On Sunday, June 23, Jorge Bergoglio, otherwise known as “Francis,” delivered a homily for the Novus Ordo version of the Feast of Corpus Christi during which he answered, with unassailable clarity, a question that many have been asking for more than six years:
Why doesn’t Francis genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament?
During the homily, Francis confirmed what most clear-thinking Catholics had already deduced; he doesn’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist. He also, however, provided new impetus to ask an even more important question:
Are Francis’ Masses valid?
… for we eat the Bread that contains all sweetness within it. God’s people love to praise, not complain; we were created to bless, not grumble. In the presence of the Eucharist, Jesus who becomes bread, this simple bread that contains the entire reality of the Church… [Emphasis in original Italian text provided by the ‘Holy’ See]
No less than twice did Francis assert that the bread on the altar remains bread following his act of consecration. And guess what? He may very well be correct.
To declare that “Jesus becomes bread… simple bread” is, of course, to commit a grievous heresy; one that, in the present case, cannot possibly be attributed to genuine ignorance given that the dogmatic teaching concerning Transubstantiation is most certainly well-known to him.
For the record:
If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon II) [Emphasis Added]
The emphasized text above is precisely what Francis publicly preached, and in the context of celebrating the Feast of Corpus Christi of all occasions.
Many other commentators have made similar observations, but what has not been adequately addressed is the impact Bergoglio’s heresy may have on the validity of the consecration and on the Mass itself. [For the sake of argument, let us leave aside the defects that are inherent in the Novus Ordo regardless of who celebrates it.]
First, it must be said that the simple fact alone that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic who does not believe in Transubstantiation does not render either the consecration or the Mass invalid. As Pope Leo XIII teaches:
A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. (cf Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae)
Pay close attention to what the Holy Father stated: It is not Jorge’s heresy that renders the Sacrament (and the Mass) questionable; his potentially defective intention, on the other hand, does exactly that. For validity, it is necessary for the minister to “have intended to do what the Church does.”
Now, one may rightly ask: But can we truly know Bergoglio’s intention?
Once again, let us turn to Pope Leo XIII:
The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. (ibid.) [Emphasis added]
In the present case, the mind and intention of Jorge Bergoglio has most certainly been made manifest in the external forum, and his words as cited above are not all that we have to consider. We also have the witness of his actions; namely, his consistent failure to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament; that is, to behave as if he is before the Real Presence of Christ.
The Society of St. Pius X offers the following explanation concerning intention:
The Baltimore Catechism explains what the expression “intending to do what the Church does” really means, namely:
“the intention of doing what Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament and what the Church intends when it administers the Sacrament.”
As a consequence, it follows that if a priest has a positive intention against what the Church does, namely of specifically not intending what Christ intends and what the Church intends, then one of the three elements necessary for the validity of the Mass is absent, and the Mass is invalid.
Let us now apply the above to the present situation:
Does Francis have a positive intention against what Christ and the Church intends?
By his very own words, we know that Francis’ positive intention is for Jesus to become “simple bread.” This intention stands against the dogmatic teaching of the Church concerning what Christ and the Church intends; so much so that the Council of Trent saw fit to specifically anathematized those who would even say such a thing.
The answer to this question appears, therefore, to be AFFIRMATIVE.
Are one of the three elements necessary for the validity of the Mass absent when offered by Francis?
Once again, the answer to this question appears to be AFFIRMATIVE.
In light of this, are Masses offered by Francis invalid?
It would certainly seem so, however, in light of the internal nature of intent, the SSPX article states:
The greatest certitude that we can have is a moral certitude, which is also the certitude that we can have about any contingent, singular reality. However, it is perfectly possible to have a moral certitude.
Given all that has been discussed, it seems perfectly reasonable for one to conclude with moral certitude that when Jorge Bergoglio offers the Novus Ordo Missae there is no consecration, and if there is no consecration there is no Mass; i.e., both are invalid.
Before we conclude this examination, let’s take a look at the counterargument that will be offered by the defenders of all things Bergoglian.
In 1999, Jimmy Akin, on behalf of Catholic Answers, delved into the question of sacramental validity vis-à-vis intention. He wrote:
In order for a minister to lack valid intention, while outwardly performing the rites of the Mass and the Eucharistic prayer, he virtually would have to say to himself, “What I am doing is not the Eucharist. I’m only play acting and fooling all of these people into thinking I’m performing a sacrament, when really I’m not.” Needless to say, a priest is almost never going to have such an intention.
This treatment is problematic on a number of levels. For one, Mr. Akin introduced a new contingency for invalidity; namely, trickery or deception. It is clear from the text of both Apostolicae Curae and the Baltimore Catechism, however, that the minister need not deliberately intend to fool anyone in order to lack the intention necessary for validity.
Secondly, if indeed the minister is simply saying his defective intention to himself; i.e., if it remains strictly internal, it cannot be judged and, furthermore, no one (save for God) would be the wiser. It is necessary, as in the case of Francis, for the defective intention to be externally manifest in order for any inquiry into the matter to take place (see Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, cited above).
In attempting to put to rest any and all questions of invalidity due to the lack of right intention, Mr. Akin also cited Fr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and St. Thomas Aquinas:
Thus for the Eucharist, but also for other sacraments, only the general intention to “do the thing that Christians do” is needed for validity: “Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely to produce the effects of the sacraments. . . . It suffices if he has the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 344). This is also the interpretation of Aquinas (ST III:64:9-10).
The first thing that stands out is that we apparently have conflicting texts:
– The minister does not need to intend what the Church intends. – Ludwig Ott
– Whoever administers a Sacrament must have the intention of doing what Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament and what the Church intends. – Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Q. 585
In our attempt to determine whether or not Francis’ Masses are valid, which one are we to believe? The most reasonable answer appears to be both. (And we can include in this the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.)
Once again, we turn to the Society of St. Pius X for clarity:
In the traditional rites of the sacraments and of Mass the guarantee of this moral certitude is contained in the rites themselves. For the traditional rites for Mass and the sacraments express the intentions of the Church in a very explicit manner, leaving no room for doubt whatsoever. The same is not the case for the new rites, framed explicitly to be ambiguous, and to be just as compatible with a Protestant intention as with a Catholic one … Although theoretically it would be possible for a priest to celebrate sacrilegiously in the traditional rite by having a positive counter intention, it is hardly likely, given that the correct intention is repeated several times, which is not the case in the new rite.
In order to discover how both Ott and the Baltimore Catechism can be applied to the question at hand, it is necessary to recognize that both texts were written at a time when the rite of Mass repeatedly expressed the intentions of the Church in a very explicit manner, to quote the SSPX article.
It is this that evidently moved Fr. Ott to state that the minister does not need to intend what the Church intends. In other words, he did so in the belief that simply by “performing the religious action as it was then current among Christians,” the minister would thus be expressing his will to make of himself an instrument whereby the intention of the Church as repeatedly expressed would be accomplished.
St. Thomas Aquinas explained the function of the minister’s will with respect to his instrumentality as follows. (Notably, Mr. Akin cited ST III:64:9-10 in his article. Here, we will cite the immediately previous article in the same work.)
But an animate instrument, such as a minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far as by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do. (ST III:64:8) [Emphasis added]
In the Traditional Latin Mass, the will of the minister to subject himself to the principal agent is made manifest in the performance of the rite itself. As the SSPX points out, the same cannot be said of the Novus Ordo, and let us not forget what Pope Leo XIII taught with regard to intent; that which is “manifested externally” is of critical importance.
All of this said, the fundamental difference between Ott and the Baltimore Catechism in this matter lies in the following:
The former seems not to think it possible that a minister can perform the letter of the rite and yet render a Sacrament invalid by his own defective intention. The latter allows for such a possibility. Neither, however, were speaking of the Novus Ordo!
While the perfection of the Traditional Roman Rite may very well be an irresistible force if only performed according to its rubrics, I tend to agree with the Baltimore Catechism and the Society of St. Pius X. In any case, our focus here is on a rite that neither authority would even recognize as Catholic.
This brings us at last to the conclusion.
It is not surprising in the least that not one solitary “full communion” bishop has raised his voice in this matter. These men are, for the most part, cowards who dare not speak out for fear of having their benefices withdrawn by the hand of the heretic. And let’s be honest, many of them likely have their own heretical views of the Blessed Sacrament anyway.
But what about the Society of St. Pius X?
It is abundantly evident from the above treatment that they are perfectly clear on the grave implications of Jorge Bergoglio’s lack of intent and its impact on questions of validity. The SSPX is also presumably well aware that this matter directly concerns the salvation of souls.
Following Saint Paul and our revered founder, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, under the protection of Our Lady, Queen of Peace, we will continue to hand on the Catholic faith that we have received (cf.1 Cor 11:23), working with all our might for the salvation of souls… – Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General, Society of St. Pius X, February 2019
So, will Fr. Pagliarani and the Society of St. Pius X speak up on behalf of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, and countless innocent persons who genuinely wish to remain faithful; i.e., are they really willing to work with all their might for the salvation of souls?
I suppose we will find out. As for what specifically should be done, let’s be clear:
One need not have moral certitude in this matter. It is enough that reasonable questions exist concerning the validity of the Blessed Sacrament and the Mass when offered by Francis. This being so, silence – as has been the case with the “full communion” hirelings – would amount to gross negligence given the gravity of the situation.
At the very least, therefore, Francis should be publicly called upon to publicly correct his heresy, to publicly reaffirm the dogma of the Church concerning Transubstantiation, and to publicly and explicitly confirm his “intention of doing what Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament and what the Church intends when it administers the Sacrament” (see Baltimore Catechism).
If he does this, he must then be pressed to answer for his unwillingness to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament. If he does not do this, well then… let him stand, it’s probably just “simple bread” anyway.
NOTE: Many of our regular readers are among the SSPX faithful. We also have a number of Society priests among our readership. If you belong to the former group; share this article with your pastor and let him know that the salvation of souls demands a pubic response. If you happen to be a priest of the SSPX, approach your superiors and do likewise.
What’s interesting is that Dave Armstrong, Francis apologist, attempted to defend Francis’s terminology as NOT denying Transubstantiation; Novus Ordo Watch pretty effectively demolished that argument, but it’s interesting to see someone defend the language of Lutherans.
A quick question though: was Apostolicae Curae referring to all Sacraments, and not just Baptism or Matrimony? Because in the event that one is a public heretic, apostate, or schismatic, they’ve severed themselves from the body of the Church (as has been the traditional teaching, with the most recent explicit profession of this being from Pope Pius XII); essentially, they have judged themselves to be non-Catholic.
If Curae is referring to all Sacraments, how could a non-Catholic validly offer the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Confirmation, or Holy Orders
(Currently not in a position to look up Leo XIII’S encyclical, so I’m posting the question for open consideration.)
From the New Advent online Catholic Encyclopedia, re. “Intention”
Additionally, as far as memory serves, I took the late Canon Gregory Hesse to mean when discussing “intention” that a priest who does not publicly inform anyone assisting at Mass that he has NO INTENTION to confect the Sacrament is presumed to have in fact confected It, under “Ecclesia Supplex.”
Louie, I am not expert enough (nor sure enough of my memory re. Canon Hesse’s exact statement) to assert the point, either way. But perhaps you or a reader can be more specific. I only wanted to offer two items I think relevant. Personally, I have no idea what is in Francis’ mind but, as you stated, his external actions (or lack thereof) and Lutheranesque language are not reassuring.
Leo. XIII says at the outset that “a Sacrament ought to signify what it effects and effect what it signifies”, and then applies this principle to Orders. So he begins with the general principle and moves to the particular.
Your understanding of “intent” is correct AFAIK. Too many folks seem to think a sacrament can be invalidated in such a subjective fashion. If the validity of a sacrament depended upon any given cleric’s “intent” we could never know for sure that any sacrament we receive is valid. Louie should be focusing on the validity of Francis’ “priesthood” and “episcopal consecration”….both of the New Rite of Paul VI. If they’re not valid, then every sacrament he performs is invalid regardless of his “intent”.
The SSPX has mastered the art of doublespeak. In the past they believed in Si Si No No. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Doublespeak is a great mask to hide behind when you no longer have true commitment.You can’t have one foot in the N.O. and the other foot in Tradition. SSPX, please be honest on where you stand!
It should be obvious by now that Frank’s schtick is nothing other than chain-yanking provocativeness. That’s what his whole “pontificate” is about, i.e. to rub it in the face of true Catholics and to taunt them. His bombastic blasphemy is right out of Satan’s playbook. This is the icing on the cake of the Modernists’ assault on the true Faith. All of the VII “popes” are, BTW, on the same page as Frank—they were just more circumspect in their attacks on the Faith.
Another logical question worth asking alongside that is –
In the Novus Ordo, despite the deficiency of the rite, if the priest did understand and intend to do what the Church does, does that also therefore mean that the Sacrament was effected?
Therefore, those who attend the Novus Ordo Rite, under sufficiently instructed and believing priests, do receive the Sacrament.
So the most suspect invalid masses would be those of the Novus Ordo Rite, offered by a priest who is a known heretic on the subject of Transubstantiation.
In which case we’d need to quibble over whether the Novus Ordo rite has sufficient enough emphasis on the reality of the Sacrament as the Tridentine one does in the words of the rite, such that the Sacrament would be effected thanks solely to the rite itself.
All of these doubts can lead to only one conclusion: Stay away from the Novus Ordo and all those who support it. It was designed to appease protestants so it is therefore not Catholic.
So how do you know whether any particular priest at any given novus ordo “mass” was sufficiently instructed and believing?
Again, one can not determine validity with such subjectivism.
And as a result, Catholics must question how this can possibly be the Holy Catholic Church if it can give us poison.
“Are Francis’ Masses valid? He said: … for we eat the Bread that contains all sweetness within it. God’s people love to praise, not complain; we were created to bless, not grumble. In the presence of the Eucharist, Jesus who becomes bread, this simple bread that contains the entire reality of the Church… [Emphasis in original Italian text provided by the ‘Holy’ See] No less than twice did Francis assert that the bread on the altar remains bread following his act of consecration. … To declare that ‘Jesus becomes bread… simple bread’ is, of course, to commit a grievous heresy.”
When Francis said Jesus becomes bread that contains all sweetness, he was echoing the following words found in the Traditional Benediction: “Thou hast given them Bread from Heaven. Containing in Itself all sweetness”. Later in the same address Francis, refers to the “bread” as the ”Body of Christ” that was “given up for us”, which clearly shows that he considers it to be the bread to be the literal body of Christ.
It is not heresy to refer to the consecrated host as bread, since that is what our senses perceive it to be. Our Lord told us to pray “Give us this day our supersubstantial BREAD” (Mt 6:11), and the authorized footnotes in the Douay Rheims bible teach that the “bread” he is referring to is the Eucharist. The writings of the saints are full of instances when the Eucharist is referred to as bread.
So, the accusation that Francis committed a “grievous heresy” by referring the consecrated host as bread was false, and the implication that doing so means he doesn’t believe in the true presence was rash, and likewise shown to be false by what he said later in the text.
You erred a third time by believing that a denial of the true presence would result in a defect of intention that would render the Mass null. The intention to “do what the Church does,” does not require that the minister believe in the effect of the sacrament, nor is it rendered null if the minister positively denies the effect that the sacrament is intended to produce. Just as a baptism performed by Protestant minister is not rendered null if he positively denies that baptisms washes away original sin, so too a Mass is not rendered null if the Priest denies that the effect of the consecration is the transubstantiation of the bread and wine.
There are legitimate doubts, and there are doubts caused by ignorance and error. Any doubts caused by the present blog post clearly belong in the latter category.
Is that you Dave?
Incredible. Let’s hypothesize that Frank is not guilty of heresy/blasphemy regarding the bread (though it’s clear to me that he is). What of the plethora of other heretical words and actions committed by this man? Protestantism, homosexual unions, Marxism, etc., are demonstrably condemned by Holy Mother Church. There is no wiggle room. Frank is ok with all of those things. Are you saying that this heresiarch (that’s what he is, as any Catholic knows) is the Vicar of Christ on earth and is guiding the Bark of Peter faithfully? Are you saying that the so-called “Second Vatican Council” is a valid council and is one that does not contradict previous Church dogma and teaching?
Why are you defending the dirty beast Bergoglio?
So…the Sacrament of Baptism, among other things, washes away the stain of original sin. That is the teaching of the Church.
In your hypothetical example, you have a baptism performed by a Protestant who explicitly denies what the Church teaches about the sacrament, to some degree.
Yet you profess that this hypothetical Protestant “intends” to baptize as the Church does?
It does not follow.
Yes, but hypothetically speaking, if you could know for certain, does that overcome the deficiencies of the rite?
The fact that Francis’ belief in Transubstantiation is questionable does not solely rest on this one homily. Louie is simply using it as a lunch pad for what has been obvious from Francis’ refusal to genuflect, especially given we know he’s perfectly willing to prostrate himself before mere men and women when it’s politically convenient for him before cameras, and his numerous questionable statements too many to list, but most especially his treatment of excusing adultery and ensuring that unrepentant adulterers unwilling to cease their adultery will have access to the Sacrament.
Hence the topic of the blog post you are ignoring – about whether or not a priest with doubts about the Eucharist, engaged in a rite with deficient formulation of the belief in that same Eucharist – will he validly consecrate the Eucharist?
And your last point betrays you failed to read what Louie has written where he is not at all arguing what you are saying.
Also your equivocation with baptism is false. Especially considering there are other sacraments such as marriage, where if one party is obviously lying or didn’t intend to marry according to all that the Church intended to make the marriage valid, then the marriage didn’t happen and was null, despite the formula being followed in a valid rite before God.
Sacramental theology speaks of two distinctions in the Sacraments. “In specie” Sacraments were given both their form and matter by Christ himself. Baptism is given in specie. The intention to do what the Church does is made manifest simply by performing the outward act. Pouring water over someone while saying the Form is sufficient. Any Catholic or Protestant, any Jew, Muslim, Hindi or atheist, any man or a woman, can perform a valid Baptism. To say “I baptise thee in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit while pouring the water over someone is to manifest the intention to do what the Church does. It’s practically bulletproof, because it’s the only Sacrament necessary for one to attain salvation.
Other Sacraments such as Orders or extreme unction were given by Christ to the Church “in genere”, in a general way, and He willed that the Church would devise the matter, Form and surrounding rite.
No, it doesn’t. I think we are actually in agreement here.
The internal disposition of the minister is never judged by the Church. To invalidate a sacrament there has to be explicit external evidence of the intent not to confect the sacrament. Even though Bergoglio has made external actions indicating he does not believe in transubstantiation, he still performs the NO Rite according to the NO rubrics and has never stated he had no intent to confect the NO sacrament. An atheist who doesn’t believe in original sin can still validly baptize an infant if form and matter are followed. So an apostate like Bergoglio can still validly confect sacraments if he were actually a valid priest and used the proper form and matter. Likewise, a positive intent to confect a sacrament does not cure a defect in form or matter. Basic sacramental theology folks.
This is correct about baptism. Anyone can validly baptism if water is used and the Trinitarian formula is stated. However, “Angelico” is wrong to compare baptism with the other sacraments.
Assuming the NO rite is actually…..CATHOLIC. 😉
“If the validity of a sacrament depended upon any given cleric’s “intent” we could never know for sure that any sacrament we receive is valid.”
Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with Catholic doctrine. Did you even bother to read the article?
“Incredible. Let’s hypothesize that Frank is not guilty of heresy/blasphemy regarding the bread (though it’s clear to me that he is). What of the plethora of other heretical words and actions committed by this man?”
What of them? If Francis professes heresy by all means object, but the accusations in this blog post were false, and the sacramental theology was erroneous. That’s what is being discussed here.
The form of the double consecration at Mass was also given by Christ “in specie” so comparing baptism to the consecration was correct.
Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) : “Granting that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, it does not necessarily follow that personally He determined all the details of the sacred ceremony, prescribing minutely every iota relating to the matter and the form to be used. It is sufficient (even for immediate institution) to say: Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.”
“However, ‘Angelico’ is wrong to compare baptism with the other sacraments.”
Angelico would have been wrong to compare baptism to all other sacraments, but Angelico was not wrong to compare baptism to the consecration at Mass (see my reply to The Papal Subject to find out why).
Louie’s log is addressed to the SSPX. Does anyone here expect a clear and concise response?
Yes, as a matter of fact I did. You need to take a look at the whole paragraph 33 from Apostolicae Curae:
“”33. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, IF THE RITE BE CHANGED, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.””
The issue with Bergolgio’s “masses” is not his subjective intention. It is the fact that the NEW RITE is not Catholic.
You were wrong to compare the consecration/other sacraments with baptism because a validly ordained priest must consecrate, not just anyone.
Louie said, “One need not have moral certitude in this matter. It is enough that reasonable questions exist concerning the validity of the Blessed Sacrament and the Mass when offered by Francis.” I would say reasonable questions exist concerning the validity of all NO sacraments (except baptism and marriage).
From the SSPX? Ha, that’s a good one.
Dear Mr. V.
GREAT post. There are few others out there that have picked up on this scandal.
There’s a counterexample with the Mormons, who baptize with water, and also recite the Trinitarian formula.
Yet most (if not all) of their baptisms are judged invalid (or of suspect validity) by the Church, precisely because the Mormon conception of the Trinity is so out of step with the basic Christian understanding of the Triune Godhead.
Where, then, is the line drawn in terms of form and/or intention?
I may be wrong, but I think the issue with the Mormons is the fact that they also baptize the dead.
Also, I know the NO church has said Mormon baptisms are invalid. I do not know the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the issue prior to 1958. I put absolutely no credibility on anything said by the NO conciliar church.
“You were wrong to compare the consecration/other sacraments with baptism because a validly ordained priest must consecrate, not just anyone.”
Try to stay focused on the issue at hand 2Vermont. The issue being discussed is whether a heretical understanding concerning the sacramental effect nullifies the sacrament due to a defect of intention, not whether the new rite of ordination/consecration is valid. Considering in light of the issue being discussed, the comparison between baptism and the consecration at Mass is entirely appropriate.
“I may be wrong, but I think the issue with the Mormons is the fact that they also baptize the dead.”
You are indeed wrong. The reason Mormon baptism are invalid has nothing to do with the fact that they baptize the dead. They are invalid because they mean something entirely different by the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The result is that the form Baptism they use is materially correct, but formally incorrect – that is, the words (matter) are right, but the meaning of the words (form) are not. Hence, in the case of Mormon baptism, it is not merely a defect of intention concerning the sacramental effect, but a substantial defect in the form itself. That’s why Mormon baptisms are invalid.
Lose the condescension Dave. I happen to agree that subjective intent does not invalidate a true Catholic mass. My issue with your comparison was specifically regarding the minister. One can not compare baptism with the consecration at a true Catholic mass.
Yes, I did some reading up on Mormon baptism after I posted that. Their understanding of the Trinity is not the same as the Catholic Church’s, and I would agree that it is more about the form than about the intent.
It’s not Bergoglio I’m defending, but the truth in this particular instance.
And the reason I am do so is because the false accusations and errors of the “lay magisterium” are causing as much if not more confusion than Bergoglio himself.
Once again, Angelico, are you saying that the so-called “Second Vatican Council” is a valid council and is one that does not contradict previous Church dogma and teaching? You did not answer my question. It’s important to answer it if one is a Catholic. It’s also important to say “yes” or “no” to the question: Should a valid Pope condemn homosexual unions, adultery, Marxism and Protestantism, Talmudism, Islam and every other form of false worship. I predict you won’t give definitive “yes” or “no” answers to these questions, Angelico. Prove me wrong.
So in other words, Mormon baptisms are defective in form substantially, but not accidentally.
Where then would the line be drawn in terms of defective intention versus defective form? It seems like a matter of degree when it comes to defective understanding of the form (i.e. the Mormons on the Trinity) versus defective understanding of the intent/effect (i.e. the Protestant who publicly professes the Trinity yet denies certain or all aspects of baptism’s actual effects or graces, such as the manner of those who treat baptism as merely an ordinance instead of a sacrament).
The Church has directly addressed this issue. The Holy Office under Pius IX clarified that the baptism administered by a Methodist minister was not invalid, even if expressly declared that it had no effect on the soul.
The Holy Office (1872): “First: Whether baptism administered by those heretics is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptised that baptism had no effect on the soul?
Second: Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?
Reply to the first question: in the negative, because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded. The second question: provided for in the answer to the first.”
You said “it does not follow” that a minister has the intention to do what the Church does if he denies the sacramental effect, yet the Church herself teaches the opposite. This proves that a defect exists in the logic you used to arrive at your conclusion, and the defect in question is your understanding of the phrase “doing what the Church does.” The phrase does not mean “intending to produce the sacramental effect.” The mere intention “to baptize” (whatever that means), to “say Mass” (whatever that means), or to “ordain a priest” (whatever that means), etc., is sufficient to produce the sacramental effect – even if the one administering the sacrament explicitly denies that the sacramental effect in question, as the above reply from the Holy Office proves.
In other words, we do not know the status of Mormon Baptisms, unless there was a decision by a pre V2 Pope.
“So in other words, Mormon baptisms are defective in form substantially, but not accidentally. Where then would the line be drawn in terms of defective intention versus defective form? It seems like a matter of degree…”
The difference is not concern the degree of the error, but the OBJECT of the error. In one case, a substantial error invalidates the sacrament, and in another case a substantial error does not.
In the case of Mormon baptism the defect is in the form itself (the object), which is substantially defective due to a different meaning of the words.
In the case we are discussing here, the object is the sacramental effect (what the sacrament is intended to do), which is substantially defective due to a denial that the sacrament produces the effect.
A substantial defect in the form renders the sacrament invalid, but a substantial defect in the sacramental effect does not, SINCE IT DOES NOT RENDER NULL THE INTENTION “TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES.”
I yield to the Holy Office of Pope Pius IX on the matter of baptism. Thanks for the clarity.
I think the ongoing discussion about Mass and priestly ordinations still isn’t settled, at least insofar as they involve more than just the matter of intention.
Here are my direct answers. Without any question, Vatican II was a legitimate council ‘by celebration’, since it was convened and closed by legitimate popes and was attended by Bishops representing the worldwide episcopate. Nothing is Vatican II directly contradicts defined dogma, but I do believe there are non-infallible statements in Vatican II that directly or indirectly contradict previous Church teachings, but there are plenty of other non-infallible Church teachings that contradict one another.
“It’s also important to say “yes” or “no” to the question: Should a valid Pope condemn homosexual unions, adultery, Marxism and Protestantism, Talmudism, Islam and every other form of false worship.”
Yes, a valid pope should condemn all errors and heresies. Hence, Honorious should have condemned the Monothelite heresy, which denies that Christ has two will, rather than confirming those heretics in their heresy by stating “we profess one will in Our Lord Jesus Christ.” Thankfully, Honorius was condemned as a heretic by multiple ecumenical councils for “agreeing in everything” with the heretics and refusing to defend the faith. I also agree that valid popes should also condemn every form of false worship. Therefore, Pope Marcellinus should have condemned the practice of offering incense to the idols, rather than committing an act of public apostasy by doing so himself. Do you believe Honorius and Marcellinus were valid Popes? It is important that you say “yes” or “no” to the question.
Angelico, you stated earlier that there were no contradictions to dogma in Vatican II. What about the part where it claims that Catholics along with Muslims worship the same merciful God?
Matter, form, and intent – all three are required for a valid sacrament. That is Catholic doctrine, like it or not. You are misreading Pope Leo XIII. “On the other hand…” He’s moving on to another aspect of validity. The rite has to do with the form.
And yes, of course, the N.O. rite itself is defective as I also acknowledged, but that’s not the topic of the present post.
I deny that the statement is in direct contradiction to any dogma. To support my position, I will compare the teaching of Vatican II to that of a pre-conciliar Pope.
Lumen Gentium: “… the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God (nobiscum Deum adorant unicum), who on the last day will judge mankind.”
Compare that to the following letter of Pope Gregory VII to the Muslim King Anazire. I am including a lengthy portion of the letter so the context can be seen.
Pope Gregory VII, Epistola xxi, 1076. “Your Highness sent to us a request that within a year we would ordain the priest, Servandus, as bishop according to the Christian order. This we have taken pains to do, as your request seemed proper and of good promise. You also sent gifts to us, and released some Christian captives out of regard for St. Peter, chief of the Apostle, and out of love for us, and promised to release others. This good action was inspired in your heart by God, the Creator of all things, without whom we can neither do not think any good thing. He who enlightens every man that cometh into the world (Jn. 1) hath enlightened your mind for this purpose. For there is nothing which Almighty God, who wishes that all men should be saved and that no man should perish (1 Tim 2), more approves in our conduct, than this: that a man should first love God and then his fellow man, and do nothing to him which he would not that others should do to himself (Mt. 7). This affection we and you owe each other in a more particular way than to people of other races because WE WORSHIP ONE GOD, THOUGH IN DIFFERENT WAYS (qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur), and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of the world. For, in the words of the Apostle, ‘He is our peace who hath made both one.’ (Eph. ii). This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities. (…) For God knows our true regard for you to his glory, and how truly we desire your prosperity and honor, both in this life and in the life to come, and how earnestly we pray both with our lips and with our heart that God himself, after the long journey of this life, may lead you into the bosom of the most holy patriarch Abraham.”
That is as bad if not worse than what Vatican II teaches, yet the Church has never condemned the statement. On the contrary, the Church canonized Gregory VII.
I would point out to mothermostforgiving that the sainted Pope did not condemn the false worship offered by the Muslims. On the contrary, he had nothing but glowing praise for the Muslim King. He explicitly stated that his actions were being inspired by God, agreed to obey his request by ordaining the priest he requested as a bishop, and Pope Gregory even implied that he would be saved – “enter into the bosom of Abraham” – with no mention whatsoever of abandoning his false religion and converting to the true faith!
Again, this is as bad if not worse than what Vatican II says, yet the Church never once condemned the statement. So, while I personally detest the statement Catholics and Muslims “adore the one and merciful God,” I deny that the statement directly contrary to any dogma.
I would end by asking mothermostforgiving if he/she believes Pope St. Gregory VII was a valid Pope, in spite of the fact that he refrained from condemning Islam and its false form of worship?
That’s easy Tom. I’ll take this one, Angelico.
Any contradictions, errors, heresies or blasphemies you cite in the documents of Vatican II are infallibly declared to be non-infallible.
The Church is free to confuse, contradict, blaspheme and lead the Faithful into error, heresy, schism and apostasy, as long as she does it in a non-infallible and merely pastoral manner.
She can offer you deadly poison, but if you are fool enough to trust her, then your ruin will be entirely your own doing. She didn’t make you take it.
This is how to defend Vatican II and the conciliar popes. You’d better get on board.
I read the whole thread. This Angelico has a swell, though embarrassingly condescending, website. Who is this Louie guy who is referenced occasionally?
With all due respect (and I mean that), I still think it is you who have mis-read Pope Leo. The external manifestation he is referring to is what happens when a non-Catholic rite is used. Not some manifest intent while still using a Catholic rite. Remember that this encyclical was specifically speaking about the new non-Catholic, Anglican rite.
Per Catholic Encyclopedia re: Apostolicae Curae:
“Not only is the proper form for the sacrament lacking in the Anglican Ordinal; the intention is also lacking. Although the Church does not judge what is in the mind of the minister, she must pass judgment on what appears in the external rite. Now to confer a sacrament one must have the intention of doing what the Church intends. If a rite be so changed that it is no longer acknowledged by the Church as valid, it is clear that it cannot be administered with the proper intention. ”
And with that, I need to stop posting. I’ve done enough.
“I sincerely wish that all could be witnesses of Our Lord, of the Catholic Church of the Faith, and of Catholicism, even if we have to be despised and insulted in the newspapers, in the parishes and in the churches. What does it matter? We are witnesses of the Catholic Church. We are the true sons of the Catholic Church and true sons of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”
Angelico asked, “Do you believe Honorius and Marcellinus were valid Popes?”
The Donatist Bishop Petilianus of Constantine in Africa asserted, in the letter he wrote in 400 and 410, that Marcellinus and the Roman priests Melchiades, Marcellus, and Sylvester (his three successors) had given up the sacred books, and had offered incense. But he could not adduce any proof.
It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a “private heretic”, for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
The case of Pope Honorius isn’t quite that clear-cut: novusordowatch.org/2017/07/case-of-pope-honorius/
Thanks for linking that, A Simple Man. This point can not be hammered home enough.
The whole issue of heretical popes was definitively answered at the first and only Vatican Council. There never was an heretical Pope. There never will be an heretical Pope. Read Pastor Aeternus.
Pastor Aeternus did not rule out the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy. It ruled out the possibility of a pope erring when he defines a doctrine.
Such a person would then no longer be Pope if they became a public heretic.
Apostolicae Curae says that even if the Anglican Form for Ordination was considered valid by the Church (Leo XIII doesn’t go very far down this line in AC, and puts that issue aside) it would still be absolutely null and utterly void, because the surrounding ceremonial rite manifests a contrary intention because of what it omits. The Novus Ordo rite of Orders has very similar theological omissions to the Anglican rite.
Diabolic in every aspect. Lord, have mercy on us sinful, undeserving, weak sheep. Have mercy, and send us a holy man to lead us in the true Church, and show us how we must suffer in atonement, and shorten this terrible evil time, so as to restore visible holy successors of the Apostles carrying the Shining Glorious Truth of the Neverending Holy Faith. Preserve us, dear Lord God Almighty, in the One Holy Faith, through this foul, perverse, black time when all seems to be lost. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us suffering souls on Earth, that we resist always the Devil and his demons wandering unchained over our earthly world. Grant us the graces necessary to do They Holy Will when Evil reigns among Men. Viva Cristo Rey. Grant us courage and the desire to suffer for Thy Glory and the salvation of souls. Dear Lord, help me to love as you made us to love. Lord, have mercy on me.
Honorius was condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils. Here is a portion of his condemnation taken from the Third Council of Constantinople:
“After we had read the doctrinal letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus or Phasis and to Pope Honorius, as well as the letter of the Pope Honorius to Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, also to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers of repute, and follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. Furthermore, the names of these men must also be expelled from the holy Church (…) We anathematized them all. And along with them, it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and ANATHEMATISED, HONORIUS, FORMERLY POPE OF OLD ROME, because of what we found in his letter to Sergius that IN ALL RESPECTS HE FOLLOWED HIS [Sergius] VIEWs AND CONFIRMED HIS IMPIOUS DOCTRINES…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema. (…) the originator of all evil always finds a helping serpent, by means of which he can DIFFUSE HIS POISON, and therewith FINDS SUITABLE INSTRUMENTS for his will: we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, the former Bishops of Constantinople, and also HONORIUS, POPE OF OLD ROME, Cyrus of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen. For he [the originator of all evil, by means of his instruments] did not delay, through the trouble in the Church, by the dissemination of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ, who is one of the Holy Trinity, to assert that which agrees with the heresy of Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and thus serves to take away the full Incarnation of Christ, and to represent His rationally quickened flesh as without will or energy. (…) How can we ascribe to Him (Christ) perfect humanity, if He did not work and suffer in a human way?… THEREFORE WE PUNISH WITH EXCOMMUNICATION AND ANATHEMA Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, also Cyrus, and with them HONORIUS, FORMERLY POPE OF ROME.
There’s no shortage of Catholic apologists who have attempted to excuse Honorius in one way or another (often with explanations that contradict one another), and it is certain that Honorius did not err when defining a doctrine, but the cold hard reality is that Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic, and anathematized by name by three general councils.
As the quotation that mothermostforgiving noted, Honorius’ condemnation is similar to that of Origin, who was condemned by the Church after he died, yet remained in communion with the Church while living. So, in spite of the fact that council declared that “in all respects” Honorius followed the heretic Sergius and “CONFIRMED HIS IMPIOUS DOCTRINES,” he remained in communion with the Church until he died – just as the conciliar popes remained in communion with the Church until they died, in spite of any heretics they followed “in a respects” and any “impious doctrines” they confirmed.
My favorite comment on this thread, Lynda.
The case of Marcellinus offering incense to idols is admitted by Bellarmine and Pope Nicholas, in his letter to the Emperor Michael.
“Such a person would then no longer be Pope if they became a public heretic.”
That’s a different issue, but to your point, it depends on what you mean by “public heretic”.
Exactly. And this is where the SSPX fails miserably. For decades they’ve been saying that organisation based in Rome was a schismatic church, the conciliar church… then it became the mainstream church, then the official church… good grief, which one is it?? Now they are saying it IS the Catholic Church.
Then they’ve got the gall to quote the Baltimore Catechism… it’s all very fine to quote it when it explains what the expression “intending to do what the Church does” means with regards to the sacraments, but with regards to the nature of and membership of the Church, her indefectibility, her protection against teaching error, the authority and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, they go silent, or they make up their own novel teachings like heretics and masons can be popes and vice versa.
In any case it’s impossible to apply the “intending to do what the Church does” argument to the novus ordo. It is NOT Catholic. To intend to do what the Church does with regards to the novus ordo, means separating oneself from it and condemning it. That’s what the Catholic Church does. The novus ordo did not come from the Catholic Church but by enemies who have infiltrated and are showing more and more of their true colours 50 years later for the heretics and perverts that they are. It may not have been clear for many during the 1960s, but people are waking up now. Except the SSPX (and their Resistance offshoot) who are a scandal by continuing to prop up and give credence to this wicked anti-church.
As we have been continually reminded by the anti-sedevacantists, the Pope is not guaranteed to be impeccable in all his pronouncements. Perhaps in this particular instance Pope St. Gregory VII merely erred. Had he been reminded that it is impossible to render true worship to the Almighty outside of his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church he would have corrected his error.
Angelico, you know full well that the papal letter you quoted to defend your indefensible position was a personal letter and in no way a magisterial document. If you were honest with us you would have quoted the myriad of official magisterial documents from Popes, Councils, and Saints calling Islam a false religion. Any simple google search will show the absurdity or your claim.
Angelico, Pastor Aeternus’ definition of the Papacy and the Magisterium make it impossible to claim heresy can be promulgated from the Church. You fool yourself and the readers by claiming otherwise. But I detect a Gallican attitude in your reasoning so I am not surprised that you push a false notion of a Pope that can teach heresy.
Again Angelico, you leave out vital information to push your Gallican point of view. You conveniently forget to inform the readers here that Pope Leo II removed any reference of Honorius being a heretic before signing the document. A Council’s work is nothing without Papal approval. But seeing how this information goes against your narrative, you decided to omit.
It is also said that St Augustine denied it ever happened and others say he repented shortly after and was then martyred. Your point proves nothing. You seek to destroy the Papacy in order to defend heretics who claim the Papacy. It is a sad evil thing you do.
It’s also the only “support” used for the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate. I wonder how long it took those modernists to dig that one up.
“The question was also raised [at Vatican I] by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.”
-Abp. John B. Purcell (1800-1883)
The absurdity of what claim?
Of course Islam is a false religion and if Vatican II said otherwise it would be heretical. That’s a different issue. It doesn’t follow that saying Catholics and Muslims “worship one merciful God” that Islam is a true religion. There is true worship and there is false worship If – again, IF – Muslims “worship the one merciful God,” they do so in a false way, which is a violation of the first commandment.
“The novus ordo did not come from the Catholic Church but by enemies who have infiltrated and are showing more and more of their true colours 50 years later for the heretics and perverts that they are.”
That’s because the NO is from Satan. Time to wake up and see that. Time to make a choice. Can’t sit on the fence forever.
Tom A: “Angelico, Pastor Aeternus’ definition of the Papacy and the Magisterium make it impossible to claim heresy can be promulgated from the Church. You fool yourself and the readers by claiming otherwise.”
Don’t SAY what Pastor Aeternus supposedly teaches, quote it directly.
Tom A: “But I detect a Gallican attitude in your reasoning so I am not surprised that you push a false notion of a Pope that can teach heresy.”
That’s because you don’t know in what the heresy of Gallicanism consists and neither does any other sedevacantists I’ve corresponded with. One of the effects of the sedevacantist’s heretical understanding of papal infallibility is an erroneous understanding of the heresy of Gallicanism.
Tom A: “Pope Leo II removed any reference of Honorius being a heretic before signing the document.”
No, not destroying the papacy; destroying the false characterization of the Pope that sedevacantists continuously promote to defend their heresy.
Sedevacantist heresy??? That at times the See of Peter can be vacant? How on earth is that a heresy?
Tom A: Pope Leo II removed any reference of Honorius being a heretic before signing the document.”
It looks like you’ve been reading too much of the propaganda the sedevacantists use to prop up their false caricature of the pope. Here’s what Dom Chapman wrote about the approval of the council by Leo VII. It is taken from his book, The Case Against Honorious. Dom Chapman is also the author of the article about Honorious from the 1910 Catholic Enclyclopedia that mothermostforgiving quoted earlier:
The Case Against Honorious, Dom John Chapman, OSB (1907) “The Condemnation of Pope Honorius is confirmed by numerous Pontiffs and by two Oecumenical Councils.
“The confirmation of the sixth Council by Pope Leo II is contained in a long dogmatic letter to the Emperor, dated May 7, 682. The central paragraph is as follows:
‘My predecessor, Pope Agatho of apostolic memory, together with his honourable Synod, preached this norm of the right apostolic tradition. This he sent by letter … to your piety by his own legates, demonstrating it and confirming it by the usage of the holy and approved teachers of the Church. And now the holy and great Synod, celebrated by the favour of God and your own, has accepted it and embraced it in all things with us, as recognizing in it the pure teaching of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles and discovering in it the marks of sound piety. Therefore the holy and universal sixth Synod, which by the will of God your clemency summoned and presided, has followed in all things the teaching of the apostles and approved Fathers. And because, as we have said, it has perfectly preached the definition of the true faith which the Apostolic See of blessed Peter the apostle (whose office we unworthy hold] also reverently receives, therefore we, and by our ministry this reverend Apostolic See, whollv and with full agreement do consent to the definitions made by it, and by the authority of blessed Peter do confirm them, even as we have received firmness from the Lord Himself upon the firm rock which is Christ.’
“St. Leo thus enumerates the heretics condemned:
‘AND IN LIKE MANNER WE ANATHEMATIZE the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also HONORIUS, WHO DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SANCTIFY THIS APOSTOLIC CHURCH WITH THE TEACHING OF APOSTOLIC TRADITION, BUT BY PROFANE TREACHERY PERMITTED ITS PURITY TO BE POLLUTED.’
“It has been sometimes said that St. Leo in these words interprets the decision of the Council about Honorius in a mild sense, or that he modifies it. It is supposed that by ‘permitted to be polluted’ Leo II means no positive action, but a mere neglect of duty, grave enough in a Pope, but not amounting to the actual teaching of heresy. If Leo II had meant this, he would have been mistaken. Honorius did positively approve the letter of Sergius, as the Council pointed out. Further, THE MERELY NEGATIVE RULING OF THE TYPUS HAD BEEN CONDEMNED AS HERESY BY THE LATERAN COUNCIL. As a fact THE WORDS OF LEO II ARE HARSHER THAN THOSE OF THE COUNCIL. HE DECLARES THAT HONORIUS DID NOT PUBLISH THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE OF HIS SEE, AND HE REPRESENTS THIS AS A DISGRACE TO THE CHURCH OF ROME ITSELF, AS A POLLUTION OF THE UNSPOTTED. This no Eastern Bishop had ventured to say. THE ANATHEMAS ON POPE HONORIUS HAVE BEEN AGAIN AND AGAIN CONTINUED. A few years later he is included in the list of heretics by the Trullan Synod, a Council whose canons were not, however, and could not be received by Rome and the West. But THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH OECUMENICAL COUNCILS DID THE SAME, although the eighth Council formally declared that the Church of Rome had never erred. It is still more important that the formula for the oath taken by every new Pope from the 8th century til the nth adds these words to the list of Monothelites condemned: ‘Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions’ (Liber diimius, ii. 9). Unquestionably no Catholic has the right to deny that Honorius was a heretic (though in the sense that Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia were heretics), a heretic in words if not in intention. Finally Honorius was mentioned as a heretic in the lessons of the Roman Breviary for June 28th, the feast of St. Leo II, until the i8th century, when the name, was omitted as liable to cause misunderstanding. In the Middle Ages, u to lie like the second nocturn ” was a proverb, and no doubt the Breviary is still full of historical errors. Nevertheless, the persistence of this reading through many centuries at all events shows that it was not found scandalous by our forefathers, and was perfectly well understood until controversy with later views, Galilean and Protestant, suggested difficulties.” (Dom John Chapman, OSB, The Case Against Honorious, pp. 112-116).
It’s time to face the cost hard reality that Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Church. That doesn’t mean he was actually a heretic (i.e., personally guilty of heresy), but he was condemned as one and anathematized for it by the Church. I understand how difficult that can be for someone to face who’s been indoctrinated by sedevacantist propaganda, which pretends that all pope are heroic warriors for the faith, so that the contrast between the recent Popes and the caricature they promote, will more easily lead the dupes who read their materials to reject the legitimate of the recent popes. What you need to realize is that there have been some absolute scoundrels who sat on the chair of Peter, and many of them have erred in doctrinal matters when not teaching ex cathedra.
It’s not heresy to say the Chair of Peter can be vacant. It’s heresy to say that the occupants of the see of Peter (the see is not vacant, but visibly occupied by men who were elected by the Cardinals) for the past 60 years have been false pope, and that the visible institutional Church defected. That’s the heresy I am referring to.
Tom A: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
I didn’t see anything in the article that supports you assertion that “Pope Leo II removed any reference of Honorius being a heretic before signing the document.” Here’s what the article says:
Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent: “St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: “WE ANATHEMATIZE the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also HONORIUS, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” THIS APPEARS TO EXPRESS EXACTLY THE MIND OF THE COUNCIL, only that the council avoided suggesting that Honorius disgraced the Roman Church. The last words of the quotation are given above as in the Greek of the letter, because great importance has been attached to them by a large number of Catholic apologists. Pennacchi, followed by Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the council, and substituted a condemnation for negligence. NOTHING, HOWEVER, COULD BE LESS EXPLICIT. Hefele, with many others before and after him, held that Leo II by the same words explained the sense in which the sentence of Honorius was to be understood. SUCH A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POPE’S VIEW AND THE COUNCIL’S VIEW IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS. At best such a system of defence was exceedingly precarious, for the milder reading of the Latin is just as likely to be original: “but by profane treachery attempted to pollute its purity”. In this form Honorius is certainly not exculpated, yet the pope declares that he did not actually succeed in polluting the immaculate Roman Church. However, in his letter to the Spanish King Erwig, he has: “And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished.” To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: “With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence.” That is, he did not insist on the “two operations”, but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up. Pope HONORIUS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY INCLUDED IN THE LISTS OF HERETICS ANATHEMATIZED BY THE TRULLAN SYNOD, AND BY THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCILSwithout special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: “Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). IT IS CLEAR THAT NO CATHOLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND POPE HONORIUS. HE WAS A HERETIC, not in intention, but in fact.”
No comment needed.
As Librorum mentioned (above), “The novus ordo did not come from the Catholic Church but by enemies…”
Amidst all the wrangling over theological minutiae (which IS necessary), it’s important for a non-theologian like me to remember that God expects me to obey the Ten Commandments, say 15 decades a day, and trust Him. And trusting Him involves absolute faith that He would never hand me poison. Oh, He allows evil—but that is because He wants me to seek Him in time of trouble, to stay close to Him as my Lord and my Shield. So, He has allowed Satan and his perverted little workers to fabricate a counterfeit church so that they might drag us down to hell with them. Since God would never create a counterfeit church (but only ALLOWS it), then the NO does not come from God. And since everything in existence comes ultimately from God or Satan, the NO comes from Satan. So, we have to choose between the two. As I said, I’m not a theologian and God does not expect me to be one. I’m a simple Catholic who trusts God and who knows (and have always known) that there is something rotten at the core of the NO. I grew up in the forties and fifties. I remember what Catholicism was. I will stay loyal to my death.
Yes, Mothermostforgiving, loyal to the FAITH, not to the V2 “church”!
Mothermostforgiving: Amidst all the wrangling over theological minutiae (which IS necessary), it’s important for a non-theologian like me to remember that God expects me to obey the Ten Commandments, say 15 decades a day, and trust Him.”
Mothermostforgiving: And trusting Him involves absolute faith that He would never hand me poison. Oh, He allows evil—but that is because He wants me to seek Him in time of trouble, to stay close to Him as my Lord and my Shield.
Mothermostforgiving: So, He has allowed Satan and his perverted little workers to fabricate a counterfeit church so that they might drag us down to hell with them. Since God would never create a counterfeit church (but only ALLOWS it), then the NO does not come from God.
This is where you are erring. The “NO” is not a separate Church. It is the true Church that is enduring a trial that God foresaw and willed to permit from all eternity. Christ told His enemies, “this is your hour,” and then let them have their way with Him, and He has done the same again in our time with the enemies of the Church. In so doing, He has willed to permit evil men to infiltrate the Church in an attempt to destroy it from within. Isn’t that what the vision of Leo XIII confirms? The devil said he could destroy the Church if he had more time, and Christ essentially said, “you have the time, give it your best shot.” He has given it his best shot, but contrary to what the sedevacantist heretics would like you to believe, the devil has not succeeded in proving Christ to be a liar by destroying His Church. The Church still exists, even though it is in tatters and ruins. Christ permitted the trial to come upon His Church as a just and very deserved punishment for the sins of Catholics, and as an opportunity for the elect to glorify God, and prove their fidelity to Him, by holding fast to the faith in the midst of the trial. Amazingly, in spite of the damage caused by the enemies of Christ within the Church, and the enemies of Christ who attack the Church from without (i.d., the sedevacantist heretics), many heroic Catholics have preserved their faith and purified it in the fire of the current trial.
Mothermostforgiving: And since everything in existence comes ultimately from God or Satan, the NO comes from Satan. So, we have to choose between the two.
Again, you err by believing the NO is a separate Church. It is not, and it cannot be, since if it were the Church would have defected. The Church is a visible institution, and the visible institution itself is what cannot defect. The NO is the same visible institution that existed before the council. If it was now a false Church, it would not be a New Church, but rather the same true Church that had defected.
Mothermostforgiving As I said, I’m not a theologian and God does not expect me to be one. I’m a simple Catholic who trusts God and who knows (and have always known) that there is something rotten at the core of the NO. I grew up in the forties and fifties. I remember what Catholicism was. I will stay loyal to my death.
Trusting in God is key, but the intellectual “solution” to explain the crisis is not to conclude that the NO is a false Church. That solution is a grievous heresy that will make your personally situation far worse. The practical solution is simply to avoid the corruption that God has willed to permit while holding fast to the unchanging faith. And part of holding fast to the unchanging faith is rejecting the sedevacantist heresy that the NO is a false Church, since that necessarily implies that the Church has defected. If you don’t believe that, watch what happens when someone asks one of them to explain where the true Church can be found today. They can’t do it, since the only possible candidate for the true Church is the Novus Ordo institution.
“No one can have God for His Father who does not have the Church for his mother.” (St. Cyprian).
my2cents, perhaps you would like to be the one to explain where the true Church can be found today. This will give mothermostforgiving a chance to witness the disaster that unfolds when a sedevacantist heretic attempts to do so.
So were the people who were confused as to who was the true Pope during the Great Western Schism heretics? No, because papal elections are not dogmatic.
Our Lord’s Church will be in eclipse. So Our Lady tells Her children.
From same website, on the page for Leo II, “At the same time he (Leo II) was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it.”
And from my original link:
“The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
Leo II did not condemn Honorius as a heretic, but for not doing his job. But of course you adopt the Gallican view once again. From the same link, “The more famous Gallicans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers that Honorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing.” You are in some great company there with Gallicans and Protestants. Keep up the good work, Angelico.
“How can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is, there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the Catholic Church. A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.”
“We are being attacked neither by the Church nor by the Successor of Peter, but by churchmen steeped in the errors of Liberalism and occupying high positions, who are making use of their power to make the Church of the past disappear, and to install in its place a new Church which no longer has anything to do with Catholicism.
Therefore we must save the true Church and Peter’s successor from this diabolical assault which calls to mind the prophecies of the Book of Revelation.”
“Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
“Henceforth, the Church no longer accepts the one true Church, the only way of eternal salvation. It recognizes the other religions as “sister religions”. It recognizes as a right derived from the nature of the human person that “man is free to choose his religion,” and consequently the Catholic State is no longer admissible. Once this new principle is admitted, then all the doctrine of the Church must change: its worship, its priesthood, its institutions. For until now, everything in the Church manifested that she alone possesses the Truth, the Way, the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom she possesses in person in the Holy Eucharist, present, thanks to the continuation of His Sacrifice. The complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church has been brought about since the Council by the Council. All those who operate in the implementation of this overthrow accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designates it in the letter he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25th, and enter into schism.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
“Cardinal Ratzinger repeated it many times, “But Monsignor, there is only one Church, you mustn’t make a parallel church.” I told him: “Your Eminence, it is not us who are forming a parallel Church, as we are continuing the Church of all times, it is you who are forming the parallel church for having invented the Church of the Council, which Cardinal Benelli called the Conciliar Church; it is you all who have invented a new church, not us, it is you who have made the new catechisms, new Sacraments, a new Mass, a new liturgy, not us. We continue to do what was done before. We are not the ones who are forming a new church.”
-Econe, Press Conference, June 15, 1988
“I ask, what people are keeping the Faith? Where are they? Where are they? And I ask even the Traditionalists!
For I think many Traditional Catholics enjoy the traditions; they like the old Mass, they like the old sacraments, they like the old teaching of the Church, but they do not really believe in Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior, God and Creator. That is the bad influence of all the modern errors coming through television and the media – they are so bad, so pagan, so opposed to Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith that few people remain true Catholics wholly faithful to Jesus Christ. That is why we can’t be indifferent to these scandalous events in Rome, we must judge them in the light of our Faith and help Catholics, traditional Catholics, to see that this bad example of the Pope is a great scandal, very dangerous for their souls.”
Tom A: “Leo II did not condemn Honorius as a heretic, but for not doing his job. But of course you adopt the Gallican view once again.”
That is precisely what the article your yourself linked to denied. Here’s what it says:
“Pennacchi, followed by Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the council, AND SUBSTITUTED A CONDEMNATION FOR NEGLIGENCE. NOTHING, HOWEVER, COULD BE LESS EXPLICIT. Hefele, with many others before and after him, held that Leo II by the same words explained the sense in which the sentence of Honorius was to be understood. SUCH A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POPE’S VIEW AND THE COUNCIL’S VIEW IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS.
TomA: “From the same link, “The more famous Gallicans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers that Honorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing.” You are in some great company there with Gallicans and Protestants. Keep up the good work, Angelico.”
That’s what you call a straw man argument. I explicitly stated in a previous post that Honorius DID NOT attempt to define the heresy. .
I’m still waiting for you to back up your assertion that “Pope Leo II removed any reference of Honorius being a heretic before signing the document.”
Thank you for the quotes Marylover. Now, how about telling us where the true Church can be found. I would also ask which Church Archbishop Lefebvre was negotiating with for years before he signed the agreement in 1988? Was he negotiating with the true Church or a false Church?
But the institution will still exist as Christ founded it, since it is indefectible. Where is it?
I can’t help express my opinion that this article asking the question “are Francis’ masses valid”? is secondary to the most important question of all which is: Is Francis a true pope?
If he isn’t a true pope, what of the little time we have here in our vale of tears, working out our salvation in fear and trembling, should be spent on what he does?
Marylover, here are some additional quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre for you to consider.
Archbishop Lefebvre: “LET US PASS NOW to a second but no less important subject: does the Church have a true Pope or an imposter on the throne of St. Peter? (…) The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others. (…)
“Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph. Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse-to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, The New Mass and the Pope).
Interview given to Pacte, 1987
“Q: Implicitly, it seems that you are “sedevacantist”?
A: No. It’s not because I say that the Pope is unfaithful to his task, that I say there isn’t a Pope anymore, or that I say he is a formal heretic. I think that it is necessary to judge the men of current Rome and those who are under their influence the same way the bishops, Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X considered liberals and modernists.
Q: How did they consider them?
A: Pope Pius IX condemned liberal Catholics. He even said this terrible sentence: “Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church.” What more could he say? However, he did not say: all liberal Catholics are excommunicated, are outside the Church and must be denied Communion. No, he considered these men as “the worst enemies of the Church,” and yet, he did not excommunicate them.
The holy pope, Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi, also dealt as severe a judgment on modernism, calling it the “synthesis of all heresies.” I do not know if it is possible to bring a more severe judgment to condemn a movement! But he did not say that all modernists would from now on be excommunicated, outside the Church, and that they had to be refused Communion. He condemned some.
Also, I think that, like these two popes, we must judge them severely, but not necessarily considering them as being outside the Church. That is why I do not want to follow the “sedevacantists” who say: they are modernists; modernism is the crossroads of heresies; so modernists are heretics; so they are no longer in communion with the Church; so there isn’t a Pope anymore… We cannot make a judgment with such implacable logic. There is, in this way of judging, passion and a little pride. Let us judge these men and their errors in the same way as the popes themselves did.
The pope is modernist, that’s certain, like Cardinal Ratzinger and many men of his entourage. But let us judge them like Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X judged them. And so this is why we continue to pray for the Pope and to ask God to give him the graces he needs to accomplish his task. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview given to Pacte, 1987)
Archbishop Lefebvre: “The solution of sedevacantism is not a solution: it poses a lot of problems, because if since Pope Paul VI there were no popes, then all the cardinals that were made by these popes are invalidly made; so the votes they made as cardinals, members of the Conclave, are void; and who will then re-establish the link with John XXIII?; and even if we think that John XXIII wasn’t pope either, then we have to go back to Pius XII. Who is going to re-establish the tie? Because if these cardinals were invalidly-made cardinals, they cannot elect the future Pope. Who is going to designate the new pope? We are completely lost! It is not surprising that in these circles there have been groups that have made a pope. It is logical. Let us keep a little the solution of common sense and the solution that the faithful inspire in us.” (Conference, priests’ retreat, 1989)
Archbishop Lefebvre: “It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the Pope in the true religion.. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that… well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said ‘There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility’. So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
Then we must not keep this idea which is false which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! (…) We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it.” (Retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1, 1989)
“This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
“I think it is possible to see in the person who succeeds all the preceding popes, since if he occupies the see, he was accepted as Bishop of Rome at Saint John Lateran. Now it is the Bishop of Rome who is the successor of Peter; he is recognized as the successor of Peter by all the bishops of the world. Good! What you want? We can think that he is really the successor of Peter, and in this sense, we attach ourselves to him and through him to all his predecessors, ontologically so to speak. And then, his actions, what he does, what he thinks and the ideas he spreads; that is another thing, of course. It is a great sorrow for the Catholic Church, for us, that we are forced to witness such a thing. But I think that this is the solution that corresponds to the reality.”
“No, I shall not give the Church’s destroyers an easy conscience by handing over the them what belongs only to God, to the Faithful, to the Church of all time. This is what makes our situation with the Vatican appear deadlocked. The time will come when the Church will triumph as she has always done. What are a few years, or a few tens of years, compared with eternity? As I said to you a little while ago, all we need do is wait.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Stock, Paris)
“The adoption of liberal theses by a Council could not have occurred except in a non-infallible pastoral Council, and cannot be explained without there having been a secret, detailed preparation which the historians will eventually discover to the great stupefaction of Catholics who confuse the eternal Roman Catholic Church with the human Rome susceptible to infiltration by enemies robed in purple.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
“We are told, ‘You are alone and isolated.’ Not at all! We have on our side all the Church’s past, hundreds of Popes, all the saints and all those who did what we are doing… We should have no fear, we are built on a rock which does not depend on us. If it depended on us, we might be afraid: then it would be me and my ideas. I would have invented something; I would have given rise to something new. But that is not so. That is not the case with us… If we ever abandoned the Faith, we would abandon them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre. September 1988)
“I think you need to be convinced of this: you truly represent the Catholic Church … lately, we are being told that it is necessary that Tradition enters into the visible Church. I think a very, very serious error is committed here. Where is the visible Church ? … Where are the true marks of the Church? … Clearly we are the ones who preserve the Unity of the Faith, which has disappeared from the official Church … we are the ones who have the marks of the visible Church … it is not us but the modernists who leave the Church. And about the expression “to leave the visible Church”, it is an error to equate official Church with visible Church … is it therefore necessary to leave the official Church? To some extent, yes, it is obvious. One is obliged to leave the environment of these bishops, if one does not want to lose one’s soul. But this will not suffice because it is in Rome that heresy has settled. If bishops are heretics, it is not without the influence of Rome.”
What specific heresies do sedevacantist profess Angelico?
Just to remind everyone, John Salza and Paul Folbrecht -the last time I checked – still profess the heresy that a Pope – while being recognized as Pope – could be tried for heresy by a council of the Church.
When the appropriate infallible decrees of Vatican I was brought to his attention, Paul Folbrecht went so far as to claim that an unwritten exception remained that permitted such a trial! The infallible decrees of Vatican I on their face admit of no such exception! In this regard Paul Folbrecht was making stuff up!
The anti-sedevacantists are hardly in position to be calling anyone “heretics” when they have heretics like John Salza and Paul Folbrecht in their midst!
It is difficult to find BECAUSE THOSE WHO SIN AGAINST THE VISIBLE BONDS OF UNITY OF THE CHURCH HELP TO OBSCURE THE CHURCH and therefore make it more difficult to find! Do you understand that?
I see that the anti-sedevacantists are again quick to label sedevacantism (the opinion that the pope is not a true pope) as heresy. Where does the Catholic Church state that sedevacantism is heresy?
Good point. If Francis is a true pope, then his masses have to be valid. If Francis is a true pope, then every “traditionalist” who believes so needs to get their you-know-what into the pews at their local Novus Ordo parish.
“…perhaps you would like to be the one to explain where the true Church can be found today. This will give mothermostforgiving a chance to witness the disaster that unfolds when a sedevacantist heretic attempts to do so.”
Is it that “I” will be witnessing the disaster which unfolds when some un-named “sedevacantist heretic” attempts to find where the true Church is? Who, Angelico, would this sedevantist heretic be, if that was what you were trying to say. Your wording was unclear.
So the conclusions here are: Because of what Francis said publicly about the Eucharist at the Feast of Corpus Christi calling it bread, but not “The Bread of Life” as in, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus – saying it publicly, if he or any other priest said that publicly, if they offered either the N.O. or the TLM, their Mass would be invalid. If a conservative priest said the N.O. Mass, it would likely be valid. If a heretical liberal priest says the N.O. it is likely not valid for the failure of the rite itself to state its intent. Unless Fr. Hesse can be refuted about the N.O. rite of ordination containing a statement of intent, it is likely valid if used by either a heretical or conservative bishop, unless the heretical bishop stated publicly his intent to do differently from what the Church does. Now Mr. Michael Wilson will argue that Pope Leo XIII said because the TLM stated it’s intent, to change it to not state it’s intent, would render it invalid itself. Fr. Hesse would argue the TLM, the Roman Rite, was not changed at all, but the New Novel Rite being a brand new rite and being illicit and schismatic in it’s inception, would be valid, even if it did not state it’s intent to do what the Church does, because it never stated it’s intent to do what the Church does in the first place. So if the New Novel Rite of Mass is judged as a schismatic rite and not the Roman Rite, a heretical priest, who has not gone public by stating his intent, could still offer that Mass and it could still be valid.
If the New Novel Rite is not a “new” rite then it is not condemned by the dogma of Trent and the doctrine of Constance and Fr. Hesse pointed out the doctrine of another council condemned the creating of an all new rite, but I don’t remember which it was, might have been Florence. Then it’s not illicit and schismatic! It would then be invalid at all times and all places according to the doctrine of Pope Leo XIII as pointed out by Mr. Michael Wilson! Is this the way God laughs his enemies to scorn? Pick your poison, either way, you lose!
If this is true: “IT IS CLEAR THAT NO CATHOLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND POPE HONORIUS. HE WAS A HERETIC, not in intention, but in fact.”,
… then you must concede that Pope Honorius was not a true heretic, or that he was severed from the papacy since that requires pertinacity. St. Bellarmine states re Marcelinus, “But Marcelinus neither taught something against faith, nor was a heretic, or unfaithful, except by an external act on account of the fear of death. Now, whether he fell from the pontificate due to that external act or not, little is related; later he abdicated the pontificate and shortly thereafter was crowned with martyrdom. Still, I believe that he would not have fallen from the pontificate ipso facto, because it was certain to all that he sacrificed to idols only out of fear.”.
Elsewhere, Bellarmine states that man can only judge what is manifest and judges a person to be a heretic by their manifest words and actions. The Church teaches the exact same thing. Whether they are truly heretics due to lack of intention or pertinacity is irrelevant to how we are to respond. The good will of the culprit needs to be made manifest so a new judgement can take place if need be. If good will is not made manifest then “men cannot be held to thoroughly search hearts yet when they see one who is a heretic by his external works, then they judge simply and condemn him as a heretic.”, thus says St. Bellarmine.
In summary and simply put, Honorius, was not a true heretic but was considered one in fact alone. Pope Leo did walk back the condemnation as is plain from his words. When external sources conflict we must look the Church for the solution. Tom A. does a great job reminding us that it is the Church that decides, not theologians. Vatican I clearly states the Church has never had a heretical Pope, thus Rome has spoken and all talk about Honorius, Liberius, Marcelinus, and John XXII being heretics must stop.
The SSPX and the R&R are dupes (hopefully) being used to destroy the objective truths concerning the office of the Papacy. The devil is not content in having the office sit vacant.
To answer your question about where the Church is; I will ask you one first. Where is God if you can’t see him? If you can’t see Him, does that mean He does not exist or He defected? Many things can be proven to be true by proving another, due to contingencies. I can tell you with moral certainty that the Catholic Church is not where the Novus Ordo is because of what the N.O. does and says. If I am wrong about that, then I will be judged by the VII/NO standards, which is pretty much a guarantee for heaven. However, if you are wrong, you will be judged by the Catholic Church’s standards (Pre-VII). Who do you think places the more prudent wager?
And how can something that is being eclipsed be visible to all, at the same time? There are way too many references I can offer that clearly demonstrate the almost certain position of there being an Ape of the Church as time comes to a close. However, to say the Bride of Christ and our Spotless Mother can be a Whore and enemy of Christ is the most offensive thing one can say to Catholic ears. I know you have not explicitly said that, but your position leads to that conclusion regardless of how you try to word it.
Just as Jesus did not persecute Himself, neither does the Church persecute Herself now. The persecution comes from Her enemies.
Peace and God bless.
Excellent ABL quotes regarding the marks of the true Church.
For those who believe that the Vatican II church = the Catholic Church, show me its four marks: One, Holy, Catholic AND Apostolic.
(Honorius was condemned, it is true, but not as a formal heretic; his entire offense was, as Pope Leo II said, “neglecting the duty of his apostolic authority by not extinguishing the nascent flame of heresy, and fomenting it by his negligence.”20)
Also from same article:
Let us look attentively at the words of the same Pope, St. Leo II, in his confirmation letter for the Sixth Council, a letter addressed to the emperor and to the bishops of the East: “We anathematize the inventors of the new dogma, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, intruders rather than bishops of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not strive to maintain the purity of this Apostolic Church by teaching the tradition of the Apostles, but who permitted this Church without stain to be sullied by profane treason.”
The first group is condemned for teaching heresy and Honorius is condemned for not defending the faith. The Councils condemned Honorius as a heretic, but Pope St Leo II did not.
I hate to be a party pooper but I’m afraid that people have to move on from Archbishop Lefebvre and quoting him. Although one can provide quotes of his condemning any agreement with Rome, questioning the validity of the new sacraments, his comments on the new church being a schismatic church and that John Paul II is an antichrist, etc… one can easily find opposite quotes of his in favour of an agreement with Rome, rebuking and expelling priests who question the validity of the new mass and sacraments, his attachment to Rome and addressing JP2 as “Most Holy Father”, etc. He perhaps did many good things but he left behind a legacy of confusion and contradiction. I have heard anecdotally from two independent sources that in his later years he did not regard JP2 as pope, but what good is that when he kept it to himself and publicly disassociated with like-minded clergy and laity.
Forget about Archbishop Lefebvre. There is the catechism out there that St Pius X said we must study for an hour every Sunday. There are many good pre-Vatican II catechisms: the various Baltimores, the Council of Trent catechism, Deharbe, My Catholic Faith (which the SSPX has reprinted but amusingly contradicts many SSPX beliefs concerning the Church and the Papacy). The Catholic Faith is more important than Archbishop Lefebvre.
Archbishop Lefebvre, from his book Spiritual Journey, chapter II:
“This “Conciliar Church” is imbued with the principles of 1789. These are Masonic principles with respect to religion and religions in general and with respect to civil society. Its foundation was an imposture inspired by Hell for the destruction of the Catholic religion, of its Magisterium, of its priesthood, and of the Sacrifice of Our Lord.
This new Church can no longer sing the praises of Jesus Christ, universal King of nations, can no longer have the thoughts of Our Lord with respect to the world. That is why the whole spirit of the liturgy has been modified by the changing of a multitude of details, in texts and in gestures.”
Muslims worship a false non existent god called allah. We worship the true Triune God. To say we worship the same God is a lie, an heresy, and a contradiction. No amount of your tergiversating can whitewash this heresy from Vatican II.
I tend to agree with your assessment of ABL and what he has said throughout the years. In this case, I just found his comments about the four marks of the true Church very interesting as I had never seen them before this.
“That is as bad if not worse than what Vatican II teaches…”
You wish? Just because Pope St. Gregory VII did not include in his epistle EVERY condition for one’s acceptance into Heaven does not mean that his epistle proclaims acceptance of Islam as the wonderful “religion of peace” that John Paul II salivated over, nor does that epistle find anything acceptable in Islam other than “WE WORSHIP ONE GOD, THOUGH IN DIFFERENT WAYS.” In this, he was merely acknowledging Muslims’ belief in One Omnipotent Supreme Being who will judge all which He created. They DO believe that. So what? They also believe in polygamy and in murdering anyone who doesn’t toe the line with regard to Islam’s dictates, among other things. And just because Pope St. Gregory did not say in his epistle “Oh, and by the way, Islam is repellent to Almighty God and I hereby condemn it with the only proviso that it is acceptable in that it proclaims God to be the One and Holy Creator of all” does not mean he failed in his office.
Neo-Gallicans like Angelico love to find fault with previous Popes where none exist. They relish is tearing down the Papacy. They love to hurl invectives at their enemies like “papolatry” and “ultramontanism.” They forget these terms were coined by enemies of the Church. On all matters of the Papacy, they side with protestants and schismatic Old Catholics. You can see it in everyone of his posts how he interprets history through this lens. But this attitude is exactly what is taught by SSPX, Remnant, Siscoe, Salza, and the R&R crowd.
Like I said earlier, I’m no theologian, but the Chruch needs them, certainly. Their function is to catch the enemies of the Church (who many times pose as “Catholics”) in falsehood. True Catholic theologians ultimately cannot fail because they have the Truth on their side. When you get right down to it, the conciliar crowd—and here I include the converts (so-called) who refuse to honor Our Blessed Mother and who, therefore, laugh at the suggestion that they pray 15 decades of the Rosary every day—isn’t interested in the concomitant devoutness found in the life of a Catholic. As I also said earlier, I grew up in the forties and fifties and I clearly remember what Catholicism was: Man, contrary to the audacious utterances and actions of JPII, does NOT inherently possess dignity (quite the opposite); he only participates in dignity when he embraces Christ. And, inseparable from that dignity is a profound humility which colors every aspect of the Christian’s life. Look at the VII Popes, the typical Novus Ordo “presider” and the small crowd of people who weekly (maybe) attend NO services. They’re not Catholic. The NO is not Catholic and is evil for calling itself Catholic. These are two diametrically opposed religions: one worships God, the other Man.
tradprofessor–you are so right. Angelico has a lot of bait in his trap. Don’t fall in!
Yes, you would be able to witness the disaster that unfolds if any sedevacantist here attempts to explain where the Church is today.
Given that sedevacantists believe that the principle of visible unity – the Roman Pontiff – is currently absent, is it any surprise that there would be discord or disagreements on matters of authority?
However, they lack unity accidentally, but not substantially, vis-a-vis their opinions on the Novus Ordo, t
the Papacy, Vatican II, and the Catholic Church’s identity as the sole Church of Christ.
Compare to the Vatican II Church, which professes non-Catholic sects can be means of salvation, that preaches dialogue instead of conversion, that has slowly and incrementally adapted to the world, that supposedly possesses a true Pope yet is divided in her hierarchy and in her own teachings, dogma, and doctrines.
The Vatican II church possesses accidental unity in terms of a visible hierarchy, yet her own internal contradictions betray a lack of substantial unity in faith, morals, and religious practice.
It’s worse than that, since moral evils are also contributing to the darkness. Here’s how I would explain it.
During an eclipse, the sun remains in the same place it has always been, but it’s light gradually decreases as the moon passes in front of it. Eventually, the entire sun is covered in darkness (from our point of view), yet it remains where it has always been, and is as bright as ever. If we relied only on what our senses perceived, we could easily conclude that the sun is no longer there, or has entirely changed, but our reason, informed by human knowledge, assures us that the sun is still there, that its light still shines as bright as ever, and that no essential change has taken place.
A solar eclipse is the perfect analogy of the state of the Church today. The light of the Church is covered over by the darkness of sin, error, and confusion caused by her sinful members (which is all we are shown by the Catholic and secular media), but we know, by faith, that the visible Church, the institution, remains where she has always been, unchanged, and that her light continues to shine brightly in many of her holy members. But at the present time the light of her holy members is never, or hardly ever seen from the outside, because “men love darkness, rather than the light,” and therefore they focus all attention on the evils that the media presents to them, thereby satiating their love of darkness and gratifying their curious desires.
Eventually, the scandals become too much for them to handle, they lose hope, and end by concluding that the institution of the Church has defected.
During a total eclipse, we know by REASON and that the sun remains where it has always been, even though it doesn’t appear so. In the present crisis in the Church (which has been predicted), we know by FAITH that the Church remains where it has always been, and unchanged, in spite of the darkness that has eclipsed it.
At the time of Christ’s passion, all the apostles lost the faith (except perhaps John), because of what they witnessed Christ endure, so it is no surprise that many are losing the faith today as they witnessing what the visible Church is enduring.
And who was it that brought about the Passion of Christ? It was the High Priest and leaders of the true Church of the Old Testament, just as the Passion of Mystical Body is being brought about by the High Priest (the Pope), and leaders of the True Church of the New Testament. Not the High Priest and leaders of a false Church, but the High Priest and leaders of the true Church.
We were warned that “the great apostasy in the Church would begin at the top” – at the top of the true Church – and that is precisely exactly what has happened.
The prophecy of Akita describes with striking accuracy what is happening, right now, to the Church, not to a false Church, but to the true Church.
Akita: “As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day, recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, PRAY FOR THE POPE, the Bishops and priests. THE WORK OF THE DEVIL WILL INFILTRATE EVEN INTO THE CHURCH in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. THE CHURCH and altars will be vandalized. THE CHURCH will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. The demon will rage especially against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will no longer be pardon for them.” (Our Lady of Akita, 1973).
We are living through this now, and it was all predicted to happen to THE CHURCH – not a false Church.
@Angelico: Those you defend in the conciliar or institutional church are wounding the visible bonds of unity of the True Church through manifold means.
Their wounding of the visible bonds of unity of the True Church make it difficult for the faithful to identify exactly where the True Church is.
The ultimate attack of those wounding the visible bonds of unity of the True Church has been to place successively heretics in the Seat of St. Peter, since a True Pope IS the principle of unity in the True Church.
I think you know all this and are chuckling at how long it has taken a member of the humble faithful to figure this all out.
In summary, it is not a sin and it is not a denial of dogma for the faithful to have difficulty in identifying exactly where the True Church is when bootlicks of the hirelings in the SSPX like you are sinfully using your knowledge of these issues to mislead the faithful.
Angelico, Akita was never approved.
Eh, 1973. Even if it were approved by the pope….it would be a Vatican 2 church “pope”.
“Nothing is Vatican II directly contradicts defined dogma”.
This is demonstrating either you do not know what V2 dox actually state, or you do not properly understand what the Church teaches. The devil is in the details. Literally.
Exactly WHO is mankind’s Judge on the Last Day?
“I believe…in Jesus Christ, His Only Son…He will come again in glory to JUDGE the living and the dead.”
Christ Jesus is our Judge. Muslims don’t even believe that garbage about their worshipping the same God that we do! No one but ignorant conciliar church sheep swallow it! There is no Triune God in Muslims’ “religion”; they DENY (aka as anti-Christ) the Divinity of Christ, His Crucifixion, His Resurrection. They say we are going to hell for our blaspheming God by our belief in Christ.
So to blaspheme GOD, to state CHRIST is not our Judge but God the Father…yeah, that DOES directly contradict DOGMA.
“In summary and simply put, Honorius, was not a true heretic but was considered one in fact alone. Pope Leo did walk back the condemnation as is plain from his words. When external sources conflict we must look the Church for the solution. Tom A. does a great job reminding us that it is the Church that decides, not theologians. Vatican I clearly states the Church has never had a heretical Pope, thus Rome has spoken and all talk about Honorius, Liberius, Marcelinus, and John XXII being heretics must stop.
The SSPX and the R&R are dupes (hopefully) being used to destroy the objective truths concerning the office of the Papacy. The devil is not content in having the office sit vacant.”
It is proper to refer to the Blessed Sacrament as “Bread from Heaven” “Bread of Angels”, etc.
It is not proper to state that Jesus becomes bread; bread becomes Jesus.
Angelico, when you say, “Where is it?” what is your own answer? If we think in terms of an eclipse, Francis would be the leading character in the eclipse. I certainly wouldn’t turn to him and say, “That is where we find the truth!” He himself does not faithfully represent the sun.
I am not sedevecantist. I leave it up to a future pope to straighten things out, while we for now have to live through painfully confusing times. The Church still exists. I just won’t turn to Francis to teach me about it. For me, I’ve decided that the SSPX has been holding to the true Traditions of the Church, and since I’m blessed to have a chapel nearby, I have been attending their Masses since last December.
You keep referring to a Novus Ordo institution, as though there is such a thing and it’s the same thing as the Catholic Church. If that were the case, then prior to the 1960’s we had a “Latin Mass institution”, and now we have a “Novus Ordo institution”. That would mean we belong to a church that has been redefined. That can’t happen. The Catholic Church can only be the Church that teaches all Church doctrines and Traditions. Francis and the rest of the modernists clearly do not hold to those truths, so I cannot turn to them for the truth. That doesn’t mean I don’t accept Francis as having been elected pope. They certainly went through the motions to elect him, and as I said, I’ll leave it to a future pope to solve that painful, incomprehensible situation.
But to answer the question, “Where is the Church?” I believe it is found where the truth is still held and faithfully handed on, and for me that’s in the chapel where I attend Mass every Sunday. I can attend that Mass and not be taught heresy, or Democratic politics, or pure nonsense that can be potentially harmful. The same cannot be said of the other parishes in my diocese, although I do belong to a particularly bad one.
So, where do you find the Church? Do you find it when listening to Francis? If not, then where?
I asked my nephew, who first encouraged me to go to consider the claims of the SSPX, a similar question recently after some other horrendous statement coming out of the Vatican. I said that the SSPX has to say something or they’re complicit by their silence.
I thought he had a good answer. He said, “I’m not sure how much weight the SSPX really has to influence people outside of their devoted followers They would just be ignored as schismatics. Cardinals and NO bishops can’t be ignored as easily.” As far as that goes, theologians and college professors who have bravely spoken out, as in the Easter Open Letter, got some attention without being accused of being schismatics but really, how far did that go? A small handful of bishops and cardinals have spoken out, but what cane of any of that, either? It encouraged those of us who care, it went over the heads of the clueless Catholics who keep showing up at Masses no matter how irreverently offered, and Rome ignored it all as usual.
Those who attend the SSPX already know that we need to hold to consistent Church teaching. They already know that there are serious problems within the Church. The job of the Society is to provide for the spiritual needs of the people who come to them. They don’t need the distraction of arguing with people who cannot hear the truth because of the prejudices we’ve been well-taught to hold against the SSPX.
The only really tragic thing the SSPX could do right now is announce that they’ve accepted all the documents of VII, that they are grateful for Francis for clarifying Church teaching even beyond the brilliance and orthodoxy of VII, and that they’ve decided to celebrate the Novus Ordo in honor of their reunification, complete with abandoned genuflection.
We’re told that Our Lady of Good Success said, “There will be occasions when all will seem lost and paralyzed. This then will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration.” I’m afraid that “all will seem lost” will involve the SSPX giving in, but at least if that happens, I’ll know that the restoration is about to begin.
It is very interesting to see the comments bashing the SSPX as if they have not been the only official body in the Church clinging thoroughly to the traditions of the Church throughout its entire history.
After 40 years as an SSPX faithful, I can say that never have we been told by anyone with authority that it is okay to participate in a Novus Ordo Missae. On the contrary, we have consistently been told that it is sinful and offensive to God and that *the validity of the NOM and its sacraments is doubtful*. That sounds plain to me and it has always been the case. We are regularly told not to even attend the indult Masses. And why would we? They were just allowed to the priests who betrayed the Society (FSSP) and compromised with Rome agreeing to say that the NOM was okay and en par with the true one. And of course they had to call the true Mass, “extraordinary” and even say it on occasion. Not to mention accepting all the errors of Vatican II without exception. All of these matters have been consistently dealt with both by the founder of saintly memory, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and every successor since. Not to mention the superiors, seminary rectors and priests themselves. The Archbishop foresaw all of these developments decades ago and plainly warned the world where it would all lead. Those who did not listen at the time, but who are now only recently “awake”, are among the most vocal and bitter critics of the SSPX.
I admit, it is always galling to see the proud, unjust and smug Johnny-come-lately know-it-alls with their never ending criticisms of the Society, without which the true Mass would have been completely abolished after Vatican II. Ingratitude is one of the worst looks. And it is not only ingratitude to the Archbishop and his Society, but ingratitude to Our Divine Lord, who raised them up.
It appears that Angelico has “left the building”.