The Society of St. Pius X has published the full (English) transcript of Bishop Fellay’s January 26th interview with Fr. Alain Lorans on French Radio Courtoisie.
Following are some of the highlights; beginning with the positive.
Speaking of civil society as a whole, Bishop Fellay said:
We have also lost the idea of authority, the need for an authority to unite men’s wills in order to reach this goal [common good]. Hence the need to submit to authority, and the need for authority to remain objective and not arbitrary.
Bishop Fellay is, of course, absolutely right, and the reason is simple; our churchmen from the time of the Second Vatican Council to the present day have ceased to preach (perhaps even to believe in) the Social Kingship of Christ.
Pope Leo XIII said it well:
As no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. (Immortale Dei – 3)
No longer willing to insist upon the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King, choosing instead to lobby on behalf of the rights of man, it is the Church that is to blame for the downfall of society.
Bishop Fellay went on to observe:
Today in the Church – and this is new – we are also witnessing a time of dissolution in the Church. The loss of unity in the Church today is absolutely staggering.
Yes, and let there be no mistake about it; the dissolution of the Church at Vatican II preceded and indeed guaranteed the dissolution of society.
Asked by Fr. Lorans if the Church, just like civil society, is heading towards a suicide through infecundity, Bishop Fellay answered in the affirmative; describing the spirit from which this disease has arisen:
It is a spirit of independence from God, a spirit that wishes to free itself from the yoke of God’s law that is too harsh or too difficult.
Bishop Fellay provided a correct understanding of God’s law, saying:
There is an important distinction between the law of God and the law of the Church, for God foresees everything, He knows all the circumstances, He knows all the situations men could find themselves in when He establishes the law, and His law has no exceptions: the law of God, His commandments have no exceptions.
Obviously, not all churchmen agree.
In fact, no one human being manifests the diabolical spirit of human autonomy more clearly and more dangerously in our day than one Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
One need only look at the blasphemous and heretical text of Amoris Laetitia wherein, writing under the pen name “Francis,” he insisted that “concrete situations” exist that “do not allow” individuals to abide by God’s law; as if it is indeed “too harsh or too difficult.” (cf AL 301)
The Council of Trent, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, spoke very directly to this heresy:
If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema. (Session VI, Canon XVIII)
Not content simply to denigrate the Divine Law, Bergoglio set about in this same document denigrating its Author.
He went on to insist that mortal sin at times “is the most generous response which can be given to God,” and that one can “come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.” (cf AL 303)
Forgive me for beating this drum so often, but for the life of me I cannot comprehend why holier men than I – especially those in the episcopate – are not rending their garments and crying out for vengeance in the face of such blasphemous lies and heretical distortions of immutable truth; disseminated to the faithful of the entire Church in the name of Peter no less!
I was very pleased to see that Bishop Fellay commented on the dubia (I do not recall seeing him address it specifically in the past, though I may have missed it), saying of its authors:
So the cardinals who spoke out, we can say that they accomplished an extremely important work of public salvation.
At this, let’s look as some of the not so positive parts of Bishop Fellay’s interview…
I was also pleased to see that Bishop Fellay drew parallels between Vatican Council II and Amoris Laetitia, but I am not entirely thrilled with his conclusions:
And following the Archbishop’s example we say: there is a third category of [Council] documents that are not just ambiguous, but actually false…
We say, “In theory, it is perfectly right to state that the only Catholic way to interpret the Council is in the light of Tradition.” But the problem is that once this principle is laid down, they tell us, “That is the way it is, so everyone is interpreting it in a Catholic way.” But we answer once again, “Open your eyes, look around you! That is not what is happening. In theory, it should be like that, but in reality there is a huge problem. The reality is different.”
That is what we see with Amoris Laetitia. You have Cardinal Müller who says, “This text does not go against the Faith.”.In other words, it can be interpreted in a Catholic way. Not only we can, but we must interpret it in a Catholic way.
The problem here is summed up very succinctly in another, all-too-forgotten, principle; this one given no less than twice by St. Paul in Sacred Scripture:
“A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” (Galatians 5:9, see also 1 Corinthians 5:6)
Suggesting that the Second Vatican Council and Amoris Laetitia – each one riddled with errors – can be “interpreted” in a Catholic way is tantamount to commissioning a fool’s errand.
Once those texts are read in the light of Catholic truth they beg for nothing less than condemnation; whole and entire.
Bishop Fellay said, “Those who do not interpret in a Catholic way are wrong.”
Fair enough, but truly we can say that those who fail to apply the warning given by Almighty God in Sacred Scripture about a little leaven are also wrong; indeed, more wrong still for even suggesting that one can be nourished by such texts in spite of their poison.
Speaking of the Prefect of the CDF, Bishop Fellay stated:
Cardinal Müller says, ‘We have not gone through the door, we have not abandoned divine law.’ Officially, this is true, except that a certain number of Bishops’ Conferences have already shown the way out.
We have not “officially” abandoned the Divine Law? Really?
Given that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to define and bind the Church to error in matters of faith and morals, what could be more “official” than an Apostolic Exhortation (so-called) addressed to the entire Church in the name of the pope, wherein it is said that the Divine Law is too difficult for some to keep and even that God desires that we should persist in sin? (ibid.)
Speaking of said exhortation, when asked by Fr. Lorans if Amoris Laetitia represents “a refusal of discipline, authority, the teaching of Christ and a sense of sacrifice,” Bishop Fellay replied:
[Note: This is a lengthy quote, but I am providing it in its entirety for the sake of context and clarity, but with my own emphasis added.]
I don’t think it is out of principle. It is somewhat of an unusual event. I’ll try to explain it.
What I see in our pope today, Pope Francis, is a care for souls, but especially souls that are rejected, so souls that are lonely, that are set aside or despised or simply in difficulty. What he calls the “existential peripheries.” So is it really the famous lost sheep? Is Pope Francis leaving the flock of 99 other sheep, thinking he is where he should be, taking care of the lost sheep? Is that maybe what he is thinking? I say maybe, I am not trying to give a complete answer.
Let’s just say that we can see in everything he says that his attention is universal, he does not look only at the Faith. He looks at the homeless, immigrants, and prisoners. And yes, these are people who have been left aside by others, but one does not need the Faith to see that. One does not need the Faith to see that these people suffer. And then you have divorcees. They, too, suffer. And you have us, we are rejected, too. And in the end, we are all sort of in the same category, the category of those rejected by the common body. And he wants to care for those souls. He wants to try to do something.
The problem is that for many of these souls in difficulty, they are there because they have butted heads with a law in one way or another.
So we have a pope who has a problem with the law that hurts some of humanity, so to speak, and who tries to see if there is not some other way – not to get rid of the law, I do not think that is his idea – but to see if there is some other path for them. I’m trying to understand what he does, but it is not easy.
Before reacting to this, let me repeat what I have said many times in the past:
I have no reason to believe that Bishop Fellay will ever bargain with the true faith, or make compromises with respect to authentic Catholic doctrine, no matter the pressure. In no way do I think it is reasonable to accuse His Excellency of impure motives; e.g., the claim so often made that “he will do anything to achieve full communion with Rome.” I think that this is no less than calumny. (So, please, if that’s your opinion, don’t post it here.)
That said, the response given by Bishop Fellay above is painful to read.
Is it truly useful to comment publicly upon what Jorge Bergoglio may, or may not, be thinking as he goes about destroying the Church, spreading heresy with abandon, and blaspheming God?
For me, it is enough to follow the lead of Pope St. Pius X, “leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge.” (cf Pascendi)
This prescript cuts both ways; be it with respect to a disposition of good will, or one of ill will.
How can Bishop Fellay even suggest, however obliquely, that one might see in Francis an image of the Good Shepherd – Our Blessed Lord, who upon being ridiculed for “receiving sinners and eating with them” (and let us not forget, calling them to conversion as well) delivered the parable of the lost sheep?
If only we were so blessed as to have Francis “leave the other 99.” As it is, he is Hell bent on poisoning the entire flock!
Speculation of this nature, coming from Bishop Fellay – one of a mere handful of bishops who has the Catholic faith in any semblance of its fullness – is truly dangerous.
In fact, this is precisely the central error of Amoris Laetitia; namely, that one can in some way read the hearts of men when in fact God alone can do that, and worse, imputing pure intentions to those who commit objectively evil deeds.
In the end, I’m afraid that Bishop Fellay’s words (which are heard well beyond the confines of the Society) risk inviting the faithful, many of whom are genuinely confused, to get caught up in emotionalism (e.g., being lulled to sleep by meaningless platitudes like Francis means well, bless his heart…) when our attention must ever remain focused on knowing and living those objective truths apart from which eternal life is not possible.
His attention is universal, he does not look only at the Faith.
The wording of this statement is also most unfortunate; indeed, dangerous, in that it risks lending credence (inadvertently, to be sure) to the Bergoglian idea that “the Faith” is entirely distinct from so-called “concrete situations.”
Of course, it is true that one need not have the Faith in order to see the suffering of persons who are “homeless, immigrants, and prisoners,” but left unsaid is that Francis does not view such situations through the eyes of Faith (for the simple reason that he does not have the Faith), which is why he looks at the SSPX as just another group of disenfranchised souls.
Lastly, I suspect that, in hindsight, His Excellency would like to take back his comment about Francis having “a problem with the law that hurts some of humanity, so to speak.”
I’m sorry, but “so to speak” doesn’t really help all that much…
Clearly, Bishop Fellay knows and believes that God’s law never hurts anyone; on the contrary, it is the way of everlasting life.
In conclusion, these are truly terrible times in the Church. The voice of Our Lord is scarcely discernible in much of what comes to us from our churchmen today; in fact, one can easily discern the voice of the Evil One even in the pronouncements that come out of Rome!
As such, I would respectfully suggest that moving forward it might be best for Bishop Fellay to avoid these kinds of free-wheeling interviews in favor of issuing prepared statements that are more clear and concise; avoiding anything that might be serve to distract the faithful from the grave offenses being heaped upon Our Lord almost daily by the current resident-in-white at Domus Santa Marta.
Please have some common sense, would anyone negotiate with a person whom he supposed to condemn as a heretic and apostate to the Faith? The condition of any negotiation should be Francis immediately stop being the enemy of Christ.
“I cannot comprehend why holier men than I – especially those in the episcopate – are not rending their garments and crying out for vengeance in the face of such blasphemous lies and heretical distortions of immutable truth; disseminated to the faithful of the entire Church in the name of Peter no less!”
“The voice of Our Lord is scarcely discernible in much of what comes to us from our churchmen today.”
If you do want CLARITY and TRUTH have a look in sedevacantist sites.
I dont for a second doubt that Bp Fellay is a good man. However, his hoop-jumping in regards to the debacle that is bergoglio is not only troubling to those who know better, but very confusing for those who do not. He is becoming neither hot nor cold. Im not sure why he would even attempt, in even the slightest way, to defend bergoglio. Only God can just the internal but we men of sound mind are more than capable of judging the external.
JUDGE the internal…
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX:
“Rather than read Vatican II in light of Tradition, we really should read and interpret Vatican II in light of the new philosophy. We must read and understand the Council in its real meaning, that is to say, according to the new philosophy. Because all these theologians who produced the texts of Vatican II were imbued with the new philosophy. We must read it this way, not to accept it, but to understand it as the modern theologians who drafted the documents understand it. To read Vatican II in light of Tradition is not to read it correctly. It means to bend, to twist the texts. I do not want to twist the texts.”
I agree with AlphonsusJr. I was just thinking the same thing this morning. I can’t believe that the successors of The Apostles can not muster up enough courage to say, enough is enough. I want them to use Holy Indignation to oust this imposter. I want them to end this diabolical disorientation and to have courage to save the flock, to save the souls who are “falling into hell like snowflakes”.
I agree with Louie that dear Bishop Fellay should not have given Bergoglio “the benefit of the doubt” – it gives the flock a moment of possibly thinking that he means well, and maybe they should support him. The guy is doing evil things.
I don’t agree with SSPX having separated from Rome in the first place – i believe that is always wrong, no matter what sort of pain and torture you have to go through with evil hierarchy – other Saints did it out of obedience. It is not for us to reason and make our own judgements that lead to pulling away from Peter. That is what Luther did. That makes Sedevacantists wrong too.
Well said Louie.
To digress a little, I was struck by the common misunderstanding (one which I shared and was puzzled by) of the parable of the lost sheep as signifying the Lord leaving the flock who were faithful to themselves whilst going to find a single lost sheep which is what the Bishop implies here. It always struck me as difficult to understand why the Good Shepherd would contemplate leaving virtually the whole flock (potentially exposing them to danger) in order to go after one lost sheep. As I listened to another homily admonishing the faithful for intolerance for the wayward sheep (the only kind of homily I can recall hearing on this parable) I switched off from the homily to read what Dom Prosper Gueranger had to say in his The Liturgical Year for this gospel (which is the one on the 3rd Sunday after Pentecost) and became lost in the beauty of his exposition – with reference to St. Ambrose and St Gregory the Great. Instantly, and for the first time, I understood the parable. Do read this section of The Liturgical Year if you get the chance. Here is an extract: ‘For, as St. Ambrose says, ‘who is the shepherd in the parable? It is Christ, who carries thee, poor man, in His own Body, and has taken all thy sins upon Himself. The sheep is one, not by number, but by its kind. Rich Shepherd this, of whose flock all we human beings form but the hundredth part! He has the Angels, and Archangels, and Dominations, and Powers, and Thrones, and all the rest; all those other countless flocks whom He has left yonder up the mountain, that He might run after the one sheep He had lost’.
We are that lost sheep and Christ left his Heavenly flock to come after us!
In his mind-set PF is just another Saul Alinsky author of Rules for Radicals, written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. When asked by Playboy magazine about the afterlife he said, if there was one & he had any say in the matter, he would choose to go to Hell to be with the have-nots, as they were his kind of people. Because of his lack of faith in God he pre-supposed that God would send all the have-nots to Hell & the have-alls to Heaven. As PF has stated that there is no Hell then the have-nots cannot be holed up there, but despite his utter dislike for the have-alls he hasn’t yet confirmed the existence of Heaven & if so, will the have-alls get to make it there. Neither give credence to the souls of the have-nots & have-alls, being of the opinion that everyone is the same in the sight of God (if there is one) – the infidel & the baptised, the saint & the gravest sinner, all are what they are because of life’s privileges or poverty. Faith, free will, self control or ethical standard of living does not get a hearing.
It is also strange that PF worries about rigid young Catholics & rigid seminaries whilst at the same time rushing to extend the hand of friendship to the SSPX who are known for their rigidness when at the same time inviting a pro abort population alarmist to speak at the Vatican’s Biological Extinction Conference & an ex Chinese health minister, Huang Jiefu to speak at the Vatican Summit on Organ Trafficking & Transplant Talks. All the while Fr. Tom Uzhunnalil & Asia Bibi are still incarcerated & priests are being threatened by their superiors for reading AL as being a personal opinion of the Pope & refusing to give absolution to unrepentant sinners. One has to wonder why Bishop Fellay has no words on these grave matters & why he hasn’t publicly supported the four Cardinals & signed the Dubia. He is being portrayed by the media as more interested in preserving SSPX property & finances than denouncing AL & PF’s preferred associates who have nothing but hate for the CC.
“that one can in some way read the hearts of men when in fact God alone can do that, and worse, imputing pure intentions to those who commit objectively evil deeds.”
Francis habitually imputes evil intentions on those who do objectively good deeds! The quoted example could be forgiven as proceeding from a severely misplaced charity, the latter is a lack of charity pure and simple.
“He went on to insist that mortal sin at times “is the most generous response which can be given to God,” and that one can “come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.” (cf AL 303)”
Oh does Our Lord have a great sense of humor. As I’m sure you are aware, SSPX marriages are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. In fact, if you are married in an SSPX chapel and later decide to divorce, you can get a quick, easy annulment due to “lack of canonical form”.
Therefore, if the Pope was WRONG in the statement quoted above, every single couple who was married invalidly in an SSPX chapel would in fact be living in the state of mortal sin. Furthermore, if the Pope was WRONG in the statement quoted above, every single couple married invalidly in an SSPX chapel would be committing sacrilege every time they received communion in such a state.
So those SSPXers invalidly married should thank God that the Pope is RIGHT in the above quoted text otherwise they would spend eternity in Hell.
The SSPX have not seperated from the Catholic Church in any way. The impostors and infiltrators, these enemies of Christ and His Church, are holding positons of raw and immense power and using it against the Faithful to destroy the Church. Not Divine authority, but power. Note the stark difference.
The Church safeguards Her tradtions and hands them as they have been received without addition, alteration or erasure.
+Lefebvre HAD to hand on the traditional rite of Holy Orders (as well as everything to do with the Faith) as he received it from the Church. It was what he swore an oath to uphold.
New rites for all the sacraments, new mass, new new liturgy, new council, new doctrine, new catechism, new canon law – heck even a new rite of exorcism!
Seriously, how much is one expected to bend and twist the Faith before it becomes apparent that there is an unprecedented state of emergency? The Church cannot be the cause of Her own destruction, so it must be coming from somewhere alien and foreign.
A couple of years ago I came to an understanding – one which I had “valiantly” fended off for many years in my FSSP universe – that Archbishop Lefebvre was RIGHT! Thanks be to God that he did what he did.
In case you haven’t noticed, there is an unprecedented crisis in the Church.
We are watching first hand the greatest mass-apostasy in history, and the cause is coming from the purported heirarchy of the Church.
But this means nothing to a grovelling, legalistic sycophant intimidated by powerful usurpers of Divine authority.
Ganganelli continues to spew his arrant nonsense. I think his actual first name might be “Thomas” and his surname might be “Rosica”.
Actually, Ganganelli makes perfect sense if one were to assume that Bergolio is Pope. What the Francis is telling us is that we are all saved so it doesnt matter how many marriages we have, it doesnt matter what religion we are in, and lastly it doesnt matter who is or isnt Pope. Nothing matters anymore. These sede vs RR arguments are all superfluous since none of it matters. Thats the magesterium of Rome so get on board or leave.
If you cling to modern Rome you are the one seperating from Peter. The faith has been lost in Rome and to be in communion with the modernists is to be on communion with error. You want someone to use Holy Indignation to oust the imposter. Who? Please name for me anyone whether he be bishop or priest who offers the new mass who himself is not a modernist heretic. When you realize the whole organization that you think is the Catholic Church is corrupt with modernism, then you will finally see clearly.
This is the problem. As long as good people continue to proclaim the vatican 2 church as somehow being Catholic then nothing will change. This false v2 faith needs to be denounced just as any other false faith is. Those who attempt to lend any sort of justification to this abhorrent v2 church (siscoe and salza…..the 21st century theologians), even though they may proclaim to be “traditional Catholics” who are “opposed to modernism” are helping souls on their way to hell. THAT is the bottom line.
Separated from whom? you SHOULD separate yourself from blasfamy and heresy, you SHOULD be in schism with them! If you continue at any price stay in “full communion” with NO church, you will wake up one day in AKAlutheran church with nice priestess, blessing sodomist “marriage”. You will be no martyr at all but nice guy, whose first commandment was, stay with hierarchy at any price, no matter what they are preaching and doing.
I agree with Louie. All this talk about the SSPX and Rome uniting is getting old and boring. Fellay should either be totally quiet about this or make a definitive statement one way or the other and let that be the end of it. In time of war, decisive action is warranted—not wishy-washy statements. Personally, I have no interest until Fellay makes his intentions absolutely clear. These matters are too important to turn this into a guessing game.
Ganganelli bears a strange resemblance to a commenter calling himself I Am Not Spartacus, who loved to troll arround stirring up mischief and mayhem….that said, Ann Barnhardts call for prayer for Pope Benedict XVI is spot on as he is the true Pontiff. The acceptance of this reality is a tough one for those who are rejecting the fact that we are fighting an actual satanic domination at the Vatican which is controlled by the satanicaly controlled globalist elite. Bishop Williamson is Prehaps more tuned in that Bishop Fellay…..whether I’m correct about that fact isn’t important, the important thing is to remember that Our Lady told us (paraphrasing) that we would reach a point where it would appear that all would look or become paralyzed, and then She would act. We must expect this to occur and remain steadfast in our prayers and reparations as prescribed by The Blessed Mother.
Well, we all think and reason differently, and surely I’m not the brightest one in the room, but who here, at this point, does not cringe or feel sick upon seeing his face or uttering his name (whatever that may be)?
Why or even better HOW could anyone who is holier than I, (as rich would say) choose to play footsies with such a madman at a time like this. In following MY conscience, I cannot even gaze upon his face without shivering, let alone be in his company entertaining conversation regarding my Lord. HOW?, WHY? better yet, HOW?? HOW?? HOW??
WHY?? Maybe it just takes a very strong man.?. Then again maybe I’m just stupid. Cause I just can’t see it.
Oh did I mention that 2 men have the title”Pope” before their names? 2
“I don’t agree with SSPX having separated from Rome ” What does it this mean? Rome is the seat of anti Christ so you are saying you don’t agree with SSPX opposing to anti Christ?
“As long as good people continue to proclaim the vatican 2 church as somehow being Catholic then nothing will change” Amen to that. Anyone who supports the documents of Vatican II is an apostate to the Faith.
“We are watching first hand the greatest mass-apostasy in history, and the cause is coming from the purported heirarchy of the Church” Amen Amen.
“If you do want CLARITY and TRUTH have a look in sedevacantist sites.” Indeed they are more orthodox than other traditional Catholics, my concern is many of them split from SSPX and might inherited the same problems, like denying the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church.
So true. The SSPX and independent chapels have elevated BOD to some kind of super dogma and a litmus test for attendance. If BOD is in the subjective order is not this in God’s hands. Judging the internal does not seem to be a problem in this case.
What is BOD?
Sorry. BOD = Baptism of Desire.
Danielpan, as Robert de Niro said, “are you talking to me?”
If you are, you must have read me incorrectly. I said that the SSPX have never been separated from the Catholic Church. Someone else above said they were, which is incorrect. The Novus Ordo church is not the Catholic Church.
I Am Not Spartacus continuously refers to himself in the third person, which immediately introduces a doubt regarding his sanity.
If The Papal Subject should ever do such a thing, The Papal Subject thinks The Papal Subject would also qualify for the funny farm.
Oh, woops, just found what you are referring to. No edit button!
“The SSPX… have elevated BOD to some kind of super dogma.” Preposerous. What SSPX chapels are you basing this on?
Papal Subject, agree on all counts, essentially, but please do talk to your SSPX priest and/or read TOFP or other competent (non-sede) source regarding the new rites. There is no doubt they can be used to confect valid sacraments (which is why the Society only relies on re-sacramentation where there are specific doubts regarding intention, etc…)
Tom – Luther said the same thing. Your logic & mechanisms are identical to his.
–
Christ founded one entirely specific, visible Church on Peter, and that Body still exists. That Body is, and always will be, the Catholic Church. To say otherwise is heresy – denial of the perpetual visibility and/or indefectibility of the Church.
–
The material modernists holding the reins now still subscribe to the Church as the rule of faith. They may be seriously disoriented, they may be evil, they may be both, but they’re the prelates God allowed to hold the reins – as a punishment to mankind.
–
The SSPX has always had exactly the correct response: Material resistance to error, formal recognition. This is the Catholic response to wayward prelates, always & everywhere.
Rich, Rich, Rich – now you’ve done it again.
–
Sedevacantism Debunked In A Nutshell
–
The dogmatic sedevacantist position is one that may appear as a legitimate solution to this crisis in the Church (the worst in Her history, it would seem), but only to those who have not yet fully explored its ramifications or do not know Her teaching well enough. In point of fact, there are at least several “one-shot kills” of the position – simple facts that, in and of themselves, render it logically impossible and, actually, leading directly to material heresy. We will explore a few of them here, and then briefly explore the false basis of the sedevacantist position.
–
1) The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: The Church directly and formally considered the question of whether or not the faithful can formally separate from any prelate sans judgment by the Church, and the answer – of course – was no. Sedevacantists live materially under the anathema the council declared:
–
“… this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”
–
2) The Church teaches that the public acceptance by a moral unanimity of the Church of a supreme pontiff is itself proof of his validity; the theologians agree that this constitutes what is known as a “dogmatic fact,” which is a matter so closely related to a dogma that it must be infallibly true for the dogma to have meaning (that dogma in this case being essentially papal infallibility). It is a mortal sin against Faith to reject a dogmatic fact.
–
What if Pius V had lost his office due to heresy, and his ratification of the Council of Trent was thus null? If Catholics could not rely on the dogmatic facts of papal acceptance, absolutely nothing in the Church would be certain! Would Christ have constructed such a house of cards?
–
(Note that the exceptions such as the Western Schism do not undo this rule: In such cases there obviously was *not* universal acceptance of the pontiff.)
–
3) The Visibility of the Church: The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is probably an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestent definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
–
(Somewhat related to visibility is the mark of universality (catholicity). Theologians have discussed two two aspects of catholicity: right & fact. The former of these means that the Church always had the aptitude to spread throughout the world, and the latter that it did, in fact, do so. Van Noort, among others, notes that once the Church became universal in fact (spread to many nations) this characteristic became a permanent, necessary quality of it. Thus, once the Church (visible as she always has been and will be) became spread broadly among many nations, this so-called moral universality became a permanent property. The Church is now formally visible throughout virtually the entire world, perpetually – everyone (generally speaking) knows of the Catholic Church. It can never be the case that the Church that was once so broadly visible can cease to be formally visible.)
–
We’ve got three separate, unrelated matters that each kill the sede hypothesis dead in one shot.
–
Now that we have taken a look at some things that destroy the sedevacantist position before it gets out of the gate, we’ll look at the root of their errors.
–
As we all know, the core tenet of sedevacantism is that the post-conciliar popes (as well as more than a few others some of them also condemn) either were never popes or lost their office due to heresy (the *sin* of heresy as opposed to the crime, they say, this being an important distinction).
–
Concerning that critical determination of heresy, it is here where the dogmatic sedes first go wrong – and these errors in premise result in large errors in conclusion (as John Salza likes to say). The demonstrated fact (it’s been demonstrated very thoroughly by Salza & Siscoe) is that there is no theologian in the history of the Church who ever sanctioned what the sedes do: Making the critical determination of formal (obstinate) heresy a matter of private judgment.
–
I’m going to include only one link in this little piece, and that’s this one: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html
–
Bellarmine has long been the sedevacantists’ “go-to theologian,” but he, like all the rest of them, clearly taught that *the Church* (not Fr. Cekada, Mario Derkson, John Lane, or any of the rest of them) must make a judgement of pertinacity in heresy for a pontiff to be separated from his office.
–
(Bellarmine, the canon “Si Papa” which was Church law for eight centuries, and other theologians note that the crime of heresy is the one exception to the rule that “the First See can be judged by no one.”)
–
There is more. Related to the determination of pertinacity, sedes all make a critical error in confusing the sin vs. the crime of heresy. They have long based their position on thesis that *sin* of heresy (which lives in the *internal* forum) results in the loss of ecclesiastic office, which is a matter of the *external* forum. In fact, neither the Church in any capacity nor any theologian has ever taught such a thing. God alone, of course, judges the internal forum, and nothing in the internal forum can possibly sever one from the *Body* of the Church (sedes typically make no distinction whatever between the Body and the Soul of the Church), which is where ecclesiastic office resides. (All the evidence for these assertions is in “True or False Pope,” and it is irrefutable.)
–
As Bellarmine also said, to paraphrase, as the Church is directly involved in elevating a man to the papacy, so it must be involved in separating him from it, should that occur.
–
Aquinas condemned the “judgement by usurpation” endemic to an individual claiming to have the power to depose a prelate from his office (in congruence with the Fourth Council of Constantinople referenced above).
–
This has been a very high-level view of the fatal issues with sedevacantism, intended to be extremely succinct. Rest assured that for every objection raised, there is an answer, and they can pretty much all be found in “True Or False Pope.”
–
God hasn’t given us a Church – perpetual, indefectible, and immaculate, the infallible Ark of Salvation – yet so ridiculously fragile and subject to individual whim as the sede thesis claims. It can’t have been meant to work that way and it does not work that way. Realizing how terrible this crisis of modernism is, seeing the Church bruised and bloodied, is indeed impetus for *exploring* notion such that the pontiffs who have ruled over this ruin were and are not truly popes. However, it simply is not possible to conclude so without embracing not only logical absurdities but material heresy as well.
–
One can see that some of these things can’t really be explained in sound bytes; it seems that sedes do tend to like things simple. They throw out Fr. Cekada’s syllogism again & again without realizing it is full of oversimplifications and other errors. Sorry, but we can’t demand a Theology of Bumper Stickers.
–
But, actually, this IS simple – look above. Sedevacantism quickly leads to logical nonsense, contradicts de fide teachings of the Church, and, according to the theologians, entails anathema or mortal sin in at least two areas (formal separation from a prelate without judgement from the Church, and rejection of the dogmatic fact of a pontiff’s election & reign).
“Rome is the seat of anti Christ” – that’s your de fide teaching? LOL. Put it on a bumper sticker, which is where it belongs.
Define “magisterium” for us, please, citing your source. Then, please, provide a dogmatic explanation of levels of assent owed various papal statements and actions. And, if you could, at the end, provide your credentials. Thanks.
No, this is the dress rehearsal. Bad, but the final one will be much worse.
The Church cannot accept a formal heretic as its head….and you know that. Is mr bergoglio a formal heretic or not (God will judge his heart…we dont need to worry about that on earth….we are obliged to judge the external words and actions)? What CHURCH is there that would be able to denounce this man as the heretic that he is, being that the vatican 2 church, the false faith, is currently the face of Catholicism?
You and I see the same problem….we both know that mr bergoglio is a disaster. Yet, one of us understands heresy and another one of us keeps making excuses for degeneracy. Think about how many people die and have to stand before God each time we exchange comments. Do you care about those souls? I do.
I save all the legalese for lawyers. We all know that what Rome has taught since V2 is not what Rome taught before V2. That to me is a rupture. You can go on believing that the post V2 popes are catholic but it defies logic. They are modernists.
Ah, the old “if it isnt declared infallibly then we can just say to heck with it” argument. Nonsense. If it is promoted to the world as Catholic teaching (ordinary universal magisterium) then it is infallible, as the Catholic Church as founded by Our Lord Himself is totally incapable of teaching universal error.
Uh, I think everyone who posts here is fully aware that the Catholic Church fully exists. You cannot resist a true pope on matter of Faith and morals (and governance of the Church). That is Catholic impossibility. We dont reject a true pope….we simply denounce heretics, as is our duty as Catholics.
The Church is fully recognizable to those who are able to recognize it. I denounce rome with a PASSION…and yet I fully see the Church.
But, Rich, you don’t appear to know or care what “formal heresy” means, at least in regards to ecclesiastical office, especially that of the supreme pontificate, which is a special case.
–
Asserting that someone who commits the *sin* of heresy loses membership in the *Body* of the Church is quite false, and a gross oversimplification of Catholic doctrine – according to ALL authorities that have ever taught on the matter (and according to common sense as well).
–
Suarez: “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible the Pope would cease to be Pope **just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church**. This is the **common opinion among the doctors**” (De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, p. 316). This is what is all theologians and popes who have spoken *on the question of loss of ecclesiastical office, which is a matter of the external forum* agree on: a person must be convicted of the *crime* of heresy to be severed from the Body. This means that every person on the Internet cannot decide for himself which popes are or were actually valid popes.
–
(In addition to the “common opinion of the doctors,” the above position is also the *most liberal* on the matter – the other school of thought (the so-called Dominican) holds that a pontiff, once judged a pertinacious heretic **by the Church**, must still be deposed by an (imperfect) general council of the Church. John of St. Thomas also held that the declaration of heresy can *also* come only from such a council, citing the historical examples of popes Marcellinus (Council of Sinuesso) and Symmachus.)
–
With sedevacantism, it’s all about what establishes establishes formal heresy, or even what “is” heresy as referred to by the theologians (because this is also misunderstood). The *sin* of heresy separates one from the Soul of the Church (as a mortal sin against the divine virtue of Faith, it divests one entirely of Faith as well as sanctifying grace), but is actually totally unrelated to the external forum, in which ecclesiastical office lies. The *crime* of heresy, on the other hand – which is declared *by the Church* – *can* sever a man from ecclesiastical office. (There is more to it in the case of a pope, since he is not subject to canon law and cannot be judged by the Church for any *other* crime, which is why the case of deposition of a heretical pontiff is treated very much as a “special case” by the mind of the Church.)
–
Let’s start with the definition of formal heresy. What it is, in fact – its very nature – is *rejection of the Church as the rule of faith*. This is what a manual of dogmatic theology will tell you. Note that that is more than simply the willful rejection of a specific (implicit or defined) dogma: The subject must consciously reject the Catholic Church *as* the arbiter of truth. As Cardinal Billot puts it, “… the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” (“De Ecclesia Christi”).
–
Next, there is the question of how the guilt of such a crime – the worst there is, actually – can be determined. Can I determine a pope is a formal heretic, as the sedevacantists insist? No, actually, I cannot; no individual can do such a thing, because none of us can judge the soul of a man, which is what is necessary to know that he does, in fact, willfully reject the Church
–
This frustrates sedevacantists, and, in a sense, this frustration is understandable. I am faced with a personal detestation of Pope Francis again & again, every time I hear some new blasphemous comment, clearly erroneous statement, insult of faithful Catholics trying to live their faith, etc. But I recognize that any personal judgements I might make of his soul, however tempting and even seemingly obvious, are simply meaningless. They can’t change the fact that he’s the pope, and it’s patently ridiculous to believe otherwise. It’s an emotional comfort to some, but nothing more.
–
(Here’s a little mind game we can play. They will quote Bellarmine stating that heresy cuts a man off from the Church, not realizing that he is referring to the *crime* of heresy (as determined by the Church, by definition), rather than the personal sin of heresy. If they are correct in what they’re asserting – that the SIN of heresy cuts a man off from the *Body* (as opposed to the Soul, which is actually the case) – then they really ought to become Protestants in fact as well as spirit, since this makes the Church nothing but a house of cards. Consider: Pope Pius V, some time before he ratified the Council of Trent, committed the sin of heresy, cut himself off from the Church, and became an anti-pope. Thus, Trent’s dogmas are nothing; they are not truth. Its anathemas are likewise meaningless. This is what the sedevacantist mindset does to the Church: It neuters it completely. In reality, the answer to this crisis of the Church, as history shows us was the case with prior abuses of papal power and papal error, is to recognize valid ecclesiastical authority but resist its public material errors, in the very rare cases such exist.)
–
So, as Suarez himself tells us above, it’s the common opinion – and the alternative opinion is further yet from the sedevacantist thesis of private judgement – that a pope loses his office when, but certainly not before, a judgement of heresy against him by the Church. Let’s now take a look at the common sede “objection” (which are de facto objections to the mind of the Church): The pope cannot be judged by the Church; he is not subject to canon law.
–
While it’s indeed true that the pope is *not* subject to canon law, the common opinion is that heresy is the one exception to the rule that a sitting pope cannot be judged.
–
St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place [recognize]. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people [resist], and not that they depose them [recognize]. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff” (from “De Membris Ecclesiae”, as quoted in “True Or False Pope”, pp 645-646; bracketed portions are from True of False Pope). So, the sedes’ go-to theologian tells us that false prophets are “not to be listened to” *and* specifically that they “not depose him”.
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, **the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings**” (Cited by Billot, “Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi”, as quoted in “True or False Pope”, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, **unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith**.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
–
This (“a pope cannot be judged by the Church”) is the only objection the sedevacantists have against these teachings (which are what Bellarmine, Suarez, and every other theologian who spoke on the matter taught). It’s not a real objection. The sedes have no answer to the fact that heresy has long been recognized as the sole exception to this rule. (And it’s far from an arbitrary exception: Heresy does indeed make a man until to hold any ecclesiastical office, much less the highest, but the judgement of heresy has to be that of the Church. As Bellarmine also noted, just as the Church is intimately involved with binding a man to the form of the papacy, so must she be involved in severing the bond. If this were not the case, the result would be de-facto anarchy at any time.)
–
Note that these Doctors of the Church, popes, and theologians taught these things knowing full well that the supreme pontiff has full juridical authority over the Church Militant (this was taught since the time of the Fathers – the teaching was formalized, not invented, at Vatican Council I).
–
(Regarding he canonical warnings given to a possibly heretical pope, as John Salza states, “Because the Church has no authority over the Pope, these warnings **do not constitute an act of jurisdiction (as they would for other Catholics), but only an act of charity, as St. Thomas teaches in regard to fraternal correction. Although the Pope is not subject to the positive law of the Church, because these warnings are rooted in Divine Law, and are afforded to lesser clerics in the hope of their amendment, they most certainly are afforded to the Vicar of Christ, both as a matter of justice as well as under the philosophical principle omne majus continet in se minus – ‘the greater includes the lesser.’”)
–
So, while shouting “Francis is NOT MY POPE” might satisfy a certain inner urge, it can’t undo reality.
Uh, unfortunately, Rich, it takes a bit more than that (being aware the Catholic Church exists) to remain in the Faith.
–
Where is the Catholic Church, according to you? It’s not the very body that was the Catholic Church, according to you, until 1958 or 1965 or whenever. According to you, at that point, the exact visible, hierarchical, apostolic Society that Christ founded on Peter magically morphed into a false church – even though Catholic dogma says that can’t happen.
–
So, Rich, where is the Church? Where is the Catholic Church – with its three attributes of perpetual visibility (including formal visibility, meaning She can be *recognized as the true Church), indefectibility, and infallibility, and four Marks? Where is it? What is it?
–
Now, you should try very hard to avoid the Protestant heresy of an invisible church made up of visible members.
I think it’s a Dimond bros exagerration. While they do have some interesting material and information, they tend towards schism and look for problems where there are none. I have not heard one single word on BOD from an SSPX pulpit.
I did actually mention to the priest at the chapel that Bishop de Mallerais has grave doubts about their validity. He simply replied that the Bishop is very much across the issues and knows what he’s talking about.
I am going to leave the issue on the shelf. I’m not the pope. Things were tinkered with that should have been left alone. You keep repeating the fact that nothing after the Council has been binding as law, and that includes “for you and for all men” and the radical changes to episcopal consecration. Not binding = no guarantee of protection from error. If I accept the NROEC then I have to accept the NO. Sorry, not gonna happen. These evil things come from strangers and aliens, not Catholics. It was never binding law. Your argument cuts both ways….
I don’t insist that this current apostasy is the one St Paul warned of, and I don’t insist that it isn’t either.
By the way, I keep saying it, but I would very much like to see you stay a bit longer at the SD forums and test your ideas there. You will have those on your side to back you, and those on the other to challenge and oppose you in charity. The Nazianzen guy is pretty well across the sede side of things and has taken many of your positions head on. All parties are more across the issues in more depth, and it would be a fruitful use of resources for you to post the comments that are here, there.
Catholic Thinker says that nothing in or after the council has been binding on anyone – which is the most spectacular get out of jail free card in all eternity.
All those souls lost to hell over some mere friendly but erroneous advice – that was taken as serious, binding teaching from the Catholic Church. Those people should have been more careful. They should have been able to provide dogmatic explanations for the different levels of assent required for different aspects of the magisteruim, and then given their credentials to anyone who asked. Instead, they trusted what they thought was the voice of the Church, simply because that’s what they always did, and they became heretics and lost the faith – all because they didn’t have the right “credentials”, such as two or three degrees in theology – like all Catholics are supposed to have.
So true. It is a joke. The perfect Catholic Church cannot, by its very nature, throw out “teachings” that can lead souls to hell. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Similarly. the perfect Catholic Church cannot, by its very nature. throw out “teachings” which you are allowed to follow or not at your own discretion. This again is nonsense. The Catholic Church has never done this….and this is why the 2nd council could not possibly have been Catholic.
The latest news from a French website called, Reconquista, as provided on the CathInfo website, regarding Bp. Fellay’s recent stay at Santa Martha, and his meeting with Francis. What’s noteworthy is that the SSPX has purchased property in Rome, which is believed will be the new headquarters of the future SSPX Personal Prelature.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=43727&f=19&min=9&num=3
From Article:
“4. Fr. Alain Nely, General Assistant, was also there. And he also used his time in Rome to complete the purchase of a big house with chapel in Rome. It is believed that this would become the headquarters of the future SSPX Personal Prelature. The purchase was facilitated by the direct intervention of Guido Pozzo, head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.”
Here are some photos of the property in Rome that the SSPX has recently purchased, which is possibly to be the future headquarters of the new SSPX Personal Prelature in Rome:
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/02/exclusivo-fotos-de-la-posible-futura.html