Category Archives: Sedevakantizam

Ending Cognitive Dissonance: Recognize-and-Resist Blogger becomes Sedevacantist

Deo gratias!

Ending Cognitive Dissonance:
Another Recognize-and-Resist Blogger becomes Sedevacantist

Cognitive dissonance can be defined as “the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values” (Wikipedia).

On July 10, 2016, we posted the article “The Trouble with Jorge: Semi-Trads at the Breaking Point”. After providing some papal quotes on the traditional Catholic doctrine on the Magisterium and the Papacy, we observed: “The cognitive dissonance involved in perhaps professing these truths externally — as the semi-trads might very well do — while at the same time thinking, acting, and speaking in contrary fashion is beginning to push people over the edge.”

In April of the following year, we published the essay “Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon”. There, too, we spoke about the same subject: “We have seen that the Papacy has consequences. So does a denial of the Papacy. The cognitive dissonance of a ‘practical sedevacantism’ [proposed by Steve Skojec] will be coming home to roost.”

And finally, we again brought up the issue in the July 25, 2017 post “The Stumbling Block of the Papacy: Why Bergoglio doesn’t fit”.

We were all the more hopeful, therefore, when we noticed a new post on a recognize-and-resist blog the other day that was entitled, “Ending Cognitive Dissonance”, written by one Jonathan Byrd. The site’s name is Traditional Catholic Priest.

And indeed, we were not disappointed. The blogger in question (shown on the left) is a layman “with a wife, 10 kids, 4 cats and a dog”, as his profile says. He had already been convinced that Francis was a false pope, but he thought Benedict XVI was the true Pope instead. In other words, he held the position we have dubbed “Resignationism”, due to doubts about the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI in 2013.

Byrd wrote his post to outline the evidence — the data and the reasoning — that have led him to understand that the only way to be a true traditional Catholic — one who actually believeswhat the Church traditionally taught, especially about the Papacy — is to dump Francis and the entire Vatican II religion. In other words, he has taken the difficult but necessary step to becoming what is typically called a sedevacantist. Mr. Byrd, congratulations!

We would like to encourage all to read his post in full. What follows below are some of the highlights (bold print and italics in original):

These reasons are all objective – all based on the teachings of the church, the doctors of the church the popes, etc. In short, all identify exactly what Francis is without the need or worry about what Benedict “meant” when he “resigned”.

We can know from the above a few things that have held constant:

Christ will always be with His Church

The Church is a teaching Church

The Pope has the power to loose and bind and that he who hears Peter hears Christ.

This is what the Church has always held from the very beginning.

Our souls were so important to Christ He offered up His life for us in the most brutal way imaginable so do you really think a God made Man who suffered this much for our salvation wasn’t going to make the Faith and consequently our Salvation objectively easy to comprehend?

The spotless bride of Christ – Our holy Mother – The Church hasn’t left us without recourse.  Our Father was well aware of the situation all Catholics would be in today so He provided, through the Church, the solutions to end our cognitive dissonance.

The way forward – the way to Truth – is to look back. We look back to what the Church has taught.

We don’t bring our intellectual criticism – our thoughts, our opinions, our blogs, our blog followers, our livelihood, our comforts, our friends, our “mother and brethren” into this equation.

We can know The Truth and as a Catholic, we have a duty to seek it out at all cost as it is the Pearl of Great price and then give our assent to that Truth no matter what the cost is to us.

Our Holy religion teaches us that our Holy Mother the Church is the pure spotless bride of Christ.  This church can only give us Bread – she can’t give us stones. She can be trusted in all matters because Christ promised “he who hears you hears ME.”

We look around at what we see around us occurring in the world and in what we know as the church and all we see is heresy – stones being fed to us – someone – something – that can’t be trusted if you want to keep the faith.

I recently had a conversation with a priest friend of mine and I asked him about teaching what the church currently teaches and he told me “if I did that I would go to hell.

This about sums up the current state of affairs in the church and at the same time provides the cognitive dissonance that we all feel.

The problem with the above is it directly contradicts what the church has always taught about the Magisterium of the Church, the honor, respect and obedience we owe to Her and to the Pope, and it doesn’t square at all with the Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians.

Because of this apparent contradiction we have tried to explain why this could be the case. The problem is, while trying to explain this away – we have done harm to the Faith.

How so?

We did the very things that the modernist have done – namely- we have twisted words to suit new meanings.  

We want to cling to this idea that all is well when we know full well it isn’t.  This dissonance has spawn so many theories, arguments, and innumerable bloggers making a living off of trying to explain this dissonance.  The problem is this hasn’t helped.

If this was the answer we would have figured it out sometime before the last 60 years. Instead of spending all of this energy trying to understand how a heretic calling himself pope francis could be the pope – we failed to be Catholic.

In fact, we have lost what it means to be Catholic by explaining away the faith to justify how people like Francis can all themselves Catholic. Think about this for a moment.

I can go on and on showing the changes but we are all aware of them. They have been talked about ad nauseam for the last 60 years yet no one seems any closer to the answer.

But maybe, just maybe, they do know the answer and that answer shakes them to the core of their being.

That answer is what keeps them up at night because they know if they ever truly accept it – it would mean being an outcast.

They know they would have to come outside the camp, take up their cross and proceed to the inevitable crucifixion and that would cost them too much……

I converted nearly 10 years ago and I was firmly in the Recognize and Resist camp from the very beginning.

Coming from my protestant background – that never sat well with me. I just left “Protesting the Church” to join a church so I could continue protesting….

That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Its extremely illogical and extremely NOT Catholic.

One thing that we have to always keep at the forefront of our mind is that we can’t twist facts to make it come to the conclusion we want.  We simply have to state the facts and see where it leadsand this is what is going to be outlined below.

The person that is the Pope must first be Catholic and if he isn’t Catholic then he isn’t the pope.  1+1=2…ain’t that hard to understand.

The Conclusion is very simple

If you accept Francis is the pope then you must acceptcommunion for adulterers, you must accept allowing communion for protestants, you must accept LGBT novelties, you must accept the novus ordo mass, the new rites, the “cult of man”, Ecumenism, that the Roman Catholic Church is just one of many that lead to heaven, That error has rights, and all of the other profanations you see around you because it is from the pope and the magisterium and Vatican II……

If the above is abhorrent to you…

If you would rather die a thousand deaths than to give your consent to such abdominal practices…

Then welcome to Sedevacantism….

Welcome indeed! Again, the full post is really worth reading and can be found here:

It is wonderful to see that another soul has allowed God’s grace to prevail, despite the tireless efforts of our opponents to fight Sedevacantism tooth and nail.

Rejoice, fellow-sedevacantists, for another good man has seen the light and followed it wheresoever it led, no matter the consequences! Let us “make merry and be glad, for this [our] brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found” (Lk 15:32)! Pray for Jonathan Byrd and his family, that they will persevere to the end, and that there may be many more like them.

Our Lady, Queen of the Rosary, pray for us.

Oglasi

The Synagogue Of Satan

One of the most overlooked and underrated popes in the history of the Church was His Holiness Pope Leo XIII (reigned 1878-1903). He had the “misfortune” (if you can call it that), to have his papacy overshadowed by both his immediate predecessor (Pope Pius IX) and his immediate successor (Pope St. Pius X). Pope Pius IX had presided over the Vatican Ecumenical Council from 1869-1870, defined the dogma of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception in 1854, and condemned many propositions in his famous Syllabus of Errors. Pope St. Pius X was the quintessential “Foe of Modernism,” and beat back the most deadly partisans of evil and error ever unleashed by Hell.

In between these two giants was Vincenzo Cardinal Pecci, an approved theologian and canonist with a double doctorate, whose brilliance was exceeded only by his piety. He was elected pope on the third ballot of the conclave after the death of Pope Pius IX. As Pope Leo XIII, he accomplished much good. The true social teaching of the Church was magnificently expounded upon in Leo’s famous encyclical Rerum Novarum. With Aeterni Patris, he revived Thomism and enthusiastically ordered it promoted in all Catholic universities and seminaries. His tender devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary produced no less than eleven (11) encyclicals on the Rosary, and he approved the Scapular of Our Lady of Good Counsel. The ecclesiology in his encyclical Satis Cognitum is so clear, precise, and orthodox, it is (in my opinion) one of the greatest encyclicals of all time. He composed two of the prayers after Low Mass which he ordered to be instituted in 1884. Much more could be said of this illustrious pope, who was not expected to have a long reign. He was elected at the age of 68 (old for the time period), and was of slight stature, looking quite frail. Only God knows a life expectancy, and his pontificate lasted twenty-five (25) years until his death on July 20, 1903 at the age of 93. He was the last pope of the nineteenth century, as well as the first pope of the twentieth century, and his reign is the third longest behind Pope Pius IX at 32 years, and St. Peter at 34 years.

With all he did for the One True Church, Leo nevertheless did something most special, for which we all owe him a great debt of gratitude; he exposed the most wicked aims of Satan’s greatest allies–the Freemasons. To be certain, Leo was not the first pope to unambiguously condemn Freemasonry, the Church hurled anathemas against that wicked organization that plots against the Church many times before. Yet Pope Leo’s encyclical Humanum Genus, lays out the nefarious plot of Satan’s kingdom on Earth with a surgical precision one could only expect from a Vicar of Christ who was both a theologian and canonist. In this post, the truths about Masons will be set forth, as well as the most popular misconception in our day; that sacraments conferred by Masons are to be considered “dubious.”

The “Kingdom of Satan”
 
 On April 20, 1884, Pope Leo penned Humanum Genus, and compared the Masonic sect founded in 1717 to the “kingdom of Satan:”
The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, “through the envy of the devil,” separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth.The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation, must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God. (para. #1; Emphasis mine)
The pontiff goes on to tell us that the Masonic Lodge tries hard to conceal itself. Most low ranking Freemasons think they belong to a charitable organization which is a good place to play cards with the guys once a week and leave the wives at home.

There are several organized bodies which, though differing in name, in ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions, as to make in fact one thing with the sect of the Freemasons, which is a kind of center whence they all go forth, and whither they all return. Now, these no longer show a desire to remain concealed; for they hold their meetings in the daylight and before the public eye, and publish their own newspaper organs; and yet, when thoroughly understood, they are found still to retain the nature and the habits of secret societies. There are many things like mysteries which it is the fixed rule to hide with extreme care, not only from strangers, but from very many members, also; such as their secret and final designs, the names of the chief leaders, and certain secret and inner meetings, as well as their decisions, and the ways and means of carrying them out. This is, no doubt, the object of the manifold difference among the members as to right, office, and privilege, of the received distinction of orders and grades, and of that severe discipline which is maintained.

Candidates are generally commanded to promise – nay, with a special oath, to swear – that they will never, to any person, at any time or in any way, make known the members, the passes, or the subjects discussed. Thus, with a fraudulent external appearance, and with a style of simulation which is always the same, the Freemasons, like the Manichees of old, strive, as far as possible, to conceal themselves, and to admit no witnesses but their own members…Moreover, to be enrolled, it is necessary that the candidates promise and undertake to be thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their will; or, if disobedient, to submit to the direst penalties and death itself. As a fact, if any are judged to have betrayed the doings of the sect or to have resisted commands given, punishment is inflicted on them not infrequently, and with so much audacity and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes the detection and penalty of his crime. (para. #9; Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, while I conceal my identity to prevent any negative repercussions to my family and friends for speaking out about the Faith, John Salza, who claims to have been a 32nd degree Mason (ruling class elite), has had no major setbacks to the best of my knowledge and belief. He even goes about “exposing” Masonry and profits off the sale of his books. Am I the only one who thinks Salza may not be an “EX-Mason”?

 Masonry: Founded Upon Naturalism
 
Naturalism is the philosophy that human reason is supreme and nothing exists beyond nature; therefore there is no supernatural order. It is upon this false system that Masonry was developed. From this flows grave heresy. One consequence is the idea of separation of Church and State, the ideal in the United States, since the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution were mostly Masons and Deists (those who believe in an impersonal “god” who started the universe, but does not care about it, nor intervene in it).
 In those matters which regard religion let it be seen how the sect of the Freemasons acts, especially where it is more free to act without restraint, and then let any one judge whether in fact it does not wish to carry out the policy of the naturalists. By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result – namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited. By this means they reject from the laws and from the commonwealth the wholesome influence of the Catholic religion; and they consequently imagine that States ought to be constituted without any regard for the laws and precepts of the Church. (para. #13; Emphasis mine)
Another serious evil Naturalism engenders is Indifferentism. This is the heretical idea that one religion is as good as another (positive indifference) or the idea that one religion is just as bad as another (negative indifference). As Masons eschew the supernatural, they believe there is no true religion.
If those who are admitted as members[to the Masonic Lodge] are not commanded to abjure by any form of words the Catholic doctrines, this omission, so far from being adverse to the designs of the Freemasons, is more useful for their purposes. First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age-that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions. (para. #16; Emphasis mine)
Masonry Seeks to Corrupt Morality and Enslave Humanity
 
 As Fyodor Dostoyevsky astutely observed, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” By banishing the supernatural order and giving people a false confidence in fallen human nature, immorality of the worst kind surely follows, just as it did in godless Communist governments.
 Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions…For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring. (para. #20; Emphasis mine)
With God forsaken, and the State made secular, it will be easy to control the masses when the State takes over education and marriage.
 What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract – that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (para. #21; Emphasis mine)
Masonic Ties to Other Evils
 
 Masons are “fellow-travelers” with Socialists and Communists (as well as Modernists).
Now, from the disturbing errors which We have described the greatest dangers to States are to be feared. For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists; and to their undertakings the sect of Freemasons is not hostile, but greatly favors their designs, and holds in common with them their chief opinions. And if these men do not at once and everywhere endeavor to carry out their extreme views, it is not to be attributed to their teaching and their will, but to the virtue of that divine religion which cannot be destroyed; and also because the sounder part of men, refusing to be enslaved to secret societies, vigorously resist their insane attempts. (para #27; Emphasis mine)

 

Does Masonic Membership = Dubious Sacraments?
 
Having shown the evil of Masonry, some wrongfully assert that if a clergyman is a Freemason (like Bugnini), the sacraments he attempts to confer must be considered dubious at best. This is because they allegedly “withhold their intention” when performing the sacraments. Having the intention to “do what the Church does” in administering the Sacraments is necessary for validity. Since Cardinal Lienart, the prelate who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest, and later consecrated him a bishop, is rumored to have been a Mason, Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders are called into doubt–and with him all the Traditionalist clergy he ordained.
Assuming, ad arguendo, Lienart was a Freemason, it does nothing to impugn the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders.

I have written on this topic in depth, and I invite all interested readers who want to know the reasons Masonic membership does nothing to cast doubt on the validity of the sacraments, to read my post: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/05/intent-on-causing-harm.html

The Vatican II Sect: Promoting the Masonic Ideals of Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity
 
 The Masonic inspired French Revolution had as its motto, “Equality, Liberty, Fraternity.” It sounds good until you realized they corrupted the meaning of the words. Equality came to mean an absolute equality wherein there is no rightful authority appointed by God over men; all people being “equal” in all aspects. Liberty now meant the “right to do wrong and believe in anything.” Fraternity devolved into unity between believers and unbelievers, as God is not acknowledged. A perfect example is the heretical Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (hereinafter GS), the “Constitution of the Church (sic) in the Modern World.” While the True Church always acknowledged the world (along with the devil and the flesh) to be Her enemies, the Vatican II sect seeks to unite itself with it. While not all Modernists are Masons, all Masons are Modernists. They were working together for the destruction of the True Church and society.

On Equality:
GS, Ch. II, para. 29: Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent. (Emphasis mine)
The True Religion cannot be given preference over false sects. That would be “discrimination.”
On Liberty:

GS, Ch. I, para. 21: Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person.(Emphasis mine).
What “fundamental rights of the person” prevents the State from making distinctions between those who profess the Truth, and those who are partisans of error?
On Fraternity:

GS, Ch. V, para. 91: Drawn from the treasures of Church teaching, the proposals of this sacred synod look to the assistance of every man of our time, whether he believes in God, or does not explicitly recognize Him. If adopted, they will promote among men a sharper insight into their full destiny, and thereby lead them to fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity, to search for a brotherhood which is universal and more deeply rooted, and to meet the urgencies of our ages with a gallant and unified effort born of love. (Emphasis mine)
Atheists, agnostics, and members of the Church can “fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity” and achieve “universal brotherhood” in which God is irrelevant at best. Pure Masonic poison.
Conclusion
Masonry continues to be one of the deadliest foes of God and humanity. Working with the other enemies of the Church, they engineered the creation of the Vatican II sect, a counterfeit Catholicism based on Modernism. As Pope Leo advised, we must expose these enemies, and seek the supernatural aids (which Traditionalists still possess) to combat them (e.g., Mass, sacraments, true doctrine,etc.) Many Masonic ideals are identical to the ideology of the Modernists. Naturalism seeks to banish God from society and deify humans with false and exaggerated claims of “human dignity” and “human rights.” Pope Leo XIII said it best, “About the ‘rights of man,’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God.” (See Tametsi November 1, 1900).

Look Who’s Talking

“Dialogue” has become the code word in the Vatican II sect for capitulating to every heretic, schismatic, infidel and pagan on Earth. It’s not about converting those in error because “proselytism is solemn nonsense.” The word dialogue sounds like some “open-minded” and unobjectionable discussion about faith, when it’s really something sinister driven by the false ecumenical ecclesiology of Vatican II. I hear members of the Vatican II sect tell me that there’s going to be some “interfaith meeting” at their parish, where they will have a dialogue with the local Protestant minister, rabbi, imam, etc. It turns out to be little more than an attempt to further the agenda of a One World Religion where everything is accepted but the truth. This post will explore the teaching of the True Church on “dialogue,” and how the newly spawned sect of the Robber Council introduced the idea in furtherance of their nefarious goal.

Montini and Ecclesiam Suam
 The first impetus towards dialogue with false sects came when Montini (“St.” “Pope” Paul VI) issued his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam on August 6, 1964, a mere three and a half months before he would sign the first heretical document of the Council, Lumen Gentium.  The encyclical is a striking departure from those of the true popes:
  • It is certainly not Our wish to disrupt the work of the council in this simple, conversational letter of Ours, but rather to commend it and to stimulate it. (para. #6) Since when do real popes promulgate “conversational letters”?
  • The purpose of this exhortation of Ours is not to lend substance to the belief that perfection consists in rigidly adhering to the methods adopted by the Church in the past and refusing to countenance the practical measures commonly thought to be in accord with the character of our time. These measures can be put to the test. We cannot forget Pope John XXIII’s word aggiornamento which We have adopted as expressing the aim and object of Our own pontificate. Besides ratifying it and confirming it as the guiding principle of the Ecumenical Council, We want to bring it to the notice of the whole Church (para. #50; Emphasis mine) The methods of prayer and worship, and even the rule of Faith, which has produced countless saints is now considered “outdated.” They must be replaced.
  • The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make.(para. #65) What communication would that be? Hint: It’s not “repent, convert, and be saved.”
  • We see the concrete situation very clearly, and might sum it up in general terms by describing it in a series of concentric circles around the central point at which God has placed us.(para. # 96) More Modernist claptrap. The next section describes what he really means
  • It comprises first of all those men who worship the one supreme God, whom we also worship. We would mention first the Jewish people, who still retain the religion of the Old Testament, and who are indeed worthy of our respect and love.Then we have those worshipers who adhere to other monotheistic systems of religion, especially the Moslem religion. We do well to admire these people for all that is good and true in their worship of God. And finally we have the followers of the great Afro-Asiatic religions. (para. #107; Emphasis mine) Jews cannot “retain” what no longer exists; the Old Covenant is over since the death of Christ. What is there to “admire” in Islam? There is nothing “good and true” in worshiping their false moon “god,” Allah. Finally, we have the pagans of Africa and Asia (Hindus, Animists, Buddhists, etc.) What is good or even “great” about them? Nothing. “St.” Montini adds this sop at the end of para. #107 to maintain a veneer of orthodoxy: Obviously we cannot agree with these various forms of religion, nor can we adopt an indifferent or uncritical attitude toward them on the assumption that they are all to be regarded as on an equal footing, and that there is no need for those who profess them to enquire whether or not God has Himself revealed definitively and infallibly how He wishes to be known, loved, and served. Indeed, honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that the Christian religion is the one and only true religion, and it is our hope that it will be acknowledged as such by all who look for God and worship Him. Got that? He makes several heretical statements and hopes to cover them up. The proof that this is the case is borne out by the heretical documents of Vatican II he signed, and which lay waste to any pretense of orthodox teaching.
Vatican II and their “Dogma” of Ecumenism and Dialogue
 
 Here’s what Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #9 has to say:
Catholics who already have a proper grounding need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and cultural background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides – especially for discussion of theological problems – where each can treat with the other on an equal footing, providing that those who take part in them under the guidance of the authorities are truly competent. (Emphasis mine)
Consider: By entering into a discussion with anyone else on an equal footing, one renounces any claim to authority superior to the authority of the other party. Otherwise the footing simply would not be equal. The True Church cannot recommend Catholics, even the most learned, to engage in theological discussion with Protestants unless they are ready to concede their religion to be false. For a Catholic to enter into dialogue with Protestants on an equal footing, it would be necessary for the Catholic to openly and willfully call into doubt the Truths of Faith which are Divinely guaranteed. This is simply wicked. Vatican II requires those in dialogue to deny the Divine obligation to profess the One True Faith and the necessity for all heretics to submit to the Church.
Pope Pius XI teaches: “…although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ…This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.” (Mortalium Animos, para. #7 and 8; Emphasis mine)
Again, we read more heresy in the Vatican II document Gaudiam et Spes: 
Through loyalty to conscience, Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems which arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships.(para. #16)
Any Catholic who needs to go “search for truth” with heretics, apostates, pagans, etc, has either lost their Faith or their marbles (probably both). I’m also being generous, because the appellation of “Christian” rightfully only belongs to members of the One True Church.  Vatican II elsewhere (erroneously) attributed to baptized heretics and schismatics a strict right to the name of Christian without qualification.
In para. #21 of Gaudiam et Spes, we are told that Catholics must dialogue with atheists to bring about a “right order” in the world. (No wonder Bergoglio tells us, “Atheists can go to Heaven.”)
Although the Church altogether rejects atheism, she nevertheless sincerely proclaims that all men, those who believe as well as those who do not, should help to establish right order in this world, where all live together. This certainly cannot be done without a dialogue that is sincere and prudent.
A few points: World order can only be archived when the world converts to the Church. Those who deny God’s existence can in no way contribute to this endeavor. The world (along with the devil and the flesh) is the the enemy of the Church. Christ did not pray for the world, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine..”(St. John 17:9)
St. Paul tells us, “And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.” (2 Timothy 3:12). Who will persecute them? The world, because there can be no right order in the world, until the world accepts Christ as King. As Pope Pius XI teaches, “The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the “true spirit of brotherly love” (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual’s soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.” (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, para. #42). 
 
The True Church Teaches
 
The 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches in Canon 1325, section 3 that Catholics must guard against participating in debates and conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without the permission of the Holy See or, in an urgent case, of the local Ordinary. (See Canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1951] 2:563). Note this regards even debates on important topics in order to win converts. Still, care must be taken to ensure the Faith is not endangered, or made to look bad in any way.
On December 20, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued an Instruction on the so-called “ecumenical movement” of its day. Pope Pius XII promulgated it and the seven important contentions that taught “dialogue”— as later described by Vatican II— was evil and heretical.
The Instruction begins by describing:
However, some of the initiatives that have hitherto been taken by various individuals or groups, with the aim of reconciling dissident Christians to the Catholic Church, although inspired by the best of intentions, are not always based on right principles, or if they are, yet they are not free from special dangers, as experience too has already shown. Hence this Supreme Sacred Congregation, which has the responsibility of conserving in its entirety and protecting the deposit of the faith, has seen fit to recall to mind and to prescribe the following:
This was to make converts, but there were still dangers to the Faith. The Instruction has seven parts, but I will only cite the most pertinent points. Part 1 of the Instruction:
They [bishops] shall also diligently provide whatever may be of service to non-Catholics who desire to know the Catholic faith; they shall designate persons and Offices to which these non-Catholics may go for consultation; and a fortiori they shall see to it that those who are already converted to the faith shall easily find means of more exact and deeper instruction in the Catholic faith, and of leading a more positively religious life, especially through appropriate meetings and group assemblies, through Spiritual Exercises and other works of piety.
Section 2:
They [bishops] shall also be on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong. For care must be taken lest, in the so-called “irenic” spirit of today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions of faith, Catholic doctrine—either in its dogmas or in the truths which are connected with them—be so conformed or in a way adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning be obscured.
Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected from outside…Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ…However, one should not speak of this [the return/conversion to the One True Church] in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained.
(Emphasis mine)
Conclusion
“Dialogue” is the Modernist term for having discussions with those Outside the Church, not for the purpose of conversion, but of “mutual enrichment.” It thereby denies the Church is a Perfect Society and unified, whether or not those outside are converted. The Modernists dialogue for “understanding”—as if the Church did not know all Truths of Faith and the heresies which go against them. They dialogue for “making the world a better place” and forget the truth that real peace can only be brought about by universal recognition of Christ as King and  joining His One True Church. However, what they really want to get from dialogue is the acceptance of a dogma-free One World Religion, as everyone begins to compromise their tenets of belief and accept a Masonic-inspired indifferentism. As long as everyone is “good” (according to what standard?) and believes in some vague concept of a “god” (the “Great Architect of the Universe”), all is right with the world. Vatican II dialogue is all (heretical) talk, and no (orthodox) action.

A Refutation of Athanasius Schneider on the Heretical Pope Question

The Theological Errors of “Bishop” Schneider

A Refutation of Athanasius Schneider on the Heretical Pope Question

On March 20 of this year, the Kazakh Novus Ordo auxiliary bishop Athanasius Schneider, immensely popular among semi-traditionalists, published a lengthy article entitled, “On the Question of a Heretical Pope” on the Rorate Caeli web site.

In face of the overwhelming evidence that Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) is not a Catholic but a public heretic, Schneider’s objective was to find a way to reconcile Bergoglio’s obvious stubborn adherence to heresy with his claim to the Papacy, the legitimacy of which Schneider refuses to question. In other words: Schneider couldn’t deny the obvious, yet somehow still needed to allow for Francis’ claim to the Papacy to be valid, since to him Sedevacantism must be avoided at all costs. The result was a theological trainwreck that relies on a skewed presentation of Church history and utilizes made-up concepts such as a “semi-heretical Pope” and “papal correctors”. (Schneider is no stranger to bizarre theological concepts and falsified history.)

Some of the usual suspects of semi-trad Resistance Land immediately jumped on Schneider’s piece and hailed it as an important theological contribution so needed in our day to bring clarity to the issues we are faced with. Thus, for example, Steve Skojec at One Peter Five, Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon in a video discussion, and, of course, Christopher Ferrara, who immediately touted Schneider’s piece as a capable refutation of Sedevacantism. Life Site didn’t take long to publish the obligatory interview that typically accompanies or follows such releases.

Of course the reason why these people were impressed with the “bishop’s” essay is not that they found its theological argumentation to be sound and verified in traditional Catholic doctrine. Rather, Schneider gave his co-religionists precisely what they enjoy hearing, and that’s what accounts for the euphoria and approval among them.

Not all semi-trads, however, joined the party. For example, Prof. Roberto de Mattei — himself a resistance propagandist who is usually on the same page with Schneider — and ResignationistLouie Verrecchio both found the piece to be troublesome. In an interview with Rorate Caeli, de Mattei stated that he cannot agree with Schneider’s idea that a Pope would not lose his office for heresy, and Verrecchio pointed out that “Bishop Schneider’s defense contains certain obvious errors and omissions, which suggest that the weakness of his response to the heretic Bergoglio is inspired not only by a lack of courage, but also, perhaps, by a deficit in right belief.”

But what about a sedevacantist response?

In a somewhat long but not long-winded rebuttal to Schneider’s argumentation, sedevacantist priest Fr. Anthony Cekada has now weighed in on the debate, calling the Kazakh Novus Ordo bishop’s essay “a 7000-word-long buffet table of factual errors, unproven theological claims, dumb analogies, and unconnected ideas, tossed together without any semblance of linear reasoning or evidence of serious research.”

The following is a complete reproduction of Fr. Cekada’s response to “Bishop” Schneider, which he published on his blog Quidlibet on Apr. 6, 2019. All formatting is given as in the original; only images and their captions have been removed and typos corrected. Reproduced here with permission.


The Errors of Athanasius Schneider

SIX YEARS’ WORTH of the antics of Jorge Mario Bergoglio (aka “Pope Francis”) have left a lot of previously clueless Catholics really shaken. The radical and destructive nature of the Vatican II doctrinal and moral revolution, kept discreetly masked to a large extent under the regimes of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, finally emerged into the light of day once Bergoglio took charge in March of 2013 and began to implement the Council at full speed and with a vengeance (often literally).

The “right” in the Conciliar Church — those we will here call “conservatives” or, in the case of those who promote the old Mass in the Novus Ordo system, “neo-trads” — were at first stunned, then outraged by the breadth, depth, and sheer volume of errors that Bergoglio began to crank out by word and deed.

Lengthy and open critiques of Bergoglio started appearing in conservative and neo-trad opinion outlets. Soon even the words “heretic” and “heresy” began to pop up. But since Bergoglio’s critics in these circles had long pronounced sedevacantism to be utterly unthinkable, they had to create some sort of plausible theological justification for their overall position. This “third way” would somehow need to allow them to continue to do two things:

  1. Utterly ignore the errors and heresies Bergoglio teaches and acts upon, and
  2. Still claim Bergoglio is a true pope, the Successor of St. Peter, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.

The justification the conservatives and neo-trads have come up with for squaring the circle is this: The theologians who taught that the pope receives some sort of special assistance from the Holy Ghost in his authentic magisterium — the teaching function that he exercises every day — were wrong. Similarly, theologians were likewise wrong in saying that Catholics must give “the assent of the intellect” to what the pope teaches through this authentic magisterium.

Poof — There you have it! Problem solved! The pope has no rights, and you have no obligations!

But this convenient theory not only ran afoul of the teachings of pre-Vatican II theologians (see, for instance Salaverri, De Ecclesia, 1:503ff), but also of the explicit teaching of the popes themselves.

[T]he teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact forever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, … is daily exercised[cotidie exerceturthrough the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him. (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928)

“[It]t is He who enriches pastors and teachers and above all His Vicar on earth [imprimisque suum in terris Vicariumwith the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that they may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it with reverence and devotion.” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943)

“As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm adherence of the mind [necesse est et tenere iudicio stabili comprehensa], and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed. (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885)

It becomes even more obvious why conservatives and neo-trads want to dump these established doctrines if we add still another passage on papal teaching authority, taken from Leo XIII’s 1890 Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, and intersperse it with a few of the more memorable teachings of “Pope Francis.”

“Hence, the Pontiff must have the power authoritatively… to declare what is virtuous [Adulterous second marriages after a discernment process!] and what is sinful [The death penalty! Harming the environment!], what it to be done [Open borders! LGBT accompaniment!] and what it to be avoided [“Below-the-waist” obsessions! Faith as adherence to doctrine! Proselytism! Conversions! Having all the answers!] in the work of salvation, for otherwise he could neither be a sure interpreter of the moral word of God nor a safe guide to man.”

No matter. Under the conservative/neo-trad theory, both papal teaching authority and its content are toast — recycled snacks for the Bergoglio peace pigeons.

You can have your pope — but he’s a cardboard-y one, like a WalMart display that automatically chatters at you as you walk by, but which you generally ignore. Such a pope is in some sense “Peter,” but with his he-who-hears-you-hears-me microchip removed.

In the process of promoting their theory of a denatured papacy, the conservatives and neo-cons then began to denigrate the traditional pre-Vatican II teaching on the papal office by employing terms like “papalotry” (idolatry of the pope), “Ultramontanism” (a 19th-century epithet invented by Gallicans, “Enlightenment” rationalists and other enemies of papal authority), and “the decadent theology of the manualists” (a 20th-century modernist slam against systematic neo-scholastic Thomism).

This disturbing phenomenon has now become quite widespread, but I will address it at some length in another article.

I. The Schneider Intervention

Here I will comment on one recent article that is most representative of this position, “On the Question of a Heretical Pope,” by the Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan. It appeared on the Rorate Caeli blog on March 20, 2019, and was the subject of an additional interview with Bp. Schneider that appeared March 25, 2019 on Life Site News.

We will have to discuss the bishop’s article in considerable detail, not only because he touches upon a wide variety of issues, but also because Bp. Schneider is regarded in conservative and neo-trad circles as a leading voice against the more outrageous Bergoglian errors. I know that longer articles are not to every reader’s taste, so I hope to produce another, shorter article to summarize what follows.

It is obvious from the title that Bp. Schneider intends to squelch any tendencies among conservatives and neo-trads to consider the possibility that in Francis, they are faced with a heretic who therefore could not possibly be a true pope — to embrace sedevacantism, in other words.

To preclude this, Bp. Schneider will attempt to destroy pre-Vatican II teaching on both the special or binding nature of ordinary papal magisterium and on the automatic loss of office by a heretical pope. This way, conservative and neo-trad readers will feel free to ignore Bergoglio’s heresies, while still entertaining the consoling fantasy that a public heresy-spewer can still be “Peter.”

One would think that a bishop who holds a doctorate in theology (albeit Patristics) would manage to present an at least superficially coherent argument for what is, on the face of it, such an outrageous attack on both papal teaching authority and a near-unanimous theological opinion.

But here, one would think wrong. Bp. Schneider’s article is a 7000-word-long buffet table of factual errors, unproven theological claims, dumb analogies, and unconnected ideas, tossed together without any semblance of linear reasoning or evidence of serious research. The style and construction of the article is so stream-of-consciousness and scattershot that one expects to find a note at the end stating: “Dictated but not read.”

The main offerings His Excellency has cooked up to support his position are:

  • Schneider’s own proposal to establish a sort of “papal corrector.”
  • The case of Pope Honorius as an analogical argument against sedevacantism.

These dishes are set among an odd assortment other garnishes on the buffet table that compliment neither the main fare nor each other — the theological equivalents, say, of marshmallow sushi and sardine cheesecake.

II. Bp. Schneider’s Ancillary Arguments

First, we turn to some of these ancillary arguments. Each one is aimed (and clumsily) at demonstrating that there is noobligation of internal assent to ordinary papal magisterium, and if a pope does spew heresy, well, we should just shrug, say “Meh,” and be “spiritual” about it.

  1. There is “no true consent” about how to handle a heretical pope. False. Didn’t the bishop do any research? Or doesn’t Google work in Kazakhstan? After St. Robert Bellarmine, dogmatic theologians and canonists all eventually settled upon Bellarmine’s teaching as the correct one: if a pope becomes a public heretic, he automatically loses office because he puts himself outside the Church. Even Dr. Roberto di Mattei calls Bp. Schneider out for cavalierly dismissing a fact that everyone seems to know. (See section V below)
  2. Pope John XXII (1316–1334) was considered “heretical or semi-heretical.” Distorted history and factually false. Countless pre-Vatican II dogmatic theologians refuted this claim. For a summary, see my article Dr. de Mattei Prescribes an Anti-Sede Tranquilizer.
  3. “The Church in the very rare concrete cases of a pope committing serious theological errors or heresies could definitely live with such a pope.” Only if, like Bp. Schneider and company, you think you can ignore what the Vicar of Christ teaches. But those of us who believe that Christ gave the pope real teaching authority and the special graces to exercise it would, like the pre-Vatican II canonist Maroto, hold that public heretics “must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici 2:784)
  4. The opinion of theologians erred on the matter for Holy Orders. False, and a truly pathetic analogical argument to attempt against Bellarmine. Theologians engaged in a dispute over what constituted the matter for Holy Orders — there were six different theological opinions — and Pius XII settled the dispute in Sacramentum Ordinis (1947).
  5. Since an excommunicated person can validly become a true pope, so can a heretic. False and a red herring. Excommunication is an impediment of ecclesiastical law from which papal conclave legislation can and did dispense. Heresy, on the other hand, is an impediment of divine law to obtaining the Pontificate, and as such, papal conclave legislation did not and indeed, could not dispense from it. This objection to sedevacantism has been repeatedly answered. See my 2007 article Can an Excommunicated Cardinal Be Elected Pope? [Novus Ordo Watch comment: On this topic, see also our own article, White Smoke, Anti-Pope: A Response to Rev. Brian Harrison.]
  6. The pope is like a bad dad; you cannot “disinherit him as the father of a family.” Stupid and inapposite analogy. The authority of the father of a family arises out of the natural law as the result of a physical fact, and consists in private dominative power over his subjects (wife and children); he can never cease to be a father. The authority of the Roman pontiff, on the contrary, is based on a divine power conferred upon him as the result of a juridical fact, and consists in public jurisdictional power over his subjects (the members of the Church); he was not always pope, and he can cease to be pope through heresy, insanity, resignation or death.The idiotic “bad dad” analogy is one of the most ancient of the many Recognize-and-Resist tribal myths. See my video Why Do Traditionalists Fear Sedevacantism? and my article The Tribal Myth-Keepers.
  7. The attempt to depose a heretical pope is “too human,” a refusal “to bear the Cross.” Hokey, theology-free, pseudo-spirituality. Tell that to St. Robert Bellarmine.
  8. Another error in the intention or in the attempt to depose a heretical pope consists in the indirect or subconscious identification of the Church with the pope.” Has our bishop/Patristics laureate ever stumbled across St. Ambrose’s dictum Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia — Where Peter is, there is the Church?
  9. The theory allowing a pope to lose office is a kind of “Donatism.” Another stupid and inapposite analogy. The Donatist heresy maintained, in effect, that the permanent power of the sacramental character received at ordination can be lost through the unworthiness of the minister. Papal loss of office, however, pertains to the loss of the power of jurisdiction, which is not permanent and can be lost for a variety of reasons — death, loss of reason, resignation, or heresy.
  10. When a pope is in heresy, he is “in spiritual chains,” just as St. Peter was in material chains.Another dumb analogy, and pseudo-piety. A pope who is a heretic is no longer “Peter.” And who put Bergoglio in his chains except for Bergoglio himself?
  11. St. Pius X was the first pope who made a “radical reform” in the order of psalms recited in the Divine Office. Hogwash, dreamed up and endlessly recycled by lay liturgy hobbyists. The primitive Roman arrangement of psalms was first altered by St. Gregory the Great (ca. 600) and then by St. Pius V (1568). See my article The Pius X Breviary Reforms: A Personal Appreciation.
  12. Pope Pius IX, when asked to put St. Joseph in the Canon, made the “impressive and thought-provoking” remark: “I cannot do this: I am only the Pope.” Oh really? Pius IX also said La tradizione sono io! — I am tradition! Also rather thought-provoking, especially if you engage in a day-to-day vetting of a pope’s teachings so you can decide which ones to accept “in light of tradition.” For a discussion, see my video The Pope Speaks: YOU Decide!
  13. The more a pope spreads doctrinal ambiguities, errors, or even heresies, the more luminously will shine the pure Catholic Faith of the little ones in the Church.” Is Bp. Schneider kidding? Was someone burning the Kazakh poppy crop outside his window when he typed that sentence? What happens when “the little ones” ask mom what the Holy Father meant by “sadomasochism” or “coprophilia”? Has His Excellency ever heard the bit in the Gospel about scandalizing the little ones and millstones?

But enough of these howlers. We now turn to the two principal issues to which Bp. Schneider wishes to draw his readers’ attention.

III. A Proposal for a “Papal Corrector”

This is what Bp. Schneider offers us as the antidote to future Bergoglios, a solution he claims is a “safer” alternative to the ultimately near-unanimous teachings of theologians and canonists that a heretical pope automatically loses his office.

“Binding canonical norms,” His Excellency says, could stipulate the procedure to follow in the case of a heretical or manifestly heterodox pope. The Dean of the College of Cardinals would be obliged to correct the pope privately, then publicly, if that fails. The Dean would then appeal for the whole Church to pray for the pope to confirm the Faith, and at the same time, publish a Profession of Faith rejecting the theological errors that the pope teaches or tolerates. If the Dean would fail to do this, any cardinal, bishop, group of bishops, or any group of the faithful could follow the same procedure. Any person involved, moreover, could not be subject to canonical sanctions.

My first reaction is that Cardinal Sodano, the current Dean of the College, might need to collect another fat envelope of cash from the Legionaries of Christ before getting the process going — to transform himself, as it were, from the “Cardinal Collector” into “Cardinal Corrector.”

That said, the proposal suffers from a number of other fatal flaws.

  1. It violates the general principle Prima sedes a nemine judicatur — the First See (the pope) is judged by no one. In Bp. Schneider’s plan, inferiors are allowed to sit in judgment on the teaching and authentic magisterium of a true pope, and if these, in their judgment, be found wanting, publicly condemn them as false.
  2. A true pope is not subject to canon law because, as Supreme Legislator, he is above it, and can modify and change any part of it. A heretic pope could therefore modify the “canonical norms” Bp. Schneider proposes or suppress them in their entirety.
  3. A true pope, likewise, has universal jurisdiction, which allows him untrammeled power to appoint or remove officeholders. A Cardinal Dean who would invoke the “correction” legislation Bp. Schneider proposes and decide to become Cardinal Corrector to a heretical pope could therefore find himself summarily removed and appointed as a sort of “Cardinal Neighbor” to Bp. Schneider — in nearby Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan.
  4. Who corrects the correctors? What guarantee does one have of their doctrinal orthodoxy, or even moral probity, in presuming to issue a correction? This, as I pointed out in my video Stuck in a Rut, was the problem with insisting that before heresy could exist in a pope or anyone else, the heretic first had to have three warnings from an “orthodoxy buddy.” (See here)
  5. And what is the endgame Bp. Schneider proposes if the correctee ignores the correctors? The bishop does not say. The pope-heretic continues to teach errors and heresies to the entire Church, I guess. I suppose in the Schneiderian/conservative/neo-trad revised theology of papal magisterium, thanks to the missing microchip, the pope would just continue to be ignored.
  6. Bp. Schneider, moreover, seems not to have considered that this do-it-yourself correction business could well cut both ways for a more “orthodox” successor to Francis. Disgruntled National Catholic Reporter progressives and the German bishops’ conference, say, could well decide to launch the “correction” torpedo against a future Pope Burke-olio, claiming that he is spreading errors that contradict his beloved predecessor’s teachings on contraception, adulterous second marriages, clericalism, immigration, the death penalty and plastic straws.
  7. And finally, one must add: “Oh, yes, Your Excellency. Nice to hear about the ‘public correction’ proposal. How has that been working out for you so far?”

In his “papal corrector” proposal, therefore, Bp. Schneider is grasping at straws — though not, one hopes, environmentally harmful plastic ones.

IV. The Honorius “Solution”

Here, Bp. Schneider proposes that we draw a principle for a course of action vis-à-vis Bergoglio from the controversy over Pope Honorius I (625–638). Before assessing the bishop’s reasons, though, we will need to provide the reader with some background information.

A. General Background. Honorius reigned during the great controversy over the Monothelite heresy (=Christ had only one will, the divine). Around 634, he was approached by Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was attempting to resolve the dispute and pacify all sides in order to please the emperor Heraclius. Honorius responded to Sergius with several letters dealing with the controversy. Their contents became public only after the death of Honorius, and led to his being accused, variously, of either being a heretic himself, or at least, of being soft on heresy.

In 681 the Third Council of Constantinople posthumously condemned and anathematized Honorius, together with several Monothelites, which condemnation was subsequently renewed by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870. The condemnation subsequently made its way into the texts of some ecclesiastical oaths, and the Roman Breviary prior to 1570 portrayed Honorius as having been condemned for heresy.

Nevertheless, despite these condemnations, the Church continued to recognize Honorius as having been a true pope and true successor (albeit perhaps weak) of St. Peter.

Thus the facts in the story of Honorius that everyone agrees upon.

B. Disputed Facts and Interpretations. But there are countless other facts and complications in this story that church historians and theologians do not agree upon, have interpreted in different ways and, generally, have been fighting over for centuries.

These disputed issues include: whether the texts themselves of Honorius’s letters really prove he was a heretic, or merely that he was “soft” in combatting heresy; how the term “heresy” is to be understood in the various conciliar condemnations, since at the time it did not always have the precise technical meaning it has today; whether the subsequent papal approval of the conciliar acts of Third Constantinople (necessary for their legal effect), approved the condemnation of Honorius for heresy properly speaking, or only cowardice; or whether some of the documents were or contained forgeries, a common problem during the era.

Countless other uncertainties like these muddy the waters, making it difficult not only to arrive at a clear and objective historical account of the Honorius affair, but also to tease out of these complicated events correct theological consequences.

Protestants, Gallicans, rationalists and others, especially in the 19th century, had no hesitations about their conclusions, of course, and they routinely trotted out the Honorius affair as one of their main arguments against papal authority in general, and papal infallibility in particular.

Over the centuries, however, the great Catholic dogmatic theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine, while often disagreeing among themselves over facts and the documentation in the case, refuted at great length the repeated attempts to use Honorius as a cudgel to smash traditional Catholic teaching on the authority of the pope. Their arguments were so successful that by the twentieth century, the standard dogmatic theology manuals usually treated the case of Honorius summarily, in a sentence or two, among the minor objections to the pope’s authority.

(For an overview see The Case of Honorius I, together with a link to a nineteenth century work by Fr. [later Cardinal] Louis-Nazaire Bégin.)

C. Honorius and the Traditionalists. After Vatican II, nevertheless, traditionalist writers of the “recognize and resist” variety, such as Michael Davies and Christopher Ferrara — perhaps unaware that they were keeping some utterly disreputable theological company — tried to resurrect Honorius as a killer analogical argument against both sedevacantism and against the obligation to assent to ordinary papal teachingThe conclusion they wanted to be drawn was that since Honorius was a heretic and the Church still recognized him as a true pope, so too, a pope who is a heretic does not lose his office and may safely be ignored.

Nearly fifteen years ago, it took me only a few sentences to shoot down this shaky analogy in my article Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope (see #11).

D. Honorius in the Age of Bergoglio. Honorius, though, started surfacing again in conservative and neo-trad attempts to explain Bergoglio, such as Dr. Roberto di Mattei’s 2015 article Honorius I: The Controversial Case of a Heretic Pope. In these articles, wherever Catholic historians and dogmatic theologians in the past disagreed over facts, documentation, or the analyses thereof, these conservative and neo-trad polemicists always picked whichever position which seemed the most damaging to Honorius — and therefore the most favorable to their own anti-sedevacantist, ignore-the-pope position.

This is the same procedure that Bp. Schneider now follows with Honorius, in order to push readers to the following conclusion:

“Pope Honorius I was fallible, he was wrong, he was a heretic… [The three successive ecumenical councils, despite the fact that they] excommunicated Pope Honorius I because of heresy, … did not even implicitly declare that Honorius I had lost the papacy ipso facto because of heresy. In fact, the pontificate of Pope Honorius I was considered valid even after he had supported heresy in his letters to Patriarch Sergius in 634, since he reigned after that another four years until 638.”

I am sure that Bp. Schneider thought that this argument was really powerful and original (as, no doubt, did many of his conservative and neo-trad readers). But once again, had he done even a bit more research, he would have discovered that the argument had already been made and summarily shot down a long time ago.

E. Yes, Another Faulty Analogy. For like countless trad controversialists of the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and ’00s, His Excellency wishes us to derive by analogy from this complex series of events two general theological principles:

  • The Honorius case defeats Bellarmine’s teaching that a heretical pope automatically loses his office.
  • The Honorius case demonstrates that Catholics have no obligation to assent to ordinary papal magisterium.

Both of these analogical arguments and the principles derived therefrom are false, simply because the common properties needed for any analogy to “work” are completely absent from these analogies.

1. Catholic historians and dogmatic theologians hotly disputed factual issues in the Honorius case (whether the letters showed he was guilty of heresy or merely soft on it, the sense of the term “heresy,” the meaning of the conciliar condemnations, etc.); this renders the factual foundation of the analogies unreliable to begin with.

Why? Because one can have no certitude whatsoever about essential common properties between the two things we are comparing: the Honorius case and Bellarmine’s loss-of-papal-office teaching.

As regards questions of fact alone, therefore, the basis for the analogy simply disappears.

2. The disputed letters were NOT PUBLIC; and it is only PUBLIC heresy that prevents a heretic from obtaining or retaining papal office or authority.

The theologian Hurter and others say it is certain that: “the letters of Honorius were unknown [ignotae] until the death of the Pontiff and that of [the Patriarch] Sergius.” (Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae, 360.)

This one fact alone destroys the Honorius case as an argument both against the theologians after Bellarmine and against sedevacantism, even if one were to concede that the contents of Honorius’s letters were heretical. For it is only public heresy that takes someone out of the body of Church, and in the case of the papacy, it is public heresy that prevents the heretic from obtaining or retaining papal authority. Private heresy in a pope, on the other hand, has no such effect.

The existence of public heresy in a pope is the very foundation for the principle Bellarmine lays down, and it is the existence of public heresy in the Vatican II popes to which sedevacantists apply Bellarmine’s principle and draw their conclusion.

So Bp. Schneider, like countless others before him, is offering an analogy that is not apposite — or in plain English, is just plain dumb — based as it is on a phony apples-to-oranges comparison.

3. The disputed letters were not public; they may not therefore be adduced as an analogical argument against the obligation of Catholics to give “the assent of the intellect” to what the pope teaches through his authentic ordinary magisterium.

Papal letters that remain hidden and unknown throughout the course of a pontificate and only surface after a pope dies are not magisterium at all. The “teacher” (magister) was dead for fifty years — in this case, until 680 — and there was no one in the classroom.

And in the present discussion, it is the public teachings (either by word or by deed) of the Vatican II popes that faithful Catholics object to as contrary to Catholic faith and morals — the errors and evils these men have openly and manifestly attempted to impose upon the universal Church in every part of the world. This they have done on thousands of occasions through their countless encyclicals, decrees, instructions, decrees, speeches, discourses and public acts.

So, as with the loss-of-papal-office argument, the Honorius analogy lacks yet another common property for the principle it attempts to prove.

4. The principle upon which Bellarmine and sedevacantists base their theological position is derived from the data of revelation — faith is necessary for membership in the Church — and on the face of it therefore offers a degree of theological certitude that cannot be obtained from a mere (and in this case, factually questionable) analogy.

The argument from analogy (comparing the common properties between two things) can never provide certitude, only probability. Only significant resemblances have value in an argument of this type (Bittle, Science of Correct Thinking, (1950), 348), and there are none here.

For in the case of Honorius, we have clearly demonstrated that the fundamental facts of the analogy are disputed, and that the requisite common properties do not exist. Moreover, even assuming that they were true, they could still not provide an even remotely credible analogical argument against Bellarmine, sedevacantism and the teaching authority of authentic papal magisterium.

V. De Mattei: “Somewhat Acceptable”

While the initial reaction among conservatives and neo-trads was to applaud Bp. Schneider’s article, the neo-trad historian Dr. de Roberto Mattei, as mentioned above, was less than enthusiastic, and indeed, adopted a damn-with-faint-praise tone in his March 22, 2019 Rorate Caeli interview

You can almost see il dottore professore cringe when he says that the bishop’s article is “somewhat acceptable [my emphasis] at the present time, in order to avoid that crypto-sedevacantism some traditionalists tend toward,” as he tries to work his away delicately around the Schneider error on the agreement of theologians about papal loss of office.

Apparently, though, Dr. de Mattei did not believe that the bishop’s article would be sufficient to stifle intrusive thoughts about sedevacantism among the conservative and neo-trad troops. The good doctor therefore felt compelled to do a three-paragraph riff on how, well, when Bellarmine or Cajetan were writing about a publicly heretical pope, they really mean “public” in the sense that heresy was evident to a society that was fully Catholic.

“I think that the errors or heresies of Pope Francis, even if professed publically, do not entail his loss of the papacy, since they are not known and manifest to the Catholic population. When I speak of the Catholic population, I’m not referring to the Catholic public opinion in the widest sense of the term, but to that restricted group of baptized who are today maintaining the Catholic faith in its integrity. Many of them  still interpret pro bono the words and actions of Pope Francis and do not perceive any malice. We cannot say then that his loss of faith is evident and manifest.”

Uh huh. So since, say, Catholic homeschoolers living off the grid in Hayden Lake, Idaho, haven’t noticed Bergoglio’s heresies, he is still home free as Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth? Or would ipso facto loss of office kick in only after the homeschoolers and others like them all get high scores on a faith-maintenance/Bergoglio-heresy-perception quiz?

But wait, there’s more! Not only do the small pockets of clueless but orthodox Catholics get Bergoglio off the hook, but also the great horde of heretical clergy and laity. They haven’t noticed the heresy either!

the large majority of the baptized, the priests, the bishops, even the Pope, are immersed in heresy and very few people can distinguish the true faith. So the correct indications by great classical theologians are difficult to follow in practice.

Got that? The millions of heretics that Vatican II has created cannot now recognize heresy as such, so papal heresy CANNOT really be public or manifest — so the heretic-in-chief gets another free pass from them!

Thus — despite the internet, all the blogs, mass media, Facebook, Twitter, etc., etc. — Dr. de Mattei would have us enter a world of make-believe where Bergoglio’s heresies are not reallypublic, not really notorious, not really manifest. And this, so conservatives and neo-trads need not worry that the teachings of Bellarmine and countless other Catholic theologians and canonists apply to Bergoglio and to the rest of the Vatican II popes, even though an undisputably “public” reality is staring them straight in the face.

Here we need add one more observation. Other anti-sedevacantist polemicists in the past have, like Dr. de Mattei, tried to find an escape route to get around Bellarmine and company’s teaching on a heretical pope (and thus around sedevacantism as well) by assigning fanciful technical meanings to the descriptors “public,” “manifest,” “openly divulged,” etc. as applied to the term “heresy.”

This door has already been shut, because the descriptors in question were used interchangeably before the 1917 Code to distinguish heresy circulated through public documents or speeches, say, from heresy that was occult or secret — written in a diary, or known to only a few discreet persons. See A Pope as a “Manifest” or a “Public” Heretic.

VI. But Finally: Not Just a “Bergoglio Problem”

“Bishop Schneider’s analysis on heretical popes,” enthused the conservative/neo-trad site One Peter 5, may be just the answer we’re looking for.”

No doubt — but it’s the wrong one, based as it is on dumb analogies, “facts” that are misstated or simply wrong, Never-Never Land canon law fantasies, and theological errors. As we’ve demonstrated at great length above, conservatives or neo-trads are kidding themselves if they still think the theological dog’s breakfast Bp. Schneider served up has solved their “Bergoglio problem.”

And indeed, they are kidding themselves even more if they think that what they have been facing since March 13, 2013 is just a Bergoglio problem. It is, in reality, a “Vatican II problem.”

Vatican II represented the triumph of the modernist heresy, dominated as it was by theologians who were, as the Louvain professor Jürgen Mettepennigen said, “inheritors of modernism.” The poisoned seeds of theological error were sown during the Council with all its yes/buts, existentialist blathering, equivocations, ambiguities, work-arounds, silences, poisoned neologisms, redefinitions, false equivalences, destroyed distinctions and the rest.

Bergoglio is nothing more than one more poisoned fruit from a thoroughly poisoned garden, and he has merely been applying the principles that Vatican II gave him. So don’t think that even by applying Bellarmine’s loss-of-office principle to him you could somehow get rid of the underlying problem that he embodies.

For does anyone seriously think that Bergoglio embraced and began to spread the theological errors and heresies he now spouts only after he showed up on the loggia of St. Peter’s six years ago, sans mozetta? Of course not — he was a heretic before he was elected, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, Bergoglio therefore really has nothing to lose.

The ultimate source of those errors, and the whole thought system that originated them and made implementing them possible, is the modernism of Vatican II. Unless conservatives and neo-trads admit that and act upon it, exchanging a Bergoglio for a Burke-olio and hoping for a restoration “from the top down” will be a fool’s dream, since the modernism of Vatican II has already cracked and destroyed all the foundations, smashed the builders’ tools, and carted the rubble off to an environmentalist landfill.

Admit it, folks. Except for a relatively small handful of Latin Mass safe houses, you’ve got nothing left. The whole lex credendibehind that lex orandi has disappeared. All around you, modernism has turned doctrine and morals into mush, translated its heresies into action, and institutionalized contempt for submission to the law and for the very notion of hierarchy.

So instead of continuing to rail ineffectually against the boogeymen of “papolatry,” “ultramontanism,” sedevacantism, and Honorius, conservatives and neo-trads who seek to preserve the faith should once and for all turn their fire on the real enemy — Vatican II — and thunder with one voice, “Anathema to the Robber Council! A thousand times anathema!”

Source: Rev. Anthony Cekada, Quidlibet blog; Apr. 6, 2019


We encourage all who believe Francis is Pope to take the Francis Papacy Test here and let us know what results they get.

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Five Sorrowful Decades: Fifty Years of Paul VI’s “New Mass”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Novus Ordo Missae at 50…

Five Sorrowful Decades:
Fifty Years of Paul VI’s “New Mass”

by Francis del Sarto

“Truly, if one of the devils in C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.” –Dietrich von Hildebrand

“Every sectarian who wishes to introduce a new doctrine finds himself, unfailingly, face to face with the Liturgy, which is Tradition at its strongest and best, and he cannot rest until he has silenced this voice, until he has torn up these pages which recall the faith of past centuries.” –Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B.

“Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” –Fr. Joseph Gelineau

“The reform of the liturgy is irreversible.” –“Pope” Francis

For the past half-century the vast majority of the 1.2 billion people identifying as Roman Catholic around the world have had as their “ordinary” form of worship a rite that would have seemed utterly alien to most of the faithful who lived in the nearly two millennia leading up to it. These forebears certainly would not have seen it as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they knew and so cherished, once described by Fr. Frederick Faber as “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven”. Only knowledgeable Catholics who had lived in the past 500 years would recognize it at all, but even then only as something resembling the false form of the worship services concocted by Protestant “Reformers” as a direct rival to the Mass, a veritable anti-Mass.

It was on Holy Thursday, April 3, 1969, that “Pope” Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini)promulgated the “Apostolic Constitution” Missale Romanum as part of a liturgical “renewal” he said had begun with Pope Pius XII’s restoration of Holy Week services as “the first step toward adapting the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”. We are permitted to be highly skeptical of Montini’s assertion that a return to antiquated forms may somehow be more relevant to contemporary worshippers after centuries of disuse than those that have developed organically. In fact, it was Pope Pius XII who explicitly rejected “the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, n. 63).

Paul VI’s “Promulgation of the Roman Missal” was in reality the announcement of a non-Catholic, pseudo-Roman Missal meant to supplant the true Roman rite as promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in the 1570 Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. Of course, we know now that the unstated goal of this new worship service was the ushering in of a new religion — the replacing of the Catholic lex orandi, lex credendi for a crypto-Modernist counterfeit. It was to eliminate the true Mass once and forever, and replace it with a fake “revised” version.

The fact that April 3, 1969, was not only Holy Thursday that year but also the first day of the Jewish Passover, is surely more than simple coincidence; for the New Mass is the Modernist repudiation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, much as observing Passover after the institution of the New Covenant is intended to reject the Sacrifice of Calvary, which is its fulfillment.

From Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to Memorial Meal

Despite a few red flags in the language of Paul VI’s Missale Romanum — vocabulary such as “[t]he words Mysterium fidei [mystery of Faith] have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation” — it would be three days later that the full heterodox orientation of Montini’s changes became patently obvious. On April 6, the official rubrics of the “new order of the Mass” (novus ordo Missae as it was called) were published along with an accompanying General Instruction of the Roman Missal (sometimes abbreviated GIRM). This new order of Mass has since become known as the “New Mass”, the “Pauline Mass”, the “Mass of Paul VI,” or simply the “Novus Ordo.”

The following links highlight the stark differences between the Roman Mass of the ages and the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI:

The publication of this “revised” Roman rite led to a prompt counterattack by Catholics, principally in the form of the justly celebrated Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (aka The Ottaviani Intervention because its principal author was Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani), which argued, among other things, that the revised liturgy constituted “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” and “has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant”.

This was by no means an exaggeration, as the Critical Study copiously demonstrated. Indeed, even Paul VI’s very definition of what the Holy Catholic Mass is was a blatant surrender to Protestantism. The first edition of the GIRM defined the Mass as follows:

The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).

(“General Instruction of the Roman Missal”Missale Romanum: Ordo Missae Editio Typica [Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1969], n. 7)

Martin Luther could not have said it better himself!

When contrasted with the true and traditional Catholic definition of the Holy Mass, such as can be found in any pre-Vatican II catechism, the departure from orthodoxy appears most striking: “The Mass is the true and especial Sacrifice of the New Law; in it Jesus Christ, by the ministry of the priest, offers His Body and Blood to God the Father, under the appearances of bread and wine, by a mystical immolation in an unbloody manner” (Cardinal Peter Gasparri, The Catholic Catechism [Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., 1932], n. 385). That’s the Catholic definition.

In his Intervention, Cardinal Ottaviani chastised Paul VI for his overtly Protestant definition, charging:

The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a “supper,” a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. The Instruction further characterizes this “supper” as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:

– The Real Presence – The reality of the Sacrifice – The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates – The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of the presence of the “assembly.”

In a word, the Instruction’s definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by “going beyond them” amounts, at least in practice, to denying them.

(Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani, Antonio Bacci, et al., Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, Sept. 25, 1969)

On March 26, 1970, the Vatican released a second edition of the GIRM, in which the original definition was revised. The result was visibly little more than damage control: “At Mass that is, the Lord’s Supper, the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (n. 27).

“Pope” Montini had cited the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, as providing the impetus for his revision butchering of the Roman rite of Mass. And fittingly it was during deliberations over that document that Cardinal Ottaviani was in the midst of heated exchanges that ultimately led to the highly symbolic moment at the Council when this great voice of Tradition was literally silenced. A review of The Liturgical Movement by Fr. Didier Bonneterre notes:

During the first session of the Second Vatican Council, in the debate on the Liturgy Constitution, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” The Cardinal was old and partly blind. He spoke from the heart without a text about a subject which moved him deeply, and continued:

Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.

So concerned was he at the revolutionary potential of the Constitution, and having no prepared text, the elderly Cardinal exceeded the ten-minute time limit for speeches. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding at the session, a technician switched off the microphone, and Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation.

The Council Fathers clapped with glee, and the journalists to whose dictatorship Father Louis Bouyer claimed the Council had surrendered itself, were even more gleeful when they wrote their reports that night and when they wrote their books at the end of the session…

(Michael Davies, “The Liturgical Movement”The Remnant, n.d.)

Paul VI knew very well what detrimental effects this “New Mass” would have upon the people. During the last General Audience before its universal use became mandatory, “Pope” Montini prophesied:

We may notice that pious persons will be the ones most disturbed, because, having their respectable way of listening to Mass, they will feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others.

Not Latin, but the spoken language, will be the main language of the Mass. To those who know the beauty, the power, the expressive sacrality of Latin, its replacement by the vulgar language is a great sacrifice: we lose the discourse of the Christian centuries, we become almost intruders and desecrators [intrusi e profani] in the literary space of sacred expression, and we will thus lose a great portion of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual fact that is the Gregorian Chant. We will thus have, indeed, reason for being sad, and almost for feeling lost: with what will we replace this angelic language? It is a sacrifice of inestimable price.

(Paul VI, General Audience, Nov. 26, 1969. English translation taken from “40 years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite – II: a Requiem, by Paul VI”Rorate Caeli, Nov. 29, 2009; underlining added.)

More than anything else in the post-conciliar epoch, it was Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae that catapulted the new religion of Vatican II into the souls of unsuspecting Catholics throughout the world. Montini was a spiritual terrorist of the worst possible sort.

How Missale Romanum Aided the Devil’s War against the Mass

In the March-April 1993 issue of the sedevacantist journal Catholic Restoration, there appeared an article entitled “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion” by John Kenneth Weiskittel. The theme of the article was to examine accusations that “Archbishop” Annibale Bugnini, who had presided over the fateful “reform” of the liturgy, had been a Freemason whose goal was to de-Catholicize the worship of the Church. While it’s not been proven beyond doubt that he was a Lodge brother, circumstantial evidence points strongly in that direction. The recent biography Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy by Yves Chiron devotes a few pages to this question (pp. 171-175) but does not reach a definitive conclusion either way.

Certainly, the effects of the Novus Ordo rite on souls could not have been any more deleterious if the rite had been concocted by a Freemason. Bugnini, the architect of the post-conciliar liturgy, was in truth what many called him, namely, the “gravedigger of the Mass” and the “evil spirit of the liturgical reform”. (And, may we suggest, he would make an excellent addition to the rogue’s gallery of Novus Ordo Modernist “saints” who best exemplify the “ideals” of Vatican II.)

Bugnini was Paul VI’s Secretary of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, and would be appointed Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship in May of 1969. Mr. Weiskittel, in a section aptly titled “The War Against the Mass”, shows how the new liturgy of Montini and Bugnini worked to the advantage of occult forces bent on the Church’s destruction:

“Justly,” writes Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, “has St. Bonaventure called the Mass a compendium of all God’s love and of all his benefits to men. Hence the devil has always sought to deprive the world of the Mass by means of heretics, constituting them precursors of Antichrist, whose first efforts shall be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar, and according to the prophet Daniel, in punishment of the sins of men, his efforts shall be successful: And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins” [Dan 8:12].

For many Catholics the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in 1969, when Paul VI promulgated the publication of a “new order of the Mass.” There can be no question that with the introduction of the new “Mass” the Conciliar revolution shifted into a higher gear. All of the errors of the Council now more quickly became apparent and spread with greater ease; the Novus Ordo Missae constituting their very embodiment. Whereas the [traditional] Latin Mass is a sacramental action aimed at giving glory to God, the object of the new “Mass” is a social action centered around the congregation.

The Latin Mass is one thing, and one thing only, the perfect mode of divine worship. For the “reformers,” however, this was precisely the problem with it. Oh, they pushed the idea that the Mass had to be made more “relevant” and “understandable” to the man in the pew, and that a “return to ancient liturgical forms” was the way to accomplish this. But, in truth, there was only one real reason for eliminating the Tridentine Mass: Its continued survival constituted a major obstacle to the imposition of a new belief system on Catholics; hence, it had to go. Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy summed this up well, when he wrote:

One final problem remained. The Reformers feared that “nothing would come out of the Council.” Even though they had managed to insert into the “official” Documents of the Council their false ideas, they knew that this alone was insufficient…. Change would occur far too slowly for the impatient innovators. The greater majority of the faithful had never asked for the Council (the Curia had opposed it also), and were perfectly content with the way the Church had always been. Even John XXIII had acknowledged and praised it as being “vibrant with vitality.” For most people things would have gone on much as before. It was absolutely necessary to introduce into the fabric of the everyday life of the Christian, all these new ideas, the “new economy of the Gospel.” How then to achieve this? The answer was obvious. One had to “reform” the Liturgy. [Rama P. Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition(London: Perennial Books, 1981), p. 137.]

This is in line with the apostate [priest and occultist Paul] Roca’s thinking, who, along with calling for “the scientific, economic, and social transfiguration of our … sacraments,” writes [in his book Glorious Centennial]:

As long as Christian ideas remained in a state of sacramental incubation, in our hands and under the veil of liturgy, they were unable to exert any efficacious and scientifically decisive social effect upon the organic and public government of human societies. [Quoted in Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, p. 191]

The new “Mass,” likewise, would need to reflect the “ecumenical,” “humanistic,” “universalist,” “socially relevant” activism of the Conciliar Church — abominations like the civil rights “Mass,” the farm workers’ “Mass,” the Marxist “Mass,” the feminist “Mass,” the homosexual “Mass,” which removed the focus from God to “special interest groups” [that] required a fitting service for their “social gospel” messages. And they got just that with the “reformed” rite. While these are extreme manifestations, to be sure, they are accepted extremes in the Conciliar religion and serve to underscore the doctrinal gulf that separates the true Catholic faith from the new “Catholic” faith.

(John K. Weiskittel, “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion”; italics added and some formatting adjusted.)

Theory aside, the last 50 years are proof positive of the destructive nature of the Novus Ordo Missae, for, with very few exceptions, the generations raised with that liturgy have no concept whatsoever of the true Roman Catholic religion.

The apostate priest Paul Roca [1830-1893], quoted above, also had a rather remarkable prediction to make, one that must have seemed absurd in the 19th century but which, in the 21st, is basically just a recap of historical fact:

[T]he divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an Ecumenical Council, which will restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.

(Paul Roca, qtd. in Bp. Rudolf Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, trans. by Susan Johnson [Gerrards Cross: Van Duren C. P., Ltd., 1974], p. 35)

What are we to make of Roca’s prescient vision of the Church being radically transformed by a council in the not-too-distant future? It could be just idle boasting, or it could be something more sinister. Did he have insider knowledge of what the secret societies were planning against the Church? In any case, we notice the striking similarities between Roca’s prophecy and Paul VI’s fulfillment:

  • Roca: Liturgy to be transformed at an Ecumenical Council
    Vatican II: Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for a revision of the liturgy
  • Roca: Said change will “restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.”
    Paul VI in Missale Romanum: The revision is based on “ancient sources”, the “doctrinal and spiritual riches” of which must be brought to light in order to adapt “the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”

How appropriate for Montini to choose “Paul” — Roca’s first name — as his “papal” name!

Francis Speaks Out in Favor of Missale Romanum and against “Nostalgic Past Tendencies”

The usually loquacious Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) somehow managed not to bring up the topic of his predecessor’s paradigm-smashing document this April 3, though he had already brought it up earlier in the year. Speaking to the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in the Vatican on February 14, 2019, in typical fashion he made some Catholic-sounding noises, only to abruptly take a hard left turn in his discourse: “We must rediscover the reality of the sacred liturgy, and not reduce it”, he declared; but by no means was he making an appeal to restore the traditional Latin Mass to its rightful place in once-Catholic churches.

On the contrary — after all, this is Francis we’re talking about. The Vatican II “liturgical renewal”, he told those gathered, was greatly furthered in 1969 by the actions of Montini:

In the first months of that year the first fruits of the reform accomplished by the Apostolic See flourished for the benefit of the People of God. On precisely this date the Motu proprio Mysterii paschalis was promulgated regarding the Roman calendar and the liturgical year (14 February 1969); then, the important Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), with which the Holy Pope [sic] promulgated the Roman Missal. In the same year the Ordo Missae and various other Ordo were issued….

(Francis, Address to Plenary Meeting of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the SacramentsZenit, Feb. 14, 2019; italics given.)

The entire address provides many insights into Bergoglio’s mindset, which shows a determined revolutionary bent, as reflected in the following passage, where he contrasts the “irreversible” revised liturgy of Paul VI with what went before:

The liturgy is not “the field of do-it-yourself”, but the epiphany of ecclesial communion. Therefore, “we”, and not “I”, resounds in prayers and gestures; the real community, not the ideal subject. When we look back to nostalgic past tendencies or wish to impose them again, there is the risk of placing the part before the whole, the “I” before the People of God, the abstract before the concrete, ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual.

In this sense, the title of your assembly is valuable: The liturgical formation of the People of God. The task that awaits us is indeed essentially that of spreading among the People of God the splendour of the living mystery of the Lord, Who makes Himself manifest in the liturgy.

(italics given)

Just beneath the surface of his words we can see the conflict between the worship services of two opposing religious belief systems: Catholic vs. Novus Ordo. Francis condemns the Catholic conception of the liturgy every step of the way:

  • Stressing the “we” over the “I” is coded language for saying that the priest has no unique role as the alter Christus (“another Christ”), the one who offers the Mass in the person of Christ Himself; now it’s all about a community offering “praise and thanksgiving” (but not the sin-atoning Sacrifice of Calvary)
  • He restates the same when he condemns those “placing the part before the whole, the ‘I’ before the ‘People of God’”, and this criticism is also directed against whom Paul VI referred to as “pious persons … having their respectable way of listening to Mass, [who] will [now] feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others” (that is, their interior prayers are now interrupted by the humanistic spectacle of the “People of God”, including an often even irreverent “presider” who acts more as entertainer or assembly leader than as sacrificing priest)
  • Bergoglio’s warning against putting “the abstract before the concrete” may be an unspoken denial of the doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, which he possibly regards as abstract and unreal, not to mention unimportant, especially when the concrete — community — is to be preferred
  • His criticism of putting “ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual” is absurd: The traditional Latin Mass is worldly and ideological?Really? This is yet another astounding Bergoglian black is white, white is black inversion of truth. If anything, it is the “New Mass” that is worldly, first of all because of its invalidity, but also because of its focus moved away from God and onto the congregation, and the systemic and ubiquitous liturgical “abuses” that are always focused away from the Divine, including a pastor riding a bull down the center aisle of a church, a tango in the “sanctuary” before the watchful gaze of Bergoglio, the utter chaos of “Cardinal” Christoph Schonborn’s youth liturgies, a monstrance delivered by drone, and a Super-Soaker water pistol used for sprinkling the people with holy water, and untold other liturgical and spiritual abominations, all of which can be excused by the rubric of “mak[ing] the liturgy relevant to the modern mind”, so fundamental to Montini’s justification for the changes
  • And of course one would be hard-pressed to find a bigger ideologue than Bergoglio, who reads his political and Naturalist ideology into just about every Scripture passage he preaches on; and his one-foot-in/one-foot-out-of-the-closet Marxism is by definition materialist and mundane

So, as comes as no surprise, Francis’ presentation is quite congruent with the raison d’être of the Pauline “Mass”. Fifty years later, Missale Romanum is still a foundation stone to the whole rotten Novus Ordo superstructure.

Rejecting the Conciliar Church Means First Rejecting the New “Mass”

As shown above, the Novus Ordo Missae is the most crucial “reform” of the Modernists, because by its very nature it first compromises and then utterly destroys the Faith of those who attend it. In 2002, a Patrick Buchanan column entitled “An Index of Catholicism’s Decline” included the following statistic: “By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a ‘symbolic reminder’ of Jesus.”

There is a bit of an error there, for it should read, “70 percent of all Novus Ordos”. This is the grim legacy of the Montini-Bugnini liturgy: a dissolving of even the most rudimentary Catholic beliefs. An amusing irony, however, must not escape us: In the case of Paul VI’s invalid New Mass and its equally invalid “priests”, those 70% of people who do not believe in the Real Presence happen to be unintentionally correct, for in their “Mass”, Christ is truly not present!

But some much-needed levity aside, the unhappy anniversary of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo liturgy is one to be bemoaned, not celebrated. The “New Mass” is a destroyer of souls. We must work tirelessly to bring benighted people into the light, so that they may see that it is not Catholic, is not a Mass, does not please God, and is frightfully harmful to souls.

By the way, an anagram of Novus Ordo Missae is, “a dubious norm S.O.S.”.

How very appropriate.

Does “Universal Acceptance” Guarantee a True Pope?

When the Argentinian apostate, Jorge Bergoglio, became “Pope” Francis just over six years ago, all Hell broke loose (both figuratively and literally). The heresies and blasphemies that came forth from his mouth (Proselytism is solemn nonsense, there is no Catholic God, who am I to judge, etc.) even had some Vatican II sect “conservatives” (e.g., Society of St Peter) starting to wonder if sedevacantism might not be true after all. Bergoglio’s actions, even before his “election,” lead some prominent sedevacantists (e.g., Fr. Anthony Cekada) to change the direction of Traditionalist arguments. It is not only Catholic teaching that if a pope falls into heresy as a private teacher he loses his authority, it is equally true that a heretic cannot attain the papal office in the first place. The unanimous consent of pre-Vatican II canonists teach that the invalidating prohibition against electing a heretic is a matter of Divine Law, which admits of no exceptions or dispensation.

According to canonist Badius, “c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” That pretty much does away with having to argue about “trials to depose a pope” because the heretic never became pope. In order to prevent the “recognize and resist” (R&R) camp from seeing the light, along came former (?) Freemason John Salza and his buddy Robert Siscoe with a duplicitous argument to keep things nice and dark. They assured the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and all other R&R adherents that “peaceful and universal acceptance” of someone elected pope is a dogmatic fact which assures us the person so elected must be pope. The full article can be read here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html. In this post I will expose some of the purposeful misrepresentations, and omissions of fact, that were necessary to make their phony case for a “true pope.”
A Half-Truth is a Bigger Lie
Those who tell half-truths are twice as deceitful, because they employ a truth to make a falsehood easier to accept. This will become apparent with Salza and Siscoe soon enough. They begin their article thus:
The legitimacy of a Pope, who has been elected peacefully and accepted by at least a moral unanimity of Catholics, is infallibly certain.  His legitimacy falls into the category of a dogmatic fact, which is a secondary object of the Church’s infallibility. This is the unanimous teaching of the Church’s theologians.
In support of this contention, they cite to theologians Berry and Van Noort. I will turn to their citation of Van Noort first.

In the following quotation, Msgr. Van Noort further explains the infallibility of dogmatic facts. He also explains that the infallibility of dogmatic facts is qualified as “theologically certain.”  Those who depart from tradition by rejecting a doctrine that is qualified as theologically certain are guilty of a mortal sin

“Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was [past tense] Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be [present tense] recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church.” (Christ’s Church, p. 112)

What they omit two pages later is telling. From Van Noort, “Of course whatever the Church declares directly must be maintained by everyone, e.g., that the Vulgate contains the Word of God; that Pius XII is the head of the Church;that the doctrine of this or that book is heretical. It arrived at these decisions in the following manner: every faithful translation of the inspired books contains the words of God; but the Vulgate is a faithful translation; therefore…Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church; but Pius XII was legitimately elected; therefore…Any book containing this doctrine is heretical; but such and such a book contains this doctrine; therefore…” (See Christ’s Church, pg. 114; Ellipses in original).  The dogmatic fact is deduced through a true reasoning process.

There is a true revealed major premise: “Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.” The minor premise is conditional. Hence, “but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore…”
That is why theologian Szal tells us, “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 3; Emphasis mine).   How could someone suspect the validity of a putative pope’s election and not incur the sin of schism if all it takes to assure his validity is a group of heretical “cardinals” to declare one of their own “elected pope”? Note also that Szal is talking about all members of the Church having the excuse of suspecting the validity of a pope’s election, not only Cardinals or other clerics.

It’s also ironic that Van Noort states on pages 114-115, “The Church’s infallibility also extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living...[the Church] can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. (Emphasis in original) Let’s get this straight. Salza and Siscoe want us to accept the heretical pretenders since Roncalli up to Bergoglio as “pope.” Yet, they then proceed to reject their pope’s ecclesiastical laws for the direction of Christian worship. Do they not reject the Novus Bogus “mass” because it is conducive to the injury of souls? However, the very theologian they cite (as well as the unanimous consent of all other theologians) teaches this is an impossibility. Nor can they escape the charge of a schismatic mentality, in choosing what laws to obey and which to toss aside. Consistency, wherefore art thou? It’s not to be found among the R&R.

Now, I turn to their citation of theologian Berry:
The following, taken from Fr. Sylvester Berry’s Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, The Church of Christ, further explains these principles:

…”DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

Notice the term “practically unanimous,” which is distinct from “mathematically unanimous.” A practically unanimous acceptance does not require acceptance by 100 percent of professing Catholics; it is rather a morally unanimous acceptance, which represents the “one mind” of the Church. As we will see later, the fact that individual Catholics reject the legitimacy of a Pope does not mean he has not been accepted by a morally unanimous consent.

Seems like a pretty air-tight argument they’ve got going, right? Here’s what theologian Berry tells us on page 229 of the exact same theology manual (and conveniently omitted by Salza and Siscoe):

“A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case, no one is bound to believe him, for it is an axiom that a doubtful law begets no obligation—lex dubia non obligat. But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope at all.‘Therefore,’ continues the Cardinal, ‘if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” (Emphasis mine)

How can there be a doubtful pope if he is peacefully and universally accepted? Didn’t theologian Berry know what he was writing in his own manual? I can hear the objection of Salza already, “Berry was talking about a case where there was not practically unanimous consent.” Objection overruled.

1. At no point does theologian Berry explain exactly, or in what manner, “practically unanimous consent” is achieved. The majority of Cardinals and members of the Church accepted Antipope Anacletus II, and a minority of cardinals and members of the Church accepted Pope Innocent II until St. Bernard of Clairvaux convinced the majority to change position (which he did on his own initiative). Again, what constitutes the “practical unanimous consent”? Salza counters that the election was “contested” and therefore did not acquire “peaceful and universal acceptance.” He defines the concept as:  The ‘peaceful’ aspect refers to the election not at once being contested; the ‘universal’ aspect refers to the entire Church learning of the election and not at once contesting it. Says who? Salza and Siscoe!  Citing to theologian Billot, they extrapolate the principle that: The universal acceptance is considered to exist when the election becomes known and is not contested by the Church, and is accepted by the prelates. It continues: In John of St. Thomas’ day, such acceptance would happen gradually as the news spread throughout the Church and the word.  But in our day, when news spreads throughout the world almost immediately, the universal acceptance would be manifest very quickly. This means (it is alleged) that if the legitimacy of someone declared as elected to the papacy is not contested almost immediately, his legitimacy is infallibly certain. So if you’re not quick to protest the “papacy” of one who celebrates Chanukah and participates in Protestant false worship by immediately posting something on Instagram and Twitter, he’s the “pope”–to whom you must submit (but only when you feel like it).

Theologian Doyle explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (See The Defense of the Catholic Church, [1927], pg. 124) It is therefore possible that the entire membership of the Church could have accepted one of those men who was not pope, as the Vicar of Christ.

Ad arguendo, if this manufactured definition regarding “peaceful and universal acceptance”of Salza and Siscoe were accepted, there is also the problem of who must contest this election, and how quickly.Salza and Siscoe would have us believe that the moment a group of heretical “Cardinals” elects one of their own, he immediately achieves “peaceful and universal acceptance.” This is their own made up definition, as there is no unanimous consent of the theologians, nor official Church decree declaring such to be the case. If Siscoe and Salza’s version of the “facts” is accepted: Who needs to contest the election? Cardinals? Bishops? How many Cardinals or bishops would have to “contest” the election? If one sufficient? At what numerical point does the “contesting” become enough? How is this contesting to be done? In writing? Publicly? Privately to the one elected in the prescience of witnesses?

Another big problem for them: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. This is the decree of Pope Paul IV of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand “deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy,” his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be “null, legally invalid and void.” Salza and Siscoe respond with four points:

  • The decree is “manifestly unjust and problematic.” No. It’s simply restating the Divine Law which Canon Law states and all canonists teach; “For the validity of the election as regards the person elected, it suffices only that he not be barred from the office by divine law — that is, any male Christian, even a layman. The following are therefore excluded: women, those who lack the use of reason, infidels, and those who are at least public non-Catholics.” ( See theologian Cocchi, Commentarium in C.J.C, 2:151)
  • Cum ex Apostolatus has been derogated and hence is no longer in force. No need to rebut that contention as the decree simply reiterates DIVINE LAW, which admits no exceptions
  • It can be merely hypothetical that the situation of a heretic being universally accepted could happen. Yeah. Right. Sure. Popes don’t make decrees for hypothetical situations incapable of being fulfilled. It’s analogous to a papal decree declaring what to do should the pope fall into error when speaking ex cathedra.  It can’t happen, so no pope would waste his time writing such nonsense
  • Lastly, the legitimacy of a Pope who has been universally accepted is qualified as “theologically certain.”  This would not be the case if the Church interpreted the aforementioned teaching of the problematic, and now obrogated, papal bull, Cum ex Apostolatus, as meaning an illegitimate Pope can be universally accepted as Pope by the Church. It is also theologically certain that Divine Law prevents heretics from obtaining the papacy, so it’s Sicoe and Salza who get “universal acceptance” wrong. Re-read theologian Van Noort in context; it’s theologically certain if and only if the election comports with Divine Law. We have moral certainty that the sacraments we receive are valid if they are performed with the requirements of Divine Law, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, making it dubious because, e.g., the priest was heard leaving out essential words of the form. So too, we can have moral certainty that the pope is legitimately elected unless we have proof to the contrary, which we do

2. There is strong evidence that theologian Berry was discussing the Church in normal times, not during the Great Apostasy, of which he writes in the same manual cited:  “The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church…there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, [1927], pgs.65-66; Emphasis in original). A Church of Satan with false sacraments and the false prophet playing the part of the pope, with “more universality” than the True Church? How could there be such a false pope if he had “practically unanimous consent”? Its obvious that the term is not concretely applied by theologian Berry, and in any case, would not apply in the time of Great Apostasy. Are we to expect apostates from the Vatican II sect to try and sort things out for us?

3. Finally, theologian Berry does not give a different definition to dogmatic facts than theologian Van Noort.
Hence, we argue, “Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.” The minor premise is conditional. Hence, “but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore…”

Disposing of Some Other Falsehoods
To go through all the other points of Salza’s article in detail would require several posts. Nevertheless, I will briefly point out their inherent flaws. Should anyone want to challenge me on any point they think I did not address, I will be happy to debate them in a neutral forum.
  • Appeals to authorities before 1870. Salza and Siscoe are fond of citing theologians prior to the Vatican Council (1869-1870). That’s when there was a lot of Catholic doctrine settled regarding the papacy  and made it untenable to hold a number of theories that had still been permissible to hold up until that time. Citations to theologians Cajetan, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas are therefore plentiful. citations to post-1870 theologians and canonists are conspicuously absent or twisted out of context as demonstrated above with Van Noort and Berry
  • False definition of a public heretic. They claim that a “public heretic” was not, and could not be elected by the Church, since a public heretic is “a public member of a heretical sect (e.g. a member of the Baptist Church), not a Catholic…who is guilty of the sin of heresy.” Wrong.  According to theologian McDevitt, “A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by heresy or apostasy in a public manner…” Further, “It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon [188] demands.” Finally, “..even if only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the Faith…the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1” (The Renunciation of An Ecclesiastical Office: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, [1946], pgs. 136-140; Emphasis mine).
  • An incredible implication. Do members of the R&R celebrate Chanukah with Jews? Do they participate in false worship with Protestants and kneel before a so-called “bishop” to receive a “blessing”? To do so would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris and a denial of the One True Church. Consider also, ” As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the “curas villeros,” the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those ‘penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop’ projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out.” (See http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910bdc4.html?eng=y) Participating in these ecumenical services with Protestants and Jews is, in the words of Pope Pius XI, “altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” (See Mortalium Animos para. #2) Yet, somehow if such a “cardinal” is pronounced “pope” without public abjuration of heresy, how does he attain the papacy? Does the “universal acceptance” somehow “undo” his heresy? Or does it mean his actions, contrary to all Church teaching pre-Vatican II, was not heretical? No attempt at an explanation of this is made.
Conclusion
The disingenuous duo, Salza and Siscoe, would have us believe that an impediment of Divine Law which prevents a man from attaining the papacy is somehow “cured” by a fanciful definition of “peaceful and universal acceptance.” They twist and misrepresent theologians Van Noort and Berry. They give a false definition of “public heretic.” Finally, they show themselves as the ultimate hypocrites, for we must accept Francis as pope because it is a “dogmatic fact,” yet they do not accept the dogmatic fact that the Church is infallible in matters pertaining to the general discipline of the Church, such as the Novus Bogus “mass.” They pick and choose what decrees of their “pope” and dogmatic facts they will obey. Isn’t that the very etymology of heretic–“able to choose”? What they refuse to accept is the proposition, “What’s wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong, and what’s right is right, even if no one is right.”
¿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: