On June 30, 1988, His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Levebvre (with the assistance of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer) consecrated four Society of St. Pius X priests to the Episcopacy in opposition to the Modernist Vatican. Those two brave prelates along with newly consecrated Bishop Bernard Fellay (now age 52), Bishop Alfonso de Galleretta (now age 53), Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerias (now age 65) and Bishop Richard Williamson (now age 70) were "excommunicated" by Karol Wotyla (John Paul II) the next day. Wotyla began the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission on July 2, to try and keep as many away from the Society by offering them the Traditional Mass if they would accept the poison of Vatican II and the "papacy" of Wotyla.
Now, 22 years later, "Operation Survival" as the Archbishop called the consecrations, can be seen in light of history. The Archbishop, who had come to a de facto acceptance of sedevacantism, went to his eternal reward March 25, 1991. Bishop de Castro Mayer, who shared his views, departed a month later on April 25. Bishop Bernard Fellay took control of the Society in 1994 and began "negotiations" with the Modernist Vatican. The Archbishop had broken off his negotiations when he realized (a) a Catholic doesn't negotiate with a Pope, he obeys, and (b) the continuation of the Church with a valid Apostolic succession needed to be preserved. When you add (a) plus (b), you get the formula for sedevacantism.
Bp. Fellay thinks that you can have a pope and not obey. It's "Cathestant"--the mixing of Catholicism with Protestantism. You have a Holy Father and you decide when and what to obey! Against abortion? Yes, your Holiness! You want us to celebrate the Novus Ordo? No, your Holiness can not command us to go against Tradition. You decry homosexual "marriage"? Yes, your Holiness! Archbishop Levebvre died excommunicated? No, Your Holiness, it was illegal for John Paul II to do so. And so it goes on and on.
On July 7, 2007, Ratzinger issued Summorum Pontificum, which allowed the 1962 Missal to be used as the "Extraordinary Rite" of the Church (a sort of "Equal Rites Amendment"). In January 2009, he lifted the "excommunications" against the four living SSPX Bishops. A month later when Bishop Williamson disputed a point of secular history (how many Jews died in the Holocaust and were gas chambers used), Ratzinger jumped through hoops to apologize and "silenced" Bp. Williamson, demanding a retraction and apology. Had Bp. Williamson sodomized some young boys and/or denied some Truth of Divine and Catholic Faith, Ratzinger would have helped hide his crimes (no apology necessary), and to silence a heretic is intolerable!
Readers wonder why I don't consider the SSPX as Traditionalist. The foregoing should make it obvious. You can't pick and choose what commands of a pope to follow. You must follow them all! If the Novus Ordo is as good as the "Extraordinary Rite", you have no doctrinal basis not to use the New Mass. It becomes a matter of preference; you like vanilla and I like chocolate. You can't claim that the Traditional Mass is more reverent, because that implies that the Church gave us a Rite that is less reverent. The Dogma of the Indefectability of the Church assures us the Church can not give that which is evil--and not to give God the most reverence is an evil (think of Cain and Abel--Cain gave God less than the best he had, and God was not pleased)!
Only sedevacantism gets you out of this conundrum. Ratzinger is NOT pope, therefore we need not obey him--period! The fact that the Novus Ordo is the Novus Bogus (invalid and irreverent), is proof that those who gave it to us are not part of the Church but defected through the profession of heresy. I beg all SSPXers to leave before the sell-out to Ratzinger. Stop trying to walk the fence. If the SSPX is to really survive, the operation they most need is one to remove the deadly disease of Ratzinger from the Body of Christ.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Vatican II, The "Punk Priest" and the Highway to Hell
" In the Traditional Mass only the bread and wine ever change. In the New Mass everything EXCEPT the bread and wine changes."--Attributed to Bp. Blaise Kurz, circa 1969
"Before an institution self-destructs the more ridiculous it becomes."--Voltaire
Apologists for the Deformation that was Vatican II will frequently complain that the wacky goings-on are "abuses never sanctioned by the Council or Pope." The facts tell a different story. Meet one "Fr." Bob Lubic, a Vatican II priest in the Diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Known like most Vatican II clerics as just "Father Bob" (just a regular guy, no alter Christus here!) he has the distinction of also being called the "punk priest" for his use of rock music and punk attire in and out of church. Check out his web site at http://www.thepunkpriest.com/. Fr. Bob has actually sang the infamous AC/DC song Highway to Hell (a song about the band's love and admiration for "Father Satan") in Church and made it part of his "homily" (formerly known as the sermon). He's also used Led Zepplin's Stairway to Heaven---most probably for a Vatican II "Mass of Christian Burial" wherein everything is draped in white and each departed person is de facto canonized as being in Heaven. I wonder if Fr. Bob realizes that Jimmy Page, guitarist for Led Zepplin, was an admirer of Aleister Crowley, the renowned satanist? So enamoured with Crowley, Page purchased the castle where he lived in England. The song even has a proven backward masked message (which I heard) saying "my sweet Satan."
Ah, well, how can Gregorian Chant or Mozart's Requiem Mass in D minor compete with such superior musical talent? Before the chorus of "this is an abuse" chimes in, consider that Fr. Bob operates with the full knowledge and blessing of his "bishop" who in turn is united to Ratzinger. And why shouldn't he; after all, if you read his web site he's simply trying to make the priesthood and Catholicism (at least his parody of it) "more relevant to the people." This WAS and REMAINS the rubric of Vatican II--"making things relevant to modern man." How is this accomplished?
First, downplay/deny "negative theology" which is repugnant to the modern mentality. Such concepts as Hell, Satan, and God's Vengence for Sin must go. Sing a satanic song because (a) there probably is no Hell, so why worry? (b) If there is, no one goes there because we're all good and God will never permit it, so still don't worry! (Maybe Fr. Bob might want to make Don't Worry, Be Happy the official parish anthem).
Second, conform the Church to the modern world. Imitate the world, don't make the world imitate Christ as those "pre-Vatican II schismatics" try to do and whom Fr. Bob condemns on his web site. Interestingly, for someone so eager to placate everyone, we Traditionalists are the ONLY PEOPLE he condemns(Deo gratias!). Actually, under Fr. Bob's theology on Hell, who cares if we're schismatic or not--sin and Hell must go! (The baby-boomers might say "Hell? No, we won't go"!).
Now, you might think I'm making this up. Where does the Vatican II sect teach such things? The General Instruction for the New Mass (GI 69 section 24, DOL 1414) states "..the faithful coming together establish communion among themselves, and dispose themselves for properly hearing the Word of God and worthily celebrating the Eucharist." The Modernist heresy to "establish communion"is nebulous language employed to devalue the real Communion at Mass. This concept of "Christ in the Assembly as Communion" was a driving force of the Modernists which accounts for the numerous times the General Instruction allows the priest to ad lib or omit parts "for pastoral reasons." This explains how the Novus Ordo can be so different from parish to parish or even priest to priest. Use the Motu Mass, Fr. Conservative? Sure! There are pastoral needs! Fr. Bob wants to sing a song about Satan and give a homily that rants with "Amen" responses like a Jimmy Swaggert revival? Sure! Pastoral needs rule again! What are these "pastoral needs", you ask? Why anything that Fr. Conservative or Fr. Bob concoct in their heads, you silly goose!
After the "Prayer after Communion", the GI allows for more impromptu speeches and/or announcements for that warm, fuzzy feeling. Fr. Bob can sell tickets to the Woman's Ordination Conference, tell everyone to give at the Blood drive, ask the people for donations to the Bishop's fund for his million dollar wine cellar, or ask that greeting cards be sent to the former pastor at the local prison. It's all good; and really cool! Then when Fr. Bob says, "The Mass is ended", I can't help but think, "Yep. And I know the heretics who destroyed it, dude."
"Before an institution self-destructs the more ridiculous it becomes."--Voltaire
Apologists for the Deformation that was Vatican II will frequently complain that the wacky goings-on are "abuses never sanctioned by the Council or Pope." The facts tell a different story. Meet one "Fr." Bob Lubic, a Vatican II priest in the Diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Known like most Vatican II clerics as just "Father Bob" (just a regular guy, no alter Christus here!) he has the distinction of also being called the "punk priest" for his use of rock music and punk attire in and out of church. Check out his web site at http://www.thepunkpriest.com/. Fr. Bob has actually sang the infamous AC/DC song Highway to Hell (a song about the band's love and admiration for "Father Satan") in Church and made it part of his "homily" (formerly known as the sermon). He's also used Led Zepplin's Stairway to Heaven---most probably for a Vatican II "Mass of Christian Burial" wherein everything is draped in white and each departed person is de facto canonized as being in Heaven. I wonder if Fr. Bob realizes that Jimmy Page, guitarist for Led Zepplin, was an admirer of Aleister Crowley, the renowned satanist? So enamoured with Crowley, Page purchased the castle where he lived in England. The song even has a proven backward masked message (which I heard) saying "my sweet Satan."
Ah, well, how can Gregorian Chant or Mozart's Requiem Mass in D minor compete with such superior musical talent? Before the chorus of "this is an abuse" chimes in, consider that Fr. Bob operates with the full knowledge and blessing of his "bishop" who in turn is united to Ratzinger. And why shouldn't he; after all, if you read his web site he's simply trying to make the priesthood and Catholicism (at least his parody of it) "more relevant to the people." This WAS and REMAINS the rubric of Vatican II--"making things relevant to modern man." How is this accomplished?
First, downplay/deny "negative theology" which is repugnant to the modern mentality. Such concepts as Hell, Satan, and God's Vengence for Sin must go. Sing a satanic song because (a) there probably is no Hell, so why worry? (b) If there is, no one goes there because we're all good and God will never permit it, so still don't worry! (Maybe Fr. Bob might want to make Don't Worry, Be Happy the official parish anthem).
Second, conform the Church to the modern world. Imitate the world, don't make the world imitate Christ as those "pre-Vatican II schismatics" try to do and whom Fr. Bob condemns on his web site. Interestingly, for someone so eager to placate everyone, we Traditionalists are the ONLY PEOPLE he condemns(Deo gratias!). Actually, under Fr. Bob's theology on Hell, who cares if we're schismatic or not--sin and Hell must go! (The baby-boomers might say "Hell? No, we won't go"!).
Now, you might think I'm making this up. Where does the Vatican II sect teach such things? The General Instruction for the New Mass (GI 69 section 24, DOL 1414) states "..the faithful coming together establish communion among themselves, and dispose themselves for properly hearing the Word of God and worthily celebrating the Eucharist." The Modernist heresy to "establish communion"is nebulous language employed to devalue the real Communion at Mass. This concept of "Christ in the Assembly as Communion" was a driving force of the Modernists which accounts for the numerous times the General Instruction allows the priest to ad lib or omit parts "for pastoral reasons." This explains how the Novus Ordo can be so different from parish to parish or even priest to priest. Use the Motu Mass, Fr. Conservative? Sure! There are pastoral needs! Fr. Bob wants to sing a song about Satan and give a homily that rants with "Amen" responses like a Jimmy Swaggert revival? Sure! Pastoral needs rule again! What are these "pastoral needs", you ask? Why anything that Fr. Conservative or Fr. Bob concoct in their heads, you silly goose!
After the "Prayer after Communion", the GI allows for more impromptu speeches and/or announcements for that warm, fuzzy feeling. Fr. Bob can sell tickets to the Woman's Ordination Conference, tell everyone to give at the Blood drive, ask the people for donations to the Bishop's fund for his million dollar wine cellar, or ask that greeting cards be sent to the former pastor at the local prison. It's all good; and really cool! Then when Fr. Bob says, "The Mass is ended", I can't help but think, "Yep. And I know the heretics who destroyed it, dude."
Monday, June 21, 2010
Religious Liberty, Religious Tolerance, and Vatican II
Mr. Peter Gaffney has seen fit not to continue our dialogue after I posed some direct questions to him (see post of 6/14/10). Moreover he has purged his blog "Aretheos" of my comments and any ability to make further comments! Such is the typical Vatican II sect member. Unable to refute or answer our arguments, they retreat to a place where they don't have to face the ugly reality of a false pope and counterfeit church. For them ignorance is bliss (except on Judgement Day when it will be asked why they did not perform due diligence into this matter). Pray for Mr. Gaffney and his coreligionists that they may seek the Truth wherever it may lead.
One point on his blog I never touched upon was his endorsement of so-called "religious liberty." He says "error has no rights. People do." Well, people don't have the right to be wrong and lead others into error. Might as well say, "Murder has no rights, but murderers do." Yes, but it doesn't mean they have the right to murder and disrupt the public order! If, as Mr. Gaffney contends, people can not be made to act against their religious consciences, what about Satanists who wish to sacrifice their babies to the devil? People whose religions compel them to make abortion legal? All persons are free to profess their mistaken beliefs in private and not proselytize. This is religious tolerance, the teaching of the Church before Vatican II.
Here is what Vatican II says about religious "liberty":
"The Declaration of this Vatican Council (Dignitatis Humanae)on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be more fully known to human reason through centuries of experience... Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions.”
The Vatican II decree demands that states concede false religions the right to exist:
(P.2) “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom... The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”
(P.2) “Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth... and the exercise of this right is not be be impeded?”
Now for the True Traditional Teaching--please compare--on religious TOLERANCE:
“Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. Those remain ever one and the same and are no less changeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity to an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
As His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII said, “It is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.” The Popes, the true Vicars of Christ on earth, have had the perennial duty to root up and destroy heresy while planting and nourishing what is true. Divine Justice and the integrity of the true religion demand that error be condemned and that the forces of evil be thwarted. Evil and error can be, at most, tolerated in this vale of tears. Never can it be said to have the right to exist.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition “that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.”
Both Pope Leo XIII, above, and Pope Pius IX, below, condemn the notion that states should sanction false religions:
“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
One point on his blog I never touched upon was his endorsement of so-called "religious liberty." He says "error has no rights. People do." Well, people don't have the right to be wrong and lead others into error. Might as well say, "Murder has no rights, but murderers do." Yes, but it doesn't mean they have the right to murder and disrupt the public order! If, as Mr. Gaffney contends, people can not be made to act against their religious consciences, what about Satanists who wish to sacrifice their babies to the devil? People whose religions compel them to make abortion legal? All persons are free to profess their mistaken beliefs in private and not proselytize. This is religious tolerance, the teaching of the Church before Vatican II.
Here is what Vatican II says about religious "liberty":
"The Declaration of this Vatican Council (Dignitatis Humanae)on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be more fully known to human reason through centuries of experience... Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions.”
The Vatican II decree demands that states concede false religions the right to exist:
(P.2) “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom... The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”
(P.2) “Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth... and the exercise of this right is not be be impeded?”
Now for the True Traditional Teaching--please compare--on religious TOLERANCE:
“Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. Those remain ever one and the same and are no less changeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity to an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
As His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII said, “It is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.” The Popes, the true Vicars of Christ on earth, have had the perennial duty to root up and destroy heresy while planting and nourishing what is true. Divine Justice and the integrity of the true religion demand that error be condemned and that the forces of evil be thwarted. Evil and error can be, at most, tolerated in this vale of tears. Never can it be said to have the right to exist.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition “that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.”
Both Pope Leo XIII, above, and Pope Pius IX, below, condemn the notion that states should sanction false religions:
“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
What True Catholics Must Believe: The Role of Theologians
In my prior posts, and in talking with aquaintances and friends, many non-Traditionalists don't understand the obligation for true Catholics to assent to the common teaching of the theologians. Here, I will reprint a text that will explain a true Catholic's obligation in this matter.
Taken from:I. Salaverri SJ. Tractatus de Ecclesia, 3rd ed., Madrid, BAC 1955, 846ff.
Thesis 21. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.
A. Dogmatic Value of this Thesis. It is:
1. Catholic Doctrine. (From the teaching of Pius IX )
2. Theologically Certain. (From the practice of Trent & Vatican I.)
B. Proof of the Thesis
1. Major Premise. The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would
necessarily lead the whole Church into error.
2. Minor Premise. But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church is infallible.)
3. Conclusion. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.
C. Proofs of the Major Premise.
1. Citation of Theological Works. Popes, bishops, etc., from the 8th century onwards taught material which they drew from the teaching of theologians.
2. Supervision. From the 12-16th centuries, the Church founded, directed, and watched over all theological schools.
3. Legislation. From the time of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes.
4. Consultation. Church used theologians as her consultors for doctrinal matters.
5. Implicit Approval. The Church implicitly approves the contents of theologians’ works by not censuring them, which she is obliged to do in case of theological errors.
6. Recommendation. The writings of various theological schools are praised by popes and held out as examples to imitate.
Opponents to Authority of Theologians.
A. Humanists. (Rejected supernatural principles. Put man at center
of universe.)
B. Protestants. (Rejected doctrines theologians defended.)
1. Luther. Scholastic theology is “ignorance of the truth and
inane falsehood.”
2. Melancthon. Scholastic theology is “the Gospel obscured,
the faith extinguished.”
C. Jansenists. (Claimed that theologians “obscured revealed doctrine.”)
D. Modernists, liberals rationalists. (Reject the immutable nature of Truth).
“The teachings of theologians were responsible for the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. Because these theologians erred and we reject their teachings, we are also therefore free to reject the teaching of earlier theologians if a teaching ‘does not make sense’ to us.”
Response: The group of European modernist theologians primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and had been suspect of heresy by the Holy Office and otherwise censured or silenced byChurch authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, Ratzinger, Kung,etc. When the strictures were removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.
Taken from:I. Salaverri SJ. Tractatus de Ecclesia, 3rd ed., Madrid, BAC 1955, 846ff.
Thesis 21. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.
A. Dogmatic Value of this Thesis. It is:
1. Catholic Doctrine. (From the teaching of Pius IX )
2. Theologically Certain. (From the practice of Trent & Vatican I.)
B. Proof of the Thesis
1. Major Premise. The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would
necessarily lead the whole Church into error.
2. Minor Premise. But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church is infallible.)
3. Conclusion. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.
C. Proofs of the Major Premise.
1. Citation of Theological Works. Popes, bishops, etc., from the 8th century onwards taught material which they drew from the teaching of theologians.
2. Supervision. From the 12-16th centuries, the Church founded, directed, and watched over all theological schools.
3. Legislation. From the time of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes.
4. Consultation. Church used theologians as her consultors for doctrinal matters.
5. Implicit Approval. The Church implicitly approves the contents of theologians’ works by not censuring them, which she is obliged to do in case of theological errors.
6. Recommendation. The writings of various theological schools are praised by popes and held out as examples to imitate.
ADDENDUM:Those Who Reject the Common Teaching of Approved Theologians
Opponents to Authority of Theologians.
A. Humanists. (Rejected supernatural principles. Put man at center
of universe.)
B. Protestants. (Rejected doctrines theologians defended.)
1. Luther. Scholastic theology is “ignorance of the truth and
inane falsehood.”
2. Melancthon. Scholastic theology is “the Gospel obscured,
the faith extinguished.”
C. Jansenists. (Claimed that theologians “obscured revealed doctrine.”)
D. Modernists, liberals rationalists. (Reject the immutable nature of Truth).
Another objection:
“The teachings of theologians were responsible for the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. Because these theologians erred and we reject their teachings, we are also therefore free to reject the teaching of earlier theologians if a teaching ‘does not make sense’ to us.”
Response: The group of European modernist theologians primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and had been suspect of heresy by the Holy Office and otherwise censured or silenced byChurch authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, Ratzinger, Kung,etc. When the strictures were removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.
Monday, June 14, 2010
False Charges Part II
I continue my exchange with Mr. Gaffney.
He writes: "You equate "Sacred Tradition" erroneously with "Magisterium". One is a source of Revelation and the other is the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS who interpret that source for the Body Of Christ. An individual may be excommunicated and lose his office but the Magisterium never fails. NO NOT YOUR PILE OF CANONISTS AND CITATIONS BUT THE OFFICE! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OFFICE! And, for courtesy sake, do not reply on my poem"
Reply: Sorry about the reply on your nice poem! As to your comment, the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS are expressing themselves through the solemnly approved tomes of canon law, moral theology, and dogmatic theology! The Church itself has taught that the hierarchy could defect. In such a case, those who hold on to the Traditional teaching remain the Church until the papacy and hierarchy can be restored by an imperfect general council, which was discussed by the pre-Vatican II theologians.
Read this again:"Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition."
The citations to the theologians and canonists EXPRESS THE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM!
A query for Mr. Gaffney: Are the words of consecration necessary to effectuate Transubstantiation? What does the Magisterium teach? How can you be sure that your answer is correct? Answer these three questions and we can proceed from there.
He writes: "You equate "Sacred Tradition" erroneously with "Magisterium". One is a source of Revelation and the other is the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS who interpret that source for the Body Of Christ. An individual may be excommunicated and lose his office but the Magisterium never fails. NO NOT YOUR PILE OF CANONISTS AND CITATIONS BUT THE OFFICE! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OFFICE! And, for courtesy sake, do not reply on my poem"
Reply: Sorry about the reply on your nice poem! As to your comment, the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS are expressing themselves through the solemnly approved tomes of canon law, moral theology, and dogmatic theology! The Church itself has taught that the hierarchy could defect. In such a case, those who hold on to the Traditional teaching remain the Church until the papacy and hierarchy can be restored by an imperfect general council, which was discussed by the pre-Vatican II theologians.
Read this again:"Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition."
The citations to the theologians and canonists EXPRESS THE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM!
A query for Mr. Gaffney: Are the words of consecration necessary to effectuate Transubstantiation? What does the Magisterium teach? How can you be sure that your answer is correct? Answer these three questions and we can proceed from there.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The False Charge of Private Interpretation--Again!
I have been having a charitable discussion with one Mr. Peter Gaffney (readers should refer to my post of 6/10/10). Mr. Gaffney has responded with a comment accusing us Traditionalists of "private interpretation." I have already dealt with this fallacy in my post of 6/5/10, and I would kindly ask all readers, including Mr. Gaffney, to please refer to it. However, I will respond to what Mr. Gaffney wrote point by point.
He writes: "You have no authority to interpret Sacred Tradition."
Response: You're correct, I don't. However, the Church does. As I wrote previously, Traditionalists are not in the business of judging and deposing popes with private interpretations. We look at reality (contradictions in the teachings of Vatican II with prior teaching as defined by the Church and Her appointed theologians and canonists), tries to explain it (true authority can't give evil/errors), and act accordingly (get out/keep out of the false sect of Vatican II and join/remain with the Remnant Church--the Traditionalists). No private interpretations, just public determinations.
He writes: "Martin Luther could not prefer his interpretation of the 'black and white' of Scripture and you can not pile up citation after citation to provide the clothing of office which you lack"
Response: Mr. Gaffney's argument misses the point repeatedly made that this is not MY INTERPRETATION! It is that of the CHURCH! Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?
Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition. Interestingly, the "conservatives" of the Vatican II sect have swallowed a chief doctrine of Modernism hook, line and sinker!
Do not counter with "the Holy Ghost would not permit this to happen to a pope." You would have said the same thing ten years ago if I proposed that the pope could do away with the words of consecration to effectuate Transubstantiation in the Mass---but this is EXACTLY what happened in 2001! (See my post of 6/10/10). It IS TRUE that the Pope can not teach error when exercising his Petrine Office. However, the Church teaches that a pope can fall into heresy as a private theologian and lose his office. So, in one sense Mr. Gaffney is correct, the Holy Ghost would not permit the POPE to teach heresy, yet heresy has been taught, so it could not come from a True Pope. Therefore, Ratzinger, as a private theologian, fell into heresy and lost his office.
Finally, he writes: "Vatican II sect--how convenient. How many sects of Traditionalists are there?"
Response: An argument that is very glib, but doesn't get you very far. I have demonstrated by logical argumentation that Vatican II set up a false religion based on the heresy of Modernism. It is "counterfeit Catholicism." Traditionalists agree on all defined matters of Faith and Morals as taught by the Church pre-Vatican II. We disagree on issues novel to the terrible times in which we live (e.g. how to proceed in the absence of a pope for many years). But, as Scripture tells us, "when the Shepard is struck, the sheep are scattered." It is to be expected that this will occur when people disagree and we have no supreme authority to "kick it upstairs" and make a binding determination.
In the case of the Vatican II sect, you supposedly have a supreme authority, but like Anglicans, have three divisions: a high church, broad church, and low church. The high Vatican II division doesn't like Vatican II yet tries to live in a state of contradiction, unable to reconcile the changes with perennial teaching, yet accept Ratzinger as pope, ignore the illogic of their position, and content themselves with traditional trappings (e.g. Society of St. Peter,Motu Mass parishes, etc). The broad Vatican II division likes Vatican II, but not alleged "abuses" (e.g. "Clown masses' for kids, etc). The low Vatican II division thinks the Council wasn't heretical enough (!) and clamor for woman "priests", abortion "rights", etc. If Ratzinger were truly pope, why the divisions? They did not exist before--you obeyed or were excommunicated. The fact of the matter is Ratzinger will tolerate, indeed accept, ANYTHING, as long as you submit to the heretical teachings of his ecumenical one-world religion.
Mr. Gaffney I pray that like the women who went to see Our Lord on Easter morning, you will realize that what the angel told them applies to your sect, "You're looking for the Lord, but He is not here." More disturbing than the vacant see of Peter, is the vacant tabernacles of Vatican II which contain mere bread. For the love of God and His Blessed Mother, may your eyes be opened and convert!
He writes: "You have no authority to interpret Sacred Tradition."
Response: You're correct, I don't. However, the Church does. As I wrote previously, Traditionalists are not in the business of judging and deposing popes with private interpretations. We look at reality (contradictions in the teachings of Vatican II with prior teaching as defined by the Church and Her appointed theologians and canonists), tries to explain it (true authority can't give evil/errors), and act accordingly (get out/keep out of the false sect of Vatican II and join/remain with the Remnant Church--the Traditionalists). No private interpretations, just public determinations.
He writes: "Martin Luther could not prefer his interpretation of the 'black and white' of Scripture and you can not pile up citation after citation to provide the clothing of office which you lack"
Response: Mr. Gaffney's argument misses the point repeatedly made that this is not MY INTERPRETATION! It is that of the CHURCH! Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?
Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition. Interestingly, the "conservatives" of the Vatican II sect have swallowed a chief doctrine of Modernism hook, line and sinker!
Do not counter with "the Holy Ghost would not permit this to happen to a pope." You would have said the same thing ten years ago if I proposed that the pope could do away with the words of consecration to effectuate Transubstantiation in the Mass---but this is EXACTLY what happened in 2001! (See my post of 6/10/10). It IS TRUE that the Pope can not teach error when exercising his Petrine Office. However, the Church teaches that a pope can fall into heresy as a private theologian and lose his office. So, in one sense Mr. Gaffney is correct, the Holy Ghost would not permit the POPE to teach heresy, yet heresy has been taught, so it could not come from a True Pope. Therefore, Ratzinger, as a private theologian, fell into heresy and lost his office.
Finally, he writes: "Vatican II sect--how convenient. How many sects of Traditionalists are there?"
Response: An argument that is very glib, but doesn't get you very far. I have demonstrated by logical argumentation that Vatican II set up a false religion based on the heresy of Modernism. It is "counterfeit Catholicism." Traditionalists agree on all defined matters of Faith and Morals as taught by the Church pre-Vatican II. We disagree on issues novel to the terrible times in which we live (e.g. how to proceed in the absence of a pope for many years). But, as Scripture tells us, "when the Shepard is struck, the sheep are scattered." It is to be expected that this will occur when people disagree and we have no supreme authority to "kick it upstairs" and make a binding determination.
In the case of the Vatican II sect, you supposedly have a supreme authority, but like Anglicans, have three divisions: a high church, broad church, and low church. The high Vatican II division doesn't like Vatican II yet tries to live in a state of contradiction, unable to reconcile the changes with perennial teaching, yet accept Ratzinger as pope, ignore the illogic of their position, and content themselves with traditional trappings (e.g. Society of St. Peter,Motu Mass parishes, etc). The broad Vatican II division likes Vatican II, but not alleged "abuses" (e.g. "Clown masses' for kids, etc). The low Vatican II division thinks the Council wasn't heretical enough (!) and clamor for woman "priests", abortion "rights", etc. If Ratzinger were truly pope, why the divisions? They did not exist before--you obeyed or were excommunicated. The fact of the matter is Ratzinger will tolerate, indeed accept, ANYTHING, as long as you submit to the heretical teachings of his ecumenical one-world religion.
Mr. Gaffney I pray that like the women who went to see Our Lord on Easter morning, you will realize that what the angel told them applies to your sect, "You're looking for the Lord, but He is not here." More disturbing than the vacant see of Peter, is the vacant tabernacles of Vatican II which contain mere bread. For the love of God and His Blessed Mother, may your eyes be opened and convert!
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Church's Teaching on Loss of Ecclesiastical Office by the Pope
As a follow-up to my last post of 6/10/10, I would like to set out the Teaching of the Church, as expounded by Her theologians, on the subject of the possibility of a pope who loses his office through the profession of heresy. This proves the CHURCH teaches that the hierarchy, including the pope himself, can defect from the Faith and lose their authority!
Heresy and Loss of Papal Office
It may seem surprising to Catholics who have been taught the doctrine of papal infallibility that a pope, as a private teacher, can nevertheless fall into heresy and automatically lose his office. Lest it be thought that this principle is a fantasy invented by Traditionalist 'fanatics', or, at best, just a minority opinion expressed by an obscure Catholic writer or two, we reproduce some texts from popes, saints, canonists and theologians.Lay readers may not be familiar with the names of Coronata, Iragui, Badii, Prummer, Wernz, Vidal, Beste, Vermeersch, Creusen and Regatillo. These priests were internationally recognised authorities in their fields before Vatican II. Our citations are taken from the massive treatises they wrote on canon law and dogmatic theology.
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950)
"III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy [i.e. papacy]. 1o What is required by divine law for this appointment: (a) The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment.Also required for validity is that the man appointed be a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded."...2o Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways:....c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic.It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic - if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed without 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."Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1:312,316.
Pope Innocent III (1198)
"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore (should a pope 'lose his savor') could cast him out or trample him under foot - since of the pope it is said 'gather thy flock into thy fold'. Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.Still less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] 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'."Sermo 4.
St Antoninus (1459)
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that 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.A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond, publisher.
Pope Paul IV (1559)
"Further, if ever that 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.- It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded to him by all.-Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way....- Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected - and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom - shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.- 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, honour, title, authority, office and power."Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. 16 February 1559.
St Robert Bellarmine (1610)
"A pope who is a manifest heretic (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."De Romano Pontifice. II.30.
St Alphonsus Liguori (1787)
"If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes. 9:232.
Vatican I (1869), Serapius Iragui (1959)
"What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?The response was thus: 'Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.' [Mansi 52:1109]Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute impossibility of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, 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. 371.
J. Wilhelm (1913)
"The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Encyclopedia Press 1913. 7:261.
Caesar Badii (1921)
"c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:....Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptised, heretics and schismatics....Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases:....(d) Through notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165.
Dominic Prummer (1927)
"The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost:....(c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably....The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.Based on the supposition, however, that a pope could fall into heresy, as a private person (for as pope he could not err in faith, because he would be infallible), various authors have worked out different answers as to how he could then be deprived of his power. None of the answers, nevertheless, exceed the limits of probability."Manuale Iuris Canonici. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. 95.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943)
"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.
Udalricus Beste (1946)
"Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e. the See of Peter] is judged by no one.The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously cannot be its head. We can find no example of this in history."Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St John's Abbey Press 1946. Canon 221.
A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen (1949)
" The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy.At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically [ipso facto] fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess."Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340.
Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956)
"The Roman Pontiff ceases in office:....(4) Through notorious public heresy? Five answers have been given:1. 'The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.' A pious thought, but essentially unfounded. 2. 'The pope loses office even through secret heresy.' False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church.3. 'The pope does not lose office because of public heresy.' Objectionable. 4. 'The pope loses office by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.' But who would issue the sentence? The See of Peter is judged by no one (Canon 1556). 5. 'The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.' This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could be its head." Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396.
Citations taken from the scholarly work, Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope, by Fr. Anthony Cekada, 1995.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Concerning Theological Misconceptions and Traditionalists
I frequently visit and comment on the blogosphere, both Traditionalist and non-Traditionalist alike (political blogs too!). I write this post to address some theological misconceptions and errors regarding Catholic theology I came across at a blog called "Aretheos." The post entitled "Concerning Traditionalists"(1) was written by the blog's owner, one Mr. Peter Gaffney. From what I could surmise from the post, Mr. Gaffney is a former seminarian in the Vatican II sect from the 1970's.
Mr. Gaffney is to be commended for a very charitable and heartfelt post. I would like to address his errors in an equally charitable manner and hope this engenders a fruitful dialogue between us and possibly some who will read our posts. I will outline the major points Mr. Gaffney makes and respond.
1. The pre-Vatican II Church allowed the vernacular under certain conditions.
This is true. No Traditionalist maintains that vernacular is the reason for the rejection of the Novus Ordo, nor do we contend that rubrical and calandar changes can not be made. What we object to are the changes in doctrine. There are very good reasons to keep Latin, e.g. to prevent corruption of meaning in a living language (think when the word gay meant happy, and mistress meant a woman in charge), to give a sense of the sacred, and to have a universal tongue for a universal Church (Catholic means universal). True, Eastern rites were allowed to keep their tongues, but this was to prevent the inroads by "Orthodox" schismatics.
Changing the Mass into a vernacular bread and wine service indistinguishable from an Episcopalian service is another matter!! Indeed, John Paul II allows the use of a "mass" that contains no words of consecration! "Context" will produce the miracle of Transubstantiation!!
It is de fide that Christ instituted the sacraments. We must believe it by supernatural faith. This means that He gave to the sacraments their nature, their substance. He did this by assigning the use of a certain physical element in conjunction with certain words. In some cases, He specified both the element and the words, as in Baptism and Holy Eucharist. In other cases, He explained to the Apostles the nature of the Sacrament, determined in general the element and words, and left to the Church the determination of the specific elements and words.
It is the teaching of the Church that the Church does not have the power to change anything which pertains to the substance of the sacraments. (See The Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, chapter 2. Denz. 931).On July 20th, 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Novus Ordo replacement for the Holy Office, issued a document which devastates all Catholic sacramental doctrine. The document was not made public until October, 2001.
The document is entitled, "Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East". The original Vatican text is in English.
The document, which has the explicit approval of Wojtyla (aka John Paul II), permits Chaldean Catholics to attend the Masses of the Nestorians, and to receive Communion at their liturgies.
This is nothing new, however. Vatican II permitted such heretical and sacrilegious behavior for Catholics, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically allows the practice in certain cases.
There is, nonetheless, an astounding detail about this act of ecumenism. By the admission even of the Vatican itself, the Nestorians do not have a consecration formula in their anaphora (canon) of the Mass. Their priest never recites the words of consecration, “This is My Body,” nor “This is the chalice of My Blood...” with the subsequent words. Nor does he recite anything even similar to them.
The Modernist Vatican text states:
"The principal issue for the Catholic Church agreeing to this request, is related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative." (I invite the reader to reference my citation of this document on the Modernist Vatican's own web site).
By “Institution Narrative” they mean what Catholics commonly call the consecration formula, that is, the essential words which are the form of the sacrament. In the Catholic Church, by the institution of Christ Himself, they are “For this is My Body,” for the consecration of the bread, and “This is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins,” for the consecration of the wine.
These words, or anything similar to them, cannot be found in the Nestorian liturgy. In their liturgies, one of the canons or “anaphoras” which they use is a very old one called the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. In this anaphora, the words of consecration which Our Lord used at the Last Supper cannot be found. There is nothing even equivalent. Rather these words take the place of the consecration:
"O Lord, may thy holy Spirit come and rest upon this the offering of thy servants, and bless and sanctify it: in order that it be for us, O Lord, unto the propitiation of trespasses and the remission of sins and unto the great hope of resurrection from the dead and unto a new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who are pleasing in Thy sight."
Beautiful words, indeed, but unfortunately they do not produce the sacrament. These words are a formula found in all Eastern Rite liturgies known as the epiclesis, which is an invocation to the Holy Ghost to bless and sanctify the bread and wine. The Greek Orthodox hold that without the epiclesis there is no valid sacrament.
Let us assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that John Paul II is a true Pope. Given the fact that he has dispensed with the words of consecration, the form of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would have to conclude one of two things:
• The words of Christ at the Last Supper do not pertain to the substance of the Holy Eucharist, or
• The words of Christ at the Last Supper do pertain to the substance of the Holy Eucharist, but the Church has the right to alter the substance of the sacraments.
There is no third possibility. But each of these two conclusions is contrary to the teaching and immemorial practice of the Catholic Church, and against the unanimous consent of the Doctors and theologians of the Church, as well as against all of the liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church.
The first conclusion, that the words of Christ do not pertain to the substance of the sacrament, is contrary to the Council of Florence, which declared:
"The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine."(Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians. Denz. 698).
It is furthermore contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei:
"The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as representative of the faithful."
The second conclusion, that the Church can change the substance of a sacrament, is contrary to the Council of Trent:
"It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, with the exception of their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places. [emphasis added](Denz. 931)
It is also contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII contained in Sacramentum Ordinis:
"And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord in the course of the ages the Church has not, and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have been all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the “substance of the sacraments,” that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..."
Concerning the form of the Holy Eucharist, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated by Saint Pius V, states:
"We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has always been used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known as accessible to all, must be here omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Savior: Do this for a commemoration of me."
Now I ask, how could anyone say that the words of Christ do not pertain to the substance of the form of the Holy Eucharist?
Concerning sacramental form, Pope Leo XIII declared in Apostolicae Curae, on the subject of the invalidity of Anglican orders:
"Moreover it is well known that the sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause and cause the grace which they signify. Now this signification, though it must be found in the essential rite as a whole, that is, in both matter and form together, belongs chiefly to form; for that matter is by itself the indeterminate part, which becomes determinate through form."
Where in the “form” used in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is the Body and Blood of Christ signified? It does not even mention the Body and Blood of Christ!
It is these types of changes in doctrine as to this anaphora and the Novus Ordo itself, that we object.
2. Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. DePauw (as well as Padre Pio, Mother Teresa and Sr. Lucia) all accepted John XXIII and their successors as popes therefore "proving" they must be so.
N.B. I want to thank the scholarly works of Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan in the preparation of this post.
Mr. Gaffney is to be commended for a very charitable and heartfelt post. I would like to address his errors in an equally charitable manner and hope this engenders a fruitful dialogue between us and possibly some who will read our posts. I will outline the major points Mr. Gaffney makes and respond.
1. The pre-Vatican II Church allowed the vernacular under certain conditions.
This is true. No Traditionalist maintains that vernacular is the reason for the rejection of the Novus Ordo, nor do we contend that rubrical and calandar changes can not be made. What we object to are the changes in doctrine. There are very good reasons to keep Latin, e.g. to prevent corruption of meaning in a living language (think when the word gay meant happy, and mistress meant a woman in charge), to give a sense of the sacred, and to have a universal tongue for a universal Church (Catholic means universal). True, Eastern rites were allowed to keep their tongues, but this was to prevent the inroads by "Orthodox" schismatics.
Changing the Mass into a vernacular bread and wine service indistinguishable from an Episcopalian service is another matter!! Indeed, John Paul II allows the use of a "mass" that contains no words of consecration! "Context" will produce the miracle of Transubstantiation!!
It is de fide that Christ instituted the sacraments. We must believe it by supernatural faith. This means that He gave to the sacraments their nature, their substance. He did this by assigning the use of a certain physical element in conjunction with certain words. In some cases, He specified both the element and the words, as in Baptism and Holy Eucharist. In other cases, He explained to the Apostles the nature of the Sacrament, determined in general the element and words, and left to the Church the determination of the specific elements and words.
It is the teaching of the Church that the Church does not have the power to change anything which pertains to the substance of the sacraments. (See The Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, chapter 2. Denz. 931).On July 20th, 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Novus Ordo replacement for the Holy Office, issued a document which devastates all Catholic sacramental doctrine. The document was not made public until October, 2001.
The document is entitled, "Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East". The original Vatican text is in English.
The document, which has the explicit approval of Wojtyla (aka John Paul II), permits Chaldean Catholics to attend the Masses of the Nestorians, and to receive Communion at their liturgies.
This is nothing new, however. Vatican II permitted such heretical and sacrilegious behavior for Catholics, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically allows the practice in certain cases.
There is, nonetheless, an astounding detail about this act of ecumenism. By the admission even of the Vatican itself, the Nestorians do not have a consecration formula in their anaphora (canon) of the Mass. Their priest never recites the words of consecration, “This is My Body,” nor “This is the chalice of My Blood...” with the subsequent words. Nor does he recite anything even similar to them.
The Modernist Vatican text states:
"The principal issue for the Catholic Church agreeing to this request, is related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative." (I invite the reader to reference my citation of this document on the Modernist Vatican's own web site).
By “Institution Narrative” they mean what Catholics commonly call the consecration formula, that is, the essential words which are the form of the sacrament. In the Catholic Church, by the institution of Christ Himself, they are “For this is My Body,” for the consecration of the bread, and “This is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins,” for the consecration of the wine.
These words, or anything similar to them, cannot be found in the Nestorian liturgy. In their liturgies, one of the canons or “anaphoras” which they use is a very old one called the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. In this anaphora, the words of consecration which Our Lord used at the Last Supper cannot be found. There is nothing even equivalent. Rather these words take the place of the consecration:
"O Lord, may thy holy Spirit come and rest upon this the offering of thy servants, and bless and sanctify it: in order that it be for us, O Lord, unto the propitiation of trespasses and the remission of sins and unto the great hope of resurrection from the dead and unto a new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who are pleasing in Thy sight."
Beautiful words, indeed, but unfortunately they do not produce the sacrament. These words are a formula found in all Eastern Rite liturgies known as the epiclesis, which is an invocation to the Holy Ghost to bless and sanctify the bread and wine. The Greek Orthodox hold that without the epiclesis there is no valid sacrament.
Let us assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that John Paul II is a true Pope. Given the fact that he has dispensed with the words of consecration, the form of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would have to conclude one of two things:
• The words of Christ at the Last Supper do not pertain to the substance of the Holy Eucharist, or
• The words of Christ at the Last Supper do pertain to the substance of the Holy Eucharist, but the Church has the right to alter the substance of the sacraments.
There is no third possibility. But each of these two conclusions is contrary to the teaching and immemorial practice of the Catholic Church, and against the unanimous consent of the Doctors and theologians of the Church, as well as against all of the liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church.
The first conclusion, that the words of Christ do not pertain to the substance of the sacrament, is contrary to the Council of Florence, which declared:
"The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine."(Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians. Denz. 698).
It is furthermore contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei:
"The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as representative of the faithful."
The second conclusion, that the Church can change the substance of a sacrament, is contrary to the Council of Trent:
"It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, with the exception of their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places. [emphasis added](Denz. 931)
It is also contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII contained in Sacramentum Ordinis:
"And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord in the course of the ages the Church has not, and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have been all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the “substance of the sacraments,” that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..."
Concerning the form of the Holy Eucharist, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated by Saint Pius V, states:
"We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has always been used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known as accessible to all, must be here omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Savior: Do this for a commemoration of me."
Now I ask, how could anyone say that the words of Christ do not pertain to the substance of the form of the Holy Eucharist?
Concerning sacramental form, Pope Leo XIII declared in Apostolicae Curae, on the subject of the invalidity of Anglican orders:
"Moreover it is well known that the sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause and cause the grace which they signify. Now this signification, though it must be found in the essential rite as a whole, that is, in both matter and form together, belongs chiefly to form; for that matter is by itself the indeterminate part, which becomes determinate through form."
Where in the “form” used in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is the Body and Blood of Christ signified? It does not even mention the Body and Blood of Christ!
It is these types of changes in doctrine as to this anaphora and the Novus Ordo itself, that we object.
2. Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. DePauw (as well as Padre Pio, Mother Teresa and Sr. Lucia) all accepted John XXIII and their successors as popes therefore "proving" they must be so.
This is certainly a novel argument, and also historically and theologically inaccurate. Fr. DePauw was the first--along with Bishop Blaise Kurz, to reject the poison of Vatican II in 1964 when the Council was still going on! Apb. Lefebvre came out of retirement in 1970 to join the fight. Both men were open to the opinion of sedevacantism. Fr. DePauw omitted the names of these men in the Canon of the Mass, as he doubted their legitimacy. By the end of his life, he was a sedevacantist (I knew him personally as well as Bp. Williamson who was consecrated in 1988 by Lefebvre).
In the autumn of 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre issued a declaration in which he stated that he would not tolerate in the Society of Saint Pius X those who refused to place the name of John Paul II in the canon of the Mass. He dismissed a number of priests in Europe for refusal to observe the dictum. In the spring of 1980, he came to America with the same agenda: to dismiss those who would not say the name of John Paul II in the canon.
In the course of the negotiations with the American priests, however, Archbishop Lefebvre came to a compromise, of sorts. He would not throw out the priests from the Society of Saint Pius X, if they would agree to keep their sedevacantism to themselves. They could leave out John Paul's name from the canon, as long as they did not make a public issue out of it. "Opinionism" was born. The Archbishop himself would formulate the fundamental tenet of opinionism: "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."(See Bp. Sanborn's article on "Opinionism" at www. traditionalmass.org) By the time he consecrated the four bishops on June 30, 1988, he had pretty much come to the same inescaable conclusion--JP II is a heretic, not a pope! Unfortunately, two of his bishops are eager to sell out his Society of St Pius X to Ratzinger and try to "reconcile" how you can be a heretic and yet remain pope! Fr. De Pauw, Bp. Kurz, and Abp. Lefebvre were in new teritorry; a situation they were aware could happen, but desperately hoping that it just wasn't so!
Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, and Sister Lucia prove nothing. Catholics are not bound to believe in private revelations (even ones solemnly approved by the Church). Some Traditionalists buy into all the kinds of wacky conspiracy theories and visions galore (and Mr. Gaffney rightly scoffs at such). We must be led by the Teaching of the Magisterium as expounded by Her approved theologians, remembering as Scripture tells us that "even if an angel of God should preach to you another Gospel, let him be ANATHEMA"(Galatians 1:18).
3. The problem is not from Vatican II, but from those who are "mentally immature"
Here Mr. Gaffney quotes from theologian Tanquerey to somehow hope to prove that Vatican II made good spiritual direction that was not properly followed. How can he explain the errors of ecclesiology which reduce "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla salus" ("Outside the Church No Salvation") to a meaningless formula? The Vatican II sect promotes the notion of universal salvation, so morality doesn't matter all that much. I think Mr. Gaffney's position could be called a form of "Mentavacantism" (i.e. the mind is vacant), so immature people don't realize they are heretics! Not true--the errors of Vatican II are directly the cause of the problems not any alleged "misreadings" or "immaturity."
4. The Hierarchy can not defect.
That is not the universal teaching of the pre-Vatican II theologians!! As the great theologian Dorsch pointed out:
“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 Vol.2: pgs.196–7)
Mr. Gaffney contradicts the theology propounded by the Magisterium!! The Church resides with the Traditionalists and her hierarchy until such time as the papacy can be restored. I also ask Mr. Gaffney and any person reading this to check out my previous post regarding the false charge of "private interpretation." The problem with good people like Mr. Gaffney is that they are not well versed in the actual teachings of the Church and end up in a form of "papolatry."
I boldly challenge Mr. Gaffney to seriously consider the arguments presented and the weakness--indeed fallacies-- contained in his own. I will continue this exchange if he wants to in order that all may be enlightened. God Bless you Mr. Gaffney, and I hope to hear from you again in fraternal charity!
(1) Please go to http://aretheos.blogspot.com/N.B. I want to thank the scholarly works of Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan in the preparation of this post.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Pope? Nope! A Syllogism for Sedevacantism
As a follow-up to my last post, eminent Traditionalist priest Fr. Cekada has put together a concise argument for the sedevacantist position:
1. The authority of the Church, because of Christ’s promise, cannot give evil laws or teach error.
2. It is therefore impossible that the evils and errors officially sanctioned by the post-Vatican II hierarchy could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
3. Those who promulgated these evils and errors must somehow lack (have lacked) real authority in the Church.
4. Canonists and theologians teach that public or manifest defection from the faith, automatically brings with it loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope, who in his personal capacity, becomes a heretic.
5. Two popes, Innocent III and Paul IV, explicitly mentioned the possibility that a heretic could end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV even declared that such a pope’s election would be invalid and that he would lack all authority.
6. Since the authority of the Church cannot defect (give evil or error), but a pope (or a bishop) as an individual can, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II evils (the new Mass) and errors (religious liberty, ecumenism, etc.) is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and various diocesan cathedrals did (do) not objectively posses canonical authority, having lost it through public defection from the faith.
Fr Cekada and others have repeatedly published pronouncements from pre-Vatican II theologians, canonists and popes — Badii, Bellarmine, Beste, Coronata, Dorsch Herrmann, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, Schultes, Van Noort, Vermeersch, Wernz-Vidal, Wilhelm, Zubizarreta, Pope Innocent III, Pope Paul IV, etc. —to support the principles enunciated above. All Traditionalists would do well to memorize this quick argument in support of the Traditionalist position.
1. The authority of the Church, because of Christ’s promise, cannot give evil laws or teach error.
2. It is therefore impossible that the evils and errors officially sanctioned by the post-Vatican II hierarchy could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
3. Those who promulgated these evils and errors must somehow lack (have lacked) real authority in the Church.
4. Canonists and theologians teach that public or manifest defection from the faith, automatically brings with it loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope, who in his personal capacity, becomes a heretic.
5. Two popes, Innocent III and Paul IV, explicitly mentioned the possibility that a heretic could end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV even declared that such a pope’s election would be invalid and that he would lack all authority.
6. Since the authority of the Church cannot defect (give evil or error), but a pope (or a bishop) as an individual can, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II evils (the new Mass) and errors (religious liberty, ecumenism, etc.) is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and various diocesan cathedrals did (do) not objectively posses canonical authority, having lost it through public defection from the faith.
Fr Cekada and others have repeatedly published pronouncements from pre-Vatican II theologians, canonists and popes — Badii, Bellarmine, Beste, Coronata, Dorsch Herrmann, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, Schultes, Van Noort, Vermeersch, Wernz-Vidal, Wilhelm, Zubizarreta, Pope Innocent III, Pope Paul IV, etc. —to support the principles enunciated above. All Traditionalists would do well to memorize this quick argument in support of the Traditionalist position.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Who Are You To Judge The Pope?: False Charges of Private Interpretation Against Traditionalists
One of the most frequent arguments against sedevacantism by followers of the Second Vatican Council sect (hereinafter "Conciliarists", i.e. followers of the false Vatican II), is that we Traditionalists are "judging the Pope by using private interpretation, just like the Protestants." Well, what about this indictment? Does the charge hold? Are we modern day Martin Luthers, using Sacred Tradition as the sole rule of Faith instead of Scripture? As I will not demonstrate, we are "not guilty" on all counts!
The Roman Catholic Church Can Not Give That Which Is Evil
The Dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church guarantees that nothing evil/false can be given by the Church in Her teachings on Faith and morals, as well as Her universal disciplinary laws.(See, e.g.theologian Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 296). Yet Vatican II has taught and given evil (e.g. the novel teaching that the Holy Ghost uses false sects as a "means of salvation", that the Church of Christ "subsists in"--not IS--the Catholic Church, and the impious and invalid Novus Ordo "mass", etc.). How do we reconcile this with Indefectibility? There are really only two ways to do this:
(1) The contradictions are only apparent not real. This argument claims that the teachings of Vatican II, do not really contradict past teaching. They merely present old teachings in new ways ("subsists in" is another way of expressing "is"), or develop past teachings more fully (the Magisterium pre-Vatican II taught that non-catholics could be saved, so false sects can be a means of salvation). Unfortunately, this argument does not hold water. Vatican II-speak talks of "full" and "partial" communion with the Church depending on how many "elements of truth" a false sect possesses. This is novel. You are either Catholic or not. No one can be a little bit Catholic anymore than one could be a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant. Any talk of "partial communion" contradicts the express teaching on the Mystical Body of Christ (Mystici Corporis) of Pope Pius XII, and all prior Catholic teaching. Likewise, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved applied only to individuals, not the false sects!! A Protestant can be saved in spite of his external membership with a false sect, not because of it. He is saved by virtue of his Baptism of Desire which unites him with the True Church. The contradictions, by force of logic and evidence are REAL.
(2) The hierarchy defected from the Faith by profession of heresy--even the Pope can fall from office; hence the Church did not give us the new teachings--they were given by men who, despite all external appearances to the contrary--were heretics and therefore NOT Catholic. There are scores of canonists and theologians who have always taught this with full approbation of the Magisterium. I will give but one quote in today's entry. The eminent canonist Coronata wrote of the possibility of the pope professing heresy as a private theologian and falling from ecclesiastical office: "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." (See Coronatta, Institutiones Canonici [1950] Volume I, pgs. 312,316). This is precisely why I am a Traditionalist. I long ago concluded by force of reason that the teachings of Vatican II contradict prior Magisterial teachings which makes them erroneous, heretical and evil. No true pope could have promulgated these evils. The conclusion is therefore inescapable: The post-Vatican II popes (Paul VI, JP I, JP II, Benedict XVI) were not true popes. The evil teachings were not the cause of the loss of papal authority, but rather evidence that such a loss had already taken place by profession of heresy as a private theologian to even a few other individuals.
You Can't Judge The Pope
Often, Traditionalists hear the cry, "Who are you to judge the pope? No one can do that!" These people confuse two things:
(1) A formal legal declaration that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic and not a pope and (2) acknowledgement of the reality that such is the case. The former can not be done except by a true pope in the future who will posthumously condemn Ratzinger. That latter can and should be done by all thinking Catholics. No court of law has convicted Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, but would you want to get on a plane if he were the pilot? In the practical order you'd act not according to any legal declaration that doesn't yet exist, but according to the reality that does so exist. You're not going to wait for the legal authorities to catch up with bin Laden; you see the turban, acknowledge the reality, and keep off/get off the plane.
Traditionalists are not in the business of judging popes and making legal declarations with private interpretations. We look at reality (contradictions of Vatican II with prior teaching as defined by the Church and Her appointed theologians and canonists),tries to explain it (true authority can't give evil/errors), and acts accordingly (stay out/get out of Ratzinger's man-made sect and join the Traditionalist Movement as the Remnant Church). No private interpretations, just public determinations.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
"Reforms" of Vatican II --already Condemned!
The story of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa is an interesting one which allows us to assess the "reforms" of the Vatican II Deformation in the 1960s. Bp. Duarte Costa, the bishop of the Diocese of Botucatu, Brazil, was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII on July 2, 1945. He proceeded to set up his own sect, the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. During one of his ad limina visits to Pope Pius XI in 1936, he proposed the following "reforms" to the Holy Father:
1. Celebration of the Mass and administration of the sacraments in the vernacular language
2. Permission for clergy to marry
3. The abolition of auricular confession, replacing it with general or communal confession and absolution
4. Distribution of Holy Communion to the laity under both species (i.e., Host and Blood)
5. Institution of the "permanent diaconate" for married men
6. Celebration of the Mass "versus populi" (facing the people) with the priest behind the altar (i.e. a table)
7. Creation of a Council of Advice, composed of bishops who would govern the Church together with the Pope(read "collegiality")
8. Participation of laypersons in the Mass, including distribution of Communion (1)
The Pope was outraged and Duarte Costa silenced from promoting such heretical, blasphemous and sacrilegious "reforms"!! His sect immediately implemented his agenda, and today is much akin to High Anglicanism! If Duarte Costa (died 1961) had lived just a little longer, he would have witnessed most of his agenda, with other Modernist ideas,fully implemented at the Second Vatican Council by fellow heretic Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI). It's only a matter of time before the married "priests" are welcomed by the Modernist Vatican. If only Paul VI had been as intellectually honest as Duarte Costa to admit that he too was setting up his own sect, divorced from the One True Roman Catholic Church of Christ!
Endnotes
1. See official web site of the Catholic Apostolic National Church at http://www.canc.org.uk/ This sect also calls itself the "Brazilian Catholic Church" which Duarte Costa founded.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Welcome Fellow Traditionalists!
Welcome to Introibo Ad Altare Dei, a blog dedicated to philosophy, theology, politics and world events as seen from a Traditionalist Catholic perspective. I will add posts whenever I can, as I am a busy individual (like most of you reading this now!). Let me first define some terms and give the guiding principles of this blog :
- By Traditionalist Catholic, I mean a Roman Catholic who adheres to sedevacantism, the belief firmly founded in strong theological arguments that the See of Peter has been vacant since at least 1964, when Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) signed the heretical Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. Pope Pius XII was the last pope we can be sure did not lapse into heresy and fall from his office.
- I do NOT include those who recognize Joseph Ratzinger (aka "Pope" Benedict XVI) in theory (e.g. Society of St. Pius X) or in fact (e.g. Society of St. Peter, and other so-called "Indult" groups permitted by Modernist Rome) as Successor of St. Peter in my definition of Traditionalist Catholic.
- The Vatican II religion is of man-made origin. It is pure Modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X, and Counterfeit "Catholicism." The only valid sacraments they possess are Baptism (in most cases), and Matrimony (where no bogus "annulments", i.e. divorces, have been granted).
- I welcome both comment and debate. "The Truth shall set you free," as Our Lord told us. However all comments and debate must be both free from ad hominem attacks and charitable in tone. I will always respond in like manner.
With that said, I'm excited to be reading the newly published book by Traditionalist priest and author Father Anthony Cekada, entitled Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI. Fr. Cekada's erudition and wit shine forth as he exposes the Vatican II "Mass" as just an invalid bread and wine service. His arguments are well grounded in the teachings of the pre-Vatican II theologians and Magesterium. The New "Mass" is NO Mass my friends! The Novus Ordo (new order) is the Novus Bogus! This is the first comprehensive book on the Vatican II "Mass" since Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy published The Problems with the New Mass in 1990. A must read! Buy two copies, one for yourself and another for a friend trapped in the Vatican II sect looking for a "reverent liturgy." Once they perceive the Novus Ordo as evil, they will come to arrive at the inescapable conclusion: The dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church means the Church can not give that which is evil. The Novus Ordo is evil (sacrilegious, invalid). Therefore, the Church did not--indeed COULD NOT-- give us the Novus Ordo!
Order your copies today from http://www.philotheapress.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)