For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deep-rooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is—apostasy from God. – Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, 4 Oct. 1903
Statements of this nature – at once instruction, lamentation, and warning – are not uncommon in the papal magisterium of the two centuries predating the Second Vatican Council. Upon encountering such things, many are tempted to say, “If only these popes could see the sad state of affairs in our day, they wouldn’t believe it!”
To an extent, this may be true, but not in the way that some people seem to imagine.
While the average person living in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries may have never in their wildest dreams imagined the depths of depravity to which our current culture has descended, the popes of that age had always understood very well that this is precisely where society was destined to go if left unchecked by the only force capable of preventing it.
It was this very awareness that motivated the pre-conciliar Holy Fathers to so clearly sound the alarm, calling on individuals and States to recognize, embrace, and proclaim the authority of Christ the King.
“With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.” When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, 1925)
What the venerable popes of the pre-conciliar age would perhaps find appallingly difficult to comprehend is the Second Vatican Council’s complicity in making straight the paths upon which the wickedness and snares of the Devil now proceed virtually unopposed.
They would marvel in disbelief at the weakness of their successors, from John XXIII to Francis.
They would look upon these men, not as “blesseds” and “saints,” but as shrinking papal violets who willingly ceased to proclaim the exclusive rights of Our Blessed Lord and the unique authority of the Holy Catholic Church who speaks in His name.
If this were not enough, who can even begin to imagine the sheer horror that would engulf these holy men upon witnessing the bastard rite of Paul VI.
Having digested the bitter reality of the Church’s self-destruction at the hands of their successors, the sad state of present day affairs would perhaps elicit a robust “I told you so” from the popes of tradition, each of whom knew very well that the voice of the Holy Catholic Church, the soul of society, if ever effectively reduced to just one more mouthpiece for the “rights of man,” would result in nothing less than society’s death spiral into godlessness.
This blog, like the SSPX, is one of the few oases of Catholic sanity left in the Church. Thank you, Louie. And to the apt moniker “bastard rite,” add “Trojan Horse.”
To the “Peters” of this world who are tempted to jump ship out of the only ark of salvation into some other heretical “church”:
–
This documentary shows how a holy irish nun discovered tradition after having had her, “THIS IS THE TRUE MASS” moment (like so many other novus ordites) after experiencing the Tridentine liturgy. Previously she had been tempted to join the “Orthodox” schismatics, but refused to abandon the suffering Christ during the passion of His Mystical Body. The documentary is well worth the watch. The candor and directness she shows in her criticisms of the new mass and the post-conciliar novelties are quite remarkable.
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kXPuX5RsFc
–
“While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.”
John 17:12
It has been reported that the Shrine to Our Lady of LaSalette in Enfield, NH, will be closing down in 2015. Is it the Shrine they are closing down or the memory of this very important apparition and the very grave warnings of Our Lady, which describe the Catholic Church exactly as it is today? Louie, I suggest your readers research the words of Our Lady spoken at LaSalette, France and also similar warnings by Our Lady of Good Success in Quito, Ecuador. Our Heavenly Mother, like our earthly mothers, always warns Her children of danger. She also can say, “I told you so!” Mary is our refuge!
Edu, that video got me choked up. Thank you for sharing!
Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique (August 15, 1910):
–
“.. 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, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.”
Edu, Wow. Show this video at high school retreats. The time is always getting shorter.
Pope Pius IX INFALLIBLY taught the following:
–
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.”
–
Really? All the “me’s” of the world?! LOL. I sort of feel like I’m being called out and therefore I need to respond.
So, first thing – I have no interest in joining a heretical church as you say. From a Catholic perspective the Orthodox are in schism, sort of like the SSPX according to the head of the CDF Cardinal Muller.
As for the ark of salvation. Yes, all my life I have heard “outside the Church…”. Ok. But what is the Church? I mean for you Edu. Is it the post Vatican II institution headed by Francis? So, if I go to my local Novus Ordo mass every Sunday, especially on the feast of Blessed Paul VI, receive Communion in the hand while singing Pan de Vida, etc I’m guaranteed salvation?
Is the Church the SSPX? They say Francis is really pope, but they feel free to disobey him going against the specific teaching of Pastor Aeternus which one would think the Society would be the first to defend. And as I mentioned Francis’ doctrinal chief says they’re schismatics.
Is the Church the scattered group of sedevacantists here and there who say we haven’t had a pope in 50+ years since Cardinal Siri/Gregory XVII was forced to resign by the Freemasons in the conclave or whatever…?
Is the Church some invisible body of true believers?
What for you is the real ark of salvation? I suppose that is a question we should all ask ourselves. For me, it’s not a question just of liturgy. The nun in the video considers Orthodoxy based only on one liturgy she encounters one Sunday in Dublin. Their liturgy is great, the V2 liturgy is crap so maybe they’re right. I had never been to an Orthodox liturgy when I started considering the merits of Orthodoxy. It’s sort of been a process of elimination.
Despite my best efforts, I just cannot except the so-called hermeneutic of continuity. And believe me, I have tried. You know a tree by its fruits. No way is this (what the world knows as the Catholic Church) the Church Jesus founded. I can’t stay in it precisely because I want to be in the ark of salvation. So where to? The SSPX? I can’t – they are a contradiction. Francis is pope, but we can disobey him when we want. It’s conservative cafeteria Catholicism. They believe that the Novus Ordo and much of the conciliar reforms are evil. Yet, under the right conditions they would sign back up. It makes no sense. What if Francis is succeeded by Benedict XVII or Pius XIII, maybe they’ll come back. But what if he gets succeeded by Francis II or Paul VII, are they going to jump back out? When they do come back will they be commemorating Saints John XXIII and John Paul II? I mean canonizations are infallible right? Unless of course we don’t agree with them. As far as Sedevacantism goes, it’s too much of a fringe group and it, like the notion of some invisible Church, would seem to go against the idea of Jesus having founded a visible, institutional Church. For me that leaves Orthodoxy as the only Church left.
And what really separates us? Isn’t it just the role of the pope? It’s not the Filioque. Eastern rite Catholics leave it out when they profess the Creed as did then Cardinal Ratzinger in Dominus Iesus. I don’t think you can say it’s the issue of divorce and remarriage. That had started officially in the Byzantine Empire during the time of Justinian and was approved by a local council in Constantinople in the 900s, i.e pre-schism. It also wasn’t a decisive issue at the reunion council of Florence. As far as Rome was concerned at the time, the churches were reunited and the east was going to continue it’s practice of divorce and remarriage. Is it contraception? I don’t think that issue, like the issue of divorce and remarriage, really goes to the substance of the Church as an institution, but the Orthodox do not have an official teaching on the matter, although the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras was supportive of Humanae Vitae. We’ve already addressed Marian dogmas like the Immaculate Conception previously. No, when you really boil it all down it’s about whether or not Jesus intended for the Bishops of Rome to be infallible princes over the entire Church and it’s precisely the likes of Francis, not to mention the other liberal V2 popes, or crazy popes, or immoral popes, or heretical popes – we’ve had them all – that proves the point to me. When someone mentions Athanasius and Liberius, or Catherine of Siena, in regards to disobeying Francis, to me it only makes the case for Orthodoxy…
If I might suggest my own YouTube video – it’s called the Fountain of Immortality. It’s on the Orthodox liturgy. Look for the quote from Saint Gregory Palamas on the Blessed Virgin. I know you will appreciate it.
Take care…
I rarely check linked videos. Edu, that was a real blessing to watch…very inspirational. I pray for the flourishing of the hermitage she has started. I know there are now TLMs available in Ireland and I hope and pray for more such vocations as hers. We need holy people! Having very recent Irish roots, I find it painful to see the dwindling of the Faith in that once great Catholic country, and I am so heartened by the courageous people who are ‘swimming against the stream’ as they struggle to win back the country to God.
Louie, I love your ‘poster’. Of course St. Pius X (and all of the saints!) would be flabbergasted if they were to suddenly experience your average NO church today. Just think of, say St. Thomas More, walking into your average church in the UK. He would not even recognize it as related to Henry VIII. He would probably feel more at home in the C of E than in your neighborhood parish church!
PS: when I mentioned my own YouTube video, I did not mean to imply I had anything to do with its production…just wanting to make a video suggestion myself. I think that’s pretty clear, but one never knows… 🙂
I would really like a good answer with regard to this, but I haven’t gotten one. Is the statement you mentioned infallibly true, i.e. inspired by the Holy Spirit, free of error? Yes or no? If yes, then is Francis pope yes or no? If questions 1 and 2 are both yes, then every Catholic, including the SSPX, had better be obedient. No more dissension. Period. The alternative would be to knowingly and willfully disobey the Holy Spirit, right? If 1 is yes but 2 is no, then it’s Sedevacantism or resignationism (isn’t that what it’s called where Benedict is still pope?) If 1 is no, then 2 really doesn’t matter and it’s Orthodoxy. That’s pretty bare bones but I think it’s accurate…
Dear Edu. The video you posted reminded me of St. Theresa of Avila. I have no doubt that if she were alive today that she would be busy restoring the traditions of the Church as she did when she founded the Discalced Carmelites.
I am reminded also of the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate. If you want a taste of what they are in for, take a look at this video which reveals how our bishops unleashed the diabolical powers of modern pyschological therapy on the orders of nuns and priests in their care in order to “liberate” them from their traditional ways. Warning: This is shocking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dGy8iuYgWA&app=desktop
There is also the following article that is an interview Dr. Coulson conducted by Dr. William Marra and originally appeared in the Latin Mass magazine. It covers basically the same shocking material as the video I linked to.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/COULSON.TXT
After Vatican II, the bishops continued to deploy these teams of “therapists” to convents even as they emptied out as a result. You can draw your own logical conclustions.
As far as I’m aware, not even the most die-hard “traditionalist” denies the infallibility of the First Vatican Council. Your logic is impeccable and you are asking the right questions. The answer to your questions is YES!, everyone, including the SSPX, needs to be obedient to His Holiness Pope Francis. It gives me great comfort to know that when it comes to doctrine, the Holy Spirit has given us the same kind of Pope literally election after election after election after election after election after election. What would be the odds of that happening if the Holy Roman Catholic Church was not of divine institution?
He, Pope Saint Pius X, certainly did tell us so. And many of his contemporaries were anticipating an eclipse of the True Church. So were they all just whistling dixie, or can they also say, ‘I told you so?’
–
http://eclipseofthechurch.com/
Brilliant video. Now there is a Catholic soul if ever there was one. A clear and concise critique of the ‘post-concilliar religion’ – the ‘barabas’ whom pew-punters and concilliar popes now prefer, and wherein Sr Irene, a sincere Catholic seeker, was unable to find God. Happily, for us, she forged on the lonely road for our sakes as well as her own.
–
As Cardinal Pie predicted, “[he visible Church] will be increasingly reduced to individual and domestic proportions”.
my dear salvemur,
They were whistling dixie, which is common for authentically canonized saints plagued by a certain neo-palagian mindset, who exhibit signs of being attached to a certain kind of fashion.
I thought as much. Whistlin’ dixie it is!
Hahaha. Thank you. I think my logic is impeccable as well. 🙂
But here is where I would side with the traditionalists. Yes, we have had the same kind of pope election after election over the past 50 years, but is that really a sign of the Holy Spirit or just the logical result of liberal popes choosing liberal cardinals who then choose liberal popes, etc? And what if Francis changes doctrine, like on divorce and remarriage, will you still find the same comfort you do now? I just don’t think a Pius X or a Leo XIII would look at the Church today and say: yep, that’s my Church! If it’s not the same Church then what is it? Maybe I’m wrong, of course, but we can’t ask them and all I can do is prayerfully use the reason God gave me. People want to talk about the “false novus ordo religion”, but if it is false then what do you replace it with? Where is the Church Jesus founded?
As far as Pastor Aeternus, although defined in 1870, if one accepts the teaching of V1 as you wrote above it would apply to all popes not just those after 1870 and in addition to the likes of Francis, Paul VI, Alexander VI, Stephen VII, Honorius I, etc of questionable quality, we’ve had “good” popes who have made what appear to be ex cathedra proclamations which later turn out to be questionable. I don’t think Francis or Blessed Paul VI or Saints John XXIII or John Paul II would agree with Boniface VIII’s “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” So what does that mean?
Accepting the infallibility of V1 means one has to accept everything good, bad, and ugly over the last 2000 years – no exceptions. It’s an all or nothing proposition. Francis has forced me to take a hard look at the history of the Church and the papacy and it’s making me think Orthodoxy is right. I appreciate the logical consistency of both your position, i.e. always follow the pope per V1, as well as that of the sedevacantists, i.e. Francis isn’t really pope so we don’t need to obey him. But if I personally reject those, all I’m left with is Orthodoxy…”when you eliminate the impossible whatever is left no matter how improbable must be the truth…”
” but is that really a sign of the Holy Spirit or just the logical result of liberal popes choosing liberal cardinals who then choose liberal popes, etc?” I think anyone who has a wit of understanding of the works of the Holy Ghost must know He doesn’t contradict Himself. VII popes have made a paoal choir of contradicting their predecessors.
–
The thing with Orthodoxy is it abdicated Christ the King to satan’s false religions with little resistance. It cried for the Pope to send Western Christendom to save it from the anti-Christ scourge of judeo-islam and collaborated with communism in a manner that taught vii-ist’s a thing or two. But if you read Orthodoxy today it thinks the latter are preferable to Catholicism. There’s a reason why evangelical protestants find Orthodoxy so appealing – I.e. it isn’t Catholicism – is this what frankie finds so appealing about it? I admit, Orthodox Liturgy is gorgeous. A Greek Orthodox friend once invited me to the Great Friday liturgy at Holy Sophia in North London. I’d never seen such religious beauty in my life. But the solemnity of the authentic Roman Rite speaks to the soul in a deeper and higher Way. So more the terrible shame that liberalism has robbed us of this authenticity.
–
But we still have the Sign of the Cross and the Holy Rosary.
Peter…if you have the chance I’d greatly appreciate your thoughts regarding the two articles by James Larson regarding Orthodoxy and the Papacy…God bless.
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/50
dear my2cents,
thank you for this.
I wish that more people would focus on La Salette, and your alert is utterly necessary.
1) ‘To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.’
The infallibility of the Pope is still acknowledged by the SSPX, and the SSPX submits it’s obedience towards the Pope.
2) ‘Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.’
However, the present Pontiff is acting against that with the propagation of Ecumenism and Collegiality. So then, do you follow the Pontiff on the issue which was condemned by a previous Pontiff?
3) ‘Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.”
In matters concerning faith and morals, and discipline and government of the church in relation to said faith and morals. The N.O. is problematic as a rite given it’s protestant contents.
‘ the sad state of present day affairs would perhaps elicit a robust “I told you so” from the popes of tradition’
Except that they will still have their fingers in their ears and blabbering self-righteous condemnations from their tongues.
Salvemur and de Maria, they can certainly say ‘I told you so!’ But that makes them a little ‘judgmental’, eh? We can’t have that… 😉
ooh, can’t have T H A T!
–
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/half-way-to-suicide/
The irony in a sense is that not judging is actually a product of judging, else why else proclaim that you do not judge?
Peter,
–
No other Church in the history of mankind has been as ferociously opposed by the forces of darkness as the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was Hitler’s prime enemy (other than the Jews). The same goes for communist Russia, which found a way to tolerate “orthodoxy” up to a certain degree, while mercilessly sending countless catholics and priests to the gulags. Guess which is one of the very few religions officially prohibited in communist China? Yup, Roman Catholicism. Evil and Truth are diametrically opposed, the one cannot tolerate the other, and one will always oppose the other to the point of attempting to destroy it.
–
Whatever has been most strongly opposed by the Adversary for two thousand years, there you will find the truth: the Roman Catholic Church.
–
“If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you… If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him who sent me.”
John 15:18-21
Just a quick comment for now. Are the popes of the last SIX! elections just a happenstance of liberal cardinals electing electing Popes? I would argue that this is impossible due to the fact that none of them turned out to be Cardinal Mahony type liberals or Cardinal Burke type traditionalists. Who in the world do you know today that is both anti-contraception and anti-abortion but also against capitalism and for inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism? It is such a unique set of beliefs that I think the chance of it being random is impossible.
–
Most trads have such a limited knowledge of the pre-Vat II popes and assume things about them that just aren’t true. How many trads know that Pope Pius XI spoke highly of non-Catholics and authorized Cardinal Mercier to engage in ecumenism with the Anglicans? How many know that Pope Pius XI encouraged liturgical reform with his approval of the “dialogue mass”. And Pius XII? His Holy Week liturgical reform was considered in many ways a more “radical” change than the novus ordo.
–
God is with His Church and popes of the last 100+ years only strengthen my conviction in that regard.
PS As an addition to my comment, I think it should disturb anyone that THE most evil regime in the world, the North Korean communist government, would invite the “Orthodox” Church to hold liturgical services in the capital:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nihdihp1i-4
–
Yes, I can just about imagine “Great Leader” Kim Jung-Il inviting, say Cardinal Ranjith, or Cardinal Burke, or Bishop Fellay, to celebrate the Tridentine mass in the capital. Go Figure.
1. To say the SSPX submits it’s obedience towards the pope is pretty weak. Fellay has called the pope a Modernist, and the Novus Ordo evil and more recently that Pope Francis is against everything that they represent. If he feels that the pope is against everything they represent then logically aren’t they against everything he represents? Is that a spirit of obedience? The Society’s US website has a section entitled “can obedience oblige us to disobey” an article by their founder Abp. Lefebvre justifying the Society’s disobedience concluding “our disobedience is bearing good fruit”. I mean c’mon. It’s like their questioning the recent canonizations of J23 and JP2. While Francis has said he won’t be making any infallible statements, most theologians would say canonizations are infallible. Aren’t their reservations a denial of Francis’ infallibility? I can’t wait to see how they respond to the beatification of P6. If they were truly obedient they would join the FSSP, assuming it survives this pontificate and doesn’t go the way of the FFI.
2. Do you follow the Pontiff on the issue which was condemned by a previous pontiff? Well do you? Popes have contradicted their predecessors on various occasions as history shows. Honorius I was condemned by his successors as a heretic. Pope Stephen VII dug up his predecessor, put him on trial, desecrated his corpse. One of his successors condemned him and then one of his successors rehabilitated him. I guess one can say those weren’t matters of faith and morals, but there were also popes who opposed the insertion of the Filioque in the Creed which is certainly a matter of faith. Later popes approved the insertion. Recent popes have backed away from it. And there is Boniface VIII’s “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. Cardinal Manning at the time of V1 said of it “This bull, then, was beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra… Whatever definition, therefore, is to be found in this bull is to be received as of faith”. But today’s popes would say that’s not true. So which is it? Pastor Aeternus says you have to obey the pope in matters of faith, morals, discipline, and governance. There is no exception clause for when a current pope contradicts a previous pope or when the current pope is a liberal we don’t like. So if Francis really is pope you have to obey him on everything.
3. You add in your commentary regarding discipline and governance “in relation to said faith and morals” but that’s not what the document says. It says discipline and governance period. I may not like the Novus Ordo, but if I’m not mistaken Trent said the pope has the authority to make changes to the Mass, so if P6 was really pope, he had every right to come up with his new missal and Protestant or not we had better accept it’s validity and not refer to it as being evil since after all we want to be obedient to the pope as Pastor Aeternus demands…
Sorry, but I don’t think so. Pastor Aeternus is great so long as we have a good pope who says things we like, but when it’s a Francis type on the throne we try to make excuses and search for loopholes in the fine print. Why can’t we just be honest and admit that?
Peter
–
I’m reposting my response here because the nesting of comments gets a bid unwieldy.
–
Just a quick comment for now. Are the popes of the last SIX! elections just a happenstance of liberal cardinals electing electing Popes? I would argue that this is impossible due to the fact that none of them turned out to be Cardinal Mahony type liberals or Cardinal Burke type traditionalists. Who in the world do you know today that is both anti-contraception and anti-abortion but also against capitalism and for inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism? It is such a unique set of beliefs that I think the chance of it being random is impossible.
–
Most trads have such a limited knowledge of the pre-Vat II popes and assume things about them that just aren’t true. How many trads know that Pope Pius XI spoke highly of non-Catholics and authorized Cardinal Mercier to engage in ecumenism with the Anglicans? How many know that Pope Pius XI encouraged liturgical reform with his approval of the “dialogue mass”. And Pius XII? His Holy Week liturgical reform was considered in many ways a more “radical” change than the novus ordo.
–
God is with His Church and popes of the last 100+ years only strengthen my conviction in that regard.
Edu,
Regarding your most recent comments, I don’t think persecution or lack thereof necessarily proves or disproves the validity of a particular religion. I mean the Jews have had a pretty rough time. I don’t think that fact should lead someone to head for their nearest synagogue.
Also, you never responded to my previous question about what for you is the ark of salvation. I’m rather new here so regulars might already know your beliefs, but I do not and am curious. Is the V2 church the ark, is it the SSPX, is it Sedevacantism? What do you believe?
‘Most trads have such a limited knowledge of the pre-Vat II popes and assume things about them that just aren’t true. How many trads know that Pope Pius XI spoke highly of non-Catholics and authorized Cardinal Mercier to engage in ecumenism with the Anglicans? How many know that Pope Pius XI encouraged liturgical reform with his approval of the “dialogue mass”. And Pius XII? His Holy Week liturgical reform was considered in many ways a more “radical” change than the novus ordo.’
You do realise that Vatican II was not the only problematic area in the history of the Church? No Traditionalist is claiming that Vatican II was the only crisis of the Church (note the constant reference to St. Athanasius, against the heresy of Pope Liberius) and Traditionalists are very well aware of Pius XII (the late Fr. Hesse regarded him as liberal) but the very fact of the matter is that the Novus Ordo has Protestant aspects which the Catholic Church has explicitly condemned. If Pius XI implemented them, it would make no difference, it would be a condemned form of Mass due to Heretical aspects.
Christopher,
–
Nice religion you have there. You think you get to pick and choose which popes you like and which you don’t. THAT is the very essence of protestantism. Martin Luther also thought that you could disobey Popes if they didn’t follow his own private definition of “Tradition”. The only difference between you and Martin Luther is that you think the papacy went off the rails sometime in the more recent past and he thought the papacy went of the rails sometime in the more distant past.
–
No wonder people like Peter is considering Orthodoxy.
Are the popes of the last SIX! elections just a happenstance of liberal cardinals electing electing Popes? Well yes, possibly. Your subsequent comments regarding Pius IX, Cardinal Mercier, and Pius XII might be indicative of a gradual move toward liberalism and modernism within the college which didn’t start with V2 but has now become institutionalized and entrenched as a result of it.
Also, I agree most traditionalists have a limited knowledge that attempts to, in black and white fashion, look at the pre-V2 days nostalgically as a golden age of liturgy and doctrine and the post-V2 church as one dominated by the evil forces of freemasonry. To do so denies the sort of slow, organic development that has led us to where we are. That being said, we are where we are and I, in my heart, can’t believe that even the most liberal of pre-V2 popes would look at Francis hiding his pectoral cross when meeting with Jewish leaders or the liturgical chaos running rampant today or the pedophile scandal or the gay lobby, etc and say it is in substance the same Church. A tree is known by its fruits…
I’m am sincerely happy for you regarding your faith in the Church of today. I wish I had it. Hopefully, if I’m wrong about Orthodoxy, God will give me the grace to once again share your level of faith… 🙂
Peter:
1) ‘To say the SSPX submits it’s obedience towards the pope is pretty weak. Fellay has called the pope a Modernist, and the Novus Ordo evil and more recently that Pope Francis is against everything that they represent.’
And? That’s not disobedience, but criticism, and to say that criticism is condemnable is to stress that either there is no Pope (a neo-Catholic) stance, or the Pope cannot err (Sedevacantism).
2) ‘If he feels that the pope is against everything they represent then logically aren’t they against everything he represents?’
That depends on what you understand what the SSPX represents. The SSPX represents obedience to the Holy Father insofar as obedience can be allowed. Can you obey the Pope if he commands you to commit a Mortal Sin? Take that question further? Can you obey the Pope if the Pope commands an act that goes contrary to the Faith? Should you adopt Moral Relativism when Pope Francis argued that Good and Evil is what man makes of them?
3) ‘Is that a spirit of obedience? The Society’s US website has a section entitled “can obedience oblige us to disobey” an article by their founder Abp. Lefebvre justifying the Society’s disobedience concluding “our disobedience is bearing good fruit”. I mean c’mon.’
Again, they still obey the Pope in other areas, they still pray for the Holy Father, it is nothing like the Orthodox which completely disregard the Holy Father. Have you read the entire article?
3)’It’s like their questioning the recent canonizations of J23 and JP2. While Francis has said he won’t be making any infallible statements, most theologians would say canonizations are infallible. Aren’t their reservations a denial of Francis’ infallibility?’
Canonisations can be argued as the majority of opinion of theologians (De Mattei, Pope Benedict XIV), whether canonisation is infallible is coming to question given the understanding of Vatican I.
4)’I can’t wait to see how they respond to the beatification of P6. If they were truly obedient they would join the FSSP, assuming it survives this pontificate and doesn’t go the way of the FFI.’
Why stop at the FSSP? Why not go further and embrace the N.O. as promulgated by Pope Francis, or why not undergo suppression of the Tridentine as Pope Francis is seeming to do. Why not proclaim who are they to judge and then phone people to tell them to divorce?
4)’Do you follow the Pontiff on the issue which was condemned by a previous pontiff?’
What issue is that?
5)’I guess one can say those weren’t matters of faith and morals, but there were also popes who opposed the insertion of the Filioque in the Creed which is certainly a matter of faith.’
And St. Thomas Aquinas had erred in the approach to Holy Mary Mother of God, but the Church proclaims such, the Church however has condemned the Protestant forms of the reorientation of the Mass (such as the notion of the mass being The Last Supper). So if the Church has condemned the Protestants, then a Pope advocates a Protestant form, who is right and who is wrong?
6)’And there is Boniface VIII’s ”We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”.’
To which the SSPX again is.
7)’ Cardinal Manning at the time of V1 said of it “This bull, then, was beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra… Whatever definition, therefore, is to be found in this bull is to be received as of faith”. But today’s popes would say that’s not true. So which is it? ‘
Ex Cathedra is Ex Cathedra. If a Pope errs from the teachings of the Church, the Pope would have erred. Popes cannot instigate anything new in infallibility, but only explain that which is already revealed (such as the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary).
8)’ Pastor Aeternus says you have to obey the pope in matters of faith, morals, discipline, and governance. There is no exception clause for when a current pope contradicts a previous pope or when the current pope is a liberal we don’t like. So if Francis really is pope you have to obey him on everything.’
Pope Francis argued Moral Relativism, so now are you saying God is not the Absolute Judge? Are you saying God is not Goodness?
9)’You add in your commentary regarding discipline and governance “in relation to said faith and morals” but that’s not what the document says. It says discipline and governance period.’
Discipline and governance cannot be cut off from faith and morals. Else you could argue a Church that pushes for discipline in Protestantism and a governance of a form that orientates itself around genocide.
10)’I may not like the Novus Ordo, but if I’m not mistaken Trent said the pope has the authority to make changes to the Mass, so if P6 was really pope, he had every right to come up with his new missal and Protestant or not we had better accept it’s validity and not refer to it as being evil since after all we want to be obedient to the pope as Pastor Aeternus demands…’
First the Novus Ordo:
‘Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.’ Quo Primum, St. Pius V.
Small changes, not a new Rite.
Secondly, what do you mean if Pope Paul VI was really Pope? He was Pope, there is no question. Again, you’re arguing Ultra-Monatism, Heresy. The N.O is Protestant, and since Protestantism is Evil, Protestant Elements make the N.O. extremely dangerous.
11)’Sorry, but I don’t think so. Pastor Aeternus is great so long as we have a good pope who says things we like, but when it’s a Francis type on the throne we try to make excuses and search for loopholes in the fine print. Why can’t we just be honest and admit that?’
You’re trying to change everything Catholic to the appeasement of the current Pontiff who proclaims errors, that is not Catholic, period, why can’t you admit that?. What is Catholicism? Is it what the Pope says? Does that mean the Pope is above and forms Catholicism? Again, you’re arguing Ultra-monatism, a near form of Papalatry which is not Catholic.
Pardon, sir?
Do you even have a clue of what Protestantism even is? It seems like you do not, so go and read a history book along with some theological works.
Martin Luther overthrew everything that was Catholic, he condemned the Priesthood, he removed Purgatory, he denied Transubstantiation. He removed Scripture that the Church compiled. Then when people actually defend the Faith of all ages, they are actually accused of demolishing Catholicism. It is people like you that cause scandal sir.
Get an education.
Also to note, seems like you refuted not one argument whatsoever thus descend to false accusations.
One final note on the issue, why aren’t the ‘Orthodox’ classed as Protestant when they outright reject the Primacy of Peter?
Yes but why did Martin Luther overthrow everything that was “Catholic”?Because he heretically believed that the Popes could be in error and impose non-“traditional” liturgies, disciplines and doctrines.
–
You may have different “issues” than Luther but FUNDAMENTALLY your belief that the Popes can impose on the Church erroneous disciplines and liturgies is the SAME.
I guess I’m just surprised that, as logical a thinker that you clearly are, you would find it possible that conclave after conclave would produce Popes that are essentially carbon copies of each other by mere happenstance.
–
I go back to my previous point. Who else in the WORLD takes the same position as the popes? Both anti-capitalism and anti-contraception? Against abortion but also for redistribution of wealth? Against women priests but for inter-religious dialogue? These men just simply don’t fit into the little boxes that right wingers and left wingers would put them in. They stand in contradiction to the world and I find that awesome.
–
But anyway, good luck on your journey.
‘Yes but why did Martin Luther overthrow everything that was “Catholic”?Because he heretically believed that the Popes could be in error and impose non-”traditional” liturgies, disciplines and doctrines.’
Wait, heretical to think that Popes could be in error? Popes can err all the time, except the cases of infallibility. If you read Luther’s 95 thesis, you will find that he was criticising Catholicism as a whole, including the Eucharist which is first performed by Christ. No Catholic criticises the Eucharist. Luther criticised the Sacrament of Confession, which originates from Christ Himself. Again, no Catholic is proposing the removal of confession. He denounced the Holiness of the Priesthood. You will find in the Thesis the criticism of the corruptions of Clergy, criticisms of the corruptions of the clergy are allowed, else Catholics should shut up about the sexual abuse crisis. However, Traditionalists are not revoking the Catholic faith, they, unlike the Protestants do not re-orientate the alters to tables. Nor do they deny the De Fide of the Faith. But rather simply, in the case of the Novus Ordo, it is the same as the Protestantisation of the Mass, the very aspects such as the introduction of tables that was condemned by the very Church you accuse as Protestant!
–
You may have different “issues” than Luther but FUNDAMENTALLY your belief that the Popes can impose on the Church erroneous disciplines and liturgies is the SAME.
‘FUNDAMENTALLY your belief that the Popes can impose on the Church erroneous disciplines and liturgies is the SAME.’
Which is Catholic. A Pope cannot impose upon the Church Protestant Disciplines and Protestant Liturgies, it is not of his authority. You have to defend the notion that a Pope can legitimately impose upon the Church a discipline that is contrary to the Faith. If you instead argue the Pope cannot, then you are arguing in continuity with Tradition.
Correction, not the 95 thesis for the first mentioning.
No no no. It doesn’t matter WHY Luther thought the Popes were wrong! He believed that over hundreds of years the Popes had introduced errors not found in the early Church. He didn’t believe the Holy Ghost protected the Roman Pontiff from imposing erroneous beliefs on the Church. From that fundamental error, all his heresies flowed. Let’s just take one issue. The Assumption of Our Lady. It is true that the doctrine is not attested to in the very early Church. Does that mean is is a “novelty” that should be rejected as “untraditional”? Of course not. We know that Our Lady was assumed body and soul in to heaven because the Pope could never require us to believe something is true that is not. How do we know that the Novus Ordo mass is valid and licit? SAME REASON! The Holy Ghost protects the pope. To believe otherwise is simply not Catholic.
‘No no no. It doesn’t matter WHY Luther thought the Popes were wrong! He believed that over hundreds of years the Popes had introduced errors not found in the early Church. He didn’t believe the Holy Ghost protected the Roman Pontiff from imposing erroneous beliefs on the Church. From that fundamental error, all his heresies flowed.’
Which makes no sense given that Catholics know the true origins of what Luther criticised. The position is rather simple, can the Roman Pontiff err. Yes. Can the Roman Pontiff commit Evil acts? Yes. Can the Roman Pontiff violate Church Teachings? Yes, just look at the issue with the FI, Pope Francis is completely in control. Can a Pope push heresy? What about Pope Liberius? The Pope has power only “unto edification and not unto destruction” of Christ’s Church.
There is nothing new in infallibility, Tradition cannot be new. The Assumption of Our Lady for example is not attested in the very early Church, but it was believed. Revelations attests to that, and as such, the infallible proclamation is proclaiming what is already true. ‘Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic Faith, was not completed with the apostles’ was condemned by St. Pius X.
‘Let’s just take one issue. The Assumption of Our Lady. It is true that the doctrine is not attested to in the very early Church. Does that mean is is a “novelty” that should be rejected as “untraditional”? Of course not. We know that Our Lady was assumed body and soul in to heaven because the Pope could never require us to believe something is true that is not. How do we know that the Novus Ordo mass is valid and licit? SAME REASON! The Holy Ghost protects the pope. To believe otherwise is simply not Catholic.”
Invalid comparison, elements of the N.O. has been explicitly condemned by the Church. The Assumption of Our Lady has not been condemned.
For example, the Novus Ordo emphasises that the Mass is a meal with the emphasis of the table (condemned: Council of Trent Dz948); Holy Communion under both species (Condemned: Council of Trent Dz885,Dz935); Communion in the hand (condemned: Council of Trent, Dz 888); Mass as a narrative of a past event (Condemned: Council of Trent, Dz 950); Mass as a Community Gathering (Condemned: Council of Trent, Dz 955); The Holy Presence is ignored (Condemned: Council of Trent, Dz 883). Cardinals Ottavianai and Bacci have assessed that the Novus Ordo Missae is of a striking departure from the Catholic Theology of the Mass (Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass p.27). Pope Paul VI did not promulgate the N.O. St. Pius V in Quo Primum has made the Tridentine Latin Mass the only Mass allowed. The History of the Church is against your assertion, just as the History of the Church was against Luther, sir you are more akin to Luther than Catholic. As to protection of the Holy Ghost, then surely the Holy Ghost must have protected the St. Pope Pius V in the declaration of the Apostolic Constitution that sets the Tridentine Mass as the sole Mass to which there can be no other Mass to replace it, even by a future Pope. There is a contradiction. It is your work to figure it out, the simple Catholic observation is that an error has been made that in no way devalues His Holiness Pope Paul VI or Pope Francis as Successors of Saint Peter. But you on the other hand, put previous Popes in question.
You can do what you want. As for me, I will obey the INFALLIBLE teaching of the First Vatican Council and obey the Supreme Pontiff His Holiness Pope Francis “not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.”
FYI, Apparently S: r. Irene is no longer at Mt. Tabor, but joined another Trad order. She should be found here: http://www.catholic-church.org/hermitage/
Ok, to start thank you for posting the links. Both are extremely long so I went through them pretty fast.
The first one really isn’t about the papacy and Orthodoxy. It’s mostly about Aquinas vs Palamas. I have a degree in philosophy and did one year of graduate theology but I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian. Honestly though I have no problem with Palamas or the apophatic theology of the Orthodox. Actually, I prefer it. I mean the story of Aquinas’ vision of the Divine whereafter he stopped writing completely and compared all his work to straw is famous and kind of sums it all up for me. Theologians on both sides are trying to explain the unexplainable. God is infinitely beyond our understanding. What we can say we know about Him is infinitely less than what we don’t know. That’s not to say there isn’t value in making an effort – I mean we have to try and define things as best we can, theologians have their proper place and all – but when the West’s greatest theologian says all of his work was straw, it shows how severely limited our efforts really are…
Regarding the second, it’s really more of a diatribe aimed at the SSPX (therefore it may be of interest to Christopher), but there are overlapping issues with Orthodoxy in as much as a lot of it has to do with the issue of papal authority but they are not addressed as such. There is a lot of expounding on Pastor Aeternus with supporting evidence in the form of quotes from popes who lived centuries after Peter who came into an office that already had all the trappings of power. Both the Catholic Church and the SSPX would accept the authority of these sources but someone coming from an Orthodox perspective would not. For Larson, the veracity of Pastor Aeternus is taken for granted because his intended target also accepts its veracity so everything is argued from that perspective. So it’s sort of irrelevant to me. I already believe that the SSPX’s position vis a vis the pope is logically inconsistent. For me, as I reflect on things pondering a conversion to Orthodoxy, the Petrine ministry from its beginning to where it is today with it’s climax of doctrinal development coming at V1 is a humongous leap of faith. We take Matthew 16 and the quote about the keys being given to Peter and from that have determined that all of his successors in the episcopacy of Rome (too bad for his successors in Antioch) have all of this supreme, infallible power to govern the entire Church – how did we get from A to B? Again, that’s not really the point of Larson’s argument. Towards the end he does make reference to the Council of Jerusalem, Honorius, Liberius, etal but to be honest, I found those arguments unconvincing…
Peter, you believe the Society “goes against Pastor Aeternus” only because you don’t know it well enough. Does this ring a bell?
–
“For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter **not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine**, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.”
–
And, have you ever heard this quote, from no less than Paul VI regarding that unique enigma of a council:
–
“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, **this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so**.”
–
Of course, there are no such declarations whatsoever in the “pastoral”, vague documents of Vatican II, which Cardinal Kasper informs of were written to be intentionally vague, with no clear instruction.
–
You root understanding of Catholic authority is seriously flawed, and thus so are your conclusions.
Once again, Ganganelli, your simplistic understanding of papal authority isn’t sufficient to take in the current crisis of the Church, which is, it would seem satan’s masterstroke.
–
Here is an explanation for you of what true Catholic obedience entails:
http://sspx.org/en/can-obedience-oblige-us-disobey
–
And here are – once again – some statements from supreme pontiffs themselves regarding the limits of papal authority:
–
Pope St. Gregory the Great, speaking of Paul’s public rebuke of the first pope, remarked that “Peter remained silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he might equally be first in humility.”
–
Pope Innocent III: “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because ‘he who does not believe is already judged.’ (John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'” (Sermo 4)
–
Pope Adrian II: “We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches, but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, **the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings**.” (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)
–
Pope Adrian VI: “**If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII** (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).
–
Venerable Pope Pius IX: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, **do not follow him**.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
–
Pope St. Pius X, in Pascendi, speaking of battling the modernists within the Church: “One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the Deposit of Faith delivered to the Saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words, and the gainsaying of knowledged falsely so-called… We may no longer keep silent, lest we should seem to fail in our essential duty.” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis.)
–
In reality, it seems that most neo-Catholics – of the subset that are in any way actually knowledgable about the 95% of Church history before the Church was reborn in 1965 – simply believe that the un-Catholic, informal, non-binding novelties of religious liberty (the kind always condemned by the Church), false ecumenism (again, always condemned) and collegiality are valid. The only way to believe such teachings are validly Catholic is to be completely ignorant of Church history (especially the direct and numerous condemnations of the 19th and early 20th century, as these pernicious errors were beginning to spread) or to believe that Church teaching really can *change* – that is, not *grow*, but contradict itself. I wonder which camp you are in.
I should add that, if you knew anything of the SSPX, you would know that it is *they and they alone* that most properly respect the pontiff’s authority in juridical matters! That is because they are the ones rejecting the un-Catholic novelty of collegiality!
–
Do you ever wonder, Gangenelli, up in your cloud, exactly why it is that Pope Francis doesn’t want to be known as “pope”? Much less “supreme pontiff”? Why he wouldn’t even use his Vatican passport? Why he prefers the title bishop of Rome, even going so far – a first! – to fail to refer to himself as pope, pontiff, Vicar of Christ, after his election?
–
The answer, Gangenelli, is that Pope Francis believes in a democratic Church – that un-Biblical, Protestant concept that the Protestants love and the world loves. He praises the orthodox for their “collegiality” and calls Protestant do-it-yourself shamans “brother bishops”.
–
These are simple facts, Gangenelli, and another is that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Peter, since you evidently believe one should be “obedient” when being ordered to sin, I’d say it’s back to the drawing board for you.
–
A link I previously shared:
–
http://sspx.org/en/can-obedience-oblige-us-disobey
–
Here’s a quote:
“One of these questions was: ”How do you see obedience to the pope?” Here is the reply I gave ten years ago:
–
The principles governing obedience are known and are so in conformity with sane reason and common sense that one is driven to wonder how intelligent persons can make a statement like, “They prefer to be mistaken with the pope, than to be with the truth against the pope.”
–
That is not what the natural law teaches, nor the Magisterium of the Church. Obedience presupposes an authority which gives an order or issues a law. Human authorities, even those instituted by God, have no authority other than to attain the end apportioned them by God and not to turn away from it. When an authority uses power in opposition to the law for which this power was given it, such an authority has no right to be obeyed and one must disobey it.
–
This need to disobey is accepted with regard to a family father who would encourage his daughter to prostitute herself, with regard to the civil authority which would oblige doctors to perform abortions and kill innocent souls, yet people accept in every case the authority of the Pope, who is supposedly infallible in his government and in all words. Such an attitude betrays a sad ignorance of history and of the true nature of papal infallibility.
–
A long time ago St. Paul said to St. Peter that he was “Not walking according to the truth of the Gospel” (Gal. 2:14). St. Paul encouraged the faithful not to obey him, St. Paul, if he happened to preach any other gospel than the Gospel that he had already taught them (Gal. 1:8).
–
St. Thomas, when he speaks of fraternal correction, alludes to St. Paul’s resistance to St. Peter and he makes the following comment:
–
To resist openly and in public goes beyond the measure of fraternal correction. St. Paul would not have done it towards St. Peter if he had not in some way been his equal… We must realize, however, that if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked by their inferiors, even in public.
–
This is clear from the manner and reason for St. Paul’s acting as he did with regard to St. Peter, whose subject he was, in such a way, says the gloss of St. Augustine:
–
that the very head of the Church showed to superiors that if they ever chanced to leave the straight and narrow path, they should accept to be corrected by their inferiors (St. Thomas [in the Summa Theologica] IIa, IIae, q.33, art. 4, ad 2).
–
The case evoked by St. Thomas is not merely imaginary because it took place with regard to John XXII during his life. This pope thought he could state as a personal opinion that the souls of the elect do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment. He wrote this opinion down in 1331 and in 1332 he preached a similar opinion with regard to the pains of the damned. He had the intention of putting forward this opinion in a solemn decree.
–
But the very lively action on the part of the Dominicans, above all in Paris, and of the Franciscans, made him renounce this opinion in favor of the traditional opinion defined by his successor, Benedict XII, in 1336.
–
And here is what Pope Leo XIII said in his Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20,1888:
–
If, then, by any one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law.
And a little further on, he says:
–
But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.
–
Now our disobedience is motivated by the need to keep the Catholic Faith. The orders being given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ.
–
Now all the theologians worthy of this name teach that if the pope, by his acts, destroys the Church, we cannot obey him (Vitoria: Obras, pp.486-487; Suarez: De fide, disp.X, sec.VI, no.16; St. Robert Bellarmine: de Rom. Pont., Book 2, Ch.29; Cornelius a Lapide: ad Gal. 2,11, etc.) and he must be respectfully, but publicly, rebuked.”
–
So, Peter, as I posted above, it is the SSPX (virtually now alone in the Catholic world) that respects the supreme authority of the Pope – it is He, and not “bishops’ conferences”, that are granted the protection of the Holy Ghost. But, alas, this unprecedented crisis in the Church tests the bounds of papal authority like perhaps never before.
–
Although, still, there are plenty of examples of true obedience to papal abuse in the history of the Church. Was Athanasius right to continue opposing the Arian heresy after his invalid excommunication by Pope Liberius? Of course! And so he was raised to the altars and became the first Doctor of the Church! Were John XXII’s subjects right to correct and publicly rebuke him regarding his heretic teaching (that the saved will not see God until after the Judgement?) Of course as well, and John XXII was prohibited by the Holy Ghost from binding the faithful to his novel error, exactly have been the post-conciliar popes.
What silly logic. So, a group of people rather than one holding an error is a sign of divine approval? Does the same hold for jumping off bridges?
–
In fact, all of the conciliar popes (with the partial exception of His Holiness Benedict XVI in the latter years of his pontificate) have been infected with modernism to one degree or another because that is the order of the day. It is what the world wants to hear and the Church as been “opened to the world”. It is in perfect alignment with the “Cult of Man” that Paul VI bragged the Church had embraced. It is a sign and a symptom of the “diabolical disorientation” that Sr. Lucy, holy seer of Fatima, stated multiple times had infected the pastors of the Church.
–
But, you needed stoop to preposterous levels and deny Christ by supporting the shameful and scandalous actions of the post-conciliar period, for Christ IS STILL WITH HIS CHURCH! That is why these novelties were and are and forever will be non binding on the faithful, as declared by the popes themselves at the council? If you deny this, answer this: exactly what are the new, official doctrines of the Church that are now binding on the faithful?
–
If you would admit there are none, then you’ve lost your cause. If you would assert there are no new teachings at all, that the current narrative on false religions and religious liberty and the like are in perfect harmony with the history of the Church, you are completely blind or completely deluded.
–
As the saint said, “Some popes are a blessing, and some a trial”.
–
Or did you think Liberius was on the right track when he excommunicated St. Athanasius?
–
Not like we’d have to wonder on which side of the Arian heresy you’d have stood.
What silly logic. So, a group of people rather than one holding an error is a sign of divine approval? Does the same hold for jumping off bridges?
–
In fact, all of the conciliar popes (with the partial exception of His Holiness Benedict XVI in the latter years of his pontificate) have been infected with modernism to one degree or another because that is the order of the day. It is what the world wants to hear and the Church has been “opened to the world”. It is in perfect alignment with the “Cult of Man” that Paul VI bragged the Church had embraced. It is a sign and a symptom of the “diabolical disorientation” that Sr. Lucy, holy seer of Fatima, stated multiple times had infected the pastors of the Church.
–
But, you needn’t stoop to preposterous levels and deny Christ by supporting the shameful and scandalous actions of the post-conciliar period, for Christ IS STILL WITH HIS CHURCH! That is why these novelties were and are and forever will be non binding on the faithful, as declared by the popes themselves at the council? If you deny this, answer this: exactly what are the new, official doctrines of the Church that are now binding on the faithful?
–
If you would admit there are none, then you’ve lost your cause. If you would assert there are no new teachings at all, that the current narrative on false religions and religious liberty and the like are in perfect harmony with the history of the Church, you are completely blind or completely deluded.
–
As the saint said, “Some popes are a blessing, and some a trial”.
–
Or did you think Liberius was on the right track when he excommunicated St. Athanasius?
–
Not like we’d have to wonder on which side of the Arian heresy you’d have stood.
The Catholic Church is the same as She has always been. She was the true Church when Peter erred by refusing the public company of gentiles and was publicly rebuked by his inferior; the Holy Ghost saw fit to enshrine this lesson in Scripture. She was the true Church when 75-90% of her bishops (depending on the source) accepted the Arian heresy, and the future Saint and Doctor Athanasius withstood them “to their face”, for 46 long years, even after being excommunicated by a “weak pope” (as that neo-Catholic bastion EWTN calls him).
–
The visible Church headed by Pope Francis is, of course, the Catholic Church, wallowing in tragic error, but error never promulgated as doctrine, just as with that 4th century error. She is the same Church She was when John XXII came close to promulgating the heresy he was fond of, but was forbidden.
–
The SSPX priests and bishops are, by ALL informed accounts, inside this Church, as they are not excommunicated and are not schismatics.
–
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/blog/2013/10/23/a-brief-response-to-fr-z.html
–
In fact, it would seem very likely that it is the Society that will rescue the Church from this current crisis, given that it is they that maintains the faith *exactly as it was before this destructive enigma of a ‘pastoral’ council* (that is a fact).
“Most trads have such a limited knowledge of the pre-Vat II popes and assume things about them that just aren’t true. How many trads know that Pope Pius XI spoke highly of non-Catholics and authorized Cardinal Mercier to engage in ecumenism with the Anglicans? How many know that Pope Pius XI encouraged liturgical reform with his approval of the “dialogue mass”. And Pius XII? His Holy Week liturgical reform was considered in many ways a more “radical” change than the novus ordo.”
–
Very funny stuff. How’s this for “speaking highly” of non-Catholics?
–
“Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
–
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
–
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.”
–
That’s Archbishop Lefebvre himself from “An Open Letter to Confused Catholics”.
–
Because you maintain in your mind some caricature of traditional Catholics believing that pre-conciliar popes went around punching Protestants in the gut for fun does not make it so.
–
Who, exactly, would consider Pius XII’s extremely mild, organic growths of the Tridentine liturgy “more radical than the Novus Ordo”?! Did Pius XII established a commission to great a brand-new Rite of Mass *from scratch*, with six Protestant “observers” who gave input in informal sessions (according to eye witnesses), with the express intent of SUBJUGATING THE CRITICAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, for the purpose of satisfying heretics who hate it? And I could go on. What absolute, complete nonsense – not that I haven’t heard it before.
–
I’d love to know if you really believe what you preach here, Gangenelli. If so, obviously, you are seriously deluded. Again, I think you just need to realize that embracing Traditionalism is merely embracing the Faith of All Time as it was taught and lived for around 1930 years, and does not by any means mean surrendering the indefectibility of the Church! She is still indefectible.
–
Then again, you may just really like the new, non-binding novelties of the council; many do.
Gangenelli, once again, the SSPX most certainly and enthusiastically accepts and loves this infallible teaching of Vatican I, and if you actually knew anything about them you would understand that.
–
The Vatican II novelty of collegiality is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to this doctrine of the faith, but it would appear you have not as yet thought about things enough to have realized that. (Hint: the current pope doesn’t want to be called “pope” much less Supreme Pontiff or Vicar of Christ. He praises the “de-centralized”, democratic “government” of the Orthodox schismatics and various Protestant “brother bishops”. And on & on & on.)
–
Another thing you are missing is that, despite the fact that the supreme pontiff does indeed generally possess the power of complete jurisdiction over the Church, it is still not licit for him to work against the faith itself. Whether or not he is doing this is not a matter of “private judgement”, but merely of using the Yardstick God has provided in the form of the defined, actual doctrines and dogmas of the Church – the same ones that St. Athanasius relied on to know he was right despite his invalid excommunication by a pope enamored with the heresy of the day.
–
So, once again, let’s take a look at what some pontiffs *themselves* have said regarding true Catholic obedience. We could also bring much more weight to bear in the form of the theologians, all of whom have echoed more or less these sentiments:
–
Pope St. Gregory the Great, speaking of Paul’s public rebuke of the first pope, remarked that “Peter remained silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he might equally be first in humility.”
–
Pope Innocent III: “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because ‘he who does not believe is already judged.’ (John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'” (Sermo 4)
–
Pope Adrian II: “We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches, but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, **the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings**.” (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)
–
Pope Adrian VI: “**If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII** (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).
–
Venerable Pope Pius IX: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, **do not follow him**.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
–
So, once again, we are left with this simple choice: Follow the faith as the Church Militant defined and defended it for more than 19 centuries or follow the novelties of the day – and they are indeed novelties.
Really? We’ve been through this before.
–
For the umpteenth time, THERE WAS NO LETTER TO BISHOP BRIZEN BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BISHOP BRIZEN!
–
What does it say about you that you continue to quote not existent documents to support your heresy?
Heresy? Strong word. Unfortunately, you have no evidence for that whatsoever; what you engage in is calumny. You’re that sure there’s never been such a bishop, and that also we just don’t have a misspelling here? And what about all the OTHER papal quotes? And what about the same, consistent teaching from the most esteemed theologians, which I will post here below? And what about the fact that Pastor Aeternus itself is very careful to point out that the supreme pontiff’s authority is conditional upon him promulgating the Apostolic Faith and rejecting novelty? And so on.
–
You seem angry, Gangenelli. Perhaps you should take a break from posting until you are able to get your emotions under control.
–
Now the theologians will weigh-in:
–
St. Thomas says: “To resist openly and in public goes beyond the measure of fraternal correction. St. Paul would not have done it towards St. Peter if he had not in some way been his equal… We must realize, however, that if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked by their inferiors, even in public.”
–
And also: “It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”
–
And: “There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith.”
–
(All quotes are from somewhere in the Summa.)
–
St. Bellarmine: “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’: therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.”
–
Bellarmine again: “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore,were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.
–
“By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. By doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism…. He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy”
–
Augustine: “[St. Paul] showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defense of truth.”
–
Bellarmine: “Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”
–
Suarez: “If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
–
Now, of course, you would be correct to point out that none of these statements are infallible, but the fact is that your opinion is contrary to ALL of that we have on record from the doctors and major theologians regarding this topic: I believe you will find NONE who will claim, as you do, that a Pope must be obeyed in a situation where a person can see that the commands are harmful to souls in a serious matter. One cannot get away from the fact that this does involve some judgement on the part of the individual, but the fact that the Popes and theologians made these statements which carry with them the implication that such judgements be made makes clear that Christians must, indeed, be prepared to make such judgements.
I’d love to know if you really believe what you preach here, Gangenelli. If so, obviously, you are seriously deluded. Again, I think you just need to realize that embracing Traditionalism is merely embracing the Faith of All Time as it was taught and lived for around 1930 years, and does not by any means mean surrendering the indefectibility of the Church! She is still indefectible.
–
Interesting. Taught and lived for around 1930 years? Why did you pick the year 1930? Do you believe, like the commenter above, that Pope Pius XII was a “liberal”?
I just got finished reading your other comments. Look, it’s your soul so you can believe what you want. As for me, like the commenter Peter wrote above, if I believed that the Holy Ghost would allow the papacy to be “infected with modernism” for something like 74 years, I would be looking for a new religion.
Ooops…my math was bad. Make that 84 years.
Er, no; from the Last Supper to 1965 is right around 1930. Please excuse me if I’m off by a little bit.
–
Before the Conciliar Revolution, that “French Revolution in the Church”, when the Church was “thrown open to the world”, when the “Cult of Man” was ushered in with the joy of the supreme pontiff, we had “liberal” and “conservative” popes in a certain weak, shallow sense. We had really bad popes – such as Liberius, who excommunicated a saint, or John XXII, who tried his best to promulgate heresy, or the popes who bought their office and who raped and murdered. None of those popes ever changed one jot or tittle, and neither have the post-conciliar popes. But what those men have succeeded in doing is making the world (including many Catholics) *think* that teaching has changed, and therein lies the diabolical nature of this crisis.
Gangenelli, for the record, I am morally certain that I embrace no heresy, not only formally but materially. Again, you malign traditionalists with the calumny of heresy (“rejecting” Pastor Aeternus) because your own understanding of that document, and of papal authority in general, is naive and simplistic, and cannot account for the current situation in the Church (nor for the Arian crisis, for that matter).
–
My family & I love the Church with all our heart & soul; it is our life, as it is the life of any good Catholic.
–
I have stood in the Roman catecombs. I have conversed with a man who cleaned the Wounds of St. Pio (who, of course, refused to use the New Rite of Mass) – the very Wounds of Christ! I have stood in the presence of the astounding Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.
–
These are some of the reasons I “cleave to Eternal Rome”, to the Faith of the Apostles. These are some of the reasons, I think, that the Holy Ghost has led me here, as he has led Mr. Verrecchio. Like him, after years of holding to the positions you do, and arguing as you do, my head was pulled out of the sand.
–
And my belief in Christ’s Church, including its Indefectibility, and love of His Church, is stronger for it – much stronger. Much stronger than it has ever been. I think you cannot make sense of that, but perhaps one day you will be able to.
–
As a parting thought , you should perhaps consider yourself rather lucky that Louie allows you to comment on your blog – a far cry from the strict censorship practiced by forums that speak from your point of view (i.e., Catholic Answers). I believe he does so because he may see himself in you to some extent, just as I do. You are what we once were, before we learned more, before we found the courage to fully face the most difficult truths.
“if I believed that the Holy Ghost would allow the papacy to be “infected with modernism” for something like 74 years, I would be looking for a new religion.”
–
No offense, but if so then you would have folded during the Arian Crisis as well.
–
Then, as now, the true Faith, in its entirety, still exists. There’s still only one true religion.
Sorry, never said Pope Pius XII was a liberal, it was Fr. Hesse who thought Pius XII was liberal.
Good enough. For now anyway, a few final comments
–
First, I agree, Louie is an exceedingly gracious host in allowing comments from me.
–
Second, I should have clarified that I believe your heresy to be material only. I don’t doubt that you believe what you do in good faith.
–
Third, the papacy wasn’t infected by Arianism for 56 or 84 years. In fact, if you believe Pope Pius IX, it was NEVER infected by Arianism so your analogy doesn’t hold.
–
And finally, I agree. There is still only one true religion. The Holy Roman Catholic Church whose visible head is His Holiness The Pope Francis, Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ, Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles and Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church.
There is a Bishopric of Brixen.
I’m sorry there is one more thing. While i’m sure it is unintentional, your comments to me are condescending. Like I will come around to your beliefs if I just do a little more studying. So I’d like to set the record straight.
–
I’ve been studying these issues for a LONG time. I attended an SSPX chapel more than 20 years ago. I subscribed to the Angelus and Latin Mass magazines. I even debated what I called “NewChurch” types using the very same arguments that you do.
–
So what led me back to the rock of the papacy and the structures of the “official” Church? Basically two things. First, I had a very superficial understanding of the pre-conciliar Church. I essentially thought that the Church was one way for 1958 years and that everything changed with the elections of Pope St. John XXIII and his successors. Ironically enough, it was hard-right traditionalists that forced me to change my thinking. They condemned Pope Pius XII for his holy week liturgical reforms and his approval of NFP. They condemned Pope Pius XI for his ecumenical outreach to Anglicans and his support of the “dialogue mass”. They even condemned Pope St. Pius X for his reform of the breviary. The hubris of these clowns was unbearable for me but I was forced to admit that things weren’t as black and white as I thought.
–
That brings me to the other reason why I came back to the “official” Church. I’m a cradle Catholic so I knew clergy that were in favor of women priests, homosexuality, contraception, etc. And I have no doubt that there are Cardinals that agree. And yet no Pope was ever elected that supported any of that. For me, at least, that was a powerful argument that the Holy Ghost was still there guiding the Church. I am at peace.
–
Anyway, this was longer than I wanted it to be but I thought you should know where I am coming from.
“They would look upon these men, not as “blesseds” and “saints,” but as shrinking papal violets who willingly ceased to proclaim the exclusive rights of Our Blessed Lord and the unique authority of the Holy Catholic Church who speaks in His name.”
.
New Iscariots, ravening wolves, false teachers, hypocrites, sons of perdition, forerunners of Antichrist, would be more accurate – “Saints”, “Blessed”, “Venerable” ? That’s a joke in very bad taste. These accursed men ought to be anathematised, just as Honorius I was, for a less calamitous failing. Real Saints are tainted – as far as that is possible – by being beatified or canonised by these men.
The present Pope is not as bad they are – he is largely a victim of the corruption of the Church by them; he has some excuse – and he may yet change for the better: just as St Peter did, just as Blessed Pius IX did. But John XXIII & Paul VI (him especially) did the Church indescribable harm, knowing full well what they were doing.
.
IMO this shows that the dogmas of Vatican I regarding Papal authority badly need to be balanced – not contradicted, denied or rejected; that is out of the question – by a complementary liability of the Pope to discipline by the Church, if he abuses his authority to harm it. If it is permissible to withstand wicked Popes – and it is – how is it not permissible & right to try a Pope who persists in harming the Church ? If the Church cannot defend itself against Papal evil-doing – which, as recent times have shown, can be very great & very dangerous – then it is at the mercy of such men. And that is intolerable, & in no way required by the sources of revelation, or sound theology, or the Faith, or anything in the Church. The Church may not be a democracy – but neither is it the Pope’s property, for him to vandalise according to his will. Popes are not absolute rulers – they are not even rulers, but stewards of the household of Christ, “servants of the servants of God”, as St Gregory the Great said.
@Peter:
“Despite my best efforts, I just cannot except the so-called hermeneutic of continuity. And believe me, I have tried. ”
## It can’t be accepted (“except” means something different), because it has no content – one cannot accept what does not exist. It is a notion to account for a difficulty, willed into existence by the almighty & everlasting popes saying “Let there be continuity between the Church before V2, at V2, & since V2 !” – but unlike the creative word of God, papal attempts at creating reality are a miserable failure.
Someone needs to point out that the Papal attempts to retcon the past so that it agrees with the ideologically correct present are no different in kind from Communist retconning of the past so that it agrees with the ideologically correct present. V2 Catholicism is a totalitarian dictatorship – as much so as was Soviet Communism, or as Chinese Communism is now. To say that this is unhealthy & unChristian, is an understatement. JP2 didn’t end Communism – he solidified it in the CC. He was Chairman Wojtyła, with all the freedom of his Communist opposite numbers to change doctrine & practice.
“I would really like a good answer with regard to this, but I haven’t gotten one. Is the statement you mentioned infallibly true, i.e. inspired by the Holy Spirit, free of error? Yes or no?”
.
## Dogmatic definitions – and that is part of one of them – are not “inspired”. The word “inspired” is usually reserved in Catholic theology for the books of the Bible; though it is also used for the Divine prompting and grace that leads people to “do great things for God”, like founding religious orders. Dogmatic definitions are infallibly true, in virtue of the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Assistance is a *negative gift*, that preserves the framers of dogmatic definitions from defining as true what is not true, and from including any truth but that which God wills. Inspiration, OTOH, is a *positive gift*, that enables the human authors of the parts of the Bible to compose those parts “firmly, faithfully, and without error”, & (as Dei Verbum 11 of V2 rightly says) “for the sake of our salvation”.
.
“If yes, then is Francis pope yes or no?”
.
## Francis (quondam Jorge Maria Bergoglio) is the current legitimate Pope, yes. Any theoretical doubts about the legitimacy of his election have been dispelled by the fact that he is accepted as lawful Pope by the Catholic world; that no anti-Pope has been elected to replace him; and that his acts as Pope, though some have been criticised, have not been counteracted, nor has any attempt to counteract them been made; and no cardinals or bishops or theologians or canonists have by any public act withdrawn from him or disputed his legitimacy as Pope. Theologically & canonically, there is no justification whatever for denying that this particular man is the rightful Pope of the Catholic Church.
.
” If questions 1 and 2 are both yes, then every Catholic, including the SSPX, had better be obedient. No more dissension. Period. The alternative would be to knowingly and willfully disobey the Holy Spirit, right?”
.
## Not quite right – you’ve left out some very important distinctions, that must be made, if this topic is to be given an accurate answer.
God Alone is worthy of unreserved obedience. It is idolatry and heresy to pay absolute obedience to Popes, or to anyone or anything else. And is correspondingly wrong for anyone in the Church to require or to receive absolute obedience.
All obedience to creatures – that is, all beings other than God – is limited. It is limited because of the metaphysics of creation. To be a creature, is to be something that has meaning & value only in so far as it is in conformity with God. To be created, is to be dependent upon God in every way – a creature is by definition incapable of being autonomous: it is nothing, if it is not in relation to God, Who is Alone Infinite Being; IOW, Infinite Good.
.
God, Who is Infinite Good, is therefore the Only Real One, the Source of all created reality. So obedience has to be in accord with reality as God has created it, or else be a lie. To obey someone in a virtuous way, is good for the universe. False obedience harms the universe, because such obedience has an air of falsity about it.
.
So it is out of the question to obey Popes when they require what is bad for the Church. Papal authority is defined & limited by the purpose for which Jesus Christ bestowed a share of His authority-power, His *exousia*, upon St Peter. Christ did not lose anything – but Peter gained something; Christ is not lessened by what He gives. Papal authority does not extend to doing what is contrary to the Will of Christ – for a Pope to use Papal authority to wrong the Church, is an abuse of Papal authority. And therefore, Catholics have no duty to obey abuses of Papal authority. They might well be sharing the sin of such a Pope, if they were to obey. To abuse Papal authority is to endanger the salvation of the Church – and the Church has no obligation to go to Hell for obeying a wicked use of authority by the Pope.
.
“If 1 is yes but 2 is no, then it’s Sedevacantism or resignationism (isn’t that what it’s called where Benedict is still pope?) If 1 is no, then 2 really doesn’t matter and it’s Orthodoxy. That’s pretty bare bones but I think it’s accurate…”
.
There are more than two possibilities, as explained. So the dilemma is a false one. I hope that helps 🙂
.
## Catholics are subject to the Pope, exactly as Vatican I teaches. It does not follow that whatever the Pope says, Catholics must obey. The Pope is not Jesus Christ. Popes are more than capable of being unhinged (Urban VI), simoniacs (Aleaxander VI), traffickers in indulgences (Boniface IX), and doing other things that no Christian can possibly do without sin. If the Pope says one thing, and Christ says another – then the Pope can go to the Devil. The Pope is not God Incarnate, nor a second Incarnation of Christ (despite Louis Veuillot’s description of Blessed Pius IX as being that; but Veuillot was a journalist, not an exact theologian). Popes are more than capable of being very wicked men – just like the rest of us. And the exaltation of them, coupled with the notion that they are never to be criticised, has led to the explosion of criticism of them, just as a volcano explodes as a result of irresistible pressures within it.
(Aleaxander VI) = (Alexander VI)
If only there were a way to correct typos LOL
@Peter:
“While Francis has said he won’t be making any infallible statements, most theologians would say canonizations are infallible.”
.
## Theologians writing before the current decadence, could for that reason not take the current decadence into account. One might as well use arguments of the 1890s against the possibility of powered flight by man as an argument against the possibility of the Moon landings.
.
Theologians writing in the 1850s (say) did not have to take into account the relaxed modern procedure for scrutinising the lives of persons with a reputation for sanctity, for the not unreasonable reason that the relaxed modern procedure was not that in use in their day. The pre-1969 procedure was extremely strict – John XXIII, Paul VI & JP2 would have got precisely nowhere under that procedure. Only because the Church has renounced or weakened various dogmas or the practical consequences of them, can these three men be reckoned even as Catholic, let alone as Catholic Saints.
So the argument that past authorities have said canonisations are infallible, fails; because it is being used to justify canonisations of men whose Catholicism is less than certain. It is being ripped out of the historical context in which it makes good sense, and being applied to historical realities to which it is totally inapplicable.
In any case, canonisations are not infallible – that X is a Saint is not a dogma, but something called a dogmatic fact: that is, something that needs to be true if the dogma it is related to is to be true:
.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05092a.htm
.
Canonisations cannot be dogmas (which are infallibly true), because canonisations, unlike dogmas, are not part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. The Immaculate Conception is – it had to be, otherwise it would not have been possible to define it as a dogma. That St Pius X is a Saint, is not a dogma, nor was his canonisation in 1954, because it is not part of the AD of F; so, though true, it could not possibly be defined as a dogma; it is, instead, a dogmatic fact.
A lot of problems arise for want of lack of accuracy in theology & doctrine. This creates needless confusion.
Peter,
–
To claim that the fact the Church has been persecuted by the forces of evil for 2000 years is not a proof of its divine origin is utterly and completely ludicrous. That is a denial of Christ’s words in scripture that His followers would be persecuted, and a even a denial of the prophecy in Genesis, “I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between your offspring and Her offspring etc” The persecution of the Jews was symbolically prophesied when Cain killed Abel, and the curse that it brought down on him.
–
“Now, therefore, cursed shalt thou be upon the earth, which hath opened her mouth and received the blood of thy brother at thy hand. When thou shalt till it, it shall not yield to thee its fruit: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth.”
Genesis 4:11-12
–
Likewise, the Jews, brought down God’s curse upon them when they asked for Barabbas to be released over Christ, “His blood be upon us and our children.” That you should bring the example of the Jews is therefore lamentable and is not germane to the discussion. The forces of evil have certainly been comfortable cooperating with Jews in the past for the creation of a God-less, anti-Christ world, such as in the creation of the Soviet Union.
–
As for to what “Church” I belong to, my comments have made plainly clear the answer to that question. If you still have doubts, I suggest you have a look again at the video I linked to at the top and any other comments I may have made.
Gangli,
–
“your comments to me are condescending. Like I will come around to your beliefs if I just do a little more studying” (In response to “A Catholic Thinker”?)
–
LOL LOL LOL!!!
–
And you are not trying to make the readers in this site “come around to your beliefs”? Why not just counter the arguments presented to you with facts rather than make such a puerile and hypocritical assertion?
Which has nothing to do with a Bishop Brizen. But, in the interests of fairness, surely you should be able to produce the letter to the bishopric of brixen to make the connection. I’m guessing I shouldn’t hold my breath.
Utter nonsense. Anyone can see that “A Catholic Thinker” thinks I am just some babe in the woods who hadn’t studied the issues. I’ll put my knowledge of these issues up against anyone in the trad world. If you’d like, I could give you a schooling on the bogus anti-papal quote that supposedly came from Pope Adrian VI.
Don’t advocate the letter, only stressing the potentiality of the Bishopric of Bixen, in relation to the possibility of the absence of ‘of’ and a single letter being different.
Which the Bishopric of Bixen who also happened to be a Father of the Vatican I Council was Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser.
See comments below.
Re the video Edu provided. Sr. Irene’s brother isn’t well and she asks for our prayers: “Frank Gibson, age 54. He is in the ICU in a South Dublin Hospital. As he was a non practicing Catholic all his life, I ask much prayers that God will show him mercy for the sake of His Son’s bitter Passion and the prayers of the faithful.” Also she is receiving next to no help from the Church in her mission and the SSPX head in Ireland will not permit his priests to be of any help either, so prayers there as well.
WHAT? The SSPX in Ireland won’t help this holy nun with the sacraments?? What’s going on here?
–
My prayers go to Sr Irene and her brother, that he may die (if he is indeed about to meet the Just Judge) in the state of grace.
It looks like the video on Sr Irene has gone viral on trad blogs… Too bad they don’t seem to be putting the source of the video, Louie’s wonderful blog.
–
I don’t know whether or not this is accurate, but according to some of the commenters on Fr Ray Blake’s blog, she does seem to be attending an SSPX chapel, although maybe her circumstances have changed as of late…
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com.es/2014/06/an-irish-hermitess.html
Sr Irene said in an email (she has an email on her site) she attends Latin Mass at an SSPX chapel when she can but the “the English Superior of the SSPX for Ireland” won’t permit priests to support her mission. I presume this might mean that no priests are permitted to attend her hermitage in order to offer Mass.
‘On 8 June A Rabbi, an Imam an a Pope Will Do “Interreligious” in the Vatican: No Joke!’ [Eponymous Flower: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/on-8-june-rabbi-imam-a-pope-will-do.html ]
“——Christ never wanted His Church to be so rigid – never – ”
Heh, really. Wow, have I had it wrong for, oh, 50 plus years or so. Another attack on Catholics.
How much can this humble Pontiff continue this blather, is this a bottomless pit, or what? My nausea threshold was met a while ago.
http://thewandererpress.com/pope-francis/pope-francis-at-thursday-morning-mass-in-santa-marta/
I know. I warned you dear people about this already–be strong— On Pentecost !!! Horrendous beyond description I cannot wait wait ’til blogos laud the glories of this. I feel so sick.
de Maria, I read it, but I didn’t get it. I can’t quite make out who are the bad guys in this one, other than the businessmen. And of course, those horrible rigid people. I guess that might include me…. 😉
Peter and all
Edu’s referring to the prophecy in Genesis of the woman crushing the head of the serpent, (Our Lady bearing the Messiah) should remind us all of Mary’s continuing role in salvation history, helping us through this time, by appearing at Fatima in 1917 and prophetically addressing modernism and the apostasy in the Church hierarchy, which are the subjects of most of the above discussions.
Our Lady and Our Lord each gave us their examples, of persevering in union with the Roman Catholic Church, despite various Popes’ and many others’ personal errors and misuse of authority – including the scorning of her prophecies and ignoring her call for the consecration of Russia, while preferring man-made, worldly solutions to the Church’s problems.
“Private revelations”, are not required belief, but once the Church investigated and confirmed they were of Divine origin, and seeing that their messages are so directly for the good of all souls and designed to guide the Pope in particular, it becomes sheer folly at best to ignore or dismiss them, (which always pleases the Devil immensely and helps him further his aims).
Our Lady submitted all her requests to the Roman Pontiff, and continues to do so, and consequently the promised time of Peace to come after the consecration and conversion of Russia depends entirely on the cooperation of the Roman Pontiff in union with all the Bishops of the Roman Church -which in turn will come about from the prayers and sacrifices of the Faithful.
Since the Orthodox Church had been living in schism for over 800 years when she came, the fact that she appeared to three Roman Catholic children and so directly involved the Pope(s), should answer all of Peter’s questions about whether the Roman Church is still the same one Jesus founded and promised to remain with till the end of time. Our Lady and He have patiently waited almost 100 years for her Fatima requests to be granted, well aware of what is going on, and we need only imitate them in our actions, and remain patient in our sufferings.
The collegial consecration is no small thing. It brings submission to the will of God as expressed by the Blessed Mother, honoring her as she deserves and reversing the post-conciliar closeting of her in favor of pleasing and not offending non-Catholics who consider her a false goddess or idol. With that one blow, it re-establishes the importance of the hierarchy, and ends democratizing of the church and false ecumenism. The Russian (Orthodox) conversion will be a miracle noticed by all, which demonstrates the power of God working through His True Church to convert by Grace and declaration of Truth. It’s really one great proselytization done by the Body of Christ today -contrary to Pope Francis’ “NO, NO, NO.. we don’t proselytize!” and turning back to the mandate of Christ – Go teach all nations, Baptizing….
Two of the greatest “proofs” that Our Lady of Fatima came as God’s direct answer to this modernism and apostasy in the Church, are her request that the third secret be revealed to the world in 1960, because “by then it would be evident”, and Sister Lucia’s warning the Faithful not to wait for the call to do penance to come from the Bishops.
In 1960, when Pope John XXIII read the third secret, he immediately refused to publish it, saying “this does not apply to my pontificate”. He then included the following words in his opening address to the Council :
“In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.” “We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand. In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church. ”
— DIVINE PROVIDENCE LEADING US TO A NEW ORDER ..MEN’S EFFORTS… GREATER GOOD OF THE CHURCH….Each of his successors followed in his footsteps to varying degrees.
Proof that Our Lord is still with this Roman Church, despite the errors of Papal modernism, came when He appeared to Sister Lucia in Rianjo, in 1931, after the Pope and others had rejected Mary’s request for the Consecration of Russia and said, “Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune. Later Our Lord complained: ‘They did not wish to heed My request! … Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late…”
For Him to be displeased with His ministers’ disobedience, they have to STILL BE CONSIDERED, HIS MINISTERS. Like the “Roman Catholic” kings of France, He gives them all ample time to do His will — just as the Israelites were always given time after the Prophets warned them of impending punishments for idolatry . Free will is a gift for eternity. We can continue abusing His patience, but He limits the time for our evil actions for the sake of those who will still come to Him, and for the elect who are suffering its results.
When Peace finally comes to the whole world, all mankind will be able to see, (though still free to reject), the Roman Church as the Bride of Christ, now repentant of sin and denial of Christ, like St. Peter, forgiven and made the rock on which the Church was built, bearer of His greatest Graces and blessings to all souls, keeper of the keys to Heaven which honors it’s King and Queen.
We urge everyone to avoid letting knowledge and lofty “logic” become a tool of Satan, which leads you to reject the true Church. Our Lord and Our Lady are staying with it, as they obviously are from what they’ve said during and after Fatima, so we need not wonder what to do while this Diabolic disorientation at the top plays out. Run to our Holy Family and imitate them.
Keep identifying and renouncing falsehood, but don’t leave.
You are all in our prayers,.
God Bless you.
Jimmy, the doctrine of papal infallibility is and always has been perfectly “balanced” by the limits it operates in, which are of course extremely strict.
–
The same, essentially, goes for papal primacy: “For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.” The pope isn’t allowed to tear-down the Church. Not even the supreme pontiff has any mandate open enough to allow him to lawfully work against Christ. How do we know when he is doing so? Not via “private interpretation”, as the neo-Caths love to howl, but by weighing his words and actions, as all Catholics are bound to do, according to the defined doctrines and dogmas of the Church.
–
Thus are we able to point out the irony, for example, of the neo-Caths yelling “PAPAL PRIMACY” for the pope that doesn’t even seem to consider himself that. He doesn’t even claim to command anyone in the name of Peter.
Truly excellent post.
Gangenelli, as far as coming around goes, you are correct that I may well have given you too much credit. I do not presume, of course, to know your heart or your soul. I do know that we can do no more than lead someone to water; he must do the drinking.
–
What I can say with virtual certainty now, though – thanks to your own words – is that you do not understand our point of view, and also that where you are now is where some of us used to be, and it was indeed thinking, praying, and learning that moved us beyond that place – for beyond it we are.
–
Any person who is not willing to be corrected will call an attempt at that “condescending”. I actually make a sincere effort to be charitable and to assume the best of intentions. Perhaps I do fall short in those regards.
–
As far as your current place, you’ve told us what it is: you “cannot accept” that popes could be tainted by modernism (even this is in no way contrary to any Catholic teaching, even though Catholic history has plenty of examples of popes embracing heresy personally, and sinning mightily, and even though the evidence that these men do show the influence of modernism is really beyond question). What one “cannot accept” one will not accept, and will construct any alternate thesis possible to that end.