In his 1926 encyclical on Catholic Missions, Rerum Ecclesiae, Pope Pius XI felt it necessary to remind those who serve as missionaries of their duty to perform both spiritual and corporal works of mercy.
For many in the Church today, especially considering the widespread giddiness that surrounded yesterday’s “canonization” of Teresa of Calcutta, the Holy Father’s words will undoubtedly come as a shock, and likely for an unexpected reason:
Let Us recall what We said on another occasion, namely, that the missionaries who preach to the heathen know only too well how much good-will and real affection is gained for the Church by those who look after the health of the natives and care for their sick or who show a true love for their infants and children. All of which only goes to prove how readily the human heart responds to charity and to kindness.
Oh, I can hear it now…
See that? Mother Teresa is a model of heroic virtue who blessed us with a missionary example most worthy of emulation! I told you so!
Not so fast…
The reason these words of Pope Pius XI should give pause to the devotees of Teresa of Calcutta is simply this:
As the Holy Father wrote, just as it had been from the very earliest days of the Church, everyone worthy of the name Catholic knew very well that the goal of all missionary work is to bring souls to Christ; i.e., to “preach to the heathen,” to rescue him from his errors, and to bring him to new life in the waters of Baptism.
As such, Pius XI desired to remind missionaries not to overlook the corporal works of mercy, as these too are necessary.
In other words, all concerned were well aware that the spiritual works of mercy lie at the very heart of the Church’s mission, and thus, at the very heart of every missionary endeavor.
There is no need to insist how foreign it is to the virtue of charity, which embraces both God and men, for the members of Christ’s Church not to think of those unfortunate souls who live in error outside the Fold. Surely the obligation of charity, which binds us to God, demands not only that we strive to increase by every means within our power the number of those who adore Him “in spirit and in truth” (John iv, 24) but also that we try to bring under the rule of the gentle Christ as many other men as possible in order that “the profit in his blood” (Psalms xxix, 10) may be the more and more fruitful and that we may make ourselves the more acceptable to Him to Whom nothing can possibly be more pleasing than that “men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” (I Timothy ii, 4) [ibid.]
Pope Pius XII, writing in his encyclical “On Promotion of Catholic Missions,” Evangelii Praecones, also gave an indication of just how unquestioned the nature of Catholic missionary work was in the minds of all concerned:
The object of missionary activity, as all know, is to bring the light of the Gospel to new races and to form new Christians. However, the ultimate goal of missionary endeavor, which should never be lost sight of, is to establish the Church on sound foundations among nonChristian peoples, and place it under its own native Hierarchy.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man whose missionary activity is truly worthy of emulation.
That was in 1951, just sixty-five years ago. Today, it seems, practically no one knows, or even cares to know, that Catholic missionary work is truly all about forming new Christians.
Yesterday in Rome, Francis the Loquacious, declared a “Saint” a woman whose so-called “missionary” activity was the embodiment of this dreadful phenomenon.
Not only did Teresa of Calcutta ignore her solemn obligation to counsel the doubtful, instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner unto the forming of new Christians; she boldly set herself against the spiritual works of mercy and laid them to waste!
There are so many religions and each one has its different ways of following God. We never try to convert those who receive [aid] to Christianity, but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” (Mother Teresa, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers , pp 81-82).
Far from trying to bring under the rule of the gentle Christ as many other men as possible in order that “the profit in his blood” may be the more and more fruitful (Pius XI), Mother Teresa sought only to confirm the heathens in their errors, and the reason she did so is plain:
For her, every religion is a “way to salvation,” with the only prerequisite being misguided certitude and abject ignorance, and God knows she wasn’t about to disturb their peace by instructing them otherwise; much less was she willing to admonish those who sin against the First Commandment.
And now, thanks to the apostasy in Rome, countless poorly formed Catholics believe that this woman actually provided a model of heroic virtue that one does well to follow.
There is absolutely no disputing the fact that the cause for Teresa of Calcutta never would have been undertaken at any time prior to the 1960’s; in fact, had she lived just 40 years earlier, she would have been severely censured for her heterodoxy.
As I wrote in the previous post, Mother Teresa provides a stellar image of the post-conciliar ecclesial crisis.
In response, a friend forewarned: “The neo-caths will lose their minds when they read this. Prepare for unbridled vitriol.”
She was absolutely right, and their reactions were very telling:
Clearly, one of the results of today’s hyper-focus on the corporal works of mercy to the near exclusion of those spiritual is the feminization of Catholic men.
The corporal works of mercy take effort to be sure, but the heathens, heretics and Jews are out there feeding the hungry and clothing the naked as well, and the enemies of the Church are delighted to make sure that everyone knows it for a reason.
That they do so, not in the name of Christ, but in the name of performing random acts of kindness, sends a deliberate message – we can make the world a better place without Him and His Church; in other words, who really needs to be Catholic? It’s enough for the Hindu to be a better Hindu, the Muslim a better Muslim…
The spiritual works of mercy, on the other hand, require the firm resolve of a genuine soldier for Christ.
Unlike feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, activities that are met with the world’s applause, instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner is a sure fire way to invite scorn and persecution; the likes of which even the popes of the last fifty years have been unwilling to endure.
As such, I suppose it’s no coincidence that so many of the outraged respondents on social media to my protests against the “canonization” of Mother Teresa were whiny emotional males who didn’t even attempt to mount a Catholic defense of her religious indifferentism; the simple fact that they were personally offended was all that really mattered.
Feelings, nothing more than feelings…
In conclusion – to those who profess to love Mother Teresa so much, I would suggest that you demonstrate it by praying for the repose of her soul. If indeed she is in Heaven (and I sincerely hope that she is) your prayers will not be wasted. If she is not, they will not be forgotten.
Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.
“The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines”(LG 8).
Mother Teresa should have known that the teachings of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II were at odds with the unchanging Catholic Church.
When trying to bring up these troublesome points to the neo-Catholics, one is blocked or comments are deleted, even those sites purporting to be “Defenders of the Catholic Faith.” Bringing up the sin of indifference in reference to Mother Theresa just makes their puny little heads explode. I can almost hear them already: “What is it with you ultra-traditionalists? even Mother Theresa is not good enough for you (eye roll)!”
Thank you Mr Verrechio for providing a forum which so far as I can see is the only one brave enough – man enough- to tackle this issue. It is a lighthouse in a very bad storm.
I hope my fellow blog readers will consider making a donation to keep this site going.
Michael F Poulin
For argument’s sake…can the Church de-saint a saint?
Is it necessary when a pope says canonization is not infallible?
Every day it seems something new and contradictory is coming out of the Church, I’m afraid of what is next.
Traditionalists (either explicitly or implicitly) castigate Mother Teresa for her religious indifferentism (among her other sins) and fundamentalist protestants can be found accusing her of being too Catholic in her public profession of other Catholic dogmas that they decry in their heresy. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.
I suspect she didn’t give one twit whether she was canonized or even recognized. Although the recognition generated resources allowing her to continue her labors. And the fruits of her work in alleviating the suffering of others for almost 27 years (in some of the worst hell holes) seems to stand on its own. The Novus Ordo Church’s abandoning the historically followed Canonization Process has turned Sainthood into a modernist popularity contest.
In any event don’t mistake that I’m dismissing Mother Teresa’s religious indifferentism as an insignificant matter, but I’m not so quick to condemn her either. I prefer to pray for her soul and ask the Blessed Queen of Heaven to intercede on her behalf. And I’d like to place some of the blame with the Catholic hierarchy once Mother Teresa’s indifferentism (and other questionable practices) became publicly manifest. The Catholic Hierarchy “is” expected to correct us when our actions and speech are in error and manifest. Another example where the Novus Ordo Church is letting souls find their own way down the road to perdition.
Although I am a sedevacantist and will never accept the vatican 2 faith (and its hierarchy) as anything other than any other protestant false religion, I applaud Louie for stepping up to the plate on this matter.
The vatican 2 religion now has good Catholics trying to decide whether or not a “canonized” person is a saint. When is enough enough?
According to some very lengthy personal correspondence her physician and friend, Dr. Rama P. Coomsarasway posted after her death, she believed that the popes could not teach error. She said the pope cannot make a mistake.
Needless to say, Dr. Coomsaraswamy, a faithful son of the Church, refuted this error, giving many sources as references.
For arguments sake…the Vatican institution has de-sainted saints. Note how many feast days were omitted in the Novus Ordo.
Mother Theresa was a good person that did a lot of good for the poor in ways and conditions that were certainly admirable. However, we’re talking about sainthood here. It’s not about how good a person was but how holy they were. Many people are good and even exhibit a degree of holiness but that doesn’t necessarily make them a saint. For a person to be declared a saint there must be no doubt whatsoever about their sanctity. That’s why the process often took several decades or even centuries, but not eight years like JPII or nineteen like Mother Theresa. The current canonization process just looks at what good a person did to the exclusion of what they did that was questionable or even wrong. I love the way the modernists say that JPII was canonized for his personal holiness rather than through his office. That’s like saying that an abortionist can be canonised through his personal holiness at home and amongst the community to the exclusion of his occupation as a doctor.
Rich, when is enough enough? When God says it is. How dare we think we and our opinions are more important than God’s suffering Church. We have no say. The Vatican 2 Church? Oh, you mean the suffering Catholic Church, being tortured by Vatican 2.
Yes, My Church, the Catholic Church, is in crisis as Our Lady of Good Success said it would be. The confusion for our generation here is through the roof, thanks to the evil which has been allowed by God to wreak havoc from within the Church. But they would not have this power unless it had been given to them from above. I also hate this evil, but am waiting faithfully, trusting in God within His suffering Church. Our Lady of Good Success said that we would be in this crisis, but that there would also be a complete restoration. How could this crisis and complete restoration come to something that is not in crisis and not in need of complete restoration? Our Lady of Good Success was specifically talking about now, IN The Church. I don’t know how God will fix everything, but I stand here amidst the crisis, close to Our Lady and within Our Lord’s Church, receiving the sacraments, when available, in The Church. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be with the Church until the end of time, not just until this Vatican 2 crisis. He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against It. He said this obviously for us so that we would not lose hope even in these WORST of times. Why in the heck would He say that and then suddenly abandon us completely? We are so self centered to think that He would leave us now. Ride this storm out close to Our Lady. Yes, times are bad. But we need strong Catholics like us in here with Our Church as She suffers, just to be good solid witnesses if nothing else. I don’t know if I’m even making sense, but there has to be a reason why Our Lady of Good Success came to tell us all this. She could have said, “Get out. Leave. These popes are not true popes.” She didn’t though. I really believe that being here is the right place to be in the right time, as extremely painful as it is. How difficult, I wonder, would it be to witness Our Lord’s crucifixion? At least then we knew who the good guys and bad guys were right?…or did we? All His first Bishops abandoned Him. They didn’t stand up for Him, and one of His Hand chosen Bishops sold Him to the enemy. Sound familiar? Still, that one, that guy who stood at the cross quietly and closely to Our Mother, stuck with Him. Maybe John, The Beloved, represents all those who, finding stregth through His Blessed Mother, wouldn’t dare think of leaving Him no matter how chaotic or ugly it gets. Or maybe I’m just a faithful, hopeless fool. This is OUR CHURCH, My Lord’s Church. No matter what’s happening, God WILL NOT abandon us, and I will not abandon Him. I’m staying here close to Our Mother, no matter how painful.
Sometimes I wonder what you make of Our Lady of Good Success. She’s real, you know. How could anyone look her in the eye and say, “No you had it all wrong. There’s no crisis in the Church because this just isn’t the Church. What on earth were you talking about? ” Can’t She just be your last bit of thread that helps you hold on? This is the reason God sends her to us, the faithful. She’s going to fix everything. Have Faith!
Rich, when is enough enough? When God says it is. How dare we think we and our opinions are more important than God’s suffering Church. We have no say. The Vatican 2 Church? Oh, you mean the suffering Catholic Church, being tortured by Vatican 2.
Yes, My Church, the Catholic Church, is in crisis as Our Lady of Good Success said it would be. The confusion for our generation here is through the roof, thanks to the evil which has been allowed by God to wreak havoc from within the Church. But they would not have this power unless it had been given to them from above. I also hate this evil, but am waiting faithfully, trusting in God within His suffering Church. Our Lady of Good Success said that we would be in this crisis, but that there would also be a complete restoration. How could this crisis and complete restoration come to something that is not in crisis and not in need of complete restoration? Our Lady of Good Success was specifically talking about now, IN The Church. I don’t know how God will fix everything, but I stand here amidst the crisis, close to Our Lady and within Our Lord’s Church, receiving the sacraments, when available, in The Church. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be with the Church until the end of time, not just until this Vatican 2 crisis. He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against It. He said this obviously for us so that we would not lose hope even in these WORST of times. Why in the heck would He say that and then suddenly abandon us completely? We are so self centered to think that He would leave us now. Ride this storm out close to Our Lady. Yes, times are bad. But we need strong Catholics like us in here with Our Church as She suffers, just to be good solid witnesses if nothing else. I don’t know if I’m even making sense, but there has to be a reason why Our Lady of Good Success came to tell us all this. She could have said, “Get out. Leave. These popes are not true popes.” She didn’t though. I really believe that being here is the right place to be in the right time, as extremely painful as it is. How difficult, I wonder, would it be to witness Our Lord’s crucifixion? At least then we knew who the good guys and bad guys were right?…or did we? All His first Bishops abandoned Him. They didn’t stand up for Him, and one of His Hand chosen Bishops sold Him to the enemy. Sound familiar? Still, that one, that guy who stood at the cross quietly and closely to Our Mother, stuck with Him. Maybe John, The Beloved, represents all those who, finding stregth through His Blessed Mother, wouldn’t dare think of leaving Him no matter how chaotic or ugly it gets. Or maybe I’m just a faithful, hopeless fool. This is OUR CHURCH, My Lord’s Church. No matter what’s happening, God WILL NOT abandon us, and I will not abandon Him. I’m staying here close to Our Mother, no matter how painful.
Sometimes I wonder what you make of Our Lady of Good Success. She’s real, you know. How could anyone look her in the eye and say, “No you had it all wrong. There’s no crisis in the Church because this just isn’t the Church. What on earth were you talking about? ” Can’t She just be your last bit of thread that helps you hold on? This is the reason God sends her to us, the faithful. She’s going to fix everything. Have Faith!
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“…there is no longer faith in the Holy Church, it is being lost day by day. There is a desire to submit the Church to common law, to put her on the same footing and the same level as all other religions. Even among priests, seminarists and professors in seminaries there is a reluctance to speak of the Catholic Church as the only Church, and to state that she has the truth, that she alone brings salvation to men through Jesus Christ. When you are virtuous, you have done with vice ; in so far as you are in the truth, you forsake error, in so far as you are going to Heaven you avoid Hell. Do not let us come to say, then, that the Church is on the same footing as the religions which are in error: that is not possible.”
God bless you, dear brother in Christ. May your faith continue to be strong and true and grow even more so. Thank you for your spiritual encouragement. Your sister in Christ, Lynda
Amen!
The sedevacantist position indicates that due to heresy, apostasy or schism a person loses his membership in the Catholic Church (by Divine Law) and therefore cannot be validly elected as Pope (or any other position)—-that is, they never held the authority of the Papacy. If the person was already elected Pope then subsequent manifest heresy, apostasy or schism causes (again, as the result of Divine Law) the lose of membership and the office. It is irrelevent whether they retain the material appearances/possession of the office.
As near as I can determine this means that ALL of the actions, commands, professions and teachings promulgated by those who have lost membership and office are—-in toto—-null and void. Since many (if not all) sedevacantists justifiably argue that there hasn’t been a valid pope since Pius XII what’s to decide?
Let us not forget that JP2 changed the canonization process in various ways allowing “fast track” saints including number of miracles (or no miracles!), waiting period and the elimination of the Devil’s advocate. Was he preparing an easy way for his own “sainthood”??? What will Bergoglio do? Maybe he will be canonized while he is still alive? Maybe you don’t have to be Catholic? Stay tuned.
SEDEVACANTISM IS FALSE-
There is an important point that needs to be clarified regarding the respective opinions of St. Bellarmine and Suarez. While there is indeed a difference between the two on the speculative level, when it comes to the practical level both opinions are in agreement. The difference between the two opinions refers to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion.
The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office. This is opposed to the opinion of Suarez, and others, who maintain that the judgment of guilt and declaration by the Church cause the loss of office. One opinion maintains that the Church judges the Pope guilty and then declares he has already lost his office as a result of his heresy; the other opinion maintains that the Church judges the guilt and then renders a declaration that causes the loss of office. The difference between the two is more technical than practical.
These are the two main opinions of theologians with respect to a heretical Pope, and the Church has never made a definitive judgment on which of the two is correct. But what is important to note is that both opinions agree that for a sitting Pope to be removed he must first be declared guilty of heresy by the Church – by an ecumenical council, or by the College of Cardinals.
Those who adhere to the Sedevacantist position based on the opinion of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, who held that a manifestly heretical Pope automatically loses his office, have mistakenly concluded that their private judgment on the matter suffices in place of a formal judgment by the Church; and that, based on their private judgment, they are permitted to declare openly that a man elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope is not a true Pope (8); and furthermore, that they are then permitted to attempt to persuade others to accept their private judgment as a public fact. (9) Based on this false premise, Sedevacantists apologists have spilled much ink over the years trying to explain to individual Catholics in the pew how they can detect heresy in the Pope, so that they too will personally conclude that the Pope is a “manifest heretic” and publicly adopt the Sedevacantist position. What they have failed to understand is that the judgment of heresy is not left to individual Catholics in the pew, but to the Church, which is why John of St. Thomas said: “be he [the Pope] ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned.”
This demonstrates the wisdom and prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre, who, while not ruling out the possibility that a future Pope or council might determine that the post-Conciliar occupants of the Chair of Peter “had not been Popes”, left the final judgment to the Church, rather than rendering a public judgment he had no authority to make – especially given the fact that the Church has never declared that a Pope who falls into manifest heresy loses his office ipso facto, rather than by virtue of a judgment and declaration by the Church.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/d9316b1dfdf813d95b197bee8640f489-219.html
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“There are not two religions, there is only the religion of God, the religion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ is God. He came to earth to found His religion. There are not two religions, there is only one religion, the Catholic religion, and so, if we believe there is only one religion, we should pray and do penance for the conversion of souls, for their conversion and not to embrace them with all their errors and vices. This is not doing them a favor. It is deceiving them. This has always been the attitude of the Church: to send missionaries all over the world, even if they are martyred, to win souls for Christ and for the Church.
It has never been understood that henceforth there should be no more missionaries. We want to uphold and prolong the Catholic Church. We want to uphold the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We want to proclaim that the Catholic Church is the true religion and that everyone is called to convert to the Catholic Church. For this we pray, we do penance and we try with all means at our disposal to do good wherever we are, in order to convert souls.
There you have it, my dear friends, the resolution which we should make today, especially to have devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to her Immaculate Heart. With her we will fight, we will continue the combat. We will continue the fight against ourselves, against all that is evil in ourselves, all that is evil in our families, all that is evil in our cities, so that Our Lord Jesus Christ can reign everywhere and always. We will pray to the Good Lord and to the Blessed Virgin Mary to help us to continue the fight. We will not be taken in by this false ecumenism…
There you have, my dear friends, what I wanted to say to you. In a few minutes we shall join, shall we not, with our Lady of Fatima, with all those who have faith in Our Lady, especially to the great and venerated Pope Pius XII, who drew up this consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We shall repeat his very words and put our entire lives and souls under the protection of the Immaculate Heart and pray that the reign of Mary be established over the earth and over souls.”
Cortez, THAT’S what our Confirmation is all about.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I beg all the readers of AkaCatholics to please pray and have Holy Masses offered for Ireland, which is under the control of Satan and his demons. Please pray especially for the Catholic defenders of the unborn children who have sacrificially worked to save babies from being sent to baby-killing factories in England and elsewhere from those abortion companies’ agencies in Ireland. The pro-abortionist horde, promoted constantly by the so-called Media and backed by NWO organisations are rabidly attacking these long suffering Catholics who stand up against evil and work with pregnant women to help mother and baby escape from the clutches of the abortion agencies. They are particularly targeting a great Catholic couple, and the Media, and other institutions are assisting them in persecuting them and tomorrow plan to hurt and intumidate them by gathering to threaten them in a crowd at their premises. The bishops (and most priests and religious) are as for decades in gross dereliction of their duties and nowhere to be seen when it comes to defending Faith and morals or persecuted Catholics. I’m sorry, with the distress on top of everything, I can’t write clearly what I intend. Thank you. God bless you all and all the persecuted Catholics. Lynda
Sweet Heart of Mary, be Ireland’s salvation!
In 1931 Our Lord taught Sr. Lucia this prayer:
“By thy pure and Immaculate Conception, O Mary, obtain the conversion of Russia, Spain, Portugal, Europe and the whole world!
Sweet Heart of Mary, be the salvation of Russia, Spain, Portugal, Europe and the whole world.”
BASIS FOR DISCUSSION
As a basis for any discussion it must be agreed, first, without moral doubt, that Angelo Roncalli through Jorge Bergoglio have defected from the Catholic Faith through the manifest and pertinacious acceptance of and teaching of the heresy of false ecumenism and all the heresies that followed from it including the destruction of the Tridentine Liturgy. If you believe that these heretical acts are instead a modern expression of what the Magisterium has taught for the previous 1900 years then there is no point in proceeding beyond this point.
IS SEDEVACANTISM FALSE?
So if we get to this point Rushintuit is faced with the indefectibility of a Church which has, in fact, defected. This is both contrary to Christ’s endowment to His Church and irrational. Rushintuit offers no solution, but argues that the Sedevacantist solution is a false one. Unfortunately he makes the same tired arguments against sedevacantism that have been discredited since the 1990s.
HERESY CAUSES AUTOMATIC LOSS OF OFFICE
Bellarmine along with the CIC 1917 (188.4) and CIC 1983 (194.2) instruct that public defection from the Faith results in “automatic” loss of office by virtue of the law itself—without declaration or prosecutorial process proving guilty (the latter of which Rushintuit sees as required without citation). Bellarmine noted that the “sin” of heresy against Divine Law resulted in an automatic loss of office/authority. According to CIC 1983 (194.2) while loss of office is automatic (with an attendant loss of authority) actual removal from the “material possession” of the office can only be insisted upon if a competent authority has first issued a declaration. A declaration is not equivalent to a juridical proceeding to prove guilt—-which is not required. Without a declaration the office “may indeed be vacant in law,” but not in fact. That is, while the heretic may hold material possession of the office unless the ecclesiastical machinery takes action the holder nevertheless lacks any legal authority to obligate our obedience or assent. Should he renounce his heresy in the future then this would change.
THE HERETIC’S MANIFEST ACTS CONDEMN THE HERETIC
Rushintuit’s incorrectly claims that Sedevacantists sit in private judgment. Neither Bellarmine, the CIC 1917 nor even the CIC 1983 report the requirement for any prosecutorial process to prove manifest and pertinacious heresy. That is, it is neither the sedevacantist (nor even the ecclesiastic machinery) that necessarily sits in judgment; instead, it is the manifest and pertinacious nature of the acts themselves which convict the guilty. Sedevacantists, along with the rest of the Catholic Society, are merely witnesses to the sin against Divine Law and the crime against Canon Law. Whether the ecclesiastical machinery removes the heretic from material possession of the office is irrelevant to whether we are further bound to obey his teachings (good or bad) until or unless he recants his heresy.
LEFEBVRE WAS NOT A SEDEVACANTIST
While Cardinal Lefebvre had some sedevacantist sympathies the SSPX has never been a sedevacantist organization (either during his leadership or now). In the beginning of his disputes with Rome Lefebvre expelled sedevacantist members. The SSPX has always held to a form of the “Recognize & Resist” solution to defection at the top of the Church. The problem here is that nowhere in the deposit of faith is a member of the Catholic Church given any license, whatsoever, to disobey or fail to give assent to the teaching authority of a pope who one believes to validly hold that authority and office. That is, Recognize&Resisters have no right to decide which teachings, promulgated by a valid pope, that they will and will not follow. Bellarmine only taught that one might disobey the evil commands of pope not his teachings (so long as the pope had not lost his office through heresy). Sedevacantism doesn’t have this problem.
The Apostle Paul, in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Chapter Two, instructed us to stand fast and hold to tradition. Recent Popes have chosen to ignore tradition. The Church with her tradition remains intact.
The Church cannot defect in any scenario. Her members can and have defected. The SSPX stands fast and holds to tradition. That is the only Catholic position.
Sedevacanists, while holding to tradition, claim that the Chair of Peter is vacant. They pin their private judgment on one Saint, Bellarmine, even though the Church has not officially ruled one way or the other.
Sedevacantists are not Catholic. When they die, Sedevacantists will not receive a favorable judgment. Nothing I can say here will change their minds. Their pride has blinded them to the truth.
Everyone has a choice to make. Remain Catholic while recognizing that the modern Popes have fallen into heresy or elect yourself Pope Sede and wind up in hell. I choose to remain a Catholic in good standing and leave the judging to the Just Judge who alone can judge.
This certainly places Mother Teresa’s religious indifferentism in an entirely different light. Up to this point most of the criticism of her principle sin has implied that this was her personal belief and she, with malice (used in particular sense employed by Canon Law), is without excuse.
I suspect that this absolute authority of the Papacy (without question) expressed by her to Dr. Coomsarasway was taught during her formation in her religious community. Mother Teresa would not have been alone in this regard. Furthermore virtually the entire Church (apparently except for some small pockets around the world) has accepted VaticanII’s heretical and false ecumenism (religious indifferentism is but a logical extension of it). In many cases the Catholic society has been convinced by the Church’s upper hierarchy to follow VaticanII’s heresy through false guilt, false mercy or false charity.
RUSHINTUIT’S ANTI-SEDEVACANTISM HAS BECOME IRRATIONAL
Rushintuit has been shown that even the CIC 1983 is clear about automatic loss of authority/office due to defection from the Faith. No due process is required to ratify loss of office and authority. Due process is only required for the physical removal from material possession of the office. And since it is the public and pertinacious nature of the heretical act which results in the automatic loss of office/authority Rushintuit’s accusation concerning private judgment is patently wrong. Rushintuit has failed to show otherwise.
RUSHINTUIT’S SOLUTION TO THE DEFECTION AT THE TOP IS IRRATIONAL
Rushintuit holds contradictory positions:
(1) “. . . stand fast and hold to tradition. Recent Popes have chosen to ignore tradition. The Church with her tradition remains intact.”
(2) “The Church cannot defect in any scenario. Her members can and have defected. The SSPX stands fast and holds to tradition. That is the only Catholic position.”
In (1) Rushintuit admits that the supreme teaching authority OF the Church (that is those who hold the position of Pope at a given time) HAVE defected from the Faith and in (2) he asserts that the Church cannot defect. These purported heretical popes are/were NOT merely members of the visible Church on Earth they are/were its supreme Head. As such (1) and (2) are contradictory and therefore irrational. Finally Rushintuit comes dangerously close to arguing that the Church consists of its deposit of Faith (and nothing more)—–a decidedly heretical protestant view. The protestants argue that the Church is principly invisible.
RUSHINTUIT PERSISTS IN HIS MISUNDERSTANDING
Rushintuit wrote: “Sedevacanists, while holding to tradition, claim that the Chair of Peter is vacant. They pin their private judgment on one Saint, Bellarmine, even though the Church has not officially ruled one way or the other.”
But the Church has ruled—-REPEATEDLY. Bellarmine was a declared Doctor of the Church who asserted that defection from the Faith results in AUTOMATIC loss of authority/office. And not only did the Code of Canon Law 1917 but the Code of Canon Law 1983 promulgated by Wojtyła rules automatic loss of office/authority due to defection of the Faith. Due process is necessary only for physical removal from the material possession of the office and not to ratify loss of authority/office. Rushintuit failed to show otherwise.
RUSHINTUIT APPARENTLY DECIDES WHAT HE SHOULD BELIEVE
The protestants ruled that each man is his own authority in interpreting what is to believed. The SSPX, in similar fashion, turned to Lebvebre (and now its current leaders) to determine what should and shouldn’t be believed. The heretical popes held the material possession of the See of Peter but Lebvebre was the defacto pope for the SSPX and their followers. So the practice of the SSPX to simultaneously accept the pope as valid while ignoring his teaching authority is, without doubt, anti-Catholic.
She also would have been taught the “dogma” of baptism of desire and she would have heard of some obstinate Jesuit in Boston being condemned by the holy office for preaching the necessity of the sacrament. Then came Vatican II, the new mass, prayer meetings at Assissi, and finally sainthood. So what’s tbe problem?
Says Louie: “…a friend forewarned: ‘The neo-caths will lose their minds when they read this. Prepare for unbridled vitriol.’”
–
Yes, that was a given, and the outburst is just as emotion-driven and uncharitable as I’d have expected – another victory of will over intellect for her fans. (For example, the great Fr. Longnecker simply lumped Louie in with the bitter, dishonest, mentally-unstable sedevacantists of “most holy family monestery.” A deliberate slur or simple ignorance? Who knows.)
–
Before I go on, I myself used to buy this – Mother Teresa’s modernist Catholicism that doesn’t so much deny the existence of absolute truth and a True Faith (which is *officially* what the Church teaches She is) as pretend it doesn’t exist. As a revert just learning the Faith many years ago, I bought it. I recall being happy to brag to co-workers that Catholics – I was basing this specifically on Mother Teresa’s teachings – did not, like those silly, annoying Fundamentalists, try to “covert” people. No, sir, not us enlightened Catholics! We would never do that.
–
Fortunately for me, it only took a couple years before I realized that modern liberal Catholicism was not Catholicism, that denying the Great Commission is denying Christ, and that one can see the devil so easily in this false doctrine because of this: It makes things so easy. It makes life easy, because no one minds such a Catholicism; there will be none of the “hatred” from the world that Christ told us to expect.
–
The world does not mind at all a Catholicism that says (and Pope Francis says this virtually verbatim): “Our religion is not better than any other, and all we want to do help people just like you.” (Francis breaks even more ground by even telling atheists there’s no problem at all with their lack of recognition of their creator – what St. Thomas, Doctor of the Church, calls the greatest possible sin.)
–
The Church does actually teach – officially – that She, and She alone, is the One, True Faith, necessary *in the general sense* for salvation. (Even though it is indeed possible to be saved outside this Body, which is the specific, visible, hierarchical Church that Christ founded, such exceptions are just that, and Catholics in every single other age of the Church understood that implicitly, and their behavior reflected it.)
–
In other words, every single missionary – at least every one ever honored by the Church – took as their *primary* job making converts, with their secondary purpose – in service of the first – corporal works of mercy.
–
True charity is oriented toward the salvation of the soul, not its earthly comfort; one day all will recognize this life for the temporal flash in the pan that it is.
–
Her atheist critics, such as the inimical Christopher Hitchens (who is not likely in a very happy place at the moment), ironically, lambasted her for even her very occasional, mild attempts to win converts. It seems likely she was sensitive to such criticism, due to either a lack of grounding in the Faith required or other reasons.
–
In any case, for the modern Catholics so absolutely indignant that anyone, anywhere, could raise any objection to canonizing Mother Teresa, know this: There is absolutely no way she would have been raised to the altars in any other age of the Church. Professing the very grave material heresy of indifferentism – expressly wishing souls to remain in false, non-Christian religions – would not only stop any cult in its tracks, it would have, of course, resulted in immediate canonical penalties for a religious, likely culminating in excommunication if such public errors were not retracted.
–
It is only the “streamlining” of the sainthood process – elimination of the critical Devil’s Advocate role and the acceptance of “miracles” that are objectively *not miraculous events* by the Church’s own standards (and even denied by numerous people at the center of them!) – that has allowed such a thing to take place.
–
“And what is truth?” asked Pilate. “It’s whatever you want it to be,” answers St. Teresa of Calcutta.
To lump the deceived in the with the deceiver seems to me to be misguided if this is what your sarcasm is meant to convey.
The problem with this attitude (as I see it) is that it blows Mother Teresa’s actual sins out of proportion and equates them with the heretical deceivers at the top of the Church hierarchy. This is misbegotten: From 1950 until her death in 1997 she spent the bulk of her time in hell holes alleviating the suffering of others. She wasn’t enjoying luxurious living in Vatican City banging the drum for Vatican II while consorting with communists and masons.
That is, apart from a few isolated quotes let’s see what her “actual” sins were, on a day to day basis, while feeding the hungry, rescuing the homeless, aiding the sick and comforting the dying. My “works” on this earth won’t come close to that.
Dear Catherine,
I do not know Dr. Rama P. Coomsarasway, other than having read some of his book “Problems with the New Mass.”
Your above comment, however, piqued my interest in who he was.
I found this on the internet:
Rama Coomaraswamy, son of alleged Aleister Crowley associate Ananda Coomaraswamy, was at the center of the splintering of the traditional Catholic movement into warring factions at the time when it’s leverage was the strongest. He was quite similar to his friend Malachi Martin in the depth of his deception and subversion, his skill as a masquerader, the damage he caused, and how he was able to pull it off with many of the victims of his swindle regarding him as a saint. He was a true “Kim:” Freemason Rudyard Kipling’s character in his book by the same name.”
I found this statement here:
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/12/rama-coomaraswamy-and-great-game.html
–
I really do not know who to trust in these treacherous times.
Do you think Coomsarasway was a reliable source?
Excellent post.
I do not know if anyone will read my comment, but it is worth noting that a spokesman for the Congregation of the Saints (or whatever its name is) said that JPII was being judged using the internal forum, not on his external actions. Does anyone see the hypocrisy here? We are continually told that we may not judge what is in a “person’s heart”, yet JPII was canonized on the basis of what is supposedly unjudgable. (did I just make up a new word?) It is to make one’s head spin.
I am finding the Sedevacantist position more and more compelling as time goes on. It does indeed defy logic to demand fealty to a manifest heretic. If private judgment has no place in the Church, how can we then determine when to disobey unlawful orders? We must place our trust in God and believe Our Lady when she promises that Our Lord will guide the elect. I am troubled by the argument of Rushintuit below. It seems to me that the strongest argument against his perspective is his conclusion in which he claims the power to damn souls and displays a lack of charity that should fill any faithful soul with dismay. The irony seems lost on him as he closes his argument, proclaiming his own justification and damning all whose conscience cannot consent to his conclusion.
Yes, excellent. Excellent that we, here, are somewhat aware of the evil men, these instruments of the devil, working within The Catholic Church- just trying to destroy Her. All I could say is Our Lady of Good Success wasn’t kidding. Just stay close to her-extremely close. She will end this crisis within the Church and promised a Complete Restoration! I will be there, through the Grace and Mercy of God. I will be there to witness My I mmaculate Mother’s Feet trample that old serpent. How often I have gazed upon so many wonderfully Catholic statues depicting the scenario which will be ours to finally witness! I shall not miss it! Why would any Catholic? This will be a Most Amazing Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart! She has promised us. Remember Fatima? How could ANYONE want to leave now? This is our Faith! This is what we’ve been waiting for! Hang on to your Rosary. God, has allowed this bunker, The Refuge of His Mother’s Immaculate Heart, within the bosomm of The Catholic Church!
Catholic Thinker seems to be more similar to the Brothers Dimon of the Most Holy Family Monastery than he thinks. Like them Catholic Thinker swings his sword of Catholic indignation cutting a wide swath from the body of Catholic Society; did Catholic Thinker miss anyone?
Virtually everyone (including Catholic Thinker no doubt) has (more or less) justified their condemnation of Mother Teresa using the same 32 word quote, over and over, as if this quip was an accurate description of her works on earth for the 27 years she labored in hell holes alleviating suffering. If you’re going to summarily condemn the woman and her Missionaries of Charity at least marshal some actual facts.
Next Catholic Thinker is dead wrong about the primary mission of “every” missionary. One of the more comprehensive Encyclicals concerning missionary activity (prior to Vatican II), Maximum Illud (On the Propagation of the Faith Throughout the World) Apostolic Letter of Benedict XV
November 30, 1919 places the “sole” burden of evangelization, conversion, recruitment of indigenous people for vocations and the establishment of seminaries solely on the backs of PRIESTLY Missionaries. No such burden was placed on missionary Nuns or Brothers (they have other responsibilities). And apart from the endlessly recycled 32 word quote of Mother Teresa no one has yet shown she failed to profess the Church of Christ in the performance of her “actual” mission approved by the Church.
Every Catholic is called to evangelize yet we’re unlikely to see Catholic Thinker waving his Douay Rheims version of the Bible in front of the local Muslim temple. Should we accuse him of failing in his duty? No because the Church neither requires nor expects this kind of evangelization from him.
Ouch! You got me good!
–
But not really. Even if we have an example of a pope placing the primary burden of evangelization on priests, we certainly don’t have that same, or any other, pope blessing others involved to *contravene* said activity by *telling the targets of conversion that they do not need to convert*. Do we?
–
Is the quote legitimate? Are you asserting it is not? You don’t seem to be. What, then, is your point? The fact – as you are probably aware – is that Mother Teresa expressed such indifferentism on more than one occasion. I think that’s putting it mildly.
–
As for your sede slur, it is neo-Catholics that bear the most resemblance to them: Both camps cannot or will not deal with a pope who is not impeccable, more or less. Both fail to make the critical distinctions on levels of assent and intent to bind regarding Church documents and actions.
–
Now, the fact is that Mother Teresa never would have been a candidate for canonization in any other age of the Church, as I stated. If you’d care to dispute that, let’s go. I think you know what a losing battle that is.
–
But, then, the people who are really into the New Orientation are quite aware of such things – they think the Church really did start over with Vatican II, and they like it that way. Of course, theirs is a human Church.
–
She was no doubt a woman with a big heart and perhaps great personal holiness, but her *errors* – even if they be but material – should disqualify her from being a model of Catholicism, which is what sainthood is supposed to be. If you disagree, hey, you’re in the majority – at the moment – so hat’s off to you.
A brief follow-up: When I stated that the primary goal of missionary activity was conversion, I meant *in the general sense*. That duty being primarily the duty of priests involved in a particular work doesn’t change that – you missed the point, completely, and threw out a red herring.
Apparently what’s really stuck in Catholic Thinker’s craw is the fact that Teresa was raised to the level of Saint. Who’s fault is that? Any Mother Teresa quotes mugging for sainthood; any claims by her to be without sin? Your Pharisaical moral indignation is misplaced. It was Montini (heretical Paul VI) who bowed to the crowds at Vatican II, some of whom clamored for his sainthood while he was alive.
It’s apparent that Catholic Thinker didn’t even take the time to determine the context of Mother Teresa’s 32 word quote used by him to smear Mother Teresa’s life works. This quote was purportedly the reply of Mother Teresa to a private conversation. Catholic Thinker argues as if Mother Teresa and the members of her order spent each day chanting this 32 word mantra to the cast outs, hungry, sick and dying. And, as I recall, neither did Jesus (in His public life) proceed with or even necessarily always conjoin His works of mercy with teaching theology.
In 1950 Mother Teresa began her missionary work with a handful of people; today her Latin Rite Catholic Order has approximately 4500 Sisters many of whom came from the non Catholic members of the local community. How many people has Catholic Thinker converted, fed, and cared for?
Furthermore Pius XII granted approval for Teresa’s mission in 1950. It is the priestly missionaries who bear the brunt of evangelization and for good reason—-they have the minimal theological training necessary to do the job properly.
Catholic thinker proceeds from one misbegotten claim to another. Hopefully we all lament our own lack of impeccability; however, no Catholic group (so far as I know) expects the pope, who is human, to be faultless—–that is to be impeccable. However, every pope’s faithfulness in teaching what is contained in the deposit of faith must be, without exception, faultless. Has Catholic Thinker actually cracked open a history of the Church? The sedevacantist position, for example, is solely concerned with popes that have publicly and pertinaciously espoused heresy—–their human failings are completely and utterly irrelevant. This sedevacantist concern was held by Bellarmine in his work on the Papacy and of the Code of Canon law of 1917 and amazingly even a concern of the heretical Code of Canon Law of 1983 promulgated by Wojtyła.
My advice to Catholic Thinker is to actually crack open some Catholic works written before 1958 and avoid using the Bros Dimond youtube videos as a source of knowledge about sedevacantism (or anything else for that matter).
Thank you, Maryiloveher! God bless you.
Well said. Catholicism never contradicts itself, never goes against reason, never changes.
“Pharisaical moral indignation…
…
My advice to Catholic Thinker is to actually crack open some Catholic works written before 1958 and avoid using the Bros Dimond youtube videos as a source of knowledge about sedevacantism.”
–
There goes any bit of credibitlity you might have had, really. First, the Church does not judge internals – but you do. Why is that? Why the stream of personal invective, imputing intent, judging personal actions you *suppose* I have or have not performed, etc? You are a troll, it would seem, but I am happy you’ve posted here, as you provide another opportunity for education. I won’t stoop to your level of personal insult.
–
Secondly, not for the first time by any means, I find myself wondering if I’m dealing with a sedevacantist or neo-Catholic (perhaps I’m just thick). I’d presumed the latter, but it seems that may have been a bad call. Perhaps you could be straight enough to simply tell us, or is that guarded information? (For the record, I’ve done quite a bit of study of sedevacantism over the past decade or so – all the aspects. And I will tell you, since it seems quite within the the realm of possibility that you suffer from the disease, that there is now a one-stop cure: trueorfalsepope.com. Get the book.)
–
My personal actions regarding corporate works of mercy are completely and totally irrelevant to the question at hand. This is a matter of the most elementary logic that seems to have eluded you (but then your primary motive seems to be “winning” via snarling personal attack). But, I’ll answer your question. I care for my family, including four children, every day. We give a large part of my income to charity every month. In the past, in my single life, as part of a young Catholics group, I did indeed feed the homeless, and more. (Should I be canonized?)
–
No one denies that Mother Teresa founded a successful order that did much good in the world, AND resulted in no small amount of vocations. What apparently escapes you is that the bar for sainthood is supposed to be much higher – any suspicion of material heresy was always enough to stop a cause in its tracks, for example, unless it could be proved false. The reason is entirely obvious: Saints are models of Catholics thought and life. With that, despite your odd half-protestations, there is no doubt that Teresa made statements materially at odds with the Church’s evangelical mission as it had always been understood and practiced.
–
Whether you’re a sedevacantist annoyed that I snubbed the Most Holy “Brothers” Dimond, a neo-Catholic upset that I don’t think Teresa should have been canonized even though she personally fed more people than me, or both (seems possible), I’m done with you here – you get to have the last word. 🙂
I simply calls ’em the way I sees ’em.
Nowhere in my opinions do I judge Catholic Thinker’s “internals” since I haven’t a clew what they are. I have; however, fairly characterized his written arguments (including their literal meaning, intent and tone). And in refusing to allow an out-of-context quote hold the weight he gave it to (more or less) defame Teresa’s work and refuting (with the teaching of Pope Benedict XV) his claims about Teresa’s responsibility as a missionary I forced Catholic Thinker to re-think his position. Catholic Thinker now admits that Teresa has done good work and effected converts—-this is a complete reversal from the woman he decried in a previous post.
In his concern for an improper conferral of sainthood (a concern I share with him) he set out to defame Mother Teresa instead of turning his ire to the misguided governance at the top of the Church who allowed such a thing to occur. This is hardly the only recent improper conferral of sainthood since Vatican II.
Finally Catholic Thinker is desperately trying to pigeon-hole me as one who can be safely ignored regardless of the argument. This allows him to persist in his position without regard to the truth. A perfect example is his claim that those who espouse sedevacantism suffer from a disease—-is this what he considers a reasoned argument? This isn’t an argument about facts anymore than Catholic Thinker’s attack on Mother Teresa. My work is done here.
To Pearl87:
I have a suspicion that Rushintuit is particularly loyal to the SSPX and the courage of Cd. Lefebvre. Lefebvre’s stand during the conduct of Vatican II and afterwards was courageous. I understand his loyalty but I believe the “Recognize & Resist” position of the SSPX is contrary to the Church’s teaching on the Supremacy of the Papacy. An extremely brief look at the history is interesting.
For reasons not know to me Lefebvre refused to declare Montini (Paul VI) a heretic for his promulgation of Vatican II heresies and for the destruction of the Mass. He also refused to declare Wojtyla (JPII) a heretic for both carrying on the heresy and worsening their effects throughout the Church. In the beginning of this dispute with Rome Lefebvre expelled sedevacantists from his SSPX. Later he tolerated sedevacantism among its members (at least in the US). It is interesting to note that the modern Sedevacantist position arose principly from some of the very priests trained in Lefebvre’s European SSPX seminary in the early 1970s and consecrated by Lefebvre.
Sedevacantism, though smeared by most, is the only position logically consistent with the Code of Canon Law, Magisterial Teachings concerning the Papacy, and theological teaching about the Papacy from Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church).
Finally, so called “traditionalist” publications—–The Remnant, Catholic Family News and The Angelus (publication and publishing arm of the SSPX)——have engaged in a long term campaign against sedevacantism. However, their arguments are strikingly (and surprisingly) similar to those used by the protestants against the papacy, or are misrepresentations of Bellarmine or are misrepresentations of the Code of Canon Law.
While I suspect the Freemasons and communists have been gleeful at our tearing each other apart I have no doubt that Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will prevail.