Archbishop Gerhard Muller stirred the ecclessial pot last week when he said of the Society of St. Pius X in an interview with the Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera:
“The canonical excommunication due to the illicit [episcopal] ordination was lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism; because they have removed themselves away from communion with the Church.”
For those unaware, please allow me to state for the record that I’m not a member of the Society of St. Pius X; I’m just a Catholic guy who refuses to accept stones in the place of bread, regardless of who may be doing the serving.
With that in mind, I feel compelled to begin my commentary on this topic with a few reminders:
1. We’re talking about an interview in a secular newspaper.
2. Neo-con Catholics were quick to dismiss any number of Pope Francis scandalous remarks simply because they were only reportedly made in an interview with the mainstream media.
3. Archbishop Muller is the same reliable source who told us just a few weeks ago that the liturgical reform after Vatican II was a smashing success that “has proved an effective remedy against a godless culture.”
As for points 1 and 2, I have no doubt that Archbishop Muller believes the SSPX to be in schism; I mainly just wished to point out, as if anyone reading this is as yet unaware, that the neo-con Catholic ethos is inherently hypocritical.
Regarding point number 3, it should be rather obvious by now that when it comes to Archbishop Muller’s insights on matters Catholic, caveat emptor is the order of the day for the wise. As if to make that very point himself, Archbishop Muller stated in the very same interview with Corriere della Sera that Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, the founder of liberation theology, “has always been orthodox.”
Now let’s consider the allegation of schism. According to Canon Law, schism is defined as follows:
“Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (cf Canon 751)
This definition presupposes that one has the Catholic wherewithal to consider that said “submission” is limited to those things that are consonant with the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine; i.e., it is not an absolute submission such that one is bound to submit to those things that are contrary to the Faith.
Yes, this would seem to be common sense of the most elementary kind, but in this age of diabolical disorientation, one cannot assume that all possess it.
Now, let’s consider more specifically that to which the SSPX has refused submission, summed up rather concisely in a statement made by the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay:
“Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘Sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that.’”
To be perfectly blunt, if Pope Francis were to knock on my door right now to personally request that very same act of submission on my part, I’d offer him the utmost respect, a good cup of coffee and the opportunity to have his photograph taken with me in front of the fireplace, but I can assure you I would not submit apart from the very same kinds of clarifications the SSPX has insisted upon.
Nor should any Catholic, for the simple reason that what the pope is asking (and let us assume in charity that he somehow fails to realize as much) is that we deny the Lord. It really is that simple.
Anyone interested in exploring multiple examples of how the content of the Council is unworthy of being accepted carte blanche is welcome to scour the archives of this blog, but here’s just one example that is so patently obvious that it simply cannot be denied apart from denying revealed truth itself.
In the Declaration on the Church’s Relationship with Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, the Council states, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.” (NA 4)
Bearing in mind that Nostra Aetate intends to address the Church’s relationship with Non-Christian religions, “in our time,” it is clear that one can either submit to the notion that this utter nonsense is “an integral part of Tradition,” or one can believe in the words of Our Blessed Lord who said, “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (cf Luke 10:16)
(A detailed examination of this unacceptable statement in Nostra Aetate can be read here.)
This much should be abundantly clear, one who is well-formed in the Catholic faith simply cannot submit to both Our Lord Jesus Christ and to a pope who demands submission to NA 4; it’s either one or the other.
As for me, I will serve the Lord and thereby reject any such illicit request for submission. Furthermore, I will by God’s grace gladly suffer the consequences no matter how bitter.
Archbishop Muller can cry “schism” all he wants, and the pope can chime in if he so chooses, but for those who understand what is truly at stake, there is no sting, just the blessedness that comes from being reviled and persecuted on account of Our Lord.
How long until they start calling you a schismatic?
Being called a schismatic from the Novus Ordo Church is a compliment!
Terrific commentary. And to compliment what you say here, there was a great article written on this subject by Christopher Ferarra back in 2011 called “Gnostic Twaddle.”
It’s ironic how the only people “excommunicated” in this epic crisis of the Church are the ones who are following what the Church has always done.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0205-ferrara-gnostic-twaddle.htm
How can one really define formal schism during the present passion of the Church?
I think any of us can be very free with the appelation – it has even been used of me, because I ‘commune’ with, and will take advantage of the services of certain sedevacantist and sedeprivationist clerics.
But sometimes, especially in these present dark days, I believe what some may see as schism to be merely (if one may describe it so) an “error of judgement,” in which there may be no evil motive.
St Thomas Aquinas made an error of judgement in not concluding to the Immaculate Conception (before it was defined, of course).
St. Vincent Ferrer and St. Colette both started out (and Blessed Peter of Luxembourg remained entrenched) in the camp of the Avignon pontiff during
the Great Schism (now there was a confusing time!)
Can any of say we would be more enlightened?
I personally am not sedevacantist or privationist. But I understand completely why some would hold to this position.
Maybe they are correct, but I in good conscience I cannot see it. And whenever there is a strong doubt, one must follow an informed conscience.
But I will NOT condemn them, nor say they are not Catholic, no more than I would say the humble layman suffering (or not suffering, for that matter) in the pew on any given Sunday in a Novus Ordo parish is not Catholic, so long as they hold the Catholic Faith according to the best of their God-given ability to do so.
I will simply live the Catholic Faith as it has always been lived.
As Robert Bolt had St. Thomas More say in A Man For All Seasons:
“I do none harm, I speak none harm, I think none harm; and if this be not enough to keep a man alive, in truth I will no more to live.”
I could write a dissertation on this,so forgive me if I become too lengthy .
I’m 83 years old and grew up when the church was right, at least as far as we knew it in our backward city of New Orleans. (Always 3 years behind the rest of the world was our mantra. We were far from perfect, but interestingly I now see how we still lived pretty much what the church taught about subsidiary.) However, in the 60’s, when everyone was becoming brilliant and we were still living in the dark ages, Houston, Miami,etc. we’re “passing us by” and we had to keep up. —Vatican II included. We had already lost one of the last great Bishops in the U.S. Archbishop Rummel. When he spoke everyone listened, including Prostestants, Jews, atheists, etc. Our city was 90 percent Catholic.
Of course we had sin (most of you know us as the evil French Quarter) Yes it was. However,the FQ is a 10 block square and we are much more than what the media darlings love portray. The devil doesn’t like Catholics and at that time NO was 90 percent Catholic.
Vatican II didn’t really begin to rear it’s ugly head until 1969 or 70. I remember attending Mass one weekday morning with my class and looked at one point, seeing the priest facing us and startled said to myself, “why is he looking at me”. That was my first recollection of tithe nonsense that is taking place now, From that moment on began the fight of my life in the Catholic Church, although I was too stupid to know why. I had a family, taught school, and was trying to take of the world , as many teachers try to do.
We’ll, in the this time of battles on all fronts in the church, our city was losing almost all of our local stores, and this was in every industry we have. Only older New Orleans’ will remember the extent our local businesses. We are like everyone else in every way – wal-mart,homo-depot,lowe’s,Walgreen, Macy’s, Dillard’s, etc.
Why do I tell you all of this cause tradition in NO was important. Families stayed. They didn’t leave easily to move anywhere. I could tell numerous stories of this.
We are no longer a Catholic city. No one pays any attention to the Archbishop, except his mammy,pammy approach, to anything moral. It’s a pitiful situation.
It took me almost 40 years to leave this nonsense in the church and attend the SSPX chapel, because I grew up when the church was always right. I knew my faith we’ll from the nuns and I knew when the Pope spoke infallibly and not. I was fighting battles everywhere in the church, even to a battle with the bishop on abortion that made me unwelcome in many places contrary to the fact I was right in my position.
At least I’m peaceful now back in the True Mass . Yes, I’ll always be fighting until I die but I have the joy and strength of the Mass and Jesus in the Eucharist to confirm that wonderful gift I received in the sacrament of Confirmation to be “a soldier of Jesus Christ” until I die. As an 11year old, thought that was the greatest gift in the world and it still is.
Hang in there fellow Catholics and if you get to the point I did and just can’t take it any more, go to the SSPX chapel in your area. Archbishop Lefebvre saved the Latin Mass for all of us, otherwise the conciliar church would not have left even the Fraternity of St. Peter continue, as Pope Francis is going to cut off very soon. Very soon everyone will have to choose SSPX or nothing!!!
Sorry if I made any typo errors. I am still impaired on I-pad’s,etc. This is low on my list for perfections. I’d much rather speak than type. I have told I talk in my sleep! Oh, well . . . . . . .
Schismatic? Truth is Truth and THAT does NOT change, no matter who says it.
Wow! I was able to read all the errors I typed and what a mess it is! Maybe one day we’ll all meet in Heaven (I hope) and then you won’t think I was very stupid.
The clergy and people don’t seem to understand, many of us just want to be Catholic. We don’t want to worship like protestants. We want to go the mass that nurtured our ancestors, the saints, martyrs. I’m blessed to have a diocesan tlm, within driving distance, where the pastor is greatly committed to the liturgy and restoration of the faith. But for many the sspx is the only way they can get to a tlm. And don’t start blabbing about the fssp. I love the fssp, but fssp parishes are very few. They are at the mercy of the bishops. Is it schism to want to be a Catholic?
Excellent riposte.
Recently I have heard the term “Vicar of Christ” being used as if it amounted to “diplomatic immunity” from criticism, where in reality it represents the solemn obligation borne by a pontiff.
Dear Bubbles…..You are a Soldier of Christ who wants to save his soul. This was always the mission of the holy Church, this mission is still true today…….. your point is very clear, do not worry about errors, nor spelling.
Louie, thank you for speaking out, in defense of TRUTH. I agree with Joe, it’s only a matter of time before the persecutors will call accuse you of being schismatic…..So be it! You are a Soldier of Christ……’truth’ is your strength!
What a blessing from God……to be Catholic, especially, in the difficult time we live in. St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that ‘Without the sin of the persecutors, there would not be the glory of martyrs,’ and with St. Paul that ‘where evil abounds, there grace much more abounds.’
May our Divine Saviour grant All Soldiers of Christ, the grace to persevere in fidelity to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church…….until death!
Viva Cristo Rey!
I’m right there with ya Louie on that part of the V2 documents, and on many others as well.
The “conservative” catholic crowd will do mental gymnastics on statements such as you point out in a desparate attempt to make the thing “not heretical.” But you know what? If you have to stand on your head, close one eye, squint the other and juggle three balls with your left foot just to make a thing “not heretical” … I ain’t swearing fidelity to the darn thing. The magesterium of the Church is there to boldly and clearly preach the Truth, not to issue seemingly heretical riddles in a fallible pastoral council that might magically become orthodox if you perform the above mentioned analogy.
I’ve been hearing the neo-cats talk about the proper interpretive “key” to unlocking the true teaching of Vatican II. FOOLS!!!! The documents coming out of a council are supposed to BE the interpretive key, they aren’t supposed to need one.
I hope that all makes sense. Just venting here.
The example of the great saint of the late middle ages, St Vincent Ferrer, is an EXCELLENT one. This man, one of the great apostles of the middle ages, was in fact a strong supporter of antipope Benedict XIII. In other words – the church has raised this man to the dignity of the altars DESPITE having supported what later church authority would claim was an antipope. So, the Church does not condemn a soul, and would even raise it to the highest glory, who would make an error of judgment without any evil motive. In fact, St Vincent Ferrer was instrumental in helping to bring about an end to the great western schism, ultimately withdrawing his support for antipope Benedict XIII.
My conclusion from this would be – in times of great confusion such as the present one, ultimately THE MOST important thing is to hold fast to the traditions and teaching of the Church as She taught from 33 AD – 1958 AD, and God will bring about a solution to the present crisis in His own good time and through His own will, performing our duties in life to the best of our God given abilities.
Craig V,
Very humorously and very succintly put!! : ) It is amazing what mental gymnastics the V2 defenders will do to make the unorthodox seemingly appear orthodox! God Bless.
Let’s not be too hasty in condemning Muller for he has also said, “Baptism is the fundamental sign that we are sacramentally united in Christ, and that presents us as the one visible Church before the world.” I jest, of course, for he was not speaking of the SSPX, but rather of Lutheran heretics.
see the following:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_159_Muller-Prot.html
Bubbles, Though you made me cry for the many years you’ve soldiered on, you give me hope that there are still faithful Catholics, like you Louie and the others here.
After wandering 20 years in Protestant Evangelism, I was brought home to Holy Mother Church in answer to my mother’s faithful rosaries (by the grace of God and Our Lady.) And when I got home, the very situation you describe and Louie writes about, is the situation in which I found myself. After reviving the faith as the nuns taught it to me in my youth, all I could do was ask everyone; what have they done with the Mass? You can be sure that after 20 years I recognize Protestant influence when I see it.
My diocese is a modernist mess, and I wonder how long they will keep me as a catechist. I pray for the grace to persevere…My heart is so heavy as I watch things play out here and in Rome.
Blessings always and +
Caroline, if you’re in Rome Italy, there’s the fssp parish, and the ICK offering the tlm
Mr. Verrecchio, this blog has truly been a gift these past few months since I found it. This post and, in addition, the comments to it have highlighted a fundamental problem that I have (and maybe others like me have also). I was Protestant for most of my life and only realized my errors and converted a little over a decade ago. I was completely submerged in the “conservative” Catholic world and received almost all of my instruction from that perspective. I have only recently begun to realize the utter MESS things are in. I wonder if many of the conservatives’ problem is not related to my own: that they simply have *no idea* what real Catholicism is. They think they’re living it, but when faced with statements impossible to reconcile (whether they are in V2 documents, papal interviews, etc.), they simply *cannot* fathom that the possibility that they could be erroneous. I struggle with this daily. I honestly do. I am so confused! I see it happening right before my eyes, as this blog describes, but something in me simply cannot believe or accept that it can be. I have no personal experience of what it was like before or directly after V2. Maybe that makes it easier to call these things by their true names and make definitive statements and choices on the present situation. I don’t know. All I know is that I have been unable to make that last definite leap to say “If this happens, I’ll have to side with X”, etc. I know what my eyes and ears are telling me, but it simply does not compute with what I have been taught and what I’ve learned of Catholicism as of the late 90s. It *does* look to so-called conservatives that it is schism–and if there is one thing a conservative wants to avoid AT ALL COSTS , it’s schism. I truly believe they love the Church (or at least they mean to, even if they don’t really know her). Personally, I’m closer than I’ve ever been to being able to call a spade a spade, but it scares me out of my mind and breaks my heart all at the same time. What should people such as myself do? What should we read in order CLEARLY to be able to see the situation in all truth? How is it possible to be faithful to Christ while at the same time even entertaining the possibility of *not* being obedient to the Pope, etc.? If they say that V2 is orthodox, how do *I* say that the entire magisterium is wrong? Please forgive this rambling, but I feel like I’m facing a dilemma of epic proportions and am throwing lifelines everywhere for help.
I’ve been immersed in neo catholicism for.years too. I am convert tho I was never protestant. It is hard to separate all of these things. I just try to stay away from neo catholic books and sites and stay with the saints and doctors and fathers. then my thinking becomes clearer and I’m more confident about what I believe and why. The sspx situation is harder for me to grasp honestly but I don’t have an sspx chapel I could go to anyway. Listening to the audiosancto sermons helps me too.
Thank you Mr. Verrecchio, and all the commentors for making this blog a worthwhile place to reflect on our present challenges.
@Leo You nearly summed up my own thoughts on motives and moral certainty in recent months. I have a sedevacantist friend whom I couldn’t persuade otherwise. I could neither refute his logical exactitude nor doubt his earnestness. For my part, I consider the SV position to be insufficiently imaginative about just how logically dissonant the unfurling “mystery of iniquity” will be. Unless I received a divinely spark of intuition in its favor, I’d always second-guess SV as a conclusion, so I keep it on the shelf. I’m persuaded that these various faithfully Catholic responses come right down to exposure and temperament (not rams vs. sheep). I was quite content and much more secure in my place among the flock as a “conservative” besting all of the terminally lame liberals. It was perfectly binary. I sure didn’t seek out these ecclesiological reservations, but my former self would have quickly denounced my present day “schism” with a clear heart, uninformed as it was.
@Magdelen I feel your confusion over all this. Ironically, our course of action must come down to that primacy of conscience (if so pressed) that the revolutionaries have enshrined over and above dogma. I have the good fortune of attending Mass at an “approved” chapel that I’ve reason to believe will stand undisturbed unless Rome implements a general prohibition of the Latin Mass. But pressures to swear adherence to conciliar continuity could be their Achilles heel in the near future. I think my clerics would sooner close up shop. That will be my reckoning time. God put me where he did. I take it as a sign to hold out hope and contribute what I can towards restoration.
God Bless you for sharing that important history, Bubbles, you chose right.
——-
If it came to choosing between the spirit of the peritis of VII, or the Real Church, there’s simply no choice needed; Council Peritism is not Catholicism – it’s a new heresy and it bites. I live in a diocese drowning in spirit of the peritis and it’s a sad sight. The bishop dresses like he’s just popping out to have a beer and a quick round of bowls with his chums – I think he’d break out in a rash if he had to wear a cassock. There is a whole generation of priests and nuns who have taken it upon themselves to obliterate the treasures of God’s Church; all as if butter wouldn’t melt.
——-
I wonder what level of hell, and what particularly fitting punishment Dante would have given to the perpetrators of VII? Do they belong int the eight circle of Hell with the deceivers, schismatics, counterfeiters and false witnesses? Or only the sixth hell with the heretics? It is peritism that is schismatic AND heretical. it’s the spirit of VII that has raged with hatred through the Church like wild-fire. In whatever circle of Hell they’re heading for it would seem fitting that for all eternity they be stuck in one of the ugliest VII churches, with the most silly ‘liturgical’ music, noise noise noise, lay people clamouring all over the sanctuary like the crazy women at the Mass in Germany, and be forced for forever to listen to the homilies given in my parish every on an endless loop. Methinks their enthusiasm for Martini’s vision of the Church would sink like a stone.
Thank you Saluto. I’m delighted you mentioned Dante’s Inferno. Of course the Vat II church doesn’t believe that anymore. Fr. Barren, the darling of the neo-conservative crowd, claims that we can be relatively certain that hell is empty. Jesus lied.the church lied, the saints lied, The Pope recently told us that the Blessed Mother probably thought God had lied to her. It all fits just like the devil knew it would . We have suddenly in the last 50 years finally discovered that for 2 thousand years everyone has been living a lie. My,my aren’t we brilliant!
Dear Bubbles, thanks for teaching us a bit about our Catholic history, and thank you for fighting the good fight and for offering clarity to those of us who are deeply confused about the direction of our current Catholic leadership.
Magdalen, I feel just as you do. A convert, too, I’ve been steeped in the teachings of the neo-Catholics… I just can’t understand how the infallible pope could be making so many unwise statements. How could the leaders of the Church be teaching with such certainty the “truths” of V2? How could the true Catholic soldiers who fight on the side of ancient tradition be the schismatics? How could Charasmatics get more respect from the Bishops than Traditionalists?
So sometimes I ask myself (and a few days ago my cradle Catholic, non-practicing husband asked me) “if the Church is infallible, maybe Vatican 2 is right.” Maybe I just need to shut my mouth, turn off my brain, and OBEY. What about “obedience”? As I watch my husband’s Mexican Catholic family lose their faith and religious traditions, I feel utterly heartbroken at this post-Vatican2 disaster. “Obey” and continue on this disasterous course of souls falling away. Or be a “schismatic” and try to live the faith at it has been traditionally taught?
It’s a very lonely and confusing place to be. And I beg God every day for guidance.
feedieB said: It’s a very lonely and confusing place to be. And I beg God every day for guidance.
you are not alone in feeling that way. pick up your rosary and comfort will come. God bless.
Bubbles: Great post!
I for one, have a success story to share.
But first a little background. I, like all of us, am a victim of the 1970 liturgical heresy. In my case, the heresy reared its ugly head when I was between 5th and 6th grade. Specifically, I attended an inner city Catholic school where each day began with a low mass. Toward the end of each school year, all the boys in 5th grade who wanted to serve would be rounded up and instructed in the rubric. So it came to pass that I volunteered, learned the rubric, learned all my prayers and responses (in Latin) and was set to join the “long black line” the following year. A few days before my 6th grade school year, all the alter boys would be called in and the mass schedules were given (if I remember correctly, it was a weekly rotation between the 6th, 7th and 8th graders). But this inaugural meeting was like no other, and to my horror, I learned that the rubric was to be changed for the up coming school year. Gone was Latin, prayers at the foot of the alter and responses. Gone was offering the sacrifice at the alter, and a table was installed in front of it. Needless to say, I was not a fan of the novelties. But I served that entire year, and part of the next year. That year, my family moved to the suburbs, and here the culture shock ensued. Our new parish had one of those space ship churches that did not resemble anything that I was used to . No daily mass (good actually), and the alter boys didn’t even wear cassocks. I wanted no part of it. After graduation, Catholic High School ensued, but it was all modernist rubbish. Still remember sophomore religion class, where the instructor (a supposed deacon) had an obsession with the “mistaken” Catholic notion that the Jews killed Christ. Anyways, lost interest in the new religion, and stopped going altogether in the mid to late ’70’s. The reason that I got away with not going at a relatively early age is that my father (God rest his soul) stopped attending mass after we moved to the space ship church.
Fast forward to the mid 1980’s, I read in one of the local papers about the Indult masses that started to appear in the Chicagoland area. But couldn’t find one until the late 80″s when I stumbled upon the TLM offered at St. John Cantius. Started going to the 12:30 Tridentine High Mass. At that time, there was literally 3 regulars, and I was one of them. When I told my father about it, he asked if he could come with me. So he became the fourth regular.
Fast forward to Christmas Mass 2013. Couldn’t attend the High Mass since my younger son is ill, and the wife had to stay home with him. So I went with my 6 year old to the evening low mass at my local SSPX chapel. After the low mass, as the prayers after mass were being recited, I noticed that my 6 year old was reciting the Ave Maria’s along with the Faithful. Being the young “Pelagian” that he is, he knows all the basic prayers. However, he has not learned the Salve Regina yet (we usually attend the High Mass). On the way back home, he asked my about the prayer that he did not know, and asked me to teach it to him. We started yesterday.
Summa summarum. 2013 hasn’t been the best of years, but I have a lot to be thankful for this year. I will always remember 2013 as the year that I have succeeded in “passing on that which I have received” to the next generation. It still is a long road, but at least the direction is true.
St. Michael Archangel, ora pro nobis.
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis.
Thank you.
I did not revert to Catholicism and abandon the Hindu cult I was a member of for 10 years, where blind obedience to a personality, the “guru,” was required, to join another personality cult in the form of blind obedience to a leader who so obviously either has not read the clear Christian doctrines handed down for centuries and easily accessible to even the most casual internet user or is in willful disobedience to them himself. I will place my faith and trust in the Living Lord and the deposit of Faith in Tradition.
Good on you, psychthomist. and another helpful and hopeful history, S.Armaticus.
‘they (post-concilliar popes) have consistently refused to see any relationship between their own abandonment of integral orthopraxis and attacks on doctrinal and moral orthodoxy that undermine their authority and have brought about the dramatic dechristianization of two generations.’ G. Hull – The Banished Heart.
The Pope is not infallible on every utterance that comes from his mouth! We need to understand that. There are limited circumstances where that charism is present and he must at least be speaking ‘ex cathedra’. Even the present ‘exhortation’ is personal view and not magisterium.
Here is a thought to consider: When Bl Pius IX became Pope, he was a liberal revolutionary. God changed his heart and he became a reactionary and would promulgate the dogma of the Immaculate Conception! This Pope may well change too. Bl. John Paul II came to the Petrine office as one who was skiing and enjoying various things but over the years all those things were taken as his health situation changed. He became one of the many suffering souls.
This Pontificate is new. Time may make a difference; we can only hope. The attitude towards those who love the fullness of the faith and all the true teachings is most disconcerting but let us wait and hope and cling to what we know and the dogmas and doctrines that can never change.
Pope Pius IX was famous for his admirable vigor and tenacity…..not a ‘whimp’. He was the Pope who defined the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Pontifical Infallibility……in spite of the gnashing of teeth of the enemy. He condemned the evil of the Ecumenism, Indifferentism, Inter-religious Dialogue…..the practice of the conciliar Popes (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis)……. that forbade to convert to the one true Catholic Faith…… schismatics, heretics, Jews and pagans….Miserere! “By their Fruits you shall know them.”……St. Matthew 7:16
Pius IX, said in his Encyclical ‘Singulari guidem’ …..’According to this system, those who have strayed from the truth, who are enemies of the true Faith and forget their own salvation, and who teach contradictory beliefs which never had stable doctrine, admit no distinction among the different creeds…….RATHER…..they make a pact with everyone, and defend that the have of eternal salvation is open to the followers of all religions……..’You see, Beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, how much vigilance is needed to keep the DISEASE of this terrible evil from infecting and miserably killing your flocks……DO NOT cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors.”
…… Bl. John Paul II came to the Petrine office as one who was skiing and enjoying various things but over the years all those things were taken as his health situation changed. He became one of the many suffering souls…….May God Have Mercy on his soul!…..Eternal Rest grant unto him, O Lord……..!
How tremendous is the ‘transitory’ victory of the Revolution in the Church today! We can only ‘wonder’ how magnificent will be her VICTORY!……..toward which we shall march, with His Grace…….let us remember the examples of Pope Pius V…..the most rigid interpreter of the Counter-Reformation, who became the patron of the Inquisition; and Pius X in his courageous battle against Modernism; and Pius IX ……..with our eyes fixed on Our Lady……we can be sure that the VICTORY will come.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Miserere nobis!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, ora pro nobis!
On line at:
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/065837621bedf51d45b91a5e75699ef5-174.html
….please read the “Martini Pope”…….
Interesting letter from His Excellency Bishop Williamson calling upon the SSPX Resistance to ally with sedevacantists:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=28913&f=19&min=0&num=5
P.S. I find the timing of Archbishop Muller’s comments quite curious. They come at the tail-end of Bishop Fellay’s trial against Fr. Pinaud:
http://abplefebvreforums.proboards.com/thread/1027/father-pinaud-condemned-deprived
@Savonarola:
Williamson’s case is just an example of the clouds parting to reveal the tue sky. I, like many others, believe he has always been a crypto-sedevacantist; but in the initial house clearing of 1983, kept his head low – for whatever reasons.
PaulV said:
“Let’s not be too hasty in condemning Muller for he has also said, “Baptism is the fundamental sign that we are sacramentally united in Christ, and that presents us as the one visible Church before the world.” I jest, of course, for he was not speaking of the SSPX, but rather of Lutheran heretics.”
WINONA’S WOMB
Up the raging Mississip
And at the St. Paul’s source
South, below the ragged cliffs
There is a fiercer force.
A force which surges
Human blood between her banks each June
Then tears and rents herself for all
She is…Winona’s womb!
And like the raging Mississip
Her channels open wide
And birth the men who are the priests
The source of Mother’s pride.
And from that raging Mississip
And at that St. Paul’s source
South below the ragged cliffs
Push priests from land of Norse.
Who ride the river far and wide
For souls from shore to shore
And bring them home to Mother’s side
To leave Her never more.
And up where current’s all the rage
And sin is sorrow’s source
Still south, below the ragged cliffs
WINONA STAYS THE COURSE!!!
Amen, amen I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him. – St. John 13:16
@ saluto:
“I wonder what level of hell, and what particularly fitting punishment Dante would have given to the perpetrators of VII? Do they belong int the eight circle of Hell with the deceivers, schismatics, counterfeiters and false witnesses? Or only the sixth hell with the heretics?”
## When people commit different sins of unequal gravity, Dante puts them in that part of Hell where the graver or gravest sin is punished. So a lot of the Church-wreckers would probably be down in the tenth (and lowest) *bolgia* of the eighth circle, among the Falsifiers. The Schismatics go in the 8th *bolgia* of circle 8. So Paul VI would probably go in circle 8 bolgia 10.
In the Declaration on the Church’s Relationship with Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, the Council states, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.” (NA 4)
## As the link commenting on this quotation makes clear, the evil of this quotation is its ambiguity. Christ has indeed made that reconciliation – what the quotation omits to mention, is that St. Paul is addressing Gentiles who are Christians, who are reconciled with Jews *through being “in Christ” with those Jewish Christians*. The quotation in the document leaves one to infer that Jews and Gentiles are reconciled because of Christ, and that that is the end of the matter. It is not. The Church’s Faith on this point is subtly mis-stated, or at the very least, lacks details essential too a right understanding of it.
This is the Council that unsaid Pius XI’s insistence on “the Peace of Christ in the Reign of Christ” – I hope the Council Fathers liked the worldly unpeace that flowed like sewage into the Church when they dismantled that Heavenly Peace and glorified man instead. The Church is in a pickle – but only because it has what the Popes wanted. So it’s a bit rich for Paul VI to complain about “the smoke of Satan”. Reject Christ – and in comes the devil. Man must serve the One – or the other.
essential too = essential to
@Jimmy:
‘the Church-wreckers would probably be down in the tenth (and lowest) *bolgia* of the eighth circle, among the Falsifiers. The Schismatics go in the 8th *bolgia* of circle 8. So Paul VI would probably go in circle 8 bolgia 10.’
Which means they probably don’t believe in hell. I wonder if they believe in Heaven?
Magdelen: to get an idea of what the Church was like pre-V2 start attending the TLM every Sunday, read the Baltimore Catechism, and scroll thru Louie’s blog to pick out the errors in the V2 documents. It basically comes down to three main points: ecumenism, collegiality, and religious freedom. Also, check out the definition of Modernism and read the article on the SSPX website on the Catechism…it pulls out all of the hokey stuff like “the Dignity of Man” garbage that is the foundation to the “Church of Man/Church of Nice” that we were taught. Hopefully you will not have to choose between following a Pope that insists we lie and call V2 fine…hopefully the FSSP will stay. Cont’d below.
P.s., I never quite understood the ‘smoke of Satan’ realisation from Paul VI either. He was the one who reinstated Bognini. It’s like letting loose the wrecking ball then lamenting the mess one has made without making the connection that it’s one’s own fault.
The neo cons insist that the council and thus the documents are “infallible”. The are NOT…the documents themselves note that they are not binding and that they are pastoral and doctrinal/dogmatic in nature. Bishop Athansius Snyder (spell?) has been calling for a syllabus of errors for the council for some time. The only magisterial documents that are infallible are the ones that are noted so explicitly and are dogmatic in nature. You are not required to obey the Pope if what he is calling you to do goes against the deposit of faith. Infallibility only extends to very specific circumstances that line up with the deposit of faith. Yes, the neo cons are clueless about their own faith. Cont’d
I would know…I was one of them. But it was my thirst for truth that brought me to CMTV, then Louie’s blog after watching “A Conversation With”, and finally to the many links provided in the countless blogs that have unveiled the treasure of the Catholic Church denied me my whole life. If every neo con lay Catholic were educated on the truths of the Church and the crisis going on, I would imagine most would seek obedience to the deposit of faith rather than a fallible leader, even if he is Pope. We’ve had screwy popes before…take a Church history class. CMTV has them. If the conciliar church takes away the FSSP, I honestly don’t know what I will do…but know the Lord will guide me:+) God bless and have hope!
Woops…in the second comment I meant to say “They are NOT…the documents themselves note that they are not binding and that they are pastoral and NOT dogmatic/doctrinal in nature.” Hang in there Magdalen…it’s stormy seas, but since the Lord is in the boat with us, all will be well:+) God bless~
While I agree that Vatican II has created a lot of confusion and ambiguity the statements I read bother me like the ones that say of they have to choose the Pope or the Faith they will not choose the Pope. I hate to have to admit this but this in some ways is being schismatic or SV. Jesus says clearly he who hears you hears ME and he who rejects you or rejects Me If you do not follow the Pope or recognize him as the Vicar of Christ you will NOT be saved. You will go to Hell. You have to be in Communion with the Church even if you don’t like what is going on. Vatican II is not worth losing your souls over. I see this site as a Integral Catholic site and they are just as bad as the Modernists. This is also to extreme a position to take. We are Catholic Christians. Stop with the labels.
Sheena: I think that’s what MMC was addressing – that VII is not that infallible voice. That’s why these ‘pastoral’ messages are messing with people – because even the popes making them must admit that they are not speaking as ‘he who hears you hears ME.’
We have to be very careful of not mistaking becoming dupes of the devil for humility.
Would one of you Saluto,Halina,etc. who are savvy on the internet or history of the church relate the story of St. Athanasius. He was totally alone. We need to be very grateful for Archbishop Lefebvre.
Hey Bubbles. Halina left a good deal of information on this post:
https://akacatholic.com/o-schism-where-is-thy-sting/
also the book by Michael Davies is cheap as chips and well worth it:
Regarding the Arian heresy:
“In that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of Our Lord’s divinity was still proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the Ecclesia docta (“the taught Church”—the faithful) than by the Ecclesia docens (“the teaching Church”—the Magisterium); that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great sees, at other times general councils said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercelli, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them… On the one hand, then, I say that there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens.The body of the bishops failed in their confession of the faith.” – Michael Davies: Saint Athanasius: Defender of the Faith. Angelus Press.
@bubbles – oops, wrong link for Halina’s info. Here it is:
https://akacatholic.com/bishops-its-time-to-turn-in-your-man-cards/#comment-3038
–
Here’s the New Advent essay on him:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm
–
Here’s a link defending Pope Liberius who excommunicated Athanasius (though under duress):
http://papastronsay.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/holy-pope-liberius-there-is-place-for.html
@bubbles – oops, wrong link for Halina’s info. Here it is:
https://akacatholic.com/bishops-its-time-to-turn-in-your-man-cards/#comment-3038
–
Here’s the New Advent essay on him:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm
–
Here’s a link defending Pope Liberius who excommunicated Athanasius (though under duress):
http://papastronsay.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/holy-pope-liberius-there-is-place-for.html
@bubbles – oops, wrong link for Halina’s info. Here it is:
https://akacatholic.com/bishops-its-time-to-turn-in-your-man-cards/#comment-3038
Here’s the New Advent essay on him:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm
Here’s a link defending Pope Liberius who excommunicated Athanasius (though under duress):
http://papastronsay.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/holy-pope-liberius-there-is-place-for.html
Yes, I have read Michael Davies book. And I did go to all the sites you posted. Actually,I guess I was looking for a short story on St. A.
to show the similarity of then and now in the church. I wasn’t very clear in my request to you “brilliant ones”. Sorry about that ! This was not for my own edification but for others.
Lou, I totally agree…there are many Catholics, even who attend the Mass in the vernacular, who would do the same. The actions of Bergoglio against the FFI are merely thug-tactics to intimidate Catholics to follow the Masonic plan for the transmogrification of the Church.
It would be good to have a lay organization which took a stand on this and worked to convince Catholic laity world-wise of the necessity of opposing Modernism, openly and in practice. This would help resolve the issues of the aggiornamento and gut the lie that the laity wanted or has benefited from them.
Dear Mr. V. You did not meet your normally high standards when you wrote this;
“This definition presupposes that one has the Catholic wherewithal to consider that said “submission” is limited to those things that are consonant with the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine; i.e., it is not an absolute submission such that one is bound to submit to those things that are contrary to the Faith.”
for that is opposed to Catholic Tradition:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pope Pius IX: Quanta Cura §5
“We cannot pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that ‘without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.’ But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is not a defensible position to claim that one may obey or disobey the legitimate competent authority when it is contrary to the will of the subordinate for that is merely a confession that the subordinate has arrogated authority to its own self; and that is what the SSPX has clearly done. It obeys the discipline of the Pope when such discipline is in synch with its own will and it disobeys the Pope he takes a decision contrary to its will. For the SSPX it is its will that must be done for, supposedly, the good of Tradition.
I write that one true test of whether or not one is fully Catholic is if one submits to Divinely-Constituted authority even if (actually, especially, if) the decision taken by the legitimate authority is contrary to your will or desire; that is, if we only obey when what is asked of us is in harmony with or will, that is a confession that we are the one who wields authority; that is, it is a confession of a practical protestantism.
Msgr. Brunero Gherardhini (is he still considered an acceptable Traditionalist?) has written that a blanket rejection of Vatican Two (V2 as rupture) is the other side of the coin of sedevacantism; that is, both represent rejection of the church.
As one who has, repeatedly, publicly committed the vice of the accusation that V2 is a rupture, I publicly apologise for having committed that sin (thereby lumping my own self in with sedes) and I urge others to consider that the SSPX is diabolically dangerous in that Satan is using them to substitute Tradition (as the sspx defines it) for the Catholic Church Jesus established.
There are many (Gherardhini, Mattei, etc etc) who have legitimate questions about V2 but those questions are raised by them as they remain faithful and obedient Catholics who maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and Holy Mother Church will deal with those questions in her own time, not ours.Our task is to maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and wait on the Lord during this time of trial.
That is Catholic Tradition whereas rejection of Divinely-Constituted authority is Protestant Tradition.
“I am not Spartacus”
You miss the point, and obviously have never payed attention to the document you quote:
not enduring sound doctrine, …
is the key word. Lou is speaking not about a case where a subject not enduring sound doctrine refuses obedience or communion from a Pope who teaches sound doctrine.
When it comes to a discussion of Schism, nearly everyone misses the point. Schism is a two way street…just as a subject can be maliciously in a state of refusing the jurisdiction or communion of his legitimate superior, so a superior can be maliciously in a state of refusing to shepher in Christ a legitimate subject. In the case of a superior who maliciously intends the destruction or theft of what is sacred, which intention is manifestly malicious per se, as anyone who has the Faith recognizes, so we can talk about Bergoglio causing schisms inasmuch as he is the principal agent and creator of them. If St. Bernard of Clairvaux and an entire synod of Burgundian bishops threated a pope in their day with excommunication for his lack of resolve regarding the investiture controvery, we cannot, I think, reasonably conclude that it is always a sin to oppose the inaction or malicious action of a Roman Pontif who works for or refuses to defend the Church from Her enemies.
Dear Catholic at Rome. Good Lord. English must be your second language, right?
The not enduring sound doctrine refers to those, like your own self, who think you can disobey Pope without sinning.
As to your failed attempt to justify schism, it is complete and total unCatholic novelty in an attempt to rationalise your refusal to obey; and, it is heinously heretical for anyone to sit in judgment of the Pope; that is, you are acting like a Latter Day Luthert.
Repent while you still have time, brother.
And now I am done responding to you.
Then, Not Sparticus, based on your comments, you would have to agree with statement below, that I found in a comment to the linked post.
“We have no need to define the Church by her teaching, or the faithful by their tenets. Once accept that the unity of the Church through time is the unity of a living organism, then growth, change, adaptability can be admitted, without compromising her identity. ”
In other words, the church is no more than a club or political organization, whose teachings and tenets can change from time to time.
“We have no need to define the Church by her teaching, or the faithful by their tenets. Once accept that the unity of the Church through time is the unity of a living organism, then growth, change, adaptability can be admitted, without compromising her identity.”
Dear Mr. Recchia. But the Church is a living unity as that is one of her Traditional signs; that is, if you think of the Church as the Body of Christ not being a corpse.
“Dear Mr. Recchia. But the Church is a living unity as that is one of her Traditional signs; that is, if you think of the Church as the Body of Christ not being a corpse.”
Not Sparticus, thanks for taking the time to read the comment in the link. Apparently I misread your posts, which I thought focused on the Catholicity of the SSPX, from a traditionalist viewpoint. I did not realize you were defending Modernism.
Based the reply, your view of Catholic Tradition appears to be analogous to jurisprudence in the United States of the past 75 years that has imposed a “living Constitution.” This results in “judge-made law” completely inconsistent with the concept that members of the judiciary must submit to a higher authority: that of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. The effect has been destruction of our economic, social, and legal system that parallels, at a slower pace, the destruction taking place in the Church. To quote Justice Scalia, on the Constitution, “It is not a living document; it is dead, dead, dead!”
So too is Catholic Tradition.
Dear Mr. Recchia,
Spot on.
I personally like to use the word CONSTANT. The deposit of Faith is that which Jesus Christ gave the Apostles and has been passed on through the generations, i.e. Tradition.The Faith is just as CONSTANT as is the North Star and 2+2 equaling 4. When speaking about the Church, that which is described as “living” is nothing more than an organic process (positive, as opposed to normative) that exists because of the constancy of the Faith. Just like the plat grows because of the constancy of its DNA. If one changes the DNA, he changes the plant, just like if you change the Faith, you change the religion or rather transform it into an ideology to be more precise (and as you have observed correctly).
“Dear Catholic at Rome. Good Lord. English must be your second language, right?
The not enduring sound doctrine refers to those, like your own self, who think you can disobey Pope without sinning”
## A completely hypothetical case:
If a Pope commanded a priest to rape a child, the priest would sin by refusing to obey that Papal command, correct ? He would be obliged to obey the Pope and rape the child, would he ? By your reasoning, the answer is apparently “Yes” to both questions.
The question is a serious one, not a trap or joke.
The question was directed to I am not Spartacus