Friday, November 5, 2010

All The Right Premises, But A False Conclusion

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and other pseudo-Traditionalists will get the problem in the Church correct, but get the answer wrong by continuing to affirm Ratzinger and the post-concilliar "popes" as true Vicars of Christ. One John Vennari starts out an article concerning the 100th anniversary of St. Pius X's Anti-Modernist Oath this way:

"Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the eminent American theologian, called the Oath Against Modernism 'the most important and most influential document issued by the Holy See during the course of the 20th Century. It is a magnificent statement of Catholic truth in the face of errors which were being disseminated within the Church by the cleverest enemies the Mystical Body of Christ has encountered in the course of its history.'

The Oath Against Modernism was abolished two years after the close of the Second Vatican Council, yet the men who took the Oath at ordination are still bound by it. Those who swore this sacred Oath and then promoted the modern program of Vatican II, including the Council’s new ecumenism and religious liberty, have shown themselves unfaithful to the Oath they swore solemnly before God.

Stressing the seriousness of the matter, Msgr. Fenton noted in 1960 that a man who took the Oath Against Modernism, and who then promoted Modernism himself, or allowed it to be promoted, 'would mark himself not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith but also as a common perjurer.'

He who takes the Oath Against Modernism swears solemnly: 'I sincerely hold that the doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eodemque sententia). Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another, different from the one which the Church held previously.'

At the end of the Oath, he makes this solemn Promise before God Himself: 'I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.'

It is hard to see how a person who holds to the countersyllabus of Vatican II can claim to have kept the Faith 'in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation' as the Church always held. It is hard to see how someone who accepts the Council’s new program of ecumenism and religious liberty can claim to have “guarded inviolate”, and 'in no way deviated' from the clear teachings of the pre-Vatican II Popes regarding true Christian Unity and the Social Kingship of Christ.

Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar stated openly, as if it’s something to be proud of, that Vatican II is a countersyllabus – that it says the opposite of key teachings from pre-Vatican II Popes.

The spirit of infidelity to traditional Catholic doctrine, the lust towards change and novelty that Pius X’s anti-Modernist measures condemned, and the violation of a Sacred Oath against God by highly-placed Churchmen, is the true legacy of the Second Vatican Council and its consequence reforms." (Internal Citations omitted).

If Ratzinger allows and promotes the heresy of Modernism to be promoted and is guilty of perjury, he is a heretic. The Church teaches that a heretic can NOT be pope! We can not "recognize and resist" a true pope; we must obey.Theologian Vitoria puts an end to the myth that a Catholic can "recognize and resist" when he writes in De Potestate 22, Obras, 485: “Non videtur permittendum cuicumque privato sua auctoritate resistere et non parere mandatis Pontificis… Probatur. Quia esset magna irreverentia et quasi contemptus, si cuilibet hoc concederetur respectu Pontificis… non licet propria auctoritate discedere.” Translation:

“Proposition 23: ‘It would not seem permitted for any private person on his own authority to resist and not obey the Pope’s directives, however much these would contradict a Council’s decision.’ This is correct. For it would be a great act of irreverence and near-contempt for supreme authority if anyone were allowed to act towards a Pope in a way that would not be permitted towards a bishop, whose directive (however unjust) one may not disobey on private authority.”

Since the 16th century nearly all canonists and theologians who have addressed the issue teach that a pope who becomes a manifest (public) heretic “would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence.” M. Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Juris Canonici (Rome: Marietti 1950) 1:316

To paraphrase Fr. Cekada:Ratzinger openly denies the rule of faith. He commits the sin of heresy.

We Traditionalists need not hesitate to call a heretic a heretic — even though no Council has convicted him — any more than we hesitate to call an abortionist a murderer.

Nor should Traditionalists hesitate to point out the consequences: A public heretic cannot be a true pope. He deposes himself.

No comments:

Post a Comment