From the when it rains it pours file…
On March 17, 2015, the same day His Embarrassment Timothy Cardinal Dolan marched with the gays in New York, Archbishop Americus Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia delivered an address at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae.
Let’s take a look at some of his more noteworthy quotes.
In some ways, the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty — Dignitatis Humanae in Latin, or “Of Human Dignity” in English — is the Vatican II document that speaks most urgently to our own time. The reason is obvious. We see it right now in the suffering of Christians and other religious believers in many places around the world.
Yes, the reason is entirely obvious, but apparently not to Archbishop Chaput.
Truly, it never ceases to amaze me how consistently the bishops of newchurch get things exactly backwards.
It is thanks in large measure to Dignitatis Humanae that our churchmen – including every last one of the post-conciliar popes – have been speaking and behaving for the last fifty years as if Catholicism is but one religion among the many that contribute to the common good, and the voice of the Church is but one opinion among many of note in the public square.
So what?
The crisis at hand is due in part to the fact that civil authorities are pleased to treat, and dismiss, the one true faith and the Holy Catholic Church as precisely that; just another constituency.
Even so, Archbishop Chaput points to the declaration as if it’s the solution!
He continues:
Pope Paul VI, who promulgated Dignitatis Humanae, saw it as one of the most important actions of the Council. It changed the way the Church interacts with states. And it very much improved the Church’s relations with other Christians and religious believers.
Indeed, the Church (meaning, her post-conciliar leaders) are now no longer willing to speak to rulers of State about the Social Kingship of Christ, this is true, and many other so-called “Christians” now see us as equals.
Well, praise the Lord!
Religious faith, whatever form it takes, gives a vision and meaning to a society. In that light, pagans saw the early Christians as a danger, because they were. Christianity shaped an entirely new understanding of sacred and secular authority. Christians prayed for the emperor and the empire. But they would not worship the empire’s gods.
Notice how effortlessly the newchurchmen speak of “religious faith” in the most generic of ways; with no hint whatsoever that they recognize (much less wish to point out) the great human tragedy wrought by the false religions that lead souls away from Christ.
For Christians, the distinction between the sacred and the secular comes straight from Scripture. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus himself sets the tone when he tells us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.
Indeed a distinction is to be made between the sacred and the secular, but let’s be very clear about the Scripture verse cited.
In saying, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” Our Lord did not in any way intend to suggest that Caesar, and other civil authorities, were somehow exempt from their own obligation to render unto God His due; including as it relates to the way in which they treat His Church and the way in which they rule.
In fact, Jesus made it very clear that the civil authorities have no authority apart from that which is given to them from Above.
Furthermore, in giving the Church her mission, Our Lord made it entirely clear that all authority – not just in Heaven, but also on Earth – belongs to Him.
These are very inconvenient truths for men like Archbishop Chaput who are pleased to accept the pluralistic U.S. Constitutional approach to religious freedom wherein the State is required to treat Jesus Christ as if He is worthy of no more esteem than Buddha, Hari Krishna and Muhammed.
Archbishop Chaput does realize, however, that the approach to religious liberty adopted at Vatican II stands in stark contrast to the doctrine of the Church as expressed so clearly throughout the centuries before the Council.
His proposed solution is neither compelling nor original; he essentially takes a page out of John Courtney Murray’s playbook and attributes the traditional teaching to historical circumstances that have since changed; with the implication being that the Church herself is thus obligated to follow suit.
But if that’s true, then how do we explain sixteen centuries of the Church getting tangled up in state affairs? The details are complicated, but the answer isn’t. Christians are amphibian creatures. God made us for heaven, but we work out our salvation here on earth. As the Roman world gradually became Christian, the Church gained her freedom. Then she became the dominant faith. Then she filled the vacuum of order and learning left by the empire’s collapse.
In other words, the Church rolls with the punches leveled upon her by the State.
Right.
To set matters straight, we need to rewind a bit; all the way back to that mountain in Galilee where the Risen Christ issued the divine commission to His Church saying:
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:18-20)
Here we find Jesus commanding the Apostles to bring the nations of the world into the life of the Church (“baptizing them”), instructing them (“teach ye all nations”) in His ways that they may reflect in their very ordering all things whatsoever that He commanded.
If we truly take these words to heart, Archbishops Chaput’s errors will be obvious.
First, it is improper to say that the Church “gained her freedom” via the conversion of Rome.
The Church is free by her very nature simply because she is the Mystical Body of Christ the King and she has been given a mission by Him to whom all authority in Heaven and on Earth belongs.
In order to truly understand the relationship between Church and State, we need to be clear that the Church does not derive (or gain) her freedom from the various civil authorities, even as certain of them sin against God by persecuting her and impeding her.
That is why Pope Leo XIII taught:
The Church is a society eminently independent, and above all others, because of the excellence of the heavenly and immortal blessings towards which it tends … Wherefore it is unjustly that the civil powers take offence at the freedom of the Church, since the principle of civil and religious power is one and the same, namely, God. (cf Pope Leo XIII – Officio Sanctissimo)
With this in mind, it should be clear that it is also incorrect to say that the Church “filled the vacuum of order and learning left by the empire’s collapse.”
The work of “ordering and teaching” has ever been the Church’s proper mission as given to her by Christ, and she has ever been obligated to carry it out; even in those places where the State sinned by making it difficult for her to do so.
Archbishop Chaput, perhaps unwittingly, is confusing those things that are immutable (e.g., the mission of the Church and her freedom to carry it out) and certain historical circumstances that can and do change (e.g., the willingness of a given State to recognize these immutable truths about the Church, her mission and her freedom).
He continues:
Religious and secular authority often mixed, and power is just as easily abused by clergy as it is by laypeople. The Church relied on the state to advance her interests. The state nominated or approved senior clergy, and used the Church to legitimize its power.
Again, the archbishop misspeaks…
The Church does not, properly speaking, rely on the State to “advance her interests;” rather, she calls on the State to uphold its duty toward Christ the King and His Holy Catholic Church, and when the State does this, it naturally plays a part in “advancing the Church’s interests” (or better stated, carrying out her divinely given mission).
That said, let us recognize and dismiss the statement, “power is just as easily abused by clergy as it is by laypeople,” for what it is; entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Over time, and especially after the Wars of Religion and the French Revolution, the “confessional state” — a state committed to advancing the true Catholic religion and suppressing religious error — became the standard Catholic model for government.
A State that recognizes the objective truths that Jesus Christ is King and that the Holy Catholic faith is the one true religion, and therefore takes steps to govern accordingly, is a State that is upholding its duty under God. Nothing more, nothing less.
In other words, such a model of government did not eventually “become the standard;” it simply is the ideal because it corresponds with reality.
Archbishop Chaput, having made numerous false assumptions, now arrives at the money quote:
That’s the history Dignitatis Humanae sought to correct by going back to the sources of Christian thought.
Did you get that?
In order for Dignitatis Humanae to make sense, the sixteen centuries of Catholic teaching previously cited by the Archbishop Americus must be viewed as wrong and in need of correction.
From here, Chaput removes all doubt as to his inability to clearly understand the traditional doctrine that he imagines Dignitatis Humanae corrects.
The choice to believe any religious faith must be voluntary. Faith must be an act of free will, or it can’t be valid. Parents make the choice for their children at baptism because they have parental authority. And it’s important that they do so. But in the end, people who don’t believe can’t be forced to believe, especially by the state. Forced belief violates the person, the truth and the wider community of faith, because it’s a lie.
The traditional doctrine is, and always has been, in perfect agreement with this statement.
To hear Archbishop Chaput speak, however, one would think (and trust me, many otherwise intelligent people do) that the Church prior to Vatican II promoted “forced belief.”
Or to put it another way: Error has no rights, but persons do have rights — even when they choose falsehood over truth.
Those rights aren’t given by the state. Nor can anyone, including the state, take them away. They’re inherent to every human being by virtue of his or her creation by God. Religious liberty is a “natural” right because it’s hardwired into our human nature. And freedom of religious belief, the freedom of conscience, is — along with the right to life — the most important right any human being has.
It would seem that the Archbishop is saying that in the matter of religion, persons have the right, from God, to choose falsehood over truth as a matter of conscience.
Perhaps his intent isn’t entirely clear, but either way, let us be clear: This notion is utterly and completely false and has been condemned by the Church in no uncertain terms.
In order to fully grasp the gravity of this falsehood, it may be helpful to recall that “truth” is not just a theory or a concept; it is none other than the Person of Christ, and God does not give anyone the “right” to choose against Christ!
Yes, He allows it; he tolerates it, but He does not grant us the right to do it. The difference is substantial.
From here Archbishop Chaput lists a handful of things Dignitatis Humanae does not do even as it sought to correct the errors of the past. We’ll skip to the most noteworthy ones:
It also doesn’t endorse a religiously indifferent state. It doesn’t preclude the state from giving material support to the Church, so long as “support” doesn’t turn into control or the negative treatment of religious minorities.
In fact, the declaration says that government “should take account of the religious life of its citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare.”
The contradiction is palpable.
First he insists that the declaration doesn’t encourage religious indifferentism, but then he points out that it encourages governments to “take account” of “religious life” – not just Catholic religious life, but that which includes all manner of “religious” beliefs – as if all of them deserve favor.
This is the very definition of religious indifferentism!
In its own words, Dignitatis Humanae says “religious freedom . . . has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society [emphasis added]. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”
If nothing else is obvious at this point, Dignitatis Humanae – at least according to Archbishop Chaput’s reading – not only “touches,” but most thoroughly undermines traditional doctrine.
You can wrestle with the rest of Archbishop Chaput’s presentation directly via the link provided; it continues for another 1,800 or so words.
In conclusion, let it be known that Archbishop Chaput’s defense of this truly tragic document is far from out of step with the “official” application of the same provided by every pope who has reigned ever since the Council closed.
In other words, he isn’t the problem; Dignitatis Humanae is the problem, and the solution ain’t exactly a mystery – it’s tradition.
What do you mean by Chaput “isn’t the problem”? Do you mean Chaput doesn’t know about the devil statue being built in Oklahoma next to the 10 commandments? Do you mean, Chaput doesn’t know about the 60 million babies that have been killed in the U.S. since 1973 since people have “a right to choose error”? Do you mean Chaput doesn’t know about the Supreme Court being about to decide that people “have a right to choose to marry someone of the same ‘gender’? Do you mean Chaput doesn’t know about how this “right to choose error” is even being interpreted to mean there is NO rule of law or penalty for breaking the law — death penalty is vengeance, people can’t be imprisoned for life, people breaking the law (unrepentant sodomites, baby murderers and no doubt liars and thieves like themselves need to have their feet washed and be given Jesus’ body i.e. Bergoglio is the LAWLESS one)? I disagree. CHAPUT is the problem–and every cleric like him. The battle lines are drawn. He can choose to defend error for worldly advancement (being archbishop of Philadelphia & getting to be a Cardinal) or he can choose to defend the Kingdom of God (as he pretends he is doing) while actually indoctrinating God’s little ones in error. I for one am tired of the crap–on the one hand “religious liberty” and “prolife” for the conservatives and on the other “che revolution” for the liberals:
Have you joined our money in politics campaign w/ChePope leading the revolution?
https://franciscanaction.org/
Meanwhile check out who was at “Fr” Hesburgh’s funeral — same cast of union/ government Condoleeza (Jeb Bush Pope Francis Catholic) & Jimmy Carter/Obama (O’Malley Pope Francis Catholic) baby killing freaks w/their homosexual pervert defenders, i.e. McCarrick/Bergoglio always fightin’ fo da po’ while stealing ALL the money (Porsche, McKinsey, Papal Foundation, GHR etc.)
Then they honor the SEIU treasurer/secretary who is for LGBT marriage aka “immigration reform”.
https://franciscanaction.org/cardinal-mccarrick-award-celebration-honoring-eliseo-medina
He is also one of the kindest and most compassionate people I could ever meet. As a lesbian, I am especially touched that Eliseo is a vocal supporter of LGBT rights.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/for-eliseo-medina-fasting-in-solidarity-for-comprehensive-inclusive-immigra
P.S. Chaput has been known to wear a feather chapeaux to say mass (because of his Native American “religious” roots) and to talk about his Native American “spirituality”.
What a great post! I’m a fairly new reader of this site, but I love it. It’s so very heartwarming to read writers, like yourself, with the courage and knowledge to take to task one of our more “conservative” prelates for their modernist thought.
Of course, the tragedy of this entire exercise, including the Chaput talk, is that the seminarians who will read (or have read) the Declaration on Religious Liberty, will never have been exposed to the true teachings of the Catholic Church on that topic. Unfortunately, that teaching has long gone down the “memory hole” for all but the most diligent.
But at the end of their training, these men will walk away from St Charles Barromeo Seminary as Catholic priests believing and teaching unsuspecting minds that each one has a “right”, given to them by God, to practice any false religion they may wish.
It’s hard to imagine that God will continue to let this go on very much longer.
I admit upfront that I didn’t read the whole post. I’ve come to learn that even Archbishop Chaput’s words aren’t really worth listening to. Sorry.
‘long gone down the “memory hole” for all but the most diligent.’ ain’t that the truth. or maybe they really have memories and are just happy to be rebels.
Abp Chaput’s tone is as one of relying on the world for hope rather than God. Did not God send His ‘only begotten Son’ to save us from the world? To establish a Holy Ghost inspired heirarchy of Truth on earth to guide we poor souls till ‘the consummation of the age’? But it does boil down to the heresy of modernism and all it’s myriad bedfellows – an orgy of lies if ever there was one. Dignitatus Humanae passes off the ‘rights of error’ as a decree of God.
–
So many of the Chaput to Bergoglio continuum, for most of their worldly lives, gain their food, accommadtion and have most of those material difficulties sorted out for the poor sausages, off the Sunday donations off sheep utterlly unsuspecting of the ignorance or outright evil they then apply their ‘works’. One would think impunity is a God given right. “Error has no rights” Still stands, even if most self-professed khristianists would follow voltaire in defending the rights of error to the death. As Louie reminds, truth is not an idea or a concept, it’s not subject to sophistry however ahtiestic and ‘democratic’.
–
Louie wrote: “In other words, such a model of government [the state as a servant of Christ and His Church] did not eventually “become the standard;” it simply is the ideal because it corresponds with reality.” Perhaps the next generation will relearn God’s Truth because it would seem the majority of the current lot of prelates are belial’s experts. “Archbishop Chaput, perhaps unwittingly, is confusing those things that are immutable (e.g., the mission of the Church and her freedom to carry it out) and certain historical circumstances that can and do change (e.g., the willingness of a given State to recognize these immutable truths about the Church, her mission and her freedom).” As you say he and co. have likely done so on the erroneous authority of Vatican II and its ‘curious george popes’.
–
‘Jesus made it very clear that the civil authorities have no authority apart from that which is given to them from Above.’ Novus Ordo and VII have redifined the ‘above’ bit. They teach a new God who revolts against his own revelation – as if. This is ‘extra-papal’ politicizing that deserves a nobel piece of smelly stuff prize.
–
‘It [DH] changed the way the Church interacts with states.’ Especially after Montini put on a world wide public play called, ‘my name is the pope and i am abdicating Christ to satan/the world/the states’ (re – publically abdicating the Papal Tiara which represents the Most Holy Trinity to the UN). This is more convoluted Novus Ordo Sunday pulpit poison.
–
PS. Thomas Drolesky’s ‘Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics’, lays out in great detail how Christ’s social Kingship is a non-negotiable Catholic Truth. The Eastern Schisms are a perfect example of rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s. If True Faith doesn’t reign the freemasonic drunk west will end up under a satanic-false-religious rule, just the same, that they did not reckon on.
fair enough. we have Mr Verrecchio to brave that wasteland.
Is DH heresy? under the title ‘The Question of a Heretical Pope considered by the First Vatican Council’ on
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm#.VSdYR5PsdOU
–
‘the Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded after extensive research, investigation, and debate that no Pope had ever been a heretic — not Liberius, not Honorius I, not Stephen VII, not Nicholas I, not John XII, not John XXII, nor any other name that is typically brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy”.’
–
I keep coming back to the Catholic Faith as opposed to the Novus Ordo make-over. How can they reconciled? through the concept of a vikar of khrist who has the ‘mandate’ to revolt against the Vicar of Christ.
The NOwatch article is false & intellectually dishonest. The book he quotes does not say what he claims nor does it support his theory. The whole chapter he cherry picks from deals with the question of infallibility and binding the faithful to error EX CATHEDRA. At that point you would certain that Pope would not be Pope, as this is impossible. The Cardinal in the book was concerned that Popes such as Honorius held heretical views but was relieved to find it was only the PERSONAL OPINION of Honorius and not EX CATHEDRA. Yet, Honorius never attempted to bind the universal Church through infallibity to his erroneous view. Honorius remained Pope and was indeed later declared a heretic by a council, after his death.
Also stated in the book was the fact that IF a Pope was found to be a heretic by attempting to bind the faithful to a falsehood it would be the hierarchy that judged and deposed.
The Cardinal also showed concerns over the Popes that said the Pontiff had a right to yield the temporal sword but was again relieved that this was not infallible truth but personal opinion of the Pope and did not need to be followed. NOwatch has lost all credibility with me. The book he quoted actually supports the recognize and resist view, which he rails against. And NOT the sede position! Why would you believe anyone that tells you to avoid the sacraments?! Their reasoning being that only their sacraments are valid!
I might add, why would link to a group that has publically insulted the very host of this blog, Louie!?!
In church-state relations, it seems the practical, metaphysical and mystical question is not whether the church is ‘immutable’ but which entity (i.e. Church or State) is ‘divisible’ or ‘indivisible’.
It seems the traditionalists criticize DH for having placed the State above the Church in order of “indivisibility”. The true ‘triumphalism’ after WWII was that of the Americans and the Soviet Union, and the churchmen post-WWII unwittingly accepted them along with the United Nations as the ultimate arbiters of world affairs for the next thousand years.
But let us as Catholics propose that it is the true Church, the mystical body of Christ, which is ‘one and indivisible’ and not any State, no matter what their greatest statesmen may proclaim. In other words, it should not shock Catholics if ever, for example, Texas were to secede from the USA, or Scotland from Great Britain…etc.. In fact these and so many other examples out there in every corner of the world may be a good thing given the current evils we are experiencing from highly centralized economies and their governments which are taxing us all to death directly or indirectly by fiat currency. (Kudos to the libertarians for this point.)
Again, those who promote the true ‘triumphalism’ of today seem to truly be the obstinate promoters of VII who insist the the religious and political order of things as they stand today are immutable, indivisible and good, no matter how much the facts contradict them.
Perhaps the true Church is something like the Christ’s seamless garment which the soldiers did not tear but cast lots to take “desuper contexta per totum” (John 19:23) In that case, so much, so very much of VII is wrong.
Doesn’t the sedevacantist position render the visible Church invisible?
Hello James. I understand the difficulty with the above article. However, have they publicly insulted Louie Verrecchio or Mundabor? disputation is a long-standing Catholic skill. I would say a crucial skill in ‘our age’ of apostate ‘popes’.
–
There is nothing skewed in the New Order Church watch. Please quote a pope who acknowledges a heretic as pope and says he is still pope? The point of the article is to refute this very new concept of an enemy of the Faith (whatever his continuum of ignorance) as Christ’s Vicar.
–
People seek the Faith and people convert. If one has sought and received the Truth, should one then ‘hide one’s light under a bushel?’
–
It is not for nothing that we have Apostolic sons who have suffered in exile (and until recently, obscurity) to keep and minster the Faith, despite all the Novus Ordo charade that takes place in most ‘catholic’ parishes every Sunday (and the odd weekday but certainly not Saturdays (excluding the ‘vigil mass’ which excludes Saturdays).
–
The Holy Roman Catholic Church holds and dispenses the True and unadulterated Faith. There is no way sedevacantists decribe the sacraments as only ‘valid’ if they come from a sedevacantist priest.
PS. how many Novus Ordo parishes have mass on Saturday (remember the vigil doesn’t ‘count’ as Saturday – and the ‘vigil’ despensing Sunday obligation is a Novus Ordo innovation) so that one can participate in the ‘First Saturdays’?
It is visible – we have heard of sedevacantists! Little joke.
–
But the ‘eclipse’ of the ‘visible’ Church has long been predicted. We know the Faith or else why would we be at all interested in Mr Verrecchio’s words that speak to our Faith? How ‘visible’ to those who are indifferent or adamently don’t care, is a ‘remnant’ which is part of Church Truth – Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium.
–
What is visible of Christ’s Truth in the Novus Ordo? We are commanded to ‘ask, seek, knock’ – wherein everything is given by the Holy Roman Catholic Church (we are told to have ears to hear, maybe we should have eyes to see). Since Bergoglio rejected the red shoes there have been serious Catholic voices asking – is this Peter or Simon?
PS. http://eclipseofthechurch.com/
I appreciate your zeal and I share in the same concerns about the Faith as you.
However, I can also discern that NOwatch is almost a cult like following that leads people into pride and vain glory. The guy has less concern about truth and more concern about being triumphant in an argument. You can watch this with anyone he gets in an argument with.
Louie and the people on this blog, including you, can hold their own and learn and share without resorting to NOwatch and their tactics.
I would read the book he linked to and not just his article. You will see cherry picked paragraphs, wrenched out of context. Ha! Got you Eric G! This is the attitude of NOwatch. His pride cannot let go of an argument see he feels the need to search the internet and obscure books in an attempt to win the argument. Tell me this is not pride!
And yes, NOwatch views the SSPX, any Traditional parish associated with Rome, Eastern Catholics as tainted with modernism. Their site says it is better to stay home and pray.
When it comes to the crunch, without the Apostolic mandate that escaped annihilation, because of the Catholic Courage of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Rock would have failed. But it didn’t, it hasn’t, it can’t. It’s worth considering that the man who was excommunicated by JPII – Novus Ordo Scheherazadus – is crucial as to why we can still ask and hear, seek and find, knock and receive, the True Faith as opposed to an empty modernist shadow of it.
Hello James. Just read your response. I wouldn’t dismiss sedevacantists so easily. They are valid priests who teach a plain and unaduterated Faith. There may be a time when the Faithfull generally view them with the same need and hope that we now view the SSPX.
–
PS. I still, personally, find the fear of sedevacantists difficult to understand – especially in an age where Novus Ordo popes say protestants and all manner of false faiths still have some sort of ‘subsistance’ or ‘partial communion’ in Christ. Yet a Catholic who says, ‘but that contradicts Christ and His popes’ is singularly ‘outside’ this New Order Church, or Novus Ordo creation.
We’ve only heard of sedevacantists because it’s more of an American phenomena and because of the internet.
The point is a good one. Where is the visible Church? And…who gets to decide who is included and excluded?
crawler asks: “Doesn’t the sedevacantist position render the visible Church invisible?”
The Catholic Encyclopedia includes the following pertinent comment on this subject:
“[A] heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience”.
(The above quote may be found on this page.)
Actually, at the moment, I live on the other side of the planet to most of you guys, but Catholics even down under – a remnant – have seen Novus Ordo for what it is since the 60 and have been ministered to by ‘sedevacantist’ priests – although this word for a Catholic priest really only got established in the 80s as I understand it. Before that they just said, ‘blimey, look at him (the Novus Ordo ‘pope’), worshipping with all the —ists on the planet, teaching indifferantism, inviting naked people to the new order mass…’, and then got on with the real work of ‘old worship’ and ‘old faith’.
Salvemur, I don’t fear sedevantists. They pi$$ me off. According to them I will lose salvation, you will, Louie will, Cardinal Burke will, Mundabor will, everyone on this blog will, the Holy priests I know, every one in the mainstream Church will, everyone that attends a NO will, the SSPX, the FSSP and on and on. In other words, salvation can only be found in their small little sect that resides in southern Ohio. Or if you subscribe to the view of two whacky brothers, their mom’s basement.
Everyone else is cut off. Modernists each and every one they must be.
“Modernism” has been the catch all blanket phrase to condemn everyone and anyone, regardless if they actually hold modernists beliefs. Its not the bubonic plague. That is my beef with them. You claim they hold the true religion. Funny, by their own account none of the people I mentioned would even be considered for communion with them. So by all accounts, according to them, THEY and THEY ALONE constitute the body of Christ, the ONLY TRUE RELIGION, and their refusal to not be in communion with anyone that doesn’t hold their belief means they feel we are anathema, heretics and destined for hell. There is no way around it.
Wherefore , my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation
Philippians 2:12
fear
and trembling…
Dear James — seems to me you have already lost your salvation (don’t you know what Jesus Christ said regarding anger?). How can your anger expressed by vulgarity be an argument for or against sede-vacantism? You are using the same argument “the chosen people” used against Jesus Christ and his small band of apostles (see “Acts”). They killed the messiah, persecuted his apostles and their country was utterly destroyed. Also, Louie holds to the doctrine “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” — according to Pew that means 16% are saved as of 2011 (or at least belong to the Catholic Church). Not sure how much Louie has given up to actually spread the gospel to the other 84% of the world (i.e. not sure how much he or many people who spend their times on blogs really think that the 84% will be burning in hell for all eternity). But seems your argument is more the VCII argument that everyone is saved!
Louie actually seems to believe that most inside the Catholic Church are not saved since they live their lives according to the VCII error (though he may believe that [like his friend who died recently and was buried in the N.O. even though he spent his life cohabitating, worshiping sports on Sunday, etc.] they will not be held accountable for their actions since they were taught error by their priests).
Louie doesn’t even want to hold Chaput accountable for his own words – but blames the “VCII document” that Chaput is attempting to defend. That to me is like blaming the gay group that wanted to march in the parade or the gay football player who came out for Dolan’s defense of them. It is your responsibility to recognize heresy. Jesus Christ says plainly “my sheep hear my voice”. He states fear those who kill the soul. Imagine “recognizing” a wolf and “resisting” him, but the resistance stopping short of protecting any of the sheep the wolf murders.
This is not an intellectual exercise. 60 million babies have been murdered in the U.S. since VCII. It has just come out that Danneels tried to get the Catholic president of the Netherlands to sign an abortion bill. It is well known that it was the Catholic hierarchy in Spain and Rome that pressured that country to implement abortion law and “religious liberty”. It was published in the NYTImes that it was Cardinal Cushing who worked with Planned Parenthood to get the word out that the Catholic Church had no objection to legalized contraception (i.e. anyone not Catholic and as it turns out anyone at all is free to contracept all the life they want during the sexual act). When Teddy Kennedy died (who initiated the FACE legislation which made blocking access to an abortion clinic a felony! and ‘borked’ anti-abortion judges) who buried him–cardinals mccarrick, wuerl and O’Malley? McCarrick spoke at Fr. Hesburgh’s funeral, along w/pro aborts Obama, Carter, and Catholic Condoleeza.
Both Louie and Chaput know there is a devil statue being built in Oklahoma right next to the 10 commandments. They know that U.S. Supreme Court is going to rule on sodomite “marriage”. They know assisted ‘suicide’ laws are sweeping the country — and that the way Teri Schiavo died is the common way that Catholics who don’t die suddenly die today on “hospice” (starved or drugged to death while their own relatives sit and watch). Like Teri’s Catholic husband, it is Catholics educated by VCII heresy (as in New Jersey Immaculata teacher firing and in San Francisco) now rioting and suing for crucifixion of Jesus and any Catholic faithful to him.
It is also well known that Chaput mixes his native American spiritual heritage in with Christianity — even to the extent of wearing feathered headdress at mass. If you think you (and priests (?!)) are “faithful” by being in communion with murder, lawlessness and heresy, keep on being angry at sede-vacantists.
Dear Irishpol,
Welcome from a couple of old Catholic grandparents, who agree with all you wrote above. 🙂 🙂
and
Dear Louie,
Excellent article, and very thought-provoking
-in particular the difference between a “freedom” and a right.
We can easily relate to that idea, as we all have the freedom to choose good or evil, but not a “right” to do evil.
LOL!! Nope….just frustration.
P.S. relax, this is the internet and I may be guilty of using poor choice of words but you don’t know me nor have you any place to judge the state of my soul. Apology accepted.
Chaput can blabber til he’s blue in the face but that abortion is legal and Sodomite marriage soon will be tells everyone all they need to know about ‘religious liberty’ and VCII when this is the composition of the Supreme Court: Kagan is Jewish, as are Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. All of the other justices—Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor—are Catholic.May 11, 2010
Even the religious don’t use the G or C words anymore in this Godforsaken nation:
http://www.afa.net/action-alerts/see-afas-full-page-newspaper-message-to-the-supreme-court/
Dear Louie and all,
Since we’re discussing Vatican II, here’s a news flash:
“Radical Catholic”‘s lastest post contains a dire warning:
–“During a speech delivered a few days ago to a congress attended by many of the world’s religious formation directors, Brazilian Cardinal João Braz de Aviz (whom wickipedia says is the prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life)
issued the following warning:”
___
“Do not distance yourself from the great lines of the Second Vatican Council. In fact, those who are distancing themselves from the Council to make another path are killing themselves. Sooner or later, they will die. They will have no purpose. They will be outside the Church. We need to build, using the Gospel and the Council as a departure point.”
=======
We wonder if he’d object if we DEPART–from its ambiguities and sources of great turmoil and confusion, –to the land of ecumenical anathemas and prayers for conversion of those in false religions, for example.
=============
–In light of warnings like the one above, it’s important people know what Paul VI stated in 1966 and again in 1975:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
=====
In 1975 Pope Paul VI stated:
“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” (General Audience, August 6, 1975)
=======
There’s a thorough discussion/ essay on the non-infallible nature of VII here:
http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.html
Dear JamesTheLesser,
LOL! No we not nearly so bad as you suppose. 🙂
Sedevacantists simply accept and apply the Doctrine of the Church, that a formal, pertinacious (stubborn, persistent), manifest heretic, who teaches heresy cannot become a Pope, or remain as Pope, if he becomes a heretic, schismatic, or apostate following his election. Heresy is a sin against Faith. Formal heresy incurs automatic excommunication and therefore loss of membership of the Church. A man who is no longer a member of the Church cannot be head of the Church. To me that makes sense. Much is written on the subject and very notable are the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church. I always take the short cut and quote Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV, because that document is teaching of the Infallible Magisterium and states this Doctrine very directly, simply, clearly, unambiguously and to the point. So, no Catholic can argue the point – a formal, pertinacious, manifest heretic is not and cannot be a valid, true Pope formaliter. That means he is stripped of all papal power, office and authority, automatically and without further declaration, the instant he becomes a manifest heretic. Full stop.
If a Pope becomes privately a heretic ( an occult heretic), he commits a mortal sin, but remains Pope – through external union with the Church:
“The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved.”
(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib II, cap. 30)
So sedevacantists are simply applying this indisputable Catholic Doctrine.
1. If any of the conciliar popes were manifest heretics they were not and could not be valid Popes, therefore they must be anti-popes.
2. A Council teaches under authority of a Pope and in union with a Pope. The Pope is sovereign and infallible on matters of Faith and Morals, not the Council itself. The Council can only teach infallibly if it is in union with a valid Pope.
3. Also in concrete is that the Holy Ghost will not allow a Pope (or a Council in union with him) to teach error. Otherwise, if it were not so, the Pope could not be infallible in matters of Faith and Morals.
So the sedevacantist position is as simple and Catholic as that. Were the conciliar popes manifest, formal heretics? Yes! Demonstrably so! So they are anti-popes. Full stop.
Was Vatican II in union with a valid Pope formaliter? No! Did VII teach any heresies? Yes! It did. Therefore it was a false council. Full stop.
Did conciliar popes and/or VII have any authority to change anything in the Faith? No!
This not laymen, playing “pope”. Sedevacantists are simply applying sound Catholic Doctrine to current circumstances/situation.
So who was the last valid Pope? Pius XII. So what do I, a sedevacantist, believe? Every jot and tittle of the Catholic Faith as taught by the One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church, from Pentecost until the death of Pope Pius XII! Full stop.
So that’s all sedevacantists are – traditional, faithful Catholics who reject the conciliar popes and their false council for very good, solid, Catholic theological reasons. We are few for now, but we are not a sect. The NO is a sect. We reject the NO as a counterfeit, non-Catholic church. We reject their Episcopal Consecrations, Priestly Ordinations, mass, Eucharistic Consecrations because of their infernal tampering with the Forms of these Sacraments, with which they had no authority to tamper in the first place.
No sedevacantist on earth believes that you, or anybody else will go to hell!
“Modernist” is not a catch phrase. It applies to particular heresies which are clearly spelled out by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
Don’t be too harsh on your brothers. We are living in confusing times. We are all seeking to be good Catholics. This situation won’t last for ever. Our Lord will fix it – one way, or another, in His own good time. 🙂
Correction!
No sedevacantist on earth believes that you will go to hell because you are not a sedevacantist! 🙂
By the way, take what the brothers you referred to say with a pinch of salt. They are fanatics and without any formal training. They are no more than you and I.
Dear Crawler,
No the sedevacantist position does not render the Church invisible – it is just smaller and therefore harder to see. As far as I know Athanasius was the only Bishop left who stood alone against heresy. In that case the Church was visible in only one man, but it was still visible. If there was only a single Catholic left in the whole world, the Church would be visible in that one person.
If we accept, for argument sake, that the NO is not Catholic and that SSPX are schismatics and therefore also not Catholic, then yes, the sedevacantists are the true, visible remnant of the Catholic Church. The Papal Succession will endure until the end of time (Vatican I). We will have a true Pope again, sooner, or later according to Our Lord’s Will. We are now simply in an extended interregnum, as far as we know. The gates of hell will not prevail and Our Lady will come.
INTERNAL MENTAL DIALOGUE OF BLOG-FREQUENTING CATHOLIC…
Habemus Papam !!!
Habemus Papam???
Habemus Papam !!!!
Habemus Papam ???
And unexpectedly, comfort is found in the words of Job, a man who struggled to make sense of a world turned upside down….
“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
and He will stand upon the earth at last.
And after my body has decayed,
yet in my body I will see God!
I will see Him for myself.
Yes, I will see Him with my own eyes.
I am overwhelmed at the thought!”
Job 19:25-27
Yes! 🙂 🙂
Even if the last real Pope died over fifty years ago, it seems that wouldn’t necessarily invalidate sacraments administered under new liturgical forms that maintain the essential ingredients (e.g., intention, form and matter). In other words, can a sedevacantist reject the validity of sacraments in his local diocese solely on the basis of a missing Pope?
Yes, but someone with the requisite objective God-given authority in the Church has to declare in a formal, predictable manner that this has actually happened in a particular case – the Faithful were given a visible Church with a visible authority. Otherwise, one doesn’t know who is Pope at any particular point in time. The Church could not operate under such circumstances.
Not entirely sure who the ‘two brothers’ are. The sites I visit are Novus Ordo Watch, the CMRI, and True Restoration, Most Holy Trinity Seminary, and SGG. I’ve never come away with the impression that the few sedevacantist priest consider themselves the enitrety of the Body of Christ, quite the contrary. It is my understanding that, with very good, reason, they consider VII and the Novus Ordo to be substantially different from the Catholic Faith as deem it necessary to stay apart from both. The SSPX have done this for forty years without concluding that the Popes who promulgated them must have lost the Faith and therefore should not be followed. The SSPX practicde this without reaching the entirely same conclusion. They have lots of contact with those in the Novus Ordo. Fr Brian Harrison, who was appalled at Bergoglio”s recent denial of hell, send around a circular to clergy, which included sedevacantist priests who were more than happy to discuss the latest heresy of Bergoglio with him. There was a recent ‘tradcast’ which went into a lot of depth on the ‘no salvation outside the Church’ dogma, and it in no way damns the SSPX, FSSP, or even the Novus Ordo to hell. I don’t understand why if truth is presented by a sedevacantist it is less acceptable than by someone else.
The sedevacantist doesn’t claim that authority to themselves, they do claim the right to not be complicit with the person not ‘formally’ put aside. In the past the Church has had times when there were three ‘popes’ – all claiming to be the read deal. In the current circumstance the sedevacantist – this is the real difference between the sedevacantist and the SSPX – says if believe whomever to be Christ’s Vicar we have no God-given right to ‘recognise and resist’. The SV say, we resist because we see he cannot possibly be Christ’s Vicar, the SSPX say, we recognise him to be Christ’s Vicar but we resist. The arguments regarding which is the most valid response continue.
It’s about recognising the contradictions. The popes prior to VII were under no delusion they had the right to change any Rites and taught this – no pope can mess with the Rites of the Church – reiterated by Pius XII. Montini changed pretty much everything to make a New Ordo church. It is new, very much so, if trading on the ‘good will’ of the visible Church which preceded it. Because of the SSPX that Church which has been contradicted is still visible, still practicing, still worshipping and teaching. As for the arguments about validity, they are debated – though not, as far as I know by anyone in the Novus Ordo. For a while Archbishop Lefebvre believed the NO episcopal Rite to be invalid then changed his mind. Either way, the SSPX and the sedevacantist believe the NO mass to be something to stay away from. Given the constant abuses, and the ‘feminization’ of the majority of Novus Ordo parishes, who could disagree? Its not an ‘easy’ time to be a practicing Catholic is what I know.
Dear Lynda,
Yes, that would be great, if there was somebody to do so, but there isn’t right now that we know of. If Francis woke up one morning and said to the world: “I have sinned by teaching numerous heresies formally. I repent most heartily for my sins because they have offended You, Lord. I declare VII null and void. From this moment I will uphold the true Catholic Faith, so help me God!” All would be well and he would be a valid Pope. (It is quite possible that he is a Pope materialiter already – Sedeprivationism. If he recanted he would be a Pope formaliter also.) Sadly, that is unlikely to happen. All the NO clergy have sworn obedience to him, directly, or indirectly, so they won’t oblige. So you see, there is currently nobody with ” the requisite objective God-given authority”, that we know of, to make the declaration you desire. But remember Pope Paul IV clearly states that no further formal declaration is necessary by anybody. Francis deposed himself automatically the moment he promulgated formal heresy. If you want formal declaration, then the best we can do now, at this time, is the denunciation by him of valid, sedevacantist Bishops. The Church does keep going. You and I are the faithful Church waiting and praying for Our Lord to restore the normal situation. We are visible.
Blast! Another correction. Sorry! I always see them just as soon as I post the comment:
If you want formal declaration, then the best we can do now, at this time, is the denunciation OF him BY valid, sedevacantist Bishops.
I agree. (PS. my sentences end up reading like minced meat half the time – I need a comment secretary but I’d have to pay her with not very amusing quips.) The ‘historical’ ‘pre-VII’ Papacy has acknowledged and explored the positbilty of an heretical, schismatic or apostate Pope and the conclusion quite clearly is that he has removed himself by his ‘schism, heresy, apostasty’ without the need for a big bishop powpow or a backstreet romanitas solution on the sly.
–
In the Novus Ordo Code of Canon law, 1983 it acknowledges very plainly that a Pope could be guilty of ‘schism, heresy, apostasy’, but then it adds the ‘because no one can judge a Novus Ordo pope’, his ‘schism, heresy, apostasty’, doesn’t matter. 1983 canon law: “Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404), no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election”.
–
The 1917 Code of Canon Law would be interesting to read and see any divergences. How often has the Church in Her history re-written Canon Law, I wonder?
Dear Salvemur,
“The SV say, we resist because we see he cannot possibly be Christ’s Vicar, the SSPX say, we recognise him to be Christ’s Vicar but we resist. ”
You have put it in a nut shell. 🙂
Dear Crawler,
” … can a sedevacantist reject the validity of sacraments in his local diocese solely on the basis of a missing Pope?”
No! Definitely not! You are correct, the presence, or absence, of a Pope does not affect the validity of the Sacraments at all.
If the new liturgy had maintained the essential ingredients (intention, form and matter) of the Sacraments, there would be no problem regarding the validity of NO sacraments, but unfortunately, they did not. Paul VI made very significant changes to the forms of several Sacraments, thereby rendering them invalid. His “governing spirit” renders the Consecration of Bishops definitely invalid. No valid Bishops = eventually no valid Priests = no valid Eucharistic Consecrations = no valid Mass = Masonic Mission Accomplished!!! The heart of the Catholic Church destroyed. Long live lucifer! Let masons rejoice!!! A masterstroke of evil genius!
The Ordination of Priests is at least doubtful. The Consecration of the Eucharist is invalid. All these because their forms were changed. Baptisms and Marriage are valid. Extreme Unction, Confession and Confirmation I don’t know about. In the NO one might easily end up in a situation where an invalidly consecrated bishop has invalidly ordained a priest who says an invalid mass and gives you a piece of bread to adore. That’s how bad it is and all this was not done by accident. S
Hit the wrong button again! I intended to end by saying that the SSPX and Orthodox do have valid Sacraments, but sadly are schismatics.
Dear Salvemur,
I took JamesTheLesser’s reference to “two wacky brothers” to mean the Diamond brothers.
James, I appreciated your comment. The whole point of the sede-vacantist business is exclusive of all but a very tiny handful, and they are always suspect as well! This has been the case since at least the 70s, when I was a child listening to these same arguments. You would think that they were all without sin from birth, to be so terribly exclusive. It bothers me as well.
That’s it. “Masonic mission accomplished…In the NO one might easily end up in a situation where an invalidly consecrated bishop has invalidly ordained a priest who says an invalid mass and gives you a piece of bread to adore’. Certainly, satan’s mission accomplished.
–
In 1896 Leo XIII declared the Anglican(CofE/Episcopal) orders “utterly null and void” because ‘the rites expressed an intention to create a priesthood different from the sacrificing priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church and to reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, an appointment or blessing, instead of a sacramental conferral of actual grace by the action itself.’ Also after Henry who Eight too much murdered the Catholic priesthood in England the concept of valid bishops got seriously muddled which is why they decided to mulitply the bishops ‘necessary’ to ‘ordain’ someone. What, I would love to know, would Roman Pontiff, Christ’s Vicar (and not perfect or on full infallibility mode all the time), have to say about Montini’s New Rites?
PS. meaning to ask, what would Leo XIII have to say about Montini’s Rites?
So the Archbishop starts out bemoaning all the tragedies against Christians in the world and then says DH has helped strengthen relations between the Church and State/Other Religions? Ummm…how exactly has anything “strengthened” when we are currently being attacked in both East and Western hemispheres?
Archbishop Chaput is my bishop. I thought he was more “conservative” yet he is merely an Americanist Conservative Modernist. Did you see his Hegelism? How error can have no rights yet man has them? The logical conclusion proof would state: therefore man has no right to error. Yet the mix/mash of Hegel allows contradictory terms to remain in the same concept.
Man has no “right” to choose against Truth, against Christ. He has the ABILITY given to Him by God. He also has the ability to go and shoot up the local gas station, but I don’t see him having the “right” to do so. Do these leaders have logical brains anymore? Why can they not see distinction?
Wonderful post Louie! I am sooooo grateful to Our Lord that He gave us you to unravel the modernist lies, twists and falsehoods:+) God bless~
Pope Leo XIII would have said something very rude! 🙂
You are the one who judged a group. Further, this is the direct quote: “They pi$$ me off.” Look up the definition: “really angry with something (someone)” — then look at Matthew 5:22: “But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment.” I didn’t say anything in my first post, but you have chosen to call yourself “James the Lesser” — do you believe you are a saint? What sedevacantists call themselves after saints? Seems to me you are the one who has already judged yourself (w/out waiting for Jesus) so no wonder you get so irritated (or angry and afraid) when someone questions your sainthood (take note marykpkj) or indicates you have to do something more than demand apologies for your own anger, vulgarity and judgment of others. Imagine Jesus 1st last word: “Apology accepted.” I think both your problems w/sedes is that you can’t answer their arguments but you don’t want to do what they have done (i.e. you both have a problem similar to the rich young man). You deserve P Frances (and that’s the worst insult I could ever offer anyone) and his fairy wand that labels sinners saints without Jesus’ blood (that’s the difference between him and Luther).