Daily Archives: 10/07/2019

How we got to this point: Bishop Sanborn explains the History of Christendom

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Over 3 hours of video — free!

How we got to this point:
Bp. Sanborn explains the History of Christendom 

Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

We live in the year of our Lord 2019. Although it has been evident for a long time that this world is headed in the wrong direction, certainly the last six years of “Pope” Francis have convinced a great many who consider themselves faithful Catholics that something is terribly amiss, not just in the world but also in the institution they believe to be the Roman Catholic Church. The world is drowning in unbelief, false philosophies, immorality, and hostilities; and the religion practiced and preached in the Vatican is simply no longer the Catholic religion of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors.

However, there is no reason to be discouraged or despair. On the contrary. Judging from the viewpoint of Divine Revelation and prophecy, we could say that “everything is going according to plan” — so to speak. While we must at all times fight for religious truth, good morals, decency, common sense, and true justice, nevertheless we know that this world will at some point in the future be ruled by the Antichrist, not because God positively desires it so, but because He permits it as part of salvation history in order to draw a greater good from it. This has been revealed to us in Holy Scripture by Almighty God Himself (e.g., 2 Thess 2; 1 Jn 2:18; cf. Mt 24).

Although the knowledge that it will and must happen is no excuse to surrender, to sit back and watch it all come about, it is cause to not despair, to not be dismayed, and to understand why all these frightening social and pseudo-ecclesiastical upheavals against God’s law — both natural and revealed — are happening, and why God is permitting them. This, in turn, boosts our trustful and loving surrender to Divine Providence, full of Faith and hope, keeping in mind that even though the times in which we live are evil, nevertheless Almighty God, who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, has chosen to place us into precisely this time of human history and no other — and He did so because He foreknew that this would be most conducive to our salvation.

Some years ago, True Restoration Media conducted three interviews with Bishop Donald Sanborn, rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, on the history of Christendom, beginning with the Edict of Milan in the fourth century and ending in 1788, the eve of the French Revolution. This journey through the history of Western civilization is so powerful and so informative that we cannot recommend it too highly to anyone who wishes to understand how it is that we have come this far, and what lies ahead.

In the past, the three videos on the history of Christendom were available to the public only through a True Restoration subscription or by purchase. We are excited to announce that Novus Ordo Watch has now sponsored the release of these videos to the entire public — they are now free of charge:

FIRST VIDEO: The History of Christendom from the Edict of Milan to 1274

SECOND VIDEO: The History of Christendom from 1274 to 1648

THIRD VIDEO: The History of Christendom from 1649 to 1788

Listen to Bp. Sanborn as he explains how Christian society as it is willed by God was realized perfectly in the High Middle Ages (13th century), which were the apex, as it were, of Christian civilization, and what has caused its gradual but steady decline ever since. Understand how it all hangs together — how we went from a society imbued with the sacred and the supernatural, in conformity with Catholic teaching, to a Freemasonic-naturalist society in which God has been discarded and man and his “liberty” enthroned in His place. Understand how we got from St. Thomas Aquinas to Martin Luther, why the latter can be called the “father” of the modern world, and how the Protestant Reformation inevitably had to lead to Socialism, Communism, Freemasonry, and Modernism. As the “synthesis of all heresies”, dubbed such by Pope St. Pius X (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 39), Modernism is still with us today and has ushered in the current eclipse of the Catholic Church as part of the “operation of error” warned about by St. Paul the Apostle (2 Thess 2:10).

Bp. Sanborn’s video series on the history of Christendom is eminently educational and quite fascinating. It is not boring! At the end of it you will say, “It all makes sense now. I can see clearly now why we are where we are, how we got here, and where it’s all headed.”

You might wonder why this series on the history of Christendom ends in 1788, and why that which is perhaps the most important part, beginning with the French Revolution of 1789, is not included. The reason is that an interview with His Excellency on that most recent part of Church history was never conducted; however, it is covered in True Restoration‘s audio program The Root of the Rot, of which the first 7 episodes are likewise free:

We must never lose sight of the fact that all the trials we are now undergoing, both in the Church and in society, are not a negation or refutation of the holy Catholic religion, but actually its vindication and reaffirmation, which will ultimately lead to its inevitable, divinely-guaranteed triumph.

Pray much, especially the Holy Rosary, as urged by our Lady of Fatima, and devote yourself to her Immaculate Heart. She will guide us through these difficult and stormy times into which our souls have been placed by Divine Providence.

Everything is going according to plan. It’s time we all understood the plan.

Links to Related Information:

 

in Novus Ordo WireWe Had Been Warned     0

The Heresies of “Cardinal” Muller, Part 2: Denial of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Oops: The former “guardian of orthodoxy” is a heretic himself!

The Heresies of “Cardinal” Müller, Part 2:
His Denial of the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God

[UPDATED 27-JUN-2019: Replaced our own translation of Rahner quote with official translation published in 1966.]

In recent years it has become fashionable in conservative Novus Ordo and even semi-traditionalist circles to promote the German “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Müller (b. 1947) as a conservative stalwart of Catholic doctrine, simply because he opposes adultery, women’s ordination, and a few other ultra-Modernist pet ideas. In February of this year, Müller issued what he called a Manifesto of Faith, and just last month he published an entire book that purports to be a defense of Catholicism against current errors mostly disseminated by Francis or his henchmen.

The truth about this former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (2012-2017), however, is quite different. Not only is Müller not a guardian of orthodoxy, but in his positions as professor of theology, doctrinal advisor to the German Novus Ordo bishops’ conference, and one-term head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office, few men in the world have done more to undermine Catholic dogma and harm souls than this Gerhard Müller.

In Part 1 of this series, we exposed and refuted the man’s bold and egregious denial of the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation, in place of which he holds a bizarre position that is perhaps best termed “Transcommunication”. According to Müller, during the consecration the priest does not change the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ while the appearances of bread and wine remain. Rather, “body and blood here mean the presence of Christ in the sign of the medium of bread and wine, which is made communicable in the here and now of sense-bound human perception”, the Neo-Modernist claims, adding that “[j]ust as before Easter the disciples were perceptibly together with Jesus by hearing his words and perceiving him in his sensory figure in accordance with human nature, we now have fellowship with Jesus Christ, communicated through the eating and drinking of the bread and the wine.” (All source documentation is provided in our article.)

In this current post, we will examine what the heretical Novus Ordo cardinal has said regarding the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

Before we can fruitfully do so, we must recall to mind what the Catholic dogma on this subject states, namely, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a virgin (a) before the birth of Christ; (b) duringthe birth of Christ; and (c) ever after the birth of Christ. That this has been taught by the Catholic Church dogmatically is easy to demonstrate (all underlining added; quotes that apply to more than one category will be repeated as necessary for the sake of a more complete record):

(a) The Blessed Mother a Virgin before the Birth of our Lord

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary….

(Apostolic Creed; Denz. 2)

For we should not now be able to overcome the author of sin and death unless [Christ] took our nature on Him and made it His own, whom neither sin could pollute nor death retain. Doubtless then, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of His Virgin Mother, who brought Him forth without the loss of her virginity, even as she conceived Him without its loss.

(Pope St. Leo I, Epistle 28 to Flavian, sec. II)

Therefore, because the Son of God was properly and truly made flesh from her and born of her, we confess that she was properly and truly the Mother of God made incarnate and born from her, and (properly indeed), lest it be believed that the Lord Jesus received the name of God through honor or grace, as the foolish Nestorius thinks; but truly for this reason, lest it be believed that He took flesh in a phantasm or some other manner, not true flesh from the virgin, just as the impious Eutyches has asserted.

(Pope John II, Epistle Olim QuidemDenz. 202)

By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess that the Incarnation of the Divinity took place neither in the Father, nor in the Holy Spirit, but in the Son only; so that He who was in the Divinity the Son of God the Father, true God from the Father, was in the humanity the son of man, true man from a mother, having true flesh from the womb of his mother and a human rational soul; at the same time of each nature, that is God and man, one Person, one Son, one Christ, one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the author and ruler of all, born from the Virgin Mary in a true birth of the flesh….

(Pope Innocent III, Apostolic Letter Eius ExemploDenz. 422)

And finally the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, incarnate by the whole Trinity in common, conceived of Mary ever Virgin with the Holy Spirit cooperating, made true man, formed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, clearly pointed out the way of life.

(Fourth Lateran Council, Chapter 1; Denz. 429)

Since the depravity and iniquity of certain men have reached such a point in our time that, of those who wander and deviate from the Catholic faith, very many indeed not only presume to profess different heresies but also to deny the foundations of the faith itself, and by their example lead many away to the destruction of their souls, we, in accord with our pastoral office and charity, desiring, in so far as we are able with God, to call such men away from so grave and destructive an error, and with paternal severity to warn the rest, lest they fall into such impiety, all and each who have hitherto asserted, claimed or believed that … [the] most blessed Virgin Mary was not the true mother of God, and did not always persist in the integrity of virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth, on the part of the omnipotent God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with apostolic authority we demand and advise, etc.

(Pope Paul IV, Ordinance Cum QuorundamDenz. 993)

(b) The Blessed Mother a Virgin during the Birth of our Lord

For we should not now be able to overcome the author of sin and death unless [Christ] took our nature on Him and made it His own, whom neither sin could pollute nor death retain. Doubtless then, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of His Virgin Mother, who brought Him forth without the loss of her virginity, even as she conceived Him without its loss.

(Pope St. Leo I, Epistle 28 to Flavian, sec. II)

If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructibleeven after His birth, let him be condemned.

(Pope St. Martin I, Lateran Synod, Session 5, Canon 3; Denz. 256)

Since the depravity and iniquity of certain men have reached such a point in our time that, of those who wander and deviate from the Catholic faith, very many indeed not only presume to profess different heresies but also to deny the foundations of the faith itself, and by their example lead many away to the destruction of their souls, we, in accord with our pastoral office and charity, desiring, in so far as we are able with God, to call such men away from so grave and destructive an error, and with paternal severity to warn the rest, lest they fall into such impiety, all and each who have hitherto asserted, claimed or believed that … [the] most blessed Virgin Mary was not the true mother of God, and did not always persist in the integrity of virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth, on the part of the omnipotent God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with apostolic authority we demand and advise, etc.

(Pope Paul IV, Ordinance Cum QuorundamDenz. 993)

(c) The Blessed Mother a Virgin ever after the Birth of our Lord

Surely, we cannot deny that regarding the sons of Mary the statement is justly censured, and your holiness has rightly abhorred it, that from the same virginal womb, from which according to the flesh Christ was born, another offspring was brought forth. For neither would the Lord Jesus have chosen to be born of a virgin, if he had judged she would be so incontinent, that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute that generative chamber of the Lord’s body, that palace of the eternal King. For he who imputes this, imputes nothing other than the falsehood of the Jews, who say that he could not have been born of a virgin. For, if they accept this authority from the priests, that Mary seems to have brought forth many children, they strive to sweep away the truth of faith with greater zeal.

(Pope St. Siricius, Epistle Accepi Litteras VestrasDenz. 91)

We rightly teach that the glorious holy ever Virgin Mary is acknowledged by Catholic men [to be] both properly and truly the one who bore God, and the Mother of God’s Word, become incarnate from her.

(Pope John II, Epistle Olim QuidemDenz. 202)

If anyone does not confess that there are two generations of the Word of God, the one from the Father before the ages, without time and incorporeally, the other in the last days, when the same came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the holy and glorious Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and was born of her, let such a one be anathema.

(Second Council of Constantinople, Anathemas concerning the “Three Chapters”, Canon 2; Denz. 214)

If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.

(Pope St. Martin I, Lateran Synod, Session 5, Canon 3; Denz. 256)

And finally the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, incarnate by the whole Trinity in common, conceived of Mary ever Virgin with the Holy Spirit cooperating, made true man, formed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, clearly pointed out the way of life.

(Fourth Lateran Council, Chapter 1; Denz. 429)

Since the depravity and iniquity of certain men have reached such a point in our time that, of those who wander and deviate from the Catholic faith, very many indeed not only presume to profess different heresies but also to deny the foundations of the faith itself, and by their example lead many away to the destruction of their souls, we, in accord with our pastoral office and charity, desiring, in so far as we are able with God, to call such men away from so grave and destructive an error, and with paternal severity to warn the rest, lest they fall into such impiety, all and each who have hitherto asserted, claimed or believed that … [the] most blessed Virgin Mary was not the true mother of God, and did not always persist in the integrity of virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth, on the part of the omnipotent God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with apostolic authority we demand and advise, etc.

(Pope Paul IV, Ordinance Cum QuorundamDenz. 993)

Since the Mother of God remained a virgin even during the Birth of our Blessed Lord, it is clear that His sacred Birth was miraculous. On this point St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine instruct us:

We must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by Divine power. Whence Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. 121): “To the substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no obstacle. For truly He had power to enter in by doors not open, in Whose Birth His Mother’s virginity remained inviolate.”

(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa TheologicaIII, q. 28, a. 2, ad 3)

By way of analogy, we may say that our Lord came forth from the womb of the Blessed Virgin in a way similar to how rays of light go through glass without harming its integrity. It should not surprise us that just as the Conception of our Lord at the Annunciation was miraculous, so was His holy Birth! Indeed, the entire Incarnation — God becoming man — is nothing but a miracle! Thus Pope Pius XII writes:

Within her virginal womb Christ our Lord already bore the exalted title of Head of the Church; in a marvelous birth she brought Him forth as the source of all supernatural life, and presented Him, newly born, as Prophet, King, and Priest to those who, from among Jews and Gentiles, were the first to come to adore Him.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 110; underlining added.)

Before we take apart the Modernist drivel “Cardinal” Müller has foisted upon the masses on this subject, we note that Fr. Ludwig Ott labels all three components of this dogma “de fide” in his pre-Vatican II handbook on dogmatic theology (see Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4th ed. [reprint by TAN Books, 2009], pp. 204-206).

This means that to deny even one of these three elements constitutes heresy. If held pertinaciously and divulged publicly, such heresy automatically expels one from membership in the Catholic Church: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, n. 23; cf. Canon 2314 §1).

Fr. Ott also clarifies the precise meaning of the term “virginity” with regard to this dogma:

Mary’s virginity includes virginitas mentis, that is, a constant virginal disposition, virginitas sensus, that is, freedom from inordinate motions of sexual desire, and virginitas corporis, that is, physical integrity. The Church doctrine refers primarily to Her bodily integrity.

(Rev. Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 204; italics added; underlining added.)

Although the Perpetual Virginity is obviously a miracle and a great mystery, wrought by the almighty power of God, it is nevertheless not difficult to understand the content of this dogma; that is, we know what the dogma says and what it means.

This is where “Cardinal” Müller comes in.

Like all Modernists, Müller has the uncanny gift of obfuscating and reducing a clear and precise dogma to the point of utter unintelligibility, with the specious justification that this is somehow useful in communicating theology to modern man. (We all know how well that has been working out.) As the pertinent parts from his 900-page dogmatic theology manual Katholische Dogmatik (partially published since as Catholic Dogmatics) have not been released in English yet, we will use the original German text and provide our own translation. We are using the 10th and latest edition of Katholische Dogmatik (Freiburg: Herder, 2016).

Müller is extremely difficult to read and follow. If the quotes below seem hard to make sense of, therefore, the fault is to be sought with the author and not with the translator. Gobbledygook is gobbledygook, whether it is rendered in German or in English.

Brace yourselves, then. It’s going to be a wild ride.

(a’) Müller on the Virginity of Mary before the Birth of our Lord

Although Müller’s most blatant denial of the dogma concerns the Blessed Mother’s virginity during the birth of our Lord, as we will see shortly, the pseudo-Catholic thinker also undermines the virginal conception of Christ by trying to force it through philosophical concepts drawn from the transcendental idealism of the father of Modernism, the Lutheran Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). The result is an utterly confusing mess that reads as follows:

The conception of the eternal Word of God as man of the Virgin Mary through the creative power of the divine Spirit (conceptus de spiritu sancto natus ex Maria virgine) already appears in the earliest creeds as an integral part of Catholic dogma.

What is meant [by this dogma] is not the deviation from a biological rule and the generation of Jesus from a theogamous union, as it is found in the Egyptian and Hellenistic myths, where it results in the biological constitution of a divine-human hybrid. Rather, what is meant is a process that surpasses every possibility of nature and of human imagination, [namely, that] of self-communication of the eternal Word (Son) of God into the concrete existence of a historical man without the secondary-causal and creaturely means of procreation. The virginal conception is not the cause of the eternal Divine Sonship of the Logos [=Word] and of the inclusion of the human nature of Christ into the relation of the eternal Son to the Father but [is] its effect and its symbolic representation in the condition-framework of human experience. The direct object of faith [in this dogma] is God’s action and his presence in the effect, that is, in the conception and birth of the eternal Son of God as man of the Virgin Mary. Thus the conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost is the metaphysical cause of the Incarnation, while the conception and birth [of Jesus] of the Virgin Mary represents the reality-symbol of the Incarnation.

[German original:]

Die Empfängnis des ewigen Wortes Gottes als Mensch von der Jungfrau Maria durch die Schöpfermacht des göttlichen Geistes (conceptus de spiritu sancto natus ex Maria virgine) erscheint schon in den frühesten Glaubensbekenntnissen als fester Bestandteil des kirchlichen Dogmas.

Gemeint ist nicht die Abweichung von einer biologischen Regel und die Entstehung Jesu aus einer theogamen Verbindung, wie sie in den ägyptischen und hellenistischen Mythen vorkommt und dort die biologische Konstitution eines götter-menschlichen Mischwesens zur Folge hat. Thematisiert wird vielmehr der alle Möglichkeiten der Natur und der menschlichen Vorstellung übergreifende Vorgang der Selbstvermittlung des ewigen Wortes (Sohnes) Gottes in die konkrete Existenz eines geschichtlichen Menschen ohne die zweitursächliche und geschöpfliche Vermittlung einer geschlechtlichen Zeugung. Die jungfräuliche Empfängnis ist nicht die Ursache der ewigen Gottessohnschaft des Logos und der Aufnahme der menschlichen Natur Christi in die Relation des ewigen Sohnes zum Vater, sondern ihre Wirkung und ihre symbolische Repräsentanz im Bedingungsrahmen menschlicher Erfahrung. Der Glaube richtet sich unmittelbar auf das Wirken Gottes und seine Vergegenwärtigung in der Wirkung, nämlich der Empfängnis und Geburt des ewigen Gottessohnes als Mensch aus der Jungfrau Maria. So ist die Empfängnis Jesu vom Heiligen Geist die metaphysische Ursache der Inkarnation, während die Empfängnis und Geburt aus der Jungfrau Maria das Realsymbol der Inkarnation darstellt.

(Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Katholische Dogmatik, 10th ed., p. 489; underlining added.)

It is difficult to decipher exactly what Müller is actually trying to put forward here, but it is clear that he does not have in mind the traditional Catholic dogma of the virginal conception of the Christ Child or the truth of the Blessed Mother as “Spouse of the Holy Ghost” (Pope Pius X, Encyclical Une Fois Encore, n. 21). If he did, he would have simply said so. Instead, he goes out of his way to come up with all sorts of bizarre and smart-sounding concepts that do not restate or explain but rather obscure the teaching as the Church has quite intelligibly passed it on for twenty centuries, as quoted earlier.

Furthermore, notice that Muller does not say that the virginal conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary is more than the mere deviation from a biological rule. Rather, he says it is not such a deviation, when the obvious fact of the matter is that if a virginal conception is anything, it is a deviation from human biology!

Further on in his treatise, the German Modernist doubles down:

The meaning of belief in the virginal conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost cannot be deduced from within the horizon of a biological exception but solely within the theological horizon of the unique fact that God does not want to take on an already-existing man and reveal himself through him but, rather, that God himself wants to become man.

[German original:]

Der Sinn des Glaubens an die jungfräuliche Empfängnis Jesu aus dem Heiligen Geist erschließt sich nicht im Horizont eines biologischen Ausnahmefalles, sondern allein im theologischen Horizont der einzigartigen Tatsache, dass Gott nicht einen vorhandenen Menschen annehmen und sich durch ihn aussagen will, sondern dass Gott selbst Mensch werden will.

(Katholische Dogmatik, p. 491)

So many horizons, so little Catholicism! Cutting through the verbiage, one can simply observe that the two ideas Muller juxtaposes are not exclusive of one another. The fact that God Himself wants to become man does not exclude the biological exception of a virginal conception and birth. On the contrary, it renders such, if perhaps not absolutely necessary, at least highly fitting.

(b’) Müller on the Virginity of Mary during the Birth of our Lord

While some will argue that Müller’s exposition of the virginal conception of Christ can still be somehow “understood in an orthodox sense” — as though the German Modernist could not simply have written it in an unquestionably orthodox way — this same argument cannot be made with regard to what he says about the virginity of the Blessed Mother during the Birth of our Lord:

Beyond a Gnostic-dualistic misinterpretation of the virginitas in partu [virginity during birth] as a denial of the reality of the humanity of Christ…, the Catholic doctrine must be interpreted in the sense of the reality of the Incarnation. We are not talking about deviating physiological particularities during the natural birth process (such as the non-opening of the birth canal, the non-injuring of the [term suppressed by the translator for the sake of modesty], and the absence of labor pains) but about the saving and redeeming influx of the grace of the Redeemer on human nature, which had been “wounded” by original sin. For a mother, giving birth is not limited merely to a biological process. It constitutes a personal relationship with the child. The passive conditions of birth are integrated into this personal relationship and intrinsically determined by it. The peculiarity of Mary’s personal relationship to Jesus is determined by the fact that he is the Redeemer and that her relationship to him is to be understood within an encompassing theological horizon. …[T]hrough her “yes” to God becoming incarnate of her, in the act of giving birth Mary’s relationship to Jesus is also to be seen already within the horizon of the eschatological salvation that took place in Christ. The content of the doctrine, then, does not refer to physiological and empirically verifiable somatic details. Rather, it recognizes in the birth of Christ already the signs of the eschatological salvation of the messianic end time which began with Jesus (cf. Is 66:7-10; Ez 44:1 f.). With regard to the theological interpretation of Mary’s freedom from “pain” at the salvific event of the Redeemer’s birth, the doctrine of Mary’s acceptance of the Cross, which is attested to in the Bible, is also to be taken into consideration (Lk 2:35; Jn 19:25). With Mary as its model, Christian spirituality recognizes in every birth which a woman accepts in faith, an experience of the eschatological arrival of salvation.

[German original:]

Jenseits einer gnostisch-dualistischen Missdeutung der virginitas in partu als Verleugnung der Realität der Menschheit Jesu … muss die kirchliche Lehre im Sinne der Realität der Inkarnation ausgelegt werden. Es geht nicht um abweichende physiologische Besonderheiten in dem natürlichen Vorgang der Geburt (wie etwa die Nichteröffnung der Geburtswege, die Nichtverletzung des [vom Übersetzer der Sittsamkeit wegen gelöscht] und der nicht eingetretenen Geburtsschmerzen), sondern um den heilenden und erlösenden Einfluss der Gnade des Erlösers auf die menschliche Natur, die durch die Ursünde “verletzt” worden war. Die Geburt beschränkt sich für die Mutter nicht lediglich auf einen biologischen Vorgang. Sie konstituiert ein personales Verhältnis zum Kind. Die passiven Bedingungen der Geburt sind in diese Personalrelation integriert und innerlich davon bestimmt. Die Besonderheit des Personalverhältnisses Marias zu Jesus ist dadurch bestimmt, dass er der Erlöser ist und dass ihr Verhältnis zu ihm in einem umgreifenden theologischen Horizont zu verstehen ist. … Durch ihr Ja-Wort aber zur Menschwerdung Gottes aus ihr ist Marias Verhältnis zu Jesus auch im Akt der Geburt schon im Horizont des eschatologischen Heils zu sehen, das sich in Christus ereignet hat. Der Inhalt der Glaubensaussage bezieht sich also nicht auf physiologisch und empirisch verifizierbare somatische Details. Sie erkennt vielmehr in der Geburt Christi schon die Vorzeichen des eschatologischen Heils der messianischen Endzeit, die mit Jesus angebrochen ist (vgl. Jes 66,7-10; Ez 44,1 f.). Bei der theologischen Interpretation der Freiheit Marias vom “Schmerz” bei dem Heilsereignis der Geburt des Erlösers ist auch die biblisch bezeugte Lehre von der Kreuzesnachfolge Marias zu berücksichtigen (Lk 2,35; Joh 19,25). Die christliche Spiritualität erkennt, nach dem Vorbild Maria, in jeder Geburt, die eine Frau im Glauben annimmt, eine Erfahrung des endzeitlich gekommenen Heiles.

(Katholische Dogmatik, p. 492; underlining added.)

Wow!

Cloaked in a convoluted waterfall of words, Müller directly denies the very essence of this element of the dogma, which is precisely the physical intergrity of the Blessed Virgin during the act of giving birth, and not some kind of wonderful experience of streams of grace in a unique personal relation within an eschatological horizon — whatever that is supposed to mean.

We recall here Fr. Ott’s words that “[t]he Church doctrine refers primarily to Her bodily integrity”, as quoted earlier. “Virginity is the bodily integrity of a woman”, Fr. Joseph de Aldama, S.J., likewise explains in his Mariological treatise for the Sacrae Theologiae Summacollection. With regard to Mary’s virginity specifically during birth, he spells out:

b) The virginal birth of Christ, that is, [it occurred] without detriment to bodily integrity. The conservation of this bodily integrity and the absence of pain in giving birth are so connected in the perpetual belief of the Church and in patristic tradition with the virginal birth that they must be retained as necessary elements of the dogma of the virginal birth. However we assert only the fact of this element, prescinding from any further explanation. This is virginity in giving birth.

(Rev. Joseph A. de Aldama, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIIA: On the Blessed Virgin Mary, n. 104; italics given.)

In a footnote, de Aldama adds: “Hence in no way can consent be given to the recent interpretation of virginity, which wants to prescind from this bodily integrity and absence of pain in giving birth” (ibid., fn. 1). And yet that is precisely what Müller and his Modernist colleagues and mentors have been doing. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother is a bodily virginity in every sense, and that is the dogma — nothing else.

The celebrated 19th-century theologian Fr. Matthias Scheeben (1835-1888) writes in his two-volume work on Marian doctrine:

…Mary retained her virginity in bringing forth as she did when she conceived.

…The first and most essential element in the supernatural birth of Christ lies in the fact that He appeared from the bosom of His mother utero clauso et obsignato [from a closed and sealed womb], as He later appeared at His Resurrection ex sepulchro clauso et obsignato [from a closed and sealed tomb], which formed as it were His second bodily birth. As a second element, naturally consequent upon the first, the birth of Christ was also effected without pain to the mother, just as it took place without the violation of the bodily integrity of the mother through effractio [rupturing] or violatio claustri virginalis [violation of the virginal enclosure].

(Rev. M. J. Scheeben, Mariology, vol. 1, trans. by Rev. T. L. M. J. Geukers [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1946], pp. 102, 103-104; italics given; underlining added.)

Here too we see that the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity concerns the physical integrity of the Blessed Mother during the Birth of Christ, which was obviously miraculous.

But Müller is not done yet. As if wishing to render his heretical depravity even more certain, the pseudo-Catholic “cardinal” goes on to refer the reader to a theological hero of his, saying that “the content of faith of the Virginitas in partu [virginity during birth] is aptly conveyed by Karl Rahner”, whom he then quotes as follows:

“…Church doctrine affirms, with the real substance of tradition, that Mary’s child-birth, as regards both child and mother, like the conception, is, in its total reality, as the completely human act of this ‘virgin’, in itself (and not just by reason of the conception…), an act corresponding to the nature of this mother, and hence it is unique, miraculous and ‘virginal’. But this proposition, which is directly intelligible, does not offer us the possibility of deducing assertions about the concrete details of the process, which would be certainand universally binding.

(Karl Rahner, “Virginitas in Partu”, in Theological Investigations, vol. IV, trans. by Kevin Smyth [Baltimore, MD: Helicon Press, 1966], p. 162; italics given.)

[German original:]

“…die Lehre der Kirche sagt mit dem eigentlichen Kern der Tradition: die (aktive) Geburt Marias ist (von dem Kind und seiner Mutter her), so wie ihr Empfangen, von der Gesamtwirklichkeit her (als ganzmenschlicher Akt dieser ‘Jungfrau’) auch in sich (und nicht nur von der Empfängnis her […]) dieser Mutter entsprechend und darum einmalig, wunderbar, ‘jungfräulich’, ohne daß wir aus diesem Satz (der in sich aber verständlich ist), die Möglichkeit haben, sicher und für alle verpflichtend, Aussagen über konkreteEinzelheiten dieses Vorgangs abzuleiten.”

(Karl Rahner, “Virginitas in Partu”, in Schriften zur Theologie, vol. IV [Einsiedeln: Benziger Verlag, 1966], p. 205; quoted in Müller, Katholische Dogmatik, p. 492-493.)

Heresy! Blasphemy!

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Novus Ordo giant Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J. (1904-1984), quoted approvingly by “Cardinal” Muller, the supposedly great conservative and orthodox counterpart to the Modernist Francis.

When Rahner first published this trash, although Pope Pius XII had already died, it did not remain without consequences: “An article on the perpetual virginity of Mary, published in 1960, created such anxiety that, in 1962, the Holy Office required his work to be submitted to even stricter censorship”, writes the Novus Ordo theologian Fr. Fergus Kerr (Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians [Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007], p. 89).

Notice that Rahner even has the gall to mockingly put quotation marks around the terms “virgin” and “virginal” when referring to the Mother of God and her maternity! Since Müller agrees with him, he must be blamed as well.

All this is sufficient to convict “Cardinal” Müller of heresy, but there is a bit more to go over still.

(c’) Müller on the Virginity of Mary ever after the Birth of our Lord

Suprisingly, our “guardian of orthodoxy” does not deny that the Blessed Mother was a virgin after the Birth of Jesus Christ. However, even on this point Müller lays the groundwork forundermining the dogma. After conceding that Mary did not consummate her marriage with St. Joseph at any point, Müller writes:

This statement of belief rests on an argument from suitability. It originates in faith-filled reflection. The early church understood the virginity of Mary as a statement about her integrally human, personally and salvation-historically significant relatedness to the God of revelation and to the historical fulfillment of revelation in the life of Jesus. The uniqueness of this conception and birth corresponds also to the uniqueness of Mary’s relationship with God. The virginal divine maternity is thus the personal center of this relationship with God and of the fulfillment of her life.

The mariological ideas of the Church Fathers concerning the virginity of Mary after the birth [of Christ] were formed in particular in connection with the Christian ideal of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12) and the evangelical counsel to this Christian way of life “for the sake of the things of the Lord” (1 Cor 7:25-38).

[German original:]

Die Glaubensaussage ruht hier auf einem Konvenienzargument. Sie entstammt glaubender Überlegung. Die frühe Kirche begriff die Jungfräulichkeit Marias als eine Aussage über ihre ganz-menschliche, personal und heilsgeschichtlich bedeutsame Bezogenheit auf den Gott der Offenbarung und auf die geschichtliche Realisierung der Offenbarung im Leben Jesu. Der Einzigartigkeit dieser Empfängnis und Geburt entspricht auch die Einzigartigkeit der Beziehung Marias auf Gott. Die jungfräuliche Gottesmutterschaft ist somit die personale Mitte dieser Gottesbeziehung und der Realisierung ihres Lebens.

Die mariologischen Ideen der Kirchenväter bezüglich der Jungfräulichkeit Marias nach der Geburt bildeten sich besonders aus in Verbindung mit dem christlichen Ideal der Ehelosigkeit um des Himmelreiches willen (Mt 19,12) und des evangelischen Rates zu dieser christlichen Lebensform “um der Sache des Herrn willen” (1 Kor 7,25-38).

(Katholische Dogmatik, p. 494; underlining added.)

Müller makes it appear as though the dogma of the perpetual virginity were nothing more than a noble idea the Church Fathers came up with, an inference drawn by them because it seemed fitting to them — rather than a truth revealed by God!

As though the early Christians had said to themselves: “It is fitting that the Mother of God should have been as holy and special as possible because of her unique relationship with God; but since celibacy is the ideal and hence the most fitting, we therefore will express this suitability by saying she was a perpetual virgin.” Such a blasphemous idea subverts and destroys the very concept of dogma and is the exact error Pope St. Pius X condemned in his anti-Modernist syllabus Lamentabili Sane: “The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself” (error no. 22; Denz. 2022).

Contrast Müller’s subversive Modernist drivel with what Fr. de Aldama writes concerning the origin of this beautiful article of Faith: “…the origin of this dogma cannot be anything else but a revelation from God. We have presented more than enough arguments in favor of this revelation. But the different stages of its evolution, as presented by the rationalists [=Modernists], are completely groundless” (On the Blessed Virgin Mary, n. 115; underlining added).

As is the case with any dogma, its origin is found in God’s revelation to man, not in “faith-filled reflection” or any other kind of human thought process.

Müller’s False Theology condemned

Prescinding for a moment from the question of heresy, ask yourself: After reading Müller on the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother, is that dogma clearer to you or do you feel like you understand it less? Did Müller explain and clarify the Catholic teaching or did he mystify and obfuscate it?

To ask the question is to answer it, and there is a reason for that. Müller was a student of the infamous “Cardinal” Karl Lehmann (1936-2018), the long-time liberal “bishop” of Mainz, Germany. Lehmann himself was a student of the aforementioned Modernist Rahner, whom Müller clearly admires and likes to quote as a theological authority.

As stated at the outset of this article, Müller’s theology is polluted by the false philosophy of Kant, which Rahner tried to blend with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, yielding an incredibly dangerous system of thought known as “transcendental Thomism”. The conservative Novus Ordo theologian Fr. Georg May hits the nail on the head when he says about Rahner:

The effects of his work have been fatal. He has his considerable share in the self-destruction of the Church. He always talks so long and with such intensity about an object of Faith until he has overcome its previous understanding and has put it in the coffin of its transcendental Procrustean bed.

(Rev. Georg May, 300 Jahre gläubige und ungläubige Theologie[Bobingen: Sarto Verlag, 2017], p. 817; our translation.)

It is not hard to see that Müller’s theology is significantly influenced by the transcendentalism of Rahner, and the fruits are equally devastating: As is evident from the quotes above, once Müller touches dogma, it becomes unrecognizable, and nothing is left but confusion, bewilderment, and nausea. Literally no one will have a better understanding of the Catholic Faith after reading Müller’s “explanations.” With sentences like: “In the hermeneutics of dogma there takes place a spiritual dynamic in the transcendence of the formula concerning the ever-greater intended content the dogma aims at” (Katholische Dogmatik, p. 79), it is clear that Müller’s intent is not to explicate anything, much less to communicate truth. Rather, his intent is to do the very opposite. If this man is a guardian of orthodoxy, what is left for a heretic to do?!

That Catholic dogma is not a hodgepodge of vague and elusive ideas about contextual horizons, transcendental frameworks, and hermeneutical perspectives is easily seen by the fact that prior to Vatican II and the entire New Theology (Nouvelle Theologie) the council is based on, Sacred Theology was quite comprehensible and yet by no means simplistic or shallow. The Neo-Modernists of our day are masters at using gobbledygook to simulate theological profundity.

Some may say that it is not right to accuse Müller of heresy regarding the Perpetual Virginity dogma, on the grounds that he does, after all, believe in some version of it. But this argument is easily answered by pointing out that the Church teaches that it is necessary to believe in dogma precisely as it has been defined by the Church and in no other sense:

For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4; Denz. 1800; underlining added.)

Müller’s Modernist theology cannot be excused or defended, as is often done, on the grounds that just as St. Thomas Aquinas drew from the philosophical framework of Aristotle, so the contemporary theologian can use other philosophical systems in service of theological truth. This idea was roundly condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1950:

…[T]hey assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.

Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, nn. 15-18; underlining added.)

This papal condemnation was published 69 years ago. Today we have the benefit of hindsight to boot: Since the condemnation was effectively rescinded by the Novus Ordo revolution of John XXIII and his successors and thus all the fury of the Nouvelle Theologie was unleashed on the unsuspecting masses, its rotten fruits have been on full display in the theological, liturgical, and spiritual wasteland that is the Vatican II Church. That devastated vineyard, as Dietrich von Hildebrand called it as early as 1973, is the product of the theology of Rahner, Joseph RatzingerYves Congar, and all the other Neo-Modernist theologians influential at Vatican II, among whose intellectual offspring we must number Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

Perhaps the scariest and absurdest part about all of this, however, is that Müller is considered to be a great conservative and ultra-orthodox bulldog, simply because he opposes the sin of adultery and the idea of allowing unrepentant public adulterers to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments. That really says a lot about the state of “Catholicism” in our day.

Towards the end of his celebrated Novus Ordo Manifesto of Faith, which has been widely seen as a swipe at Francis, the heretic Müller declares:

To keep silent about these and the other truths of the Faith and to teach people accordingly is the greatest deception against which the Catechism vigorously warns. It represents the last trial of the Church and leads man to a religious delusion, “the price of their apostasy” (CCC 675); it is the fraud of Antichrist.

At least on that point, we can agree!

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

“Jesus becomes Bread”, “God contained in a Piece of Bread”: Francis’ Lutheran Corpus Christi

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

God in migrants, God in the poor, God in bread!

“Jesus becomes Bread”, “God contained in a Piece of Bread”: Francis’ Lutheran Corpus Christi 

[UPDATE: See our Rejoinder to Dave Armstrong’s Rebuttal here]

This past Thursday was the Feast of Corpus Christi, the annual festival on the Roman calendar that celebrates the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, the Holy Eucharist. In this sacrament, which is the literal and true Body, Blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, our Blessed Lord remains with us unto the end of time under the appearance of bread and wine. This sacrament is confected during the Holy Catholic Mass, when the priest consecrates bread and wine. The process whereby this unique and miraculous conversion takes place is called Transubstantiation. This is the Catholic dogma, and it is well known to any Catholic who takes his Faith seriously.

Oftentimes the Feast of Corpus Christi cannot solemnly be observed on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday and so the celebration with its outdoor procession is transferred to the following Sunday. Beginning last year, “Pope” Francis (Jorge Bergoglio) has made the decision for the diocese of Rome to transfer the observance to Sunday, and so the solemnities for Corpus Christitook place there today.

Based on his past behavior since at least 2014, it is clear that Francis is highly uncomfortable with Corpus Christi, which is also called the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ in the English-speaking world. This was evident once again today.

Vatican News has released the following video:

Having led the Novus Ordo worship service outside Santa Maria Consolatrice in the Roman district of Casal Bertone, when it came time for the solemn procession, as is his custom, Francis outsourced the carrying of the monstrance to “Cardinal” Angelo de Donatis, the Vicar General of the diocese.

Francis himself did not join the procession at all; as always, he quietly disappeared, only to pop up again at the endpoint of the procession, where an altar had been set up in a soccer field for Benediction of the (invalid Novus Ordo version of the) Blessed Sacrament. Presumably, Bergoglio had been driven there while everyone else followed the procession on foot.

Mr. de Donatis takes over while the “Pope” heads to his Ford Focus…

Once the entire procession arrived in the incredibly ugly surroundings of its destination — a place Francis himself had picked, according to Sr. Bernadette Reis of Vatican Media, so that he could be close to the “peripheries” –, when it came time to kneel, Bergoglio kept standing before the monstrance although a large, gorgeous, and comfortable kneeler had been conspicuously placed before the altar for him to use:

As is well known, standing is Francis’ custom — he practically never kneels before what he claims to believe is the Real Presence of God Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist (with only some very rare exceptions).

The only way to explain the continued presence of an eye-catching kneeler when it is clear that he will not use it, is that Francis himself insists on having it. That, in turn, can only reasonably be explained by the supposition that he wants to demonstrate as blatantly as possible his proud contempt and hatred for the Real Presence of Christ ostensibly contained in the monstrance.

The Vatican has never given an official explanation for Francis’ refusal to kneel or genuflect, but as he likes to demonstrate every year on Holy Thursday for the washing of twelve people’s feet, a physical inability to kneel is not the reason:

This past April 11, Francis also showed how well and quickly — even though not unassisted — he is able to get on his knees when it really matters to him. Remember?

We covered that calculated humiliation of the papacy here.

But not only did Francis engage in his usual contemptible Corpus Christi behavior today, he also uttered clear and unmistakable heresy against the Holy Eucharist in his sermon. The Vatican has provided the Italian original here, and Zenit has released a complete English translation.

The sermon’s main emphasis was clearly not on the miraculous presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist or even on the miracle of the loaves and fishes which had been read during the Gospel (see Lk 9:11-17). Rather, the emphasis was excessively on sharing, blessing, giving, etc. — all things having to do with our fellow man and nothing a Protestant would have a problem with. It was the usual attempt to redirect the focus from the supernatural to the natural, taking a vertical truth and converting it into something horizontal. It was the usual Bergoglian theme of, “OK, so there is this divinely-revealed truth, fine; but now what about the poor, the suffering, and the elderly?”

However, all this is not even our concern now. Bergoglio’s sermon for Corpus Christi did not just have the wrong emphasis, it was explicitly heretical. He said:

In the presence of the Eucharist, Jesus who becomes bread, this simple bread that contains the entire reality of the Church, let us learn to bless all that we have, to praise God, to bless and not curse all that has led us to this moment, and to speak words of encouragement to others.

…The Lord does great things with our littleness, as he did with the five loaves. He does not work spectacular miracles [!], but uses simple things, breaking bread in his hands, giving, distributing and sharing it. God’s omnipotence is lowly, made up of love alone. And love can accomplish great things with little. The Eucharist teaches us this: for there we find God himself contained in a piece of bread.Being simple and essential, bread broken and shared, the Eucharist we receive allows us to see things as God does.

(Antipope Francis, Homily for Corpus ChristiZenit, June 23, 2019; italics removed; underlining added.)

Any child who wants to make his First Holy Communion would not be admitted if this were his understanding of the Eucharist. It is heresy!

The only correct understanding of what happens to the bread and wine when they are consecrated by a priest during Holy Mass is the dogma of Transubstantiation, nothing else. What Bergoglio puts forward in today’s homily is, at best, the Lutheran heresy of Consubstantiation, also called Impanation, according to which “the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Consubstantiation”). This heresy was condemned at the Council of Trent in the 16th century:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session 13, Canons 1, 2; Denz. 883-884)

Of course there will not be lacking now Novus Ordo apologists who will try to argue that Francis didn’t mean what he said in a heretical sense. But at this point, only a fool would still be swayed by the constant hermeneutical acrobatics that people like Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, or Dave Armstrong come up with to keep people chained to the illusion that this Argentinian apostate is the Pope of the Catholic Church, who is keeping the gates of hell from prevailing.

It’s not as if Francis were somehow incapable of speaking clearly and in an orthodox fashion. A man who constantly speaks in such a way that heresy is easily and naturally understood from his words, and does not lift a finger to do anything about it — one, in fact, who continually pushes the envelope further and further –, is quite clearly a heretic.

In Bergoglio’s case, his heresy on the Holy Eucharist is expressed not only in his words but is confirmed also by the bodily contempt he shows on the Feast of Corpus Christi, year after year.

[See our Rejoinder to Dave Armstrong’s Rebuttal here]

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d bloggers like this: