In follow up to yesterday’s post, here I offer commentary on those portions of the so-called Declaration of the truths relating to some of the most common errors in the life of the Church of our time (Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, et al) that are noteworthy for the grave danger to souls that they most certainly represent.
Yes, the Declaration does touch on certain truths of the faith, but even without the numerous errors and omissions highlighted below, it is far from an act of courage for cardinals and bishops to repeat doctrines that are already plainly known to everyone worthy of the name Catholic.
For this reason, I will not play the part of the cheerleader; as if said Declaration is a praiseworthy attempt to remedy the grave offenses that are being heaped upon Our Blessed Lord on a near daily basis by the raging heretic Jorge Bergoglio. Much less will I turn a blind eye to the Council of which he is a true son.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of “traditional” Catholic media personalities and outlets that are doing exactly this; Steve Skojec, Michael Matt, and the editors of the Rorate Caeli blog among them.
If these men take the time to read the following, one can only hope that they will be moved to do the right thing; namely, to offer a retraction, apologizing to readers for “jumping the gun” as it were, and setting the record straight by joining me in warning the innocent. Let us hope and pray that they find the humility to do so.
The Declaration states:
After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind (see Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16). (Art. 4)
The Jews and their servants in Rome are not going to be happy with this, which is a step in the right direction. Even so, it must be noted that the wording is convoluted. Why, for instance, did the authors find it necessary to place the word “alone” in this sentence?
It appears as though they wish to leave themselves an out; a basis for being able to claim when the lox and cream cheese hits the fan to say: Oh heavens no, we’re not saying that the Law of Moses has been replaced by the New and Everlasting Covenant, much less that it is void! We only mean to say that Jesus is necessary too!
The authors of the Declaration cite Romans 3:28, which states:
For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.
Note that St. Paul says without the works of the law – period – he does not say without the works of the law alone. How telling it is that the authors of the Declaration have chosen to mirror the arch-heretic Luther in adding “alone” where it does not belong; even while citing the very same verse!
They also cite Galatians 2:16, which states:
But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Fair enough, but why not include St. Paul’s straightforward explanation as to why works of the Mosaic law are useless?
For Christ Jesus is our peace, who hath made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities in his flesh: Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees … (cf Ephesians 2:14-15) [Emphasis added]
The answer seems evident enough. The authors of the Declaration cannot speak of the Jews as plainly as St. Paul, or St. Peter, or as any of the popes prior to 1958 did for one reason and one reason alone; they are men-of-the-council, and they simply cannot bear to acknowledge Nostra Aetate – 4 for what it is, heresy.
Moving on, the next article is even more flimsy:
Muslims and others who lack faith in Jesus Christ, God and man, even monotheists, cannot give to God the same adoration as Christians do, that is to say, supernatural worship in Spirit and in Truth (see Jn 4:24; Eph 2:8) of those who have received the Spirit of filial adoption (see Rom 8:15). (Art. 5)
Here, the Declaration is at pains to invite the erroneous opinion that Muslims “give to God” – meaning, the one true God – real worship; it’s just not supernatural worship. That they may technically be “monotheists” is of no matter; their “one god,” Allah, is a false god.
Cardinal Burke has publicly stated in the past that Muslims and Catholics do not worship the same God. One wonders why he couldn’t bring himself to do so in this case? Then again, no surprise; Burke’s spinelessness is legendary.
The Declaration goes on to pay homage to recent inductee into the Conciliar Hall of Fame, Paul VI:
“Our [Christian]religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven” (Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, 53). (Art. 10)
No, “other religions” do not have their arms stretched out towards heaven, but rather Hell. Once again, the Council’s influence rears its ugly head and religious indifferentism is plainly invited.
Having thrown a bone to Paul VI, the authors of the Declaration see fit to feed “Francis” by stating:
A woman who has conceived a child within her womb is forbidden by natural and Divine law to kill this human life within her, by herself or by others, whether directly or indirectly (see John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, 62). (Article 16)
Now, this is entirely true. That said, the denial of this truth is not among the “most common errors in the life of the Church of our time,” the stated purpose of the Declaration. In fact, this is one of the few doctrines that Jorge manages to get right. So why is it even there? Perhaps it is just to show the world that they are fair and balanced. Who knows.
In its treatment of marriage, the Declaration quotes the Almighty Council as follows:
“By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 48). (Art. 19)
This citation illustrates very well the folly of looking to the Council for authentic Catholic doctrine. This same article from Gaudium et Spes also states:
For the good of the spouses and their off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone. (ibid.)
Note the order; “good of the spouses” first, “off-spring” second. As readers of this space know very well, the Council (and Paul the Pathetic afterwards in Humanae Vitae, a text the Declaration also cites) was determined to refrain from teaching the true ends of marriage in their proper order; the procreation and education of children coming first, the mutual help of the spouses, second.
The Council, in this same Constitution, deliberately equivocated on this doctrine, stating:
While not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love… (Gaudium et Spes 50)
In other words, the ends of marriage are equal; none taking precedence over the other. This is simply false, but the Declaration invites the innocent to view Gaudium et Spes as dependable its treatment of marriage nonetheless.
HYPOCRISY ALERT: The Declaration goes on to say:
All authority on earth as well as in heaven belongs to Jesus Christ; therefore, civil societies and all other associations of men are subject to his kingship so that “the duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2105; see Pius XI, Encyclical Quas primas, 18-19; 32). (Art. 29)
In the articles referenced from Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI (1925) makes it exceedingly plain that every single human being, as well as all the nations of the earth as nations, have “the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ.”
Note, this duty is public. The Holy Father states that this duty is incumbent upon civil leaders acting “not only [as] private individuals but also [in their capacity as] rulers and princes.” This means that the State, just as much as every individual, has a sacred obligation toward the one true faith; the Holy Catholic faith.
Do the authors of the Declaration really believe this? If they do, then they cannot but condemn the Declaration on Religious Liberty of Vatican Council II, which turned the obligation of the State on its head by stating:
This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (DH 2)
In other words, where the Holy Roman Catholic Church makes plain both the individual’s and the State’s duty to render public reverence and obedience to Christ the King, and that necessarily includes His Church, “which is the kingdom of Christ on earth” (Pius XI, QuasPrimas 12), the Council saw fit to insist that the State legislate the supposed “right” for all concerned to neglect this duty in favor of a false religion, or none at all, however one may see fit.
The Council further set itself in opposition to the Social Kingship of Christ as articulated so beautifully in Quas Primas when it stated:
The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is… In order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society. (cf DH 15) [Emphasis added]
In this, the Council had the audacity to use the same words as Pius XI:
When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. (Quas Primas 19) [Emphasis added]
Did you get that? Pius XI, reaffirming what the true Church of Christ has always infallibly taught, is declaring that true peace and harmony are only realized in being “subjected to the sweet and saving yoke of our King” (Quas Primas 3).
The Council is saying, No, the way to ‘peace and harmony’ is found in religious freedom!
And yet, the authors of the Declaration lead the innocent to believe that these two texts are perfectly compatible with one another.
As a quick review of their public positions make plain (Burke and Schneider in particular), the authors of the Declaration do not really believe what Quas Prima states; rather, they are proponents of the Declaration on Religious Liberty – a text that is entirely irreconcilable with authentic Catholic doctrine. They are, after all, devoted men-of-the-council.
In articles 32-34, the Declaration offers reflection on the nature of Holy Mass, which apart from scrutiny may appear to many as praiseworthy. And yet, the discerning reader will detect the unmistakably bitter taste of Protestant poison.
The Declaration quotes Paul VI (of all people) in stating that the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is “offered by him [the priest] in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body.” (Art. 33)
Here we find the detestable theology of the Novus Ordo, wherein the Holy Sacrifice is said to be offered in the name of the faithful (the “members of His Mystical Body”).
In the Traditional Latin Mass, by contrast, the priest prays:
Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead… [Emphasis added]
Later, he prays:
Accept, most Holy Trinity, this offering which we are making to You … Through the same Christ our Lord.
The error should be obvious; the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not offered in the name of the people, but rather on behalf of, or for, the people. It can perhaps be said that the priest makes the offering in the name of Christ, but it is more accurate to say that he does so in persona Christi, such that the Sacrifice is offered by Christ Himself, “By Him, with Him, and in Him.”
So, let’s recap, shall we. The authors of the Declaration:
– Deliberately avoid stating the simple fact that the law of Moses is void and therefore of no avail whatsoever toward salvation.
– Deliberately avoid stating the simple fact that the Muslims worship a false god.
– Quote Paul VI in saying of the practitioners of false religions, “their arms [are] stretched out towards heaven.”
– Join the Council in refusing to plainly state, and thus obscuring, the proper ends of marriage; the procreation and education of children being first.
– Make a mockery of the Kingship of Christ inasmuch as they remain proponents of the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, making it seem as if these doctrines (the latter being false) are compatible.
– Espouse the Protestantized theology of the Novus Ordo in quoting Paul VI who said that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered in the name of the faithful.
With all of this in mind, would you dare to publicly proclaim that the Declaration “Reads like a Neo-Syllabus of Errors?” Would you inform your children that it represents “a significant and historical attempt to re-establish the fundamentals of Catholic belief?”
This is how Steve Skojec of the One Peter Five website summed it up.
Would you hand the Declaration to a sincere seeker of tradition saying, “FAITHFUL SHEPHERDS: Burke, Schneider Defend Truth in Time of Crisis?”
Michael Matt of the Remnant did just that.
Would you disseminate the text of the Declaration with neither comment nor warning to innocent persons who consider you a reliable source of Catholic truth?
This is exactly what Rorate Caeli did.
I can well imagine that I may be inviting criticism from those who will whine about “circular firing squads” and the like. I fully expect ad hominem attacks from persons too weak to directly address the points raised above, dismissing this post by accusing me of the dreaded “S” word – sedevacantism – even though I have never staked such a claim beyond my conviction that Jorge Bergoglio isn’t even Catholic.
This isn’t personal with respect to the men named above. Presumably, all of us are seeking the same goal. It’s about our readers. It’s about service to the truth – all of it – without compromise. Sometimes, the right thing for those of us with a public voice to do is to state, “I got it wrong.”
Believe me, I know. I’ve done it plenty; even though there was a price to pay for doing so.
So, will Steve Skojec, Michael Matt, and the editors at Rorate Caeli do the right thing?
Let us pray that they receive the grace necessary to do so, for their own good and for the good of those souls over which they have influence.
Ann Barnhardt seems to think this declaration should be xeroxed and placed in every narthex. Alas, the declaration’s anti-Francis nature isn’t enough to mask the drops of heresy that taint it entirely.
And as someone else pointed out: for Skojec to call this declaration a new Syllabus of Errors is to imply that every point in is false and deserving of refutation. Not sure if 1P5 caught that.
“If someone should kill the beloved son of a man, and then stretch forth their hands still stained with blood to the afflicted father, asking for fellowship, would not the blood of his son, visible on the hand of his murderer, provoke him to just anger instead? And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God-the-Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching-forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: ‘His blood be upon us, and upon our children’ (Matthew xxvii.25).”
-St. Basil the Great
“The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else.”
-St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 29
They likely all secretly agree with you Louie…
But they will ignore it for pragmatism.
That being… they’ll try to use every available attempt to put any kind of pressure on Francis, BUT, while also dancing a fine line so as to avoid ever actually stating the plain truth…
That Francis is a heretic, and Francis is fully aware of his heresy, and that Francis don’t care, because Francis don’t believe in none of it.
To Francis, actual Catholics are the crazy people. They speak ‘heresy’ against the ‘realities’ of today. The god of surprises is not eternal and unchanging. The god of surprises is whatever happens to be ‘Now.’ And what is ‘Now’ is whatever is convenient to Francis.
Or… convenient to whoever Francis is taking orders from. And I don’t mean, Satan. I mean some other people in power on this Earth. Though ultimately that only serves Satan’s interests whether they are aware of it or not.
While we’re all too caught up in knots trying ‘not to judge’ Francis – under assumption of his possibly being a validly elected Pope – it seems obvious that Francis seems to be following scripted orders on par with the decisions being made at meetings like Bilderberg.
If Benedict can share a Papal office as the ‘contemplative’ member, while Francis is the ‘active’ member, then there’s probably other informal members of some committees sharing this newly invented Papal administrative office. Just as the Germans recommended. It’s not necessary that the rest of us know who. Just shut up and obey.
It is impossible to understand how these “traditionalists” look to Burke etc. as the saviors in this mess. Until they openly reject Vatican II, they are in this mess and accept it as the church established by Christ. Thanks, Louie. I totally agree.
“In the Traditional Latin Mass, by contrast, the priest prays:
Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead… [Emphasis added]”
I note here the true nature of man’s need of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: to beg of God’s forgiveness for man’s sinfulness. There is nothing in pre-VII Church teaching about man’s inherent “dignity,” not to my knowledge anyway. But VII is all about man’s supposed dignity, and that is 180 degrees counter to what our Blessed Lord teaches. Jesus Christ did not teach “…and you shall be as gods, knowing good from evil.” (Genesis III, 5)
Satan used his little Jewish lackeys to infiltrate the Church and to bring about the satanic “Second Vatican Council.” This is what it all has come down to. We will—each and everyone of us—have to eventually make a choice. One will either choose God or one will choose (through fear or indifference) satan. One will ultimately either reject VII or one will accept it. “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.”
You can often times be a stout defender of Traditional Catholic teaching, especially as of late, and for that, I applaud you.
Your boldness in defense of Catholic teaching, however, tends to stop at the present papacy. If Francis is a heretic, as you state, he isn’t a member of the Church. Great. If Benedict XVI is a heretic, he is not a member of the Church either, right?
You lack integrity (and boldness) to the degree that you fail to speak these things too, that Benedict XVI and others are heretics, so they are not or were not popes. Here you called out Paul VI’s Vatican II as heretical, insofar as you said a passage in it was heresy. Was Paul VI not, therefore, a heretic too, and so no pope?
The point is, Mr Verrechio, do not point your finger at Matt and Skojec for being less than orthodox than yourself until you are able and willing to apply the same standard of Catholic orthodoxy that you apply to Francis to his predecessors. If sheer logic and Catholic orthodoxy force you to the conclusion of sedevacantism since 1958, embrace that conclusion, and do so boldly. Then perhaps you might have the moral high ground to preach to the Remnant and One Peter Five.
Better yet, how about running a series of articles entitled, “True Pope? An Inquisition into the Past Post-Concilliar Papacies,” wherein you investigate claims of heresy made by sedevacantists groups and bishops, and answer the question for yourself. That would do your readership the service of providing them a thorough look at the past “popes” and their teachings, so none of your readers may be mislead by them.
I hope and pray you consider doing so. If nothing else, it would give you material for your blog.
“This isn’t personal with respect the men named above. Presumably, all of us are seeking the same goal. It’s about our readers. It’s about service to the truth – all of it – without compromise. Sometimes, the right thing for those of us with a public voice to do is to state, “I got it wrong.”
Believe me, I know. I’ve done it plenty; even though there was a price to pay for doing so.
So, will Steve Skojec, Michael Matt, and the editors at Rorate Caeli do the right thing?
Let us pray that they receive the grace necessary to do so, for their own good and for the good of those souls over which they have influence…”
Louie, From your lips to God’s ears. Lord, I hope so. You have done everyone a great and charitable service in pointing out how easy it is for any “expert”…whether clerical or layman….to become sloppy… Correction takes faith and courage to deliver…..and more importantly….humility and thanks….to accept, correct and implement. In charity, my take on the guys mentioned is they are becoming increasing nervous about how their business and families are/can be negatively impacted about their handling the intractable heretic in charge. IMHO, They are trying to hard to finesse…the Truth. They are taking a worldly approach to a spiritual battle. Won’t work….How do we know? How’s that worked out so far for Cdl Burke et al ?….crickets….
For what it’s worth my unsolicited advice is to follow the advice of St Augustine “Truth is like a Lion. It needs no defending. Turn it Loose. It will defend itself”
May we never forget….”Our Momma wears combat boots”….and Lions are afraid of no one…
“The Jews and their servants in Rome….”
Kudos to you Louie.You stated,in those seven words,what very few Catholics are willing to state.The chosen of satan are the driving force behind the false conciliar church.
I typically don’t make time to reply to comments, but I’m making an exception in this case since it may be illustrative for others.
Robbins7 – Your sanctimonious, self-righteous attitude is precisely what gives sincere sedevacantists (of which there are many) a bad name.
Did you miraculously pop out of the womb with whatever firm convictions you may presently hold? Or did you (like every other sincere seeker of truth laboring in the midst of this unprecedented ecclesial crisis) undertake a process of discernment; a prayerful search for the truth?
Unlike you, I am happy to assume that the latter likely describes your particular journey even today. You, by contrast, hop on here to question my integrity?
Climb off your little throne, pal. You’re not nearly as special as you evidently think you are.
St. Paul’s discourse on charity from chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians comes to mind, here.
One lesson that I learned from listening to the conversion of an atheist to Christianity is that some people cannot fathom or entertain certain propositions until they’re in the state of mind to recieve it. In her case, she could never entertain the thought of anything supernatural until after the birth of her first child indicated there was more to life than the merely material.
In any case, such states of mind are the work of God’s grace, enabling us to more fully grasp reality as it is, instead of what we’d like it to be.
Keep pursuing the truth, Louie. No matter what may come of it.
Thank you, Louie, for this excellent article. Words matter, and the authors of the “Declaration” mean may mean well, but have not shown that they themselves hold the true Catholic Faith. They are votaries of Vatican II and it shows in their choice of words.
Great quotes AlphonsusJr . Thank you.
To A Simple Man – Sweet words to one’s ears.
..And Kudos to you for catching it and pointing it out. You are right. The servants of satan never sleep.
Louie, you don’t get it. The “Declaration” is a statement, but not an opening statement to a trial. You are critiquing the paper using a basis of you own choosing, how YOU would have written it. But you have jumped the gun. You have listed numerous deficiencies in their paper, but where did you get the idea that this would be their one and only? Like a well-done play, there is a formula: Introduction, heart of the matter, and the conclusion. It is THEIR concern and I am SURE that absolutely everything you have mentioned is on their minds continuously. Each of the writers takes a risk publishing this paper. Already, the backlash has been vile. Funny. If you published such a paper, and in a way you have, not only would you NOT incur any backlash from Pope Francis, but, honestly, most people would neither notice nor care. Think of all that Cardinal Burke has already endured at the hands of Pope Francis, and all without cause. Cardinal Burke has kept true to the Faith, proclaimed his respect for the Chair of Peter and is a hell of a lot more patient than you. His vast knowledge and wisdom are purposely being ignored, even derided, by those who would see the Catholic Church become the Catholic Humanist Society (notice how religion is no longer part of the plan?) What a waste. And what sorrow they all must feel. Their lives are going to be harder now because of that paper, and will be doubly so after the next. And there WILL be a next. So what do you do? You make their lives even harder (A simple analogy is it being like when you need to get off the freeway, but nobody will let you over into the exit lane. Not life or death, but it just makes life unnecessarily harder, all due to the selfishness of those who could have backed off a few feet to give you room to move over). Really charitable of you. By doing so, you align yourself with the “other” side: Father Martin, Cardinal Cupich, Cardinal Kasper, etc. Remember: he who is not with him is against him.
” Cardinal Burke has kept true to the Faith…”
Funny, but I don’t recall his ever stating that the Old Covenant is dead, that the New Covenant is its completion. Nor have I noticed his stating that ALL non-Catholic sects are an abomination before Almighty God and that Catholics are strictly prohibited from having anything to do with them. And, I don’t recall his stating that there is no way whatsoever that anyone can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they are a member of Christ’s Holy Church, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church. Did I miss an important document issued by Burke in which he states these very things?
Ummm, how about some closure on the 5 dubia; or after 997 days has that become old news? Seems simple enough: yes – no. But, more likely they’re only at the introduction of that herculean effort.
My hunch is that the banquet invitations were lagging and Stan and Ollie will once again be called on to put a little humor back into the Bergolian circus.
But you know we agree the heresy is there, and you know we differ in that you claim you know none of them were material heretics, but we think most were. So if your honest, you would not make the accusation that Mr. Verrecchio does not have “the moral high ground.”
For the avid readers and commenters on this website, we pretty much know the Pope Benedict is going to have to die without fleeing Rome and consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for some of us to have the grace to become Sedevacantists. Otherwise, it’s only when Pope Benedict does flee Rome and consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that Sedevacantists will have the grace to understand Catholic theology and prophesy properly! But as sure as death and taxes, Sedevancantist pom pom strings will be shaken in our faces!
Thank You Mr. Verrecchio for your hard hitting, forthright, and honest commentary on the crisis in the Church and the dire situation we the faithful find ourselves in.
Just out of curiosity, how does Ratzinger fleeing Rome and consecrating Russia tie into the sedevacantist thesis?
It doesn’t matter if this is their one and only, or a series of a zillion; what matters is there is obvious error within this one declaration and this exposé on it is rare as it is refreshing. Louie is using the gift God gave him. Aligning Louie with the very enemies of Christ? I’m not even sure how it is you connected those dots, and I’ve read your comment twice.