According to Vatican News, on January 9, Francis used the occasion of his Santa Marta homily to speak about authority; both that of Jesus Christ and that of the pastors of the Church.
What “gives authority” to Jesus, the Pope explained, is precisely his closeness to the people, because he understands their problems pains and sins, he welcomes, heals, and teaches them coming close to them.
In the early days of the Bergoglian Occupation, I opined that exploring the Santa Marta homilies, wherein Francis often speaks without notes (i.e., from the heart) can be especially useful in getting to know who he truly is on the inside.
Nearly five years and Amoris Laetitia later, that Francis has the heart of a heretic is old news. Even so, there is value in examining these homilies yet; in particular for the benefit of those who, for God only knows what reason, still insist that he is Catholic and even “Holy Father.”
The above is a perfect example as Francis rather casually reveals the dirty little not-so-secret that lies at the very core of his ersatz pontificate:
He simply does not believe that Jesus Christ is God.
It’s Catholicism 101, folks; the fact the He is God, and this alone, is what give Jesus authority. It also happens to be what gives Jesus credibility; making Him worthy of belief.
Francis, however, does not believe in the Divinity of Christ.
With this being so, is it any wonder that he does not believe the doctrines taught by the Church that Jesus established?
The Vatican News report continues:
What grants authority to a pastor or awakens authority in him, given by the Father, the Pope said, is closeness – closeness to God in prayer. A pastor who does not pray, who does not seek God, he said, cannot be close to the people. And a pastor detached from the people cannot bring his message to them. This double closeness is what the anointing of the pastor consists in, because moved by God’s gift of prayer, the pastor in turn can be moved by the sins, the problems and the diseases of the people.
Clearly, Francis has no regard for the sacrament of Holy Orders; that which configures the man to Christ and imbues him with the authority to teach, govern and sanctify the people of God (in particular at Holy Mass as he acts in persona Christi.)
Relative to his obvious disbelief in the Divinity of Christ, this may appear as a small matter. With respect to what the future under Francis may hold, it is perhaps more noteworthy.
Look, Francis isn’t going to promulgate a decree plainly declaring that Jesus Christ is just a man. The puppet master pulling the Bergoglian strings is far too subtle for that; indeed, more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made.
What we may very well expect him to do (should God allow), is to push forward initiatives ordered on the false notion that the authority to engage in priestly ministry is simply awakened in an individual by prayer, provided only that there is a willingness to be close to the people.
And what might such initiatives look like?
An ecumenical Mass (hey, Protestant ministers are close to the people!), an end to clerical celibacy (hey, married men can pray too!), and lady deacons (hey, look at all the female saints who were so close to God!)
I can already hear the excuse makers…
Oh c’mon! It’s just one homily from a pope who does not communicate in precise theological language!
Not so.
If what Francis said a few weeks ago sounds familiar, there’s a reason; it’s part of a theme that he has been developing for some time.
In October of last year, for instance, during yet another of these very revealing Santa Marta homilies, Francis said:
Jesus served the people, He explained things because the people understood well: He was at the service of the people. He had an attitude of a servant, and this gave authority. On the other hand, these doctors of the law that the people… yes, they heard, they respected, but they didn’t feel that they had authority over them; these had a psychology of princes: ‘We are the masters, the princes, and we teach you. Not service: we command, you obey.’ And Jesus never passed Himself off like a prince: He was always the servant of all, and this is what gave Him authority.
Jesus never passed Himself off like a prince who issued commands?
So much for the prophecy of Isaiah (see Isa 9:6), the very words of Our Lord concerning His Kingship (see John 18:36-37) and the all-encompassing nature of His authority (see Matthew 28:16-20). In fact, forget the whole of Sacred Scripture!
Francis went on:
They [the Pharisees] were detached from the people, they were not close [to them]; Jesus was very close to the people, and this gave authority. Those detached people, these doctors, had a clericalist psychology: they taught with a clericalist authority – that’s clericalism.
Certainly, there is nothing altogether new in this assault against Christ the King and the sacrament of Holy Orders.
The Council, as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said, “uncrowned Him,” and in observation of the Novus Ordo Cardinal Ottaviani stated in his famous Intervention:
He [the priest] now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.
While the offenses against the Faith under discussion here are not new, what is new is the presence of a notorious public heretic who, in spite of numerous proofs to the contrary, is widely accepted by the naïve and the weak as a legitimate pope.
Under the guise of papal authority, this man, Jorge Bergoglio, is Hell bent (literally), determined and willing to carry the revolution forward in a most unprecedented way, and barring Divine intervention, rest assured, he will continue doing just that.
“Look, Francis isn’t going to promulgate a decree plainly declaring that Jesus Christ is just a man. The puppet master pulling the Bergoglian strings is far too subtle for that; indeed, more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made.”
Francis is as subtle as one beast — the snake. The puppet masters pulling the Beregoglian strings reside in the banks, mansions and institutions controlled by the masonic elite that Francis I is a servant to and blackmailed by. He will follow their agenda for the destruction of Catholicism.
I agree with you Mary. While I am not a canon Lawyer ,I did ask one how it is so many clerics were Ordained while not having the Proper Intention. The same Proper Intention we stress to children receiving their First Holy Communion and Penance. his answer was that OBVIOUSLY the Vatican must redefine Proper Intention. It is not the same as doing what the Church intends while Transubstantiating bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
I am NOT a sede but I do believe I have come across many INVALID priests .
Priests who do NOT now how to either listen to a penitent or even say the prayers of Absolution. Priests who say they do not believe in the Real Presence. Priests who are priests to prey on the vulnerable and hide their sexual proclivities behind a respected and revered calling.
I have even run across priests who are afraid they will hear about a case of pederasty in the confessional and rightly feel conflicted over reporting to authorities.
We are definitely living through either the Tribulation or the Chastisement predicted at Fatima. Or just maybe they are one and the same at this point.
If there existed a plot to destroy the Catholic Church, then yes, the seminary administrators who would decide enterants to seminaries would be key personnel to infiltrate. As you know, I believe, as did St.Maximillion Kolbe, that masonry infiltrated the church in the early 20th centruy. It makes sense that priests and their education would be affected first. I believe the judgment of the validity of orders is something beyond my pay scale, so I can’t judge whether the priests ordained in the 20th centruy are valid, nor whether the masses they say are valid.
“What “gives authority” to Jesus, the Pope explained, is precisely his closeness to the people, because he understands their problems pains and sins, he welcomes, heals, and teaches them coming close to them.”
I have a thought. I don’t necessarily think he’s saying that Christ is not God. I think what he believes is that All Men (including Jesus) are God. We are all gods! The Religion of Man. Brought to you by Vatican II, not Francis.
Not everyone embraced all the leeway given through the liberal leeway interpretations of Vatican 2 . Sadly , those who did not are dying off and those who do not now are scattered and divided.
I can only say at this point, recalling the well educated Argentine I knew when Jorge Borgolio was elected , how he lowered his head and said, “I can tell you he destroyed everything that was Catholic in my country.”
As for Masonry in the Curia, Cardinal Gagnon (RIP) said he was asked to compile a report for Pope john Paul 2 , and once he had he said his Vatican office was vandalized. He said he reserved a copy BUT found it impossible to reschedule a meeting with the Pope to deliver it. After a dinner ,we waited for our cars under the restaurant canopy in the rain. I mentioned his lapel pin was the same as Fr Ken Roberts wore. He said it was from the Knights of Saith Gregory of which he was a member and added he did not know why they let Roberts in. My car came and i rode away wondering about the uncharitable comment. Years later the truth about Roberts activities came out and it was then I realized the Prelates all know whose who. So when I read the excuses
in print that the Popes and the Cardinals and Bishops are and were clueless about their fellow Disordered, I just laugh.
Bergolio is simply stating that it is Man that gives God His authority to be our God. Of course he doesn’t believe in Holy Orders, the 1968 Rites of Ordination solved that issue for the modernists.
They have been suppressing knowledge and clarity from us for many decades now in regards to the requirement of celibacy and perfect and perpetual continence for married clergy. When the modern infiltration within the Church decided to reintroduce the permanent deaconatery back in the 60s or 70s ( not sure of the date) this set up the perfect scenario for married incontinent clergy. The modernists knew full well that most people back then and even now, when the permanent deaconatery was reintroduced, would be ignorant of the requirement of continence for the married newly ordained clergy because they believed that most layfaithful would be presumed to have no knowledge of Scripture, Tradition and the apostolic origins of priestly ‘celibacy -continence’ that support and uphold the DOCTRINES that support the DICIPLINE of perfect and perpetual continence for all clergy wether or not a man is married before ordination. These DOCTRINES that this DICIPLINE of perfect and perpetual continence support is absolutely necessary to protect in order to uphold and support support the proper definition of marriage and the priesthood. The priesthood CONFIGURES CHRIST the King Himself who was celibate and with only one Bride not two, the Holy Catholic Church. Perfect and perpetual continence is an absolute requirement for not only the priest himself but for the layfaithful also to understand in order to have the proper Catholic sense of the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of Holy Orders.
The word celibacy without any clarification as to include the understanding of the requirement of perfect and perpetual continence for married men was ommitted intentionally to confuse and deceive the faithful so the modernists would be free to experiment with us. I will link a very revealing attachment in my following post.
When the truth is compromised, all logic deducted therefrom is errant and leads people into sin. It is being done systematically, strategically and methodically. We now have multiple degrees of separation from an initial heretical premise. To expose one heretical teaching to your run of the mill NO catholic, you must dismantle a tower of beliefs contrary to the faith to get to the root of the poison. Further, you have to explain why they cannot rely on the builders of their tower. Oh my goodness this is such a colossal mess!
One should also question whether Francis actually believes in all this “the people the people” stuff.
He certainly has no faith in God as is evident. And I don’t buy his faith in “the people” either.
Given what we understand about Peronism, appealing to “the people” is simply the song and dance of an opportunist.
The minute “the people” oppose him or become inconvenient, is the minute “the people” become expendable and to be trodden underfoot.
To paraphrase that famous quote…
“First Francis came for the Trads, and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t a Trad. Then Francis came for the Moral Conservatives, and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t a Conservative. Then Francis came for the Knights of Malta, and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t a knight. Then Francis came for the Academy of Life, and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t a member. Then Francis came for the sexually abused, and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t an abuse victim. Then Francis came for the Chinese Catholics, and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t in China…”
Who’s next? Before he finally comes for all “the people” in general?
Because he’s surely the type who’s hanging us all separately one by one.
What “gives authority” to Jesus, the Pope explained, is precisely his closeness to the people… Ahhh, no. What “gives authority” to Jesus is that He’s God, He created everything (including us) and He makes the rules for His creation. For this reason I’m capitalizing the personal pronoun, and I’m making it gender-specific.
Jorge is hellbent on destroying what’s left of the Catholic faith in the conciliar church, than much is sure. Yet it is the conservative “orthodox” novus ordo wing who insists on their version of V2 that opened the door (or rather, windows) to this corruption.
Tom A
I think that our time here on this blog is done. Im not sure if you’re going to continue to post here but I dont think that I’ll be posting any longer….at least not very often. I have loved this blog for at least 5 years now but it seems that people like us are despised here and the author (Verecchio, who I personally think is a good man), is caving into the pressure. He has bills to pay so I respect that.
You hit on the whole problem of valid orders. It is way above our pay grade to make a defintive judgment as to the validity of Novus Ordo orders. That is the job of a Pope. Yet the changes that were made to the orders were made by enemies of the Church. These changes should raise doubt in the minds of prudent Catholics. We only have the word of Montini and Bugnini that the new Rites of Ordination are valid. Not very reassuring in my book.
Don´t give them that power….I´m not. I will continue to post, but try to abide by Louieś request to stick to the subject of the blog. Having said that, I don´t think that he is saying we can´t bring up sedevacantism if it relates just not go on and on about it (although I wish he would be more specific in that regard).
Here is the proof that all married clergy, deacons and priests are required to live in perfect and perpetual continence. In other words they are required to renounce their conjugal rights with their wife’s permission and if she does not agree than he cannot be ordained. IMO I beleive that the over 18,000 married permanent deacons and the few married priests that have been ordained in the NO could very likely be invalid ordinations according to their errors and beleifs of the requirements for ordination.
Edward Peters,
“Canonical considerations on diaconal continence”,
Studia Canonica 39 (2005) 147-180.
1983 ClC 277. § 1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to §dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity. § 2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful. § 3. The diocesan bishop is competent to {establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.
Abstract — Analysis of c. 277 indicates that two distinct obligations are imposed on clerics in the Latin Church: sexual continence and celibacy. Continence is presented as the fundamental norm. Although the obligation of celibacy is mitigated for permanent deacons, Peters finds no relaxation of the law regarding the fundamental obligation of continence for them in canon law. Testing this conclusion, Peters examines Pio—Benedictine dispositions on celibacy and continence for clerics, post-conciliar norms by which the (permanent) diaconate was restored in the West, and the legislative history of 1983 Code dispositions on the subject. He suggests that these norms maintain the obligation of continence for married permanent deacons. Peters then examines various arguments by scholars that support the exercise of conjugal rights by permanent deacons (principally arguments based on c. 4) and concludes that, while these might be potentially applicable to those who received sacred orders without awareness of the requirements of law in this area, they are insufficient in themselves to establish a modification of the traditional canonical obligation of continence reasserted in c. 277. Peters invites the competent ecclesiastical authority to articulate in canonically compelling terms why the obligation of continence should not be led to married permanent deacons, or to take the steps necessary to assure that formation programs for married 1 permanent deacons conform to the requirement of clerical continence so that candidates for ordination and their spouses can make an informed decision. [enp trans]
———————————————-
Other items of interest
The textual development of Canon 277 1; see Peters, “Considerations” 167-171
Summary:
S. de Populo Dei 135 § 1. Imposes continence and therefore (ideoque) celibacy on Western clerics.
S. de Populo Dei 135 § 2. Exempt: married permanent deacons from the obligations of continence and celibacy unless their wives die, whereupon they are bound to observe celibacy and continence.
1980 8. Cod. 250 § 1. Imposes continence and therefore (ideoque) celibacy on Western clerics
1980 8. Cod. 250 § 2. Example married permanent deacons from the obligations of continence and celibacy even if their wives die.
1982 S. Cod. 279 § 1. Imposes continence and therefore (ideoque) celibacy on all Western clerics, but articulates that celibacy is also a gift in its own right.
1982 S. Cod. 279 § 2. Exempt: married permanent deacons from the obligations of continence and celibacy even if their wives die.
1983 CIC 277 § 1. Imposes continence and therefore (ideoque) celibacy on all Western clerics, but articulates that celibacy is a valuable gilt in its own right and. just before promulgation of the Code, Pope John Paul II orders removal of what had been § 2. (The “new” § 2 of Canon 277 is derived from a different source and treats a different aspect of this issue.)
—————————————————————–
An exchange regarding what became 1983 CIC 277 § 1, from Communicationes 14 (1982) 170.
Let it be stated that the violation of the perfect continence directed by § 1 entails the sin of sacrilege (some Father).
Response. This is true, but it is a matter for moral theology (emphasis added).
——————————————————————————
Letter to the Editor
Homiletic & Pastoral Review
April 2007, p. 6.
Thank you for publishing the article by Rex H. Pilger. Jr, “The Ministry of the Deacon” (Homiletic and Pastoral Review. (November 2006) on the restored permanent diaconate. However, the author seems unaware of the current lively discussion of 1983 ClC 277 and the formal requirement of continence for all men in Major Orders. There has been confusion and disorder over this since the permanent diaconate was restored, and Deacon Pilger’s essay is incomplete without adverting to that canon in the Code which states that married men in Major Orders are expected to abstain from the ‘use of marriage rights’ after ordination. Wives have the right to refuse to consent to their husband‘s ordination for this precise reason. Readers should consult Edward N. Peters, “Canonical Considerations on Diaconal Continence” published in Studia Canonica 39 (2005) 147-180.
Reverend Brian Van Hove. S. J.
White House Retreat
St. Louis, Missouri
—————————————————————-
“Between Quinisext and Canon 277”
A Combined Response to Father Vincent and to Father Kosterman
Letter to the Editor in Homiletic and Pastoral Review. March 2008, pp. 6-7
Brian Van Hove. SJ.
The history of the ecclesiastical discipline of continence in the Eastern Churches is this. Until the 692 AD.
Quinisext Council [“In Trullo”], all married clergy in East and West practiced perfect apostolic continence. They completed their families before ordination and lived “as brother and sister in the Lord”.
The Eastern Church‘s appeal to Paphnutius was demolished by Alfons Maria Stickler. “Paphnutius” was invented to persuade Council and Emperor to legitimize a return to Levitical or temporary continence for priests and deacons. The Western Church rejected that canon from Quinisext and continued the original apostolic practice. Eventually, the Western Church stopped ordaining married men altogether and ordained only celibate men. This shift made it clearer that the offering of the One Sacrifice in the Person of the Bridegroom is the unsurpassable fulfillment of masculine nuptiality. There is no remainder for a wife, and deacons are required to be celibate because their liturgical office is integrated with that offering.
The Eastern return to the Levitical discipline was never formalized. Orthodox priests and deacons abstain before and after Divine Liturgy “from the one blessing not washed away in the Flood” for one day, three days, seven days, and perhaps during all of Great Lent. Temporary continence prevents the Orthodox lower clergy from celebrating “daily Mass” because such frequency would entail de facto perpetual continence. Only the bishop, because he is chosen from the celibate monks, can celebrate “daily Mass”. The Moscow Patriarchate canonized St John of Kronstadt in 1990. After ordination to the priesthood, the saint announced that he and his matushka were living in continence. By this choice they returned to the practice of the first centuries of the undivided Church.
Some years ago I occasionally visited a Russian Orthodox priest-friend on Saturday evenings. i teamed from him that ho always camped out on the living room couch bounce his celebration of the Divine Liturgy was scheduled for the next morning. This is Levitical practice, like Zachariah who lived in the temple during the time of his service. Zachariah and the priests left their wives at home and returned to them after temple duty.
Despite Paul Vl’s Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem (A.A.S. 59 [1967] 697-704) which presupposes apostolic continence, many on the religious loft continued to promote the permanent diaconate as “a wedge in the door” opening the tool agenda: the abolition of mandatory priestly celibacy. Sacred Tradition and the canons of Western councils requiring apostolic continence for married clergy, especially Elvira and Carthage, were ignored. A noncontinent diaconate was to be the “first step”. Some bishops in Europe attempted to ordain married “viri probati” as priests, but Paul VI stopped these efforts.
As Edward N. Peters illustrated visually, the revised draft of Canon 277 for the 1983 (CIC contained an exception from continence for permanent deacons. The pope, acting in his office as pope, removed the exception. There are no exceptions written into Canon 277, and commentaries on the law have no canonical standing in the church.
Father Kosterman can obtain a brief of Edward Peters‘ analysis of Canon 277 at his website:
http://www.canonlaw.info/a deacons.htm. The analysis is set out fully in Peters’ article “Canonical Considerations on Diaconal Continence” in Studia Canonica 39/ 1-2 (2005) 147-180. The earlier studies of Alfons Stickler, Roman Cholij and Christian Cochini are essential to our understanding of the tradition of apostolic continence and its relation to the Holy Eucharist. Cochini and Cholij wrote their doctoral dissertations on that subject. Henri Crouzel and Stefan Heid offer yet further documentation.
Given the chaos and incoherencies of East and West, Pope Benedict‘s 2005 restriction on second marriages for permanent deacons precisely because it is apostolic tradition, assures a lively future discussion of clerical continence. The sources of the Tradition, especially before the novelty of Quinisext, will not disappear. Can we say that the Holy Spirit did not guide the early church?
Any adequate theology of the nuptial symbolism of the Eucharistic sacrifice cannot conceive of a sacred ministry other than that instituted by our Lord. This ministry is the representation in his Person of the Bridegroom’s sacrificial fidelity to his Bride, a fidelity which is unqualified and unconditioned (1 Timothy 3:2).
Dear Tom A,
Seeing that debate on this topic will seemingly end, in accordance with the wishes of Mr. Verrechio, may God bless him for his efforts and good will, and I pray he forgives this slightly longer comment, observing it is relevant to the discussion and topic, I would like you to ponder on the following:
It becomes necessary to fundamentally define Sedevacantism, in order to properly understand what it is and what it proposes. Unlike what the name cleverly implies, Sedevacantism is not a theory on the well-established facts of the Roman Pontiff’s loss of canonical validity or jurisdiction due to heresy, as occurs with any other bishop or cleric in the world. It is, rather, a theory on the fundamental defection of the Roman Church, since, according to Sedevacantism, all of the functioning organs of the Roman See, including cardinals, bishops, priests &c., besides the Roman Pontiff, have vanished definitely from Earth, ever since the Second Vatican Council, and cannot be restored by any means except the very Second Coming Of Christ or some similar theophany. In essence, it falsifies and denies the Roman dogmas on the indefectibility of the Roman Pontiff, the Roman Diocese or See, the Roman Curia, and all of its organs. Because they are no longer visible and operative, that is, because they have apostatized, Roman Catholicism, that is, the Roman Church and its dogmas, is definitely rejected by Sedevacantism, despite any professions of the contrary, as is proper of all heresies and schisms, seeing it explicitly upholds the Protestant ecclesiology of “The Invisible Church”, so that “Home-Alone Sedevacantism” is possible, ultimately, because the layman alone is sufficient for the Church to continue undefeated, they believe, against all clear teachings to the contrary.
This is the core of Traditionalism in all of its manifestations: Rome is wrong. However, the only way for Rome to be wrong, to have failed, to have defected, to be apostate, is for the dogmas specifically declaring the absolute and complete impossibility of such a situation to ever arise to be false. Even old Canon Law, with confirmation of the Catholic Encyclopedia, ironically enough, declares, regarding the canons and laws applying during Sedevacante, that exclusively the Roman Curia, that is, the Camerlengo and College Of Cardinals, substitutes the Roman Pope in all functions -except that of making innovations or novelties in the Church-, since the Church is maimed without its source and foundation, for, as is explicit from the dogmas, the Church and all its Graces are generated from the Roman Pontiff, not the inverse, despite the contradictions inherently arising from the very mode of election, where inferiors consecrate a superior, an impossibility. This proves that the Roman Pope has power to change even decrees of Ecumenical Councils, as has occurred many times before, declaring not to be bound by them, according to Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine, and thus becomes the very source of division, upon facing resistance to such changes, every time they have occurred throughout history, of which Traditionalism is the latest manifestation.
Indeed, if Rome is wrong and Traditionalism is right, it becomes clear that Roman Pontiffs are useless and a hindrance, anyways, since, as can be clearly gathered from all of Traditionalism, the faithful have better kept what Rome, which alone claims for itself divine powers to rule at will and arbitrarily over the Faith, has not. The only way for Sedevacantism and Traditionalism at large to be right is if a rival Holy See were to exist continuously since the defection of Rome, for an Antipope requires a True Roman Pope to be opposed to, and only the Palmarian heretics can validly claim this title for themselves, though to their own condemnation, seeing their own many heresies and innovations. But, as Johnno and other users have often mildly noticed, where were all of the Sedevacantists throughout the ages every time Rome unilaterally changed doctrine and innovated, against the canons of the Ecumenical Councils of the First Millenium? Read them all, and see if many previous “Vatican Councils” or “Vatican-IIs” and “Amoris Laetitias” have not already happened before!
One can only keep the unchanged, immutable, original, Orthodox Catholic Faith if one does what the original Sedevacantists did long ago. When Bishop Reinkens anathematized Pius IX, and declared the loss of his pontificate due to heresy, he spoke for all of Christendom, upholding the Old Catholic Faith in all of its integrity, which does not require the particular or local Roman Church to continue undefeated by the Gates Of Hades. All of the Church Fathers, great saints, who died outside communion with Rome, and opposed Roman innovations and errors ever since the very second century are the clearest witnesses, that is, martyrs, for this undeniable reality. Both Fr. Hesse and the great saint Fr. Hans Milch ultimately expressed the same opinion before they left this world, and I have, I believe, sufficient evidence to prove Archbishop Lefebvre did the same, and, it seems, Bishop Schneider is heading towards the same direction. We must pray for understanding, and realize where the root of the contradictions and problems lies, which must be done by honestly searching for and in Truth Divine, wherever He Leads us. May He Illumine our poor and sinful selves. Kyrie Eleison.
-AOC
And, if possible, please read The Sedevacantist Delusion: Why Vatican II’s Clash with Sedevacantism Supports Eastern Orthodoxy, by John Pontrello.
https://www.thesedevacantistdelusion.com/
I am sure that his work, which I have just finished reading, as well as the works of Abbe Guette, Bishop Reinkens, which I am currently translating, and Fr. Döllinger, which I read first, a few years ago, will open many eyes and answer most, if not all, present contradictions found in Traditionalism and Roman Catholicism at large.
May Our Lord Keep you always. Please do pray for me, as well.
-AOC
AOC, I can’t say I disagree with what you say. I simply am not up to speed on the Eastern Churches (in communion or not). I do like the way you frame the debate, sedevacantism proper is a theory on a defectible Church. All Traditionalists acknowledge that a “defection” has occurred. But the two sides differ on where that defection lies. In the institutional church itself (R&R) or in the men who promulgated the defection (sede). This issue will never be solved by resorting to canonical solutions. I do disagree with your premise that a restoration of the Roman Church is impossible now. I think a conclave of traditionalists is what is needed, but all would have to declare the See Vacant first. I think it is apparent that the R&R method has led nowhere these past 50 years. The modernists in power are not leaving anytime soon. Thanks for the ideas to consider. Any lasting solution to this problem will require an Eastern input.
Pray God, this pontificate comes to a swift end.
agree by his actions and statements it is very clear the anti-pope does not believe Jesus is God, – also believe that he is attempting to destroy piety and the very worship of God that is His due. The telling moment for me was when he chastised the altar boy for having his hands folded.
Dear Tom A,
I thank you for your insightful reply. From it, I can gather that you would agree that such a Traditionalist council would have to proclaim the papalist dogmas of indefectibility, that is, Vatican-I, false, since they are the very reason why Vatican-II was possible, contradicting the everlasting constitution of Christ’s Catholic Church, in denying the role of councils themselves and the many heresies of previous Roman Pontiffs, opening the way to Modernism and the complete destruction of the Roman Church by creating a single target to be easily shot down, as documented by the Alta Vendita plot, and as jesuit freemasonic heretic Joseph De Maistre openly advocated, not to mention the fact that this Vatican Council was hijacked and rigged, as is well-documented, excluding and expelling all bishops opposed to it. This all led to having thunder strike St. Peter’s Basilica, in a very familiar scenario to our days, during the very day of the procclamation of its dogmas. Precisely because of these dogmas that declare the radical impossibility of Rome ever failing or erring, as has evidently occurred, Traditionalism must be seen as a heresy and schism, from the Roman perspective. As you know, Sedevacantism existed back in those days under the very fitting and beautiful name of “Old Catholicism”, and was considered by Rome in the same light it is considered today. In fact, seeing this, and denying Rome the power to innovate or change that which has been received, Immutable Tradition, there would be no more reasons to keep separated from the Eastern Patriarchs, who are very sympathetic to Traditionalism, as I personally know from them, and as Bishop Fellay himself has told me, after asking him about their very positive mutual relations against Rome.
With this would also naturally follow a proclamation on restoration of communion with the Eastern Patriarchs, who have undoubtedly kept the Traditions that Rome has forsaken, as a quick survey of the Fathers and the canons of the many synods will show. Every objection against their practices is an anachronistic error, for it is easily demonstrated that history is entirely on their side, including in such issues as Fasting, Divorce or use of the marital right among priests, which were matters addressed already at Nicaea I, the First Ecumenical Synod, and even in the Apostolic Constitutions. Their Liturgies or Missals are all clearly over a millennium more ancient than the one codified by St. Pius V, and they have kept even the Iconostasis and Altar Curtain, and even the appropriate manner of signing one’s self, which Innocent III describes identically to the way kept by them, all of which Rome lost to Protestantism, as history, indeed, lamentably shows us.
Rome has been deviating for centuries, and this was addressed by the Old Catholic Bishops as they sought reunion with the ecumene of Apostolic Churches, an effort which, regrettably, was sabotaged by documented and proven infiltrated Marrano Jews and Freemasonic Protestants, during the first half of the twentieth century. Now, in God’s Great Mercy, since the Vatican Council was abandoned before its formal closure and final proclamation, due to Divine Punishment against the Vatican apostasy, it is obvious that both it and its sequel council are not binding. Even the prophecy of La Salette states that The Devil would be released in 1864, leading to Rome’s Apostasy – something that is denied by Rome and which is precisely the great deception and reason of its apostasy, namely claiming divine powers and prerogatives against Truth and Christ Himself, in proclaiming that the Catholic Church emanates from the Roman Pontiff, meaning he, as its source, has authority over that which is his creature, essentially. Rome can do whatever is desired with their church, which is heretical and schismatic, that is, outside of communion with the Catholic Church.
As to your position on so-called R&R Traditionalism, I must say that, again, there are two such groups, the original Lefebvrists, who have done great good to awaken men against Roman apostasy and leading them to break communion with “Babylon’s Whore”, and the modern apologists for Rome, which have only confused the faithful with their legalistic, pharisaic, talmudic knowledge falsely-so-called, that is, ignorance. The first position merely differs from Sedevacantism in considering, I believe correctly, that a bishop or any other authority remains as such legally until formally deposed, even if their heresy leads to the absolute necessity of breaking communion with them, as the canons promulgated by St. Peter Of Alexandria and of the First-Second Council demand, as they have lost valid jurisdiction and authority, automatically regained once their error is renounced, much like a wine-glass filled with sand, while remaining a wine-glass, is prevented from acting out its form, which remains a potency, until the sand is removed, just as John XXII, who rejected the dogmas of the Council Of Vienne, did, before his death. This, therefore, leads to practical Sedevacantism, simply without considering Rome to be the fundament, foundation and source of the Catholic Church, but an apostate particular Church, and this is the position held to this day by true Old Catholics and Eastern Churches, which is Orthodoxy. We are all bound by a common Orthodoxy, and I am sure such a proposed council would fully restore the Western Church in procclaiming a new Roman Patriarch to oppose apostate Rome, whose bishops must properly be deposed and anathematized, in an ideal case, which we might or might not ever see happening, but which, in any case, would be both a canonical and supra-canonical solution in returning to the ancient canons of the First Millennium Church, rejecting the modern canons and their obvious contradictions and absurdities.
I believe there is nothing healthier, besides prayer and ascesis, for the afflicted Christian soul than speculating on these very important matters. I am firmly convinced that we are one Church with the Eastern Patriarchs, and properly represent the Western Church within the Catholic Ecumene, finding in the original light of the East, once again, the salvation of the pagan West, as with The Sun Of Righteousness, which, like the typical Sun, dies in the West, yet is reborn anew to illumine the whole world from the East. The more one researches into the Fathers, discovering Truth, the more are the delusions and illusions of Papalist myths dispelled, as Fr. Hesse so often specified, mostly in his conferences held in my dear Austria, obviously in the German tongue.
I am enjoying this exchange very much. May God Bless and Keep you and all honest seekers of Him, of Truth, regardless of the cost and sacrifice, as Abraham taught us.
-AOC