WORST POPE EVER? FRANCIS’ ASSAULT ON ORTHODOXY FROM A TO Z

From the blog of retired Bishop Rene Gracida:

http://abyssum.org/2017/07/12/is-th...eter-the-answer-sad-to-say-appears-to-be-yes/

IS THE REIGN OF FRANCIS THE WORST OF ALL THOSE OF THE MEN WHO HAVE OCCUPIED THE CHAIR OF PETER? THE ANSWER, SAD TO SAY, APPEARS TO BE YES !!!
Posted on July 12, 2017

VATICAN CITY, VATICAN – MARCH 13: Newly elected Pope Francis I appears on the central balcony of St Peter’s Basilica on March 13, 2013 in Vatican City, Vatican. Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected as the 266th Pontiff and will lead the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics. (Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

WORST POPE EVER? FRANCIS’ ASSAULT ON ORTHODOXY FROM A TO Z

by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.

The above question is, I am afraid, no longer just a way to let off rhetorical steam. The present Holy Father is not of course a libertine or a worldly and irreligious seeker of power and wealth, as were a few notoriously immoral medieval and Renaissance popes (e.g., John XII, Alexander VI and Julius II). On the contrary, Francis is a man whom no one has accused of failing to live up to his Jesuit’s vow of chastity; and his modest personal lifestyle and concern for the poor are not only well-known to all, but remind us that these virtues are central to Christ’s Gospel.

However, the Church’s greatest and most essential treasure – to be guarded and preserved at all costs – is the revealed deposit of saving truth: Christ’s doctrine, transmitted through Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, and given its primary living expression in the Sacred Liturgy. The aforesaid ‘bad Popes’, in spite of grave scandals in their personal lives, rarely if ever made public statements that contradicted or undermined Catholic orthodoxy. But Pope Francis has not only done that innumerable times in a seeming effort to accommodate Christian doctrine to the worldly ‘wisdom’ of current secular élites; he is – still worse! – harshly punishing those offering orthodox resistance and filling the Church’s key leadership positions with like-minded prelates who will, he hopes, entrench his revolution permanently. Since this project is provoking a terrible and unprecedented crisis throughout the Catholic Church, and is set to do her far greater long-term damage than an immoral private papal lifestyle, the question must be raised in deadly seriousness as to whether he is the worst pope in history. Not the worst man to attain the papacy. The worst pope, qua pope: the one whose governance of the universal Church is the most harmful on record.

This pungent LifeSiteNews ‘A-to-Z’ list of the boldest Bergoglian bombshells, all backed up with hyperlinks to documentary sources (see below), strikes me as an excellent resource to pass on to friends and family whose views have been formed by glowing mainstream media presentations of Francis as a smiling, humble, open-minded pontiff, and who therefore can’t imagine why any Catholic should be troubled by his leadership.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/b logs/the-abcs-of-our-concerns- with-pope-francis

The A – Z list of concerns with Pope Francis
www.lifesitenews.com
The confusion caused by Pope Francis in the Catholic Church is out of control.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

………..

Brian W. Harrison OS[1] (born 1945 in Sydney, Australia) is an Australian-born Roman Catholic priest and theologian. Harrison is a prolific writer on religious issues and an emeritus professor of theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico (1989–2007). He speaks Spanish fluently. Harrison is also an associate editor of “Living Tradition”, a publication of the Roman Theological Forum hosted by the Oblates of Wisdom in St Louis, Missouri, United States, where Harrison currently lives at the order’s study center. The forum’s website contains many articles by Harrison, including one of the very few serious theological analyses carried out so far regarding biblical and Catholic teaching on torture and corporal punishment.[2]

 

View attachment 6576

 

How very sad...

 

That is why our Lady of La Salette was crying.

 

How far will the Papal Henchmen go?

http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1043.asp

 

View attachment 6583

I think the assault on orthodoxy stems from the fact that he hates the church.

It may be hard to come to grips with this fact but I think it is the only logical explanation.

Why is that so? I don't know.

But I wish someone would ask him this simple question: "do you believe the church has done anything good in 2000 years of existence?"

 

James 5:9
Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.

Matthew 7:1-5
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Luke 6:37-42
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. "Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure--pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return." And He also spoke a parable to them: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit?

Romans 14:1-4
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

1 Corinthians 10:10
Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.

Galatians 5:15
But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

Philippians 2:14-16
Do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.

James 4:11-12
Do not speak against one another, brethren He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

1 Corinthians 4:2-5
In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.

Colossians 2:16-18
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,

Matthew 18:15
"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother

 

https://www.markmallett.com/blog/2017/06/30/who-are-you-to-judge/


“WHO are you to judge?”

Sounds virtuous, doesn’t it? But when these words are used to deflect from taking a moral stand, to wash one’s hands of responsibility for others, to remain uncommitted in the face of injustice… then it is cowardice. Moral relativism is cowardice. And today, we are awash in cowards—and the consequences are no small thing. Pope Benedict calls it…

…the most terrifying sign of the times… there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Address to the Roman Curia, December 20th, 2010

It is terrifying because, in such a climate, it is the stronger part of society who then become the ones to determine what is good, what is wrong, who is valuable, and who is not—based on their own shifting criterion. They no longer adhere to moral absolutes or the natural law. Rather, they determine what is “good” according to arbitrary standards and assign it as a “right,” and then impose it on the weaker part. And thus begins…

…a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definite, and which leaves as the ultimate measure only one’s ego and desires. Having a clear faith, according to the credo of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. Yet, relativism, that is, letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching’, appears the sole attitude acceptable to today’s standards. —Cardinal Ratzinger (POPE BENEDICT XVI) pre-conclave Homily, April 18th, 2005

As such, while rejecting religious and parental authority under the claim that we should not “judge” anyone and be “tolerant” of all, they go on to create their own moral system that is hardly just or tolerant. And thus…

…an abstract, negative religion is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow… In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Light of the World, A Conversation with Peter Seewald, p. 52-53

As I wrote in Courage… to the End, in the face of this new tyranny, we can be tempted to withdraw and hide… to become lukewarm and cowardly. So, we must provide an answer to this question “Who are you to judge?”



JESUS ON JUDGING

When Jesus says, “Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned,” what does He mean?[1] We can only understand these words in the full context of His life and teaching as opposed to isolating a single sentence. For He also said, “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” [2] And again, “Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” [3] How are we to judge justly? The answer lies in the commission that He gave the Church:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:19-20)

Clearly, Jesus is telling us not to judge the heart (appearance) of others, but at the same time, He is giving the Church the divine authority to call mankind into God’s Will, expressed in the moral commandments and the natural law.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. (2 Tim 4:1-2)

It is schizophrenic, then, to hear Christians who have fallen into the trap of moral relativism say, “Who am I to judge?” when Jesus has explicitly commanded us to call all to repentance and to live by His Word.

Love, in fact, impels the followers of Christ to proclaim to all men the truth which saves. But we must distinguish between the error (which must always be rejected) and the person in error, who never loses his dignity as a person even though he flounders amid false or inadequate religious ideas. God alone is the judge and the searcher of hearts; he forbids us to pass judgment on the inner guilt of others. —Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 28

 

(cont'd)

RIGHT JUDGMENT

When a police officer pulls someone over for speeding, he is not making a judgment of the person in the car. He is making an objective judgment of the person’s actions: they were speeding. It’s not until he goes to the driver’s window that he discovers that the woman behind the wheel is pregnant and in labour and in a hurry… or that she’s drunk, or simply being careless. Only then does he write up a ticket—or not.

So too, as citizens and Christians, we have the right and duty to say that this or that action is objectively good or evil so that civil order and justice prevail in the society of the family or town square. Just as the policeman points his radar at a vehicle and concludes that it is objectively breaking the law, so too, we can and must look at certain actions and say that they are objectively immoral, when that is the case, for the common good. But it is only when one peers into the “window of the heart” that a certain judgment of one’s culpability can be made… something, really, only God can do—or that person can reveal.

Although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. —Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033

But the Church’s objective role is no less diminished.

To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls. —Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2246

The idea of “separation of Church and State” meaning that the Church has no say in the public square, is a tragic falsehood. No, the Church’s role is not to build roads, run the military, or legislate, but to guide and enlighten political bodies and individuals with the Divine Revelation and authority entrusted to her, and to do so in imitation of her Lord.

Indeed, if police stopped enforcing traffic laws so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings, the streets would become dangerous. Likewise, if the Church does not raise her voice with the truth, then the souls of many will be in peril. But she must also speak in imitation of her Lord, approaching each soul with the same reverence and delicacy that Our Lord showed, particularly to grave sinners. He loved them because He recognized that, anyone who sinned, was a slave to sin [4]; that they were lost to some degree,[5] and in need of healing.[6] Is this not all of us?

But this never lessened the truth nor erased one letter of the law.

[The offense] remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience. —Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1793



DO NOT BE SILENCED!

Who are you to judge? As a Christian and as a citizen, you have ever right and duty to judge objective good or evil.

Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly. (John 7:24)

But in this growing dictatorship of relativism, you will meet hardship. You will be persecuted. But here is where you have to remind yourself that this world is not your home. That we are strangers and sojourners on our way to the Homeland. That we are called to be prophets wherever we are, speaking the “now word” to a generation that needs to hear the Gospel again—whether they know it or not. Never before has the need for true prophets ever been so crucial…

Those who challenge this new paganism are faced with a difficult option. Either they conform to this philosophy or they are faced with the prospect of martyrdom. —Servant of God Fr. John Hardon (1914-2000), How to Be a Loyal Catholic Today? By Being Loyal to the Bishop of Rome; http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/intro/loyalty.htm

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt 5:11-12)

But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

 

Yes, quite a 'good' response to my post but I think Mark would be fairly horrified to see that his post was being used to defend criticism of Pope Francis.

Mark of course did contribute to this forum before it turned against Francis.

But it is also true that on this forum that I discovered the writings of Fr John Hardon and in him there is no greater defender of the teaching authority of the papacy:

Now enough about the Pope’s authority, now his teaching. Keep up with what he says, and don’t just wait for critics, you might say, to spark. You’re defending the papacy, no, spontaneously, in conversation. Have you read what the Holy Father just said about, and then bring up some subject which would interest your listener. Believe me, over the years, I’ve come to treasure my special vow of obedience to the Vicar of Christ. And every year increases my appreciation of how precious it is to be faithful to Christ’s vicar on earth, being sure that by our fidelity to the Bishop of Rome we are being faithful to Jesus Christ.

Lord Jesus, You gave us the papal primacy as a continuation of the exercise of Your own authority on earth until the end of time. But we know, dear Savior, how well we know, this papal authority has many enemies. Give us, we beg, the courage to defend the authority of the Bishop of Rome. But above all, give us the humility to obey the teachings of Your vicar on earth, being sure that by obeying him, we are obeying You and by obeying You, we are loving You here on earth as a prelude to our everlasting love of You and by You in heaven. Amen.

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_014.htm​

 

Fr Hardon of course being called home to heaven three years before Pope Francis ascended the Throne. Fortunate for him as it saved him a horrible death of apoplexy on witnessing current goings on.

 

Having gone to many of Father Hardon's men's retreats and private conversations and confessions, I can tell you there was no stronger defender of Pope John Paul II than Father Hardon. This was a time when nearly all his brother Jesuits were ignoring JPII teachings. This was a time when he noted many times his brother Jesuits were loosing the faith. Yet, he knew well and taught as much that "you will need the blood of martyrs in your veins to survive the future" and "no ordinary Catholic will survive" these times we are now in. He was a staunch defender of God's unchanging truth and one of his best friends, whom he founded the shrine in LaCrosse, Wisconsin with is none other that Cardinal Burke, who as well defended the papacy of Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict.

That being said, don't anyone fall for David's attempt to trick people into thinking Father Hardon, or for that matter any faithful priest, bishop or cardinal, would stand silent while a pope is dismantling the doctrines of the faith. His fidelity to the office of Peter is one thing, his fidelity to a pope or anyone else teaching anything contrary to the faith is quite another. I have quoted Father Hardon many times in what he clearly defined as "a lie": Situation Ethics, the Fundamental Option and Proportionalism, all of which this pope today employs.

 

I knew davidtlig would bring that up.

Galatians 1
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!

 

Fatima, there was no 'trickery' in my quoting Fr Hardon. I had not previously read anything of him before you began quoting him on the forum.

I quoted him, and will continue to quote him because he clearly understood the significance and nature of the papacy. Not of a particular papacy but of the papacy. We could discuss till the cows come home how he would have reacted to Pope Francis but only he and God knows the answer to that question.

I have discovered a wealth of material in Fr Hardon's writings that teach how important it is to obey the magisterium of the Church rather than relying on our own interpretation of things:

If we wish to proceed securely in all things, we must hold fast to the following principle: What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines. For I must be convinced that in Christ our Lord, the bridegroom, and in His spouse the Church, only one Spirit holds sway, which governs and rules for the salvation of souls. For it is by the same Spirit and Lord who gave the Ten Commandments that our holy Mother Church is ruled and governed.

Probably no statement of the Exercises has been more quoted and criticized by non-Catholics than St. Ignatius’ directive that “What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.” Even Catholics may suspect something strange in being asked to contradict their convictions. Yet there are few mental attitudes that need to be more urgently cultivated than the willingness to submit our private judgment to the infallible teaching of the Church.

The difficulty arises from a misconception of the nature of faith, which is an intellectual assent to revealed truth, made with the assistance of supernatural grace and under the influence of the will; as against the Protestant Reformers who claimed that faith was an act of the will, wherein I trust that God’s mercy has covered over, without actually deleting, my mind with objective truth is dispensable, and even in its absence I may be said to believe as long as I vaguely trust in the goodness of a God about whose nature and relations to me I may be in doubt. There can be no white or black, i.e., true or false, under this notion of faith, and the variety of sectarian opinions on such fundamentals as the Trinity and Incarnation followed logically on the denial of the intellectuality of faith and reducing it to an operation of the will or the blind instinct of religious feeling.

However, the present rule also pertains to Catholics who consider faith an act of the mind, on which the edifice of all other virtue depends. While knowing this and perhaps because of this knowledge, they may not appreciate the function of the will in placing an act of faith and consequently fail to use this power as they ought, especially when some teaching of the Church seems to contradict their own judgment. For the laity, a truth like the sinfulness of divorce with remarriage is a good example. Married people can be so involved under various emotional pressures as to convince themselves that divorce and “trying again” are perfectly all right. Then arises a familiar clash of judgments, personal and ecclesiastical. To me divorce may seem white, but the Church says it is black, so I submit my intellect. But is this possible? Yes, for two reasons. First, because in the instance divorce seems to me to be white and therefore I do not know it is white with the same assurance that I exist or that two and two are equal to four. Secondly and more pertinently, since faith means the acceptance of God’s word that something is true, my will can command the intellect to believe—indeed it must—without any violence to my rationality. In secular affairs most of our daily actions are directed by this kind of creedal knowledge, where the free will orders the mind to believe, on the word of other people who are just as fallible as myself. “If we receive the testimony of men,” says St. John, “the testimony of God is greater,” and therefore to be followed, my own judgment to the contrary notwithstanding.

But granted that my will should command the intellect to believe, how can I do this when, in a crisis, all my emotions are against some doctrinal position of the Church? The method is not despotic but diplomatic, and demands conscious remotivation of the will by concentrating attention on a great benefit to be gained or a terrible evil avoided in order to have the imperative faculty command a reluctant intellect to assent. Quietly but deliberately I recall the advantages of submitting to the Church’s magisterial authority—peace of mind, the consolation of receiving the sacraments, the promise of special assistance from God, the security of my salvation; likewise the harm that will follow if I do not believe—the torment of conscience, deprivation of sacramental graces, loss of merit and the friendship of God and the risk of losing my soul. Braced by the supernatural help which is never wanting, my will becomes disposed to enjoin the mind to believe, moved ultimately by the conviction that the same Spirit which governs the world and its destiny also animates the Catholic Church and her teaching, but proximately urged by the hope of reward or the dread of God’s punishment for belief or unbelief.

It may help us appreciate the power of the will to move the intellect by seeing what happens whenever a person falls into error. In the face of all evidence to the contrary, he can declare that something is true or false simply because he wants it to be so. He may refuse to examine the evidence offered, or, having the evidence, will not see it through the haze of emotion or prejudice which the will does not care to remove. A large part of modern advertising is based on this principle: that properly stimulated the irrational impulses can be activated and the mind made to believe that an article is necessary or useful, not on the score of objective need but by the force of suggestion operating on the credulous will. The moral is obvious. If the will can so easily sway the mind in the direction of error, in the absence of objective evidence, why not in the direction of truth, when the latter has only to be looked at willfully to be recognized ?​

 

Obedience always to God first and his unchanging truth. Father Hardon understood this. 4th commandment is obedience to parents. Father Hardon understands this too. Obedience to to Peter's successor he knew as well and that is what you want to assume means blind obedience.

This is where you progressives fail in understanding truth. Obedience is to God's will. When a parent tells his child it is okay to steel, okay to use contraceptives, okay to fornicate then obedience is not God's will. When a bad pope, and Father Hardon has written on this as well, seeks to do his own will apart from the will of God in his teaching, it is apparent to all faithful men and women that you do not heed his words that are at odds with Christ's unchanging truths taught by his true magisterium. What is so hard for liberals to understand this? Answer is easy..... they want their will to be done and not God's! God's is truth and his truth is the same yesterday, today and always. Liberals think truth can change by slick words. They put sinful man's, even a pope, trick language into play to try and convince man that a teaching office is above the unchanging truths of God. This is what you are doing David. Pope Francis authority stops with a lie, even if it is partial truth. This is how the devil worked in the garden of Eden. Not with a bold lie, but half truth, ie...trickery. Wake up David before it is to late.

Father Hardon was wise enough to know this and you mock him in thinking he believes in blind obedience.

 

Fatima, I am most certainly not mocking Fr Hardon, I am encouraging you and others to try to understand what he is saying (as well as Pope Francis!)

Neither Fr Hardon nor I believe in blind obedience. Pope Francis is not asking you, or I, to break any law. He is encouraging you, and I, to learn and understand the faith better. You reject his teaching, that is your prerogative but you shouldn't be encouraging others to follow that path. I am sure Fr Hardon would agree although, of course, that is just my opinion.

 

When Pope Francis is clearly teaching what his predesessors and scripture taught contrary too, then he is bringing a new teaching that must be rejected. It seems few no longer know what the church has taught, what can change, and what can not. Or worse yet, they dont even care! It is easy to see that what Pope Francis is teaching is a new doctrine for those who know church teaching, but sadly so few do.

 

The pope may want us to understand the faith better but when he teaches that remarried divorcees living a conjugal life can live in communion with Christ because God is compassionate, instead of mercifully calling them to dissolve their lustful relationships or (if not prudent because there are small kids) to live as brother and sisters , he is not teaching what Christ passed on to the apostles and they to us up to April of 2016. He might be making peace with the world (and the orthodox Churches) and making himself popular and 'merciful' among the many non practicing Catholics that only wish the Church would adapt to their worlds thinking, but he is not teaching the truth - and that we know because other contemporary saints, like John Paul II, Padre Pio, St Josémaria or even Mother Theresa (in her letter to Ireland against divorce), have already witnessed with true mercy to the reality of what it means to live a second marriage, even when there are children. There are also thousands of remarried divorcees (and know some with children) that as catholic witnesses have realized their sinful situation and are, at the very least, trying to live like brother and sisters. God's sacraments are not aa mere rigid law, they are God's love for us - if we are not faithful to Him in his sacrament we reject Him, not a just a law or a human doctrine.

 

Jarge, everything you say here is why you and others do not like or agree with the Pope's teaching. Fair enough. You believe it is in conflict with traditional teaching.

You are perfectly entitled to reject that teaching but Fr Hardon explains, fairly eloquently, why a Catholic should not do so. I perfectly see why you and others believe they are right and Pope Francis is wrong but Fr Hardon would argue that it is better to follow the teaching of the Pope because it is he who Jesus gave us to lead us. The rejection of the authority of the Pope was what led to the reformation.

One of the important aspects of Fr Hardon's writings is that he underlines the need to respect the authority of the Pope outside the area of infallible rulings.

 

Rejecting that particular teaching (a core teaching of the Church) does not mean to reject the authority of Peter - it actually means to confirm it. Just like rejecting your father's invitation to steal from the shop does not mean to reject his authority, but to ask him to act in accordance with it. Paradoxically, to follow that teaching is to betray the authority of the pope, because it is to sanction an hermeneutic of rupture (skillfully presented as continuity) ultimately aimed at dissolving Peter's authority. That is why St Paul, St Athanasius, St Catherine of Siena and others knew well to confront Peter when he was ambiguous or in error, to protect his authority which has its only source and legitimacy in the Church's teaching and tradition, that is, in the Sacred Doctrine of Our Lord as handed down to his disciples.