Blog arhiva

The “Heretical” Popes (Part 1): Adrian VI

Setting the Record straight…

The “Heretical” Popes
Part 1: Adrian VI

[UPDATE 07-APR-2015: The First Vatican Council on the Question of a Heretical Pope]

There are two major lines of argument used by people who are rabidly anti-sedevacantist; that is, those who oppose the position of Sedevacantism not on account of evidence, real or imagined, but on account of a desire to see the position opposed for some other motive.

The first line of argumentation is to downplay the problems with the Vatican II “Popes” to make them seem less serious than they are. The second line of argumentation is to exaggerate the problems with some true Popes of the past to make them seem comparable to the situation we find ourselves in today, when outright apostates are claiming the papal office, especially Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI.

As the heresies of Francis are so much out in the open now that anyone who wishes to retain some respectability and credibility can no longer deny them, it is the second line of argumentation that is now receiving renewed emphasis. On various blogs, forums, and web sites, claims are being made by some to the effect that “we’ve always had heretical Popes” — an outrageous and theologically as well as historically erroneous statement that is being uttered with a nonchalantness that could put Hans Kung to shame.

Boiling it down to the basics: The reason it is impossible for the Church to have a publicly heretical Pope is that this would destroy the unity of the Church, one of the hallmarks of her nature. The Church is necessarily united in Faith; if her head publicly held a different faith, she would cease to be one and be no better than the local Protestant church down the street, where each believer may disagree with any other, even with the pastor, about what the truth really is.

Already in Holy Scripture, St. Paul the Apostle refers to Holy Mother Church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and teaches that our Lord instituted the sacred hierarchy so that “we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:13-14).

Furthermore, the Catholic Magisterium has consistently taught that all Catholics must be subject to the papacy as a student is subject to his teacher:

“The vigilance and the pastoral solicitude of the Roman Pontiff … according to the duties of his office, are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God. They strive also to the end that the faithful of Christ, not being like irresolute children, or carried about by every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men [Eph 4:14], may all come to the unity of faith and to the knowledge of the Son of God to form the perfect man, that they may not harm one another or offend against one another in the community and the society of this present life, but that rather, united in the bond of charity like members of a single body having Christ for head, and under the authority of his Vicar on earth, the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Blessed Peter, from whom is derived the unity of the entire Church, they may increase in number for the edification of the body, and with the assistance of divine grace, they may so enjoy tranquility in this life as to enjoy future beatitude.”

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Pastoralis Romani Pontificis, March 30, 1741; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 31; underlining added.)

 

The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the entire world. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of Christ, Head of the whole Church, Father and Teacher of all Christians.”

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 32; under-lining added.)

 

“Our desire is to maintain unity in the bond of peace; and We have no other motive, in exposing the deceits of those who abuse the names of the [Church] Fathers to give false meaning to their words. Let all understand that there is no teaching which the Fathers have more at heart than that all should be kept in unity, attached to this Chair [of St. Peter] which alone Christ has made mother and mistress of all the others.”

(Pope Pius VI, Decree Super Soliditate, Nov. 28, 1786; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 60; underlining added.)

 

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.”

(Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; underlining added.)

 

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302; under-lining added.)

 

“Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity.

“For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever. No one, moreover, can be ignorant that from these discordant doctrines and opinions social schisms have arisen, and that these again have given birth to sects and communions without number, which spread themselves continually, to the increasing injury of Christian and civil society.”

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes [1868]; underlining added.)

These quotes speak for themselves, and they are obviously incompatible with the idea that a Pope could be a heretic, and that when he is, each of the faithful needs to determine this for himself and “resist” him accordingly, lest he be led astray and be punished eternally.

If a true Pope could be a heretic and still remain Pope, then the Church would have no need of a Pope — then he would not differ in essence from the leaders of the Anglican sect, or of the Eastern Orthodox churches, or of the Protestant faith communities. He would just become a ceremonial head whose tasks might include that of guiding, directing, and inspecting, but who ultimately holds no genuine authority, in virtue of his office, to teach the Faith and whose teaching demands assent for the mere fact that he, the Pope, is the one who is teaching (cf. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 20).

The one ecumenical council that dealt extensively with the dogmatic teaching on the papacy and the nature and authority of the Catholic Magisterium was the Vatican Council of 1870 (aka the “First” Vatican Council). Listen attentively to what the council teaches so eloquently:

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” [Luke 22:32].

So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.

(Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1836-1837; underlining added.)

It should be obvious to all that this teaching cannot be squared with the idea of a Pope who is also a public heretic, that is, one who publicly professes a faith that contradicts the faith of the Catholic Church as received from the Apostles. Quite simply, if a Pope could be a public heretic, then Vatican I’s teaching was false. But this is impossible. Therefore, we know that a Pope cannot be a public heretic.

Nevertheless, time and again assertions are made by anti-sedevacantists that several Popes in the Church’s history were public heretics — the sole objective being, of course, to lend support to the argument that if these “heretical Popes” were still true Popes, then so must we consider Francis and his five predecessors of infelicitous memory likewise to be true Popes, at least until some future Pope should declare otherwise (in which case one would then have to ask why anyone should pay attention to that future Pope if the contemporary ones need not be heeded, since what applies to one Pope necessarily applies to all of them). The position is entirely driven by the desire to justify accepting the Vatican II “Popes” while not having to assent to their teaching or having to submit to their rule.

The names of the alleged “heretical Popes” in Catholic history are usually the following, in chronological order (though others pop up occasionally as well): Liberius, Honorius I, Stephen VII, John XII, and John XXII. We will examine each case one by one, and perhaps a few others, in several installments, of which the current post is but the first, although we must begin with a different name altogether: that of Adrian VI.

Although no one has accused Pope Adrian VI of heresy, we will begin our blog post series on the “heretical Popes” with his case because he is sometimes invoked as having taught and believed that Popes can be heretics. In fact, the infamous quote, “Many Roman Pontiffs were heretics, the last of them being John XXII”, is ascribed to Pope Adrian, and some eager anti-sedevacantists have been quick to circulate this suspicious quote on the internet because, if true, it would help their case tremendously. Yet, this attitude of “Let’s make a claim first and ask questions later” is not acceptable with regard to such a serious and important matter as the orthodoxy of the Vicars of Christ and Catholic teaching on the papacy in general, which is the most august office in the world.

So, let’s pose the question directly: Did Pope Adrian VI truly utter or even teach these words, and what is their source?

The fact is that Pope Adrian did no such thing. Rather, the words were uttered by the theologian Adrianus Florentius, who later became Pope Adrian VI (he retained his baptismal name, Adrian, even as Pope). The book in which Adrianus makes this assertion is his Commentary on the Fourth Book of Sentences of Peter Lombard, published in 1516 (and in other editions even before then). Adrian did not became Pope until 1522 and died the following year. The authenticity of the quote can be verified by consulting an original copy of the book, which is available online. We are producing here a snapshot of the paragraph that contains the passage in question:

Source: Hadrianus Florentius, Quaestiones in quartum sententiarum praesertim circa sacramenta (Louvain, Belgium: 1516), fol. XXIII [screenshot of p. 52 of PDF file provided by Google Books]

There is no doubt that this quote and its source are authentic. We see, for example, other Catholic theologians writing at the time of Adrianus Florentius or after — but before the Vatican Council of 1870, we curiously note — referring to Adrian’s quote. For example, Bp. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet of Meaux, France, uses the controversial quotation in Chapter 28 of his monograph Gallia Orthodoxa (1682).

Though in many ways recognized as a great theologian, Bossuet was also a proponent of Gallicanism and opposed the infallibility of the Pope, which was later defined as a dogma by the First Vatican Council, where this tenet of the Gallican school was condemned as heretical. At the time of Bossuet, however, a number of Gallican positions later condemned were still permitted theological opinions, or at least ones that were tolerated. This explains why Bossuet was able to hold this particular idea without being condemned at the time.

Gallicanism was a conglomeration of errors concerning the authority of the Pope mostly found in 17th and 18th-century France, though its origins go back to the 14th century. Over time, various Gallican propositions were condemned by the Church, most notably by Pope Alexander VIII in 1690 and Pope Pius VI in 1794, and most recently by the First Vatican Council in 1870, so that Gallicanism “is now professed only by the heretical sect of the Old Catholics” (Donald Attwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary, s.v. “Gallicanism”) — note well! It is perhaps no accident that a lot of the errors held and promoted by the Society of St. Pius X resemble those of Gallicanism, as their founder, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, was French.

Back to Bossuet. In the above-mentioned work, he approvingly cites Adrianus Florentius — who, at the time, was a theology professor in Louvain, Belgium — concerning the allegation that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”, though he admits that Adrianus wrote this not as Pope but as a theologian before he was raised to the Supreme Pontificate. Nevertheless, Bossuet argues, after Adrian had become Pope, he never retracted his original claim and even published his writings in Rome in 1522, that is, after becoming Pope. This is also the argument made by the rabidly anti-sedevacantist French blog La Question, which features an article on the topic here:

So, this seems like a slam dunk for the anti-sedevacantists, doesn’t it?

Well, not so fast. We need to be careful to distinguish evidence and facts from assumptions and conjecture. Let’s take a step back and list what we know and what we can reasonably infer:

  • Though not clearly proven, it is reasonably established that Adrianus Florentius made the claim that many Popes were heretics — unless the document was a forgery, which, however, would have to be proven
  • It is known that this was Adrianus’ belief before becoming Pope — he uttered it as a theology professor at Louvain
  • This belief, though erroneous, was allowed to be held at the time, or at least tolerated, as we can see from the fact that other theologians who held it, not only Adrianus Florentius but also Bossuet, for example, were not censured at the time (something that St. Robert Bellarmine points out, as we will see below)
  • It has not been directly proven, but merely inferred (albeit reasonably), that the edition of Adrianus’ writing after he became Pope still contains the claim that many Roman Pontiffs were heretics
  • The position taken by Adrianus and seconded by Bossuet was adhered to before the dogmatic teaching on the papacy by the Vatican Council of 1870
  • Even if we were to concede that it is possible for a Pope to become a public heretic and still remain a valid Pope, it is clear that Adrianus’ assertion that “many” Popes were heretics is definitely false
  • The only “Catholic” book we know of that still used the Adrianus quote after the First Vatican Council is Paul Viollet’s 1904 work L’Infaillibilité du Pape et le Syllabus [“The Infallibility of the Pope and the Syllabus”], where the author tries to back up his position that Popes can be heretics. This book, however, was subsequently examined by the Vatican and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books under Pope St. Pius X in 1908

Can you imagine what the anti-sedevacantists would say to us if as “proof” of our position we used a statement written by a Pope before he was Pope on the grounds that he did not retract it after becoming Pope and ordered (or simply didn’t prevent) the publication of his book during his pontificate? We’re talking here about people who do not think they are bound by teachings in papal encyclicals, by papal canonizations, by decrees of ecumenical councils, by universal church law, etc. Why would they care about what a Pope said before he became Pope — even if he allowed the document to be published once more after ascending the papal throne — about 350 years before the First Vatican Council?

It’s really funny how these anti-sedevacantists always demand nothing short of an ex cathedra pronouncement of us to prove our position, but somehow their position is definitively proved by every hiss or sneeze of anyone who wasn’t burned at the stake. The double standard is glaring and quite telling. Apparently, their arguments are determined not by what is true and reasonable, but solely by what helps support their desired conclusion.

But let’s look at some more evidence concerning the position taken by Adrianus Florentius, which he may also have held privately as Pope Adrian VI (we say “privately” because he certainly never made it part of his pontifical Magisterium). It’s not like no Catholic theologian or historian has ever written about this other than Bp. Bossuet and Paul Viollet. In fact, even St. Robert Bellarmine mentioned Adrian VI, as we will see later.

The famous French manual Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [“Dictionary of Catholic Theology”] has an entry on Adrian VI, and devotes one paragraph in particular to the issue at hand:

In Quaestiones in IVum Sententiarum, the statement that the pope can err, even in something which touches upon the faith has been noted. But it is altogether wrong that certain adversaries of infallibility have seen in this a serious argument in their favor, or that even in our days, certain others pretend to be scandalized by it. Adrian wrote the book from which the citation is taken long before his elevation to the chair of Peter, and it obviously does not participate in any way in the authority of pontifical acts. There is, moreover, no proof that in the mind of its author the assertion applies to ex cathedra definitions; consequently, [the statement] is nothing more than a reproduction of a theological opinion we encounter many times before the sixteenth century, either from the pen of popes themselves or in documents they approved. Thus Innocent III wrote: ‘Faith is so necessary to me that, if for every other fault I am subject to the judgment of God alone, it is only for a sin I commit in a matter of faith that I become subject to judgment of the tribunal of the Church.’ And already even before this, one reads in the Decree of Gratian (dist. XL, c. vi) these words of Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz: ‘No mortal man should pretend to reproach [the Roman Pontiff] for his faults. For, established as the judge of all, he recognizes no judge over himself, at least as long as he does not commit an error against the faith.’ In these texts and many others like it, the pope is obviously spoken of as a private doctor.

(J. Forget, “Adrian VI”, in Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [Paris: Letouzey, 1913-50], vol. I, c. 461; our translation; some italics removed.)

So, in short, the key take-away here is that what Adrianus said, even if we grant that he ordered it reprinted while he was Pope, is nothing but a “theological opinion” which, at that point in time, was still permissible to hold, but which was certainly no longer acceptable since the First Vatican Council, whose teaching is irreconcilable with the idea that the Pope could be a heretic. Hence it is easy to see why Paul Viollet’s book was put on the Index, even though it actually carried an imprimatur from the local ordinary, Abp. Fulbert Petit (ouch!).

The argument about Adrianus Florentius on the “heretical Popes” is also made by the excommunicated “Old Catholic” heretic Johann von Döllinger in his condemned work Der Papst und das Concil [in English translation as The Pope and the Council (Boston, MA: Roberts Brothers, 1870), p. 306], which he wrote under his pseudonym Janus. The work was also put on the Index of Forbidden Books and was refuted by Cardinal Joseph Hergenröther in his 1870 book Anti-Janus.

Next, let’s go to an Italian resource. The Dizionario di Erudizione Storico-Ecclesiastica [“Dictionary of Historical-Ecclesiastical Erudition”] says regarding Pope Adrian VI:

Adrian VI, Pope 228, formerly Adriano Florenzio, son of the craftsman Florenzio, was born on March 2, 1459 in Utrecht, Netherlands, and not in Sanzano in the diocese of Brescia, as stated without any good reason by the capuchin Mattia Bellintani (Storia di Salò, 1586). He received his degree in Leuven, and after that founded a college in that university which bears his name, which was later also named “Pontifical”. Someone noted that Adrian wrote (in 4 sent. de confirmatione): plures Pontifices fuerunt heretici (multiple Popes were heretics). Lodovico Vincenzo Goti excellently answers this accusation (tom. I verae eccles. cap II. n. 6): Adrian stated this while he was a theologian in Leuven; therefore, if his works were reprinted after he became Pope, without the removal of these words, one cannot say that he, as Pope, would support such a statement. How many times are works not reprinted without the author being aware of it, or with the author not being the last to make amendments? Later, Adrian received the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Leuven, then became dean of the cathedral, and finally vice-chancellor of the university. Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, appointed him as preceptor of Charles, his grandson, also sending him as ambassador to Ferdinand, the King of Spain, who appointed him as bishop of Tortosa, in that kingdom. When Charles ascended to the throne, the king gave to Adrian full powers over all the aspects of his monarchy and, since Adrian had already been made Cardinal of Saints John and Paul by [Pope] Leo X after an inquiry of Maximilian, he left him as general inquisitor and governor of Spain for the whole time, before going to Germany and taking possession of that empire under the name of Charles V.

(Gaetano Moroni Romano, ed., Dizionario di Erudizione Storico-Ecclesiastica [Venice: Tipografia Emiliana, 1840], s.v. “Adriano VI”, p. 104; our translation; some italics changed.)

Ah, so maybe the whole matter isn’t as clear-cut as some anti-sedevacantists would have us believe. Viollet, in his condemned work, mentions this reference and even quotes it (see p. 21, fn. 1) but claims it is improbable that Pope Adrian modified his work before being reprinted, or that it was reprinted without his knowledge or permission. All right, so now we’re down to arguing probabilities. That’s fine, as far as it goes, but let’s not act as though we had a clear-cut case here. In addition, let’s not forget that Viollet’s opinion appears in a book that has been condemned by the Church. So, which position had we rather side with?

At the end of the day, however, as already indicated, it does not really matter whether Pope Adrian had this work reprinted with or without this error, for the following two reasons:

  • The error was a permitted theological opinion at the time
  • The error in no wise became a part of his papal Magisterium

St. Robert Bellarmine himself in fact addresses the thesis of Adrianus Florentius in his monumental work De Romano Pontifice, first published by this name in the 17th century. He calls the opinion that the Pope can be a heretic and of himself (though not when making a definition at a council) teach heresy an opinion that “we dare not call properly heretical, for we still see those who maintain this position tolerated by the Church; yet it does seem completely erroneous and proximate to heresy and can rightly be judged heretical by the Church” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book 4, Ch. 2, in Opera Omnia, Book 1 [Naples: J. Giuliano, 1856], p. 478; now available in complete English translation here: On the Roman Pontiff).

Now notice one very important thing: St. Robert is writing in the 17th century, over 250 years before the First Vatican Council issued its dogmas on the papacy. This corroborates exactly what we’ve asserted in this post, namely, that before Vatican I, these matters were still being disputed among theologians, especially back in the 1500’s and 1600’s, when Adrianus and Bossuet were writing, and therefore some positions were then either allowed or at least “tolerated” (St. Robert’s word) that can no longer be held today, over 140 years after Vatican I. In fact, St. Robert — who, as of 1931, is a Doctor of the Church, we might add — already says in the 1600s that the position taken by Adrianus and many anti-sedevacantists today could with justice be condemned as heretical in the future. This had not yet been done back then, so the people who held it were not heretics, but it is significant that St. Robert says that it deserves to be condemned as heretical. No wonder books during and after Vatican I who maintainted this position were put on the Index.

Another point that ought to be brought up, even if just for the sake of historical accuracy, is that when Adrianus Florentius wrote that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics” in his Quaestiones in Quartum Sententiarum, he said it merely in passing and not as part of a treatise on papal authority or the unity of the Church. Rather, the context was dismissing an argument made by a theological opponent regarding the sacrament of confirmation. The opponent had cited St. Gregory the Great to substantiate his point about priests being able to administer confirmations, and Adrianus, disagreeing, said that Gregory had been wrong, and besides (so the theologian Adrianus claimed), “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”. That is the context of the controversial saying to begin with. This does not, of course, negate what he said, but it is important to keep in mind that Adrianus’ remark was incidental to a discussion on a completely different topic; it was an obiter dictum. In addition to that, we note that he was wrong, not only with regard to confirmation, but also with regard to the question of whether many Popes were heretics. This is something that tends to be glossed over: Adrianus’ assertion is false.

And thus we have demolished yet another misleading anti-sedevacantist argument. As you can see, it takes real research to properly understand such issues, and we Sedevacantists are greatly outnumbered by the (often paid) apologists of the much more popular and convenient “resistance” position, in which you can have all the advantages of the sedevacantist position without any of its disadvantages.

Alas, our critics have the “bully pulpit”. They have the prestige, the positions of authority, the applause of the majority, the fancy broadcasting equipment, and the money and the time to disseminate their position to a wide audience. But there is one thing we have that they do not: the truth. If you would like to help the mission of Novus Ordo Watch, we have listed 12 specific ways you can do so; and no, they do not have to involve money.

A few more closing comments are in order.

In the debate about Sedevacantism, whether the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, a lot of things are asserted by people who do not really understand the subject matter or who do not take the time to do real research. As we can see in the case of Pope Adrian VI here, it is very disappointing and troublesome to see anti-sedevacantists mindlessly recycle a quote of which they have no real knowledge other than someone having discovered it in a book put on the Index. They use the quote because it helps their case, regardless of what the truth of the matter may be. Such “research” and argumentation are reprehensible, and look at the consequences: They have now put in people’s minds the impious idea that a Pope does not even have to profess the true Faith in order to be Pope, in order to be the bulwark of truth and the principle of unity in the Church. The matter is absurd.

What’s also quite interesting is that these arguments and quotes brought forth by the anti-sedevacantists about the “heretical Popes” tend to be brought up, since 1870, only by people who argued against Vatican I. The only two “Catholic” books we know of since that council that use the case of Adrian VI to argue that Popes can be heretics are Dollinger’s and Viollet’s, and both were put on the Index. Not exactly a positive omen for our critics.

That’s why it is no surprise to see that, in general, any “resistance” quotes brought up by anti-sedevacantists are always from sources before 1870, when the First Vatican Council settled a number of teachings regarding the Papacy and the Magisterium. (Our TRADCAST 003 podcast deals with this matter at length.) Why will they not quote theologians after the council to justify their “recognize-and-resist” stance? Quite simply, because they cannot find any who teach such a thing, that’s why.

In Sacred Theology throughout history, you will always find positions at one time permitted and held that are later condemned or abandoned. This is to be expected, as the task of the theologian is to explain Catholic teaching and show its source in and harmony with Divine Revelation. Over hundreds of years, as theologians debate various issues, there will always be positions accepted that are later rejected by the Church as untenable, erroneous, or even heretical, and the history of the Church is full of precisely that, as the famous doctrinal document collection Denzinger (“The Sources of Catholic Dogma”) attests.

As we have insisted on numerous occasions in the past, it is absolutely essential to distinguish “heretical” Popes from immoral or “bad” Popes. The former is an impossibility, whereas the latter is, unfortunately, not unheard of in the history of the Church. The following resources we have produced will clarify this important distinction and explain the reasons why one is impossible and the other isn’t:

The Vatican II Sect and the resistance position of the Society of St. Pius X have done immeasurable damage to people’s understanding of Catholicism, especially the papacy. People are now accustomed to accusing real Popes (including the fake ones, inasmuch as they believe them to be real) of heresy without batting an eye. Yet notice how, even hundreds of years before Vatican I, St. Robert Bellarmine went out of his way to argue that such a thing was not even possible. If only St. Robert had had the wisdom of today’s resistance bloggers! He had no idea that the history of the Church is filled with “heretical Popes”, and neither did the fathers of the First Vatican Council! Martin Luther would be proud.

In truth, the situation is absurd. In their insatiable desire to see the Novus Ordo “Popes” as true Popes, while rejecting anything and everything from them that they find objectionable, the “resisters” have injected into people’s minds ideas that are entirely at odds with sound Catholic teaching, perverting their Faith to the point that they would never think of applying the clear teachings of the Catholic Magisterium on the papacy to Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or Paul VI. They would never do so because they know that if they did, it would turn them into heretics. But you cannot fight heresy with more heresy, nor with schism. It is simply impossible to accept Francis and his five predecessors as true Popes (with all that entails, not just the verbal acknowledgment) and still be a Catholic. So, what follows? They cannot have been true Popes. It is a necessary conclusion.

Thus far our first post in our ongoing series The “Heretical” Popes. Others will follow in due time. As you can see, it is very easy to disseminate a quote one has picked up somewhere without knowing the background, and to accuse Popes of the past of having been heretics. But it takes real, painstaking research to disentangle the whole mess and find out what the truth of the matter really is.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    

Oglasi

Recognize-and-OBEY is the Traditional Catholic Teaching

Not ‘recognize-and-resist’…

Recognize-and-OBEY is the Traditional Catholic Teaching

The sedevacantist blogger Steven Speray has recently released an important blog post we are happy to republish on this web site, with his permission. It concerns the foundational belief of those who try to be traditional Catholics while believing the “Popes” after Pius XII to be valid and true Vicars of Christ — the so-called “recognize-and-resist” position (R&R).


Pope Pius XI Squashes the Recognize-and-Resist Position

by Steve Speray (Aug. 27, 2019)

Can the faithful recognize and resist the pope? I dealt with this question in a 2015 article. However, I recently stumbled upon some teachings from Pope Pius XI that castigate the recognize-and-resist theology. I’ve highlighted the relevant parts within the context that contradicts R&R-ism.

In Mortalium Animos – On Religious Unity, Jan. 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI declared:

#5 Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…

#7…There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it.

#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

The words “recognize and obey” are exactly opposite to “recognize and resist.”  The R&R crowd doesn’t obey those they call the legitimate successors of Peter. They ignore them, resist them, and reject their teachings. They are most certainly trying to stand in the way of the Vatican II popes and implementing Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Of course, the R&R crowd is correct in rejecting the Modernism of the Vatican II “popes”, but their justification for doing so in opposition to what is recognized as the papal authority, is heretical, blasphemous, and just plain stupid.

The underlying principle of Mortalium Animos is rejected by the R&R crowd. But then again, every papal document is an instance of the Roman Pontiff putting forth his papal authority for the faithful to obey, not to resist.

On Dec. 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI declared in Divini Illius Magistri – On Christian Education:

18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.’…

20.The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her.…

25. The extent of the Church’s mission in the field of education is such as to embrace every nation, without exception, according to the command of Christ: “Teach ye all nations;” and there is no power on earth that may lawfully oppose her or stand in her way. In the first place, it extends over all the Faithful, of whom she has anxious care as a tender mother.

The whole document is about the importance of getting a good, holy, and true Christian education, which can only come about by following and obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and following his rules for this education. What’s the point if the Catholic Church is propagating error like every other religion, as the R&R proponents essentially claim?

The position of the R&R crowd makes the Catholic Church out to be the biggest hypocritical organization in the world. It would mean that the Catholic Church is more or less permitted to lead people astray with error, while all other religions are condemned by the Catholic Church for doing the same thing. It would mean only the Catholic Church gets to be heretical, while Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are condemned by the Catholic Church as false religions when they do so.

That’s why the R&R position is heretical, blasphemous, and stupid.

On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii – On Christian Marriage. Once again, the pope emphasizes his authority over all the faithful. He declares in #104:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

The approach of the R&R crowd is to resist, dismiss, and disdain every papal teaching that they think comes short of proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas protected by infallibility. In principle, the R&R crowd is really no different than the liberals who reject the teaching of Casti Connubii on the authority of the Roman Pontiff as much as they do — they just apply it to a different issue (that of contraception; see #54).

The pick-and-choose mentality of the R&R crowd is what makes them the worst of hypocrites. They profess to be obedient and faithful Catholics but are neither.

Jesus told us where hypocrites go in Matt. 24:51 — and it’s not paradise.


Minor edits have been made to this post to enhance readability and consistency, with the author’s permission. The original can be found here.


 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

TRADCAST 025 (August 21, 2019)

TRADCAST 025 (21 AUG 2019)

Contents

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

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

Alternate Show Links (Audio and Video)

Links to Items mentioned in the Show & Related Information

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

July 17, 2019

Frenchman starved to death by court order…

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

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

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

Here are some examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And where was Francis? Where was the Vatican?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Francis gives Relics of St. Peter to Eastern Orthodox Patriarch

July 8, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an alternate video report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

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

July 11, 2019

Modernist Apostate vs. Vicar of Christ

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

by Francis del Sarto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1931, the Holy Office issued this pertinent judgment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

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

June 28, 2019

Ratzinger speaks again…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

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

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Apostolic Creed; Denz. 2)

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

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

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

(Pope John II, Epistle Olim QuidemDenz. 202)

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

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

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

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

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

(Pope Paul IV, Ordinance Cum QuorundamDenz. 993)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Pope Paul IV, Ordinance Cum QuorundamDenz. 993)

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

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

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

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

(Pope John II, Epistle Olim QuidemDenz. 202)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Pope Paul IV, Ordinance Cum QuorundamDenz. 993)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where “Cardinal” Müller comes in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[German original:]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[German original:]

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

(Katholische Dogmatik, p. 491)

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

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

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

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

[German original:]

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

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

Wow!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[German original:]

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

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

Heresy! Blasphemy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[German original:]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Müller’s False Theology condemned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least on that point, we can agree!

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

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

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vatican News has released the following video:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We covered that calculated humiliation of the papacy here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Anti-Catholic Religion of the Second Vatican Council: A Book Review of “Vatican II Exposed”

Move over, Taylor Marshall…

The Anti-Catholic Religion of the Second Vatican Council:

A Book Review of
Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism

On Mar. 6 of this year, we posted an announcement about a brand-new book exposing the history and heresies of the Novus Ordo religion, its false popes, and its other pivotal players. The work is an 809-page tome called Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism and was written by Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI:

People interested in buying a copy may do so directly from the authors, at this link (Novus Ordo Watch does not make a commission on the sales). Despite initial plans, it is unlikely that Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism will be available through Amazon.com soon, except perhaps in electronic format.

Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism is a mammoth work of sturdy quality!

We are excited to be able to offer now a sizable review of this book, contributed by a reader of this blog who wishes to remain anonymous. The book reviewer presents a mostly-descriptive Overview (Part 1) followed by a Critical Analysis and Conclusion (Part 2) from the perspective of a simple layman who holds no formal qualifications in theology, history, nor journalism. The opinions expressed in the review are those of the reviewer and not necessarily those of Novus Ordo Watch.


Book Review: Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism
by Fr. Francisco Radecki, CMRI and Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI.
Copyright 2019, St. Joseph’s Media

************************************************************************

PART 1: Overview
The first thing that struck me was the size of this book. It is a huge tome, with 757 pages of text, or 809 pages counting the Bibliography. Each page measures approximately 8 and a half inches by 11 inches. The font used is average in size, and the line spacing is generous which makes this book easy to read, insofar as visual comfort. It is a very beautifully presented hardback with dustjacket. The dustjacket is of matching design to the cover itself, but unlike many books, it isn’t hiding, nor making up for, a plain nor inferior cover underneath. The artwork is truly commendable, being both clever in symbolism and elegant in appearance. Very few book covers are so striking for their aesthetically-pleasing quality; implementing a very tasteful color scheme, including metallic red and metallic silver accents, with embossed three-dimensional imagery and text.

Upon opening the book, in the Introduction, we are told:

Why This Book was Written
Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism doesn’t merely tell what occurred at Vatican II, but the who, when, where, why and how. Masterminds, guided by Satan, prepared the way for the creation of the Modern, Counterfeit Church.

The task undertaken by the authors must have been daunting given the quantity and nature of material that they chose to try to somehow sort through. The list of references is probably of the broadest spectrum I have ever come across in one book; the authors certainly cannot be accused of overly-selective resourcing of opinions, viewpoints or accounts. The claims of people from all walks of life, so to speak, have been presented in this volume, ranging from the most authoritative sources such as popes via papal encyclicals, followed by reliable contemporary clergy who are renowned for their theological rectitude, such as Bp. Donald Sanborn (Catholic Restoration), Fr. Noel Barbara, Fr. Anthony Cekada and Fr. Francesco Ricossa (whose articles published in the esteemed priestly periodical, Sacerdotium, made the latter well known to the English-speaking traditional Catholic milieu), right through to such unexpected sources as websites including wikipedia.com, washingtonpost.com, businessinsider.com, strangehistory.net and psywarrior.com. Even the enigmatic Malachi Martin was given a hearing and is quoted at least twice. No one can dare point the finger of “discrimination.”

In view of website articles comprising a substantial portion of the Bibliography (can it still technically be called a “Bibliography” if the reference list includes mostly non-books?), this book obviously doesn’t purport to be a weighty scholarly work — nor do the authors make any such claim. Refraining from pretentious language and extensive theology, they instead use everyday parlance presented in a style that would be comfortable to the average modern mind. Hence, people who get daunted by heavy theological treatises shouldn’t be frightened by the substantial physical size of this book because the approach is very casual overall; and the mode is even conversational in many parts. Consequently, if you aren’t a canon lawyer, nor inclined to pick up the Summa Theologica for your bedtime reading, fear not, because this is nothing like hard-core scholasticism. It seems to be aimed at the common layman who isn’t accustomed to intense academia, nor to rigid and laborious study. Rather, the reader will find within these pages a collection of stories of deception, intrigue, suspicions and allegations of murder, extensive Freemasonic plotting and scheming, shocking examples of disgusting immorality of Modernists even as far back as before the Second Vatican Council – and worst of all, the unspeakable tragedy of the widespread loss of Faith of countless clergy, of all ranks, even up to the highest positions in the Church, which led to the unprecedented catastrophe of the near-universal loss of Faith, which renders the 20th century not only the allegedly “bloodiest of centuries” but surely the most reprehensible.

As part of an attempt to organize what would seem to many people an overwhelming amount of information, numerous lists and tables were formulated, including, but not limited to, those with the following titles:

  • European Modernist Training Centers
  • French Modernists
  • German Modernists
  • American Modernists who Attended Vatican II
  • Belgian Modernists who Attended Vatican II
  • Dutch Modernists who Attended Vatican II
  • Italian Modernists who Attended Vatican II
  • Modernists from Formerly Communist Countries who Attended Vatican II
  • Commissions Controlled by Modernist Cardinals
  • Various Addresses of Pope Pius XII
  • John XXIII’s Meetings with Representatives of Other Religions
  • Members of the International Theological Commission

A large portion of the book is devoted to the documents of Vatican II. Though this is contained in only five chapters out of 31, viz. Chapters 18 through 22, it spans pages 283 through 514. Each of the six recent antipopes, from Roncalli/John XXIII through Bergoglio/Francis, has a chapter devoted specifically to him, as does Pope Pius XII, and there are chapters discussing the Novus Ordo invalid Mass and invalid sacraments, as well as the valid Tridentine Mass.

When reading some of the tales of the characters in the events surrounding the whole disaster of Vatican II and its aftermath, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” came to mind; not the movie itself, which I’ve never seen and therefore wouldn’t be recommending, but merely the title. Sadly, “the good” are pitifully few in number (there are only 18 people in the list presented on page 127 of “Cardinals and Bishops who Opposed Modernism”), and these few are overwhelmingly outnumbered by “the bad” who are also “the ugly” due to their ugly beliefs and actions of which they seemingly remained unrepentant (there are about 193 people listed in the tables of Modernists from various nations, presented on pages 54 through 126).

PART 2: Critical Analysis and Conclusion

Some Notable Pros

  1. The extensive lists of the names of Modernists (“the bad” and “the ugly”) who were actively attacking the Church around the time of Vatican II, could prove useful to refer to, or commit to memory if nearly 200 names is within one’s memorizing capacity, when reading any material of a religious nature published between the late 1800s through to the 1960s. Unfortunately, even writings bearing an Imprimatur carry no guarantee of orthodoxy nor harmlessness, especially in view of the insidious and deceptive manner in which Modernists operate. Hence, for example, if one has a book with an Imprimatur from, say, 1950, that is written by, or even based on ideas held by, any of these Modernists, one would know to beware.
  2. In Chapter 24, “Preparing the Ground for the New Mass”, enough information is presented for the reader to conclude that the Novus Ordo Missae didn’t just get dropped suddenly like a bomb. Rather, the principle of gradualism, combined with tenacious cunning, was employed by conspiring Modernists to desacralize the liturgy, introducing heretical and dangerous elements as far back as the 1920s; and even earlier trial balloons occurred in a localized manner.
  3. The untrustworthiness of Modernists and their modus operandi of cleverly crafted deception techniques, combined with bully tactics when needed, is really rammed home throughout this book. We are alerted to always be wary because in spite of artful phraseology in attempts to disguise what they really mean, everything they say should be presumed to be intended to work toward their evil agendas.
  4. The information presented in the chapters specifically about the Second Vatican Council, taken as a whole, is sufficient for the reader to conclude that the main characters involved and their Modernist errors (“the bad” and “the ugly” again) formally brought into existence an entirely different religion to the Catholic Faith. Moreover, this undoubtedly was their intention, as evident from their own words.

Some Caveats

  1. The initial outlines of Freemasonry and Modernism seem a bit hazy. If the reader had no prior knowledge of the nature and history of them, the background provided in this book, alone, wouldn’t provide a sufficiently thorough foundation, nor a very clear understanding, which would be required for properly grasping the full import of what is presented afterwards about the activities of the Freemasons and Modernists in the Church, State and society in general. Before handing this book to anyone new to Sedevacantism, it would be advisable to have them study some encyclicals on these subjects, such as Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Humanum Genus and books such as Fr Denis Fahey’s The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism to provide a more solid base. Near the end of the book, the authors do recommend and reference Pascendi Dominici Gregis, but reading that encyclical prior to starting this book would probably be beneficial for everyone.
  2. The overview provided regarding the Bugnini Holy Week liturgical changes of 1955, mostly on pages 169-171, sufficiently explains the viewpoint of those clergy who hold the opinion that it is fine to keep using those changes. However, the position held by sedevacantist clergy who reject the use of this interim liturgical form was presented in a way that would likely lead the reader to an inaccurate apprehension of the issue. It seems that the authors mustn’t have come across the number of articles available on traditionalmass.org explaining their rationale. Reading those articles (and for those who like videos, viewing Fr. Anthony Cekada’s recently released presentation on this topic) should suffice to dispel any false notions. It should be noted that the authors clearly respect Fr. Cekada’s scholarship, as attested to by his booklet, “Sedevacantism, A Quick Primer” being quoted at length on p. 236 – in addition to two books and one article by the same author also being referenced in a favorable light.
  3. Numerous Modernists are exposed by name, yet when they are quoted it sometimes seems that their words are to be taken as being in some way credible, despite what is made clear about Modernists as mentioned in Pro #3 (above). Most of the time what the Modernists are quoted to have said or done is obviously included in the book to demonstrate their devious scheming and heretical beliefs; however, there are places where the reader could get the impression that their words are being used as a verification. As an example, in line with the topic of Caveat #2 (above): a Fr. Antonelli is quoted on p. 169 as criticizing the pre-1955 Holy Week liturgy (an entire paragraph of his is presented on that page) and the authors distill his quote as remarking “how the phrases ‘splendor of the night,’ ‘blessed night’ and ‘holy night’ are inappropriate when ceremonies are performed on Holy Saturday morning.” Yet, on p. 557, Fr. Antonelli (who is definitely the same person as the previously quoted Fr. Antonelli, as evident from this book which refers to the same source) is manifested as a clearly questionable source – whose opinion should be presumed to be in support of the Modernist agenda – by the following statement: “Fr. Fernando [sic] Antonelli, who revered the writings of Beauduin and Casel, was a close friend of Botte, Jungmann and Martimort.” Similarly, Abp. Bugnini is listed on p. 108 as a “Freemason” who “Helped Write the New Mass” and is exposed in great detail throughout the book for the scheming Modernist that he was, including on p. 109: “As chief architect of the New Mass, Bugnini worked with liturgical committees before, during and after Vatican II. If he ran into opposition, Bugnini would merely say, ‘The pope wills it,’ and continue.” On p. 557, it states, “Bugnini, the driving force behind liturgical change, boldly declared, ‘I am the liturgical reform!’ His methods were so chaotic and hurried that Paul VI told him to slow down. When one considers the incompetent men who formed the New Mass and New Sacraments, it is no wonder they turned out so poorly.” All this justifiable criticism of Bugnini and his liturgical havoc seems inconsistent with the overall sense of praise given by the authors for his 1955 liturgy. Another example of how possible confusion could result from what might seem a mixed message, is the Dialogue Mass. It is presented in a way that one could think there are no problems associated with it, viz., in the chapter describing the Tridentine Mass vs. the New Mass, in a section titled, “Active Participation in the Liturgy”, it states: “The Faithful are encouraged to join the choir in singing the various parts of the Mass or hymns during a Sung Mass (Missa Cantata) or to answer Latin responses of the priest during the Dialogue Mass.” Some readers may not be aware that the majority of scholarly works since Vatican II which substantially address the Dialogue Mass have used it as a stepping-stone to the Novus Ordo Missae, encouraged by Modernists. This led to the concept of the inability to offer Mass when there is no congregation present, which then led to the Novus Ordo concelebration nonsense; so one can certainly question its prudence.
  4. On page 201, it states that “Holy Scripture foretold that before the coming of Antichrist, the protective power of the papacy would be eliminated” and St Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, is quoted as referring to this, as follows: “St Paul wrote: For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that he [the pope] who is at present restraining it, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way.” Some readers might presume that the phrase “the pope” inserted in square brackets is referring to an explicit mention of “the pope” occurring in the surrounding text of Scripture, thus indicating that that meaning of the pronoun “he” is self-evident. However, that is not the case, so the distinction between that being merely an opinion and not fact, must be made. Scriptural exegetes are divided as to what that passage might mean which reminded me of a section in Rev. E. Sylvester Berry’s book, The Apocalypse of St. John, where he similarly propounds such a possibility, on pages 121-122. Whereas the 1940s’ Dominican Fr. H. M. Feret in his book on the same subject presents a completely different approach, founded on doctrine and history, being devoid of speculations.
  5. Towards the end of the book, the authors state: “Hopefully, this book will inspire readers who have never attended the Tridentine Latin Mass to see what they have been missing”, followed by directing readers to the CMRI website to access a list of where some such Masses are being offered in the United States. However (unless I overlooked a statement to the contrary), after leading the reader to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo Counterfeit Church is not Catholic, one might be led to be content with assisting at FSSP (Fraternity of St. Peter) or SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) Masses, since they are “valid” Tridentine Masses (assuming the priest is validly ordained, which is a big “if”) because the illicit nature of assisting at such Masses isn’t expressly condemned. Nor could I find an explicit warning for the need to strictly avoid these organizations, entirely, due to their heterodoxy and deviations from orthopraxy. Reading this book will do little good if from it people end up with the SSPX as “crypto-sedevacantists” who assist at the Holy Sacrifice offered in union with heretics. Therefore, one must take very seriously the full ramifications, and practical consequences, implicit in their words: “It is important to realize there is much more at stake than just Mass being offered in Latin. The very foundation of the Church was attacked at Vatican II. This is the time to defend God’s Church, not the time to find excuses to remain in a man-made Church”, and “After reading this book, it is evident that a choice must be made, to either remain faithful to Christ and His Church, or belong to the Counterfeit Church. There is no room for neutrality.” Thus, to make it clear: Organizations of the likes of the FSSP and SSPX, regardless of whatever personal piety and good will the people in them may have, represent precisely this condemnable “neutrality” and constitute part of this antichrist “man-made Church.”

Some Additional Notes about the Bibliography

  1. Although the format of the referencing doesn’t apparently follow a consistent nor standardized system, the reader should be able to work around this with a little bit of resourcefulness.
  2. The Wikipedia website features as the most abundant source, followed by Catholic-hierarchy.org.
  3. Youtube.com video presentations and TV documentaries are included.
  4. Sometimes the timestamp is included for when a website was accessed and a reference was downloaded. Because of this it can be ascertained that the work of gathering information for this book goes back to at least 2012.
  5. Mainstream sources as well as those that might be considered “conspiratorial” or “dubious” (albeit the latter are often more trustworthy than the former) are included. Examples from the former category include rollingstone.com, “Rebel Pope” – National Geographic documentary, theguardian.com, nytimes.com, History Channel, CNN.com, bbc.com. Examples from the latter category include, beforeitsnews.com, 2nddegreemasons.org, Chiesa Viva, crisismagazine.com, lifesitenews.com, eyeofthetiber.com, satanic-kindred.org and thedailybeast.com.
  6. Religious and historical sources both orthodox and heterodox are referenced. Examples of the former include Haydock/Douay Rheims Bible, St. Robert Bellarmine, Dom Prosper Guéranger, Baltimore Catechism, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Msgr. Philip Hughes and G. K. Chesterton. Examples of the latter include EWTN, Teilhard de Chardin, Yves Congar, Masonic Book Club, “Cardinal” Walter Kasper and Hans Kung.
  7. Winning entry for irony is “Bringing the Sacraments to the People” from the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Inc, 1966, being right before the sanctioned attempts to annihilate the possibility of bringing sacraments to any people, by the imposition of invalid sacraments.
  8. Winning entry for most nauseating is Peggy Noonan’s book entitled, “John Paul II the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father.” And no need for the ipecacuanha if one has a copy handy of, “Pope Benedict in America; the Full Texts of Papal Talks Given during His Apostolic Visit to the United States,” 2008 – no need to even open the book either; the title, alone, will surely do the job.
  9. Winning entry for what best exemplifies the era of the millennials is the presence of a pinterest.com reference.
  10. Winning entry for “You can’t make this stuff up!” is Catholic World Report article titled, “Pope’s former professor: Francis never supported a Marxist-based liberation theology.”
  11. Modernist gobbledygook award (despite ample competition by virtue of the inherent quality of Modernist talk) goes to Jennifer Cooper’s “Humanity in the Mystery of God: the Theological Anthropology of Edward Schillebeeckx” (due to entries being limited to one category, this one missed out on the “most emetic award”). Runner-up is “Cornerstones of Faith: Reconciliation, Eucharist and Stewardship” by “Cardinal” Thomas Collins, 2013.
  12. The winner of the shortest book in the world, sight unseen (provided the contents are true to the title, it presumably has no pages in it at all): “The Legacy of Pope John Paul II: His Contribution to Catholic Thought,” 2000.

Once the restoration of the Church has taken place, future generations will likely access the written record to ascertain the many different ways that Catholics in our times assessed and addressed this monumentally horrendous situation; and this book will form part of that written record, which will show the melange of the human reactions to this frightful and awful period of history. It will exist alongside books which present similar subject matter, such as Iota UnumThe Rhine Flows into the TiberPeter Lovest Thou Me? and The Great Sacrilege, yet which, unlike Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism, fail to point out that the sedevacantist conclusion is the only logical and true position, with its concomitant responsibility to categorically reject the Novus Ordo Church and its various offshoots in their entirety.


A view of the book with the dust jacket taken off

Again, Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism may be purchased directly from the authors here (quantity discounts available).

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

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.

Bouix on the “Heretical Pope”: A big Nothingburger from John Salza and Robert Siscoe

Another irrelevant argument… 

Bouix on the “Heretical Pope”: A big Nothingburger from John Salza and Robert Siscoe

More than three years after the release of their book True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, John Salza and Robert Siscoe are still busy wasting everybody’s time.

On May 14, they posted on their web site an English translation of an excerpt from the 3-volume book Tractatus de Papa, ubi et de Concilio Oecumenico (“Treatise on the Pope and the Ecumenical Council”) written by the French canonist Marie Dominique Bouix (1808-1870). Bouix took the unusual position that if a Pope as a private person were to become a heretic, he would not lose the pontificate in any way, nor could anyone take it from him. In other words: If a Pope were to become manifestly heretical, he would still be Pope, and no one would be able to do anything about it.

The question of the Papa haereticus — that is, what would happen if a Pope were to become a heretic in his private capacity — was debated among theologians for centuries before the First Vatican Council (1870). Five different positions emerged in the course of the dispute:

  1. That the Pope cannot become a heretic even in his private capacity, so the question is moot.
  2. That a Pope who becomes a heretic even only internally (by pertinaciously assenting to heresy in his mind) would immediately and automatically fall from the pontificate.
  3. That a Pope who becomes a heretic does not fall from the pontificate, regardless of how manifest his heresy is.
  4. That a Pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate only after a declaration by the Church.
  5. That a Pope who becomes a heretic automatically falls from the pontificate as soon as his heresy is public and manifest.

Out of all the theologians who argued in depth about this subject, so far only one has been declared a saint and, more pertinently, a Doctor of the Church. It is St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621). He was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1930 and declared a Doctor of the Church by the same pope the following year.

In his monumental work on the Papacy, De Romano Pontifice (“On the Roman Pontiff”), St. Robert argued that “[i]t is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular [=private] person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith” (Book IV, Chapter 6). In other words, Bellarmine believed that out of the five opinions enumerated above, Position 1 was the most likely to be correct.

In the event, however, that Position 1 was not correct and a Pope could indeed become a heretic, Bellarmine insisted on and argued convincingly for Position 5, that such a “heretical Pope” would immediately and automatically cease to be Pope, without the need for a declaration or other ecclesiastical intervention:

Although Fr. Bouix, like Bellarmine, also believed that Position 1 was the most likely to be correct, he held that if it was possible for a Pope to become a heretic, then this would not affect his holding of the Papacy at all — in other words, he supported Position 3 as the correct one, although in his Tractatus de Papa it is numbered differently, namely, as Position 4. He concludes:

Certainly, just as to Suárez and many others, myself included, it seems more probable that the Pope, even as a private person, cannot fall into heresy. But in the hypothesis that the Pope could become a heretic privately, I would absolutely deny that he is ipso facto deposed, or capable of being deposed by any council.

(D. Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. II [Paris: Lecoffre, 1869], p. 666, trans. by Gerardus Maiella; in “Bouix On The Question of an Heretical Pope”True or False Pope?, May 14, 2019.)

It appears that Salza and Siscoe are now trying, as they have done in the past with other theologians, to advertise this as some kind of a “refutation” of the Sedevacantist position, which is identical to that of Bellarmine. St. Robert called the position Bouix takes “exceedingly improbable” and said that “it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd” (De Romano PontificeBook II, Chapter 30).

But what is perhaps even more significant, Bouix seems to be the only theologian who defended Position 3. The non-sedevacant Brazilian layman Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira (1929-2018), whom Salza and Siscoe happily advertise on their site as endorsing their book, remarks: “This third opinion … is defended by one sole theologian, among 136 ancient and modern theologians whose position on this matter we could verify” (Da Silveira, Can the Pope go Bad?, trans. by John Russell Spann [Greenacres, WA: Catholic Research Institute, 1998], p. 31); and again a bit later: “…it has against it the practically unanimous Tradition of the Church” (p. 36); “We remind the reader that of 136 authors whom we consulted, only Bouix defends this opinion” (p. 36, fn. 16).

Moreover, the position Bouix takes is not even that taken by Salza and Siscoe themselves, nor does it apply to the case of the manifest heresies of “Pope” Francis, for Bouix explicitly states that he is talking only about the case of a Pope who becomes a heretic as a private individual, not a “Pope” whose private heresies become part of his magisterium, as is clearly the case with Francis:

There is no sufficient reason why Christ should be thought to have provided that a Pope heretic would be able to be deposed. Surely that reason would be the vast detriment which would come to the Church unless such a Pope were deposed. But that reason is not valid; as much because the Pope heretic is not so harmful an evil that the Church therefore must necessarily be ruined and perish; as because the remedy, the Pope’s deposition, would be a much worse evil. And firstly, the heresy of the Pope about which this question is moved, is not so grave an evil that it is necessary to think that Christ had willed the deposition of such a Pontiff. The matter is only of private heresy; not which the Pope professes as the Pastor of the Church and in his Papal decrees or acts, but to which he adheres as a private doctor, and only in his private sayings or writings. What is more, so long as the Pope, whenever he defines and speaks Pontifically, teaches the right faith, the faithful are sufficiently safe, although at the same time it would be clear that the same Pope privately adheres to some heresy. All would readily understand that the opinion argued for by the Pope as a private doctor lacks authority, and he is only to be followed when he defines and relates the faith ex officio and with Pontifical authority.

(Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. II, p. 670; underlining added.)

Precisely what, then, are Salza and Siscoe attempting to accomplish by putting up Bouix’s theological argumentation concerning the Papa haereticus?

It seems they are trying to amass writings from theologians that dispute the position taken by sedevacantists regarding “heretical Popes”. There is only one problem: With one possible exception (one that we still need to investigate fully), as far as we have seen, all the “evidence” they have published in that regard comes from books that were written before the First Vatican Council, which promulgated rich teaching on the Papacy such as the following:

So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1837; underlining added.)

The ecclesiastical approbation given to Bouix’s Tractatus de Papa is dated Aug. 20, 1868, almost two full years before the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus. The first two volumes were published in 1869, the third in 1870. The translated excerpt published by Salza and Siscoe is from volume 2.

In addition, one should keep in mind that although Bouix was writing roughly 250 years after Bellarmine’s death, he was writing before St. Robert was canonized or declared a Doctor of the Church, or even beatified (his beatification took place in 1923). In other words, although he certainly took Bellarmine’s argumentation into consideration as coming from a most capable and renowned theologian, he did not have the privilege of learning from SaintBellarmine, Doctor of the Church.

The notion of a “heretical Pope” — at least the kind the world has seen in the Vatican II “popes” since the 1960’s — is impossible to reconcile with the teaching of Pastor Aeternus. Whoever doubts it is advised to take our special papacy test with regard to the manifest heretic Jorge Bergoglio. Our test replaces every mention of the phrase “Roman Pontiff” in the conciliar constitution with the words “Pope Francis” — and the results are… interesting:

Although Vatican I did not address the issue of the Papa haereticus directly in its dogmatic constitution on the Papacy, the question did indeed come up during the deliberations, and the deputation on the Faith responded to it. Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati relates what happened and how the council answered:

After Vatican I, the alternatives to Position 1 and Position 5 were abandoned, and instead we find theologians in agreement that a “heretical Pope” would automatically cease to be Pope:

…it cannot be proved that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic, for example, if he contumaciously denies a dogma previously defined; this impeccability was nowhere promised to him by God. On the contrary, [Pope] Innocent III expressly admits that the case can be conceded. But if the case should take place, he falls from office by divine law, without any sentence, not even a declaratory one. For he who openly professes heresy places his very self outside the Church, and it is not probable that Christ preserves the Primacy of His Church with such an unworthy individual. Consequently, if the Roman Pontiff professes heresy, he is deprived of his authority before any whatsoever sentence, which [sentence] is impossible.

(Rev. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, vol. I, 4th ed. [Rome: Marietti, 1950], n. 316c; our translation; underlining added.)

For more examples of what theologians writing after Vatican I have said about the scenario of a “heretical Pope”, please see our informative commentary on the recent “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” accusing Francis of heresy:

Quite frankly, the Bouix text Salza and Siscoe have presented is a big nothingburger: So they found a theologian writing before Vatican I who argued that a Pope cannot lose his pontificate at all, no matter how manifestly heretical he is. So what? In Church history you can find all sorts of theologians writing on disputed questions before they were settled by the Church, including a position on the Beatific Vision by St. Bernard of Clairvaux that was later declared to be heretical (see Fr. Joseph Sagüés, On the Last Things, p. 298, n. 30).

The real question is: Is it possible to affirm of the Novus Ordo “popes” everything the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy and still remain faithful to the Catholic religion of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors? But we all know the answer to that.

By the way: Bouix’s Tractatus de Papa ends with the words: “Scripta mea omnia judicio ac correctioni Romani Pontificis subjicio” — “I subject all my writings to the judgment and correction of the Roman Pontiff” (vol. 3, p. 436).

Would John Salza and Robert Siscoe do that?

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    

¿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: