Category Archives: Novus Ordo religija

TRADCAST 025 is here

Novus Ordo Watch for your ears…

TRADCAST 025 Now Available 

TRADCAST — The Traditional Catholic Podcast

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION
AND TO LISTEN TO ALL EPISODES

In case you missed our initial announcement on August 21: We have published another full-length episode of our popular TRADCAST podcast program. As always, it is loaded with real traditional Catholicism, hard-hitting refutations of various errors, and razor-sharp analysis. Our content is typically challenging but is always delivered with a relieving touch of humor.

TRADCAST 025 consists of two separate segments. First we evaluate Dan Marcum’s effort to paint Francis as an “anti-liberal”, and in the process we examine the the Modernist strategy of using ambiguity and contradiction in order to spread heresy more effectively and with impunity. Then we comment on what happened when an “indult Mass” goer discovered what religion he is really a part of, and we examine the three main currents that developed in response to the revolution of Vatican II in the 1960s. We wrap up the first segment with a response to Robert Siscoe’s argument, based on an abridged quote from Cardinal Louis Billot, that the “universal peaceful acceptance” by the Church of a papal claimant is an infallible sign of his legitimacy.

The second portion of the podcast begins with a brief announcement concerning Dr. Taylor Marshall’s book Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within and then introduces Dr. Peter Chojnowski’s “Sister Lucy Truth” project, which is dedicated to determining scientifically whether Sr. Lucy of Fatima was replaced with an imposter around 1960. We also preview the Vatican’s upcoming Pan-Amazon Synod and expose the contradictory theology of the One Peter Five web site. We end the program by considering whether Sedevacantism really is, as is often alleged, a “dead end”.

If you are new to the program, you will find that listening to TRADCAST is like drinking from a firehose of information. As always, the podcast is interlaced with important insights, quotes from solid Catholic sources, and some much-needed humor! The total run time of TRADCAST 025 is 1 hour and 11 minutes.

You can listen free of charge by playing the YouTube video above, or you can go to our TRADCAST 025 page, where you will find all the information you need for this show, including links to all the articles, books, blog posts, etc., mentioned in the podcast, and where you will also find ways to download this episode to your computer and sign up to be notified of new episodes by email.

Here’s an idea: Why not throw a late-summer party and invite some friends, neighbors, or family members and listen to the show together and discuss it over hotdogs and burgers? Or how about hosting a virtual discussion with traditionalist or non-traditionalist friends using Google Hangouts or a similar conference tool?

If you are interested in listening to older shows, you can do so using our complete episodes list; or listen to a sermon or an apologetics/catechism class with your friends and family as well. This makes for great conversation — much more important than the usual family discussions — and will open people’s eyes about Francis and the Novus Ordo Sect! It’s one way you can do evangelization the easy way. In any case, don’t miss this TRADCAST and spread the word!

As always, TRADCAST is entirely free of charge. Listeners who would like to support this podcast with a tax-deductible donation, may do so here.

Annoy the heck out of Francis — listen to TRADCAST!

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Oglasi

TRADCAST 025 (August 21, 2019)

TRADCAST 025 (21 AUG 2019)

Contents

  • Segment 1: Francis the Anti-Liberal? – ambiguity and contradiction as part of the Modernist strategy; bursting the diocesan traditional Latin Mass bubble; the revolution of Vatican II vs. the traditional Catholic teaching on the Church; is it a “dogmatic fact” that Francis is Pope? – response to Robert Siscoe
  • Segment 2: Brief announcement regarding Taylor Marshall’s book Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within; how you can support this podcast; Peter Chojnowski’s “Sister Lucy Truth” project: was Sr. Lucy of Fatima replaced with an imposter around 1960?; the trouble with diabolical disorientation; a preview of the Vatican’s upcoming Amazon Synod; the contradictory theology of One Peter Five; Sedevacantism – a dead end?
  • Total run time: 1 hr 11 mins

You can listen to the show by clicking the big play button in the embedded player above. Alternatively, you can choose right below from more listening/viewing options:

Alternate Show Links (Audio and Video)

Links to Items mentioned in the Show & Related Information

The Errors of Michael Davies: A Comprehensive Refutation

John Daly destroys Semi-Trad Pioneer

The Errors of Michael Davies:
A Comprehensive Refutation

MICHAEL DAVIES — AN EVALUATION
by John S. Daly

(1st ed. 1989, 2nd ed. 2015)

FREE DOWNLOAD!

One of the most prominent and influential writers of the traditionalist movement in the Vatican II Church was the English writer Michael Treharne Davies (1936-2004), shown above with then-“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger. No individual has written more prolifically than Davies on traditionalist issues, and probably no single layman, with the possible exception of Dietrich von Hildebrand, has enjoyed wider prominence, credibility, and trustworthiness than him. But is this respect Mr. Davies has enjoyed really well-founded? If not, what does this mean for the people who base most of their understanding of the traditionalist subject matter on the research and argumentation of this one individual?

In a devastating dossier of 584 pages entitled Michael Davies — An Evaluation, Englishman John S. Daly (web site here) thoroughly dismantles the star apologist for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X. This exhaustively-researched and well-documented book exposes and refutes the errors, fallacies, dangers, false theology, and sloppy scholarship of Michael Davies. Twenty-six years after it was first published, a new revised and expanded edition of this invaluable work was made available to the public in 2015, both in hardcopy and electronically, the latter as a free PDF download only through Novus Ordo Watch. We have advertised this outstanding work in various ways on this web site before and are happy to do so once more.

The book description provided by the author reads as follows:

Cambridge-educated translator John S. Daly puts the scholarship of the late Michael Davies under the spotlight. What emerges from systematic comparison with statements of the Magisterium and the greatest theologians must destroy Davies’s credibility in the eyes of every serious reader. “Michael Davies – An Evaluation” remains not only an unanswered indictment of Davies as a Catholic scholar, but a standing refutation of the entire ecclesiology of those who believe it possible for an orthodox Catholic to reject the doctrinal errors and reformed rites spawned by Vatican II without calling into doubt the legitimacy of recent papal claimants and the validity of the new sacraments….

(source)

There is no doubt, of course, that Davies has done considerable good and provided excellent analysis and refutation of many errors promoted by the Vatican II religion. His work as a whole is certainly responsible for opening the eyes of a great many people to the dangers and heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect (which he, alas, identified with the Catholic Church), and has (re)kindled in countless souls a love for the Holy Catholic Mass offered in the traditional Roman rite.

Daly’s exposé does not mean to detract from the good which has admittedly been accomplished by Davies over the years. However, this good must be weighed against the considerable damage he has done and harm to souls he has caused, as demonstrated throughout this work. A glass may be filled 80% with nutritious juice, but if the remaining 20% are poison, the entire glass will be contaminated, and death or serious illness will result. Pointing out that 80% of the contents were good, will not help to undo or minimize the damage of the 20%. It would also be quite irresponsible and deceptive to focus only on the healthful content and pretend the poison does not exist.

It is for this reason that we wish to assist in the distribution of Mr. Daly’s dossier — to reveal, for the good of souls, the many dangerous errors, fallacies, and problems in the research and argumentation of Michael Davies, upon whom so many, quite unjustifiedly but in good faith, have relied in their understanding of traditionalist Catholic issues over the years.

The author himself clarifies his motives for exposing Davies in the introduction to his study:

In view of Mr. Davies’s uniquely influential position in the Catholic world today, a candid examination of his writings to assess to what extent his facts, theology and reasoning can be relied upon seems to be an appropriate undertaking. That is what this Evaluation sets out to achieve by subjecting Mr. Davies’s writings to careful analysis in the light of Catholic authority.

…After several years of study and work in Catholic publishing I reached the conclusion that an Evaluation such as this was necessary in order to accomplish three main objectives:

(i) To refute the gravely erroneous positions of Mr. Davies … in which his assertions have been responsible for leading many souls astray in matters upon which salvation may quite literally depend.

(ii) To show by careful analysis that Mr. Davies is a grossly unreliable author whose statements about Catholic doctrine should never be accepted without verification from genuine Catholic authorities.

(iii) To set out in a single study the main points of disagreement among those commonly referred to as traditional Catholics, allowing both sides to state their case, and showing by rigorous demonstration in each case where the truth lies.

(John S. Daly, Michael Davies — An Evaluation, new ed. [Saint-Sauveur de Meilhan: Tradibooks, 2015], pp. XIII-XV)

Davies was a very interesting speaker, and his writing was usually quite pleasant to read. His English accent and delightful humor contributed to his affable personality. We have already conceded that much of his research and argumentation was valid and good. However, this cannot exonerate him from the many erroneous arguments he advanced and the inadequate or selective research he engaged in, often with regard to issues impacting Sedevacantism (case in point: his widely-repeated but false thesis that St. Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius, refuted here and also here).

The conclusions author John Daly reaches about Michael Davies are less than flattering:

The conclusions reached in this Evaluation are that Mr. Davies is a shameless purveyor of false doctrine, sometimes reaching actual heresy; intensely ignorant even on many elementary points of theology as well as on matters of historical fact and general Catholic knowledge; not infrequently guilty of downright dishonesty; an execrable scholar; arrogant and foolish; a source of huge scandal and, in fine, an utter disgrace to the name of Catholic. Naturally these conclusions are far from savoury. My only justification for reaching them is that they are inescapably true, and my justification for publishing them is that the good of souls demands that so great a source of danger be exposed as publicly as possible.

(Daly, Michael Davies, p. XV)

To give you a snapshot of the valuable information contained in Michael Davies — An Evaluation, we are reproducing here its table of contents:

Introduction to the New 2015 Edition

Introduction

I. Davies’s Attitude to Authority

II. Shockingly Slipshod Scholarship

III. The Vacancy of the Holy See

Appendix: Suarez on the Heretical Pope

IV. Dishonesty, Inconsistency and Arrogance

V. Which Side is Michael Davies on?

VI. Miscellaneous Doctrinal Errors

VII. The Society of St. Pius X

VIII. Davies as an Anarchist

IX. Errors of Sacramental Theology

(a) The Orders of Archbishop Lefebvre
(b) The 1968 New Rite of Ordination
(c) Validity and “Significatio Ex Adjunctis”
(d) Validity of the Novus Ordo Missæ

X. The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius

XI. Salvation Outside the Church?

XII. Doctrinal Evolution?

XIII. Open Letter to Mr. Michael Davies

At almost 600 pages, the reader will find this work is quite comprehensive in its critique of the Lefebvrist apologist. Such a critique is necessary because we who live in these times are engaged, at least in prefigurement, in the battle of Christ vs. Antichrist, and certainly that of Pope vs. Antipope, Church vs. Counterchurch. Human respect can never get in the way of defending the truth, no matter how unpopular it might be.

To purchase a copy of this dossier on Michael Davies in paperback, you may do so directly from Mr. Daly’s web site:

If you prefer to order through Amazon.com, you may do so by clicking here.

If you would like to download for free an electronic copy of this book — fully searchable through optical character recognition — you may do so at the link below:

Download Here:
PDF Format (3.5 MB)

Michael Davies — An Evaluation
by John S. Daly
New Edition (2015)
© John S. Daly

Although this book reserves copyright, Novus Ordo Watch is distributing it with the full and explicit permission of the copyright holder, author John S. Daly.

The battle for truth is an essential part of the battle for the salvation of souls, our own as well as those of others. It is therefore imperative for people to see falsehood exposed for what it is, and to realize that Michael Davies, whom many consider a weighty authority on the pressing issues or our time, was in fact a dangerous charlatan, even if he was right on many points. People who object in principle to a critique such as the one by Mr. Daly, on the grounds that “we should not be criticizing fellow-traditionalists”, have not understood the nature and the severity of the situation we are dealing with. Motives aside, we must know who is working on the side of Christ and the Truth, and who is working for the other side.

In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, St. Paul wrote that God would permit, in the end, the “operation of error” to blind many souls because they did not love the truth:

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

(2 Thess 2:6-11; underlining added.)

If you have not seen it yet, make sure you read Cardinal Edward Manning’s commentary on this passage and the great research he did on the question of the Pope, the Antichrist, and the latter times, in which we must surely now be, simply because that which 60 years ago would have been considered practically impossible, has now come to pass, and things are deteriorating quickly:

The situation in which we find ourselves today is unprecedented but not unexpected. A long-term vacancy of the Apostolic See, with no clear way out, seems to be a necessary condition enabling the rise of the Antichrist, else “he who withholdeth” — the Pope — would indeed restrain him. So, keep this in mind, whenever you hear some uninformed loudmouth tell you that “God would never permit this!”, that what God will or won’t permit is told to us in Divine Revelation, including Holy Scripture, and the matter is clear: God will not only permit but even “send”, as it were, the “operation of error”, with the precise intent that people will “believe lying” so that “all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity”.

Davies in his last years

We must remember also that while good will is necessary in this battle, it is not sufficient. The late great Fr. Frederick William Faber warned that one reason why the deception of the Antichrist would be so successful is that many “manifestly good” men would follow him and do his work, in ignorance:

We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.

(Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World [text here]; underlining added.)

Besides, fallen men tend to deceive themselves, quickly ascribing good will to themselves when in fact the truth may be quite different. How often do we not tell ourselves we are only interested in the truth when in fact we are not and prefer our own self-interest before all else! (On this, see the same Fr. Faber’s excellent spiritual advice on self-deceit in Spiritual Conferences, 2nd ed. [1860], pp. 153-235.)

Jeffrey Knight’s talk on Sedevacantism and willful ignorance is also apropos here, a real eye-opener:

So, remember, ignorance alone will not get you off the hook, because much ignorance today is quite culpable. This doesn’t mean that those who are culpably ignorant are guilty of malice or ill will — no, it may simply be a case of culpable negligence. It’s time to show some fortitude, which is, after all, one of the four cardinal virtues and also a gift of the Holy Ghost: This is about the eternal destiny of your soul, for heaven’s sake! And if you have a spouse and children, it is about their souls as well. It’s time to take things seriously! Stop kidding yourself and look the facts in the eye! They do not cease to be facts just because we refuse to look.

Likewise, remember that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain: If Sedevacantism is true, it does not become false just because you refuse to look at the evidence; and if Sedevacantism were false, it would not become true just because you are looking into it. Besides, consider that Sedevacantism is entirely safe. By adhering to it, you cannot be led into heresy, nor into schism, if you are faithful to Catholic teaching. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the position were false, where would be the danger? What could you be accused of?

The worst that could be said of you is that you were wrong about who the Pope was, or whether there was a Pope. You believed, in good faith, that there was no Pope when in fact there was one — but at least you acted consistently and in accordance with Catholic teaching, to the best of your ability and in peace with your conscience. You could be accused of having made a sincere mistake, nothing more; a mistake regarding the identity of the true Pope, as many others did before in Church history, and quite innocently (assuming, of course, that you have done your best to figure it out). This is the worst that could be said. You could not be accused of adhering to or spreading false doctrine (heresy), nor of refusing to be subject to the man you acknowledged to be the Pope (schism). That you would not submit to a man you were sincerely convinced could not possibly be Pope, cannot be laid to your charge, since a Catholic is required to refuse submission to an impostor.

God does not require us to be infallible, but He does require us to adhere to Catholic teaching at all times and in the same sense and meaning it has always had, and He requires us to accept manifest facts as true and to reject contradictions as false. Sedevacantism is the only position that can reconcile the known empirical facts with Catholic teaching. For this you cannot be faulted, even if — per impossibile — it turned out to be false.

But back to Michael Davies, the man upon whose research and argumentation so many have relied for their understanding of traditionalist issues, from the Novus Ordo Missae to Sedevacantism to the illicit episcopal consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre.

On April 22, 1980, Davies appeared on Firing Line with Bill Buckley, Jr., debating a Novus Ordo priest and the infamous pseudo-traditionalist Malachi Martin. The video of the show is available online, and we are embedding it below as a little perk so you can experience Michael Davies at a time when he had just published the first volume of his Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre:

Michael Davies on Bill Buckley’s Firing Line (1980)

What’s interesting — and very telling — is that although Michael Davies lived until 2004, he never responded to John Daly’s blistering critique, which had first been published fifteen years prior. One would think that if such a powerful refutation of one’s own writings was being disseminated, that the individual targeted would do everything in his power to defend himself to retain or regain his credibility, certainly over a period of time as long as 15 years and at the request of several intellectuals (see Daly, Michael Davies, pp. IX-X). Not so with Michael Davies — even though his critic had even provided a convenient summary of his findings, issued as an open letter consisting of very specific errors he challenged Davies to address (found in the book as Chapter 13, pp. 553-584). No attempt at a rebuttal was ever made by the Lefebvrist apologist.

Davies died on September 25, 2004, and so has already received his judgment. We pray that it was a merciful one and that he repented of all his errors and sins before being summoned to appear before the Divine Judge. It is not our desire to focus so much on the person of Davies as on his errors, powerfully refuted in this work by John Daly, because these errors are still alive and well today, not least because the name of Michael Davies has been attached to them. Nevertheless we must call attention to the fact that it is not wrong, according to the Catholic position on personal polemics, to attack, besides the argument itself, also the person making it. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany explained this in his Vatican-endorsed book Liberalism is a Sin (1886):

This monumental dossier on Michael Davies is as explosive as it is detailed, and yet it is also eminently readable. You will find a great many arguments still heard today from people in the “recognize-and-resist” camp competently refuted by the sound reasoning and authentic Catholic sources used in this powerful critique, which most people have never seen or even heard of.

This Evaluation of Mr. Davies will prove a very valuable tool in defending the sedevacantist position and debunking one of its foremost critics. We do not think it an exaggeration to say that after these 584 pages, there is nothing left of the credibility of the celebrated Lefebvrist apologist.

The facts are in; the truth is out. Exit Michael Davies…

That Novus Ordo Paradigm: Contribution to a Dispute between Steve Skojec and Louie Verrecchio

Why didn’t they just look it up?

That Novus Ordo Paradigm: Contribution to a Dispute between Steve Skojec and Louie Verrecchio

A recent argument about sacramental validity between semi-trad bloggers Steve Skojec and Louie Verrecchio illustrates quite beautifully what the fundamental problem is in the camp of non-sedevacantist traditionalists.

Let’s examine chronologically what has happened.

On July 26, 2019, Steve Skojec, editor of the theology-free resistance propaganda blog One Peter Five, published a post entitled “The ‘Novus Ordo Paradigm’ — What It Is and Why It Matters”.

We won’t dwell much on the fact that in this article Skojec essentially describes how his religion has defected from the Gospel and is therefore worthy of anathema (cf. Gal 1:8-9) and a grave danger to Faith and morals and therefore salvation. For example, he puts forward the theologically absurd, utterly outrageous, and solemnly condemned idea that “you are the victim of a crime” if you “have access to nothing but” Mass in a liturgical rite approved by the (supposed) Supreme Pontiff. (By this he means the Novus Ordo Missae (“New Mass”) of Paul VI.)

Such an idea is gravely injurious to the traditional Roman Catholic Faith, for the Church teaches: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7; Denz. 954). And further: “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children…” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, n. 66). But then, the recognize-and-resisters rarely allow actual traditional Catholicism to interfere with their “traditional Catholic” position.

This is evident also in the rest of Skojec’s piece, where he proclaims (quite correctly, of course, but nevertheless inconsistently) that “Novusordoism and Catholicism [are] Not the Same Religion” — while at the same time insisting that Francis is the head of both of them, making him the Vicar of Christ and the Vicar of the Devil. In Resistance Land, this is what is smugly offered under the label “the gates of hell shall not prevail” — it boggles the mind!

Confecting the Eucharist outside of Mass: Skojec vs. Verrecchio

But let’s turn to the part now that triggered the public skirmish between the two bloggers. Skojec wrote:

Now let’s get this out of the way, because I can hear the objections coming: yes, offered according to the rubrics, the Novus Ordo [Mass] is valid. What does that mean? It means that the Eucharist is confected, and the bread and wine become Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity during that liturgy.

But too many people stop there.

Technically, a priest has the power to consecrate the Eucharist anywhere. It’s legally forbidden, but he can do it. He can sit at a bar, drunk, and consecrate bread and wine if he says the right words with the right intention. He could even do the same thing at a satanic Mass for the purposes of desecration.

(Steve Skojec, “The ‘Novus Ordo Paradigm’ — What It Is and Why It Matters”One Peter Five, July 26, 2019; underlining added.)

Skojec is wrong, of course, in saying that the Novus Ordo Missae is valid. It is not, but that’s not our topic now.

All the controversy is about the last paragraph in the above quote, specifically the sentence: “He can sit at a bar, drunk, and consecrate bread and wine if he says the right words with the right intention.”

Blogger Louie Verrecchio, a recognize-and-resister who believes Benedict XVI is the currently-reigning Pope, responded to Skojec, asking him to correct his position:

The grave error in question concerns the following statement:

Technically, a priest has the power to consecrate the Eucharist anywhere. It’s legally forbidden, but he can do it. He can sit at a bar, drunk, and consecrate bread and wine if he says the right words with the right intention. He could even do the same thing at a satanic Mass for the purposes of desecration.

Frankly, I was positively stunned to read this; not because of the source, but mainly since so many people that I respect – people who should know better – had given the article a big thumbs up without making any mention of this horrendous falsehood.

(Louie Verrecchio, “MAJOR CORRECTION: The ‘Novus Ordo Paradigm’”aka Catholic, July 31, 2019; italics given.)

Verrecchio then proceeds to explain why he believes Skojec is wrong. There is no need to repeat all he says here — readers interested in the full argumentation can read it by clicking on the source link given above.

The same day Verrecchio published his post challenging Skojec, the latter reacted to it on Twitter. Be sure to check out the entire thread here.

What interests us in this dispute is not so much the question of who is right — we will get to that later — but rather the way both bloggers go about documenting and defending their respective positions. Let’s have a look at that now:

  1. In his original article on the “Novus Ordo Paradigm”, Skojec did not back up his contention at all that a priest can confect the Holy Eucharist anywhere, as long as he says the right words over the right matter with the right intention. He simply asserted it.
  2. In his response to Skojec, Verrecchio appealed to the following perceived Catholic authorities: a woman professor who teaches Novus Ordo canon law; the oddball canon lawyer “Fr.” Gregorius Hesse; and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, who was the Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers (at the time he said the words quoted by Verrecchio) and would later go on to found the Society of St. Pius X to resist the Vatican II Church while acknowledging its leadership as the legitimate Catholic hierarchy.
  3. In his Twitter rebuttal to Verrecchio, Skojec pointed to a sermon given by the SSPX’s then-Superior General Bp. Bernard Fellay in 2o11 and also referred his critics to that same woman canon lawyer Verrecchio himself had quoted (and whom Skojec had brought up originally).

What is noticeable in all three cases is what is noticeably absent, namely: documentation from pertinent Catholic theology books published before Vatican II. Instead, all (supposed) authorities appealed to wrote or spoke during or after Vatican II.

Thus, the million-dollar question is: Why is neither Skojec nor Verrecchio quoting from pre-Vatican II Catholic theology books on this issue?

Their failure to even attempt to do so illustrates the fundamental problem so prevalent in Resistance Land: They proclaim themselves traditional Catholics but don’t ever — or very rarely — actually bother to look up what traditional Catholic theology says. Instead they offer ideas from personal reflection, share something their favorite traditional priest or bishop has said, copy argumentation found in a pamphlet written by Michael Davies or a blog post authored by Chris Ferrara, refer to a publication of the SSPX, or rely on a perpetually-recycled quote ascribed to a saint or Pope they have never actually verified and whose meaning they have never researched (the Bellarmine resistance quote is a perfect example). They may even quote something from a book by a real theologian if they can find it easily and quickly by means of an internet search.

Ladies and gentlemen, the issues we are facing are too important for such silliness.

If we are serious about traditional Catholicism, then those of us who blog and speak about theological matters in public are going to need to do real research, and that can require real effort: It will take some money, a decent amount of time, as well as prayer and also perseverance. Sometimes you may end up spending hours reading things only to find that your question still hasn’t been answered and you need to look elsewhere. But no matter the cost, it is definitely worth it, and there is no alternative.

If we’re going to be traditional Catholics, if “preserving Catholic Tradition” is to be more than just a pretty slogan on the masthead of our newspaper or web site, then we’ll have to study and hold fast to the doctrines and principles that were actually taught and believed before all the changes took place. Otherwise, we end up with nothing more than an empty “Latin-Mass-ism” that consists in beautiful externals and pious devotions but is devoid of the actual doctrinal underpinnings of real Catholicism, as beautifully explained by Bp. Donald Sanborn in a recent sermon. It would be like putting makeup on a corpse.

So… who’s right? Skojec or Verrecchio?

Since the main focus of this blog post is the semi-trad propensity of not consulting traditional Catholic literature on matters of traditional Catholic theology, we have only done some cursory research on this issue, which is a bit complex. As far as we have been able to ascertain, the traditional Catholic position on the question of the validity of consecrating the Eucharistic species outside of Mass, simply by a validly-ordained priest pronouncing the essential words over valid matter, is that it is probably invalid and at least doubtful. In other words, the preponderance of the evidence appears to favor Verrecchio over Skojec. If we stipulate that the priest in question is drunk, the attempted sacrament is definitely invalid because intoxication inhibits the use of reason and therefore prevents a valid interior intention of doing what the Church does (and to that extent, Skojec’s premise of a priest “sit[ting] at a bar, drunk” yet “with the right intention” is a clear contradiction).

Once we leave Novus Ordo canon lawyers or popular resistance clergy aside and turn to the pre-Vatican II traditional Catholic theological literature, here is what we discover:

First of all, in order to have the sufficient intention of doing what the Church does, “the minister must always act as a serious human agent, for a fictitious intention or an action in jest would be insufficient, since the Church does not act in that way, nor does the minister wish to perform a serious rite” (Rev. Raphael De Salvo, The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1949], p. 27). For this reason, explains the same author, the Protestants were wrong “when they maintained that the sacraments would be valid even if the minister should be manifestly acting out of amusement as he united the matter and the form” (p. 22).

Regarding the specific question of the validity of consecrating bread and wine outside of Mass, the sources we have consulted all say more or less the same thing, namely:

To consecrate outside the Mass would not only be a sacrilege, but probably also an attempt at invalid consecration. The priest would certainly not perform that action in the person of Christ, nor according to the intention of the Church, which is restricted to the celebration of the Mass.

(Rev. P. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, vol. IV [St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1920], p. 156)

The canonist Augustine bases his opinion on the teaching of the celebrated moral theologian Fr. Dominic Prummer, who states in his Manuale Theologiae Moralis, vol. III [Freiburg: Herder, 1955], n. 176, that if an evil priest were to pronounce the words of consecration over bread at a bakery, it would be “probably invalid” (probabiliter invalida).

The canon law professor Fr. Henri Ayrinhac echoes that very same position:

…[A] priest who would deliberately decide to consecrate only one element or knowingly use insufficient matter would commit a grave sin of disobedience to the command of Christ to do what He had done; moreover, according to some theologians, his act would be invalid, because he has not the intention of doing externally what the Church does. Still less would we find that external, whatever may be the interior, intention in the case sometimes proposed as an objection, of a priest passing in front of a bakery and pronouncing the words of consecration over baskets of bread.

(Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac, Legislation on the Sacraments [New York, NY: Longmans, Green and Co., 1928], pp. 114-115)

This position is confirmed also by Fr. Nicholas Halligan:

Even in a case of extreme necessity it is never allowed to consecrate except within the Mass. A consecration which is not accompanied by the principal parts of the Mass is probably invalid. …To consecrate one species without the intention to consecrate the other renders the consecration doubtful.

(Rev. Nicholas Halligan, The Administration of the Sacraments [Cork: The Mercier Press, 1963], p. 106)

Finally, regarding the question of a priest being drunk when attempting to confect a sacrament, we also have a rather clear answer from an unquestionably traditional source:

…[H]e who would administer a sacrament in a drunken, or somnambulistic [=sleepwalking], or hypnotic state, would perform an action that is null, even though before the occurrence he might have had the most formal intention of doing what the Church does; for in that abnormal state he no longer acts as a rational being capable of being the representative of Christ and the Church.

(Very Rev. P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments [St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1910], p. 393)

So much for Skojec’s idea that a priest could be drunk and intend to do what the Church does.

Concluding Thoughts

At this point we have a fairly clear picture of how the Catholic Church has traditionally looked upon the question of consecrating bread and wine outside of Holy Mass. We’ve consulted genuinely traditional Catholic sources by serious theological authors and not simply relied on a Bp. Fellay sermon, a blog post by a Novus Ordo canonist, or a talk by “Fr.” Hesse.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that if a traditional Catholic wants to know the answer to a theological problem, he ought to look it up in the traditional Catholic literature, i.e. in the books that were written and used before the whole Novus Ordo religion started. That’s the safe way to proceed, keeping in mind that if we do not use the right method in the search for knowledge, we run the grave risk of arriving at a flawed conclusion — and at a correct one only by accident.

Skojec is known for being rich in rhetoric but short on actual Catholic theology. Two years ago he suggested on his web site that people should be sedevacantists in practice but not in theory. In other words: Say Francis is Pope but act like he’s not. What he must have thought of as a smart Catholic idea — he called it “Practical Sedevacantism” — is really just called hypocrisy and schism in moral theology.

Verrecchio makes more of an effort to be serious about theology but his work tends to be flawed because it is still so heavily influenced by the Lefebvrite resistance propaganda the Society of St. Pius X has been spewing with great success for decades. In 2015, Verrecchio had a similar dispute with another blogger (that time with the English writer Mundabor), and there too he relied on the argumentation of his hero “Fr.” Hesse instead of turning to pre-Vatican II Catholic theology books. (We published a powerful critique of him, Mundabor, and the celebrated Hesse in this post.)

With regard to both Skojec’s One Peter Five and Verrecchio’s aka Catholic, we can say: For web sites that supposedly seek to promote, defend, and restore Catholic Tradition, it’s amazing to see just how little of it is actually found there.

By the way: As far as the validity of Paul VI’s “New Mass” goes, which Skojec affirms and Verrecchio disputes to an extent, that issue is pretty much moot, since the large majority of such “Masses” is now conducted by clerics who are themselves bereft of valid holy orders (having been ordained in the 1968 Novus Ordo rite or by a “bishop” himself ordained in such a rite); and of course it does not matter how valid the words of consecration are in themselves if they are pronounced by a mere layman.

That, at least, is what traditional Catholicism says.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

The Death of Vincent Lambert and the Silence of “Pope” Francis

July 17, 2019

Frenchman starved to death by court order…

The Death of Vincent Lambert and the Silence of “Pope” Francis

When it concerns a matter he really cares about, Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope” Francis) always has his trap open: Whether the topic be migrants, the poor, integral ecology, sustainable development, the elderly, climate change, clean water, albinos in Africa, educational initiatives for the youth in Argentina, or the rights of the indigenous in the Amazon region — for all those causes, Bergoglio couldn’t stop his tongue from moving if his life depended on it.

Of course no one is saying that these aren’t worthy causes for the most part — that’s not the point. Rather, the point is that Francis practices a rather obvious double standard, for when it comes to things of equal or greater importance, the Jesuit apostate suddenly discovers the importance of silence — and if he does say or do something, it’s usually only late in the game, after a sufficient amount of pressure, and/or in minimal fashion.

Here are some examples:

Sadly, the recent high-profile case of Vincent Lambert, a 42-year-old tetraplegic man in France, was no different for the otherwise garrulous pseudo-pope.

Lambert had suffered severe injuries in a motorcycle accident on Sep. 29, 2008, that left him “a brain-damaged paraplegic in a minimally conscious state”, according to a Life Site report by Jeanne Smits. Although he was connected to a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration, Lambert was not terminally ill and not in need of special treatment, nor was he on life support equipment, such as a respirator. He was not dying but was quite alive.

His severe handicap, however, was enough for a number of people to seek his death:

His wife and six of his siblings supported a recommendation made by doctors in 2013 that the provision of nutrition and hydration through a gastric tube should be stopped. Lambert was able to breathe on his own.

But Lambert’s parents and two other siblings had fought the decision in courts, insisting as the Catholic Church does that nutrition and hydration are not extraordinary measures for prolonging his life.

Doctors at the clinic in Reims, France, where Lambert had been cared for, started withdrawing nutrition and hydration in May when a court ruled in his wife’s favor.

However, a few hours later, an appeals court reversed the decision and ordered a resumption of tube feeding and hydration.

In late June, another court ruled that care could be discontinued; doctors began withholding nutrition and hydration July 2.

(“Pope laments death of Vincent Lambert”La Croix International, July 15, 2019)

Lambert died on July 11, a full nine days after nutrition and hydration were withheld from him, and only because they were withheld.

What is even more shocking is that during his starvation ordeal Lambert “received no deep sedation and … during the first days of his agony, he was moaning and groaning, gasping for breath, and crying”, as related by his mother, Viviane, “who could not even give him a drink”. “He also had quieter moments but his eyes were open and he reacted to Viviane when she talked to him until then”, according to a July 11 article by Smits.

And where was Francis? Where was the Vatican?

For his favorite political issues, Francis has lots of time and lots to say. He is able to crank out book-length interviews, addresses, statements, special audiences, forewords, livestreams, video messages — you name it. He had a special message for the Super Bowl in 2017, shared words of wisdom with the same year’s G20 Summit, and blathered at the youth in a video message for a TED conference. Even personal phone calls or in-person visits are not out of the question for something that is dear to him. Two years ago he had fun chatting with astronauts on the International Space Station, and he once even found time to write the foreword to a psychotherapist’s book about the bad habit of complaining.

The fact is that Francis has plenty of time and energy — when it concerns something he actually cares about! As we’ve found out, that’s how it works with his knees, too: He is quite capable of kneeling, he just needs to find a good enough reason to actually do so. Too bad the Feast of Corpus Christi isn’t one for him.

So, what is Francis’ record on the Vincent Lambert case, which is clearly setting a judicial precedent in France for the fate of the handicapped who are effectively deemed “useless eaters” and therefore “unworthy of life”?

In 2018, Francis mentioned Vincent Lambert by name twice (April 15 and April 18) but only briefly as part of his post-Audience/Regina Caeli shout-outs. That’s the time when he makes fleeting remarks on world affairs, requests prayers for various intentions, and greets various pilgrim groups in attendance, such as the dairy farmers from Lesotho or the newlyweds from Micronesia.

On May 20, 2019, Francis sent a generic tweet about protecting human life, by which he includes, of course, opposition to the death penalty, which is not a “natural end” to life:

Whenever Francis or some other Novus Ordo big shot speaks out against murder, he will typically put it in general terms that lump together and condemn all killing, even that which is just and necessary, such as capital punishment meted out by the state for capital crimes, or killing enemy combatants in a just war. In this manner, innocent victims like Lambert or Gard are effectively put on a par with the most heinous criminals, such as Albert FishJames DeBardeleben, or this monster.

On July 10, roughly a week after the hospital had begun starving Lambert to death, Francis tortured himself to release the following tweet:

The Novus Ordo news video site Rome Reports seriously attempted to spin this tweet into a “strong plea for Vincent Lambert’s life” on the part of Francis, when it was clearly no such thing. First, because it does not mention Lambert by name at all; second, because it does not address his case even in general terms. Lambert was not “left to die.” He wasn’t dying at all. He was starved to death. He was dehydrated to death. If putting a convicted murderer in a prison cell and giving him no food or water until he is dead were a method of execution in the United States, the entire world would decry it as barbaric, inhumane, and excessively cruel. Francis himself would omit no opportunity to denounce and condemn it.

Not so in the case of Vincent Lambert, an innocent man whose only objectionable deed was that he was too ill to feed himself.

Not surprisingly, once Lambert’s court-ordered murder had been carried out successfully, Francis suddenly managed to remember his name again:

Thus far Francis’ personal interventions, or lack thereof. Too bad Lambert wasn’t a migrant trying to break down a border fence somewhere.

On May 21, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life and the Pontifical Academy for Life had released the following joint statement:

In full agreement with the affirmations of the Archbishop of Reims, H.E. Msgr. Éric de Moulins-Beaufort, and the auxiliary bishop, H.E. Msgr. Bruno Feillet, in relation to the sad case of Mr. Vincent Lambert, we wish to reiterate the grave violation of the dignity of the person that the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration would constitute. Indeed, the “vegetative state” is certainly a burdensome pathological state, which however does not in any way compromise the dignity of those people who find themselves in this condition, nor does it compromise their fundamental rights to life and to care, understood as the continuity of basic human assistance.

Nutrition and hydration constitute a form of essential care, always proportionate to life support: to nourish a sick person never constitutes a form of unreasonable therapeutic obstinacy, as long as the person is able to receive nutrition and hydration, provided this does not cause intolerable suffering or prove damaging to the patient.

The suspension of such care represents, rather, a form of abandonment of the patient, based on a pitiless judgment of the quality of life, expression of a throwaway culture that selects the most fragile and helpless people, without recognizing their uniqueness and immense value. The continuity of assistance is an inescapable duty.

We therefore hope that solutions may be found as soon as possible to protect Mr. Lambert’s life. To this end, we assure the prayer of the Holy Father and all the Church.

(“Declaration on the case of Mr. Vincent Lambert”Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, May 21, 2019)

The text was signed by McCarrick associate “Cardinal” Kevin Farrell and the scandal-ridden “Abp.” Vincenzo Paglia. Impressive! A few lines of text about human dignity from two Vatican officials nobody knows or pays any attention to. The only thing missing was a quote from Evangelii Gaudium.

A day before Lambert’s death, the Italian periodical Famiglia Christiana published an article penned by Paglia that effectively undid the May 21 declaration’s call for the protection of Lambert’s life and which “perpetuates the confusion between medical treatment and administration of food and fluids”, as one critical review put it.

After Lambert’s passing, Vatican News published a report that put a spin on the facts: “Lambert’s wife and some of his siblings wanted care to be withdrawn, but his Catholic parents, backed by other relatives, launched a series of legal bids to force doctors to keep him alive” (underlining added). This choice of words makes it appear as though Lambert was dying and the hospital was artificially keeping him alive. But that is not so. A report by AsiaNews.it hits the nail on the head: “He died of hunger and thirst, but was not near death and did not need machines to support his vital functions. But his doctors and wife decided he had to die.”

By contrast to all these reactions, the conservative “Cardinal” Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, erred on the opposite side, claiming that Lambert had “died as a martyr”Except he didn’t. He was murdered, yes; but he was not martyred. While it is true that Lambert was “a victim of the frightful madness of the men of our time”, as Sarah accurately described the situation, that is not what martyrdom is.

Donald Attwater’s Catholic Dictionary defines martyrdom as the “voluntary endurance of death for the Catholic faith, or for any article thereof, or for the preservation of some Christian virtue, or for some other act of virtue relating to God” (s.v. “Martyrdom”). Lambert was cruelly murdered in cold blood, but he was not killed for the Catholic Faith or for some supernatural virtue; so to apply the label of “martyr” here dangerously reduces martyrdom to the suffering of any kind of death that is brought about deliberately and unjustly, thereby making the concept meaningless. Sarah also contradicted himself when he said that he “pray[s] for the eternal repose of the soul of Vincent Lambert”, since it makes no sense to pray for the souls of genuine martyrs, who, rather, ought to be invoked to pray for us: “…the Church never prays for the repose of the souls of martyrs” (Catholic Dictionary).

The 2008 accident that put Lambert into this horrifying condition was a very tragic occurrence, but accidents do happen. Much more tragic, on the other hand, is how Lambert’s life was implicitly declared by courts to be superfluous and therefore ordered to be disposed of.

When people are diagnosed as being in a so-called “vegetative state”, this does not necessarily mean that they are not conscious, not aware of their surroundings, as patients who have come out of such a state have testified. In any case, we do not cease to be human simply because we cannot move, or cannot feed ourselves, or are unable to communicate. Human life is not the sum total of various bodily functions.

The following video shows Lambert weeping after hearing that the court had ordered him to be starved to death. His mother beautifully attempts to console him, telling him repeatedly, “Don’t cry” (ne pleure pas):

Lambert’s parents are now pressing murder charges against his doctors. Murder is the deliberate and direct killing of the innocent, and it is one of only four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance (the other three are sodomy, oppression of the poor, and defrauding the laborer of his just wages).

It is certainly true that no one is obliged to use extraordinary means to prolong his life, but this is not even relevant here: Lambert was not hooked up to life support; he was merely fed through a feeding tube. When it was disconnected, he wasn’t “allowed to die”; he was forcibly dehydrated and starved to death because a court had decided it was in his “best interest.”

Years ago there was a debate among sedevacantist priests as to whether or not a feeding tube constituted extraordinary means — with no Pope to render an authoritative decision, the issue could not be settled. However, this debate need not concern us here, for our focal point in this post is the behavior of Francis, whose own religion has judged feeding tubes to be merely ordinary means.

To sum up: Vincent Lambert was lying in a hospital bed, too ill to feed himself. For nine days the hospital refused to give food or water to him, until he died — and the ever-talkative “Pope” had practically nothing to say.

“For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me” (Mt 25:42,45).

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Francis gives Relics of St. Peter to Eastern Orthodox Patriarch

July 8, 2019

Bergoglio disposing of the Vatican’s last vestiges of Catholicism…

Francis gives away Relics of St. Peter to Eastern Orthodox Patriarch

Orthodox Abp. Job (center) takes possession of the relics of St. Peter,
accompanied by “Cardinal” Kurt Koch (second from left)

You’ve probably heard about it from other news sources at this point, but it’s a story big enough to warrant a dedicated post on this site: On June 29, 2019, the current Modernist usurper of the papal office, Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope” Francis), gave away nine bone fragments of the Apostle and first Pope, St. Peter, to the heretical and schismatic Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, a man who denies the primacy and infallibility of the papal office. The reason? Basically, Francis thought it was a good idea — because he himself has no use for them.

Numerous Novus Ordo news sites and blogs have reported on the incident. Here is a selection:

Of course the Eastern Orthodox, too, have reported on how they obtained the relics, and the following account presents a succinct summary:

On 29 June, 2019, after the Papal Mass in the Basilica of St. Peter, His Holiness Pope Francis invited [Orthodox Archbishop Job of Telmessos] to descend to the tomb of St. Peter under the main altar. They prayed together and the Pope then told him that he had “a gift for the Church of Constantinople”, not indicating what he intended, and invited him to accompany him to the Apostolic Palace. In the private chapel of the popes, he took the reliquary into his hands and handed it to Archbishop Job.

“When we entered the chapel,” said Archbishop Job, “the Pope Francis explained to me that Pope Paul VI wanted to keep a part of the relics of St. Peter from the Vatican Basilica in his private chapel.” Further, Pope Francis told him that during the prayer the previous evening he had this thought: “I no longer live in the Apostolic Palace, I never use this chapel, I never serve [offer] the Holy Mass here, and we have St. Peter’s relics in the basilica itself, so it will be better if they will be kept in Constantinople. This is my gift to the Church of Constantinople. Please take this reliquary and give it to my brother Patriarch Bartholomew. This gift is not from me, it is a gift from God.” Archbishop Job admitted that this decision of Pope Francis was a surprise to everyone: “This is an extraordinary and unexpected event that we did not expect. The relics of the Holy Apostle Peter were always kept in Rome where they were the purpose of pilgrimages. The Orthodox Church has never asked for them since they never belonged to the Church of Constantinople. This time, we do not speak of a return of relics to their original place. This time, the relics are being presented as a gift. This prophetic gesture is another huge step on the path to concrete unity,” stressed Archbishop Job of Telmessos.

(“Pope Francis of Rome gave relics of Saint Peter to the Church of Constantinople”Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World Council of Churches, July 1, 2019; underlining added.)

Rome Reports has published a video clip on Francis’ latest indiscretion:

Here is an alternate video report:

As reported by the German church historian Michael Hesemann on the Austrian Kath.net, these relics of St. Peter were discovered only in the last century, when workers in the Vatican grottoes began to prepare the sepulcher for the body of Pope Pius XI, who had just died. That was in 1939.

The relics of St. Peter are kept inside a bronze reliquary which had been commissioned by “Saint Pope” Paul VI — that accounts for its ugliness. The only time these relics were ever displayed to the public for veneration was Nov. 24, 2013. Here is a video clip showing part of the ceremony:

On June 30, Bartholomew publicly received and venerated the relics in Istanbul (which is what Constantinople is called today). The Facebook page of the Orthodox patriarchate published a number of photos.

To be clear: The Vatican still has other relics of St. Peter — but that’s not even the main issue. The main issue is that a man whom the world believes to be the Pope of the Catholic Church has given nine bone fragments of the first Pope, who received his mission directly from the Son of God, to the representatives of a false religion, a religion that has separated itself from that very Church of St. Peter, a religion which denies a number of divinely-revealed truths, including the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the existence of purgatory, and papal primacy and infallibility. They certainly have a lot in common with Francis!

What adds even greater insult to this injury is the fact that June 29 was the Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, the Petrine feast day of the year. The symbolism of the whole thing is striking.

By the way: Francis isn’t the first pseudo-pope to give away Catholic relics. A similar incident occurred in 2004, when the Voodoo admirer and Polish apostate “Pope Saint” John Paul II handed over the relics of St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory Nazianzen to the same Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew.

As Pope Leo XIII wrote in his Exorcism Prayer against Satan and the Apostate Angels, published in 1890: “These most crafty enemies [of God] have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions”. Bergoglio is merely the latest manifestation of this same evil force, now in de facto possession of the Vatican structures.

So the Modernist thieves in the Vatican have now started to give the Church’s physical goods away. Her spiritual goods they took care of long time ago, replacing them with mostly bogus sacraments and a Counterfeit Catholicism.

Ladies and gentlemen, are you shocked at this? If so, why? These are the people who give the (supposed) Body of Christ to public heretics and unrepentant public sinners — why wouldn’t they give away the relics of St. Peter to a false religion?!

In any case, it’s always more fun to give away things that aren’t yours in the first place.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Francis vs. Pope Pius XI: The Catholic Position on Sex Education

July 11, 2019

Modernist Apostate vs. Vicar of Christ

Francis vs. Pope Pius XI:
The Catholic Position on Sex Education

by Francis del Sarto

“More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”
–Our Lady to the children at Fatima on July 13, 1917

“The Least Serious Sins are the Sins of the Flesh.”
–“Pope” Francis to an agnostic French sociologist, 2017 (source)

Ever wonder how pretend-pope Francis wakes up in the morning? It could be that he has his clock radio blast the tango to get him going on the desired chaotic trajectory, after which he rises and consults his day planner to see what part of the Magisterium he’s scheduled to contradict that day. On very rare occasions, he will come across a listing marked “Double Down Day”, when he gets to set aside his vaunted (ahem) humility and take aim at a pair of Church teachings in one fell swoop.

Such an opportunity for double-down lunacy occurred January 28, 2018, during an on-board discussion he had with reporters as he returned to Rome on Airhead One at the conclusion of World Youth Day in Panama City. A previous article on this web site had already taken apart the heretical comments he made then concerning one of the dire consequences resulting from abortion:

In the same stand-up routine — er, in-flight press conference — the Oracle of the Pampas had another such “pearl of wisdom”, this time on the need for sex education. The exchange went as follows:

Q: Many girls in Central America get pregnant too early. The Church’s detractors say it’s the Church’s responsibility because it’s opposed to sexual education. What is your opinion on sexual education?

A: Sexual education must be given in school; sex is a gift of God, it’s not a monster; it’s a gift of God to love. That some then use it to earn money or to exploit is another problem. But it’s necessary to give an objective sexual education, without ideological colonization. If you begin to give a sexual education full of ideological colonization, you destroy the person.

However, sex must be educated as a gift of God. To educate in the sense of having the best of people emerge and to accompany them along the way. The problem is the system: the teachers and textbooks must be chosen for this task. I’ve seen some rather dirty books. There are things that make one mature and things that do harm. I don’t know if they are working on this in Panama; I don’t go into politics. But it’s necessary to have sexual education. The ideal is to begin at home. It’s not always possible because there are so many varied situations in families. And, therefore, the school supplies this, because otherwise there will be a void, which will then be filled by any ideology.

(Source: “Holy Father’s In-flight Discussion with Reporters (Full Text)”Zenit, Jan. 29, 2018; underlining added.)

The reporter’s question seems as though it may have been scripted, giving Francis an opportunity to respond to the charge that “the Church” is to blame for girls getting pregnant before they should in Panama, “because it’s opposed to sexual education”. He gives the sort of reply one expects from a Modernist, couching part of it in somewhat Catholic-sounding terms like “sex is a gift from God”, but also asserting, in direct repudiation of numerous authentic Church pronouncements, that “sexual education must be given in school”. His justification? After acknowledging that instruction in the home is “ideal”, it is “not always possible because there are so many varied situations in families”. And, as if to assuage any concerns about what will be taught, he emphasizes that he wants “objective sex education, without ideological colonization [sic]”.

Yet if some traditionally-minded souls are somewhat relieved at the qualifier objective, then they really don’t fully appreciate the level of devious mischief Jorge Bergoglio is capable of making out of one little word. For them it means that there won’t be any special interest group taking the lessons into places that impressionable young ears should not hear; for Francis, on the other hand, it has an altogether different meaning, as will be seen shortly.

“Pope” Francis can’t seem to keep Bergoglian dialectics out of any discussion, no matter the subject. Does the term “ideological colonization” have a certain Marxist ring to it? Well, it should, because like much of Francis’ rhetoric, that’s where it finds its roots. Among his many firsts, Bergoglio is the first of the Novus Ordo “popes” to use the term (no true Pope ever used it either, for that matter; but then, none of them were leftist Argentinians either).

His use of the term “ideological colonization” in regard to sex education is only the most recent time he’s invoked it, but don’t let that fool you — it’s a pet phrase of his, a go-to deprecation for whatever irks his Modernist sensibility. According to a Crux article from November 2017, he used the buzzword in the course of a homily. The reporter sought to give it a bit more context:

Francis has used the term “ideological colonization” to describe what he sees as a form of oppression of developing societies by affluent ones, especially the West, through imposing an alien worldview or set of values on poorer societies, often by making adoption of those values a condition of humanitarian or development aid.

(Inés San Martín, “Pope Francis: Ideological colonization a ‘blasphemy against God’”Crux, Nov. 21, 2017)

If that sounds like so much quasi-Marxist claptrap, it’s because that’s precisely what it is. In its promotion of a book on Francis’ theology, the publishing arm of the radical Maryknoll Order, Orbis Books, notes that

he has drawn not only from the social teaching of the Latin American Church, but also in a particular way from a school of the­ology that arose in Argentina called “Theology of the People.” A type of liberation theology, it emphasizes respect for the culture and popular religious expressions of the poor.

(Publisher’s description of Pope Francis and the Theology of the People by Rafael Luciani)

When “Theology of the People” is mentioned, one should think of the word “People” in the sense it is used by so many Communist countries past and present (as in: People’s Republic of China, Hungarian People’s Republic, etc.), and other similar instances, such as the publication of the Communist Party USA, People’s World (they’re fans of Bergoglio, by the way), ex-Beatle and leftist John Lennon’s song “Power to the People”, or the satirical conservative site, The People’s Cube. In all of these cases, the term signifies the lower socio-economic class — it’s always the people because leftists insist on emphasizing the collective to the detriment of individual worth.

Nearly forgotten due to an attempted Vatican cover-up by the scrubbing of a web page, the recognize-and-resist publication Tradition in Action is to be commended for exposing how Francis celebrated the 60th anniversary of the bloody, anti-Catholic Cuban revolution by welcoming a circus troupe from that island tyranny.

Indeed, the career of the “hammer-and-sickle crucifix pope” has been so consistently to the far left that it’s no wonder famed Vatican reporter Sandro Magister could write a column credibly titled “The Communists the Pope Likes. And Vice-versa”.

In any case, the question may now be asked, what possible relevance could Francis’ mention of “ideological colonization” have in the context of his sex-ed remarks? The Crux article explains:

Francis has a long record of denouncing ideological colonization, especially one form he believes it often takes, which is the imposition of “gender theory.”

“A great enemy of marriage today is the theory of gender,” Francis said in Georgia in Oct. 2016.

“Today, there is a global war trying to destroy marriage… they don’t destroy it with weapons, but with ideas. It’s certain ideological ways of thinking that are destroying it…we have to defend ourselves from ideological colonization,” he said.

(Inés San Martín, “Pope Francis: Ideological colonization a ‘blasphemy against God’”Crux, Nov. 21, 2017)

Further on in these 2016 comments, Bergoglio had alluded to “that wickedness shown today, by indoctrinating people with the gender theory”, citing this example:

A French father told me that he was chatting with his children at table once and asked his 10-year-old son: ‘what do you want to be when you grow up?’ ‘A girl!’ the boy said. The father realised that school text books were teaching the gender and this goes against what is natural. For a person to have this inclination, or this option or those who change sex, is one thing. It is quite another to teach according to this line at school, in order to change people’s mentality. This is what I call “ideological colonisations”.

(Andrea Tornielli, “This is how, I, as Pope, welcome homosexual people and transsexuals”Vatican Insider, Oct. 3, 2016)

But doesn’t Francis seem to be confused here? After all, if there is nothing wrong with a person having such an “inclination”, of what harm is there to acknowledge this in school as part of a broad gender “spectrum”?

Indeed, he himself brings this up in the next breath when he speaks of how he invited Diego Neria Lejárraga, a Spanish woman “identifying” as a man, and her female “fiancee”, to the Vatican, and endorsed their unnatural relationship. So, still more confusion. A photo shows Bergoglio posing with the “couple”. One wonders how Novus Ordo parents explained to their children how the “no gender theory in school pope” is giving free positive publicity to the transgender movement! Of course, as is so often the case, this was not so much Bergoglio’s personal confusion as it was him fomenting it.

Novus Ordo Watch, in an article from that time entitled “Francis on Transgenders: Case-by-Case Discernment Needed!”, addressed his hypocrisy in this way:

So, in short, the apostate pretend-pope gave his standard one-size-fits-all answer that says nothing concrete and leaves everything up in the air, just like in his infamous exhortation Amoris Laetitia. As always, he wants to have it both ways and remains vague and ambiguous so that each side — conservative or liberal — can pick whatever it prefers. On the one hand, he said “sin is sin” and we must accompany with “truth” — but then he also said we need to be “open” and use “mercy” and “accompany”, “discern”, and “integrate” because “this is what Jesus would do today”. You know, like our Blessed Lord did when He sensitively told the Samaritan adulteress at the well: “…he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband” (Jn 4:18). That kind of accompaniment?

Francis can verbally and theoretically reject transgenderism as being “against what is natural” all he wants; in actual practice he sings a different tune, and he admitted as much. Several times he referred to the Spanish girl as “male” simply because she “felt like a boy” and later, as an adult, had herself surgically mutilated. But as a biological female, how would she possibly know what it feels like to be a male, anyway? Still, Francis accepts her as male and thus in practice swallows the entire gender theory he just verbally denounced, hook, line, and sinker. Whatever he may say, the fact is that he accepts genderism; he accepts the female as a male simply because she “feels” that way. What is even worse, Francis also accepts that this woman-pretending-to-be-a-man can enter a marriage with a woman! This is beyond sickening!

But should anyone be surprised? This is a “Pope”, after all, who also believes in a transgender god, as it were, who is both father and mother. Remember?

(“Francis on Transgenders: Case-by-Case Discernment Needed!”Novus Ordo Wire, Oct. 2, 2016)

The same “Pope” Francis warns that “there is a global war trying to destroy marriage”, but again and again he shows himself to be an ideological colonialist who wages war against matrimony and traditional sexual morality by:

This is what must be considered at the forefront of his promotion of sex-ed. If you’re interested in understanding his spin on “objective sex education” (read: virtue-free, Bergolian XXX sex education), look no further than the July 29, 2016 LifeSiteNews article, “Vatican sex ed ‘surrenders’ to sexual revolution: Life and family leaders react”. Columnist Pete Baklinski opens by reporting:

Three international life-and-family leaders who have defended Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life for decades have called the Vatican’s newly released sex-ed program for teens “thoroughly immoral,” “entirely inappropriate,” and “quite tragic.”

“I find it monstrous that an official arm of the Church would not only create a sexual education program for teens but one that bypasses parents as the primary educator of their children,” said Dr. Thomas Ward, Founder and President of the National Association of Catholic Families as well as a Corresponding Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

The program, titled “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People,” was released last week by the Pontifical Council for the Family to be presented this week to young people at World Youth Day in Poland.

(Pete Baklinski, “Vatican sex ed ‘surrenders’ to sexual revolution: Life and family leaders react”Life Site, July 29, 2016; underlining added.)

In a separate piece on the Vatican’s sex-ed, Mr. Baklinski notes that “sexual sins are not mentioned at all [and] immoral videos are used as springboards for discussion.” And among his bullet points (from a much, much longer list) we read:

  • Handing the sexual formation of children over to educators while leaving parents out of the equation.
  • Failing to name and condemn sexual behaviors, such as fornication, prostitution, adultery, contracepted-sex, homosexual activity, and masturbation, as objectively sinful actions that destroy charity in the heart and turn one away from God.
  • Failing to warn youths about the possibility of eternal separation from God (damnation) for committing grave sexual sins. Hell is not mentioned once.
  • Failing to distinguish between mortal and venial sin.
  • Failing to speak about the 6th and 9th commandment, or any other commandment.
  • Failing to teach about the sacrament of confession as a way of restoring relationship with God after committing grave sin.
  • Not mentioning a healthy sense of shame when it comes to the body and sexuality.
  • Teaching boys and girls together in the same class.

(Pete Baklinski, “At World Youth Day, Vatican releases teen sex-ed program that leaves out parents and mortal sin”Life Site, July 27, 2016. Further indication of the very naturalistic orientation of the Vatican’s program is evident from a link near the beginning of the article to a slideshow of course offerings that comes with a viewer advisory that reads “Caution: Sexually explicit images.” Novus Ordo Watch reported on the outrage here.)

So, it turns out that the detractors mentioned in the question to Bergoglio were way behind the curve in suggesting that the Novus Ordo religion was against sex education, as it had already been in place and sowing its poisonous seeds for years. Now, if those detractors were somehow confusing the Vatican II Sect for the Catholic Church, then they would be right in thinking there is opposition to sex education, as it was explicitly condemned numerous times by the true Church.

Now might be as good a time as any to contrast what the American hierarchy 12 years before the start of Vatican II and three years after its conclusion were thinking about sex education. If you want a prime example of the hermeneutic of discontinuity, look no further! In an article entitled “Amoris Laetitia and ‘Sex Education’”, author and researcher Randy Engel observes:

On Nov 17, 1950, the National Catholic Welfare Council issued a formal statement titled “The Child: Citizens of Two Worlds” in the name of ALL the American bishops in which the hierarchy reminded parents of their special competence and duty in regard to the provision of sex instruction to their children. The paragraph ended with the solemn warning, “We protest in the strongest possible terms against the introduction of sex instruction into the schools.”

Take note of the date. It’s the last time you will see the American bishops’ collective support of Divini Illius Magistri. Eighteen years later, in their Pastoral, Human Life In Our Day, the American bishops made sex instruction “a grave obligation” and called for “systematic” provisions for classroom sex instruction in the diocesan curriculum due to “the new circumstances of modern culture and communications.” In fact, the only real change was the disintegration and collapse of the collective hierarchial spine.

(Randy Engel, Amoris Laetitia and ‘Sex Education’”AKA Catholic, Apr. 29, 2016; formatting given.)

It’s great that she sheds light on this pre-Vatican II/post-Vatican II disconnect but regrettable that she didn’t follow up on her last statement. Yes, there’s been a “disintegration and collapse of the collective hierarchical spine”, but why? That’s the big question, but it didn’t occur by accident, nor were they coerced due to societal changes. This Dr.-Jekyll-to-Mr.-Hyde transformation took place because they imbibed deeply of the toxic, vaporous potion of Modernism concocted at Roncalli-Montini Laboratories (“new circumstances of modern culture and communications”, as if fundamental human nature could be radically altered), and served in tall flasks and test tubes at the mad scientists’ conference known as the Second Vatican Council.

As the Novus Ordo is wont to be, things would soon go from bad to worse. One may reasonably ask the question: How could nominally Catholic teachers ever have been persuaded to turn away from sound teaching to include curricula so vile and impure as to lead countless pupils to embrace sexual promiscuity, even to the point of becoming sodomites, who in some cases became “clerical” sex abusers? To help answer this question, we turn to a 2002 World Net Daily article entitled “Catholics Learning Sex from Kinsey’s Disciples”. There, columnist Art Moore reports:

The U.S. Catholic bishops’ latest proposal to create “safe environments” for children through an “Office of Child and Youth Protection” offers little comfort to some members who closely monitor the Church’s gatekeepers.

For lay activists who have documented corruption in the church hierarchy over the past several decades, it comes as no surprise that the radical, anything-goes philosophy of famed “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey, a reputed pedophile, has triumphed over traditional teaching in Catholic institutions across the U.S., creating a flourishing environment for priests who abuse teens and children.

“It’s like fighting cancer with a topical medication,” said Stephen Brady, president of the lay group Roman Catholic Faithful. “They are not addressing the problem – but they can’t because many of these bishops are compromised and waiting to be exposed [for abuse] themselves.”

The influence of the “father of the sexual revolution” on the Church can be easily illustrated in a course called “Sexual Attitude Restructuring,” which urges participants to rethink “restricting attitudes” acquired in their religious upbringing and adopt a lifestyle of free sexual expression.

The course is a staple of an institute started nearly 30 years ago by Kinsey disciples that directly or indirectly influences nearly every sex education and therapy program in the country. The San Francisco-based Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, or IASHS, requires its students to complete the SAR, where participants have been known to strip down and interact sexually with each other while surrounded by multiple screens that display hard-core pornographic films.

In her book, “Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences,” Judith Reisman, a noted researcher of Kinsey’s legacy, documents the IASHS leaders’ characterization of the course contents as the “f—orama.”

The SAR and its X-rated theater – perhaps missing only the in-class “lab work” – was offered to parishioners for 10 years by the Milwaukee Archdiocese under Rembert G. Weakland, who recently took early retirement after admitting to a $450,000 payment by the archdiocese that settled a complaint by a young man with whom he had an “inappropriate” relationship.

Lay activists, including Roman Catholic Faithful, have documented Weakland’s legacy of amoral values and homosexuality in diocesan schools and in pastoral and lay training.

Activist Thomas Phillips says in the preface to a dossier he collected on the archdiocese: “It is within this climate of lax sexual mores set by Rembert Weakland that proclivities toward sexual abuse have grown and festered, until giving rise to an explosion of pedophilia cases, criminal convictions and lawsuits.”

That was written nearly 10 years ago when seven priests had been accused of abuse. Since then, more cases have arisen, leading up to the present media focus on a crisis that afflicts not only Milwaukee, but the entire U.S. Church.

Brady states what is obvious to fellow Catholics who have connected the dots between the kind of environment created by Weakland and the current sex scandal.

“When you break down sexual barriers and open people to not being sensitive or ashamed, then you start to make them vulnerable to sin,” he told WorldNetDaily.

(Art Moore, “Catholics Learning Sex from Kinsey’s Disciples”World Net Daily, June 12, 2002)

It was Kinsey who did the most to open the Pandora’s Box known as the “sexual revolution” that has plagued American society and other parts of the world for over 70 years, since his 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. This and its companion volume, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), were pivotal in leading to the weakening or outright abandonment of traditional morality concerning the sexual act in favor of a naturalistic, statistics-driven, virtue-free conception.

Indeed, the late Hugh Hefner, founder of the pornographic Playboy, a magazine that introduced sexual hedonism to a mass audience, was “inspired” by Kinsey, even stating in an editorial from the inaugural issue that “we believe… we are filling a publishing need only slightly less important than the one taken care of by the Kinsey report.”

But there were even darker dimensions to Kinsey’s pseudo-scientific “research”: He utilized the testimony of inmates incarcerated for sex crimes, and he sanctioned and concealed the systematic abuse of children — even infants. By using this “data” and other highly objectionable “scientific findings”,

…Kinsey has created a “field” that advocates for normalization of sex between adults and children, including infants and youths as well as sex with animals. Indeed, Kinsey himself, viewed morality based standards of “normal” and “abnormal” as non-pragmatic, unrealistic and unenforceable. Unfortunately, such a perspective has become the seed of a social contagion that has infected the law, medicine, education, the media as well as religious and cultural institutions worldwide.

(Judith A. Reisman and Mary E. McAlister, “ECOSOC, the Kinsey Institute and Child Sexual Abuse”International Center on Law, Life, Faith and Family)

And there was also Kinsey’s involvement with the occult, which ties in with the child abuse. In 1955, eight years after the death of the notorious Satanist Aleister Crowley, Kinsey journeyed to Sicily to visit the ruins of Crowley’s so-called Abbey of Thelema, where he met filmmaker Kenneth Anger, a fellow devotee of Crowley, co-founder of the Church of Satan, and producer of movies with explicitly sinister titles such as Lucifer Rising and Invocation of My Demon Brother.

The two were drawn to the site based on its reputation as a center for “sex magick” (as spelled by Crowley to distinguish it from stage illusions). Rumors had it that the children who lived there witnessed — and perhaps participated in — such rituals. Other bizarre stories involved such incidences as when a follower, upon Crowley’s orders, drank cat blood and died. Benito Mussolini forced the cult out of Italy in 1923.

The rumors likely have more than a grain of truth, for in 2011 four members of a Welsh sex magick cult based on Crowley’s Book of the Law (a demonically-dictated tome that solemnly declares the advent of the “Æon of Horus”, an age that would signal the end of Christianity) were convicted of various crimes, including dozens of counts of perverted acts with children.

With such a background of Kinsey, the thought that his warped thinking is echoed in a “Sexual Attitude Restructuring” course, which urges participants to rethink “restricting attitudes” concerning sex, is beyond disturbing. Of course, in order for anti-Christian propaganda to have entered the doors of once-Catholic institutions, it required someone with enough power to open the doors for them in a welcoming manner.

That man was “Pope Saint” Paul VI, who at Vatican II pushed for sex education in the declaration on “Christian” education, Gravissimum Educationis, the first “magisterial” document to go against the previous teaching of the Church on the subject. So important is that declaration to the Novus Ordo revolution that Francis felt obliged to cite it in his infernal document Amoris Laetitia, which itself takes the revolution to a whole new level:

The Second Vatican Council spoke of the need for “a positive and prudent sex education” to be imparted to children and adolescents “as they grow older”, with “due weight being given to the advances in the psychological, pedogogical and didactic sciences”. [Vatican II, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis, n. 1]

(Antipope Francis, Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, n. 280)

In the subsequent paragraph of Amoris Laetitia, Francis attempts to allay concerns by speaking about modesty and the need for age-appropriate material in such curricula, but the truth can be seen by examining the bullet points above to see that neither of these are in reality of particularly great importance to him — it’s just another example of him playacting as a Catholic. What follows will show how vast the divide is between authentic Catholic thought concerning the sexual instruction of youth and what is being falsely presented as Catholic in the Novus Ordo religion.

As a general principle, even before the evil of sex-ed was proposed in recent times, The Roman Catechism (aka Catechism of the Council of Trent, a work written primarily for parish priests) gave a recommendation on how the Sixth Commandment should be taught:

In the explanation of this Commandment, however, the pastor has need of great caution and prudence, and should treat with great delicacy a subject which requires brevity rather than copiousness of exposition. For it is to be feared that if he explained in too great detail or at length the ways in which this Commandment is violated, he might unintentionally speak of subjects which, instead of extinguishing, usually serve rather to inflame corrupt passion.

(Catechism of the Council of Trent, trans. by John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1923], p. 431)

So, the mind of the Church is such that this is a topic about which a priest is to be circumspect even with adults.

As for modern sex education, the first condemnation was by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical titled Divini Illius Magistri (On the Christian Education of Youth) issued on December 31, 1929. Here, His Holiness specifically mentions the great importance of a 16th-century work by a teacher of St. Charles Borromeo (principal editor of The Roman Catechism):

54. While treating of education, it is not out of place to show here how an ecclesiastical writer, who flourished in more recent times, during the Renaissance, the holy and learned Cardinal Silvio Antoniano, to whom the cause of Christian education is greatly indebted, has set forth most clearly this well established point of Catholic doctrine. He had been a disciple of that wonderful educator of youth, St. Philip Neri; he was teacher and Latin secretary to St. Charles Borromeo, and it was at the latter’s suggestion and under his inspiration that he wrote his splendid treatise on The Christian Education of Youth. …

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra* destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. *[hydra — The etymology is from the Greek, “a many-headed monster.”]

68. False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of “coeducation.” This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, nn. 54,65-68)

There is scarcely a precept expounded on here upon which Bergoglio and his “objective” sex education program haven’t made a full-on attack. The very grave danger against the purity of morals, about which Pius XI warns, namely Naturalism, is the demon lurking just beneath the very thin veneer of a Modernist Rome’s pseudo-Catholic curriculum.

But let us continue, for there is much more of relevance from this papacy. The following year, Pope Pius came out with Casti Connubii, his celebrated landmark encyclical on Christian Marriage. Although not directly addressing sex education, it lays out principles that show that those who advocate a naturalistic approach to treating carnal appetites, one that shoves God aside and relies on “natural means”, are “greatly deceived” to believe this way can “establish chastity”:

87. …since man cannot hold in check his passions, unless he first subject himself to God, this must be his primary endeavor, in accordance with the plan divinely ordained. For it is a sacred ordinance that whoever shall have first subjected himself to God will, by the aid of divine grace, be glad to subject to himself his own passions and concupiscence; while he who is a rebel against God, will, to his sorrow, experience within himself the violent rebellion of his worst passions.

1o1. They are greatly deceived who … think that they can induce men by the use and discovery of the natural sciences … to curb their natural desires. We do not say this in order to belittle those natural means which are not dishonest; for God is the author of nature as well as of grace, and He has disposed the good things of both orders for the beneficial use of men. But they are mistaken who think that these means are able to establish chastity in the nuptial union, or that they are more effective than supernatural grace.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, nn. 87,101)

However, Bergoglio’s program is even worse in a sense, because, as noted, not only does it ignore “a healthy sense of shame when it comes to the body and sexuality” — something absolutely necessary to keep passions in check –, it also fails to identify and condemn “objectively sinful actions that destroy charity in the heart and turn one away from God”. In other words, it is pure Naturalism.

In 1931, the Holy Office issued this pertinent judgment:

QUESTION: May the method called “sex education” or even “sex initiation” be approved?

ANSWER: No. In the education of youth the method to be followed is that hitherto observed by the Church and the Saints as recommended by His Holiness the Pope in the encyclical dealing with the Christian education of youth promulgated on December 31, 1929. The first place is to be given to the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion of both sexes. Esteem, desire and love of the angelic virtue must be instilled into their minds and hearts. They must be made fully alive to the necessity of constant prayer, and assiduous frequenting of the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist; they must be directed to foster a filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin as Mother of holy purity, to whose protection they must entirely commit themselves. Precautions must be taken to see that they avoid dangerous reading, indecent shows, conversations of the wicked, and all other occasions of sin.

Hence no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications.

(Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Decree on “Sex Education” and on “Eugenics”, Mar. 21, 1931; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis XXIII [1931], pp. 118-119; underlining added. Translation taken from EWTN.)

Pope Pius XI even made mention in Mit Brennender Sorge (On the Church and the German Reich), his 1937 encyclical to the German hierarchy in light of the ascendancy of the National Socialist ideology, of how compulsory naturalistic education (though not sex-ed, which was not favored by the Nazis) in government schools was gravely violating the rights of parents. Like with Francis’ sex education, the Hitler regime bypassed parents as the primary educators of their children. So, what’s important here to the present-day discussion is that the Pope restated the Church’s perennial position on said parental rights and obligations, declaring:

Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school questions fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law, and are immoral. The Church, whose mission it is to preserve and explain the natural law, as it is divine in its origin, cannot but declare that the recent enrollment into schools organized without a semblance of freedom, is the result of unjust pressure, and is a violation of every common right.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, n. 31)

It is certainly worth reviewing the words of his successor, Pope Pius XII, whose comments in 1951 directed to French fathers shows how far the Modernists had made inroads in this regard, showing an ill-disguised contempt for anyone so backward as to think Pius XI’s words were still relevant (as if truth needed to change with the times in order to keep up with the advances of psychology, sociology, and other natural sciences):

…There is one field in which the work of educating public opinion and correcting it imposes itself with tragic urgency [i.e., classroom sex-ed].… Even the principles so wisely illustrated by Our Predecessor Pius XI, in the encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, on sex education and questions connected thereto are set aside — a sad sign of the times! With a smile of compassion: Pius XI, they say, wrote twenty years ago, for his times! Great progress has been made since then! … Fathers of families… Unite… to stop and curtail these movements under whatever name or under whatever patronage they conceal themselves or are patronized.

(Pope Pius XII, Allocution to French Fathers and Families, Sep. 18, 1951; excerpted in Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, eds., Papal Teachings: Education [Boston, MA: Daughters of St. Paul, 1960], nn. 568,572; underlining added.)

And in the same place Pius XII warned about so-called Catholic sex-ed literature in the strongest possible terms:

One is appalled at the intolerable impudence of such literature; and while paganism itself, in the face of the secret of matrimonial intimacy, seemed respectfully to draw the line, We are compelled to witness this mystery violated and its vision – sensual and dramatised – offered as food to the public at large, even to the youth. It is the case really to ask oneself if the dividing line is still sufficiently visible between this initiation, which is said to be Catholic, and the press which with erotic and obscene illustrations purposely and deliberately aims at corruption and shamefully exploits, for vile gain, the lowest instincts of fallen nature.

(Ibid., n. 570; underlining added.)

Here, Pope Pius almost seems to be casting a prophetic eye towards our times to castigate the sexual instruction favored by Bergoglio and his minions.

To further reinforce where the mind of the Church stands on the subject, let’s also take a moment to reflect on the sage wisdom of Pope Leo XIII, who taught in his encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (1890) the vital importance of parents inculcating virtue in their children — faith, piety, charity and chastity — which is of special importance when the enemies of Christ had redoubled their efforts to attack Him by attacking families through the instruction of little ones in wickedness:

This is a suitable moment for us to exhort especially heads of families to govern their households according to these precepts, and to be solicitous without failing for the right training of their children. The family may be regarded as the cradle of civil society, and it is in great measure within the circle of family life that the destiny of the States is fostered. Whence it is that they who would break away from Christian discipline are working to corrupt family life, and to destroy it utterly, root and branch. From such an unholy purpose they allow not themselves to be turned aside by the reflection that it cannot, even in any degree, be carried out without inflicting cruel outrage on the parents. These hold from nature their right of training the children to whom they have given birth, with the obligation super-added of shaping and directing the education of their little ones to the end for which God vouchsafed the privilege of transmitting the gift of life. It is, then, incumbent on parents to strain every nerve to ward off such an outrage, and to strive manfully to have and to hold exclusive authority to direct the education of their offspring, as is fitting, in a Christian manner, and first and foremost to keep them away from schools where there is risk of their drinking in the poison of impiety. Where the right education of youth is concerned, no amount of trouble or labor can be undertaken, how great soever, but that even greater still may not be called for. In this regard, indeed, there are to be found in many countries Catholics worthy of general admiration, who incur considerable outlay and bestow much zeal in founding schools for the education of youth. It is highly desirable that such noble example may be generously followed, where time and circumstances demand, yet all should be intimately persuaded that the minds of children are most influenced by the training they receive at home. If in their early years they find within the walls of their homes the rule of an upright life and the discipline of Christian virtues, the future welfare of society will in great measure be guaranteed.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 42)

It is evident that Catholics have a moral obligation to oppose sex education; and arguably even more so in 2019 than in the late 1800s or mid-1900s, given that the level of vile degradation to which such indoctrination has sunk is vastly worse than anything imagined back in those days. And yet this is the kind of spiritual sickness that Modernist Rome not only says we need not oppose but practically mandates as the only way to spiritual health for teens and pre-teens.

The more we hear from the lips of “Pope” Francis, the more clearly evident it is that he’s on a counter-crusade, a crusade against purity among the youth.

Earlier this year, Novus Ordo Watch carried a report entitled “Moral Advice from ‘Pope’ Francis: ‘The Least Serious Sins are the Sins of the Flesh’”, which covers a series of interviews he gave to Dominique Wolton, a French sociologist who happens to be an agnostic. (Don’t worry, Dominique, your skepticism is safe with Jorge.)

After citing the relevant passage, this web site responded as follows:

This is so outrageous and filled with error and half-truths that, in order to refute it, it’s a good idea to first provide a succinct recap of just what Bergoglio is actually affirming, namely:

  1. Sins of impurity are the least serious of all sins.
  2. Sins of impurity are not necessarily the gravest.
  3. Pride and vanity are more serious sins than sins of impurity.
  4. Not reading the Gospel is a more serious sin than impurity.
  5. Confessors ought not to inquire as to circumstances in which a sin of impurity was committed, and those who do need a psychiatrist.

We offer the following succint points in response, some of which we will then elaborate on:

  1. False. Impurity does not admit of light matter, wherefore every such sin, if committed with full knowledge and consent, is mortal.
  2. True, but so what? It does not follow from that that they are therefore the lightest of all sins or that they are not grave or very dangerous.
  3. False. Ordinarily, pride and vanity are only venial sins, although they can be mortal under certain circumstances.
  4. False. Although reading the Gospels is very much to be encouraged, not doing so is not in itself a sin. There is no divine law that states: Thou shalt read the Gospel.
  5. False. Although needless details must be avoided, the penitent must confess all the circumstances necessary to make known the species of the sin and the number of times he has committed it. If he does not do so, the confessor has the right to ask for this information. Such questions also help the confessor to assess the general spiritual state of the penitent’s soul.

Before we look at the subject matter in greater depth, it must be pointed out that in this controversy no one can defend Francis, as is so often done, on the grounds that he was merely speaking off-the-cuff and therefore may be excused for not having the most theologically precise terminology at the ready. This is not true. We are talking about a book publication that gets proofread, vetted, and edited as necessary before final release in order to ensure all the words printed say exactly what the person interviewed wants to communicate. In other words: There is no “slip of the tongue” in Wolton’s interview book. All of the words attributed to Francis are definitely and intendedly his.

So, is it true to say that the “least serious sins are the sins of the flesh”? That the “more serious sins are elsewhere”? Although it is clear that there are sins graver than those of a sexual nature, it does not follow that therefore sins of lust are among the least serious or the least dangerous.

Sacred Scripture is clear that sins of impurity, if not genuinely repented of, make the sinner worthy of eternal punishment. St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews: “[Let] Marriage [be] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb 13:4).

(“Moral Advice from ‘Pope’ Francis: ‘The Least Serious Sins are the Sins of the Flesh’”Novus Ordo Wire, Feb. 14, 2019)

From this we get further proof that the mind of Bergoglio is not remotely one with the mind of Christ and His Church, and is, in fact, much closer to one of the gravest errors against orthodox moral teaching: Antinomianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains what the term signifies:

The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law. The term first came into use at the Protestant Reformation, when it was employed by Martin Luther to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola and his sectaries, who, pushing a mistaken and perverted interpretation of the Reformer’s doctrine of justification by faith alone to a far-reaching but logical conclusion, asserted that, as good works do not promote salvation, so neither do evil works hinder it; and, as all Christians are necessarily sanctified by their very vocation and profession, so as justified Christians, they are incapable of losing their spiritual holiness, justification, and final salvation by any act of disobedience to, or even by any direct violation of the law of God.

Although the term designating this error came into use only in the sixteenth century, the doctrine itself can be traced in the teaching of the earlier heresies. Certain of the Gnostic sect — possibly, for example, Marcion and his followers, in their antithesis of the Old and New Testament, or the Carpocratians, in their doctrine of the indifference of good works and their contempt for all human laws — held Antinomian or quasi-Antinomian views. In any case, it is generally understood that Antinomianism was professed by more than one of the Gnostic schools. Several passages of the New Testament writings are quoted in support of the contention that even as early as Apostolic times it was found necessary to single out and combat this heresy in its theoretical or dogmatic as well as in its grosser and practical form. The indignant words of St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians (Romans 3:8, 31; 6:1; Ephesians 5:6), as well as those of St. Peter, the Second Epistle (2 Peter 2:18, 19), seem to lend direct evidence in favour of this view.

(Catholic Encyclopedias.v. “Antinomianism”; underlining added.)

While it is true that Francis doesn’t openly promote the outright rejection of the moral law, he certainly relativizes it in Amoris Laetitia, and he not-so-subtly undermines it by continually minimizing the gravity of sin and its offense to Almighty God. It is fair to say that his is a quasi-Antinomianism, which is no less a heresy since it blurs, and at times erases, the line between mortal and venial sin, as well as trivializes its consequences, as when he went so far as to deny the very existence of Hell. Parents who knowingly send their children to schools that include Francis’s virtue-free sex-ed classes are in effect guilty of poisoning their youngsters’ souls.

Of course, any school using a Modernist, post-Vatican II curriculum will have the same deadly effect on souls, though sex-ed is where the lethal dose is perhaps most likely to find easy entrance. Children must be removed from such schools as quickly as if a venomous snake were about to strike them, because in a sense that’s exactly what happens. The only options available are homeschooling or traditional Catholic schools, though even some schools promoting themselves as traditional have proven to be suspect, to say the least, as shown here.

In any case, parents will not be held blameless before the Judgment Seat if they allow their children to be spiritually ruined, when their responsibility is to raise them chastely and keep them out of harm’s way, and that means keeping them out of Bergoglio’s Schools of Scandal — and out of Novus Ordo schools in general.

How sage has the observation of the English writer Malcolm Muggeridge proven to be:

So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over — a weary, battered old brontosaurus — and became extinct.

(Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus: The Man Who Lives [London: Collins, 1975], pp. 32-33; underlining added.)

And all along, the Novus Ordo Counterfeit Church has been complicit in the destruction, at every step inverting Catholic teaching and becoming more and more openly aligned with anti-Christian maxims of the world. No one seems to embrace this destructive work with so unconcealed a glee as pretend-pope Francis.

May God quickly remove the smirk from his mouth, and by removing him and the rest of the Modernists from Rome, rescue the Church from their clutches!

“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil.”
–Isaias 5:20

“And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
–Matthew 18:5-6 (Are you listening, Jorge Bergoglio?)

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Benedict XVI: “There is one single Pope, Francis”

June 28, 2019

Ratzinger speaks again…

Benedict XVI: “There is one single Pope, Francis”

[UPDATE 06-JUL-2019: Massimo Franco may have lied – apparently no evidence words attributed to Benedict XVI were actually said by him]

Although he promised to be inaccessible to the world after his departure on Feb. 28, 2013, somehow the “Pope Emeritus”, as he calls himself, cannot refrain from speaking in public, much like his inglorious successor.

Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, the German Modernist who fooled the world by playing “Pope Benedict XVI” from 2005 to 2013, has given an interview to the Italian paper Corriere della Sera, which was published today, June 28. Apparently in response to the ongoing confusion his semi-retirement has caused among Novus Ordos, especially in light of what has transpired since, Benedict XVI has now affirmed once more: “There is one single Pope, and that’s Francis” (Il Papa è uno, Francesco), as reported by the Italian edition of Vatican News.

A few English-speaking media outlets, too, have covered the interview:

The journalist who conducted the interview, Massimo Franco, notes what he calls “Benedict’s obsession with the unity of the Church”, saying “it is more acute than ever.” In July of 2017, Benedict had caused a ruckus when he stated in a message read at the funeral of “Cardinal” Joachim Meisner that “the Lord does not abandon His Church, even when the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing” (source).

That Ratzinger’s latest affirmation that there is only one Pope, and it’s not him but Bergoglio, does not faze the Resignationists (those who insist Benedict’s resignation was invalid and therefore he, not Francis, is Pope), goes without saying. Ann Barnhardt was quick to point out that Benedict is simply mistaken about his own status (yet somehow still drops occasional “hints” that he has remained Pope, wink wink!), whereas Bro. Alexis Bugnolo basically holds that it doesn’t matter what Benedict says or thinks about his attempted resignation anyway. No word yet, as far as we’ve seen, from “Fr.” Paul Kramer, Louie Verrecchio, or Antonio Socci. Last year, Socci published a book in which he argues the case for the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation at length. An English translation of this book has now been released, though the title has been weakened a bit:

The original subtitle is “Why He Is Still Pope” (Perché è ancora Papa), which the author reportedly fought to retain, unsuccessfully, for the English edition.

Of course, if anyone is responsible for causing confusion about Benedict XVI’s status or how many (supposed) Popes there currently are, it’s Fr. Ratzinger himself. Had he simply gone back to playing “Cardinal” Ratzinger, none of this would be an issue. Instead, he had his private secretary, the heretical “Archbishop” Georg Ganswein, declare in a speech at Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University on May 21, 2016, that there is now “de facto an expanded [papal] ministry — with an active and a contemplative member”, where Benedict takes the contemplative role, and you can guess who the active member is. Moreover, his continued dressing in the papal cassock together with the white skullcap, while even retaining the title “Your Holiness” together with his chosen name, don’t exactly help to dispel the confusion either.

In a letter to “Cardinal” Walter Brandmuller, dated Nov. 9, 2017, Ratzinger claimed that with his strange emeritus circus “I have tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely inaccessible to the media and in which it is completely clear that there is only one Pope.” Riiight…

But regardless of any clarifications, qualifications, or declarations after the fact, the simple truth is that this issue won’t go away, at least not for as long as Benedict XVI is still alive. At age 92, however, this whole thing may soon be a moot point. Still, after Benedict’s death we predict that there will be some few hard-core Resignationists who, rather than accept Francis or become sedevacantists, will find a “Benedict XVII” to attach themselves to (we surmise it will be either “Abp.” Ganswein or “Cardinal” Angelo Scola, but that remains to be seen).

In any case, this entire farce is only conducive to one thing, which is presumably the real goal: that of prolonging people’s attachment to the Novus Ordo Church, whether by means of Francis or by means of Benedict. For no matter which one of the two is your real “Pope”, you are certain to get only one thing: more Vatican II.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     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]

A Reader Asks: “Are Newchurch ‘Lay Deacons’ Kosher? Or Are They Just Another By-product of the Fake New Order?”

From: Neil

Lay Deacon at Mess

A Lay Deacon (Left) Joins a Novus Ordo Presbyter
At a Phony Novus Ordo Mess, Which Is Not a Mass
At the Novus Ordo Dinner Table, Which Is Not an Altar
The Vatican II Anti-council Concocted a New Order
Of Married “Lay Deacons” Not Dedicated the Clerical Ministry
Since the Protestantized New Ordinal of 1968
Newchurch No Longer Ordains Deacons, Priests, or Bishops
Under the Sacrament of Holy Orders
But Merely “Installs” (Like the Protestants) Invalid (Fake)
Lay Deacons, Presbyters, and Newbishops
Who Have No Sacramental Power

Dear TRADITIO Fathers:

The Newchurch diocese here is about to ordain fourteen new “deacons.” These are married, or lay, “deacons”; thus, these deacons’ “vocation” was not dedicated to the clerical ministry. Are these Newchurch deacons kosher? It seems again that Newchurch is certainly not Catholic, but Protestant — if Christian at all!

The TRADITIO Fathers Reply.

In 1967, as a result of the Vatican II Anti-council’s replacing Catholic Church with a Newchurch, a new order was created: “lay deacons.” In 1968 a Protestantized New Ordinal was adopted, which no longer ordains deacons, priests, or bishops under the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but merely “installs” (like the Protestants) invalid (fake) lay deacons, presbyters, and Newbishops.

Therefore, Newchurch has since 1968 not validly ordained anyone to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and Newchurch clergy are totally invalid, with its presbyters and Newbishops lacking any power whatever to confect the Holy Eucharist and to forgive sins. These “lay deacons” of whom you wrote are not in Holy Orders, but pretend to be some kind of assistant presbyters. The presbyters are invalid (fake) too!

Francis-Bergoglio Is Now Accelerating the Number of Auxiliary Newbishops In Order to Pack the College of Newbishops for the Indefinite Future

From: Petrus, the TRADITIO Network’s Roman Correspondent

Newchurch Bishops

There Are Now Twice as Many Newbishops, over 5,000
Than Sat at the Vatican II Anti-council in 1962-1965
Francis-Bergoglio Is Packing the College of Newbishops
With His Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Appointees
So His Successor Couldn’t Do Anything
To Raise Newchurch out of Heresy and Immorality —
Even if He Wanted To!

Francis-Bergoglio is now accelerating his appointment of auxiliary bishops in order to pack the College of Newbishops. In the last fifty days he has appointed or installed nineteen of them. That’s almost one every other day! He is filling Newchurch with colonels as the number of his corporals (his presbyters) continues to decline precipitously. It’s all chiefs and no Indians in the new, new top-heavy Newchurch. Such action is a classic sign of decline and fall in organizations.

Francis-Bergoglio does not just add auxiliaries where one might expect to find them under the last three Newpopes. He has appointed them to Bilbao, Spain; Elblag, Poland; El Alto, Bolivia; Rottenburg-Stuttgart, Germany; Montpelier, France; San Juan de Cuyo, Argentina; Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany; Riga, Lativa (a country having few Newchurchers to begin with); Lingayen-Dagupan, Philippines; Cartagena, Spain; Port Harcourt, Nigeria; and Cuenca, Ecuador.

Anybody can be a Newbishop in Francis-Bergoglio’s corrupt Newchurch. Why be a presbyter when you can be a Newbishop? As auxiliary bishops need to be maintained in order to support their “dignity,” there is pressure to promote auxiliaries to the office of Newdiocesan bishop. Hence Bergoglio is really appointing auxiliaries as a means of controlling the Newchurch hierarchy of the future. He is trying to rule the future of Newchurch to ensure that it continues in its pagan direction. Moreover, should even a Neocon Newchurcher be elected Newpope, he will soon discover that all of his regional managers just happen to be pagan Bergoglians, as a result of which he will not be able to make effective his conservative Protestant, but not traditional Catholic, commands.

Pope St. Pius V would allow auxiliaries only for cardinals and major archbishops where they had been well established. Most countries had none until recently, and even countries like France had them only in three or four major sees. Now every Presbyter Tom, Dick and Harry is a Newbishop Tom, Dick, and Harry!

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

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

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

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

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

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

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

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

%d bloggers like this: