“I am the first pope who didn’t take part in the Council and the first who studied theology after the Council…”
So said Francis in July of 2014.
Less than two years later, the rotten fruits of his conciliar formation would come into full view with the publication of Amoris Laetitia; the “interpretive key” to which, according to its author, was provided by Cardinal Schönborn who said:
“For me Amoris Laetitia is, first and foremost, a linguistic event…”
A linguistic event?
At first blush, this unusual phrase struck me as an odd way of describing a document that has shaken the Church to its very core.
Upon closer investigation, however, I discovered that it’s a phrase not of Cardinal Schönborn’s own making; one that has been used by others to describe both Vatican Council II and the French Revolution.
Revolution indeed!
As I wrote back in December, Amoris Laetitia – just as the French Revolution and the Second Vatican Council before it – is truly nothing less than a revolution against the Logos.
That Amoris Laetitia is revolutionary is obvious enough, what may not be so obvious, however, is the way in which certain of the propositions put forth therein are rooted in a decidedly conciliar theology.
For instance, in Amoris Laetitia Francis boldly asserts that those who persist in relationships characterized by fornication and adultery can at times “come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.” (AL 303)
The theological seeds for this blasphemous notion (the most despicable in the entire text, in my opinion) can be found in what is perhaps a most unexpected place; the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom.
Consider: The traditional doctrine of the Church is that the State is duty bound to have “care for religion.”
Pope Pius X wrote:
“That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order.” (Pope Pius X, Vehementer Nos)
In other words, as a matter of justice, God is owed a public and social worship, and it is the duty of the State to order its affairs accordingly.
The public and social worship that is owed to God is not that of just any religion, but rather that of the one true religion of which Pope Leo XIII wrote:
“Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking … From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei)
The Holy Father went on to articulate the duty of the State with respect to its treatment of false religions as follows:
“The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State.” (ibid.)
In short, the State may for the greater good tolerate the practice of certain false religions, but it cannot grant them the same rights as those belonging exclusively to the one true religion.
The reason is simple: It is objectively sinful to reject that religion which God has revealed in favor of a false religion, which is objectively evil, and the State, the authority of which comes from God, is duty bound to act accordingly.
As such, the State must never positively protect by right that which is sinful and evil; in this case, the practice of false religions, as if they enjoy the same right of propagation and protection as the one true religion.
At this, one may ask, what is “right”?
To which, Pope Leo XIII provides the following:
“For right is a moral power which — as We have before said and must again and again repeat — it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice … For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue.” (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas)
This teaching, along with others, has often been paraphrased to say “error has no rights.”
This is simply another way of saying that God does not positively will anything that is not true and honest (i.e., sin and evil), therefore, such things have no right of expression, but may simply be tolerated, and then only for the common good.
The Council, in stark contrast with all that has been stated thus far of the traditional doctrine, boldly declared:
“The right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.” (Dignitatis Humanae 2)
In other words, the objectively sinful practice of false religion, according to the Council, must be afforded the protection of law; the same that is due to the one true faith alone.
In proposing that the State must concede such a right to false religions (i.e., that which “is at variance with truth and justice” and therefore evil), the Council is implicitly teaching that such things are positively willed by God as opposed to simply being tolerated by Him.
This, my friends, is the fatally flawed theology in which Jorge Bergoglio was formed.
In Amoris Laetitia, Francis simply made explicit what was implicitly taught in Dignitatis Humanae with regard to God’s positive will concerning sin by applying it to so-called “irregular situations”:
Those who persist in relationships characterized by fornication and adultery can at times “come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.” (AL 303)
With all of this in mind, who can be surprised to find that the program of “integrating” the “divorced and civilly remarried” into parish life (e.g., see AL 299) is rapidly expanding into what is, for all intents and purposes, a “right” to Holy Communion?
As I wrote in December in the post linked above, the crisis besetting the Church in our day did not begin with Francis, it is simply flourishing on his watch like never before.
Ridding the Church of Francis, while something to be desired, would amount only to addressing an especially nasty symptom, while the disease itself, Vatican Council II, remains unaddressed.
The current putrid state of affairs will only worsen until such time as the Church is sufficiently brought to her knees to fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima at long last; at which point we can well expect Heaven to respond with the outpouring of grace necessary to quell the conciliar uprising once and for all.
I think a French Cardinal also describe Vatican II as a linguistic event. Ok. need some help for those who are Sedevacantist, I am doing a presentation on the topic in my parish and I want to figure out the notion that according to Vatican I there has never been any Pope who was a heretic, So are the Seds taking the position that Vatican I overruled previous Councils and Popes’ condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic? Is it possible for one Ecumenical Council to reverse condemnation of heretics of another Council?
I am in agreement. No more waiting for answered dubia or formal corrections. That’s done.
Here’s what I wonder.
There are no expectations we can apply to God as far as time, or action. There is no time at which we can say well, He is not going to act on this or that. It could be in the next five minutes for all we know. Here is my fear. What would it mean for 30 years to go by with this unanswered. Of course this particular pope is gone, but surely another just like him or worse will follow. As you said, to cleanse the church of this rot, will take something more. But what does it mean if this goes on and on? That is where the crisis of faith comes in, at all points along the time line, for different people.
The longer this goes on, Catholics will wonder, did the church get this wrong for 2000 years? After all, it’s taking a long time for it to be answered. How would we know if God in His infinite plan thinks nothing of 2000 years of misdirection.
These are bad contemplations, I know. I don’t wish to cause consternation. I’m only expressing what concerns me.
Very nice, Louie. You are an excellent teacher.
Today I made a small donation to “The Catholic Thing”, given they generate some pretty decent stuff on occasion (Relatively so, in light of the desolate Catholic blogosphere). I did let them know I found their heresy of Americanism and embrace of “religious freedom” distasteful. In fact I paraphrased “error has no rights”, in pointing out how Islam, Protestantism, etc. do not promote human flourishing, so why should their expression be considered a right? I hope someone there eventually “gets it”.
I’ve thought about these big questions too. I think the only true refuge is the SSPX, even f they are “regularized”. They are the remnant which will hold steadfast. They will continue to be persecuted but for those who seek, the Faith will be manifest there.
As Louie wrote, “The Council, in stark contrast with all that has been stated thus far of the traditional doctrine, boldly declared:…”— allow the focus to now be directed toward the phrase, “in stark contrast with”, traditional doctrine. As there can be no conflict within the Almighty and Triune Godhead, with the Mind of God as One, Singular, Absolute, Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnificent Being as Being Himself, there can be no conflict within His Divine Society, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which is His Mystical Body, His Bride, the Church. The rightly reasoned, logical progression of this reality, is to understand that the creature, beast thing which calls itself “Catholic”, since the reign of the anti-Pope, Roncalli up to and including the reign of anti-Pope Bergoglio, is not Catholic, as it betrays Christ as did Judas Iscariot. As for Judas, it would have been better had these 6 men never been born. This “contrast” (read as, “in conflict with”) of what the Catholic Church has always taught in the same understanding over the centuries, which is the “General Magisterium”, simply cannot occur, as if it could, Holy Mother Church would be in conflict with Herself, as that simply, purely, and absolutely places an affront to the metaphysical law of non-contradiction. Otherwise stated in this context, or “under the same respect”, as that law instructs us, the Catholic Church cannot both be the Catholic Church and not be the Catholic Church at the same time and under the same respect. The “same respect” refers here to the Mystical Body of Christ Jesus, that Divine Society established by the Son of God as God Himself, for the purpose of our salvation. Any church which contradicts what Christ teaches through His Church, can only be a false church, and in the case of this Grand Illusion of the “new church”, it is logically argued that this church of the false council, so called Vatican II, and the creature beast church which it fomented from a wellspring of preternaturally inspired, revolutionary ideology, is the Church of Satan, as he is the first revolutionary, as the Murderer of Truth and a Liar from the beginning. Within a true Council there cannot be found internal contradiction, as that defies the command of our Blessed Lord in Matthew 16:18, “…and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”, and also Matthew 5: 37. Those who are devotedly in the pursuit of the authentic Catholic Church and Her infallible Magisterium, that exquisitely small remnant, need look nowhere else, other than what She taught over the millennia, prior 1958, while at once simply stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, as that is not Catholic. Christ commanded us to know that when the Son of Man returns again, will He find any faith left upon the earth? and our Blessed Lady of LaSalette promised us that, “The Church will be in eclipse. The world will be in dismay.” When the moon eclipses the sun, the sun is then invisible and yet the sun remains in existence, as now is the True Church and Her authentic and truly Holy Roman Pontiff invisible and yet they indeed exist, as God Himself commanded until the end of time. In caritas.
Hello Danielpan,
It would seem that the error of Pope Honorius was not, in fact, manifestly heretical, as the doctrine of the distinct natures of the Son of God as God and as Man, each inseparable from the other and yet each with His own operation of Will and of Intellect, had not yet been formally expressed in the Magisterium. See here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
The Incarnate Word, while at once possessing two distinct natures, one as God and one as Man, having then two distinct intellects and wills, yet they operate in one Subject, Who Is Divine. The essence or essential substance of the Incarnate Word is Being as Being Himself, whereas the essence of mere mortal man is both matter and form. Jesus the Christ, as both True God and True Man, although possessing two operations of intellect and of will, has one essence and that is Divine as Being Himself. In closing, it would seem that what Pope Honorius did was to commit a sin of omission, in a public communication, which did not bind the faithful in the definition of dogma nor in the condemnation of error. He missed a wonderful, infallible teaching moment. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Hello again Danielpan,
In charity, it is suggested that you avoid using the language of the diabolical disorientation, which is in your words, “…for those who are Sedevacantist.” The proper linguistic term of use, Sedevacante, which speaks to the See of Peter or the Chair as being vacant, is from within its very interiority, a word of a particular description, of the Divinely established position, held by one man at any particular time, the Chair of Peter. Perhaps the absurdity of suggesting that an human person, as a so called “Sedevacantist”, is now evident. One who may hold the belief, in truth, that the Chair of Peter is at any moment in time vacant, simply holds the definition of the word, “Sedevacante”, as his belief. The belief of an human person is the intellective expression, held within the operation of the will, of that same human person, while this expression of the person is not the being of the person himself. Rather the expression, which itself holds distinct being apart from the human person who professes it, emanates from the person as distinct being. At once knowing that the being of the human person is created by God in His own divine likeness and image as pure Intellect and Will, and the free will assents of the human person are uniquely the human person’s own, protected by the Sovereignty of Almighty God.
As an analogy from the debauched, degraded, and demoralized, so called “secular culture”, which indeed is as it has been for decades, imploding under its own weight, as a direct result of the betrayal of the anti-Popes, who reign in autocratic dominance over the deceived lambs, with revolutionary ideology formed in their own likeness and image under the preternatural guidance of their Prince, Lucifer, in perfect contradistinction to the Reign of Christ the King, we have the “war on terror” or the “war on drugs”. This language is an instrument of the diabolical, as it usurps the moral culpability of those evils (in this case mass murder and immoral use of substance ) away from the only beings that can existentially commit them in the temporal realm, human persons. In this understanding, every human person that commits them is simply a product of their “environment”, not holding culpability for each his own, free will assent into evil. Further, the ability to combat against these evils, which can only be committed by human persons, is effectively neutralized, as the “target” is not then the perpetrator but his “weapon” (terror and drugs).
Lastly, those terms misused as noted above, become a tactic of the ad hominem attack of the person, approaching his character as the problem and not his argument. A Saul Alinsky tactic par excellence. In caritas
It won’t go “on and on”. Study Fatima.
“Ridding the Church of Francis, while something to be desired, would amount only to addressing an especially nasty symptom, while the disease itself, Vatican Council II, remains unaddressed.”
I would have to say just the opposite. Vatican II was the symptom of a diseased clergy. The Church would still be a mess without V II if the current crop of modernists were in power, whereas with a faithful clergy, the Church would be thriving despite V II.
Why would the SSPX, which holds steadfast to the True Church, want to be “regularized” by the N. O. pseudo-church? Will the SSPX still be a true refuge when (and if) it comes under the umbrella of the Modernist Vatican which has proven to hate Tradition. Makes no sense to me. Their losses will be greater than their gains–IMO.
What a load of gobbledygook (as are your other posts). The word “sedevacantist” is PROPERLY used to designate the group of individuals who rejects the current occupant of the papal see, on the erroneous notion that he either never acquired or lost the office due to heresy. It is a perfectly acceptable term that only one who is diabolically disoriented would reject.
“… as now is the True Church and Her authentic and truly Holy Roman Pontiff invisible…”
Another sedevacantist promoting the Protestant heresy that the True Church is “invisible”. The ignorance of basic Catholic doctrine among the SV’s is truly amazing, as are the number of errors and heresies they profess. I am now convinced that the SV’s are more ignorant than the average Novus Ordo.
Why doesn’t this “exquisitely small remnant” with the invisible pope consecrate Russia so we can get on with it.
JPeters, why so condescending toward this commenter? Louie is very generous to all who express opinions and insights here….Prehaps it would be wise for you to follow his example.
Good afternoon JPeters,
Thank you for your “correction” which flows, in charity, it is clear. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
Hello again JPeters,
It was “Our Lady of LaSalette” who prophesied, “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” Firstly, are you professing “Our Lady of LaSalette” to be in your errant term of use, a “Sedevacantist”?, as she is the one who proclaimed that the “Church” will be in eclipse. If you read what I wrote you would know that I didn’t claim the One true Church to be “invisible”, Our Lady proclaimed that it would be, and I simply honor whatever she proclaims from my deepest interiority and conviction. Or are you suggesting that Our Lady and our Mother, as the Mother of God, was speaking of “The Church” as a false church that would be invisible, as it is eclipsed? Or, as the only option which does not implicate you as committing blasphemy against the Immaculate Heart, are you just allowing us to conclude that you just don’t know what the word, “eclipse” means, as it is to render some existential object indeed invisible, while at once it yet exists while it is invisible? I pray this helps. In caritas.
The sun is still visible all around a solar eclipse. In fact it is common and recommended to protect your eyes when viewing a solar eclipse.
I don’t get it. why is using the term “sedevacantist” diabolical disorientation? Even many priests, bishops use this term. The seat is vacant whenever a Pope dies. I think the key is how to interpret Vatican I’s dogma on Papal Infallibility. The R&Rs (Recognize and resist like SSPX) holds the Infallibility applies only the Pope uses extraordinary Magisterium (on this one R&Rs and Seds agree) and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium applies only on doctrines that are believed by everyone, everywhere and ALWAYS. But the Sedevcantists reject that you have to be your own Pope and figure out if a doctrine has always been believed in the Church history, as long as the Pope in union with all the bishops (like Vatican II) the teachings are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. And since Vatican teaches heresies so it can not be part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, at this point both camps agree. The R&R camp is saying that just means all the Vatican II Popes are material heretics. The Sedevacantist camp says no the Popes are invalid Popes because a valid Pope in union with all the bishops can not teach heresy because it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Am I understanding the positions of either camp correctly? I am reading John Salsa’s book, one of the conditions for a Pope to be a heretic is pertinacity which the Pope has to be warned (how about he refused to accept any mails like Francis is doing now) and the Sed Camp is saying No all you need is public heresy for the Pope is assumed to know the Catechism (In Francis’ case does one need to talk to the Sister who taught him the 10 commandment if she left out 6th commandment). Please any help from either side is appreciated. I understand the argument of Honorius was not a heretic but we are putting ourselves about the Popes and Councils who condemned Honorius as heretic.
Ok for anyone who is R&R (Recognize and Resist) or Sedevacantist, does Vatican I hold the position that what a valid Pope teaches in union with all the bishops (like an Ecumenical Council such as Vatican II ) is part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium? And if the answer is “Yes” which supports the position of Seds, what about the doctrine of St. Vincent of Lerin on “Everywhere, everyone and always”? So universal does not include time? only if it is believed by everyone and everywhere?
Hello John314,
The basic definition of eclipse is:
“the total or partial obscuring of one celestial body by another” (Merriam-Webster) and as thus, it depends on the geometric, proportional relationship. See the forest for the trees. In caritas.
Hi Danielpan,
Sede vacante is the Latin term of use which means, as you intone, the Chair or See of Peter is vacant, which historically is almost always but not always, when a Pope dies. This term of recent genesis, “Sedevacantism”, became an ideological expression, which is now a paradigmatic expression, and it is used in the pejorative, while at once any faithful Catholic accepts the reality that there have been and will be times in the Church’s life on this earth, whereby the Holy See is vacant. To reject that reality is simply not Catholic. Lucifer’s will is in the use of this term, as it is used as a diminutive, condescending, and pejorative expression, designed to freeze and target the person who suggests that the Chair of Peter is vacant, at any particular moment in time, in the masterfully ad hominem attack of the character of the targeted person. While all at once, we know with certitude, that there are points of time in this realm of time and space, where indeed the Chair is vacant and the Church goes on, as Her True Head is Christ Jesus our Lord and our God, and He promised that It (the Church and not specifically Peter’s successor) will prevail until the End of Time. He also questioned whether when the Son of Man returns, will He find any faith upon the earth. I pray this helps, Danielpan. In caritas.
“fatally flawed theology… ”
I’d call it treason, heresy, and evil.