At this stage of the “so-called pontificate” of Francis (to quote +Father Nicholas Gruner), there can be no reasonable doubt by now that Francis is indeed a man of his word. How so? Because Francis says exactly what he means, and means exactly what he says.
Oh yes, he may be shrewdly ambivalent or equivocal in his manner of saying, he may be cleverly ambiguous at times, he may even be astutely “confusing” to many, alas, but only to those who are unwary, or those who simply cannot see through his words, or those who are content to remain conveniently confused…
But two things are plain and certain: Francis is quite clear in his “confusing” statements; and Francis can—and indeed should be—taken at his word.
No need for the proverbial twisting into a pretzel in order to artificially force some sort of Catholic meaning to statements that are simply not Catholic, because they were simply not inspired by Catholic thought.
We are not referring to just one instance here and putting a magnifying glass in order to see more than there is. We are merely considering the same consistent pattern of un-Catholic-sounding utterances for over six years now.
Modernism is commonly referred to as the “synthesis of all heresies.” But Pope St. Pius X speaks of Modernism more as the “collector”, as it were, of all heresies. All past, present, and future heresies have a place in Modernist thought since it is their natural habitat.
In his homily during the Novus Ordo Mass of Corpus Christi in Rome (23 June 2019), Francis said that during the multiplication of the loaves and fish, Jesus did not perform a magic trick and did not, therefore, transform the five loaves into five thousand. He trusted in the Providence of God.
To quote Francis’ words from the official Vatican website:
Bread is not only something to be consumed; it is a means of sharing. Surprisingly, the account of the multiplication of the loaves does not mention the multiplication itself. On the contrary, the words that stand out are: “break”, “give” and “distribute” (cf. Lk 9:16). In effect, the emphasis is not on the multiplication but the act of sharing. This is important. Jesus does not perform a magic trick; he does not change five loaves into five thousand and then to announce: “There! Distribute them!” No. Jesus first prays, then blesses the five loaves and begins to break them, trusting in the Father. And those five loaves never run out. This is no magic trick; it is an act of trust in God and his providence.
In a Facebook discussion, someone had claimed that the Pope had spoken correctly but that his manner of saying was confusing, that it needed some sort of… clarification. Oh please.
It’s now been over six years of this tediousness… sorry, but I’m afraid not. The plain as a-nice-summer-sunny-day-in-Spain truth is that Francis spoke incorrectly, his manner of saying is not in the least confusing, and therefore no clarification is needed at all.
The kind readers of akaCatholic should keep in mind that those who err in doctrine (otherwise known as heretics before Vatican II) are usually very clever in their ways.
Typically, they employ the same Catholic words and concepts, thereby disorienting by seemingly appearing to be Catholic. But in reality, they assign different meanings to those Catholic words and concepts, but that fact is unknown to others.
Long before St. Pius X warned about Modernism in the early XX century, St. Irenaeus of Lyon already called them out in the II century: The {Gnostic} heretics may occasionally say something that sounds Catholic, but they do not think like us {Catholics}.
Scholastic mediaeval thought had a great concept for reasoning and debating: explicatio terminorum / explanation of terms, whereby before getting into any meaningful and worthwhile discussion, the meaning of terms would be the first priority.
If otherwise, using the the same terms but with different meanings would make any exchange of ideas useless and fruitless.
But of course, it is a perfect way of propagating heresy…
For instance, Arius (IV century) was most certainly a heretic. But not so much in his terminology, but rather in the meaning he gave to those terms.
Thus, Arius correctly called Jesus Christ the Word made Man, and correctly considered Him to be the Son of God, even going so far as to call Him God. Arius, therefore, was correct in his terminology. Where he erred was in the meaning of certain terminology.
For Arius, the Word was not eternally begotten of the Father, the Word was the first creature created by the Father. And even though he correctly attributed the rest of Creation by the Father through his Word, his main doctrinal error was not attributing an eternal nature to the Word.
This means, therefore, that although Jesus Christ was correctly identified by Arius as the Word made Man, since for Arius the Word was not eternally begotten of the Father, there would be no eternal dimension in Christ.
And this fundamental trinitarian error necessarily means that Jesus Christ could not possibly be true God made Man, because nothing in Christ could be attributed to eternity—which is essential to the divine nature.
Thus, despite calling Christ the Word made Man, Son of God, and even God, Christ could not really be God. Why not? Again, because since for Arius the Word was not eternally begotten, there would be nothing in Christ’s nature just as eternal—and therefore just as divine—as God the Father, and God the Holy Ghost.
Christ could only be entirely a creature of the Father—and not just his human nature which was indeed created—and if the person of the Word was created He could not be the eternal Creator. Oh yes, the first and most perfect of God’s creatures, alas, but then he could not really be God, for Christ—the Word Incarnate—could not be of the same eternal substance as the Father and the Holy Ghost.
The Arian heresy was propagated with enormous ease and following, even among the Hierarchy of the Church, since it blended well with the prevailing culture of the pagan Greek philosophy of the semi-gods.
The Bishops of Alexandria, Alexander and later Athansius, combatted Arius. When the First Council of Nicaea was convened in 325, the Arian heresy was condemned and the true Catholic faith was defined: Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour, is the eternally begotten Word-Son of the Father made Man, of the same divine substance (homoousios) as the Father and the Holy Ghost.
In retrospect, one cannot but truly wonder at what Paul VI must have had in his mind when he told Archbishop Lefebvre that the purposely non-dogmatic, merely pastoral Second Vatican Council was even “more important” (sic) than the First Council of Nicaea, when nothing less than the divinity of Christ was being denied…
With respect to his Corpus Christi homily, what Francis says is NOT correct and does NOT lend itself to confusion, again, except for those who are ok with being confused. This is nothing new and it is actually very simple.
That is, according to Francis, since Jesus does not perform a “magic trick”, (by the way, the miracles of the Lord are NOT magic tricks to begin with), he does NOT transform the five loaves into five thousand.
NOR does he give any other Catholic explanation of the miracle of how Christ may have provided, from those five loaves and two fish, more than enough food for the five thousand.
In other words, Francis is denying the multiplication of the loaves of bread and fish, insofar as he is understanding it in a very different, non-Catholic manner.
He is in fact denying any Catholic meaning of how the Church has received this historical event from Divine Revelation through her Apostolic Tradition.
Just like Francis’ treatment of the Eucharist: In the presence of the Eucharist, Jesus who becomes bread, this simple bread that contains the entire reality of the Church… So, according to Francis, in the Eucharist, it is not bread that is transubstantiated into Jesus; it is Jesus who becomes bread, simple bread to be more specific (sic).
Correctly understanding the Eucharist is utterly undermined when you go about wrecklessly, praising the arch-heretical and arch-schismatic Martin Luther as a “witness of the Gospel”, despising Catholic theology of the Real Presence for the sake of an impossible “inter-faith Communion”, and celebrating exclusively the Novus Ordo Missæ far too long…
As many others have pointed out, this might explain the curious custom of Francis not genuflecting during Mass and not kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament, when it is evident that he can get down on his knees.
He has no problem getting down to wash the feet of Muslim women during the Office of Holy Thursday, and kissing the feet of African governmental delegates during a reception at the Vatican.
Getting back to his homily, let us recall that Francis said that the accent DOES NOT fall on the “multiplication” of the loaves, but in the “breaking”, “giving” / “sharing”, and “distribution” among the people. This is important, he said. It sure is! It’s everything!
Because… the people. It’s not really about God, you see, though He does get an honourable mention. Therefore, it’s not really about Christ, and much less as God made Man, perhaps. It’s all about the people. Mere anthropocentrism. Just like in the “reformed” postconciliar liturgy…
People “break”, “give”, and “share” the bread that is then “distributed”, hence the “multiplication” of the loaves, which was NOT performed by a “magic trick” of Jesus. But let’s insist: when has the Church ever taught that the miracles of the Lord were magic tricks?
A particularly awkward statement is when Francis says—without any qualification—that Jesus prayed, blessed, and trusted in the Providence of God… the third remark sounding most odd: is not Jesus Christ God Himself made Man?
From Francis’ very own words, one cannot but get the strong impression that Jesus Christ has really nothing at all to do with the “multiplication” of the loaves. As if He were just an ordinary man, albeit with a strong relationship with God, who merely puts his trust in God’s Providence.
My dear readers, these are plainly Modernist heresies, by the book. Modernists always deny the supernatural and historical character of the miracles of the Lord. And with a strong dosis of Arianism.
I have heard this very same explanation from others in my diocese, even in priest reunions. And Francis himself has given the same materially heretical explanation of the multiplication of the loaves and fish on another occasion.
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith is reasonable. There are reasons to believe, hope, and love. In the glorious history of Holy Mother Church, great bishops, priests, and theologians have given good, sound, wholesome Catholic explanations of the faith, following St. Peter’s exhortation (I Peter 3: 13-15):
And who is he that can hurt you, if you be zealous of good? But if also you suffer any thing for justice’ sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled. But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.
But these Modernists—who are not Catholic—drink from the same contaminated waters of rationalism that do not admit the supernatural or the miracle, just as the Holy Mother Church receives it from Revelation and transmits it faithfully in her Apostolic Tradition.
And Francis is consistent with the same strawman tactic: to deny what is not, for the purpose of denying what is. And it is most effective, to be sure.
That is, the miracles of the Lord are NOT a sign of magic. Why, then, deny the obvious? Why… to deny the miracle!, of course. And perhaps even to deny the divinity of Christ. Or at least cast some doubt on the matter.
Ah, some will say: it is convenient to catechise people for those who erroneously believe that miracles are magic…
Indeed… but that IS NOT what Francis is doing. What he IS doing is far more dangerous from a catechetical point of view. He is inducing unwary Catholics, slow on the uptake, to associate miracles with magic, and then by denying that miracles are magic (which they are not anyway), deny that miracles exist (which they do).
Of course, the reasoning is that since Jesus does NOT do magic tricks (obviously), he does NOT perform a miracle (supernatural character) of the multiplication of the loaves, and yet being careful enough to not actually deny that the loaves are “multiplied” by “breaking”, “giving”, “sharing”, and “distributing.” And voilà! The Modernists are like that.
And without any qualification, Jesus simply trusts in the Providence of God—but, as the Incarnate Word, is He Himself not as God and also as eternal as the Father and the Holy Ghost, and just as Providential?
Oh, but Francis doesn’t actually deny the multiplication, the loaves are still multiplied! Well, yes, in a Modernist manner of speaking, but no, not really, not in any meaningful Catholic sense…
“Multiplied” but how so? BECAUSE the people who were there, broke, gave, shared, and distributed bread amongst themselves. It’s all about the people… Imagine all the people… Does this tune sound familiar?
Nothing magical about that, right? Ergo, nothing miraculous about it either…
Ah, the Modernist mind is ever so subtle and so very clever.
Again, St. Irenaeus of Lyon describes them in a very suggestive manner. For just like the Gnostics of the II century, the musings of the Modernists are the deleriums of those who think they have discovered something beyond Truth.
Because their philosophical and theological prejudices impede them from believing revealed Catholic truths, the Modernists reason like this: miracles (as the Church understands them through Revelation and Apostolic Tradition), cannot exist, therefore they do not exist (because they say so).
Miracles, then, come to be the same as magic for the Modernists.
So, there are many ways to seemingly say something of truth in order to deny the underlying Truth.
Genuine Catholics already differentiate miracles from magic. But, how exactly were the loaves and fish multiplied? Was it that those five loaves and two fish somehow lasted, never ran out, and provided food for five thousand? Or were those five loaves and two fish literally turned into five thousand? And with more than enough left over either way.
However it was done, the multiplication of loaves and fish is miraculous, i.e., an extraordinary, non-magical, but indeed supernatural act of Christ, God Incarnate, who provides for the people.
In the Holy Gospels, during a second multiplication, Our Lord bids the doubting apostles to recall the first multiplication: Do ye still not yet understand?, He tells them.
But remember that for Modernists, miracles are magic tricks.
Modernists are also very shrewed. Francis will never say that “Jesus does not perform the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves…” That is much too blatant and obvious. Even so, there would doubtless be those obstinate papolaters who would defend even an outright and flagrant denial of the Most Holy Trinity…
That’s why Francis says: Jesus does not perform a magic trick, which for the unwary Catholic sounds right and orthodox.
Ah… But what Francis DOES NOT say is that for him, magic is the same as a miracle. So, by saying that Jesus does not do a magic trick, it’s the same as saying that Jesus does not perform a miracle.
THAT’S WHY he says that Jesus DOES NOT change five loaves into five thousand and then orders their distribution. In other words, it is NOT Jesus who multiplies the loaves! It’s the people sharing!
He very clearly says so, thus: In effect, the emphasis is not on the multiplication but the act of sharing. This is important. Jesus does not perform a magic trick. He does not change five loaves into five thousand… He does not work spectacular miracles or wave a magic wand; he works with simple things.
Again, we can readily see the deliberately misleading association of miracles and magic. The plain meaning of Francis’ words are quite clear.
But why does Francis say what he says? Apart from denying outright that miracles exist, maybe it’s also because Jesus cannot perform a miracle? Maybe because Jesus is no more than a man who happens to have a particularly close relationship with God?
Jesus prays, blesses, and relies on “trusting in the Providence of God”—which is clumsy and very suspicious of Christological heresy—so that the loaves “never run out” BECAUSE the people there broke, gave, shared, and distributed the bread.
In the end, then, it is NOT Jesus, God made Man, who multiplies the loaves and fish (i.e., he does not do a magic trick = he does not perform a miracle) so the “miracle” consists in the breaking, giving, sharing, and distributing amongst themselves of the people.
So, just like the magic of magicians, the miracle is a trick, as it were, of the Evangelists to communicate another more rational—and for the unbelieving Modernist mindset, a much more credible—reality that has NOTHING to do with revealed Truth.
Operari sequitur esse / the effect follows being. In other words, although sometimes things aren’t what they appear, oftentimes things are indeed what they appear to be.
In Tolkien’s Middle-earth, the Hobbits of The Shire live by a saying, full of common sense wisdom: handsome is as handsome does.
So, the next time Francis pronounces something that doesn’t quite sound Catholic—very likely given his track record—maybe, just maybe, it’s because it isn’t. In any case, let us not—in vain—twist his words. Let us rather take him on his word. If only out of respect for him… and out of respect for Truth.
With my blessings to the readers of akaCatholic: +Father José Miguel.
“Because their philosophical and theological prejudices impede them from believing revealed Catholic truths…” they are open to believing Satan’s greatest lie: “You shall be as gods.” (Genesis 3:5)
Guilty as charged, with just enough plausible deniability to go back to sleep.
This is very good. God Bless you.
Francis is not Catholic
Yes, exactly. Well said.
A TRUE Pope is a man of Our Lord’s word–the Eternal Word. Bergoglio is NOT. Thank you, Father.
The TRUTH is One, and the most profound Trinitarian truth (as taught by St. Thomas) is the Simplicity of the Godhead as ONE. All we need to recognize about the words that come out of a modernist’s mouth, is that their fountainhead is rooted in error, and not in truth. “You will know them from their fruits”.
Thank you Fr. for shedding light yet on another Bergolian heresy, “dressed up in white”.
“In retrospect, one cannot but truly wonder at what Paul VI must have had in his mind when he told Archbishop Lefebvre that the purposely non-dogmatic, merely pastoral Second Vatican Council was even “more important” (sic) than the First Council of Nicaea, when nothing less than the divinity of Christ was being denied…”
I have never heard of this before….do you have a source for this discussion, and what was said?
It might even be simpler.
I don’t think Francis intended to actually teach the Christ was not God (the natural philosophical outcome of his words), even if that’s what he undoubtedly subscribes to.
Francis actually just wanted to push Socialism. Since Socialism is for him, higher than anything in the Gospel, Christianity is subordinate to Socialism, and thus rather than serving God, it is now made the servant of Socialist Communism.
So Francis tried to make the Gospel serve that outcome.
The heretical residual results of this train of thought that deny Christ’s divinity and the miraculous, is merely the by-product. It’s a happy accident.
It could really be that the modernists are that clever, but the clever ones won’t quite play their hand so blatantly, which leads me to believe Francis is one of the stupider ones who shoots from the hip, and due to some preternatural inspiration by that spirit of surprises he’s always going on about, he inevitably ends up denying the Christian faith altogether. You could not even dignify it by calling it Protestant.
But we must recall that Modernism is rooted in Charles Darwin and Copernicus. Both whom destroy the words of Scripture and Tradition and Papal Authority. If Genesis cannot mean what it says, and Papal condemnations cannot mean what they say about Scripture, then the Gospels are fair game. but Modernism never stops there. Even with Scientism as its new Gospel, in the face of further human depravity and denial of objective reality, even Science can be tossed into the same pile as the Bible – things that are intended not for objectivity, but in the end to serve the ongoing perpetual revolution.
The Gospels and Science and Reality are there to serve Man – who now takes the place of God. When things get inconvenient, they are to be reinterpreted.
In this case, the account of the loves and fishes, is about human sharing – because the end result is redistribution of wealth – and the only people that can be multiply something out of thin air by magic, are the ones who print the money and manufacture endless debt via usury.
I’m surprised that the image of loaves and fish is not currently on any existing form of currency or crypto. Someone out there is primed to make a mockery of it.
“the only people that can be multiply something out of thin air by magic, are the ones who print the money and manufacture endless debt via usury.”
Oy vey!
This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s way of getting out of following Vatican II, instead of outright condemning it. This paved the way for accepting Vatican II in “the light of tradition”. The SSPX has been confused, and have been confusing others, ever since.
This idea of an ecumenical council being merely pastoral was something made up by the Modernists during or right after Vatican II. How sad that many “traditional Catholics”, including Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, subscribe to this Modernist novelty. The truth is that ecumenical councils are, besides the Roman Pontiff himself, the highest authority in the Church. They are generally regarded as infallible, but even their non-infallible decisions are binding when ratified by the Pope. Look up any pre-Vatican II book and see what it says about them. The SSPX do not teach this and instead holds fast to the Modernist teaching. The fact that Vatican II taught already-condemned doctrines proves it could not have been a true council having the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost. The SSPX should be condemning it rather than trying to explain it away using Modernist techniques.
In any case, if Vatican II were merely a pastoral council, why did they ram its impious doctrines down everyone’s throats? Why did they persecute priests and throw them out of their parishes for refusing Vatican II and the new mass? I know of a priest whom they gave shock treatment to because they thought he had a mental problem for refusing the new mass… he eventually died a vegetable. He died a martyr because of a pastoral council.
No, Vatican II was not a pastoral council, it was an anti-council, presided over by evil men. That the SSPX wish to be in communion with such men is a disgrace.
I wish I could ask of Bishop Williamson his thoughts on what you have hit on here, Librorum. He is persona non grata with the SSPX outfit and might have an interesting take on it. Just wondering. BTW, I agree with you that “The Council” was a fraud from the get go crafted by evil men who hated God’s Holy Church and wanted to (eventually, but oh so gradually) drive a stake into Her Heart. But that can never happen—a reality which drives Satan mad.
“but even their non-infallible decisions are binding when ratified by the Pope”
They are bound by mortal sin, unless you happen to be correct in disagreeing with them, and if you can refute them by quoting a predecessor, your certainly not guilty of any mortal sin. So the person disagreeing with them would be in mortal sin, but not a heretic that must be avoided.
“In any case, if Vatican II were merely a pastoral council, why did they ram its impious doctrines down everyone’s throats?”
Because they (the Pope and the bishops) stated as their intent before and during the council to remain pastoral. The doctrines they are ramming down everyones throat, are non-binding, unlegislated, counterfeit deceptions. The meaning of a law is derived from the intent of the lawgivers. The lawgivers didn’t intend to make any laws! It was intended to be a bait and switch scam, but the bait nullified the authority of the law or doctrines because they are all unintentional!
Fr. Hesse does argue that it was not a council!
Bishop Williamson is persona non grata because of remarks he made concerning an historical event. For everything else, he just believes what Archbishop Lefebvre said. Bishop Williamson doesn’t believe in the Church’s infallibility precisely because of Archbishop Lefebvre’s “pastoral council” excuse. One of the “resistance” priests who was taught by Bishop Williamson told me personally that the Church errs, and if it didn’t err then it’s not the Catholic Church. I told him the catechism says that the Church is infallible and cannot err, and he told me the catechisms are full of errors. That’s the fruit of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, the SSPX and the so-called Resistance.
“Because they (the Pope and the bishops) stated as their intent before and during the council to remain pastoral.”
My point was that it matters not whether they “intended” it to remain pastoral. An ecumenical council – and that’s what they said it was – by its very nature has all the marks of infallibility. I can grow a lemon tree with the intention that the lemons won’t be sour… but that’s what lemons are and I can’t change that. It’s a bit like saying that canonisations are no longer infallible because they don’t really know what they are doing. Well if they are the Church – and the SSPX say they are – then they are infallible. If Francis is the pope, the Roman Pontiff, he is the supreme legislator and the final word rests with him. The only way these canonisations aren’t infallible is that Francis is not pope, not having the assistance of the Holy Ghost and therefore being able to “canonise” such vile creatures as Paul VI.
I’m not an authority so don’t take my word for it – there are plenty of pre-Vatican II books out there. We have to get back and study from these solid sources.
But here is what Paul VI ACTUALLY said re: teachings of Vatican II:
“There are those who wonder what the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wanted to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it AVOIDED GIVING SOLEMN DOGMATIC DEFINITIONS, engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided uttering dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it nevertheless provided its teachings with the authority of the SUPREME ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM which ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium MUST BE ACCEPTED docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council about the nature and aims of the individual documents.” – General Audience, 1966
This only excludes infallibility of solemn definitions, but it does not exclude the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Furthermore, all of the Faithful are commanded to accept the teachings of Vatican II.
Here is the full speech:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112.html
When you say that “Bishop Williamson doesn’t believe in the Church’s infallibility…,” do you mean that one may infer that Bishop Williamson doesn’t believe in Her infallibility, or do you mean that you have heard him say that he doesn’t believe in it? My take on it is that he condemns VII. He has not, to my knowledge, publicly stated that the VII “popes” are invalid, i.e. that he is sedevacantist.
When you say that “Bishop Williamson doesn’t believe in the Church’s infallibility…,” do you mean that one may infer that Bishop Williamson doesn’t believe in Her infallibility, or do you mean that you have heard him say that he doesn’t believe in it? My take on it is that he condemns VII. He has not, to my knowledge, publicly stated that the VII “popes” are invalid, i.e. that he is sedevacantist.
Librorum:
Just for some clarity: I was aware of the so-called “pastoral council” reference. I was unaware that Paul VI told ABL that Vatican II was more important. Perhaps I just read that comment wrong, and it was meant to be sarcastic.
Only insofar as they are congruent with Tradition
ABS: “Only insofar as they are congruent with Tradition”
You should read the whole thing. Paul VI states that it was all in congruence with Tradition.
“Care must be taken: the teachings of the Council do not constitute an organic and complete system of Catholic doctrine; this is much broader, as everyone knows, and is not called into question by the Council or substantially modified; indeed, the Council confirms it, illustrates it, defends it and develops it with an authoritative apology, full of wisdom, vigor and trust. And it is this doctrinal aspect of the Council, which we must first notice for the honor of the Word of God, which remains univocal and perennial, as a light that is not extinguished, and for the comfort of our souls, that by the frank and solemn voice of the Council they experience what providential office has been entrusted by Christ to the living magisterium of the Church to guard, to defend, to interpret the “deposit of faith” (see Humani generis , AAS , 1960, p. 567). We must not detach the teachings of the Council from the doctrinal patrimony of the Church, so good to see how it fits, how coherent they are, and how they bear witness, increase, explanation, application. Then even the doctrinal “novelties” or norms of the Council appear in their right proportions, they do not create objections to the fidelity of the Church to its didactic function, and they acquire that true meaning, which makes it shine with a superior light.””
LOL….Paul VI is a funny guy.
You should read the whole thing. Paul VI states that it was all in congruence with Tradition.
I have, but as Brunero Gherardini , “The Ecumenical Vatican Council II, A Much Needed Discussion,” observed about such constant claims –
In his letter to Pope Benedict XVI (unresponded to, of course, ) “APPEAL TO THE HOLY FATHER (ppg 296-300)
… For the good of the Church – and more specifically for the accomplishment of the “salus animarium” which is her primary and “supreme lux” – after decades of free exegetical , theological, liturgical, histographical, and pastoral creativity in the name of the Ecumenical Council Vatican II (his bolding of text) it seems to me that it is urgent that You offer some clarity by responding in an authoritative manner to the question about the Council’s continuity with the other Councils – not with declamation, but demonstration (bolding by ABS)- and about its fidelity to the ever vigorous Tradition of the Church..
It is NOT enough to make unsourced, unsubstantiated claims about continuity in an age of riotous rupture – continuity has to be demonstrated.
ABS is not a fool who believes a thing is white when it is clearly black and accepting such a claim at face value does violence to one’s Confirmational Promises/Duties and status as a faithful Church Militant.
What is your point? They stated the council was to remain pastoral but then proceeded to invent a new liturgy, new sacraments, a new brievary, a new catechism, and a new code of cannon law which everyone has been following as soon as they are off the press. In other words, their actual intent was to institute a new religion using a lie as their cover. But most everyone believed the lie, of course, and with everything “new”, the entire Catholic religion and distinct Catholic practices have all but been thrown into the dustbin of history.
Bishop Williamson is certainly no sedevacantist, and whilst Bishop Williamson rightly condemns Vatican II, he does so for the wrong reasons. It is because he believes that Paul VI etc are popes, but he is forced to sift (Archbishop Lefebvre’s word) their teachings in order to find something that is Catholic. However, Catholics do not sift the teachings of the popes (not true ones anyway); they follow them, because they have the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church. See the quote from Vatican I below. And by sifting the teachings of (men they say are) popes, they are virtually saying that the Church can err. Either they are popes and you follow them, or they are not popes. The ‘middle way’ of Bishop Williamson et al is not only not Catholic, it is condemned by Vatican I (a real dogmatic council!):
“if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”
Yes, Paul VI no doubt he did say that Vatican II was more important than Nicaea… maybe he was being sarcastic, seems there was no love lost between them.
My main point was that the Church does not teach that ecumenical councils are merely pastoral and non-infallible. If VII taught doctrines contrary to the teaching of the Church (and it did), this doesn’t mean we can excuse it as being merely pastoral (I’m not saying you do, but others certainly do); it means it was a false council.
Katherine, I’m not sure who you are talking to here. If it is me, I most certainly agree with you. Most who believe that the Council was “merely pastoral” and “not binding” do so because they say this is what Paul VI said. They often use a quote from Paul VI’s General Audience, but they fail to include the full quote not to mention the rest of the things he says at the General Audience. When this is done (which is what I posted), it is clear that Paul VI is NOT saying this Council was “merely pastoral” nor does he say that it is “non-binding”. He is clear that he is saying that all is in accordance with Catholic doctrine and is binding on all of the Faithful.
Agree 100% Librorium. An ecumenical council is infallible when approved by a true pope. Without that approval, anything goes. Which is what happened.
Dear readers: when I make a reference in the article regarding the non-dogmatic and pastoral nature of Vatican II, I am not endorsing it, I am merely repeating what the competent ecclesial authorities stated.
Apart from the fact that all previous Ecumenical Councils of the Church were dogmatic to some degree, condemning errors and defining doctrine, Vatican II is unique even in this regard, which at the very least makes it the least important of Ecumenical Councils.
But what is more incoherent is how a supposedly non-dogmatic and pastoral “Ecumenical Council” (by design) should have been turned, de facto, into a super-dogma of sorts, without which one cannot be in “full communion” with the Church, i.e., the experience of the SSPX.
Especially when Vatican II does propose some “doctrines” which cannot possibly be binding: a) again, because Vatican II is, by design, a non-dogmatic, pastoral Council that refuses to define doctrine, and b) when certain doctrines that are proposed objectively break with Catholic doctrinal tradition.
One day (only our good Lord knows when) the Vatican II experiment will be tacitly recognised as an epic failure and be quietly forgotten…
All this talk about the binding authority of Vatican II and its infallibility, or lack there of, is a red herring. It is irrelevant. Arguing about this is distracting. The fact that there are previous teachings from Holy Mother Church that were contradicted is all that matters. A note/mark of infallibility is not required for manifest heresy.
–
If they (all involved in VII), and most especially the person who approved the Robber Council, taught contrary to previously defined doctrines, then they are manifest heretics who have to prove they are not obstinate. I believe Archbishop Lefebvre has proved his good will and I am sure there are others. And since it is IMPOSSIBLE for a true Pope to teach error to the Universal Church via his Magisterium (regardless of the format), concerning faith and/or morals, then it is just as IMPOSSIBLE for Paul VI to be a valid Pope, same for those who followed him.
–
As an analogy, if a rock I find in the garden suddenly starts moving on its own, then what I first thought was a rock simply can’t be a rock. It must be something else. I must adjust my position to conform to the new objective and manifest data. I should not continue to say that the thing moving around in my garden with 4 legs, a tail, and a head, which most certainly is a turtle upon further review, is a rock. If I were to do so, one would consider me to be in denial, stubborn, or simply retarded, and rightfully so.
–
Peace and God bless!
Dear Father,
I hope one day, as you do, that Vatican II will be recognized (by the ENTIRE church) as an epic failure, but I don’t think it could be quietly forgotten. Too many souls are put in jeopardy because of this experiment to be easily cast aside as a monumental mistake.
Also, was V2 really an epic failure or was it a huge success perpetrated by the enemies of Christ posing as Princes of the Church?
Thank you for your thoughts, Father.
But isn’t the “ENTIRE church” the Holy Roman Catholic Church which is incapable of error? Those who are not actually members of the Church, i.e. Conciliarists, for instance, are living in error and do not benefit from the guidance of the Holy Spirit as Catholics do. So, that “one day” in which Vatican II will be recognized by the Catholic Church as an epic failure is here—today.
I agree, mothermostforgiving. Your wording was more accurate than mine. However, Conciliarists, by the power of prayer, may be open to Actual Grace to cease living in error and benefit from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as you say.
I find your wording quite accurate and I’m always attentive to your insightful comments.
As with so many things, Pope Francis speaks very oddly. His description of the events that took place are as odd for what it says as they are for what it doesn’t say.
I am also very, very tired of the mental contortions necessary to read what His Holiness says in a way that is consistent with Catholic teaching. The man speaks in riddles and knots.
Dear ConceptJunkie,
Oddly enough supposedly Francis has great devotion to Our Lady Undoer of Knots.
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/why-does-pope-francis-have-a-special-devotion-to-our-lady-undoer-of-knots/
He is in great need of this prayer. Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for us.
2Vermont, I directed my question “what is your point”? to Ratio.
My point is that it doesn’t matter whether or not the “authorities” of the Council nor Paul VI claimed Vatican II was merely pastoral, its documents became the only official teachings and practices of the “church” which because of their heresies and tradition hating/destroying practices, clearly proved they invented a new religion but their religion is the one that the majority began to believe and still believe and practice because they claim it is the Catholic religion.
Dear Father Campo: Vatican II is already recognized as an epic failure by those who know and believe the true teachings of the Church as its creation of a new religion guarantees its failure.
Katherine, I agree. “Perception is Reality”. The world perceives Bergoglio to be a legitimate Pope. The world perceives the N.O. church to be the actual Roman Catholic Church. How do you fight perception? Vatican II achieved its deceptive betraying goal. The architects were Masters of Deception led by the Father of Lies.
God gave us reason. We can know and understand the content of the Holy Faith. It is not complicated – a properly-educated five year old of normal intellectual ability can understand the essentials. The Faith (as being the Truth) cannot change. Obedience does not include complying with what is clearly false. There would be no need (or duty) to know the Faith if one had only to follow what those in apparent authority asserted from one day to the next – that would be absurd. God gave us (His Church) the Faith which never changes and never contradicts reason. God and His Holy Faith are not and can never be confusing. Forgive us Lord for our weak faith.
So, those who claim to be serious about their salvation and yet continue to attend Novus Ordo services (and many of them are ignorant even of what the term “Novus Ordo” refers to) cannot be exercising their reason. Otherwise, they would, among other things, inquire into the history of the Catholic Church. In so doing, they could not help but discern a marked difference between THAT Church and the Vatican II church. The next step would be to ascertain which of the two religions espoused by those two churches, both of which claim the title “Catholic Church”, has legitimate claim to the title. It would necessarily follow that the rightful claimant would be owed their allegiance. And yet, I know of people my age who grew up in the true Catholic Church who attend NO services. Some of them “reason” that the VII church, though rife with things that they don’t like, is all there is (BECAUSE THE POPE SAID SO!) and that’s what they have to go to on Sundays because they’re “Catholics;” the others don’t really care about what happened after VII because they are, when all is said and done, worldlings. They like being told there is no hell and there is no devil, that John Paul II’s “universal salvation” means that Man—oh-so-full-of-dignity Man!—goes to Heaven no matter what. How many of these lost souls say 15 decades of the Rosary per day, imploring Our Blessed Mother to ask of her Son for wisdom to discern the truth in these troubled times? I think it’s a pertinent question.
Very well stated.
Jesus our Christ, above all.