Joined June 2021
- Tweets 20,190
- Following 943
- Followers 5,191
- Likes 15,917
1,250 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
Jun 11
Today is The WM Review's Fifth Anniversary!
Here's the first original article published – on the difference between traditionalism and antiquarianism, and calling "liturgical traditionalists" to apply their own criteria to traditional doctrine:
wmreview.org/p/theology-hist…
1
7
35
1,037
God's love for sinners – Third Sunday after Pentecost
God loves those who seek repentance – and in fact, he himself seeks out souls to offer them this gift, so that he may receive them back into his friendship:
fathercoleridge.org/p/gods-l…
2
4
120
How Jesus used the loaves to explain his doctrine to the people – and to us
Sometimes Our Lord worked miracles less connected to his teaching – but on other occasions, they were very deliberately linked:
fathercoleridge.org/p/the-di…
3
274
The WM Review retweeted
Jun 12
Some people object to the idea of "heresy by omission" – and this objection is especially mounted by defenders of the Novus Ordo rites and the documents of Vatican II.
Fr Raffaele Pierotti OP was Master of the Sacred Palace and papal theologian under Pope Leo XIII. In 1896, the Pope assigned him the task of summarising the papers of the Papal Commission on the question of Anglican Orders. The "painstakingly fair summary" in his "Votum and Report" was essentially the final step before Pope Leo XIII issued Apostolicae Curae.
Some defenders of the validity of the Anglican rite had argued that the Anglican rite only conveyed error by omission, and that therefore a Catholic form used in such a rite would retain its Catholic meaning (and thus, they would argue, be sufficient for validity).
Here is what Fr Pierotti made of this argument:
"I must now add a few words about the replies given to this question by the defenders of validity or doubtful validity. Gasparri replied that in the new ritual heresies are not expressed positively but only negatively, and therefore the heretical doctrine of the compilers is not clearly expressed in it.
"To this I reply that there are sins both of commission and of omission, and that in order to call a rite heretical, it is not necessary that heresy be positively professed in it, when the Catholic dogma has been removed from it, nor does it follow that the dogma has to be denied.
"For example, to render the form of Baptism invalid, it is not necessary that there be in it an explicit denial of the existence or divinity of the Holy Spirit; it would be enough to omit the mention of this third divine Person, precisely in the way that the compilers of the Ordinal have acted in omitting the mention of the order or the power that is being conferred.
"By this they have said clearly enough that they do not believe in the existence of the Sacrament of Orders."
In other words, it is possible to profess heresy "negatively" by omission, as well as "positively".
This has implications for the documents of Vatican II – as @FrDesposito is arguing in thread from which the quote tweet is taken – as well as for the Novus Ordo rites themselves.
Defenders of both claim that they do not contain positive expressions of error or heresy – but even if this was conceded, the fact that the documents were composed and the rites were mutilated in order to please the world and non-Catholics is sufficient to convey the belief of those who framed them.
---
With thanks to the friend who drew our attention to this document, which is found in Anglican Orders: The Documents in the Debate, p 254-5, ed. Christopher Hill & Edward Yarnold SJ, Canterbury Press, 1997, (n. 54 of the Votum and Report of Fr Pierotti)
By omitting the explicit scholastic definition of the Two Sources, the Council created a dangerous ambiguity. This is "heresy by omission"—failing to teach a defined truth of the Faith in order to establish a false ecumenism with Protestantism.
1
11
38
2,906
The WM Review retweeted
Jun 11
Today is The WM Review's Fifth Anniversary!
Here's the first original article published – on the difference between traditionalism and antiquarianism, and calling "liturgical traditionalists" to apply their own criteria to traditional doctrine:
wmreview.org/p/theology-hist…
1
7
35
1,037
Jun 12
As well as being the Sacred Heart, today is the commemoration Bl Stephen Bandelli (d. 1450).
In life, he earned the title 'another St Paul.'
In death, in 1487, townspeople invoked him when attacked, and he appeared in the sky above the battle.
sacredheartlawrence.org/bl-s…
5
15
352
Jun 11
The announcement of the Blessed Eucharist in John VI
Our Lord chose to begin his revelation of the Blessed Eucharist in the synagogue, in a very particular way:
fathercoleridge.org/p/the-di…
2
6
367
The WM Review retweeted
Jun 9
'Spotless and Unsullied' – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy
The follow-up to Zero Marks – the next in our mammoth response to Fr Thomas Crean OP's attempted refutation of 'sedevacantism' – is here, addressing his treatment of indefectibility:
wmreview.org/p/crean-iii
1
5
13
945
Jun 10
Today is the commemoration Bl John Dominici (d. 1419).
His speech impediment was cured by the intercession of St Catherine of Siena.
During the Great Western Schism, he was instrumental in persuading two of the claimants to resign, to end the schism.
sacredheartlawrence.org/ b…
2
6
25
650
Jun 9
Today is the commemoration Blessed Diana, Cecila and Amata – disciples of St Dominic.
sacredheartlawrence.org/bl-d…
2
7
19
528
Jun 7
I know you're looking for a fight, and it's understandable. But I want to convey to you that, for at least some of us, our claim isn't that we're on one team and you're on another, we're good and you're bad, we are the Church and you're not.
As I'm sure you're aware, the crisis in the Church is a head-trip. And as a result, it shouldn't be surprising that explanations of it can be a bit of a head-trip too, or at least not simplistic.
So for example, when some of us say "The Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church", I'm aware that it's going to sound a certain way to many people – but what is meant by it isn't necessarily what you think.
You might think that the actual meaning is even more "insane" if you like, and that's your prerogative.
I'm not interested in engaging in a twitter back and forth, or any kind of fight on here really. I'll just leave the below for you, so you can see the thesis statement at the start and what I'm going on about.
wmreview.org/p/crean-ii
Jun 6
The debate about sedevacantism becomes very clear when you realize that BOTH SIDES have to defend a Church. So often the burden is solely placed on the non-sede to defend their Church from a laundry list of allegations about how it is departing from tradition.
But the sedevacantist Church departs from tradition in ways that are far more numerous and radical - in fact, it is so obvious that it feels like pretense to refer to their ‘Church.’
Their Church has no visible unity, no hierarchy, no canonizations, no teaching office, no pope, no credible electors, no competent authorities to regulate the liturgy or determine the validity of sacraments, no marks of the Church, no ability to evangelize, defines itself exclusively by negating claims of the institution that is recognized by 99.9% of people as the ‘Catholic Church,’ no obvious path to restoring any of those things or even of getting to the point where it could even be recognized as a legal entity by any sovereign, etc…
Any Pope that tried to abolish any of those things would obviously be guilty of a far greater crime against the Church that any that are even alleged against the post-V2 popes by sedevacantists. And yet that is the ecclesiology they have embraced. It’s so insane.
2
3
25
2,235
Jun 7
This is directly related to the question of "who is a Catholic" too, and you can see some comments on that below as well.
wmreview.org/p/the-visibilit…
2
6
610
The WM Review retweeted
Jun 6
'Shout-out' from Bishop Donald Sanborn for slavery article
The Bishop referred to S.D. Wright's article on slavery as 'excellent' and suggested that Leo XIV should read it.
With our additional comments comparing slavery with the gladiatorial games:
wmreview.org/p/bishop-sanbor…
3
8
35
1,778
The WM Review retweeted
Jun 5
'Zero Marks' – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church
Now fully available: The DEFINITIVE account as to why the Conciliar/Synodal Church cannot be the 'perpetually visible Church.'
wmreview.org/p/crean-ii
5
7
16
757