Monday, July 9, 2018

The Copernican Revolution In Ecclesiology


 The heretical Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, "promulgated" by Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) on November 21, 1964, spawned a man-made sect with a heretical ecclesiology (the study/teaching regarding the nature of the Church). Nothing brought that home better than when I read the proposed "Constitution on the Church" from the Vatican Council of 1869-1870. Discussion of the document on the nature of the Church was to continue when the bishops returned after a summer break, however, the Franco-Prussian War put a halt to these plans. The swift German advance and the capture of Emperor Napoleon III disabled France from being able to protect the Pope’s rule in Rome. The Vatican Council thus ended before finishing its work.

Even though this proposed document (called a schema) was never debated and voted upon by the Council, or taken up by Pope Pius IX, it is invaluable for assessing Catholic vs. Modernist ecclesiology. A schema is only drawn up by the most eminent approved theologians, distinguished in both learning and personal piety. They are hand-picked by the Pontiff, and they work together to write a document that contains theological truths which they feel are ripe for dogmatic definition. The unanimous teachings of the theologians give witness that these truths are ready to be declared of Divine and Catholic Faith. When you compare this schema to the documents of Vatican II, no thinking person could possibly say the two express the same Faith. Not only are the Vatican II documents substantially different in what they teach, they proposed things that are mutually exclusive with pre-Vatican II teaching.

Hence, if Vatican II is correct, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology isn't merely "less developed" or "teaching other compatible truths" or "expressing the same things in different terminology," it is wrong. However, the One True Church is Infallible and Indefectible. She cannot teach error, and cannot give evil. Nor can She be stopped from Her Divine Mission to govern, teach, and sanctify. The inescapable conclusion is that either (a) the Church only started teaching the Truth in 1964 and was wrong prior to that time (impossible), or (b) the documents didn't come to us from the Church. Montini either never attained the papacy or lost it prior to November 21, 1964 by the profession of heresy as a private theologian. Had he been pope on November 21, 1964, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it, and he would have censured those who wrote it and/or voted for it. Below I will compare the theology as expressed at the Vatican Council (1870) and Robber Council Vatican II (1964).

The "People of God"

The schema at the Vatican Council had this to say in Chapter 10:
Christ's Church is not a society of equals as if all the faithful in Her had the same rights; but it is a society in which not all are equal. And this is not only because some of the faithful are clerics and some laymen, but especially because in the Church there is a power of Divine institution, by which some are authorized to sanctify, teach, and govern, and others do not have this authority...Hence, we believe Christ's Church is a perfect society. This true and highly favored Church of Christ is none other than the one, holy, catholic, and Roman Church. (All quotes are taken from The Church Teaches by The Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College, B.Herder Book Co., [1955], pgs. 86-94).

This document clearly sets forth the traditional teaching that the Church is hierarchical and monarchical in nature. The Church is Divinely appointed to govern, teach, and sanctify by Her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is solely and uniquely the One True Church of Christ and bears the Four Marks (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic). This also is affirmed by theologian Dorsch, who teaches that the nature of the Church does not change, even during a very long period of sedevacante.

 "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

Vatican II has a novel and heretical view of the Church as the "People of God." In Lumen Gentium para #9 and 10, we read :This [The Church] was to be the new People of God. For those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God, not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit, are finally established as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people . . . who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God"...
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. (Emphasis and words in brackets mine).

The new definition takes the part for the whole, meaning that it takes the "people of God," mentioned in I Pet. 2:10 ("Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."), for the totality of the Church. This is a radical twist lending itself to a strictly "democratic" and "communitarian" vision of the Church herself, a vision alien to Catholic Tradition but close to the thinking and meaning of Protestant heretics. On the other hand, the hierarchy is included in the idea of "people," and so are defined simply as "members of the people of God." The downplaying of the hierarchical and monarchical structure is clearly seen in discussing a "ministerial" priesthood distinct from the hierarchical one, and they both are interrelated. This is the "topsy-turvy-dom of ecclesiology." The "people" are put on more or less equal footing with the hierarchy. The hierarchy are part of the people, rather than the people being completely distinct and subordinate to the hierarchy. This is why laymen as "lectors," "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" (sic), and "leaders of song" dominate at the Novus Bogus "mass."

The priest loses his authentic vocation because he becomes a mere function of the "People of God" as a whole. This function is exercised under two forms: the "common priesthood of the faithful," and the "ministerial" or "hierarchic" priesthood, that is, the authentic priesthood of priests, which have been eradicated by the invalid Pauline Rite of Holy Orders.

The Vatican schema emphasized that only the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church of Christ. Lumen Gentium, in para. #8 says:

 This Church [of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic (sic) unity. (Emphasis and words in parenthesis mine).

The Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It "subsists" there in it's fullness because it contains all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ "subsists" in other sects according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but just having some is just as good and "impels toward catholic (sic) unity." Maybe they would like to explain why the Eastern Schismatics and Protestants have not been "impelled" to become Catholic? The answer is easy enough: They don't need to convert because they are "in partial communion" with the Church of Christ and can be saved outside the Catholic Church. It is in this warped and false sense the elements "impel" unity. This is pure heresy, yet it explains why Bergoglio can say, "Proselytism is nonsense." 

The Theologians Once More Affirm Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

The Vatican schema has a whole section strongly reaffirming that Outside the One True Church there is no salvation. Section 6 states:
Therefore, We teach that the Church is not a free society, as if it were a matter indifferent to salvation whether it were known or ignored, entered or abandoned; but the Church is absolutely necessary, and, indeed, not just with a necessity coming from a precept of the Lord by which the Savior commanded all nations to enter it; but it is also necessary as a means because, in the order of salvation established by Providence, the communication of the Holy Ghost and the participation of truth and life is not had except in the Church and through the Church of which Christ is the Head. (Emphasis mine).

Notice the complete lack of ambiguity as to the True Church, the Church of Christ, being one and the same as the Roman Catholic Church, which is absolutely necessary for all human beings to achieve salvation. However, in a rebuke to Feeneyites (unheard of in 1870), the very next chapter of the schema shows Baptism of Desire (BOD) as completely in accord, and in no way opposed to, the teaching Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus ("outside the Church, there is no salvation"). In chapter 7, the schema declares:

Furthermore, it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. Nevertheless, those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church are not to be judged worthy of eternal punishment because of this ignorance. For they are innocent in the eyes of the Lord of any fault in this matter. God wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth; and if one does what he can, God does not withhold the grace for him to obtain justification and eternal life. (Emphasis mine).

Be assured that ignorance saves no one. However, if a person does not know of the True Church because of invincible (inculpable) ignorance, and cooperates with God's actual graces in trying to lead an upright life, God can enlighten him at the moment of death with the Faith and sanctifying grace so the person dies within the Catholic Church. Some Feeneyites will object that God allowed the Franco-Prussian War to prevent the Vatican Council from "committing error." Two responses: (1) the teaching of BOD and BOB are already truths of the Catholic Faith by virtue of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) as taught by that same Council and (2) Pope Pius IX already taught this truth in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." (para. #7; Emphasis mine). BOD and BOB were ready for elevation via ex cathedra pronouncement almost 150 years ago, yet Feeneyites will protest that it is "error" taught by "liberal theologians"!

Conclusion

The documents of Vatican II, and the schema of the First Vatican Council (the only Vatican Council) reveal a tale of two opposing ecclesiologies. According to Vatican II the Church of Christ is separate from the Roman Catholic Church, but "subsists" there in its fullness because it contains all the "elements" of sanctification. Other sects also possess some elements of sanctification, and they are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church. These sects are a "means of salvation" (as Vatican II stated in Unitatis Redintegratio) because of the elements they have.  

The theologians at the Vatican Council in 1870 taught that the Church of Christ is identical to the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which no one can be saved. No other sect can save you, or is in "partial communion" with the One True Church. Furthermore, in contrast to today's Feeneyites, the same theologians after teaching the absolute necessity of salvation through membership in the Church, grant that those of good will in invincible ignorance who do what they can to lead a good life and cooperate with grace, can be enlightened and saved by a miracle of grace (BOD). It should be clear that there is no "hermeneutic of continuity" that can make one believe there is no substantial difference. Just as Copernicus changed the view of the world, Vatican II gave us an entirely new, and heretical, view of the Church


28 comments:

  1. More than a commentary I have these honest questions: Is the new ecclesiology the basis for "Opus Judei"? It seems that being a layman and not a cleric is based in this new ecclesiology. If both give their life to God, why would that make a difference? Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure what “Opus Judei” is, If you could please give me a citation that would be most helpful. That the laity is exalted to the level of the clergy, is indeed a result of the new ecclesiology—-the “People Of God.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Opus Dei aka "Opus Judei". Thanks.

      Delete
    3. Yes. “Opus Diaboli” as I like to call them are a product of the new ecclesiology—-everything from the Vatican II sect originates from it. For more on “Opus” see my post of 2 years ago:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/07/opus-diaboli.html?m=1

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Thank you very much.

      Delete
    5. Read your blog on "Opus Diaboli". I liked it; excellent content as usual. Though, if I may, would suggest you look into chapter XXXI of the book Iota Unum on Work, Technology and Contemplation. It's a good complement to analyze "Opus Judei". God Bless.

      Delete
    6. I have the book and I will check out chapter 31!

      Many thanks,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Dear Intro,

      I would be curious to read what you find on chapter 31 iota unum. I dont have that book.

      Jesus and Mary,
      David

      Delete
    8. I will leave a short summary before next Monday, David.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. "Opus Judei" or "Opus Diaboli" alleged contribution is the laymen's "sanctification of work".

      In Quanta Cura, Pius IX said that "..But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?...".

      In Quas Primas Pius XI rejects laicism: "We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. ...".

      Further, Iota Unum makes the point that: "...There is not a trace of the glorification of work in Christ's preaching, which lifts the whole perspective towards the Kingdom of Heaven. ... The lauding of work as the universal category for all men's spiritual activity is a moving back towards a theology that the New Testament left behind, when it firmly subordinated the conquest of this earth to the quest for the kingdom of heaven. ...".

      Summing up, "Opus Judei" or "Opus Diaboli" is as good as Vatican II, a pretended reconciliation or aggiornamento with the world. No compromise until Christ is King...

      Delete
    10. @anonymous7:29,
      Thank you for that excellent summary! I’ve been busy at work and couldn’t get to it until Saturday.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Thank you for this. I could use a course in Sedevacantism 101. Can you explain (b) regarding Montini?

    "The inescapable conclusion is that either (a) the Church only started teaching the Truth in 1964 and was wrong prior to that time (impossible), or (b) the documents didn't come to us from the Church. Montini either never attained the papacy or lost it prior to November 21, 1964 by the profession of heresy as a private theologian."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to help, Barbara! The Church is not only infallible in ex cathedra declarations of popes and ecumenical councils. There are what the theologians refer to as "secondary objects of infallibility" which are so intimately bound up with the Church's mission to teach and sanctify, they must (and ARE) preserved free from error by the Holy Ghost. Examples of such secondary objects of infallibility include canonizations of saints, matters of universal Church discipline--like the Code of Canon Law, and dogmatic fact (See, e.g., theologian Van Noort, "Dogmatic Theology" 2:110).

      The Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" has a heretical ecclesiology opposed to all past Church teaching. It is being proposed to the faithful as a dogmatic fact, something that all Catholics MUST give their assent.

      If on November 21, 1964, Giovanni Montini had been Vicar of Christ, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it. Therefore, one of two things must have happened. Montini was a heretic PRIOR to his "election." Cum Ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1559) tells that the election of a heretic is barred by Divine Law and the 1917 Code of Canon Law affirms this truth. OR--Montini was validly elected, but lost his authority by professing heresy as a private teacher. According to St. Alphonsus Liguori, “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” (See "Oeuvres Complètes" 9:232)

      Since Montini was a practicing sodomite, most likely a Freemason, and suspect of Modernism before Vatican II, I don't believe he was ever validly elected. In either case, he was NOT pope 11/21/64, when he signed that damnable document. It's NOT (as some people wrongly think) the pope taught error in his capacity as pope, and as a consequence, lost office. (This is impossible). He either never attained the office or lost it as a private theologian proclaiming heresy to even a few individuals.

      Let me know if this helped!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you. I have no problem with the objections to the Documents of Vatican 2. The explanation of a pope's valid election is helpful; that's the part that can be difficult, especially, as you stated, there are many other wrong ideas floating around.

      Something else that is so galling is how many of the events and docs of Vatican 2 occurred on feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (this one on the Presentation of Mary) This is to provide a traditional veneer, yet a separate document on Our Lady was vetoed by these crooks.

      Delete
  3. Introibo - I have seen photos of Montini wearing the 12 stoned breast plate of the Jewish high priest. What are your thoughts on this? Also, didn’t Montini give away the Papal Tiara? I find this a significant symbol of his not possessing the true faith. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      There is evidence Montini was a Freemason and Freemasonry has many Jewish members and symbols from the Talmud, etc. I think Montini hated Our Lord, And was wearing such things as the 12 stoned breast plate.

      He did indeed give away the papal tiara to the Masonic infiltrated U.N. This was symbolic of giving the papacy over to its enemies.

      Evil times of the Great Apostasy.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Personally,I think it's obvious Bp.Montini was involved in some type of sorcery.
      He destroyed the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,the Rite of Holy Orders,and helped in destroying the other Sacramental rubrics from 1965-1975.
      That alone is sufficient evidence in my opinion.
      -ANDREW

      Delete
  4. Another angle on the council might be to call it the council of the rebellion of Core (or Korah) where rebels rose up against the ordained priesthood of Moses and Aaron and proclaimed a priesthood of the people (Numbers 16).....it did not go well for them. St Jude reminds us in his epistle of the fate of those that follow the rebellion of Core.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a good point looking at it from that perspective!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Father Hunwicke has just concluded a 5 part discussion on the nature of the mass and the consecration. Very erudite and informative. Here is my take and question which I hope you will address. It concerns the very nature of the priesthood and the mass. Who consecrates the elements...the priest..in persona Christi...or the Holy Ghost? As I understand it, up until Vatican 2, in the latin church,the church of Rome, it was considered to be the priest who consecrated the elements. It was by his hands and words that the transubstantiation took place. Vatican 2 changed this notion and it is reflected in the 1969 new ordination rites, that strip the priesthood of it's sacrificing nature and make him little more than a presider, someone that presides over the consecration with the people and the consecration is done by the eclipsis or the Holy Ghost. This is more in line with the greeks, anglicans and lutherans concept of eucharist but a radical departure from the latin pre vatican 2 understanding of the consecration. Ratzinger gave a talk in 1990 on the priesthood that most certainly reflects this new protestanized notion of priesthood....a priesthood that presides...not a sacrificial priesthood...which he seems to view with abhorrence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct. It is the priest acting “in the person of Christ” who effectuates Transubstantiation. He also must act “in the person of the Church” for it to be efficacious unto sanctification. Hence, valid priests who offer valid Masses in Schismatic Eastern sects do not avail anyone as they are not in union with the Church.

      Modernists are clever, and they often hide their errors under the veneer of Truth. “Well only God can change the substance of the bread and wine,” they will protest. Yes, Christ is the efficient cause, but the priest is the necessary and indispensable instrumental cause through which He operates.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Ironic given
      "Father Hunwicke" was
      "Ordained" in the new rite by a new rite "Bishop."
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    3. I was unaware “Fr” Hunwicke is Mr Hunwick!

      Thank you for the information, Andrew.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. Putting things in perspective - Protestant ecclesiology is really a nightmare.

    See my debate with one such http://ppt.li/402 (short link, can be written directly in adress bar and will redirect to longer full link to the message).

    ReplyDelete
  7. If BOD, BOB, and Invincible Ignorance are true, we don't need a Church, we don,t need any priesthood, nor do we need any Sacraments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true. The Church is necessary for salvation. It is the usual means to be baptized by water and receive the Sacraments. In a rare miracle of grace can supply the Faith and grace to someone in invincible ignorance who wants to follow God and has contrition for all sins committed.

      In similar fashion, God has allowed certain saints to exist by only taking Holy Communion for sustenance. Does that imply we don’t need food, and shouldn’t help the poor because God could do the same for them?

      BOD, BOB are rare miracles that are extraordinary ways of bringing some persons into the Church by extraordinary means.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I denied the possibility of BOB/BOD until Bishop Robert Dymek taught me the proper meaning & understanding.
      (2014/2015)
      I printed one of your blog entry's on this subject for him to read.
      (He was a hermit without Tv/radio/internet)
      At first it shocked me to see a traditional Catholic Bishop unapologetically support what I thought was heresy.
      He enthusiastically supported & loved your post & was going to use it for future chapel members.
      Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ called him home April 2017.
      In case you're wondering,
      Bp.Dymek was ordained/consecrated by Bp.Slupski who was ordained in 1961 & consecrated by Bp.McKenna 1999.
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    3. @Andrew
      I’m glad the good Bishop found my post useful. May he enjoy eternal glory with Christ and His Mother Whom he served!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete