I recently returned home from Portland, OR where I had the great pleasure of speaking at an event commemorating Pope St. Pius X, hosted by Fr. Jonathan Loop, FSSPX, and the parishioners of Our Lady of Fatima Church.
My talk largely focused on the undeniably stark contrast that exists between Pope St. Pius X and Pope Francis, and to illustrate the point we juxtaposed the Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique of the former with Evangelii Gaudium of the latter.
In so doing, we discovered that the primary point of distinction between these two Roman Pontiffs lies in their disparate views on the duties incumbent upon the Successors of St. Peter, and predictably, therefore, their respective agendas.
In Notre Charge Apostolique, we find Pope St. Pius X warning against the activities of a socio-political movement in France called the Sillon, the errors of which bear a close resemblance, in their essence, to certain currents running through the Church, most notably during the pontificate of Pope Francis.
Among the condemnations issued by the Holy Father that seem to fit the current situation in Rome rather well is the following:
… this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity…
Pope Francis’ well-established disdain for those who “observe certain rules” and have an affinity for “a supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline” (cf Evangelii Gaudium) has been discussed at length, both on these pages and elsewhere.
As for evidence of the desire to build a “One-World Church” wherein all manner of false religions are invited to act in solidarity for the alleged good of society (as was the desire of the Sillonists), one need look no further than the recently concluded, Vatican sponsored, Humanum Colloquium.
Invited to participate in the Colloquium, wherein a “New Affirmation on Marriage” was formulated, was a wide assortment of heathens and heretics representing Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormonism, just to name a few of the 14 religions there present.
One can barely imagine how outraged and saddened Pope St. Pius X would have been at the thought of our sacred hierarchs, with the approval of a future pope, lowering themselves to collaborate with the gurus of false religion, and this under the pretense that humankind will benefit from churchmen behaving as if the Holy Catholic Church is but one voice among many relative to the duty to teach the divinely revealed truth about the sacrament of marriage.
Such, however, is the wretched state of affairs in the Rome of today, as the diabolical disorientation of which Our Lady of Fatima forewarned runs rampant through the upper levels of the Church.
Of course, not all would agree with my assessment.
Indeed, there are any number of so-called “conservative” Catholics who would dismiss the allegation that the Humanum Colloquium gives the false impression that the Church is in some way lacking as it concerns the wherewithal to teach and defend the truth about marriage.
For instance, Dr. Helen Alvare, Media Director of the Colloquium, suggested that the interreligious event was essentially ordered toward “surfacing new language” in defense of marriage.
Sounds harmless enough, I suppose; at least until such time as one considers the words of Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, one of the co-sponsors of the event.
In his address to the Colloquium, this Prince of Holy Church saw fit to quote by name the United Nations’ Universal Declaration on Human Rights, saying, “the family represents the true foundations of society.”
There can be little doubt that this manner of speaking rings musical for the santo subito crowd; after all, the Council itself saw fit to label marriage “the foundation of society.”
Pope St. Pius X – the last Roman Pontiff to be formally sainted before the Post-Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Award unceremoniously replaced what used to be known as canonization – would likely argue, however, that Jesus Christ is the true foundation of society; the same Jesus Christ who commissioned His Mystical Body and Bride, the Catholic Church, to teach the truth about marriage (and everything else He commanded) in His name.
Speaking to the Bishops of France, Pope St. Pius X said:
The City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work … it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. (Notre Charge Apostolique)
While claiming recourse to the humanist U.N., as if it were an authoritative source, was just a hint that Cardinal Tauran imagines that the Catholic Church is inadequately equipped to treat of the topic at hand, he eventually went on to remove all doubt as he plainly declared, “Even in the field of marriage and family, no one religion is an island!”
Cardinal Tauran would have done just as well to serenade the assembly with a heartfelt rendition of that sappy 1990’s love song, I need you now, more than words can say, I need you now…
How embarrassing.
As for the expression, “no religion is an island,” Cardinal Tauran wasn’t just waxing poetic, no indeed; he was actually tipping his zucchetto to Rabbi Abraham Heschel, the late influential Council “observer” whose essay by that same name is revered as “holy writ” by the most fervent of ecumenists.
In truth, the very notion of a Humanum Colloquium finds its inspiration in the aforementioned “Gospel according to Heschel,” the passages of which are littered with all manner of affronts that are aimed directly at the Holy Catholic Church. For example:
Our era marks the end of self-reliance … There was a time when you could not pry out of a Boston man that the Boston State House is not the hub of the solar system or that one’s own denomination has not the monopoly of the holy spirit. [NOTE: This is clearly a reference to Catholics.] Today we know that even the solar system is not the hub of the universe. The religions of the world are no more self-sufficient, no more independent, no more isolated than individuals or nations. No religion is an island … We must choose between interfaith and inter-nihilism. [No religion is an island: Abraham Joshua Heschel and interreligious dialogue, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, 1991, pgs. 5-6]
And what has the Humanum Colloquium to show for its sellout to Heschel’s anti-Catholic manifesto?
Six sentimental, multilingual videos, the most “viral” of which has been viewed by its global target audience a whopping 31,296 times as of this writing.
Dr. Alvare, for her part, called the videos an “unmitigated success.”
Oh, and then there’s the Colloquium’s crown jewel, “A New Affirmation on Marriage,” which is little more than a saccharine ode to humanity wherein Almighty God, He who established marriage, merited exactly no mention whatsoever.
The bottom line in all of this is at once simple and tragic:
The preponderance of our sacred hierarchs, under the headship of Pope Francis, no longer believe that the Holy Catholic Church is that “perfect society, founded by Christ, with the task committed to her by God of teaching, ruling, and guiding mankind to eternal bliss.” (cf Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas)
Likewise, they no longer believe that this “perfect society, far excelling every other, is enjoined by her Founder that for the salvation of mankind she is to contend ‘as an army drawn up in battle array.’” (cf Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae)
As such, they seek only to build a One-World Church, the church-of-man, in conjunction with those who, like themselves, believe neither the truth about Jesus Christ nor the one true Church that He established.
I was reading through Pope Francis’ address to the EU Parliament in France this week…(the text can be found on this page: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/never-before-seen-empty-streets.html )…not a mention of Christ or Jesus in the whole speech. One generic mention of the Lord…one. There were, however, lots of calls to human dignity. Indeed, “the dignity of man” is the theme and foundation of the pope’s speech.
While we have already lost explicit calls to conversion to the Catholic Church from popes in the post-V2 era, it seems we have now taken another step toward the end. We now have a pope who doesn’t even mention Christ, let alone the Church He founded in His own blood on the cross of Calvary.
“Is the pope Catholic?” is no longer a rhetorical question. Perhaps asking “Is the pope Christian? is also legitimate.
” Today we know that even the solar system is not the hub of the universe. The religions of the world are no more self-sufficient, no more independent, no more isolated than individuals or nations. No religion is an island … We must choose between interfaith and inter-nihilism. ”
———————————————
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as the hermeneutic of continuity with the Copernican Heresy, the heresy of Galileo, the heresy of Einstein Relativity.
—————-
Everyone needs to get on board with the Catholic FACT that the Earth does not move and that the universe revolves around the footstool of Christ the King!
—————
Support the Principle Movie by asking local theatres to bring it to your state, and the work of Real Catholic men like Robert Sungenis:
http://galileowaswrong.com/
CANADA & THE UNITED STATES ARE NOW ENGAGED IN ECUMENISM WITH NAZISM!
–
Standing virtually alone and politically isolated. Many around the world were shocked when the US, Canada, and Ukraine voted against a Russian proposed UN resolution condemning the heroization of Nazism. Is this an attempt to whitewash fascism, or merely a desperate maneuver to protect the Kiev regime?
–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrlDi9Twfyo
THE POPE’S FALLIBLE ON EVOLUTION
Joseph Farah urges pontiff to state which parts of Bible he does believe
–
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/the-popes-fallible-on-evolution/
–
Undermining the Bible can’t be good for Protestant ecumenism now can it? But I guess Pope Francis is all about pleasing atheists these days, which is why he prefers to keep giving them interviews.
“Undermining the Bible can’t be good for Protestant ecumenism now can it?”
Ecumenism isn’t directed at those dastardly “fundamemtalist” Protestants, their as bad in the eyes of modernists as traditionalist Catholics.
Ecumenism is for the watered down liberal protestant sects.
I sincerely appreciate the information you provide. It really keeps me on track, and justifies my distrust of what is taking place in the Vatican. It has been impossible to place any trust in Pope Francis since he stepped out on the balcony, or was it when the bolt of lightning struck the St. Peter’s dome??
It is discouraging to see many led astray under this pontificate…
However that does not mean we should give up the fight nor think that they will come out on top. God is still in charge, even as he lets the devils have thier day…
This is an interesting and important analysis. I did, however, feel the need to step back from the trees just to survey the wood.
The primary point of distinction between Jorge Bergoglio and Pope Pius X must surely be that which was highlighted by Bp. Sanborn in response to Bergoglio’s statement that “God does not exist” (emphasis below added):
“What is breathtaking to me is that this attack upon the very nature of God…can pass unnoticed and uncorrected by the entire ‘Catholic’ world.”
It would not have gone unnoticed by the Pope.
Dumb-Ox,
Where or when did Pope Francis every say that God did not exist?
I must have missed that…
The description of the apostasy by man-centred, materialist ideology described by Pope Pius X is an exact description of the false “religion” coming from the pope and all other bishops and priests who deny the Deposit of Faith and the Divine Law.
With shame:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-god-does-not-exist.htm
I’m all in favour of cordial relations between the Church and other religions. But only when the authenticity of Church teaching is practice, by the clergy and laity in the Church.
Instead we appear to have a Church which contains inauthentic practice by the laity, arguably as a result of inauthentic Church teaching by the clergy.
First, I have to say what a treat it was to have Louie visit the hinterland. People traveled from Seattle (150 miles to the north) as well as from points south, and no one was disappointed. It appears he has quite a fan club!
Mr. Morphy’s comment (10) is my sentiment regarding relations with other religions. The foolishness of bending over backward to accommodate any and all beliefs outside of our own, however, is appalling! And of course, the comment ‘no church is an island’ is totally quaint (neo-70s?). Did not the Catholic Church exist before any other Christian and most non-Christian sects? Where do we leave off referring to them as ‘churches’? (I won’t mention JPll’s inter-‘religious’ activities…you certainly can’t believe that the worship of the ‘great thumb’ is a religion!) If there is still anyone existing who believes that the get-togethers such as those in preparation for October 2015 enjoy spontaneous conversation and interchange, I hope you will not go alone if you are thinking of buying a car or a house, etc.
Anyway, thank you for a great presentation, Louie, and happy Thanksgiving to all!
The vile fruit of mass abandonment of the Faith by the bishops and priests.
Louie writes quoting Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae:
” Likewise, they no longer believe that this “perfect society, far excelling every other, is enjoined by her Founder that for the salvation of mankind she is to contend ‘as an army drawn up in battle array.’”
___
In my opinion, if Louie would have cut off the quote after the fifth word, he would have nailed it!
___
To support the above, please read Sandro Magisters column “The Lenses of the Cardinal, the Sociologist, the Journalists”. It was an eye opener to see the “advice” that was provided to the Italian Bishops’ Conference at their recent meeting. The interesting bit is from the “sociologist”. The relevant text is as follows:
.
Sociologist writes:
“The great advantage of this option [low intensity religion] consists in the fact that it gives the religious consumer an almost infinite variety of choice and of recombination among the goods and services placed on the market by the most varied providers of religious supply.
.
Low-intensity religion also offers great opportunities to the religious authorities. If these are able to reduce their normative demands, they are guaranteed a great future and a discrete spotlight as religious entrepreneurs.”
___
If the you did not know the topic of the speech, you could easily conclude that they were speaking about opening a massage parlor.
In November 1906, Pope St Pius X blessed the faithful saying that one who exclaimed, “Blessed be the most holy name of Jesus, without end!” gained 300 days indulgence. He also issued an indulgence of seven years for those who proclaimed, ‘Dominus meus et Deus meus’ at the elevation of the host. In fact many beautiful, gracious and simple indulgences were given to the Faithful by Pius X. Bergoglio, who is not a schismtic, but simply an anathema, gives ‘indulgences’ to those who couldn’t give a toss about the Blood of Christ.
–
St Athanasius instructed that the noetic (spritual) eye be plucked out of the Body of Christ if it causes scandal. ‘If a Bishop, who is the eyes of the Church, conduct himself in an evil manner and scandalalises the people, he must be plucked out, for it is more profitable to gather without him in a house of prayer, than to be cast together with him into the Gehenna of fire.’
–
St John Chrysostrom said: ‘Should we then obey those who are wicked? and wicked in what sense? If he is wicked with regards to matter of Faith, flee and avoid him, whether he be a man or an angel come down from heaven…but if in regard to his life, be not overly curious…’
–
If the concillar Catholic Church still continued to believe that it holds the eternal truths, it would continue to uphold Holy Tradition as the benchmark of those Truths. Insteads it no longer even believes in eternal Truths let alone that it is the keeper of them.
Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ is smothered by the counterfeit-church – a counter-syllabus (Ratzinger), the aim of which is to appease the ‘spirit’ of Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, atheism, secularism; basically every thought, way, or ‘worship’, that hates the Blood of Christ – the Way, the Truth and the Life.
–
The spin, the lie of ‘Ecumenical Christianity’ is the red carpet for antichrist.
–
The authentic One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ is not divided into sects that diverge in teaching, worship and discipline. It does not seek to become unified with false religions and false teachings or treat false-popes as worshipful idols. The ‘sacraments’ of heretics, including baptism and especially the Eucharist, are not effectual for salvation. Using so-called ‘brotherly love’ as a pretext for disseminating lies and uniting with antichrist is ‘anathema’.
–
Where is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? We were told to ask, seek and knock.
What is that in the foreground of the picture above? It looks like an outline of a stomach. Can’t figure it out.
Salvemur:
Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ is smothered by the counterfeit-church – a counter-syllabus (Ratzinger)
Lionel:
When Cardinal Ratzinger said in CCC 1257 that God was not limited to the Sacraments THAT was a counter-Syllabus of Errors.
The outline of two heads and an arm?
salvemur
Where is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? We were told to ask, seek and knock.
Lionel:
You are in the One,Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. You have found it when you are aware that God has chosen salvation to be limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257) and there are no visiblle cases of persons over the last 100 years or more, saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), a subsist it church (LG 8), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8), seeds of the Word etc. Once you have discovered this, you will find that Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the necessity of the Social Reign of Jesus Christ over all political and social legislation.
That artwork is gross and I daresay diabolical! If that is supposed to portray an opposite sex couple I’m an orthodox Baptist. Look at the figures. Unisex. That supposedly male arm looks feminine like a fat thigh at the top. The “male” looks like a butch lesbian. And is that arm supposed to suggest a phallus going into a woman? I see things in that image that suggest disordered sex. I’m a medical person. Ever heard of a fecalith? I’m serious. This is revolutionary “art” and someone is having the last laugh. It’s characteristic of Vatican II art–ugly. Can someone find out who created that abomination?
Sorry Lionel, WE are NOT the Church. The Church is the visible sign of The Mystical Body of Christ.
—
We are members of that invisible body by being members of the physical body – the Catholic Church.
—
It’s easy to fall into newspeak.
—
Lionel, God will save those He wills to save. I know we need dogma, and Church Tradition, but can’t you let God decide? In my humble opinion there are so many more fires to be put out, and things to beg Heaven for than who’s saved and who’s not.
—
Our Lady asked the Fatima Children to pray and make sacrifices for poor souls who have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them. She meant us to pray that God would bring all His children to salvation. Surely the means is up to Him, and Her?
I think you should be more concerned that you are a “baptist” and therefore a heretic. That picture should be the least of your worries.
Indeed, Lionel, you have unfortunately fallen away from the Magisterium by bounding God to the Sacraments ONLY!! Just the mere fact that in making a Act of Perfect Contrition a dying person in mortal sin can be saved without Confession (provided he wants to go to Confession) refutes your erroneous assertion!
Gagnelli: I’m a Catholic. Instead of saying I’m a monkey’s uncle if that portrays an opposite arc couple, I chose something equally impossible (for me)–an orthodox baptist if there even is such a thing. Do you not understand hyperbole?
That should read “opposite sex couple” above.
My apologies. And I agree with you. I hate modern “art”.
In all of Catholicism could they not find an artist who would render a beautiful logo depicting married love. Why was something so peculiar and wretched chosen?
Gangenelli: I do not hate modern art. Mondrian, Hopper and Klee are alright with me. I hate Vatican II church art with its dykey madonnas and effeminate Christs. It’s all putrid. Smash it all! Let’s start with the LA Cathedral.
Sorry Lionel I did not have my glasses on when I read your post. You did not say that WE are the Church.
—
But the rest of my post still stands. Ask yourself this question: Why do we have a feast day for The Holy Innocents? They were not baptized, and they did not have the intellect to know they were dying for Jesus, nor did they have an opportunity to desire the will of God be done. Yet they were ‘saved.’
—
For those outside the Church who are in invincible ignorance, God will send an Angel, a missionary, or will Himself inspire them to know what’s necessary for salvation.
—
This is Tradition, Dogma, and Church Teaching throughout the ages.
Father Ripperger has a great article on Art in The Latin Mass magazine – it will be in their archives.
—
True Art is representational art. It must show God’s beauty in creation. Paint splashes on a canvas is not art.
—
Modern art which is praised to the skies by so-called experts is a perfect example of The Emperor Has No Clothes. No one wants to be the first to say: “hey, this is a bunch of paint splatters on canvas. It’s not art!!”
Dear Johnno, We believe you’ve misstated this situation.
We watched the entire video in your link, which was billed as a “cross-talk”, but we noticed all three guests and the announcer enthusiastically promoted only one viewpoint, so it has the distinct appearance of Russian propaganda.
__
We researched the U.S. explanations for why they voted against the resolution, and found they cited objectionable inclusions– which have nothing to do with the Nazis, but with threats to our freedoms. This resolution is apparently put forth annually, and rejected annually by the U.S. and Canada. (with 55 abstensions)
___
Finally, we read the resolution itself at
http://www.mediafire.com/view/94n40m3x00dr355/N1460426.pdf
and found our own very objectionable inclusions such as:
–Resolution #3. Expresses its appreciation to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office for their efforts to fight racism, racial discrimination, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE- INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE by the Office OF THE DATABASE ON PRACTICAL MEANS TO COMBAT RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENPHOPIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE…”
—Resolution #7. Expresses CONCERN AT recurring ATTEMPTS TO DESECRATE OR DEMOLISH MONUMENTS erected IN REMEMBRANCE OF THOSE WHO FOUGHT AGAINST NAZISM DURING WWII; as well as to unlawfully exhume or remove the remains of such persons…
—Resolution #11. Calls upon States to improve NATIONAL LEGISLATION AIMED AT PREVENTING HATE SPEECH and incitement to violence against vulnerable groups..
=======
It’s the usual U.N. New World Order stuff–which would eliminate freedom of speech, keep DATA BASE records on “suspected” “intolerants” -which has been easily turned against Scripture and Catholicism in the past; Fear of Foreigners–which can be turned against our Border Protections: and forbidding any demolition of monuments built to honor those who fought the Nazis –(such as pulling down statues of Stalin to protest Totalitarian dictatorship).
___
All great reasons to vote against it, despite opposition to the Nazi mentality.
The U.S. Senate tries this all the time with “riders” and Pork.
I did not say I liked Jackson Pollack ;). But really, who could argue with a winsome Modigliani?
“Art” utilised for the purpose of attacking and subverting Faith, truth, beauty and right order is necessarily ugly – to those who are still know and are attracted to the truth.
Establishing the one-world church … you’re getting warmer. What specifically prevents you from acknowledging that Francis is the second beast of revelation chapter 13, the false prophet, who prepares the way for the one world government leader (new world order) antichrist? Drop me a private email if you wish.
Well, I am flent in Italian, and thus, I understand what he said.
He presents the case of someone for whom God is but a philosophical concept. He says then that such a God does not exist, God is the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are Persons.
Thus he is saying nothing more than what any Catholic would say. One cannot take 1 sound byte out of context and reinterpret it in another. That’s what sedevacantists and anyone without charity might do. But it is not catholic.
Quo Vadis Petre:
Indeed, Lionel, you have unfortunately fallen away from the Magisterium by bounding God to the Sacraments ONLY!! Just the mere fact that in making a Act of Perfect Contrition a dying person in mortal sin can be saved without Confession (provided he wants to go to Confession) refutes your erroneous assertion!
Lionel:
The dogma says all need the Sacraments for salvation, all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church. This is the magisterium.
Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7 ) says all need faith and baptism for salvation. This is a reference to the Sacraments by the magisterium.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) on the Neccesity of the Baptism of Water says the Church does not know of any means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. Again it is the magisterium which says salvation is bound to the Sacraments,
It is the magisterium which has contradicted itself:-
1.CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments.
2.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 implies that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words the baptism of desire refers to known cases in the present time on earth; they are visible on earth, the dead in Heaven are explicit on earth. Since they are visible they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney on the dogma.
3.The International Theological Commission has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney even though he held the traditional teaching on the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
4.In two theological papers of the International Theological Commission approved by Pope Benedict XVI it is implied that salvation in Heaven is visible on earth and this ‘spectre’ is an explicit exception to Tradition and is the theological basis for a theology of religions and a new ecclesiology.
__________________________________________________
Quo Vadis Petre:
Just the mere fact that in making a Act of Perfect Contrition a dying person in mortal sin can be saved without Confession (provided he wants to go to Confession) refutes your erroneous assertion!
Lionel:
You are making the same mistake as ‘the magisteriuim’ of the International Theological Commission etc.
The person who is saved after making a perfect contrition is not personally known to us. He is not visible in 2014.
So this hypothetical case cannot be an explicit exception to all needing the Sacraments in 2014, de facto, for salvation.
_________________________________________
Barbara:
But the rest of my post still stands. Ask yourself this question: Why do we have a feast day for The Holy Innocents? They were not baptized, and they did not have the intellect to know they were dying for Jesus, nor did they have an opportunity to desire the will of God be done. Yet they were ‘saved.’
Lionel:
Yes a person can be saved with the baptism of desire etc which are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for me. There can be a 100 persons saved this year with the baptism of desire etc and we would not know of them. So the baptism of desire is not an exception to the defined dogma which says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
____________________________________
—
For those outside the Church who are in invincible ignorance, God will send an Angel, a missionary, or will Himself inspire them to know what’s necessary for salvation.
Lionel:
Yes and we would not know who this person is? So this case would not be relevant to the traditional dogmatic teaching on salvation?
—
This is Tradition, Dogma, and Church Teaching throughout the ages.
Lionel:
The visible for us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is irrational and was not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church before 1949.
It is unfortunate that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was not mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor supported by the Magisterium after 1949.
Also Pope Pius XII did not affirm it in public during the Fr.Leonard Feeney case in Boston in 1949. This was about the time of the creation of the state of Israel.He could not get himself to say that all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. He let the confusion persist in the Church.
We know that he has said to Jews and Muslims that we all worship the same God. We also know that they do not believe in the Trinity.
God cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
“Charity” should not be available for only one person.
Roman Watcher, we all know that it matters little what anyone says these days. What’s important is how “THE WORLD” hears what’s said.
—
Is the Pope naive enough to be so careless? Yes, he is speaking to a certain group, at a certain time, and I guess should be free to say what he wants. But really! Is there no one in the entire Vatican that has any knowledge of PR? Or marketing? Or public speaking of any kind? Have they heard of the internet? Of Social Media? Of evil men who send evil over the airwaves. Of people who want to destroy the Catholic Church and will grab onto anything the Pope says?
—
Is there no one in the Vatican who reads what’s printed about Pope Francis’ off-the-cuff comments? Can’t they see how ‘misunderstood’ he is? Where are the clarifications? Where are the statements of pure Catholic teaching?
—
We’re left to draw our own conclusions. And so is THE WORLD. This is a very dark time when THE POPE can just get up and say the first thing that pops into his head, and this is presented to THE WORLD as truth, deep intellect, and holiness.
—
And then we have other people watching the skies for “chastisements’ and ‘three days of darkness.’ Forty million dead babies, and a very, very bad pope is a chastisement, and It’s pretty damned dark now!!!!!
Thank you Indignus, for bringing that to my attention. That’s a vital piece of information, whose absence undermines the whole discussion. Likewise there is a suspicious rise of both neo-nazism and Islamic fundamentalism, which is receiving funding from somewhere which conveniently necessitates Nations moving towards more draconian laws and thought-control.
———
If I’ve failed to point this out before, let it be said now:
Organizations like the U.N. and the European Union and any other Geopolitical Unions you hear being discussed anywhere are all modelled on the Soviet Union. There is no difference as they all occupy the same centralized government solution where its leaders are never elected, but who still command power over the sovereignty of individual nations.
————
One thing must be understood about the Communists. They are not and have never been patriots to any particular country. Borders do not exist for them. Therefore any organization or nation is fair game for them in what they see as a struggle about class. Therefore whether it be Russia, or the U.S. or the Catholic Church itself, they will infiltrate and use whatever means at their disposal. Reassess and wear any trappings in order to forward a progressive move into a Communist New World Order. Russia is no different, and Putin continually wants to defer power to the U.N. As does America, whenever it suits them. You do not want a globalist like Hillary Clinton running America, for she gets her marching orders and ideology of U.N. support over American Sovereignty from cartels like the CFR. Likewise there are Ecumenical inter-religious Councils who are likewise trying to eliminate borders between religions for a United World Religion, and from there you will find Priests, Bishops and Cardinals who are the clerical versions of a Clinton and a Putin. And just as they will put into office of President men or women who are moulded in their image. They will likewise even do so unto religions. The Office of the Papacy has long been their long-term goal. Keep that in mind.
Of course, Pope Francis knows what he’s saying. He’s been in senior leadership and public positions for decades, and is speaking as he did before being elected pope.
@Roman Watcher: You must believe, then, that every single one of his public actions and statements are consistent with the magisterium, correct? If he shows by his public acts or speeches that he does not profess the faith whole and inviolate then he is either a formal heretic or a mistaken Catholic. Since he is, after all, the Pope, it is hard to believe that he is merely mistaken? How can the Pope be the visible sign of unity if he doesn’t even know the faith?
You’re welcome. 🙂 🙂
Dear Mr Verrechio, is the discussion Mortalium Animos going to be resumed?
@Roman Watcher: Let’s see you spin this one: In the July 14 L’Osservatore Romano the following exchange was reproduced on p. 10:
–
“[Q:] Where is Bergoglio’s Church headed?
–
[A:] Thank God, I have no Church; I follow Christ. I have never founded anything. From the point of view of style, I have not changed from how I was in Buenos Aires. Yes, perhaps some small things — one must — but to change at my age would be ridiculous. In regard to the plan, on the other hand, I follow what the Cardinals requested during the General Congregations before the Conclave. I move in that direction. The Council of Eight Cardinals, an external body, arose from that. It was requested to help reform the Curia. Something, moreover, that is not easy because a step may be taken, but then it emerges that this or that must be done, and if before there was one dicastery, it then becomes four. My decisions are the fruit of the pre-Conclave meetings. I have not done anything on my own.
–
[Q:] A democratic approach…?
–
[A:] They were the Cardinals’ decisions. I do not know if it is a democratic approach. I would say it is more Synodal, even if the word is not appropriate for cardinals.”
–
http://vaticanresources.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf%2FING_2014_027_0407.pdf
–
Aside from the double-meaning indifferentist quote of “I have no Church I follow Christ” typical of modernists he betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the papal office he holds. How many times does he have to make a “I have no Church . . .” type of statement that is clearly meant to be disseminated to two different audiences – one with the context and one without – before people like you will admit that this is intentional? Regarding the papacy, he apparently believes that the power of the papal office resides in the first instance in the Church and it was merely conferred upon him to do a job identified by a group of cardinals – “My decisions are the fruit of pre-conclave meetings – I have not done anything on my own.”
–
Now does this “arrangement” and “understanding” of the papal office comport with VI’s decrees on papal primacy?:
–
“Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
–
We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the Lord.
–
[PROMISED]
–
It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas,
that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
spoke these words: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
–
[CONFERRED]
–
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.
–
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the Lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
–
The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
–
Therefore,
–
if anyone says that
–
blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant;
–
or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
–
let him be anathema.”
–
Remember, VI condemns persons who merely “say” these heretical conceptions of the papal office. Not only does he “say” these heretical conceptions of the papal office, he admits to actually be administering the papal office in accordance with these heretical understandings of the papal office!
Because I said that one of his homilies is by its context to be attributed a Catholic signification, how can you logically conclude that I hold that of every one of his talks.
Rather, I am a reasonable man, who would not even convict a known criminal, unless the offense for which he is charged is supported by the evidence brought forward for that charge.
If that makes me “suspect” in your mind, then I think you need to calm down and see pyschologist.
@Roman Watcher: Wow, someone calls you to task, and you immediately call the commenter’s sanity into question! That makes two ad hominem attacks in just a few comments! Aren’t you the one who claimed to be able to divine other commenter’s motivations through the keyboard?
–
Back to your initial comment that triggered my response. You said: ” One cannot take 1 sound byte out of context and reinterpret it in another. That’s what sedevacantists and anyone without charity might do. But it is not catholic.” I interpreted your statement as a gratuitous attack on those who hold to the sedevacantist position. Taken in context, you imply that sedevacantists are liars without charity who are not Catholic. I wasn’t trying to read your mind, I was just questioning you about the clear, on-its-face implication of your statement about sedevacantists.
–
I also interpreted your comment as an attempt to discredit sedevacantists in general. It simply isn’t Catholic to believe that sedevacantism is impossible. You do no readers here a service if you cause them to reject sedevacantism out of hand because, following your gratuitous comment about sedes, they now reject anything a sede might say as said by an uncharitable, non-Catholic liar.
–
Further, if you have rejected the sedevacantism position with respect to Pope Francis, I concluded that it must be because you believe everything he has done, said or written is orthodox. Have you rejected sedevacantism as a possible explanation of Pope Francis’ apparent heterdoxy?
–
Now, just to keep this in context, sedevacantism isn’t just something that only the supposed “nuts” who peruse the Dimond brothers website believe in. Main-stream Catholics have already broached the subject. I give two examples here:
–
http://buchanan.org/blog/price-papal-popularity-7042
–
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2014/on-heretical-popes.html
–
What say you now?
Yes, Lynda Pope Francis must know what he is saying. I just listened to a talk by John Venarri on St. Francis of Assisi and he ended by talking about Pope Francis: one thing he said jumped out at me:
—
We should take Pope Francis at his word. If he says it, he means it.
—
Scary eh?
—
I’ll get the link to the talk.
Link to talks from a Catholic Family News Conference in 2013 – the one on St. Francis, and Pope Francis:
—
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RhEzfJTMTU&index=130&list=PLQnnmi7rosWMDyu7tWQa8OLHA9MALBwoG
—
There is one in this conference by Louie which is very good – on John Courtney Muray – that heretic!!!!
Cyprian,
And remember the plane interview, glossed over because of all the other quotes, “St. Peter committed one of the greatest sins, denying Christ, and yet they made him pope. Think about that.” THEY?
Lionel,
This has been driving me nuts for a few weeks and I haven’t said anything. So against my better judgment, I’m going to go ahead and say something.
Look man, when the Church pronounces a dogma, it’s true, period. Whether or not we can scientifically measure it, see it, taste it, etc. It’s simply true.
And it is a dogmatic Truth that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Full stop. Whether we see it or not, it’s true. Before a soul leaves the body, if it’s not placed within the Catholic Church, it is not saved.
Whether or not we see it joined to the Church is irrelevant. If it is, it can be saved, if it’s not, it can’t be saved.
You whole lengthy tomes on “since we can’t see it, EENS is still true.” I’m sorry man, that statement makes no sense. I’m sorry to have to finally break it to you, but it just doesn’t make any logical sense. Your posts are distracting man. Please.
If a soul is outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, then it must enter Her one way or the other before death, or it’s lost. Can the Good Lord bring that soul in Himself in ways we can’t see in the moments before death? He sure can. Whether or not we see it is irrelevant. It remains a theoretical possibility…and one that doesn’t touch upon EENS. For IF that soul is saved, then it was indeed Catholic before death. Not partially, but fully inside the Church. Whether we see it or not.
Maybe Our Lord saves a lot this way, maybe none. We can’t know this side or the Pearly Gates. We simply have to work toward the objective of winning souls for Christ by bringing them into His One Holy Catholic Church…for outside of Her, there is NO salvation. Full stop.
CraigV, You aren’t the first person to explain this to Mr Andradas, and I doubt you’ll be the last, given his extraordinary tenacity in stating and restating his not very logical (at least not logically expressed) thesis on Catholic blogs!
Mr Andrades, you sure know how to persevere, but it’s probably time to take a break from it, at least on this blog. God bless you.
Dear Barbara, reason requires one to accept that the Pope is very aware of what he’s saying, that he intends to say it, and that he knows how it departs from the Deposit of Faith. He has been nothing if not consistent, pertinacious, in fact, in his opposing the Deposit of Faith, throughout his public life in senior positions of the Jesuit Order and the Church’s hierarchy. Lord, we pray for continuing discernment.
Cyprian,
If you are a sede, we will not agree about a great many things, because sedevacantists reject radically that the Church is a hierarchical institution, where even a sinner ca hold office, and where the decision of who is pope or who is not, is subject to the regular authority of the College of Cardinals or extraordinary authority Councils of Bishops, depending on diff circumstances, but never to the personal authority of laymen or priests or deacons etc..
All sedevacantists have this in common with Protestants, they only differ on the extent of the limits of private judgement; sedes with who is pope or who is not, who is a heretic (in canonical sense) and who is not. But Protestants go all the way and apply private judgement to doctrine, scripture and tradition.
BTW, If you read what I wrote and not what you want me to have written, you will see that I did not insult you, I used a conditional, if you feel insulted it is because you have implicitly accused yourself of that condition.
Criag:
Lionel,
This has been driving me nuts for a few weeks and I haven’t said anything. So against my better judgment, I’m going to go ahead and say something.
Look man, when the Church pronounces a dogma, it’s true, period. Whether or not we can scientifically measure it, see it, taste it, etc. It’s simply true.
And it is a dogmatic Truth that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Full stop. Whether we see it or not, it’s true. Before a soul leaves the body, if it’s not placed within the Catholic Church, it is not saved.
Lionel:
Agreed 100 %
Whether or not we see it joined to the Church is irrelevant. If it is, it can be saved, if it’s not, it can’t be saved.
Lionel:
Agreed 100%
I dont have to quote you the dogma-text since we are in agreeement.
Your whole lengthy tomes on “since we can’t see it, EENS is still true.”
Lionel:
The “since we can’t see it” comments refer to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
See the SSPX USA post on Feeneyism.
They affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and without a bat of the eye also say that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions.It makes sense for them.
Then I have to come in with…. how can the baptism of desire etc be an exception to the dogma. This is elementary, man. If there are no visible exceptions on earth, how can ‘the exception’ be an exception? It is here where I have to bring in the “since we can’t see it” reminder. It is not with EENS, as you thought. It is only when someone says there are exceptions to EENS.
And that someone happens to be the Holy Office 1949 along with the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits who were also active at Vatican Councll II. So it is a very serious thing. You have the average Catholic affirming an irrationality and heresy and believing it is a de fide teaching.EENS is a de fide teaching. Visible baptism of desire is not. Invisible for us baptism of desire is acceptable.
_______________________________
I’m sorry man, that statement makes no sense. I’m sorry to have to finally break it to you, but it just doesn’t make any logical sense. Your posts are distracting man. Please.
Lionel:
Obviously it would not make sense.
Conversely from my point of view it does not make sense when you assume that all salvation in Heaven mentioned in Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.
For me this is irrational.
Then I have to begin explaining….LG 16 refers to a hypothetical case. Please do not consider an exception to the dogma…etc, etc.
If a soul is outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, then it must enter Her one way or the other before death, or it’s lost.
Lionel:
Yes and of course and this has nothing to do with EENS. Every one in 2014 needs to formally convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
Can the Good Lord bring that soul in Himself in ways we can’t see in the moments before death? He sure can.
Lionel:
Sure he can in this hypothethical case.Of course he can! And for me he could also bring this person to Heaven with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
And of course this person is only a theoretical case, a possibility known only to God. So he will not be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Councils.
Since if you infer this is an exception or relevant to the dogma….(you know the rest!).
_____________________________________
Whether or not we see it is irrelevant.
Lionel:
Relevant to what ?
Are you saying it is not relevant to the interpretation of EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the popes and saints?
Is it relevant to Vatican Council II ? Does Vatican Council II contradict St.Robert Bellarmine’s understanding of EENS? Or St.Maximillian Kolbe?
______________________________
It remains a theoretical possibility…and one that doesn’t touch upon EENS.
Lionel:
Agreed 100%
Would you say the SSPX is wrong here ? A theoretical possibility ( baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) is considered a defacto exception to the dogma EENS.The SSPX USA is following the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
_______________________________________
For IF that soul is saved, then it was indeed Catholic before death. Not partially, but fully inside the Church. Whether we see it or not.
Lionel:
Yes. And being a theoretical possibility, it is not, as you say, relevant to EENS.
Also after death, there are cases of persons who return to life only to be baptized and they return to the supernatural life. This is the experience of Catholic saints including St. Francis Xavier.
So all who are in Heaven are Catholics. There are only Catholics in Heaven.
___________________________________
Maybe Our Lord saves a lot this way, maybe none. We can’t know this side or the Pearly Gates.
Lionel:
Yes it is irrelevant to EENS.
_____________________________________
We simply have to work toward the objective of winning souls for Christ by bringing them into His One Holy Catholic Church…for outside of Her, there is NO salvation. Full stop
Lionel:
Agreed!
Lynda
CraigV, You aren’t the first person to explain this to Mr Andradas, and I doubt you’ll be the last, given his extraordinary tenacity in stating and restating his not very logical (at least not logically expressed) thesis on Catholic blogs!
Lionel:
What is my logical thesis ?
Dogmas and doctrines do not change for you. Then how can the dogma EENS change and be acceptable to you. I do not expect an answer. I have asked you this quite a few times.
Is it logical to say that there are known exceptions to EENS?
Is it logical to say that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is an exception to the Syllabus of Errors?
It is irrational for me and logical for you. So you criticize Vatican Council II.
_____________________________
Mr Andrades, you sure know how to persevere, but it’s probably time to take a break from it, at least on this blog. God bless you.
Lionel:
I have to persevere since informed Catholics, who know aspects of the Catholic Faith better that me, are using an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and they do not know the source of their modernism. They consider this modernism dogmatic ,traditional etc.
Craig seems to be have an insight into this and Bertho has picked it up very well. I could almost say that he understands it well.
When they begin to write on this subject I can take a break from the blogs.
The ‘counter syllabus’, is the counterfeit church. They belong to each other.
Mr Andrades, I explained this to you several times before – as simply and clearly as possible – on Protect the Pope blog, and perhaps, elsewhere. You ignore and continue to repeat yourself over and over. CraigV has said it to you here, as others have tried to. If you cannot understand, I cannot help you.
It needs restating again and again. The Jews, the Moslems, the Pagans do not worship the True God. Wojtyla, and his ilk, liars and poisoners, deny the Trinity when they claim that deniers of Christ worship the True God. “He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father.”
–
“He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father.” The Jews do not worship the True God, for the True God is a Trinity, a Father, Son and Holy Spirit. “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ.”
–
What defines Judasim is their rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, True Messiah, Son of God. What defines Islam is its dogmatic statement the God absolutely has no Son. The fake-popes proclaim Jews and Moslems ‘brothers in Faith’. Rather, brother in utter Faithlessness.
–
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Orthodoxy%20-%20Bp%20Sanborn.mp3
PS. The underpinning of the authority of the Pope is his confession of Faith, as Peter’s confession. ‘”Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God”. Therefore, anyone, including a ‘pope’ who, by his witness, denies, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God” is not only not a pope, but rather an enemy of Truth – one who destroys the Faith with lies.
–
To teach that Jews and Moslems worship the True God is to deny the Faith. To confess a falsehood. No True ‘Peter’ could or would. No True Bishop or Priest or any of the Faithful could make such a confession.
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/St%20Peter%20the%20Rock%20-%20Bp%20Sanborn.mp3
Lynda,
Yes you have not denied it here.
1.Dogmas and doctrines do not change for you, you keep writing. However the dogma EENS changes and this is acceptable to you. You agree. You have not denied it.I did not expect an answer and once again I have not got it. I have asked you this quite a few times.
2.Is it logical to say that there are known exceptions to EENS? For you there are exceptions.This is your postion.You have not denied it.
3.Is it logical to say that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is an exception to the Syllabus of Errors? Yes it is for you. You have not denied it. I agree.
Lynda:
Dear Mr Verrechio, is the discussion Mortalium Animos going to be resumed?
Even if the discussion on Mortalium Animos is resumed both sides are going to use the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. This will result in a Vatican Council II which will be a break with traditionjal ecumenism and Mortallium Animos.
Jimmy Akins and Louie Verrcchio will be presenting theology but with the false premise used in the interpreation of Vatican Council II. So the Council will contradct Tradition, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
CraigW:
Would you say the SSPX is wrong here ? A theoretical possibility ( baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) is considered a defacto exception to the dogma EENS.The SSPX USA is following the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm