As I write, it has been more than two months since Amoris Laetitia was disseminated throughout the entire world; a document that Bishop Athanasius Schneider publicly confirmed as containing “objectively erroneous expressions.”
Among those “expressions” are the following, just to name a few:
– The assertion that adultery isn’t necessarily mortal sin that deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. This is heresy.
– The assertion that the Divine Law is at times impossible to keep, and God Himself sometimes wills that men should persist in adultery. This is blasphemy.
– Those who persist in adultery and fornication with pertinacity may receive the sacraments; including Holy Communion. This is an open invitation to sacrilege of the gravest kind.
Even so, according to the esteemed Doctor of Canon Law, His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke:
How, then, is the document to be received? First of all, it should be received with the profound respect owed to the Roman pontiff as the Vicar of Christ, in the words of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of both the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium, 23).
The very suggestion that the faithful are ever called to receive blasphemy, heresy and sacrilege “with profound respect” is entirely offensive to Catholic ears. When such offenses against the true Faith as these are dispensed by a man who (allegedly) is pope, it should only serve to inspire the faithful to repudiate them all the more vigorously lest the innocent be deceived.
That said, Cardinal Burke (man of the Council that he is) did well to cite Lumen Gentium – the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Vatican II – as this document contains the seeds for the suffocating papalotry that is presently on display in men like himself and so many others.
Specifically, we find in Lumen Gentium 25 the following:
In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Let’s begin with a closer look at the operative phrase “religious submission.”
In the normative Latin text, the phrase under review (which is repeated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law – 751) appears as obsequium religiosum, with the precise meaning of obsequium most often translated as “submission.”
This translation, however, is a matter of some debate; in particular, among progressives who rather prefer words like “respect” or “deference” instead.
In any case, what we have here, my friends, is a good ol’ fashioned two-edged sword.
In the folly of my neo-conservative youth, mine eyes could see but one edge alone; namely, the one that could be used to cut “spirit of Vatican II” dissenters down to size.
I recall very well writing and speaking on this text, and calling the attention of my readers and listeners to the fact that the Council Fathers had exhorted the children of the Church to two types of assent; the “assent of faith” (reserved for infallible teachings, also treated in LG 25) and “religious assent” as described above.
“One will note,” I often said with no small measure of smugness, “dissent is nowhere even suggested; much less encouraged.”
By the grace of God, I now realize that the other edge of this sword is the sharper of the two and indeed truly dangerous; apparently honed by the Devil himself in anticipation of revolutionary post-conciliar popes (and those who would pose as such) whose “magisterium” would include such odious texts as Amoris Laetitia.
Ironically enough, the progressives were actually on to something with respect to LG 25, albeit with evil intent, all along.
Notorious dissenter Richard McCormick, S.J., for example, has long maintained:
“The obsequium religiosum must be understood in such a way that the possibility of error is foreseen and provided for in the expected response.” (Corrective Vision, Explorations in Moral Theology, Sheed & Ward, 1994, Chapter 7)
The possibility of error in a magisterial text officially disseminated by the pope?
This, I suspect, is an eventuality that true sons of the Church like Cardinal Alfredo Ottovianni and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre simply couldn’t envision as the Council met; a day and age when “the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians … is presumed to be well known and familiar to all” (cf Pope John XXIII, Opening Address to the Council, 11 Oct. 1962).
With men such as Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII in mind, the inclusion of the call to obsequium religiosum in the conciliar text must have impressed the outnumbered guardians of tradition at the Council as a victory for the “good guys,” and understandably so.
Oh, but isn’t that just Satan’s way!
Returning to Cardinal Burke…
As you certainly know, he argues that Amoris Laetitia isn’t magisterial at all (which, if true, makes it all the less worthy of “profound respect”), but rather is it nothing more than a “personal reflection.”
I have bad news for Cardinal Burke:
According to the Council that he is so fond of quoting, it’s not up to him to determine what is, and what is not, magisterial; rather, this determination resides in the pope’s “mind and will in the matter,” such that the nature of a given papal text “may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (cf LG 25).
In this we see evidence of the maxim (coined at this very moment by the present writer), “live by the Council, die by the Council” – another sure sign of Satan’s hand.
So, what is the “mind and will” of Francis in the matter of Amoris Laetitia?
Speaking at the same Diocesan conference wherein he proclaimed the “great majority” of sacramental marriages invalid, Francis said:
For your tranquility, I have to tell you that everything that is written in the Exhortation (AL) – and here I take the words of a great theologian who was secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Schönborn, who presented it – everything is Thomistic, from the beginning to the end. It is sure doctrine.
There can be no doubt that Francis intends for Amoris Laetitia to be received as “authentic magisterium,” in which case according to Lumen Gentium 25, we are called to acknowledge with reverence, and sincerely adhere to, such repugnant notions as:
– The Divine Law is just too difficult to keep
– Adultery isn’t necessarily a mortal sin, and Our Lord at time desires that we should persist in it
– The sacraments, including Holy Communion, can be given to those who persist in adultery and fornication as a help toward attaining to the “ideal” that is Christian marriage
Is there any worthy of the name Catholic who is willing to give “religious assent” to such things?
The very idea is laughable, but this isn’t just some far-fetched “what if” scenario; far from it, rather, it is precisely where one ends up when they make the mistake of trusting the Council as a reliable guide in matters of faith.
With all of this said, bear in mind that LG 25 doesn’t simply speak of papal magisterium; thus leading to papalotry, but also of that which comes from the bishops.
Furthermore, it naturally includes the text of the Council itself; thus leading to a certain Councilotry (if you’ll allow the expression).
Herein lies a critically important point for those who truly wish to understand the diabolically deceptive nature of the conciliar text:
Beyond those instances where the traditional doctrine is faithfully repeated by the Council Fathers, the text of Vatican II is not, in and of itself, binding on the faithful. (See nota praevia attached to Lumen Gentium.)
In other words, where the conciliar text deviates from tradition (e.g., with respect to such matters as ecumenism, religious liberty, and non-Christian religions), the faithful are under no obligation whatsoever to either accept or adhere to such things.
Widespread rejection of these conciliar novelties on the part of the faithful, however, would obviously derail the Evil One’s destructive designs.
The solution?
Simple; obligate the faithful by way of the conciliar text to grant to such poisonous prose the “religious submission of mind and will” (LG 25).
What this means is that the Council’s authority to obligate the faithful to “submission” rests, not in the duty that is owed to the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles, but rather in the Council itself.
Clearly, this is tantamount to a “circular argument” and plainly so, but it’s also apparently deceptively brilliant (al Diavolo); so much so, that post-conciliar churchmen are pleased to apply it with impunity.
Consider, for example, the following taken from an essay in L’Osservatore Romano (disseminated worldwide by the Vatican News Service) written by Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz Braña, who served as one of Rome’s theological experts during the 2011 doctrinal talks with the SSPX:
A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council: on the sacramental nature of the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc. These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will.
Monsignor Braña’s justification for this unjust demand? You guessed it:
“The various levels of assent owed to doctrines proposed by the Magisterium were outlined in Vatican II’s Constitution Lumen Gentium (n. 25)…”
All in all, I firmly believe that an argument can be made that Lumen Gentium 25, due to its far reaching implications with respect to the faithful’s response to doctrinal innovation, represents one of the most dangerous of all the conciliar propositions.
That it is as subtle as it is testifies well to its origins.
“His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
We can certainly tell that Bergoglio has the mind of a heretic from the dishonest, worldly character of his documents, his verbal frequent repetition and defense of what appears in his documents, and even from his manner of speaking, which is utterly undignified and alien to that of a pope.
As for his will…who knows? He certainly doesn’t think he is a heretic…
In my work as a calibration technician, I determine whether or not an instrument measures correctly by comparing t0 to something I know to be more accurate, and has a chain of traceability to NIST or natural physical constants. This chain of traceability is much like establishing a geneology of the instrument, and provides me with confidence that the instrument I am calibrating will actually measure correctly when ‘Im done. The comparison method is a well known technique for determining the “trueness” of the measurement device.
A key phrase from the LG quote given above was :
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; …”
AUTHENTIC!
The only way to determine authenticity or “trueness” is by comparison to
what has been taught and believed from the beginning.
The only way to know this is by educating oneself with the historical record.
The Vatican II crowd did not envision that every single faithful Catholic would someday be able to download reams of Church history and documents while lying in bed in their pajamas. They envisioned a bunch of ignorant sheep who would roll over when the command was barked down from on high. So the Modernist heretics thought they could fool everyone once they were in the driver’s seat.
This is how to check whether or not what is claimed as authentic Magisterium is actually authentic – compare it to the past!
The method of comparison to authentic Tradition and authentic Scripture is the only reliable key to determining authentic Magisterium. This comparison must happen before giving one’s religious assent of mind and will – Informed assent is what provides the faithful with essential checks and balances against Pope worship and the the cult of personality, and attempts to change the Faith.
To do otherwise leads to situations like Jonestown. It is time to stop treating bishops and Popes like little oracles from God.
Michael F Poulin
Louie, I certainly hope that Cardinal Burke reads your blog! Even to refer to Francis as the Vicar of Christ reveals his ignorance, or worse, his loyalty to one who is NOT an ambassador for Christ—but the exact opposite. He is an ambassador for the enemies of Christ. Wake up, Burke. If you’re supposed to be the best out there in Novus Ordo land, Heaven help us!!
I was quite taken aback to read, in an earlier akaCatholic article, Cdl Burke’s call to the laity to jolt awake the clergy to the dangers in Amoris Laetitia. I agree that we should all be alarmed at this document…But we’re to educate the clergy? Good grief! And what is he doing in the meantime?
Cardinal Burke, like the FSSP, wrap themselves in the cloth of tradition. They will tell you that the New Mass is valid. It cannot be said with 100% scientific certainty that the New Mass is valid or not valid. Between these two points there remains doubt. A Catholic is never allowed to approach a doubtful Sacrament.
Neither Cardinal Burke, nor the FSSP, will inform Catholics about the Church’s prohibition on approaching a doubtful Sacrament. It is not surprising that Cardinal Burke will not come down decisively on Amoris Laetitia. The diabolic disorientation in the Church continues without meaningful opposition.
It isn’t Magisterial because novelty never binds. The key phrase is AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIAL. It must at least not contradict past teaching… and be in accord with past teaching. Otherwise it binds no one.
Dear Rush: while I agree with the spirit of your comment, I would say there are substantial differences in moral courage between Burke and the FSSP. When push comes to shove, I suspect the FSSP priests will be willing to “stand up and be counted”; however, Burke has already shown us which side he is on, and – surprise, surprise! – it is not the right one.
Dear norancor: This is an excellent observation. It is deplorable that the catechism of John Paul II contains almost nothing but quotations from these “novel” documents, with an occasional crumb thrown to Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers. A true Catechism would never be written in such a slipshod way. Unfortunately, we see many Novus Ordoists tossing around “proof-texts” from the catechism of John Paul as if it were the Holy Bible.
It appears that “Saint” John Paul II’s catechism is under attack by the very ones who declared him “a Saint”. Rumor has it that a New (and Improved??) Catechism is in the works. If JP2’s catechism is too “catholic” for these guys, we can only imagine what the next revision would entail. Scarey, isn’t it?
“The very suggestion that the faithful are ever called to receive blasphemy, heresy and sacrilege “with profound respect” is entirely offensive to Catholic ears. When such offenses against the true Faith as these are dispensed by a man who (allegedly) is pope, it should only serve to inspire the faithful to repudiate them all the more vigorously lest the innocent be deceived.”
Isn’t it also entirely offensive to Catholic ears, not to mention absurd, to think that any offense against the true Faith could come from a pope? If so, then those who claim we have a true pope are in an impossible dilemma: they must assent – not resist – as you point out, to what is given by the pope. But the pope has given heresy. But Catholics cannot “accept” heresy any more than they can accept any deliberate evil. But Catholics also, again, cannot resist the pope.
Louie, THAT is the deepest and most problematic proposition that must be faced.
Speaking of that Dogmatic Constitution, how is it that ABS is expected to religiously submit to a violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction?
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
22. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church,
Back in the day, in the Peimonte area of Vermont where Amateur Brain Surgeon was born, the old timers would have said about the claim –well, that doesn’t make a damn bit of sense..
How’n’hell can an Ecumenical Council identify two different subjects as both being Supreme?
It realistically can’t for such a claim is contradictory as two subjects can not both be supreme and, as such, this novel doctrine violates the principle of Non-Contradiction
Only one subject can be supreme, unless we are talking about Diana Ross and the dolls
Hi George,
I think you missed my point. The FSSP has been telling people that it is okay to go to the Novus Ordo Mass since 1988. The FSSP signed a document upon their founding, to accept the NO and the Council. That means that the FSSP has never been a defender of Tradition.
Sure, they say a Latin Mass, but that’s where the sheep’s clothing comes into play. Are there solid priests in the FSSP? Yes, there are many good priests in the FSSP. That does not change the fact that as an Order, the FSSP came into existence to lure priests away from the SSPX. The Holy Spirit does not do things like that. The FSSP is not a work of the Church.
Many people don’t have an SSPX Chapel they can go to. They go to an FSSP Mass instead of the NO. That is by far the better course. But for those with access to the SSPX, they should go there.
Bishop Lefebvre and no one else, preserved the link with Tradition. The passage of time can’t change why the FSSP was created. Loyalty to Tradition is a black or white proposition. Satan does his work in shades of gray.
It’s impossible for Bergoglio to think he is a heretic. He has re-written the Catholic faith according to his own rules. How can you commit heresy against yourself???
Dear Rush: thank you for your clarification. I agree with you.
Papa Bergoglio has NO Idea WHAT “Thomistic” means.
The Angelic Doctor’s Philosophy is written CLEARLY.
Amoris Laetitia is a 256 Page Rambling Lunacy, Promoting HERESY.
Ditto, Vatican II!
At WHATEVER Banquet that Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke is at this evening, Vatican II is NOT the ONLY Council.
Archbishop Lefebvre quotes:
“We must remain Catholic. The slide into ecumenism is very dangerous. Easily one falls into a religion, which is no longer the Catholic religion.
I sincerely wish that all could be witnesses of Our Lord, of the Catholic Church of the Faith, and of Catholicism, even if we have to be despised and insulted in the newspapers, in the parishes and in the churches. What does it matter? We are witnesses of the Catholic Church. We are the true sons of the Catholic Church and true sons of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”
“Q. Rome these days, seems to be over-run with Modernists. Do you have any real friends there?
A. They who might be our friends, and who recognize the damage which Modernism is causing to the Church, have not had the courage to uphold it, and so it is possible to say that Rome is almost completely occupied by the Modernists. All that is done there is done according to modernistic principles.”
“…The Holy Ghost descended on the first Christians even visibly, changing their lives. He descended on the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. And behold, the Apostles, who were timid, fearful men, who feared persecution, who shut themselves in, hid themselves during the persecution of the leaders of that time – the scribes, the Pharisees – the Apostles became valiant soldiers, heroes, witnesses, martyrs. They dared to confront anyone. To those who said to them, “You do not have the right to speak,” St. Peter answered, “Non possumus non loqui – we cannot fail to speak. We have to speak; you will put us in prison.” He was chained, St. Peter; and then St. Peter was delivered by an angel. And they have all done the same thing the holy popes, the Apostles, all the successors of the Apostles, and those who have resolved to follow the Apostles in this testimony that they gave of their faith. Many of them have given their blood, as a consequence, to testify for their faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is the Holy Ghost; without the Holy Ghost they would never have been able to do that. It is the Holy Ghost who has penetrated them, and who has given them this strength, this courage that comes from God.”
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“…our thoughts turn to the Mamertine prison, so close to us here, where Peter and Paul were put in chains because of their faith: And shall we be afraid to affirm our faith? We would not in that case be the true descendants of the martyrs, the true descendants of those Christians who shed their blood for Our Lord Jesus Christ in affirmation of their faith in Him. They, too, could indeed have said, “But, since all religions are of equal value, if I burn a little incense before an idol, what does that matter? My life will be saved.” But they preferred to die, they preferred to be thrown to the beasts in the Colosseum, quite close to us here. So many, many martyrs were thrown to the beasts, rather than offer incense to pagan gods!
So, may our presence here in Rome be an occasion for us to strengthen our faith, to have, if necessary, the souls of martyrs, the souls of witnesses (for a martyr is a witness), the souls of witnesses of Our Lord Jesus Christ, witnesses of the Church. Here is what I wish you, my most dear brethren, and in this we must be unflinching, whatever happens. We must never agree to diminish our faith; and if by misfortune it were to happen that those who ought to defend our Faith came to tell us to lessen or diminish it, then we must say: “NO.” Saint Paul put this very well: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Well, that, I think, sums up clearly what I wanted to say to you, so that when you return to your homes you may have the courage, the strength, despite difficulties, despite trials, to remain true to your Faith, come what may, to uphold it for yourselves, your children and future generations, the Faith which Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us; so that the pathway to heaven may still have many pilgrims, that it may still be crowded with people on their journey upwards, that it may not be a deserted byway, while on the other hand, the road leading to hell is filled with those who did not believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, or who rejected Him. We must think on these things, because it is what Our Lord told us: “If we do not believe, we shall be condemned.”
This “religious submission of mind and will” to the post V2 novelties is itself a post V2 novelty. I said it years ago, and it is good to see Louie pointing it out.
Joel 1:13-15
13 Gird on sackcloth and lament, O priests,
wail, O ministers of the altar.
Go in, pass the night in sackcloth,
O ministers of my God!
Because cereal offering and drink offering
are withheld from the house of your God.
14 Sanctify a fast,
call a solemn assembly.
Gather the elders
and all the inhabitants of the land
to the house of the Lord your God;
and cry to the Lord.
15 Alas for the day!
For the day of the Lord is near,
and as destruction from the Almighty it comes.
Louie
I doubt you intended to do so, but you just demolished one of the foundations of the SSPX/Rome Agreement. One of the major articles in the proposal presented to Rome By Bp Fellay proposed the SSPX’s submission to LG25. This article has been defended since by apologists for the agreement on the basis that LG25 is in conformity to Tradition. That, of course, was also the position of Archbishop Lefebvre (“It is not me who must sign that, but they…”), but as you hint, good bishops like him could not have forseen how such a text would be interpreted by modernist. Thanks to Msgr Ocaritz & Card Burke, that is no longer the case. We do see clearly the ‘time bomb’ that LG25 is.
It also indicates just how dangerous it is to mess with accepting anything in V2. As Bp Fellay used to say, if the chocolate cake has even only a little poison in it, you’d be foolish to eat any of it.
Excellent.
Actually, you can say with “100% scientific certainty” that the New Mass is valid through Eucharistic Miracles, though some might be able to argue that our senses, reality, the meaning of anything, or the principle of non-contradiction isn’t “100% scientifically certain”, but like 99.9999…% (a finite number of 9’s) scientifically certain. So, it may not actually be 100% certain, but I know what you mean, namely about 99.9999…% (a finite number of 9’s) certain.