Catholic And Modernist Development Of Doctrine

 

"Development of doctrine" means different things to Traditionalists and Modernists. As Vatican II and the sect it spawned changed what was believed into falsehoods, they claimed it was the same teaching that had "evolved" or "developed." Unfortunately, over 60 years after the sect was established, many Traditionalists think any change is "Modernist," and not just in matters of doctrine, but even matters of discipline. Some erroneously go so far as to suggest that Pope Pius XII was "Modernist" in truncating the Eucharistic fast from the midnight before reception of Holy Communion to three hours before receiving. 

What, exactly, constitutes a legitimate development of doctrine? What makes it legitimate? Isn't doctrine immutable? Is any change "Modernist" evolution? This post will try and address these fundamental questions. First, I must speak about the man who gave the best way to distinguish true from false development of doctrine. 

The great John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890) had a methodology for distinguishing true development from Modernist evolution. Although virtuous and orthodox, I cannot call him "saint" since his "canonization" came from Begoglio--a false pope---in 2019. Likewise, I cannot call him a "Doctor of the Church" as that designation came from Prevost in 2025. You might be wondering "If he's orthodox, why is he given honors by the Vatican II sect?" I will explain how Newman's work was hijacked (so to speak) by the Modernists to make it seem like he was one of their own and therefore Modernist evolution of dogma must be "orthodox." 

The primary source of this post is Newman's book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1878 edition). I have also culled much information both online and in print. I take no credit except for condensing all this information into a terse and readable post. 

Modernist Evolution of Doctrine

Modernism is an amalgamation of errors. It begins with agnosticism.  According to this teaching, human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, which means things that appear to the senses, and it has no power to overstep these limits. Since we cannot know (or even infer) to the existence of things outside the scope of phenomena, the human intellect is incapable of knowing the existence of God.

As a result, Modernism denies the supernatural as an object of certain knowledge. The Modernists who challenge all rational proof of the existence of God as the First Cause of everything in existence, both material and spiritual, fall victims to a "scientific agnosticism." For these, God is something which comes forth from man's subconscious. Religion is therefore essentially about feelings, specifically what makes you feel good; if Christianity, or any other religion, is what makes you feel good and more in touch with the Divine, then it is true for you. Religion has never consisted of creeds or objective truth but of feelings. This doctrine is known as vital immanence. Religion is a feeling or sentiment that comes from a subconscious need for the Divine.

Modernists regard Divine Revelation as a purely natural emergence of religious knowledge from a natural sense known as the "religious sense." There is no "One True Church" and no Deposit of Revelation that needs to be guarded.  

The Modernist God is not transcendent; He is not "out there" but "totally within." As St. Pius X explained in Pascendi, the Modernist God was no more than a symbol and that "the personality of God will become a matter of doubt and the gate will be opened to pantheism." Do you notice how much of the Vatican II sect is infested with Eastern religion and philosophy, such as yoga and reiki? Have you seen in Nostra Aetate, how the Second Vatican (Robber) Council acknowledged "the good" that is in Hinduism and Buddhism? It comes from this erroneous idea of a "God within us all."

Since God is unknowable (as are miracles), the Bible cannot be held as historically accurate. We cannot consider Christ as God, or give credence to miracles. 

Dogmas are taught to be subject to evolution from one meaning to another. As man's religious feelings evolve, so must dogma.  Dogma evolves into whatever accommodates the needs of the current culture. 

"Same name, different meaning." When Modernists talk about Traditional doctrine, they affirm it with a different meaning so they sound orthodox while remaining heretics. When they profess, for example, "Our faith is based upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ;" it could mean His physical and historical Resurrection as the Church teaches, or simply a symbolic story which was invented by the first Christians to promote faith in Christ who rose only in the mind of His believers.

Catholic dogma is but a common consciousness of the believers. Thus, prompted by this "common consciousness," the believers came together in a society [Church] to formulate and systematize its beliefs. This (according to the Modernists) is how the Magisterium of the Church began.

Condemnation by Pope St. Pius X

In 1907, Pope St. Pius X solemnly condemned sixty-five (65) propositions of the Modernists in Lamentabili Sane. Condemned propositions numbers 53 to 65 deal with Modernist evolution of doctrine.

CONDEMNED:

53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.

54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.

55. Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him.

56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions.

57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.

58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.

60. Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal.

61. It may be said without paradox that there is no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, which contains a doctrine absolutely identical with that which the Church teaches on the same matter. For the same reason, therefore, no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic and the theologian.

62. The chief articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.

63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.

64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

 In summation, according to Modernism, doctrine:

1. Shifts and changes; old dogmas can take on completely new meanings to suit the times.

2. Changes so completely over generations that it becomes something entirely new.

3. Has as its source internal human consciousness and subjective religious experience.

The One True Church and Development of Doctrine

Newman sets forth seven "notes" (or tests) to distinguish an authentic development from a counterfeit or corruption. Here is each one in summary:

1. Preservation of Type

The outward appearance and structure may change, but the essential character and "look" must remain the same. Think of a tiny acorn growing into a massive oak tree. It looks completely different, but it retains the "type" or identity of an oak tree, not a apple tree. True doctrinal development looks like the adult version of the young Church, not a completely different creature. This is readily suggested by the analogy of physical growth, which is such that the parts and proportions of the developed form, however altered, correspond to those which belong to its rudiments. The adult animal has the same make, as it had on its birth; young birds do not grow into fishes, nor does the child degenerate into the brute, wild or domestic, of which he is by inheritance lord. Vincentius of Lerins adopts this illustration in distinct reference to Christian doctrine. "Let the soul's religion," he says "imitate the law of the body, which, as years go on develops indeed and opens out its due proportions, and yet remains identically what it was. Small are a baby's limbs, a youths are larger, yet they are the same." (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pgs. 190-191). 

2. Continuity of Principles

The underlying rules, foundational values, and methods that drive the idea must never change. If a doctrine was originally built on the principles of prayer, the reality of sin, and the importance of sacraments, any new development must also rely on those same foundations. If the underlying principles shift, it is a corruption, not growth. Principle is a better test of heresy than doctrine. Heretics are true to their principles, but change to and fro, backwards and forwards, in opinion; for very opposite doctrines may be exemplifications of the same principle. Thus, the Antiochenes and other heretics sometimes were Arians, sometimes Sabellians, sometimes Nestorians, sometimes Monophysites, as if at random, from fidelity to their common principle, that there is no mystery in theology. Thus, Calvinists become Unitarians from the principle of private judgment. The doctrines of heresy are accidents and soon run to an end; its principles are everlasting. (Ibid, pg 197). 

3. Power of Assimilation

A living, healthy idea can interact with outside cultures, languages, and philosophies, absorbing what is good and using it to express itself better. ust like a healthy human body takes in food from the outside world and uses it to grow stronger, a true doctrine takes in new intellectual concepts or cultural settings and weaves them into the existing faith without losing its own identity. Thus, a power of development is a proof of life, not only in its essay, but especially in its success; for a mere formula either does not expand or is shattered in expanding. A living idea becomes many, yet remains one.(Ibid pg. 206).

4.  Logical Sequence

 Later developments should be the natural, logical next step of what came before, even if it takes centuries to clearly state them.  A true teaching doesn't pop out of nowhere as a sudden surprise. When you look backward through history, you should be able to see a clear trail of breadcrumbs showing how the early beliefs naturally and logically led to the later conclusion. Thus, the holy Apostles would without words know all the truths concerning the high doctrines of theology, which controversialists after them have piously and charitably reduced to formulae, and developed through argument. Thus, St. Justin or St. Irenaeus might be without any digested ideas of Purgatory or Original Sin, yet have an intense feeling, which they had not defined or located, both of the fault of our first nature and the responsibilities of our nature regenerate.(Ibid, pg. 212). 

5. Anticipation of Its Future

 Early in the history of an idea, you can often find early hints, tendencies, or "vague sketches" of what will later become full-blown doctrine. Long before a doctrine is officially defined by the Church, early saints and writers will drop hints or practice devotions that show they were already feeling out the truth that would later be formally taught. In the controversies with the Gnostics, in the second century, striking anticipations occasionally occur, in the works of their Catholic opponents, of the formal dogmatic teaching developed in the Church in the course of the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies in the fifth. (Ibid, pg. 219). 

6. Conservative Action Upon Its Past

A true development protects, illustrates, and strengthens the doctrines that came before it, rather than contradicting or erasing them. rue growth is conservative; it doesn't overturn previous dogmas. If a new teaching makes an old teaching obsolete or wrong, it is not a development—it is a corruption.

A true development, then, may be described as one which is conservative of the course of antecedent developments being really those antecedents and something besides them: it is an addition which illustrates, not obscures, corroborates, not corrects, the body of thought from which it proceeds; and this is its characteristic as contrasted with a corruption. (Ibid, pg. 223).

7. Chronic Vigor

A false idea or corruption burns out quickly, causes immediate decay, or loses its grip on people over time. A true development lasts and stays vibrant across centuries.  Time is the ultimate test. If a theological idea has "chronic vigor," it means it doesn't just flare up like a fad and vanish. It has a long, robust, enduring life that continues to nourish the faithful century after century.

While ideas live in men's minds, they are ever enlarging into fuller development: they will not be stationary in their corruption any more than before it; and dissolution is that further state to which corruption tends. Corruption cannot, therefore, be of long standing; and thus duration is another test of a faithful development.(Ibid, pg. 226). 

The Seven Notes Applied To Papal Supremacy

To illustrate how these notes are applied, let's look at papal supremacy.

1. Preservation of Type: The Church has always had an explicit structure, a hierarchy, and an essential drive to remain united as one global body. In the 1st century, the Church looked like a localized kingdom with local leaders; over time, it became a global kingdom. The "type" (a visible, structured, unified kingdom) never changed. The Pope emerged to keep that global structure intact, meaning the original "look" of a unified Church was preserved.

2. Continuity of Principles: The core principle is that Christ gave Peter the keys and promised that the Church would never fail. The underlying principle is "divine authority keeps the Church unified." The modern papacy operates on that exact same principle. If the Church decided it didn't need a single center of unity, that would be breaking the principle (a corruption). The Pope is just the permanent manifestation of Peter's authority.

3. Power of Assimilation: As the Roman Empire crumbled and European politics shifted, the papacy absorbed legal, political, and cultural structures to protect the faith. The Pope took on titles (like Pontifex Maximus) and legal administrative tools from ancient Rome. The Church didn't become pagan; rather, it "digested" secular Roman structures and used them to organize, govern, and protect the global Christian community.

4. Logical Sequence: Newman argues that a global church logically requires a global arbiter. While the Apostles were alive, their personal authority kept everyone in line. When they died, local conflicts arose, creating a need for local bishops. When local bishops began arguing across different regions, the Church logically needed a single, final court of appeal. The papacy is the next natural step in solving the problem of division.

5. Anticipation of Its Future: Long before the Pope was formally running everything, there were early historical "hints" of his supreme authority. Newman points to early history: in the 1st century, Pope Clement intervened in a dispute in Corinth while the Apostle John was likely still alive. In the 2nd century, Pope Victor regulated the date of Easter for the whole Church. These weren't fully formed modern papal decrees, but they were clear "vague sketches" of the authority to come.

6. Conservative Action Upon Its Past: The growth of papal power did not undo or contradict the authority of local bishops or previous councils; it protected them. Newman points out that during major early crises (like the council of Chalcedon in 449 AD), it was Pope Leo the Great's direct intervention that saved orthodox Christian teaching from being hijacked by heretics. The Pope's authority acted as a shield to preserve what Christians had always believed.

7. Chronic Vigor: Empires, dynasties, and heresies have all risen and fallen, but the papacy remains standing. The Bishop of Rome has faced persecution, internal corruption, political exile, and schisms, yet the office possesses an enduring, robust life. Its ongoing survival and ability to command the spiritual allegiance of millions century after century is a sign of true, divinely sustained development.

Falsifying Cardinal Newman

Modernists (from the early 20th century to those in the Vatican II sect), have purposely distorted Newman's teachings to make their heretical development of doctrine seem legitimate. There are four (4) areas they particularly weaponize:

Omitting the Seven Notes

They treat "development" as an open-ended green light for evolution, while completely ignoring Newman's actual seven notes. Newman designed those tests specifically to spot and condemn corruptions. If a proposed change fails Note 6 (Conservative Action Upon Its Past) or Note 2 (Continuity of Principles), Newman would explicitly label it a dead heresy, not a development.

Misuse of "The Power of Assimilation"

For Newman, Note 3 (Power of Assimilation) means the Church acts like a healthy organism that digests outside concepts to strengthen itself. A human body eats food to fuel its existing DNA; it doesn't turn into the food. Newman believed the Church purifies and masterfully subdues worldly philosophies to serve Christ, rather than allowing worldly philosophies to dilute and reshape Christian dogma. 

For Modernists, it means that the Church must constantly absorb modern secular ideologies, psychological theories, and political movements to remain "relevant."

"Consulting the Faithful" is not Taking an Opinion Poll

In 1859, Newman wrote a famous essay titled On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine. Liberal theologians frequently quote this to argue that if a majority of modern lay Catholics disagree with a Church teaching (such as on contraception), the doctrine is nullified by a "lack of consent."

Newman used the word "consult" in a precise, traditional Latin sense (like consulting a thermometer, not taking a democratic vote). He was pointing out a historical fact: during the 4th-century Arian crisis, the laity fiercely maintained the truth of Christ's divinity even when many bishops fell into heresy. Newman meant the faithful possess an intuitive supernatural instinct (sensus fidelium) to preserve the traditional faith, not a mandate to invent brand-new theology via modern opinion polls.

Isolating His "Toast to Conscience"

In a letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Newman famously penned: "I shall drink to the Pope, if you please—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards." Dissenting theologians routinely use this line to claim that private conscience overrides Church authority, allowing individuals to decide which dogmas to believe. However, Newnan correctly explained that conscience was the objective, echoing "voice of God speaking to the soul" demanding absolute obedience—not a subjective license for personal preference or private judgment. He argued that a properly formed conscience naturally recognizes and bows down to the external authority of Christ's Church. 

Specific Modernist Theologians Who Calumniated Newman

Alfred Loisy and George Tyrell. 

Two of the early proponents of the Modernist movement. Both priests were excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X. At the turn of the 20th century, these two leaders of the Modernist crisis directly claimed Newman as an inspiration for their theories on the "evolution of dogmas." Newman believed dogmas possess ontological, permanent factual truth. Tyrrell and Loisy were using Newman’s vocabulary of "growth" to sneak in a philosophy of radical relativism that Newman spent his entire life fighting.

"Cardinal" Avery Dulles

Dulles formulated an "ecumenical" framework that watered down the definitive, exclusive nature of Catholic dogma, stretching Newman's idea of Assimilation past its breaking point.

Charles Curran

Now 92 years old, Curran is a Modernist's Modernist. He teaches the acceptability of fornication, masturbation, contraception, and homosexuality. Although censured by Ratzinger in 1986 (with approval of Wojtyla), he has never been excommunicated by the Vatican II sect. Curran routinely isolated Newman's famous essay On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine. They argued that because the vast majority of modern Western Catholics did not accept the Church's ban on birth control, the doctrine had been "nullified" by a lack of lay consent. The same holds true for fornication, masturbation, and homosexuality.

Newman’s concept of sensus fidelium (the sense of the faithful) was a passive, supernatural instinct to preserve the ancient faith, not a democratic mandate or opinion poll to override the Magisterium

Calumny is defined by theologian Prummer as "the untruthful imputation of some fault not committed."

(See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pg. 137). Can anyone doubt that these Modernists ascribed the fault of teaching heresy to Cardinal Newman?

So Many Modernists Love Newman: Shouldn't He Be Held Suspect?

Not in the least. Newman's greatest defender was none other than The Foe of Modernism, Pope St. Pius X himself. Since Newman had written extensively on how doctrine "developments" and "grows," the Modernists—whom Pius X heavily condemned—began trying to hide behind Newman’s coat-tails. They claimed that their radical ideas about the evolution of dogmas were just a continuation of Newman's philosophy. Conversely, hyper-critical anti-modernists began to suspiciously eye Newman as a "proto-Modernist." 

Bishop O'Dwyer, Ordinary of Limerick, Ireland, had written a detailed pamphlet entitled Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. The pamphlet argued that Newman's writings were entirely orthodox and explicitly differed from Modernism. On March 10, 1908, Pope St. Pius X wrote a letter to Bishop O'Dwyer (a staunch Anti-Modernist) praising the good bishop's defense of Cardinal Newman. His Holiness wrote:

We hereby inform you that your essay, in which you show that the writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it, has been emphatically approved by Us...

St. Pius X wrote that the Modernists deliberately used Newman's name deceptively to give their own heretical inventions "the commendation of a very famous man." He stated that they cherry-picked sentences out of context from Newman's vast body of work to deceive the faithful. The saintly Pontiff praised Newman's absolute obedience to the Catholic faith and the Magisterium. He noted that Newman wrote with an entirely pure intention to defend the Catholic faith, which was the polar opposite of the Modernists, who operated secretly from within the Church to undermine tradition.  By approving O'Dwyer's work, the pope affirmed that Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine was completely orthodox. It was clear that Newman's growth of doctrine meant deepening the understanding of a fixed, unchanging truth, whereas the Modernist evolution meant changing the truth itself.

Conclusion

John Henry Cardinal Newman gave us seven tests for authentic development of doctrine, which were defended by Pope St. Pius X. The good Cardinal has had his name dragged through the mud by Modernists who twist what he wrote to make him seem like a fellow Modernist, and gain credibility for their evil "evolution of doctrine." Cardinal Newman should be studied so that all Traditionalists can tell true development from false, and be better equipped recognize and denounce truly Modernist teachings of the Vatican II sect. 

Is It A Bad Father, A Misunderstood Father, Or No Father At All?

 

To My Readers: I hope you enjoy this week's erudite post from TradWarrior as much as I did! Please feel free to comment as per usual. If you have a question or comment for me, I will respond as I always do, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Is it A Bad Father, A Misunderstood Father, Or No Father At All? 

By TradWarrior

I pulled the material for this article from many sources online. All I did was condense everything into a terse and readable post. I take no credit for the information herein, other than putting it together in a concise manner, making it easy to understand for the reader. ---TradWarrior

One of the many arguments brought up against Sedevacantists is that sometimes the pope is just a bad father that has to be resisted, but nevertheless, he is still the pope, and our spiritual father, and we have to recognize him as such. 

A few papal quotes on the papacy demonstrate how the highest office of the church cannot fail in Her Divine mission. 

Pope St. Leo IX:

“By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, been strengthened?” (Apostolic Letter “In Terra Pax;” Denz. 351)

Pope Boniface VIII:

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

Pope Leo XII:

“Peter still maintains the concern of all pastors in guarding their flocks, and his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir.”

“Teach your people great reverence for the Church’s authority which has been directly established by God.” (Encyclical “Ubi Primum,” para. #22-23)

Pope Pius IX:

“God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation.”

“For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord.” (Encyclical “Qui Pluribus,” para. #10-11)

Pope Leo XIII:

“Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.” (Encyclical “Satis Cognitum,” para. #12)

Pope Pius XI:

“For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained.” (Encyclical “Mortalium Animos,” para. #9)

Pope Pius XII:

“For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth.” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, para. #40)

These citations could be multiplied and many more could be cited by even more popes, but the point is well taken. 

One of the most common statements that is used against Sedevacantists is that the pope can be a bad father but we still have to follow him, no matter what he does. There are problems with this statement. A pope can be a bad man and do many immoral things. He cannot be a heretic. There is a difference and for many in the Novus Ordo and Recognize-and-Resist camps, they do not understand the difference, for this point they raise against Sedevacantists gets rehashed time after time. If a pope is immoral and commands something immoral, that does not mean that we have to obey the command and follow him blindly. Surely, we still accept his pontificate, but we do not just idly follow his every word if he crosses a moral norm. If he tells you to go kill someone, you have a moral obligation to not follow such a command. This should be common sense. If he teaches something that is clearly contrary to a defined matter of faith and morals, then this is a clear sign that he does not hold the pontificate, but is a false pope. There is a difference here. One is bad morally, yet possible; while the other is completely impossible for the papacy is protected by The Holy Ghost. 

A Bad Father

Papal impeccability is the belief that a pope is completely free from personal sin and incapable of wrongdoing. This is a false notion of papal power, one that unfortunately many Protestants believe. There have been bad moral popes and a few cases should be briefly examined. 

Pope Steven VI: He is probably most famous for his “Cadaver Synod” where he exhumed the body of Pope Formosus and put him on trial before the Roman clergy. The corpse was propped up on a throne and a deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff (sort of like a puppet). During the trial, Formosus was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed, as well as other charges brought against him. The corpse was found guilty, stripped of its sacred vestments, had three fingers cut off of its right hand (the blessing fingers), and had all of his measures and acts annulled. The corpse was buried in a grave, only to be re-exhumed and thrown into the Tiber River. 

Pope John XII: He was quite possibly the most vile man to ever ascend the papal throne. He ascended the papal throne at about 18 years old. He turned the Lateran into a brothel. He was known for his drinking and fornicating, as well as murder. It is not exactly known how he died. According to one report, he was struck by paralysis while in bed with a married woman. According to another report, the woman’s jealous husband caught John in bed with his wife and killed him. 

Pope Benedict IX: He was the youngest pope ever elected. Many sources say he was around 12 years old when he was elected. He is listed by many sources as having 3 papal reigns, though the history of what occurred is more detailed and that is not exactly the case. Benedict IX became pope in 1032AD and led an immoral life as pope. His enemies elected Sylvester III (an antipope) and had him installed because Benedict was such a terrible individual. In 1045, Benedict IX agreed to resign and appointed Gregory VI as his successor in exchange for money. Gregory VI was later told to resign because he “purchased” the papacy through simony. Another man eventually was elected as Clement II and after his death, Benedict IX tried to once again take the papacy. According to many lists, he had 3 reigns, but in actuality he did not. Historians disagree over the specifics of his case, but what remains clear is that Benedict IX was not a good pope, much less a good human being. 

Pope Urban VI: This pope was the first Roman pope during the Great Western Schism. He was abusive towards his cardinals, which prompted several cardinals to elect another “pope.” This 51 year fiasco caused confusion all throughout the church and wouldn’t be rectified until Martin V was elected pope. 

Pope Alexander VI: He father several children through illicit unions and had them by different mistresses. It is not known how many children he fathered, as the numbers vary between 7 to 12 children he had. He was a very immoral pope. 

There are other popes who reigned who were not very saintly men. The papacy is protected from teaching error. It is not protected by having impeccable men on the throne, for all popes are sinners (some are much worse sinners than others).  

A Misunderstood Father

Papal infallibility is the belief that a pope cannot error when speaking as the supreme shepherd of the universal church, definitively on a matter of faith and morals, with all of the faithful obliged to follow him. When certain criteria are met, infallibility applies. This can be via a solemn papal pronouncement, or by way of the Universal Extraordinary Magisterium (the bishops in union with a pope at an ecumenical council) or the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (the bishops united to the pope throughout the world on a teaching matter). There have been some misunderstood popes throughout the centuries, who often get charged with heresy, when in reality, they never proclaimed anything heretical. A few cases need to be briefly examined. 

Pope Liberius: The main charge against him is that he signed an Arian decree in support of the Arian heresy. There are several problems here. Pope Liberius was an opponent of Arianism. He was exiled by the Emperor Constantius because of his unwillingness to excommunicate St. Athanasius. There is not concrete evidence that Liberius signed a decree in favor of Arianism. Many claimed that he signed it under duress. Even if true, this would not be binding, as his free will in the matter was lacking. After his release from captivity, he continued to reign in Rome and he remained completely orthodox. He refused to compromise in the slightest degree on the orthodox doctrine of the Council of Nicaea, and he remained in full communion and friendship with St. Athanasius. Most scholars are of the opinion that Liberius remained fully orthodox while in captivity and always remained in full communion with St. Athanasius in his stand against the Arians. 

Pope Vigilius: His case is one that is often misunderstood. As pope, he pleased neither the monophysite heretics nor the orthodox. He vacillated back and forth on the issue. He appeared to appease both sides, the monophysites, yet also upheld Chalcedon. The issues here were complex. On one hand, some of the views of the three theologians (this was known as the Three Chapters) were problematic. On the other hand, the Council of Chalcedon had not questioned the orthodoxy of these three theologians and condemning them was seen by many as unjust and even an attack on Chalcedon. Vigilius refused to sign the condemnation but eventually changed his mind and did. Vigilius later withdrew his condemnation. Later, he once again agreed under pressure to the Three Chapters condemnation. There was nothing all along this process where a definitive matter by Vigilius came into play. He basically swayed back and forth on this. St. Robert Bellarmine in Book IV, Chapter 10 of his treatise “On the Roman Pontiff,” considers the thesis proposed by some that a letter where Vigilius had assured the monophysite heretics his sympathy was a forgery. Bellarmine says that Vigilius spoke against the orthodox position, but this was written while Silverius was still alive, and the actual pope. Vigilius at this time was an anti-pope. After Silverius’s death, Bellarmine argued that Vigilius was a true pope and never again sympathized with the monophysites. 

Pope Honorius I: This pope lived during the monothelite heresy. He was approached by Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople who was attempting to resolve the dispute. Honorius responded to Sergius with several letters. Their contents became public after the death of Honorius. Honorius supported the orthodox position. He mentioned “one will” of Christ, though he did not support the monothelite position. Pope Honorius I stated that the church professes one will of Jesus Christ. What is not as well known is that Pope John IV taught that Christ never had two contrary wills [his human will being perfectly subordinate to his divine will]. In a metaphorical sense, one could say it was “one will.” Honorius’s letter was not intrinsically heretical in its precise wording—because it did not state whether “one will” was meant literally or metaphorically. The church condemned Honorius for supporting the Monothelite heresy in practice but also ruled that the letter in which he did so was not technically heretical in principle. He was careless in his wording, though he supported the orthodox position. 

Pope John XXII: This pope taught that the souls of the blessed do not see the beatific vision until the General Judgment. This is erroneous as the souls of the blessed see the beatific vision when they enter Heaven. If a soul dies and goes immediately to Heaven, it sees the beatific vision. The soul does not have to wait until the General Judgement. There are two important things to remember here. The beatific vision was not yet a dogma of the faith. Once it was definitively taught, the denial of doctrine would be heresy. Even if it were a dogma (which it was not), Pope John expressly stated that he was open to change his view if corrected by the Church. He was expressing his privately opinion only and was not speaking in a way that was binding the whole universal church to the teaching.

Pope Sixtus V: This pope promulgated an edition of the Latin Vulgate that contained many errors. A biblical translation project and administrative printing choices are not matters of dogmatic teaching and do not touch upon infallibility. After Sixtus died, the College of Cardinals suspended its distribution, corrected the mistakes, and later replaced it with a revised version.

None of these cases here demonstrate any pope contradicting the doctrine of papal infallibility. They are cases that are misunderstood for sure, but they do not violate the church’s teaching on infallibility. 

No Father At All

Papal Indefectibility means that the Catholic Church’s teachings are immutable and always remain the same. It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching. This runs hand in hand with papal infallibility. The Catholic Church cannot fail in her divine mission. Her teachings are safe because she cannot give those things which are erroneous or evil or incentives to piety to her children. The Magisterium teaches safely at all times through all ages and can never fail. 

When we examine the Vatican II “popes,” we see a completely different situation then the ones previously mentioned. The V2 “popes” have taught heresy officially in their official “magisterium,” an impossibility; thus, a sign that these men were not true popes. We will examine several examples.

John XXIII: 

*He was associated with notorious modernists such as Bishop Radini Tedeschi, Bishop Carlo Ferrara of Milan, Bishop Bonomello of Cremona, and Lamberdo Beauduin.

*He was a Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, and was removed for several months “on suspicion of modernism” and for teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner, an illuminati member. The Holy Office in 1925 had Angelo Roncalli listed as an individual who was suspected of modernism.  

*He was a sympathizer with modernists, communists, and freemasons. His name was attached with masonic lodges in Istanbul, Turkey and Paris, France.

*He contradicted previous Popes. He rejected  Gregory XVI’s “Mirari Vos” and “Singulari Nos,” and “Quanta Cura” of Pius IX. He said “I try to imagine what my predecessor would have done, and then I do just the opposite,” in response to his opposition to Pope Pius XII. 

*He called an ecumenical council that invited the Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, modernists, communists, etc. to take an active part in the council.  

*He removed St. John Vianney, St. Philomena, and other saints from the calendar. 

*His encyclical “Pacem in Terris” was praised by communists and freemasons. 

*Freemasons mourned his death, particularly in Mexico. 

*It was said that he made Montini a cardinal so that he could be elected in the next conclave. 

Paul VI: 

*He was a Modernist.

*He was known in his seminary days as a homosexual. 

*He was exiled to Milan by Pope Pius XII when it was discovered that he was communicating with the Communists. 

*It was reported that the failed masonic plan to have Rampolla elected was corrected when Montini was elected. 

*He approved all 16 documents of Vatican II, which are filled with heresy.

*He approved of cremation. According to some insiders, he was blackmailed by the freemasons into allowing cremation; otherwise, they were going to “spill the beans” and declare that he was a notorious homosexual. 

*According to several sources, he was the romantic partner of actor Paulo Carlini. 

*Freemasons and Communists praised Montini and said that he went much farther than his predecessor Roncalli did, which delighted both of these groups. 

*Montini created 7 new rites for all of the sacraments. 

*Montini created the “Novus Ordo Missae” with the help of 6 Protestants. 

*He championed the freemasonic principles of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality, and met with different members of all different religions frequently.

*He spoke of a New World Order that was needed. 

*He said the United Nations was the last hope for peace for mankind. 

*He gave away the triple crowned papal tiara. 

*He gave his shepherd’s crown and fisherman’s ring away. 

*He abolished the “Oath Against Modernism.”

*He excluded all cardinals over 80 from voting in papal elections. This was to remove the older traditional clergy that remained. 

*He abolished the “Index of Forbidden Books.”

*He removed solemn exorcisms in the baptismal rite. 

*He granted over 30,000 requests from priests to return to lay status. 

*He spoke numerous times about how all honor goes to man. 

*He said at the end of Vatican II that he was about to blow the seven trumpets of the apocalypse. 

John Paul II:

*Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange remarked that Wojtyla wrote much but said little, in his early seminary days. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange did not even consider Wojtyla Catholic. 

*His philosophy of phenomenology was very problematic. 

*He dispensed with the traditional papal coronation. 

*He kept the heretic Fr. Raymond Brown as the head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. 

*He created the Luminous Mysteries of the rosary.

*He championed the “Divine Mercy” private revelation and Sr. Faustina, though her work was condemned by the Holy Office more than once. 

*He kissed the ring of Rowan Williams, the head of the Anglican sect. 

*He prayed that St. John the Baptist would protect Islam. 

*He “canonized” more saints than any of his predecessors. 

*He had females barely dressed at his papal “Masses.” 

*He allowed female altar servers, which were condemned strongly by 3 previous popes as a practice being erroneous and evil. 

*He prayed with heretics continuously and visited other places of worship like synagogues and mosques. 

*He said the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Church were sister churches.

*He approved of a Mass with no words of consecration. 

*He agreed with the Joint Declaration of the Lutherans that we are justified by faith alone. 

*He kissed the Koran. 

*His Assisi events were blasphemous to say the least. 

*He endorsed the United Nations. 

*He received members of the B’nai B’rith (Freemasons). 

*He had a meeting with the Trilateral Commission in the Vatican. 

*The Grand Orient Lodge of Italian Freemasonry gave him the “Order of Galilee” award, which he graciously accepted. 

*He rejected the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” many times, most notably in “Ut Unum Sint.” 

We could add the heresies of Luciani, Ratzinger, Bergoglio, and Prevost to demonstrate that we are dealing with a false religion here, but there is no need. Statements by Ratzinger such as “Gaudium et Spes” being a counter-Syllabus to the Syllabus of Pius IX and Bergoglio’s many heretical statements such as “There is no Catholic God,” “Proselytism is solemn nonsense”, and “God willed the pluralism of all religions,” do not even scratch the surface when we look at their numerous heretical deeds and words that they did and spoke throughout their “pontificates”, not to mention the many sins of omission they also committed. 

It is important to note that Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla have all been “canonized saints” by the V2 sect. The Vatican 2 sect has formally approved them as “saints.” There are many more pages and pages that could be written about their various heresies that they promulgated, yet they have been “raised to the altars.” Either the Vatican 2 sect is Catholic or it is not. If these men are saints, then everything that came before them in church history has to be rightfully condemned. This means that for 19.5 centuries, there was no church, until Vatican II was born. This is preposterous of course, and the opposite must be true. The V2 sect is false and these men are false saints. 

Everything was new in the Vatican II sect. The 16 documents ushered forth new teachings that were condemned by the previous popes and councils. The V2 sect “canonized” men and women, many of whom who questionable at best, or horrendous heretics at worse. The V2 sect promulgated a new code of canon law and a new catechism. The V2 sect officially approved of new devotions that were previously condemned, like The Divine Mercy devotion. The V2 sect officially promulgated and sanctioned teachings such as religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality (3 freemasonic principles), not to mention many other things that were always condemned. 

If one is to say that the Conciliar Church is the same as the Traditional Catholic Church (an impossibility for anyone who seriously investigates this), then they must accept everything that the “popes” from Roncalli through Prevost have taught, for these teachings would then be safe and free from error and evil, since they came from true popes. We cannot play the game that the R & R’s always do (as do V2 sect members and Feeneyites too) and say that we will only accept teachings that are infallible, for we have many pre-Vatican II popes who clearly taught that popes must be followed, even when they are not teaching infallibly. We must still give our assent of intellect and will to these papal writings. This has been declared as such by Pope Pius IX in “Quanta Cura” (para. #5) as well as his “Syllabus of Errors” (Condemned Proposition #22), Pope Leo XIII in “Sapientiae Christianae” (para. #24), Pope Pius XI in “Casti Connubii” (para. #104), and Pope Pius XII in “Humani Generis” (para. #20). Non-infallible teachings are required for us to follow. If we believe that these true popes have errored in their non-infallible teachings, then we must accept that they too either didn’t hold the papal office, or they fell from it due to heresy, something most people would not assert. 

The Vatican II sect only goes so far in their thinking. The members of the V2 sect and the Recognize-and-Resist crowd will continuously say that the Vatican II “popes” said and did un-papal things and they espoused heresies, yet nevertheless, we must accept them as popes, just resist them when they taught something false. True popes cannot teach something false. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Popes are protected from teaching anything containing error or evil because of the divine assistance of The Holy Ghost. Their magisterial teachings are always clear and safe to follow (unlike the “magisterium” of the Vatican II sect). We have it on the authority of many holy popes, theologians, and saints that the papacy is divinely protected and will never fail. A few examples will suffice:

Pope Paul IV Bull: Cum Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559]:

“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:

Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void… Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

Pope Innocent III Si Papa [1198]:

“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”

Coronata - Institutiones Juris Canonici [1950]:

“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”

St. Robert Bellarmine [1610]:

“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”

St. Antoninus [1459]:

“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

St. Francis de Sales [1622]:

“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church …”

Canon Law – [1943] – Wernz-Vidal:

“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church … A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori:

“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

Theologian Prummer: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."(Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943],  2:453). 

Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."

(Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371). 

It is entirely possible to have a lengthy papal interregnum spanning many years, but it is impossible to have a “heretical pope,” which is an oxymoron. If a papal claimant is teaching heresy, it is a sure sign that he is not the pope. As strange as it is to have a lengthy “sede vacante” period, it is still possible and it is The Holy Ghost who is actually protecting the Catholic Church, while chaos is ensuing with one papal pretender after another wreaking complete chaos on what appears to be the Catholic Church, but really isn’t. The captain of the ship and all of the crew members can fall overboard and no one may steer the ship for a very long time (if ever again), but it is impossible for the ship to strike an iceberg and sink. The Traditional Catholic Church is merely eclipsed during this lengthy time in The Great Apostasy. It is still visible in its traditional members, though it has been reduced greatly in number to very few left upon the Earth upholding the magisterial teachings of the true church. Theologians such as Van Noort, Dorsch, Billot, Cajetan, O’Reilly, and others spoke about the very real possibility (in the future) of the Catholic Church going for many, many years without a valid pope to guide it, as the enemies of the church continued over a long period of time to rise to higher and higher positions in the upper echelons of the Vatican. 

Conclusion

Confusion reigns supreme in this godless age that we live in. Many people mistakenly think that a non-pope is simply a bad pope or a misunderstood pope, or both, but he must still somehow be the pope, for God would never leave us orphans without a spiritual father to guide us. God does not leave us orphans, as He is always guiding us. The fact that His Holy Catholic Church may go a long time without a visible leader to teach, rule, and sanctify the church does not mean that He has left the church. If the Catholic Church was actually being led by men who were heretical popes, then this would be a sign that God did leave His Church, which we know is an impossibility. 

During these difficult and trying times, we must remain vigilant and faithful even as everything else around us continues to implode everywhere we look in the institutional church and the world as a whole. Only the person who perseveres to the end is sure to make it. We have Christ’s promise to us that Peter and his successors will guide the Catholic Church until the end of time, even in times when we go a long time without a legitimate successor on the papal throne. He promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Catholic Church, and we take Him at His Word because His Word is always good.

Contending For The Faith---Part 55

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Proofs Of The Resurrection

There are numerous attempts by the enemies of Christ to deny His physical resurrection from the dead.

There are four (4) basic arguments to explain away Christ's resurrection: (1) it was a hallucination of the Apostles; (2) the Apostles created a myth-- they did not mean what they taught to be literal; (3) the Apostles conspired to deceive the world; and (4) Christ didn't really die, he "swooned" and later fully recovered. 

In this post, I will refute the so-called "Swoon Theory." (N.B. The information contained in this post comes from myriad sources, both in print and online. I take no credit other than condensing the material into a terse and readable post---Introibo). 

What is The Swoon Theory?

In 1965 Hugh Schonfield published a 287-page volume titled The Passover Plot. In this runaway bestseller, Schonfield contends that Jesus “deliberately plotted” His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. According to The Passover Plot:

Jesus contrived to be arrested the night before the Passover, fully aware that he would be nailed to the cross the following day, but taken down before the onset of the Sabbath in accordance with Jewish law. He would survive the agony of but three hours on the cross.

To ensure his safe removal, he arranged to be given, while on the cross, not the traditional vinegar but a drug that would render him unconscious and make him appear dead. He would then be cut down from the cross in a deathlike trance, removed by accomplices to the tomb where he would be nursed back to health and then “resurrected.” (See The Passover Plot, inside front and back cover flaps). 

This new interpretation of the life and death of Jesus captured the imagination of the world. Magazines and ministers immediately lauded it as perhaps the most important book published in a decade. Time magazine contended, “Schonfield does not discredit Christ. Instead, he argues that Christ was indeed the Messiah — the Son of Man, as he thought of himself (sic), but not the Son of God — who had been foretold by Jewish prophets of old, and that this is glory enough.” (As cited in The Passover Plot, back cover). Protestant Bible scholar William Barclay called The Passover Plot “a book of enormous learning and erudition, meticulously documented.” (Ibid). 

While the critics of historic Christianity have passionately proclaimed the virtues of Schonfield and his scholarship, The Passover Plot is little more than a new regurgitation of swoon theories that were popular in the first half of the nineteenth century. 

Swoon theorists dismiss the Resurrection by contending that Jesus Christ never really died on the cross. Instead, He merely fainted and was later revived. A never-ending stream of imaginative stories has flowed from this basic thesis.

The Problems with The Swoon Theory: A Brief Summary

First, here are eight (8) problems that make the Swoon Theory untenable. After this summary, some will be fleshed out in more detail.

• Jesus could not have survived crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way, including bungling a crucifixion. It was never done. 

• The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (St. John 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. Breaking the legs hastened the death so that the corpse could be taken down before the sabbath (verse 31). 

• St. John, an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced heart (St.John 19:34-35). This shows that Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and he had died of asphyxiation. Any medical expert can vouch for this. 

• The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (St. John 19:38-42). 

• The post-resurrection appearances convinced the disciples, even “doubting Thomas,” that Jesus was gloriously alive (St. John 20:19-29). It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely struggled out of a swoon, badly in need of a doctor. A half-dead, staggering sick man who has just had a narrow escape is not worshiped fearlessly as divine lord and conqueror of death. 

• How were the Roman guards at the tomb overpowered by a swooning corpse? Or by unarmed disciples? 

• How could a swooning half-dead man have moved the great stone at the door of the tomb? Who moved the stone if not an angel? No one has ever answered that question. Neither the Jews nor the Romans would move it, for it was in both their interests to keep the tomb sealed; the Jews had the stone put there in the first place, and the Roman guards would be killed if they let the body “escape.” The story the Jewish authorities spread, that the guards fell asleep and the disciples stole the body (Mt 28:11-15), is unbelievable. Roman guards would not fall asleep on a job like that; if they did, they would lose their lives. And even if they did fall asleep, the crowd and the effort and the noise it would have taken to move an enormous boulder would have wakened them.

• If Jesus awoke from a swoon, where did he go? Think this through: you have a living body to deal with now, not a dead one. Why did it disappear? There is absolutely no data, not even any false, fantastic, imagined data, about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, in any sources, friend or foe, at any time, early or late. A Man like that, with a past like that, would have left traces.

The Swoon Theory Problems: A Closer Examination

The Romans were expert executioners

From St. John 19:31-34:

Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

The Jews wanted to hurry this execution along because the next day was the Sabbath and they wanted to have everything wrapped up before then. Remember, when you were crucified, you died of asphyxiation. Your body became too exhausted to keep pushing up on your nailed feet when you wanted to take a breath. Eventually, you would no longer be able to push yourself up, you would suffocate and then die. If you were taking too long to die, the Romans would break your legs so you could no longer push up at all. But, when the soldiers came to Jesus, they didn’t break his legs. Why? They examined him and determined that He was already dead.

Appearance of death wasn’t enough to declare Jesus dead, though. If the Roman soldiers made a mistake, and pulled a live body off of the cross, it was they who would be next in line for execution. So, they stuck a spear in His side to be sure. When they did this “at once there came out blood and water”. 

This “water” is actually fluid that builds up around the heart and/or lungs when the body goes into shock. This condition is called pleural effusion when the fluid buildup is around the lungs and pericardial effusion when the fluid is surrounding the heart. Jesus had been beaten nearly to death before he was hung on the cross, He had suffered much blood loss, and He had hung there laboring to breathe. The water that St. John records is a sign of the amount of shock Jesus’ body had gone through, and a sign of His death. (See A Doctor At Calvary by French Catholic surgeon Pierre Barbet, [1953]). 

Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus Knew if Someone was Dead

After Jesus was declared dead, Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish high council, and Nicodemus, a Pharisee, took Jesus’ body down from the cross and made it ready for burial. They wrapped it in linen cloth and prepared the body with spices. Once this was done, they placed it in a tomb owned by Joseph that had never been used before. This process would have taken a few hours to complete.

As soon as someone dies, their body begins changing. Immediately after the heart stops pumping blood throughout the body, it immediately starts to experience temperature loss. This process is known as algor mortis. When you touch a dead body, it no longer has that warmth you are familiar with when you shake someone's hand. They are cold to the touch.

Also at this time, the body begins to stiffen and lose its flexibility, until it finally becomes locked into position a few hours later (rigor mortis). Since the heart is no longer pumping blood around the body, the blood goes where gravity pulls it. So, if a body is found lying on its back, there will be discoloration on the back from the pooling of blood. All of these things are signs that are easily recognizable indicators to someone that a body has no life in it. You don’t need instruments, tests, or a medical degree to see them.

In modern society, we usually have an ambulance pick up the deceased, a coroner determine cause of death, a mortician prepare the body for burial and a funeral home to place the body in the casket and prepare it for viewing. Details vary based on culture, but it usually isn’t the family who does any of that anymore.

In first century Jewish society, it was family and friends who prepared a body for burial. They handled all aspects. So, they knew the signs of death. They knew what a dead body felt like and how it looked. Dead bodies look and feel differently than live ones do.

Based on these details, it’s safe to say that Joseph and Nicodemus would have known if Jesus was still alive or not when they were preparing the body for burial.

How could a near-dead Man get out of a sealed tomb?

Let’s imagine, ad arguendo, that Jesus was still alive when He was placed in the tomb. Somehow, He was able to regain consciousness. Let’s remember the condition He would have been in; severely beaten, holes all the way through His wrists and feet, and a large wound in his side where the spear had pierced Him, likely damaging some major organs on the way through.

In this condition, His first obstacle would have been the stone covering the tomb’s entrance. The stone would have weighed over a ton. Tomb entrances were typically 2-3 feet wide, and the stones that covered them were a one foot thick. For a single healthy man to move this stone would have been almost impossible, let alone for a Man beaten and crucified to near death.

The Witness of the Apostles 

The Apostles saw Jesus after the Crucifixion. Think of all Jesus had just been through. He would have shown up looking near dead. However, the first thing that the apostles would have said wouldn’t have been “He is risen!"---it would have been “get Him a doctor!” He would have looked like He had survived all the things He had just been through. He wouldn’t have looked like he brushed them all off and returned triumphantly from the dead.

Conclusion

Always be prepared to defend the Resurrection of Our Lord. Unlike all others, Mohammed, Buddha, Joseph Smith, etc., Jesus Christ's bones are not on this Earth. He rose by His own Divine power from the dead proving He is God. His enemies know this and come up with various theories to try and prove the Resurrection to be false. It is Christ's rising from the dead that gives our lives meaning. “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a Man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:20-22). 

Needless Division Among Sedevacantists?

 

To My Readers: In the week's post, John Gregory examines the division that exists among sedevacantists in regard to the Pian Holy Week changes and gives much food for thought. Please feel free to comment as usual. If anyone has a question or comment for me, I will respond as always, but it may take a bit longer for me to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Needless Division Among Sedevacantists?

by John Gregory

In this time of uncertainty and chaos, there is a persistent debate within the faithful remnant of the One True Church.  That is ---which liturgy should we go with--- the one we had from, basically, the 400’s through 1955, or that which came before 1961/2.  There is some uncertainty, both as to whether John 23 was a valid pope or not, and whether the changes he made to the liturgy was something a valid pope could do nor not.  Bishop Sandborn has said something to the effect that a valid pope can create a liturgy from scratch if he so desired and we would be obliged to follow it.  So, the question is not whether a valid pope can change the liturgy or not, nor if we should obey him or not, but during this almost 70 year interregnum, with all the hindsight we have now, whether Catholic Priests can, in good conscience, offer the same liturgy, standardized in the most solemn way by Pope Saint Pius V, we have had for the vast majority of our history. 

I hope this is clear to any sedevacantist who believes that the changes under the name of Pope Pius XII were in themselves an incentive to impiety or worse.  There is no legitimate reason we should doubt any part of the papacy of Pope Pius XII.  As far as I know (I have researched the topic myself and found nothing), he never bound on the Church any heresy or discipline which was harmful to souls.  He was a suffering pope.  As an apologist against the Feeneyites, he is a pope I admire very much as I have become quite familiar with his writings against that position.  

The way I would explain to any sedevacantist who believes Pius XII’s liturgy was an incentive to impiety or worse, is as follows: 

Suppose we had no liturgy, liturgical calendar, octaves or anything in the history of the Church which we could compare it to apart from what Pope Pius XII established in 1955.  By itself, there is nothing wrong with it at all.  Most of it is beautiful and any part of it which might rub some the wrong way (more lay involvement, dialogue Mass, Priest facing the people at times, part of the liturgy offered in the vernacular, Eucharistic fast, evening Masses, changing how Masses are ranked, eliminating octaves and vigils) has nothing harmful in it at all objectively speaking.  It is a great treasure.  The greatest treasure on earth.  

The purported problem lies with an objective look at how the liturgy formed during persecutions in the early centuries of the Church, organically developed until the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great in comparison with the Pian changes. No discussion can be had apart from the core foundation that Pope Pius XII was a valid pope and that the changes he mandated were not in themselves harmful in any way. 

The great pioneers of our movement, our traditional heroes in a certain sense, in which Father DePauw was certainly a key figure, included Father Martin Stepanich and “The Nine” which shortly after became “The 12” (Fathers Colins, Ahearn and McMahon) all (with the exception of Father DePauw) went with the pre-55 liturgy.  This, by itself, should speak loudly to us, at least in regard to the plausibility of their position.  

In my opinion, at the very least, priests on this side of the issue should not be condemned for their position, nor characterized as certainly erring, even if in good faith.  But what is worse, and certainly unacceptable, is believing, and stating publicly, that they do this “merely because they prefer it."  That is a reprehensible statement.  The idea that they would risk their souls (that is what a priest does if he disobeys a pope) over a mere preference is a shallow and unfounded proposition at best.  

From the Mouth of the Solid, Sound and Reputable Mario Derksen 

To get to the meat of this subject I should like to quote Mario Derksen’s public comments on this very issue: 

It may be fairly well known that not all sedevacantists are in agreement with each other regarding the use of the revisions of Pope Pius XII made to the Holy Week liturgy in 1955.  Every year when Holy Week rolls around, you will find that some sedevacantist chapels use the revised liturgy of 1955 in obedience to the liturgical law that was on the books when Pius XII died in 1958.  Whereas other sedevacantists use the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites, convinced that in our current circumstances, Pius XII himself would want us to revert back to the earlier form.  In the present podcast, we are not trying to address that dispute, much less settle it. [Note from J.G. - Mario is not shy when it comes to defending the truth on any issue pertaining to our Catholic Faith. Why not settle it if it is obvious, and easily proved that the pre-55 priests cannot, with a properly formed conscience, expect a pleasant Judgement, due to their “disobedience to the Pope”?  Could it be because it cannot be easily settled?] Instead, we want to focus on and refute the position of Father Mawdsley.  To do that, we need to call to mind some facts which no one can, and no one does dispute. 

First, the Catholic Church teaches that it is impossible for a true pope to approve a liturgical rite for the universal church that is “in itself” evil, sacrilegious, heretical, impious or harmful to souls.  

Secondly, in 1955, Pope Pius XII did in fact approve the revised Holy Week liturgy and made it mandatory to be used starting in 1956 in every church in the world that uses the Roman Rite.  

Third, beginning in 1956, every Roman Rite Church did in fact use the new Holy Week liturgy for the short remainder of Pius XII’s pontificate.  Meaning also in 1957 and 58.  Not everyone agreed with the revisions.  Not everyone thought they were a good idea, but everyone complied, at least as far as I know.  In other words, both versions of Holy Week, the one from 1955 and the pre-55 one were in fact used by the entire church at their respective times. 

Fourth, it follows that neither liturgy can possibly be in itself evil, sacrilegious, heretical, impious or harmful.  Now notice that the qualification “in itself” is very import here because it is possible that an approved liturgical rite should become dangerous or harmful by circumstance.  Even God’s own written word for example if it is not read and understood according to the mind of Holy Mother Church.  That is why for example Saint Peter wrote about the divinely inspired epistles of Saint Paul that in them “are certain things hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also other scriptures to their own destruction."  That’s found in 2 Peter 3:16. 

Likewise, it is possible that given certain circumstances, a papally approved or mandated liturgical change be imprudent.   For example, when in 1910, Pope Saint Pius X decreed that Holy Communion could now be received by children as young as the age of reason as long as they were properly catechized and properly disposed.  This was considered an unwise move by some who thought that it would lead to many unworthy Communions.  Before that time, children were not allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament until they were at least 12 years old. 

But regardless of what one personally thinks about a liturgical or sacramental decision by a reigning pope, one must obey it.  Which is why everyone complied and used Pius XII Holy Week reforms beginning in 1956. 

Even the sedevacantsts who don’t use the Holy Week changes today and instead revert back to the pre-1955 liturgy only do so in the absence of a pope who could settle the dispute here and now and that is the essential difference between the sedevacantist position and that of Father Mawdsley.  Mawdsley tells his audience that the decrees of a reigning pope can and ought to be rejected by the faithful if they believe they go against tradition as recognize and resisters like to put it.  Now, if Mawdsley thinks he can find that idea in any magisterial document from before Vatican II or even just any approved pre-Vatican II theological manual, I would encourage him to start digging.  Meanwhile, what we do find in the Pope’s magisterium is very much the opposite.  

All right.  So, hopefully I’ve clarified this difference sufficiently so no one can say that some sedevacantists are doing the same thing Father Mawdsley is doing. 

No, they’re not.  Sedevacantists disagree with each other on what the right thing to do is while the shepherd is struck while there is no pope to consult for guidance.  Father Mawdsley, on the other hand, wants you to rebel against the known will of a presently reigning pope because he’s not following tradition.  So that is the essential difference. 

Inevitably someone will argue now well if that’s what you believe then why don’t you embrace the new mass and other liturgical changes of Paul 6? (Notice he did not mention John 23 – J.G.) The short answer is that these changes can be shown to be in themselves evil, sacrilegious, heretical, impious and or harmful thereby proving that they could not have come from a true pope but must have come from an impostor, from a false pope.  

Father Martin Stepanich 

All that has been stated thus far in the article should be enough for all to agree that it is at least plausible, that our good Catholic Priests, loyal to the Magisterium, can in good conscience, offer the liturgy in place for almost the entire history of the Catholic Church. But we will follow up and conclude now, with what one of the greatest heroes of our movement, Father Martin Stepanich, the only traditional priest that existed since I became sedevacantist (2004) who had a doctorate in pre-Vatican II theology, had to say on this very topic. 

FATHER MARTIN STEPANICH’S QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER

For July, August, and September 2010 

The time for writing this trimestral newsletter approached just as we were finishing up a string of high-ranking octaves on the truly traditional liturgical calendar – that is, the Ascension octave (May 13-20), the Pentecost octave (May 23-30), the Corpus Christ octave (June 3-10), and the Sacred Heart octave (June 11- 18). 

What is beyond belief is the fact that three of those rightly untouchable octaves – Ascension, Corpus Christi, Sacred Heart – were declared suppressed by the tradition-breaking and plainly modernist-flavored decree of March 23, 1955, issued strangely in the name of reputedly fully traditional Pope Pius XII.  Just try and figure that one out! 

At the time — 1955 — we did not have the faintest idea that hidden hardcore modernists held important positions of power and influence on the Vatican staff of none other than Pope Pius XII.  It took many years for us to wake up to the fact that those hidden Modernists definitely played a decisive role in the suppression of nearly all of the long-time traditional octaves, as well as in bringing about other tradition-breaking changes in the Liturgy and in the Catholic way of life and thinking. 

What does that say of the greatly admired and supposedly firmly traditional Pius XII?  It hurts just to think about it.  

While we are at it, let us say an extra word or two about the great Corpus Christi octave, which we again observed with special attention and devotion this year, early in June.  Just as we did in days of old, long before the modernist infiltration of the Vatican, we truly and fully traditional priests and religious again prayed the traditional Corpus Christi office and offered the traditional Corpus Christi Mass every single day during that highly privileged octave, with feast of Saints having to give way to the Corpus Christi Office and Mass. 

One extra special feature of the Corpus Christi octave from time immemorial was the practice, at the principal Masses in cathedral and parish churches and monastery chapels, of exposing the Blessed Sacrament in the Monstrance and setting it above the Tabernacle, there to let it stay all during the Masses of the octave.  The Modernists surely wanted to put a stop to that.  But Pius XII?  Is that what he wanted? 

Is it any wonder that it has been said that the turning point for the eventual Modernist complete take-over of the Vatican was the reign of Pope Pius XII?

 

FATHER MARTIN STEPANICH’S QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER

For April, May, and June of 2011 

One significant thing about Easter, and the Easter Season, is the fact that a mere one-day commemoration of the Resurrection of Our Lord would never have been enough for the Number One Feast of the Liturgical Year.  As Our Lord Himself devoted 40 days to manifesting the reality of His Resurrection to His joyful Mother and to His Apostles, so as to confirm them ever more and more in the faith, so does His Church also devote that same amount of time to celebrating Easter, so as to confirm all of us in our belief in Our Lord’s Resurrection, as well as in all the other unchangeable truths of our Catholic Faith. 

That 40-day period begins with the Octave of Easter, and that Octave sets an example for many other feasts of the Church year that from time immemorial deserved to continue to be commemorated and celebrated for eight full days.  Octaves of certain feasts have always been an integral part of the Church’s traditional observance of those feasts.  To abolish those octaves, as had been done by tradition-breaking modernists, beginning already during the reign of Pope Pius XII, is wholly contrary to the traditional mind of the Church and can therefore be quite confusing to the faith of true tradition-minded Catholics. 

The first feast to be celebrated with an octave after Easter is the Feast of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, which has traditionally been observed on the third Wednesday after Easter.  The traditional Church’s purpose for adding a second Feast of Saint Joseph to the liturgical calendar was to make more solemn a Feast that could not be given enough solemnity on March 19, which always comes up in Lent.  And not only was the second Feast of Saint Joseph solemnized, but a solemn Octave – Deo Gratias! - was added to it. 

The hardcore Modernists who became firmly fixed in the Vatican of Pope Pius XII (believe it or not!) somehow managed to have the traditional Feast of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph abolished altogether and replaced by a secular-slanted and secular flavored Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker.  Though that was all done by them supposedly in the name of Pius XII, it was very plainly in accord with the anti-traditional Modernist mind, but not in accord with the traditional mind of the Church. 

One very prominent Octave of a major Feast of Our Lord during the Easter Season that the modernists succeeded in wiping out, already during the reign of Pius XII (again, believe it or not!), was the Octave of the Ascension of the Lord, thereby downgrading and minimizing the importance of that supremely important Feast.  Miraculously though, the solemn top-ranking Octave of Pentecost escaped suppression by the Modernists! How did they miss that one? 

Especially outstanding among the Feasts of Our Lord during the Church Year is the sublime Feast of Corpus Christi, which so glorifies the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.  And magnificent was the way the 13^th century Saint Thomas Aquinas, in obedience to the command of Pope Urban IV, composed the full text of the Corpus Christi Mass and Divine Office.  While doing so, the Angelic Doctor, who so richly deserves to be acclaimed also as the Doctor of the Holy Eucharist, composed a number of Eucharistic hymns that have through the centuries become very familiar to truly traditional Catholics. 

Among those Eucharistic hymns are, for example, the never to be forgotten O Salutaris and Tantum Ergo that have long been traditionally sung during Benediction with the Blessed Sacrament.  Then, too, there is the well known Adoro Te Devote hymn (Devoutly I adore Thee) and the incomparable Corpus Christi sequence, Lauda Sion Salvatorem, which follows the Epistle of the Corpus Christi Mass.  All praise and all thanksgiving to Saint Thomas Aquinas for all his inspired Eucharistic hymns! 

All the liturgical changing in the 1950s, all the rearranging and suppressing of the Church’s traditional liturgical set-up, not just for Corpus Christi, but for other liturgical feasts, was naturally bound to cause, and definitely did cause, much confusion and consternation and division among traditional Catholics. 

The first fact that all took into consideration was the fact that the liturgical changes of the 1950s were legislated with the name of Pope Pius XII attached to the pertinent decrees.  And the reaction of all of us at that time was to accept the liturgical changes in obedience to the Holy Father.  Normally, that would have been enough. 

However, that did not tell us the full story of the 1950s liturgical changes.  It did not give us the complete picture of all that was involved in bringing about those changes. 

So, we have to realize that there was a second fact that stood out and it was the abrupt and drastic break from long-standing and even centuries-old traditions that the liturgical changes of the 1950s brought about.  We old-timers who were for a long time well acquainted with the pre-1950s traditions and practices saw right away that the new 1950s liturgical changes were plainly tradition-braking changes. 

Those who were not yet born in the 1950s, or who were at that time still quite young, were not particularly upset by the sharp break from the traditions that they never knew personally.  For them, the liturgical changes were made by Rome and that was all there was to it.  Some even strangely imagined that those changes were themselves “traditional,” even though they were plainly being introduced as something new. 

Here we need to realize that Modernists have precisely the same mistaken notion of what tradition is.  For them, any new idea or practice of their own that they introduce goes by the name of “tradition,” no matter what long-standing genuine Catholic tradition they thereby terminate and replace.  Actually, Modernist “tradition” is nothing but an evolutionary, and therefore unstable and changeable, type of “tradition” that is not really tradition at all, but just a Modernist innovation. 

The third fact that we dare not ignore, while considering the liturgical changes made under Pius XII in the 1950s, is the presence of hardcore Modernists on that Pope’s Vatican staff. It took us old-timers some years before we became fully aware of their presence in the Vatican.  We knew their names very well, but without for a longtime knowing that they were Modernists. But Pius XII, didn’t he know?  How did the Modernists manage to establish themselves in his office? 

Conclusion (Still Fr. Stepanich)

Let us now take an extra look at the contradictory and confusing picture of things that the foregoing three facts put before us. First, a reputed strongly traditional Pope introduces supposedly but not really traditional liturgical changes; secondly, those supposedly traditional liturgical changes are in reality, and as plainly as could be, tradition-breaking liturgical changes; thirdly, anti-traditional hardcore Modernists work with a reputed strongly traditional Pope to issue traditional-breaking liturgical changes. 

How can such a mixture of contradiction possibly make sense? To get away from and stay away from all that, isn’t it best simply to stay with what was always surely traditional and surely free of all Modernist error? Of course it is! (All emphasis in the original) 

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity! 

Omnia pro Jesu per Mariam.