well acquainted with what the Bible says ... and it does not seem to me that his doctrine on this point of the correction of the superior has ever been considered heretical.

Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, wrote the following: "" Faith is normed on the objective data of Scripture and dogma ... the criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, insofar as it lacks support in Scripture and in the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church.
When neither the consent of the whole Church is possible, nor clear evidence of the sources is available, a definitive binding decision is not possible. If such an event had formally occurred, the conditions for such an act would be lacking, and therefore a question about its legitimacy would have to be raised ". ("Das neue Volk Gottes: Entwürfe zur Ekklesiologie", (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1972) p. 144; "Faith, reason, truth and love", (Lindau 2009), p. 400.)

We saw that s. Roberto Bellarmino affirmed that: “As it is legitimate to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body so it is legitimate to resist the Pope who attacks souls or disturbs the State, and much more if he tries to destroy the Church; it is legitimate to resist such a Pope by not carrying out what he commands and preventing his will from being carried out ... " [268]

Unfortunately Pope Francis, as I show in this book, is trying to subvert the sound doctrine and he has committed many errors… I don't know if to prof. Fastiggi is more interested in defending the Pope or the salvation of souls and the Truth of Christ ...

If to prof. Fastiggi is interested in defending the Truth of Christ I invite him to make his voice heard against the errors and related scandals to which this Pope is opening the doors and of which I speak abundantly in this quite voluminous book of mine ...

If, on the other hand, the prof. Announce that, thanks to the work of this Pope, as we will show in this book, adulterers remain in their sin and receive the Sacraments without contrition and without proposing to observe all the Law of God and thus receive Communion, if they are interested in those who practice homosexuality remain in their sin and receive the Sacraments without contrition and without proposing to observe all the Law of God and thus receive Communion, if they are interested in the continuing to spread errors: on charity, on moral conscience, on doctrine true of s. Thomas, on the divine law and on the natural law; if he is interested that Bonino, a famous anti-Catholic and abortionist, is considered a great of Italy, if he is interested that LGBT notices they read at the s. Papal Masses ... if he is interested that people are scandalized and remain so for what he sees doing and saying contrary to sound doctrine by the Pope and by Bishops and Cardinals etc. etc. ... if in short, to prof. Fastiggi is interested that the "paradigm change", with all the errors that it brings with it and with serious damage to souls, continues to move forward, continues prof. You hurry to defend the errors of this Pope.

Pope Francis, in fact, as I will demonstrate throughout this book of mine:

- through Amoris Laetitia he opened the doors of the Sacraments to adulterers and active homosexuals who do not have the purpose of living according to the divine law and therefore lack contrition;

-through Amoris Laetitia spreads the "paradigm shift" with errors: on charity, on moral conscience, on the true doctrine of St. Thomas, on divine law and natural law etc.

- considered Bonino, a famous anti-Catholic and abortionist, a great Italian[269], ...

- evidently allowed LGBT people to read at the s. Papal Masses [270]

-etc.etc.

I remind everyone that the Christian follows Christ who calls: to chastity and not to adultery, to life according to nature and not to unnatural sins such as homosexuality, to contrition and therefore to the purpose of changing one's life and not to perseverance in sin, to the Catholic doctrine and not to the LGBT one, to the right conscience and not to laxity, to the divine law and not to a vague natural law, to the true "law of graduation" and not to the "gradualness of the Law", Christ calls to tell the Truth uncomfortable and not to remain silent in the face of the misdeeds of the communist regimes ... like the Chinese communist regime ... etc.etc.

Finally, I remind everyone that it will not be the Pope who will judge us, but Christ himself who certainly gave us the Pope as his Vicar but did not give him to us as an infallible God ... instead Christ has given us the Holy Spirit as an infallible assistant who guides us to the whole truth …

In the judgment it will not be enough to have simply followed and supported the Pope but it will be necessary to have followed and supported the Truth of Christ which teaches true chastity, true charity, true prudence ... etc. etc. Not for nothing, on the other hand s. Paul wrote: “I am amazed that, so quickly, from him who called you with the grace of Christ you are moving on to another gospel. But there is no other, except that there are some who upset you and want to subvert the gospel of Christ. But even if we ourselves, or an angel from heaven proclaims a different gospel to you than the one we have announced, let it be anathema! We have already said it and now I repeat it: if anyone announces to you a gospel other than the one you have received, let him be anathema! "(Galatians 1, 6ff)

... if we ourselves, that is an Apostle, or a Pope, or an angel from heaven ... proclaimed to you a gospel other than the one we have announced to you, let it be anathema!

God enlighten us better and better.

 

Footnotes 

 

[1]Paul VI "Address of the Pope to the Sacred College", Monday, May 18, 1970, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1970/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19700518_sacro-collegio.html

[2]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "Letter to the Bishops of the Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons", 10.1.1986 n. 5, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_it.html

[3]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction "Donum Veritatis" of 24.5.1990, nos. 1-3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_it.html

[4]J. Ratzinger, “Introduction”, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “On the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried”, LEV, Vatican City 1998, p. 20-29., Www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_it.html#_ftn1

[5]"Epistula XXIII", www.augustinus.it, https://www.augustinus.it/latino/lettere/lettera_023_testo.htm

[6]Translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.www.augustinus.it .it / english / letters / index2.htm

[7]St. Gregory the Great “Pastoral Rule” p. II, n. 4, in the Great, Gregory. “Homilies on the Gospels. Pastoral rule ”(Classics of religion) (Italian Edition) (location in Kindle 7926ss). UTET, 2013 Edition of the Kindle.

[8]See St. Gregory the Great “Pastoral Rule” p. II, n. 4, in the Great, Gregory. “Homilies on the Gospels. Pastoral rule ”(Classics of religion) (Italian Edition) UTET, 2013 Edition of the Kindle.

[9]See St. Gregory the Great “Pastoral Rule” p. II, n. 4, in the Great, Gregory. “Homilies on the Gospels. Pastoral rule ”(Classics of religion) (Italian Edition) UTET, 2013 Edition of the Kindle.

[10] "Code of Canon Law", can. 212, § 2 and 3

[11]“Correctio Filialis De Haeresibus Propagatis”, http://www.correctiofilialis.org/it/; http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_Italiano.pdf

[12]S. Agostino, "Discorso 162 / C", translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publishing house online, http://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/discorso_575_testo.htm

[13]"Code of Canon Law", can. 212, § 2 and 3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/ita/documents/cic_libroII_208-223_it.html#TITOLO_I

[14]See "Catechism of Tridentine", ed. Cantagalli 1992, n. 112 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/13page.htm

[15]Vatican Council II, Decr. “Apostolicam actuositatem”, 2: AAS 58 (1966) 838-839.

[16]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[17]Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 note n. 8, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[18]See St. John Paul II, Encyclical Lett. "Ut unum sint" of 25.5.1995, nos. 90s, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

[19]Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[20]N. Cipriani "The primacy of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium" in Credere Oggi, Edizioni Messaggero Padova, site consulted on 27.10.2020 https://www.credereoggi.it/upload/1998/ Articolo103_35.asp

[21]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church "31.10.1998 n.4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[22]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 20

[23]Joint coordination committee for theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church "The role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium" 3.10.2008, www.chiesa.espressonline.it, http: // church. expressed.repubblica.it/ article/1341814.html.

[24]Cf. Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution. “Pastor aeternus”, preface; Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, nos 3051; St. Leo I the Great, “Tractatus in Natale eiusdem”, IV, 2: CCL 138, p. 19; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church "31.10.1998 n.4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html)

[25]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 22: AAS 57 (1965) 26., www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[26]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. Lumen gentium, 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[27]Cf. Jn 17,21: 23-1; Second Vatican Council, Decr. "Unitatis redintegratio", n. 8; Paul VI, Exhortation ap. Evangelii nuntiandi, 1975 December 77, n. 68: AAS 1976 (69) 25.5.1995; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ut unum sint", 98, n. 31.10.1998; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”4 n. 19981031, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_XNUMX_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[28]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n.27, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[29]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 19: AAS 57 (1965) 22, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[30]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[31]Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 5, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[32]Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 27, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[33]John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ut Unum Sint", of 25.5.1995, n. 95, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

[34]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 22: AAS 57 (1965) 26, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[35]Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 6, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[36]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 6, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[37]St. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ut unum sint", 25.5.1995, n. 93, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

[38]Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 7, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[39]St. John Paul II "Ut Unum Sint", 25.5.1995, n. 94, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html#$46

[40]See St. John Paul II “Ut Unum Sint”, of 25.5.1995, n. 94, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html#$46

[41]See St. John Paul II “Ut Unum Sint”, of 25.5.1995, n. 93s, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html#$46

[42]Vatican Council II, Decr. “Presbyterorum ordinis”, 4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_presbyterorum-ordinis_it.html

[43]Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution. “Lumen gentium”, 21.11.1964, 25, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html; cf. "Catechism of the Catholic Church" n. 888

[44]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church "31.10.1998 n.9, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[45]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964 n. 25, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[46]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964 n. 25, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html#_ftn77; cf. Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution. Dei Filius, 3: Dz 1792 (3011) [Collantes 1.070]; cf. also the note added to Schema I De Eccl. (taken from S. Rob. Bellarmino): Mansi 51, 579C; and the reformed Scheme of the Constitution II De Ecclesia Christi, with the commentary Kleutgen: Mansi 53, 313AB. Pius IX, Lett. Tuas libenter: Dz 1683 (2879) [Collantes 7.174].]; cf. CIC, cann. 1322-1323 [in the new Code: cann. 747-750]

[47]Cf.f Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 25: AAS 57 (1965) 30, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[48]S. Paciolla, “Card. Müller: no Pope can propose his subjective points of view to the faith of the whole Church ", www.sabinopaciolla.com 30.10.2020 https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/card-muller-nessun-papa-puo-propose- to-the-faith-of-the-whole-church-its-subjective-points-of-view /

[49]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 27 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[50]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 10, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[51]Cf. Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 26 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[52]Vatican Council II, Decree Christus Dominus we read n. 15, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_it.html

[53]Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 11, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[54]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 7, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[55]Conc. Vat, II: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 7; Const. Decree Decl., P. 428, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[56]See Conc. Vat, II: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 8, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html) "(Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration" Mysterium Ecclesiae "24.6.1973 .19730705, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_XNUMX_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[57]Cf. Second Vatican Council: Const Dogm. on the Church "Lumen gentium", n. 25; Const. Decr Decl., P. 139) "(Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration" Mysterium Ecclesiae "24.6.1973 n. 3, www.vatican.va,, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations /cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[58]Conc. Vat, II: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 10, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html)

[59]Cf. Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 12 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[60]Cf. Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 12 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[61]Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 8

[62]See Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" 24.6.1973 n. 2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[63]Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 25, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[64]See Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" 24.6.1973 n. 3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[65]Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution "" Pastor aeternus "" c. IV, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-pastor-aeternus-18-iulii-1870.html

[66]Cf. Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Constitution. "Pastor aeternus", chap. 4; Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3070; Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 25, et Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 4.

[67]Cf. Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 11; Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" 24.6.1973 n. 3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html)

[68]Pius IX, Dogmatic Constitution “Pastor Aeternus” c. IV, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-pastor-aeternus-18-iulii-1870.html)

[69]Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 25, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[70]S. Paciolla, “Card. Müller: no Pope can propose his subjective points of view to the faith of the whole Church "www.sabinopaciolla.com 30.10.2020 https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/card-muller-nessun-papa-puo-propose-alla - Faith-of-the-whole-church-its-subjective-points-of-view /

[71]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Instruction "Donum Veritatis" of 24.5.1990 n. 18, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_it.html

[72]Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964 n. 25, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[73]Cf. Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 22 and 25; Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" 24.6.1973 n. 3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[74]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Illustrative doctrinal note of the concluding formula of the Professio fidei” 29.6. 1998, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_it.html

[75]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Illustrative doctrinal note of the concluding formula of the Professio fidei” 29.6.1998, www.vatican. , https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_it.html

[76]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" about Catholic doctrine on the Church to defend it from some errors of today, of 5.7.1973, n. 4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[77]See Pius IX, Brief Eximiam tuam, AAS n. 8 Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 2831; Paul VI Encyclical Lett. "Mysterium Fidei" 3.9.1965 n. 24s, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" about Catholic doctrine on the Church to defend it from some errors of today, of 5.7.1973, n. 5, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[78]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" about Catholic doctrine on the Church to defend it from some errors of today, of 5.7.1973, n. 5, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[79]St. Paul VI Encyclical Lett. "Mysterium Fidei", 3.9.1965 n. 24s, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html

[80] St. Paul VI Encyclical Lett. "Mysterium Fidei" 3.9.1965 n. 24s, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html

[81]Vatican Council I, Constitution "Dei Filius", 24.4.1870, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-dei-filius-24 -aprilis-1870.html; Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 3020

[82]See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" about Catholic doctrine on the Church to defend it from some errors of today, of 5.7.1973, n. 5, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[83]John XXIII, “Speech of the Holy Father John XXIII”, AAS 54 (1962), p. 792, nos. 5,1. 6,5, www.vatican.va, Solemn opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (11 October 1962) | John XXIII

[84]See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" about Catholic doctrine on the Church to defend it from some errors of today, of 1973, n. 5, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[85]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "Illustrative doctrinal note of the concluding formula of the Professio fidei" 29.6.1998, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_it.html

[86]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Instruction "Donum Veritatis" of 24.5.1990, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_it.html

[87]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Education "Donum Veritatis" of 24.5.1990 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_it.html

[88]Sup. III Sententiarum, d. 25, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 4, to 3; text quoted in (International Theological Commission, "The sensus fidei in the life of the Church" of 10.6.2014 note 78, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus- fidei_it.html # _ftnref68

[89]Conc. Vat, II: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 7, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[90]See Conc. Vat, II: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 7s, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[91]Conc. Vat, II: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 8, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[92]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 n. 1,2,1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[93]Conc. Vat, II: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 8, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[94]International Theological Commission: “Theology today. Perspectives. Principles and criteria. " n. 7, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_doc_20111129_teologia-oggi_it.html

[95]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 n.3,2,2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[96]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 n. 2,3,1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[97]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 nn 2,2,1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[98]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 600, 602 s., 609

[99]See Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1501

[100]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 3006s.)

[101]Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution. on the Catholic faith, Dei Filius, chap. 4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/i-vatican-council/documents/vat-i_const_18700424_dei-filius_it.html

[102]See Conc. Vat, II: Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, n. 8, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[103]Cf. International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 2,2,2 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[104]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, 9: AAS 58 (1966) 821.

[105]Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, 9: AAS 58 (1966) 821, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[106]See Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. “Dei Verbum” 18.11.1965, 9: AAS 58 (1966) 821., www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html.

[107]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 n. 3.1.2 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[108]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, 12, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[109]See Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, 12, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[110]Benedict XVI, “Speech of the s. Father Benedict to the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission ", 23.4.2009, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2009/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090423_pcb. html

[111]Cf. International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 n. 3,2,1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[112]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 n. 3,2,2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[113]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[114]International Theological Commission: “Theology today. Perspectives. Principles and criteria. " 29.11.2011, n. 25, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_doc_20111129_teologia-oggi_it.html

[115]International Theological Commission: “Theology today. Perspectives. Principles and criteria. ", 29.11.2009, n. 26, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_doc_20111129_teologia-oggi_it.html

[116]International Theological Commission: “Theology today. Perspectives. Principles and criteria. ", 29.11.2009, n. 32, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_doc_20111129_teologia-oggi_it.html

[117]Cf. International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 3, 2,2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[118]See International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas.", 1990 n.3,2,2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it .html

[119]Cf. International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 n. 3,2,3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[120]Cf. International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 n. 3,3,6, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html)

[121]Cf. International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990 n. 3,3,6, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[122]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, 8, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[123]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[124]Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 10, www.vatican.va,, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html)

[125]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 7, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[126]Cf Collective declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3114; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 7, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[127]Cf. Jn 17,21: 23-2003; Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution. “Pastor aeternus”, preface: Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Dehoniane Editions Bologna, 3051, n. 2. Cf .. St. Leo I the Great, “Tractatus in Natale eiusdem”, IV, 138: CCL 19, p. 1; Second Vatican Council, Decr. "Unitatis redintegratio", n. 8; Paul VI, Exhortation ap. "Evangelii nuntiandi", 1975 December 77, n. 68: AAS 1976 (69) 25.5.1995; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ut Unum Sint", dated 98, n. 31.10.1998; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church "4, I, 19981031, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_XNUMX_primato-successore-pietro_it.html)

[128]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, 10: AAS 58 (1966) 822, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[129]Benedict XVI, "Homily of 7 May 2005", www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050507_san-giovanni-laterano.html

[130]See Benedict XVI, "Homily of 7 May 2005", www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050507_san-giovanni-laterano .html.

[131]Declaration of the German Bishops 1875, Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 3114; text praised and approved by Pope Pius IX with the “Mirabilis illa constantia” of 1875, Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 3117

[132]"Speech of John Paul II to the Officials and Lawyers of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota for the inauguration of the judicial year" of 21.1.2000, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul -ii / it / speeches / 2000 / jan-mar / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_20000121_rota-romana.html

[133]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Eucharistic communion by the divorced and remarried faithful" of 14.9.1994, www.vatican.va,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_it.html

[134]S. Alfonso. M. de Liguori "Truth of Faith" p. III c. IX ‚§. 4 n. 63, 67,68 in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. VIII, pp. 753–755, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_P3BI.HTM#-M5R

[135]See Card. L. Müller "Preface" in R. Buttiglione "Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia", ed. Ares, 2017, p. 12

[136]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" about Catholic doctrine on the Church to defend it from some errors of today, dated 5.7. 1973, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html

[137]S. Paciolla, “Card. Müller: no Pope can propose his subjective points of view to the faith of the whole Church "www.sabinopaciolla.com 30.10.2020 https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/card-muller-nessun-papa-puo-propose-alla - Faith-of-the-whole-church-its-subjective-points-of-view /

[138]S. Paciolla, “Card. Müller: no Pope can propose his subjective points of view to the faith of the whole Church "www.sabinopaciolla.com 30.10.2020 https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/card-muller-nessun-papa-puo-propose-alla - Faith-of-the-whole-church-its-subjective-points-of-view /

[139]See "Primo Commonitorio" by Vincent de Lérins, Chap. 23; PL 50, 667-668; Office of Friday Readings of the XXVII week of ordinary time in the Italian Episcopal Conference "Liturgy of the Hours according to the Roman Rite" ed. LEV 1993 (reprint) vol. IV p. 323s https://www.maranatha.it/Ore/ord/LetVen/27VENpage.htm

[140]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 2802

[141]Text taken from www.totustuus.it, http://www.totustuustools.net/magistero/p9ineffa.htm

[142]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 3020

[143]Pius IX, Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" 24.4.1870, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-dei-filius-24-aprilis -1870.html

[144]Pius X, Motu proprio "Sacrorum antistitum", anti-modernist oath, Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3541

[145]See, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html)

[146]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[147]See S. Agostino, "Discorso 162 / C", www.augustinus.it, http://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/discorso_575_testo.htm

[148]See Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 nn 550 ff. 561 and following; R. De Mattei "Honorius I: the controversial case of a heretic Pope", Roman Correspondence 30/12/2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/onorio-i-il-caso-controverso-di-un-papa- heretic /; Antonio Sennis "Honorius" in Encyclopedia of the Popes, (2000), www.treccani.it, http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/onorio-i_%28Encyclopedia-dei-Papi%29/

[149]HG Berg “The Justinian heirs - Monergetism and monoteletism” in H. Jedin (directed by) “History of the Church”, Jaca Book 2006 vol. III pp. 46-50)

[150]See R. De Mattei "Honorius I: the controversial case of a heretic Pope", Corrispondenza Romana 30-12-2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/onorio-i-il-caso-controverso-di-un- pope-heretic /

[151]See Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 138 and following; Manlio Simonetti “Liberio” in the Encyclopedia of the Popes, www.treccani.it, http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/liberio_%28Encyclopedia-dei-Papi%29/; Jedin (directed by) “History of the Church”, Jaca Book 2007 vol. II pp. 44ss, 67s, 272s)

[152]Manlio Simonetti "Liberio" in the Encyclopedia of the Popes, www.treccani.it, http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/liberio_%28Encyclopedia-dei-Papi%29/

[153]See R. De Mattei "The filial resistance of San Bruno di Segni to Pope Paschal II" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, 04 March 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/la-filiale-resistenza-di-san - brown-of-signs-to-pope-paschal-ii /

[154]See R. De Mattei "The filial resistance of San Bruno di Segni to Pope Paschal II" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, 04 March 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/la-filiale-resistenza-di-san - brown-of-signs-to-pope-paschal-ii /

[155]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 990 s.

[156]See R. De Mattei "A Pope who fell into John XXII heresy and the beatific vision of the righteous after death" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, January 28, 2015, https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/un- pope-who-fell-in-nelleresia-john-xxii-and-the-beatific-vision-of-the-righteous-after-death /)

[157]Christian Trottmann "Giovanni XXII", in Encyclopedia of the Popes (2000), www.treccani.it, http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/giovanni-xxii_(Encyclopedia-dei-Papi)/

[158]Jedin (directed by) “History of the Church”, Jaca Book 2011 vol. 2 p. 28

[159]See R. De Mattei "A Pope who fell into John XXII heresy and the beatific vision of the righteous after death" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, January 28, 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/un-papa -that-fell-in-the-world-of-john-xxii-and-the-beatific-vision-of-the-righteous-after-death /

[160]See R. De Mattei "A Pope who fell into the John XXII heresy and the beatific vision of the righteous after death" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, January 28, 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/un-papa -that-fell-in-nelleresia-john-xxii-and-the-beatific-vision-of-the-righteous-after-death /)

[161]Simon Tugwell “Waleys [Wallensis], Thomas” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-28554

[162]Christian Trottmann "Giovanni XXII", in the Encyclopedia of the Popes, Institute of the Italian encyclopedia, Rome, (2000), http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/giovanni-xxii_(Encyclopedia-dei-Papi)/

[163]KA Fink, E. Iserloh, J. Glazik “From John XXII to Clement VI” in Jedin (directed by) “History of the Church”, Jaca Book 2011 V. V, 2 p. 28

[164]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”, 1998, n. 15, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html.

[165]Pope Adrian II, "Allocution given at the IV Constantinopolitan Council", in Mansi, XVI, 126 http://mansi.fscire.it/ immagine/29623.

[166]S. Roberto Bellarmino “De Romano Pontifice” in “Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini politiani…”, Ex Officina Typographica Davidis Sartorii, Ingolstadii MDLXXXVI, l. II c. 30, p. 835ss https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=xy5XAAAAcAAJ&hl=it&pg=GBS.PA903

[167]"Epistle VI" 3, PL 83, 903 https://books.google.it/books?id=_FpkNlIY3LoC&redir_esc=y

[168]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici” editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, Graz, Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959, p. I, p. 495s, p. II c. II q.7 dpc39 available online on the Columbia University website, consulted on 8.6.2021 http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_6029936_001/pages/ldpd_6029936_001_00000131.html?toggle = image & menu = maximize & top = & left =

[169]P. I, dist. 40, c. 6; cf. Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici” editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, Graz, Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959, p. I, p. 145s, available online on the Columbia University website, consulted on 6.6.2021 http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_6029936_001/pages/ldpd_6029936_001_00000131.html?toggle=image&menu=maximize& = & left =

[170]See Nauclerus, Johannes “Chronica Johannis Navcleri… succinctim comprehendentia res memorabiles secvlorvm omnium ac gentium, ab initio mundi usque ad annum Christi M.CCCC” Coloniae Agripp., 1675 T. I, p. 667 https://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/64604/52/0/

[171]Deusdedit “Collectio Canonum” and Vatican Codex edited by Pio Martinucci Venetiis, Ex Typographia Aemiliana, 1869 p. 160ss l. I, CCXXXI, available online at archive.org, https://archive.org/details/deusdeditcardin00canogoog (accessed on 7.6.2021)

[172]V. Wolf von Glanvell “Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit”, Paderborn 1905, p. 177, l. I, CCCVI text available online at archive.org, https://archive.org/details/diekanonessammlu01deus/page/n5/mode/2up (accessed on 7.6.2021)

[173]V. Wolf von Glanvell “Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit”, Paderborn 1905, p. 177, l. I, CCCVI

[174]Pope Adrian II, Allocution given at the IV Constantinopolitan Council, Mansi, XVI, 126 http://mansi.fscire.it/ immagine/29623

[175]"Epistola VI" 3, PL 83, 903 available online at this site https://books.google.it/books?id=_FpkNlIY3LoC&redir_esc=y

[176]S. Isidoro “Sententiae” l. III c. XXXIX, PL LXXXIII, 709s

[177]V. Wolf von Glanvell “Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit”, Paderborn 1905, note 31 p. 178

[178]V. Wolf von Glanvell “Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit”, Paderborn 1905, p. 189ssl. The no. CCCXXVII

[179]Papae Innocentii III “Sermo II in cons. Pont. " PL 217,656 https://books.google.it/books?id=egkRAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y

[180]"Sermo IV in consec. Pontif. " PL 217, 670 https://books.google.it/books?id=egkRAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y

[181]J. Grohe, "Depositions, abdications and renunciations to the pontificate between 1046 and 1449" in: Church and History. Journal of the Italian Association of Professors of Church History 4 (2014), p. 58

[182]S. Roberto Bellarmino “De Romano Pontifice” in “Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini politiani…”, Ex Officina Typographica Davidis Sartorii, Ingolstadii MDLXXXVI, l. II c. 29, p. 834 https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=xy5XAAAAcAAJ&hl=it&pg=GBS.PA903

[183]S. Alfonso M. de Liguori “Truth of Faith” p. III c. IX ‚§. 4 n. 63, 67,68 in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. VIII, pp. 753-755, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_P3BI.HTM#-M5R

[184]S. Alfonso M. de Liguori “Truth of Faith” p. III c. IX ‚§. 4 n. 63, 67,68 in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. VIII, pp. 754-755, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_P3BI.HTM#-M5R

[185]Wernz “Ius canonicum / auctore P. Francisco Xav. Wernz SJ ad codicis normam exactum opera Petri Vidal SJ ", Romae, apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1943, editio tertia, tomus II, p. 518

[186]Wernz “Ius canonicum / auctore P. Francisco Xav. Wernz SJ ad codicis normam exactum opera Petri Vidal SJ ", Romae, apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1943, editio tertia, tomus II, p. 517

[187]Wernz “Ius canonicum” / auctore Fr. Francisco Xav. Wernz SJ ad codicis normam exactum opera Petri Vidal SJ ", Romae, apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1943, editio tertia, tomus II, p. 518

[188]A. Xavier da Silveira “Theological Hypothesis of a Heretic Pope” Solfanelli 2016, in particular pp. 79ss

[189]Ghirlanda SJ "Termination from the office of the Roman Pontiff", www.chiesa.espressonline.it, 2.3.2013 http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ Articolo/1350455.html

[190]See Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 nn 550 ff. 561 and following; R. De Mattei "Honorius I: the controversial case of a heretic Pope", Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency 30/12/2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/onorio-i-il-caso-controverso-di -a-pope-heretic /; Antonio Sennis "Honorius" in Encyclopedia of the Popes (2000), www.treccani.it, http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/onorio-i_%28Encyclopedia-dei-Papi%29/

[191]Jedin (directed by) “History of the Church”, Jaca Book 2006 v. III pp. 46-50)

Also p. Fois underlines in an article the "limits of papal immunity" (M. Fois "Pope and cardinals in the 14th century" in "Archivum Historiae Pontificiae" 1976, 397 pp. XNUMXss

[192]F. Romano "What to answer to sedevacantists?", Www.toscanaoggi.it, 19.6.2016, http://www.toscanaoggi.it/Rubriche/Risponde-il-teologo/Cosa-rispondere-ai-sedevacantisti

[193]Charles Journet, Oeuvres complètes volume X: 1938-1943 (Théologie) (French Edition) (p.346). Lethielleux Editions. 2010. Edition of the Kindle.

[194] Charles Journet ,. “Oeuvres complètes” volume X: 1938-1943 (Théologie) (French Edition) (p.347). Lethielleux Editions. 2010 Edition of the Kindle.

[195]Charles Journet “The Church of the Incarnate Word” Vol. 1, Sheed and Ward London and New York 1955 pp. 425ss

[196]See T. Sol “Nisi deprehendatur a fide deveus: the immunity of the Pape de Gratien à Huguccio” in Ius Ecclesiae vol. XXXI n. 1 2019 p. 181 DOI: 10.19272 / 201908601010; cf. also J. Grohe, "Depositions, abdications and renunciations to the pontificate between 1046 and 1449" in: Church and History. Journal of the Italian Association of Professors of Church History 4 (2014), pp. 55-72

[197]L. Fontbaustier “La deposition du Pape heretique” Mare & Martin, 2016; Boris Bernabé, Cyrille Dounot & Nicolas Warembourg, “La déposition du pape hérétique. Lieux théologiques, modèles canoniques, enjeux constitutionnels "(Paris: Mare & Martin, 2019).

[198]See Card. J. Herranz "Salus animarum principle of the canonical order" www.vatican.va, 6.4.2000 https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000406_salus-animarum_it.html

[199]IIª-IIae q. 104 a. 5 co. translation from the 2001 edition of Somma Theologica on CD Rom, edited by Edizioni Studio Domenicano

[200]See R. De Mattei "Can the Pope's acts of government be discussed?", Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly Information Agency, 18 September 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/si-possono-discutere-gli-atti- of-government-of-the-pope /

[201]See R. De Mattei "The filial resistance of San Bruno di Segni to Pope Paschal II" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, 04 March 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/la-filiale-resistenza-di-san - brown-of-signs-to-pope-paschal-ii /

[202]See R. De Mattei "A Pope who fell into John XXII heresy and the beatific vision of the righteous after death" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, January 28, 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/un-papa -that-fell-in-the-world-of-john-xxii-and-the-beatific-vision-of-the-righteous-after-death /

[203]"Sermon" XNUMXth Sunday after Easter, www.santantonio.org, https://www.santantonio.org/it/sermoni/sermoni-domenicali/domenica-vi-dopo-pasqua

[204]S. Aquila "Dear German cardinals, Did Thomas More and John Fisher die in vain?", Www.tempi.it, 23.10.2015 https://www.tempi.it/cari-cardinali-tedeschi-tommaso-moro-e- john-fisher-died-in vain /? fbclid = IwAR0W6I05pbtLHHGi5q4Dh6wtTmIKSVlZ0EuvsaXVflCTF6OLD1pkLK6Y6RY

[205]See Glauco Maria Cantarella "Pasquale II" Biographical Dictionary of Italians - Volume 81 (2014), www.treccani.it, https://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/papa-pasquale-ii_%28Dtionary-Biografico%29/

[206]See Christian Trottmann "Giovanni XXII" Biographical Dictionary of Italians - Volume 55 (2001), www.treccani.it, https://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/papa-giovanni-xxii_%28Dtionary-Biografico%29/

[207]Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / pp. 463s www.archidiocesisgranada.es, http://www.archidiocesisgranada.es/images/pdf/Amoris-Laetitia.-Articulo-Buenos-Aires.pdf (accessed on 29.5.2021)

[208]Declaration of the German Bishops 1875, Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 3114; text praised and approved by Pope Pius IX with the “Mirabilis illa constantia” of 1875, see in Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 3117

[209]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 7, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[210]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998 n. 10, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[211]Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, 10: AAS 58 (1966) 822, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[212]Benedict XVI, "Homily" of 7 May 2005, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050507_san-giovanni-laterano.html

[213]See Benedict XVI, "Homily" of 7 May 2005, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050507_san-giovanni-laterano .html

[214]From the "Primo Commonitorio" by Vincent de Lérins, Chap. 23; PL 50, 667-668; Office of Friday Readings of the XXVII week of ordinary time in the Italian Episcopal Conference "Liturgy of the Hours according to the Roman Rite" ed. LEV 1993 (reprint) vol. IV p. 323s https://www.maranatha.it/Ore/ord/LetVen/27VENpage.htm

[215]Pius IX, Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" 24.4.1870, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-dei-filius-24-aprilis -1870.html

[216]Motu proprio Sacrorum antistitum, anti-modernist oath, Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3541

[217]International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html

[218]Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Littera circa partecipationem” available in J. Ochoa “Leges Ecclesiae post Codicem iuris canonici editae”, Ediurcla, vol, VI, 1987 n. 4657, p. 7605

[219]See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Letter concerning the indissolubility of marriage” 11.4.1973, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730411_indissolubilitate-matrimonii_it. html

[220]John Paul II "Familiaris Consortio" 22.11.1992, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

[221]International Theological Commission "Religious freedom for the good of all". April 26.4.2019, 14, nos. 2019ss, www.vatican.va, Religious freedom for the good of all. Theological approach to contemporary challenges (XNUMX) (vatican.va)

[222]Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility to Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried, of 24 June 2000, nos. 1 and 4, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_it.html

[223]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 25: AAS 57 (1965) 30 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[224]Cf Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 25: AAS 57 (1965) 30 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[225]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”n. 9, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[226]Pius IX, Dogmatic Constitution “Pastor Aeternus” c. IV, 18.7.1870, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-pastor-aeternus-18-iulii-1870.html

[227]Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, n. 25 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[228]Cf. canons 750 and following of the Code of Canon Law; cf. John Paul II Apostolic Letter in the form of a Motu proprio "Ad tuendam fidem", of 30 June - 1 July 1998, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio- fidei_it.html; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "Profession of Faith and the Oath of Faithfulness in Assuming an Office to Be Exercised in the Name of the Church", published January 9, 1989, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia / congregations / cfaith / documents / rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_it.html; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Illustrative doctrinal note of the concluding formula of the Professio fidei” 29.6.1998 nos. 5-10, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_it.html; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction “Veritatis donum”, 24.5.1990, nn. 15-18, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_it.html

[229]S. Paciolla, “Card. Müller: no Pope can propose his subjective points of view to the faith of the whole Church "www.sabinopaciolla.com 30.10.2020 https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/card-muller-nessun-papa-puo-propose-alla - Faith-of-the-whole-church-its-subjective-points-of-view /

[230]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 nn 550 ff. 561 and following; R. De Mattei "Honorius I: the controversial case of a heretic Pope", Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency 30/12/2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/onorio-i-il-caso-controverso-di -a-pope-heretic /; Antonio Sennis "Honorius" in Encyclopedia of the Popes (2000), www.treccani.it http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/onorio-i_%28Encyclopedia-dei-Papi%29/

[231]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 138 and following; Manlio Simonetti “Liberio” in Encyclopedia of the Popes (2000), www.treccani.it http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/liberio_%28Encyclopedia-dei-Papi%29/; Jedin (directed by) “History of the Church”, Jaca Book 2007 v. II pp. 44ss 67s 272s

[232]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 990 s .; R. De Mattei "A Pope who fell into John XXII heresy and the beatific vision of the righteous after death" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, January 28, 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/un-papa-che -falls-in-nelleresia-john-xxii-and-the-beatific-vision-of-the-righteous-after-death /; Christian Trottmann "Giovanni XXII", in Encyclopedia of the Popes (2000), www.treccani.it, http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/giovanni-xxii_(Encyclopedia-dei-Papi)/

[233]See R. De Mattei "The filial resistance of San Bruno di Segni to Pope Paschal II" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, 04 March 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/la-filiale-resistenza-di-san - brown-of-signs-to-pope-paschal-ii /

[234]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The Pimate of the Successor of Peter in the mystery of the Church” n. 15, 31.10.1998, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[235]Sup. III Sententiarum, d. 25, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 4, to 3; text quoted in (International Theological Commission, "The sensus fidei in the life of the Church", 10.6.2014 note 78, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus -fidei_it.html # _ftnref68

[236]Pope Adrian II, Allocution given at the IV Constantinopolitan Council, Mansi, XVI, 126 http://mansi.fscire.it/ immagine/29623).

[237]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum”, PL 187 https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[238]Friedberg Ae. , “Corpus iuris canonici” editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, Graz, Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959, p. 145s, available online on the Columbia University website, consulted on 6.6.2021 http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_6029936_001/pages/ldpd_6029936_001_00000131.html?toggle=image&menu=maximize& = & left =

[239]Deusdedit “Collectio Canonum” and Vatican Codex edited by Pio Martinucci Venetiis, Ex Typographia Aemiliana, 1869 p. 160ss l. I, CCXXXI, available online at archive.org, https://archive.org/details/deusdeditcardin00canogoog (accessed on 7.6.2021)

[240]V. Wolf von Glanvell “Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit”, Paderborn 1905, p. 177, l. I, CCCVI text available online at archive.org, https://archive.org/details/diekanonessammlu01deus/page/n5/mode/2up (accessed on 7.6.2021)

[241]V. Wolf von Glanvell Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit, Paderborn 1905, p. 177, l. I, CCCVI

[242]Pope Adrian II, Allocution given at the IV Constantinopolitan Council, Mansi, XVI, 126 http://mansi.fscire.it/ immagine/29623

[243]"Epistle VI" 3, PL 83, 903 https://books.google.it/books?id=_FpkNlIY3LoC&redir_esc=y

[244]Papae Innocentii III “Sermo II in cons. Pont. " PL v. 217, 656 https://books.google.it/books?id=egkRAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y

[245]Sermo IV consec. Pontif. PL v. 217, 670 https://books.google.it/books?id=egkRAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y

[246]S. Alfonso. M. de »Liguori“ Truth of Faith ”p. III c. IX ‚§. 4 n. 63, 67,68 in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. VIII, pp. 753-755, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_P3BI.HTM#-M5R

[247]FJ Wernz P. Vidal “Ius canonicum”, Romae, apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1943, editio tertia, tomus II, p. 518

[248]See Ghirlanda SJ "Termination from the office of Roman Pontiff", www.chiesa.espressonline.it, 2.3.2013 http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ Articolo/1350455.html

[249]F. Romano "What to answer to sedevacantists?", Www.toscanaoggi.it, 19.6.2016, http://www.toscanaoggi.it/Rubriche/Risponde-il-teologo/Cosa-rispondere-ai-sedevacantisti

[250]See S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio: “Theologia moralis” t. I, Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCCCCIX, Editio photomechanica. Sumptibus CssR, Romae, 1953, p. 331ss l. II, c. II, dubium IV nn. 34.35.40

[251]St. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Pastores Gregis”, 16.10.2003, n. 21, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20031016_pastores-gregis.html

[252]Cf Dogmatic Constitution. on the Church "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 25; Const. Dogm. on the divine revelation Dei Verbum, 10; Code of Canon Law, can. 747 § 1; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 595 § 1

[253]St. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Pastores Gregis” 16.10.2003 n. 28, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20031016_pastores-gregis.html

[254]St. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Pastores Gregis” 16.10.2003 n. 28, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20031016_pastores-gregis.html

[255]St. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Pastores Gregis” 16.10.2003 n. 29, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20031016_pastores-gregis.html

[256]Directory for the life and ministry of Bishops "Apostolorum Successores", 22.2.2004, www.vatican.va,, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20040222_apostolorum-successores_it.html

[257]"Critics of Amoris laetitia ignore Ratzinger's rules for faithful theological discourse" La Stampa 5.7.2019 https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2017/10/13/news/critics-of-amoris-laetitia- ignore-ratzinger-s-rules-for-faithful-theological-discourse-1.34396804

[258]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction "Donum Veritatis", 24.5.1990 www.vatican.va, http: //www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_it.html

[259]C. Caffarra "Dubia, the 4 cardinals:" Holiness, receive us "But only silence from the Pope" the Nuova Bussola Quotidiana 20.6.2017 http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/dubia-i-4-cardinali-santita - receive-us-but-from-the-pope-only-silence

[260]See Ureta, José Antonio. Pope Francis' "paradigm shift": Continuity or rupture in the mission of the Church?: Five-year balance sheet of his pontificate (Italian Edition) Kindle edition 2018; Alessandro Gisotti: “Card. Parolin: Francis' 2018 in the name of young people and family ", Vatican News, 11-1-2018 https://www.vaticannews.va/it/vaticano/news/2018-01/card—parolin–il-2018 -of-francesco-allinsegna-di-youth-and-fami.html

[261]“Das neue Volk Gottes: Entwürfe zur Ekklesiologie”, (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1972) p. 144; "Faith, reason, truth and love", (Lindau 2009), p. 400.

[262]R. Fastiggi "Pope Francis and Papal Authority under Attack" La Stampa 18.2.2019 https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2019/02/18/news/pope-francis-and-papal-authority -under-attack-1.33681809

[263]See R. De Mattei "Honorius I: the controversial case of a heretic Pope", Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency 30/12/2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/onorio-i-il-caso-controverso -of-a-heretic-pope /

[264]See R. De Mattei "The filial resistance of San Bruno di Segni to Pope Paschal II" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, 04 March 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/la-filiale-resistenza-di-san - brown-of-signs-to-pope-paschal-ii /

[265]Cf. FJ Wernz P. Vidal, “Ius canonicum”, t. II, “De Personis”, Romae, 1933, 517 f .; Ghirlanda SJ "Termination from the office of the Roman Pontiff", www.chiesa.espressonline.it, 2.3.2013 http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ Articolo/1350455.html

[266]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.10.1998, n. 15, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[267]See R. De Mattei "A Pope who fell into John XXII heresy and the beatific vision of the righteous after death" Corrispondenza Romana - Weekly news agency, January 28, 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/un-papa -that-fell-in-the-world-of-john-xxii-and-the-beatific-vision-of-the-righteous-after-death /; R. De Mattei "The filial resistance of San Bruno di Segni to Pope Paschal II" Roman Correspondence - Weekly news agency, 04 March 2015 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/la-filiale-resistenza-di-san-bruno -of-signs-to-pope-paschal-ii /

[268]S. Roberto Bellarmino “De Romano Pontifice” in “Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini politiani…”, Ex Officina Typographica Davidis Sartorii, Ingolstadii MDLXXXVI, l. II c. 29, p. 834 https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=xy5XAAAAcAAJ&hl=it&pg=GBS.PA903

[269]Radio Radicale, "Interview with Emma Bonino after Pope Bergoglio has included her among the greatest political figures in Europe and Italy", 8.2.2016 www.radioradicale.it http://www.radioradicale.it/scheda / 466164 / interview-with-emma-bonino-after-pope-bergoglio-inserted-it-among-the-greatest-ones; Rame "The Pope praises Napolitano and Bonino:" They are the greats of Italy today ", il Giornale 08/02/2016 http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/papa-loda-napolitano-e-bonino -the-greats-of-Italy-today-1221517.html

[270]Rame "If a gay activist reads at Mass with Pope Francis" il Giornale Wed, 30/09/2015 http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/mondo/se-attivista-gay-legge-messa-papa-francesco- 1177329.html

Back to Chapters