Monday, March 19, 2018

The Ordinary Magisterium Of The Papacy


 There are many Traditionalists who incorrectly believe that only ex cathedra pronouncements of the pope need to be followed or believed. Hence, when Pope Pius XII promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, defining the Assumption of Mary, using his charism of papal infallibility, it must be believed or else you are a heretic. (This is correct). They then assert, incorrectly, that when a pope issues a decree that is not infallible, like Pope Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (on Sacred Scripture), a true Catholic does not have to assent to it. They fail to grasp the Ordinary Magisterium of the papacy and all it implies. The purpose of this post is to set forth this teaching authority of a true pope, and the disastrous consequences which follow when it is either denied or not understood.

The Teaching Authority of the Pope

 On August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII promulgated his encyclical Humani Generis, which exposed and rejected some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine. His Holiness asked the great Thomist and Dominican theologian, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a fervent anti-Modernist, to draft the encyclical. Paragraph number 20 of that document states:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This paragraph brings forth great theological truths. I will condense the commentary on these truths as written by theologian Fenton. 

1. The teachings of the pope are not to be minimized based on the subterfuge that he is not exercising the fullness of his authority.

The teachings of the encyclicals posits an assensum per se (an assent by its very nature), because it is a teaching of the supreme doctrinal authority within the One True Church of Christ. Catholics are bound to give, not merely a polite acknowledgement, but a genuine and sincere acceptance, to the teachings which the pope sets forth with a theological qualification less than de fide (of faith--infallible) or even doctrina certa (certain doctrine). 

Humani Generis thus reasserts the right of the Supreme Pontiff to command "opinionative"assent.  When in his encyclicals, or in any other documents or utterances of his doctrinal office, he imposes a teaching upon the members of the Church with anything less than his supreme authority (i.e., as infallible), the faithful must accept his opinionative judgement as their own. The obligation to assent  is not satisfied when a person merely allows that a teaching set forth in a non-infallible papal pronouncement is a "respectable opinion." Catholics are bound, guided by the teaching authority of Christ which comes to them in the declarations of His Vicar on Earth, to take that opinion as their own.

The day may come when an opinion of this kind needs to be modified. The Church Herself allows for this possibility by not proclaiming it as definitive and binding for all time. The holding of this opinion will possibly be seen as no longer necessary for the purity of the faith. The labors of the approved theologians will, in large part, be responsible for this development. The modifications of these declarations, when and if such modification ever comes, in no way violates the infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church since the doctrine in question was never presented as infallible and irreformable teaching.

2. The pope also teaches in a universal and ordinary manner; encyclicals are always based largely on assertions that have been taught by the Magisterium (in one form or another) before.

The First Vatican Council infallibly defined that a dogma of the faith is a truth which the Church finds contained in either of the two sources of Revelation (Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and which She presents as divine revelation that all must accept as such. The Council goes on to explain that such presentation may be done in an extraordinary manner (infallible definitions of popes and ecumenical councils), or in a universal and ordinary way (the unanimous teachings of the approved theologians or teachings of the bishops spread throughout the world). 

Vatican Council I also presents as dogmatic the assertion that the pope enjoys the same infallibility in defining dogma that the universal Church possesses. Since the bishops can define a dogma in an extraordinary way (ecumenical council called and approved by the pope), or in a universal and ordinary way (when approving theology manuals and catechisms, etc.), it follows that the pope can also teach in an extraordinary manner (ex cathedra pronouncements like the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, canonizations, etc.), he can also do so in an ordinary way, as in an encyclical letter. The pope's teaching is truly universal because he exercises true episcopal jurisdiction over each of the faithful. Many theologians consider the papal bull Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII, declaring Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void," to be in this category of a dogmatic pronouncement. 

3. When the pope passes judgment on a disputed theological point, it is no longer up for debate and discussion among theologians. This is one (but not the only) sign that the pope has exercised his supreme authority in an ordinary manner.

An example of this is the encyclical Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII. The question was disputed as to whether bishops receive their episcopal jurisdiction immediately from Christ, or from Our Lord through the Roman Pontiff, in such a way that it comes immediately through the pope. A large number of prominent theologians taught that the jurisdiction came immediately from Christ; the majority of theologians taught that it came through the Supreme Pontiff. Pope Pius XII settled the question in favor of jurisdiction coming through the pope. Another example is the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis also promulgated by Pope Pius XII, who settled long standing controversies over exactly what constituted the necessary and proper matter and form for Holy Orders when ordaining/consecrating deacons, priests, and bishops. 

N.B. The above section was condensed from theologian Fenton, The Church of Christ, Cluny Media, [2016] reprint of 1951 "Humani Generis and the Holy Father's Ordinary Magisterium" pgs. 110-123.   


Problems for "Recognize and Resistors"

 Given the above, how can the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) refuse to submit to the following teachings of "Pope" "Saint" John Paul II in his encyclical Ut Unam Sint (all emphasis is mine). 

 Today we speak of "other Christians", "others who have received Baptism", and "Christians of other Communities". The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as "Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church".This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. (para. # 42)

Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them (para. #11)

Problematic, as they must give their assent. Yet, how can they assent to an encyclical that teaches an ecclesiology completely opposed to what the Church taught pre-Vatican II? Consider:

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion...They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, para. #7)

Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him wholly and entirely. "The Head and the body are Christ wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son of God, the body is His Church; the bridegroom and the bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ, although they may be found in all places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church; and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church"(Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, para. # 16). 

Remember, an encyclical is made up of assertions, most of which were previously taught by the Magisterium. Not so in this case, which is one of many such examples. Ut Unam Sint, clearly contradicts all that has gone before.  Yet, if your recognize the post-V2 "popes," you must assent to the teachings of Ut Unam Sint. The SSPX rejects how the Church teaches us. 

Problems for Feeneyites

In his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pope Pius IX declares in para. #7:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

In the first part I emphasized, Pope Pius IX clearly states the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside The Church No Salvation). In the next part, he acknowledges that those invincibly ignorant, who live honest lives according to the Natural Law, and are open to the actual graces of God can be saved, not by baptism of water--or he would have written it--but "by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." God can infuse them with sanctifying grace and the True Faith before death (Baptism of Desire). "But it's only an encyclical, it's not infallible," the Feeneyites inevitably whine. As we see above, true assent must be given to encyclicals, but Feeneyites reject how the Church teaches us.  

Conclusion
When Traditionalists reject (or are in ignorance of) how the Church teaches us, error will inevitably follow. Non-infallible decisions of the pope are not "up for grabs" opinions that you can accept or reject at will. Those of the SSPX (and other R&R) reject this and wind up being pulled towards joining the Vatican II sect and losing the Faith. Feeneyites will accept only infallible decrees, and their own interpretation of them, to deny the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. 

In this time of the Great Apostasy, those of us who learn and accept the way the Church teaches us--- and we alone--- can hope to remain Catholic by God's grace. " But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13). 

110 comments:

  1. Remember, it was the Gallican opposition to the doctrine of Papal Infaillabilty at the Vatican Council (there was only one Vatican Council, not two) that bred the attitude of "resistance." This goes back to your recent post on ultramonatism. The Vatican Council confirmed the ultramonatists and condemned the Gallicans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true, Tom. I only mention the Vatican Council as being “First” because I don’t want readers new to Tradtionalism being confused and thinking I’m referring to the invalid Robber Council 1962-65!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. It all stems from the authority to teach. Christ himself gave authority to Peter and his successors to teach. We dont get to choose what we assent to and what we reject. If Bergolio the Apostate is their pope, on what authority do they reject the teaching? It is permissible to doubt a papal election, it is not permissible to reject papal magesterial teaching. I have to stop reading the comments at sites like Remnant and 1P5 because the sheer ignorance of some of these "resisters" is staggering.

      Delete
    3. Yes, to the point where they set themselves up as an “Uber-Magisterium” and see nothing wrong with it. The “pope” they recognize decrees and then they decide if it’s correct or not!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. "But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."

    In Humani Generis, Pius XII did the reverse, like in 1820 but more explicitly : put up for dispute what had thitherto been judged on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Up to 1820 it was a decided thing that treating Heliocentrism as more than a Mathematical model (hypothesis as they said) was wrong.

      Up to Humani Generis, the chronology of the universe was tied to Patristic exegesis of the Bible, which would be for instance the Byzantine and Roman chronologies used in liturgy, Byzantine New Years on Sept 1 dating from a Creation in 5509 BC and Roman Christmases on liturgy first Mass of Christmas Day involving Christ born 5199 After Creation, 2957 after Flood and some more.

      In no way, shape or form did any Pope in 1820 or even 1836 decide that Heliocentrism is truth, or in 1950 that Evolution and Deep Time are truth, but in each case the untraditional party was given a new explicit liberty.

      Delete
    2. This was in response to a better understanding of science. As Pope Leo XIII wrote:
      If dissension should arise between them [science and scripture], here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: 'Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.' To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost 'Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.' Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - 'went by what sensibly appeared,' or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to."Providentissimus Deus (1893)Para #16

      The shift away from geocentrism began before 1950, and with good reason.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. "This was in response to a better understanding of science."

      Does not say so in the paragraph you quote from Providentissimus.

      "The shift away from geocentrism began before 1950, and with good reason."

      Also does not say so in the paragraph you quoted from Providentissimus Deus.

      And the part "for good reason" is not true.

      Delete
    4. Try again, ..." 'Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures;"

      The heliocentric model is universally accepted by modern science and has no impact on faith or morals. It is therefore the shift away from geocentrism began before 1950.

      The fact that you were gullible enough to follow the Palmar de Troya cult, and now recognize the "papacy" of Bawden--"Pope" Michael ("elected" by his mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and a "female theologian") doesn't speak well for your discernment or knowledge base. Don't expect me to give credence to your knowledge of science. I'm a former NYC science teacher and hold a Masters degree in science.

      My statement stands.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. "The heliocentric model is universally accepted by modern science"

      Even if it were true, as it is not, it does not equal "what they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature".

      "and has no impact on faith or morals"

      After Earth or Purgatory, you hope to go where?

      To Empyrean Heaven above/around the limits of what you hold to be visible Universe, 13.8 billion light years up?

      To a kind of elfland in space, which is there in Solar System but invisible for now, as elflands sometimes are?

      Or to a non-space? Well, if to a non-space, where is Christ present under the proper dimensions of His Body?

      Where will your risen body be?

      Or are you a Waldensian?

      "It is therefore the shift away from geocentrism began before 1950."

      I don't dount there has been a "shift away from" Geocentrism, nor that it began well before 1950 and, I also mentioned 1820.

      My point is, no document up to and including Humani Generis in 1950 (if it is Papal) ever states Heliocentrism is true or even directly Heliocentrism is licit to believe, a Heliocentric view of Joshua 10 miracle is a licit exegesis. Haydock was ambiguous between the exegeseis.

      "The fact that you were gullible enough to follow the Palmar de Troya cult, and now recognize the "papacy" of Bawden--"Pope" Michael ("elected" by his mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and a "female theologian") doesn't speak well for your discernment or knowledge base."

      Ad hominem.

      "Don't expect me to give credence to your knowledge of science."

      I never ever asked anyone to do that.

      I did several times over ask people to give credence to their knowledge of scientific details and to logic.

      "I'm a former NYC science teacher and hold a Masters degree in science."

      I'd love a science debate with you - if you dare. So far, you have been blustering about my person.

      Delete
    6. Please name respected scientists who hold the geocentric view. I won't hold my breath. Vatican II apologist Robert Sungenis put out a short movie "The Principle" attempting to prove geocentrism. The contract signed by physicist Lawrence Krauss was carefully worded to avoid any mention of geocentrism, either directly or indirectly, merely stating that the documentary would cover various theories and controversies concerning cosmology. See also http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/08/lawrence_krauss_on_ending_up_in_the_geocentricism_documentary_the_principle.html

      The theory has no impact on faith or morals. According to theologian Pohle, "It is easy to ridicule these naive ideas [about geocentrism] from the advanced standpoint of modern science, as Draper and Flammarion have done. But no sane philosopher will argue Hell does not exist because 'there is no place for it in the Heliocentric system.' We readily admit that modern astronomy has corrected many erroneous notions and that the progress of geography and physics has exercised a wholesome influence on Eschatology." (Dogmatic Theology 12:50)

      "No sane philosopher"--what does that say for you Hans? What you call "ad hominem" is not. As a lawyer, I must bring up instances of a witness having been a liar in the past to show a propensity for such things. I also will question someone's credentials if they purport to be an expert in a certain field, otherwise they are unfit to speak to the subject matter.

      I am not a theologian, and this blog would not exist but for the great apostasy. YOU seem to think you are a "theologian" when you are clearly not qualified (no one presently is unless from pre-Vatican II).

      I merely show what the teaching of the Church is--that's all. You seem to question the papacy of Pope Pius XII--a Vacancy Pusher as I call it.

      Clearly Pohle, an eminent theologian, completely disagrees and sees NO impact on Heaven or Hell as places if you are Heliocentric. But YOU know better.

      Your judgment has been shown as highly flawed and you lack the credentials as a theologian. So any further discussion is moot. I don't discuss law theories with non-lawyers, or theology with non-theologians. If you want to show how faith and morals are implicated in this matter as taught by the Church--that would be different. Over and out.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. "The day may come when an opinion of this kind needs to be modified. The Church Herself allows for this possibility by not proclaiming it as definitive and binding for all time. The holding of this opinion will possibly be seen as no longer necessary for the purity of the faith. The labors of the approved theologians will, in large part, be responsible for this development. The modifications of these declarations, when and if such modification ever comes, in no way violates the infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church since the doctrine in question was never presented as infallible and irreformable teaching."

    An approved theologian, unless a bishop, is as much a part of ecclesia docta as anyone else.

    In other words, a man who on the theory here proposed was obliged to opine the non-infallible statement, but, at the same time, as he is responsible for the sentence being reversed, was not obeying that duty.

    How do you square that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theologians work in tandem with the bishops. As theologian Scheeben explains, “Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.’”

      Theologians are permitted to further clarify opinionative statements or think they may need to be reversed, as long as the pope has not closed off discussion by declaring the matter settled. Laymen are not theologians.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Scheeben forgets:

      1) laymen depend on bishops rather than on theologians;
      2) and St Augustine's dictum is nowhere near proof that bishops explicitly approve of what theologians say, but if at all, then over centuries.

      Like those in which Church Theologians taught Earth unmoved and stars moved by angels. Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa, Riccioli.

      And:
      3) Bishops are also subject to the Pope's encyclicals.

      Delete
    3. 1. Theologians work with the bishops--"an extension" so to speak.

      2. Pre-Vatican II the bishops were vigilant in approving what was taught in the seminaries. Hence, the the restraints placed on Congar, Ratzinger, Roncalli, etc. When Roncalli usurped the throne of St. Peter, they began to be rehabilitated, and hence came the Great Apostasy.

      As to an unmoving Earth taught by Aquinas, Pope Pius XII explains:

      Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943):

      "The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order 'went by what sensibly appeared' as the Angelic Doctor says,speaking either 'in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.' " (para. # 3)

      3. Yes, bishops are subject to the pope's encyclicals, but as teachers of the Faith, they may continue to examine any opinion unless the pope authoritatively declares the matter settled.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. "As to an unmoving Earth taught by Aquinas, Pope Pius XII explains:"

      Neither Pius XII, in Divino Afflante, which you just quoted, nor Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus previously quoted, states that it is "As to an unmoving Earth taught by Aquinas".

      You have been left free to imagine that, but it has not been stated.

      Delete
    5. Try again. "...speaking either 'in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.' "

      Even scientists speak of the "sun rising" when in fact it is the Earth turning.

      Maybe get a ruling from "Pope" Michael? Call his mommy and ask if he can come to the phone after he feeds the chickens.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. "Even scientists speak of the "sun rising" when in fact it is the Earth turning."

      That is one way in which the Encyclical WOULD be applicable if in fact the Earth were turning.

      Actually, on the Classic Geocentric view, "sun rising" is also phenomenal language.

      We do not believe Earth to be a plane and Sun to shift between upper side on day time and lower side at night, as Osiris worshippers did.

      We believe Sun is concretely moving westward each day, at about equal height above Earth. Hence, sunrise is as much a phenomenal language to us as to you.

      Also, Pope Leo XIII wisely choose a quote with a certain context.

      In the days of Aquinas as well of as St Basil whom he quotes, scientific near consensus was crystalline spheres in layer after layer, for each heavenly body between us and fix stars.

      St Basil explained as St Thomas quoted why Moses spoke of void and not of crystalline spheres.

      If you examine St Basil a bit closer, you will even find that he was not an over devout believer in the scientific consensus of his own day.

      You wanted me to get the hint YOU read between the lines in Providentissimus Deus, so, why can't I want you to get the hint which I ON MY PART read between the lines?

      I am an undergraduate Latinist and my Latin Docent was a Teriary Dominican well versed in St Thomas Aquinas, and I know the difference between Thomasic positions and what now passes for Thomism.

      Delete
    7. I guess your a better Thomist than Pohle or Garrigou-Lagrange. See my answer to you above.

      Over and out.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. "The Council goes on to explain that such presentation may be done in an extraordinary manner (infallible definitions of popes and ecumenical councils), or in a universal and ordinary way (the unanimous teachings of the approved theologians or teachings of the bishops spread throughout the world)."

    I would like the exact words, this is what I recall too, since, if this is so, both Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are covered by the Universal Ordinary magisterium of many centuries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neither of those topics concerns Faith or morals. The Church does not pass judgement on such topics, unless it is connected to the Faith. If a scientist intrudes upon Biblical exergesis, then the Church corrects him. For example, the Church does not declare any medical operation condemned unless it impacts morality, such as a vasectomy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Or a heart transplant, because I believe the heart needs to be harvested from a living person.

      Delete
    3. "Neither of those topics concerns Faith or morals."

      1) If so, the traditional stance cannot be heresy any more than the modern one;
      2) If so, why did the CHurch actually pass judgement?

      1633 involved a man being obliged to abjure errors. The sentence was not a private one for the diocese concerned, but was sent to the Catholic world.

      Was Pope Urban VIII wrong on what concerns Faith?

      "If a scientist intrudes upon Biblical exegesis, then the Church corrects him."

      Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are part of the Church's traditional exegesis.

      The other positions if accepted as science automatically change the exegesis : a man cannot believe Earth is stationary when reading the Bible and next moment that it revolves around itself and orbits the Sun when reading a science book.

      Anonymous is here warning us that sometimes the Church is not as active as it should be.

      Delete
    4. I wrote a post about the Galileo affair which answers your queries (I also used the same teachings from Pope Leo and Pope Pius):

      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/10/galileo-papacy-and-modern-science.html

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Answering some of your misrepresentations in that post:

      "We are indebted to the Church for the Copernican revolution in science."

      No.

      "Copernicus delivered lectures in Rome by command of Pope Leo X, held a professional chair"

      Without in these times stating anyting relative to heliocentrism.

      "and published his treatise on heliocentrism by command of (and by the aid of) Pope Paul III. His work went forward to the world, bearing the sanction of the Holy See."

      It is obfuscating the issue to not note that it was approved as what was then called a hypothesis, what would now be called a mathematical model, not bearing any necessary relation to reality except in mathematical results.

      "The problem arose when Galileo tried to prove his theory from Scripture."

      While Galileo did try to prove it from Scripture, he also adapted Geocentric proof texts, and that is how his book earlier on had become censored by Cardinal Bellarmine.

      So, not only he was not free to prove Heliocentrism from Scripture, he was not even free to adapt Scriptural understanding, as an understanding of fact and of facts involved in some scriptural events, like Joshua 10, to Heliocentrism.

      Delete
    6. You offer no citations and you are "correcting" the work of Bishop John Walsh, one of the great theologians from the Vatican Council? Give it a rest Hans. Maybe "Pope" Michael can make you a "cardinal" of the Congregation of the Inquisition located next to the barn.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. "You offer no citations"

      Which exact fact about the case as I presented it do I need one for? Which of them are you in doubt about?

      You know, the highest cardinal of the very first Pope was mending fishernets.

      As for me, I know my position, it is not one of teaching from some cathedra (Papal or lower) but arguing, like St Justin Martyr and like Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

      Pius XI, very far from being angry about his involvement in Lay Apostolate, made him a knight commander with Star of order of St Gregory.

      So, you have two options for real rebuttals:

      1) argue me wrong as to facts;
      2) argue me wrong as per defined doctrine.

      Telling me I have no teaching authority is boxing a straw man to the ground.

      John Walsh's view of the Galileo case may have been yours, he may have pushed for including the words "on faith and morals" into the definition about infallibility for this reason, does not mean each and every bishop on the Council shared exactly his concern about this. Does not mean the Council dogmatised his position about this.

      Btw, as you called me gullible, as to your story about John Walsh, so far I am. I will check, though, and I will certainly not defer more to him than to St Robert Bellarmine or to the literal definition of Trent or to Sts Basil and Thomas.

      Delete
    8. argue me wrong as per defined doctrine.

      Ok. All modern pre-Vatican II theologians see nothing wrong with heliocentrism and the faith as I explained in another comment to you on this post.

      Telling me I have no teaching authority is boxing a straw man to the ground.

      No, it's a fact.

      Over and out.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. So does this basically mean if a pope makes a statement regarding faith and morals (assuming non infallibly) that no theologin or person can take an alternate stand or argue against it except a future pope? Also what is the threshold level? ( a speech, a letter, an encyclical, etc)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the pope declares a mater settled, it is settled. No theologians may question it. Otherwise, the theologians may continue to further examine it, but not laymen.

      As I wrote to another commenter above,” As theologian Scheeben explains, "Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'"

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. // The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'" //

      That is iffy, since theologians may get more involved in technical details than bishops can fully keep up with and as episcopal and even papal negligence (Honorius) have been heard of.

      But it was probably fairly correct for Scheeben's time, which was before Pope Pius XI approved of the lay apostolate.

      "né à Meckenheim, près de Bonn (Allemagne) le 1er mars 1835 et décédé à Cologne le 21 juillet 1888,"

      Matthias Joseph Scheeben

      Theologians when he began were generally NOT definite supporters of Heliocentrism, at least Haydock wasn't and even when he ended, they were not fans of Darwin.

      Delete
    3. Darwininsm was not being discussed. You may believe geocentrism if you wish, but heliocentrism has the manifest weight of the credible evidence, as well as no implications on the faith.

      Over and out.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Unless what the pope says contradicts a previous pope or defined doctrine? (Why we are ok saying VII is bad)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pope cannot contradict what a prior pope has dogmatically defined! The Holy Ghost would prevent that from happening. If that were to happen (think: Vatican II), it’s a sure sign that the pope, as a private theologian, fell into heresy and lost his office!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. What if a Pope gives liberty where a previous Pope has given an opiniative level at least decision?

      Delete
    3. No problem. An opinionative decision is neither infallible nor immune from revocation.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Well, still less is the liberty.

      Also, note I said "an opiniative level at least decision", namely not granting that Pope Urban's inquisitors only went that far.

      I find it likely it is doctrinal level, as with the judgement on Berengar of Tours, which is cited in Denzinger. Despite containing no "anatema sit" or anything like that, just a firm demand that Berengar of Tours revoke his errors, which he did, like Galileo did.

      Delete
    5. You reject the way the Church teaches us. As long as you do, you will always be in error and find "errors" where none exist.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. "You reject the way the Church teaches us."

      You reject the way the Church chooses Popes.

      In fact you don't really do that, you reject the outcome in 1958 as showing that the way had become inadequate. Pius XII (whose words about "whatever excommunication" have been used to argue that a freemason had become eligible, even if such, especially if secretly) was (if honest) not foreseeing a new situation.

      I can say a similar thing about how Scheeben viewed theologians, and espacially that since his time Pius XI has changed, since involving lay theologians in the work.

      Delete
    7. Pope Pius XII dispensed from ECCLESIASTICAL impediments. Heresy is an impediment of Divine-positive Law from which NO ONE may dispense.

      YOU reject how the Church chooses popes. Was not your former "pontiff" Clemente Domingues, "mystically crowned" "pope" by Christ Himself? Can you cite another time that happened please? What theologians or Church Fathers teach about it?

      Didn't think so.

      Over and out.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. "Pope Pius XII dispensed from ECCLESIASTICAL impediments."

      He didn't say so explicitly.

      "Heresy is an impediment of Divine-positive Law from which NO ONE may dispense."

      That may apply to Heliocentrism as well, that in Anfossi case and so on only ecclesial impediements were removed.

      Delete
    9. Wrong!
      Pope Pius Cannot dispense from Divine Law so why would he "say so explicitly"? He wasn't writing to laymen who fancy themselves "theologians". Here is what canonists said,

      “All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)

      Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis." It is instead an impediment of DIVINE LAW which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of Divine Law.

      I notice that you haven't responded to me regading your assertion that **I** don't understand the way the Church chooses popes. You accepted "Gregory XVII" as "pope" because he was "mystically crowned" by Christ. Since you understand how the Church chooses popes, this must be a valid way of doing it. Please cite where the Church chooses popes via "mystical coronation by Christ."

      See my comment to my readers directly below.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. To my readers:
      Hans Georg Lundahl keeps sending me long comments in an attempt to debate. I love a good debate and I never run from one. However, my time is limited, unlike Hans who doesn't work. I therefore cannot go back and forth with anyone more than a few times. What I will do is put out a post that geocentrism is in no way a "dogma" as Science Deniers, who want to impose their views as obligatory, believe. I will do so within the next couple of months.

      God bless you all,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. "I notice that you haven't responded to me regading your assertion that **I** don't understand the way the Church chooses popes. You accepted "Gregory XVII" as "pope" because he was "mystically crowned" by Christ. Since you understand how the Church chooses popes, this must be a valid way of doing it. Please cite where the Church chooses popes via 'mystical coronation by Christ.'"

      It could pass for a strawman, since I have since then accepted Pope Michael who at least opines, last time I checked, like you, mystical coronations are impossible.

      I can get only near precedents, namely, as mentioned, St Joan of Arc mediating Christ's dispositions for the kingdom of France, and Sts Bridget and Catherine telling Popes to return and then that the Roman Pope rather than the Avignon Pope was the true one.

      However, since a mystical coronation of Michel Colin after Christ rejected Pacelli in 1950 would solve a few problems and not interfere with Pope Michael being Pope (Gaston Tremblay forced an adbication in 1968, which therefore is not a valid one and Clement XV, if such, died in 1974, 16 years before conclave convoked as emergency conclave by Bawden, this still leaves Bawden as not interfering with a non-vacancy in the conclave where he was elected and took the name Pope Michael).

      Delete
    12. Translation: “I never understood how the Church elects popes.”

      Clearly, St Joan of Arc didn’t claim anyone to be “mystically crowned pope.” Not even close.

      Michael Colin was a seriously disturbed individual who claimed to be “Consecrated a bishop” and crowned “Pope” Clement XV by Christ Himself. Colin was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1951. Colin “ordained” female “priests” who can only “offer mass (sic)” for other women while kneeling.

      This is apparitionism in the extreme. Private revelations supplant Church doctrine. Mystical coronations, supernatural episcopal consecrations, female “priests” —-what a bunch of demonic inspired insanity!

      You write, “after Christ rejected Pacelli in 1950.”
      Are you claiming Pope Pius XII lost the papal office? Careful, “Pope” Bawden recognizes Pope Pius! You might be excommunicated as he reads his decree from the papal pig sty in Kansas!

      Compared to you, Bawden seems sane.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. How do we know the infallible decree that the pope is infallable was not itself falable?

    Couldn’t VII and everything since show that possibly that decree was wrong and possibly IT was the first “fork” from true Catholicism?

    I don’t personally believe this, however, if I am honest with myself the thought does pop in my head and if I were not Catholic already, logically I would have issues with this. I think it is probably due to my own lack of understanding and needing to learn more so I can make better sense of things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See Tom’s response below! This was the teaching of the Church from the beginning and explicitly defined at the Vatican Council.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. The Church always taught the dogma of infaillability. It just wasn't defined until The Vatican Council. It seems some readers labor under a false assumption that Pius IX and the Vatican Council just made up "infaillabilty" in 1870. Infaillibility was revealed by Christ Himself and has been a part of the deposit of faith and part of the ordinary magesterium from the beginning. Pope Pius IX solemnly defined it as an act if his extraordinary magesterium to end all the problems that resulted from Gallicanism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You will find that the ancient "Regula Fidei"(Rule of Faith)/Formula of (Pope St.) Hormisdas was cited at the Council as one of the proofs of Infallibility.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Introibo- I came across an article regarding Placuit Deo (Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on Certain Aspects of Christian Salvation). The article states that Placuit Deo pertains to Sedevacantists and Vatican II. It is over my head. Would you mind reading the article and commenting on it?
    tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1495/sedevacantists - unaware - ladaris -
    public - mistake?page=1
    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      The article is written by a disturbed individual named Lionel Andrades, who runs the "Eucharist and mission" blog. It's not over your head, the man is speaking gobbledygook.

      He repeats the same thing over and over about BOD and the errors of Vatican II only referring to hypothetical cases. He is a Vatican II sect Feeneyite. He claims when Vatican II declares non-Catholic sects are a "means of salvation" it is only hypothetical, not actual so there is no heresy.

      I'm sure you can spot the problem immediately. Hypothetical utterances can be heretical. If I said, "Christ committed sin" it is heresy. If I said, "Christ could commit sin (hypothetically), but He didn't"--it is still heresy for it is IMPOSSIBLE for Christ to sin, hypothetically or actually.

      Further, the Church teaches us unambiguously. Why would the Church make a pronouncement on something purely hypothetical (Non-Catholic sects are a means of salvation)when it is a hypothetical that can never exist and would only confuse the Church. It's like saying, "Imagine a square circle." There can never be such a thing even hypothetically.

      Andrades openly states that the Magisterium has defected (heresy because the Church is Indefectible), and despite this defection the V2 "popes" and "bishops" are true popes and bishops!

      If your head is still spinning from this man's writing, don't feel bad. It only means your sane, Joann!!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo - Thanks for the clarification on that article! Boy was my head ever spinning from trying to decipher it. Gobbledygook is right!!

      Delete
  11. Introibo @ 5:40 pm

    Thanks for saving my time and brain cells reading that dross.

    Welcome to the Net! It's an imprimatur-free, wild west wonderland where anyone can publish anything, no matter how heretical, insane or bizarre!

    Your only defense is either an in-depth knowledge of the Faith or knowing better than to waste time reading every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Net. (No offense intended towards Tom lol)

    Anyway, with that I'm off to work on my thesis that Francis is a shape-shifting lizard from Planet X who's going to bring on the Apocalypse next week.

    Just kidding... ;O

    ReplyDelete
  12. If the Pope is the Vicar of Christ then what higher authority on earth can there be? Surely a Pope would outrank a king or a judge. If you don’t have the right to resist an order of those people by what right do you have to resist the orders of a Pope?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s very straightforward Ryan! Unfortunately, many people go to great lengths to convince themselves (and others) that you can “resist” a true pope.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. "If the Pope is the Vicar of Christ then what higher authority on earth can there be?"
      ANS: Salza, Gruner, Dimond, Matt, Williamson, Fellay, Siscoe, etc. etc.

      Delete
    3. @Anon 4:26

      Lol! Funny yet sadly true!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. Introibo - The recognize and resisters use the Bible verse Galatians 2:11 where Paul rebukes Peter to his face to vindicate their stance. How do you explain this bible verse?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      This is a favorite verse of Protestantism to disprove the papacy, but it does no such thing. This passage has nothing to do with St. Peter leading people astray. St. Paul opposed St. Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this significant? St. Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. St. Paul was criticizing Peter’s conduct, not his teaching authority.

      In the same way there were popes that did horrible things, e.g., fornicate, lie, steal, and even kill. They were rebuked as to their conduct, not their teaching or for acts of heresy! The ONLY sin that deprives a pope of his office is heresy—nothing else. (See theologian Haydock, for example on Galatians)

      I hope this helps!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo - Your explanation of Galatians 2:11 made the verse crystal clear to me!! Thanks much!!

      Delete
    3. Always glad to help, Joann!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. The Dimond Brothers made a recent video on Galatians 2 in which they claim to have discovered that the Cephas rebuked by Paul was not Peter but another person. Doing some additional research of my own I believe the Dimond Brothers did not discover anything on their own but that they plagiarized arguments on the subject that date back many years.

      But I also found that some of the great saints did not agree with the Dimond Brothers and did hold that cephas was the same Simon Peter. Introibo, are you familiar with this discussion on the real identity of Cephas?

      Delete
    5. I honestly do not know of any theologian who teaches anything on the "real identity" of Cephas. What I do know of the Galatians verse, I explained in a comment above. If you have a citation, please pass it on to me and I'll dig deeper.

      ---God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo - I was intrigued by Anon 8:03’s post and came up with the following concerning St. Peter and Cephas.

      Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes says that Cephas in Galatians 2:11 was one of the 70 disciples and not St. Peter.
      new advent.org/fathers/250101.htm
      (Book 1, Chapter 12, Paragraph 2)

      Is the above of any significance? Thanks.

      Delete
    7. Thank you for that citation Joann! It would further destroy the Protestant case, because St. Paul would not even be addressing St. Peter! Thank you for the research!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Introibo - Wouldn’t the above citation also affect the Recognize and Resisters theory?

      Delete
  14. Introibo - Are canonizations of Saints infallible? I have read that they are infallible and read that they are non-infallible. If canonizations are infallible, what explanation does the R&R have for their refudiation of the canonizations? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Canonizations ARE infallible. Pope Benedict XIV himself stated clearly: “The universal Church cannot be led into error concerning matters of morals by the Supreme Pontiff; but this would be the case if he were not infallible in the canonization of saints” (Doctrina de Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione [1811], Ch. XLIII, sec. 4; qtd. in Fr. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ [Herder, 1927], p. 510).

      According to Theologian Van Noort, “Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.

      Proof:

      1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”

      2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult.

      (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ’s Church )

      The SSPX claims that Pope Benedict XIV wasn’t speaking infallibly, and it is “only the opinion of theologians.” This is a rejection of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

      Even if canonizations were not infallible, a teaching held in common by all theologians are theologically certain, the denial of which constitutes, usually, a mortal sin of temerity.
      In other words, unless you’re someone with at least as much knowledge of the subject matter as all the schools of theology before Vatican II, you must adhere to the notion that canonizations are infallible under pain of mortal sin.

      The SSPX can’t escape. They deny a dogma of Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. They concede that Catholics could be praying to a damned soul (!) If canonizations aren’t infallible. They commit a mortal sin by rejecting that “mere teaching” of all the theologians pre-V2.

      Conclusion: Don’t pray to “St” John Paul the Great Apostate!!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo - Thanks for the clarification regarding canonizations and infallibility. I never liked JPII even before I found Tradition, but I couldn’t understand why I disliked him so. Now I know. From what I have read Francis stated Benedict will be canonized and followed by himself!! Why don’t they just canonize Vatican II and be done with it??!!

      Delete
    3. The canonization of Vatican II and everyone unholy connected with it is exactly the plan! They will just take a little more time and will not do it all at once.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  15. I call or R & R of Sola Extraordinarium practitioners. Taking advantage, Introibo, have you already written about the canonizations? Pope Benedict XIV condemned those who deny them or put doubts as scandalous and close to heresy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not yet done a post, but it is on my "to do list!"

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. Hi Introibo,

    You've stated (on this thread):

    "I am not a theologian,..."

    "When Roncalli usurped the throne of St. Peter,..."

    "As a lawyer, I must bring up instances of a witness..."

    Could you please provide the requisite solid evidence for the non-papacy of John XXIII/Roncalli, and then show/explain how same proves beyond all doubt that Roncalli was a pseudo-pope/anti-pope?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The evidence against Roncalli:

      Roncalli rehabilitated various theologians formerly considered suspect by the Holy See or even condemned for heterodoxy. Some of them were exponents of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology). Philippe Levillain wrote this about the theological commission that prepared the Council:
      "Among the advisors, one noted the presence of Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and others. The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII" (See
      The list of the most important exponents of Nouvelle Théologie that became prominent under John XXIII includes Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng and Joseph Ratzinger.

      Was influenced by the excommunicated modernist Loisy and by modernist writer Duschene. (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy p. 134)

      -Was involved in the youth organization “Opera Dei Congress” that was dissolved by Pope St. Pius X for modernism. (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy p. 134)

      -Was associated with notorious modernists such as Bishop Radini Tedeschi, Bishop Carlo Ferrara of Milan, Bishop Bonomello of Cremona, and Lamberdo Beauduin. (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy p. 134 cited Giancarlo Zizola’s, The Utopia of Pope John XXIII (Orbis: N.Y., 1978)

      -His closest seminary friends including roommate (later Bishop of Bergamo) who assisted at his ordination were excommunicated for modernism. (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy p. 134 cited E. Poulat (Integrisme et Catholicisme integral)

      -Was a Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, and removed several months “on suspicion of modernism” and for teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner, an illuminati member and originator of “The Science of the Spirit known as Anthroposophy.” A file dated to 1925, the Holy Office had maintained a dossier on Angelo Roncalli which read “suspected of Modernism.”

      -Roncalli continued a close association with the defrocked priest, Ernesto Buonaiuti, who was excommunicated for heresy in 1926. (Lawrence Elliott, I Will Be Called John, 1973, pp. 90-92)

      -When Roncalli was Nuncio to France, he was appointed Observer for the Holy See to the United Nations cultural agency, UNESCO. In July 1951, he gave a speech “lavishly praising UNESCO…” Roncalli called UNESCO “this great international organization…” (Alden Hatch, A Man Named John, p. 117 -118)

      -During his Nunciature in Paris, “Cardinal Roncalli attended in civilian clothes the Great Lodge where he found again the Jesuit Riquet. His adviser was Maurice Bredet, author of ‘Mystic and Magic,’ who boasted that he had prophesied the Tiara to Cardinal Roncalli.” (The Hidden, But Victorious Way Of The Free-Masonry, Rev. Fr. Henri Mouraux)

      – “When necessary he simply contradicted previous Popes. He rejected in toto Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos and Singulari Nos, and the Quanta Cura of Pius IX, to which was attached, as appendix, The Syllabus of Errors. John was ruthless in dismissing the views of his predecessors.” When asked about following in the footsteps of so great a man as Pius XII, John XXIII responded, “I try to imagine what my predecessor would have done, and then I do just the opposite.”

      -Was greatly influenced by modernist heretic Teilhard de Chardin.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    2. his encyclical Pacem In Terris (1963), he stated in paragraph #11, "Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." This is blatant heresy. Although the Vatican II sect did not begin until 1964 with the promulgation of Lumen Gentium by Antipope Paul VI, we can be morally certain Roncalli was not pope from at least this date. His encyclical clearly repudiates the teachings of all previous popes, most especially Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX: "Now we arrive at another cause of the evils with which we suffer at seeing the Church afflicted at this moment, to wit, this “indifferentism,” or this perverse opinion spread everywhere by the devious action of bad men. According to it, one could achieve eternal salvation by any profession of faith, as long as the customs are upright and honest. It will not be difficult for you, in such a clear and evident matter, to drive so fatal an error from the midst of the peoples under your care. Indeed, since the Apostle had warned us that “there is but one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5), those who believe that all religions offer the means to reach eternal salvation must fear and comprehend that, according to the testimony of the Savior Himself, “those who are not with Christ are against Him” (Luke 11:23); and that they scatter in sadness, since they do not gather with Him. Consequently, there is no doubt that “they who do not profess the Catholic Faith and maintain it whole and inviolate will be eternally lost” … From this infected source of “indifferentism” flows that absurd and erroneous maxim, or rather this delirium, that it is necessary to grant everyone “freedom of conscience.” This most pernicious error has its way prepared by a full and immoderate freedom of opinion that is widely spread for the ruin of religious and civil society. Some repeat with extreme impudence that it brings an advantage for religion. However, St. Augustine asked: “What could be a worse evil for the soul than the liberty of error?”"--Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (1832)--Emphasis mine.

      He was publicly praised by the Masonic Lodges for promoting ecumenism.

      (Compiled from various sources)

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  17. Introibo,

    Do you mean (14) this?

    The Right to Worship God According to One's Conscience

    14. Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, "this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name.'' (l0)

    Hence, too, Pope Leo XIII declared that "true freedom, freedom worthy of the sons of God, is that freedom which most truly safeguards the dignity of the human person. It is stronger than any violence or injustice. Such is the freedom which has always been desired by the Church, and which she holds most dear. It is the sort of freedom which the Apostles resolutely claimed for themselves. The apologists defended it in their writings; thousands of martyrs consecrated it with their blood."(11)

    I appreciate that you appreciate that you aren't a theologian.

    At the time of the promulgation (1963) of Pacem in Terris, can you cite any Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests, theologians or Catholic laymen who attacked the encyclical in question as "blatant heresy" or interpreted it as "blatant heresy" or even attacked it as proximate to heresy? (And I mean, of course, specifically the aforementioned passage above you mentioned.)

    I thank you for your reply. This topic has been discussed by sedevacantists for a very long time. Nothing you've posed is new (in fact, you forgot to mention what Roncalli did to St. Philomena and other saints), and none of it suffices as *solid evidence* in order to make the judgment that Roncalli wasn't elected Pope or that he lost the papacy.

    The same cannot be said for Paul VI onwards. Roncalli was on file as "suspected of Modernism" which equates, by the way, to "suspected of heresy," but in all the years after no action was taken against him. That alone is telling insofar the lack of solid evidence the Vatican had against him. Various of his associations would have been enough to put him in the suspected category.

    There are many rumors regarding Roncalli's membership in Freemasonry, scandalous things he's meant to have said etc. etc., but when you get right down to it it's all hearsay. For example, it'd be in the Freemason's best interest to claim him as one of their own. The story about him strolling around in civilian clothes and openly visiting Masonic Lodges - yes, just the sort of thing that historically clandestine "Catholic" Masonic clerics were wont to do in those times.

    Interestingly, Salza & Siscoe (rightfully) point out all of the hearsay posing as solid evidence that Roncalli was bogus, but then go on to use in his defense the widely circulated story (hearsay) that on his deathbed John XXIII when learning the direction the Council was taking cried out, "STOP THE COUNCIL, STOP THE COUNCIL!" Go figure?

    Interestingly, Fr. Anthony Cekada - what hasn't he written about? - hasn't to my knowledge written anything claiming Roncalli to be a pseudo-pope. ???

    Roncalli may be a false pope? One thing I think we can agree upon is that Roncalli was a very bad egg indeed. It's my opinion and the opinion of many others that nothing offered against the legitimacy of Roncalli's papacy, so far, suffices as definitive proof that he wasn't a valid pope.

    Thank you for your time and opinions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be careful when citing sources that they are taken in context. The quote used by Roncalli is taken from his encyclical Libertas Of 1888. Paragraph 19 states, “To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.”

      In paragraph 30, Roncalli leaves out the following words just before the ones he cited, “Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands.“

      This is not the clear teaching of Pacem in Terris. Furthermore, it is possible that someone other than Roncalli was elected and forced to resign. IF it were Siri (I’m not saying it was), he apostasized soon after by professing heresy. Hence, Roncalli May have never been pope, which would explain a lot.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. As to theologians who questioned Pacem—-Fr DePauw and Cardinal Ottaviani (privately as this was a unique situation).


      —-Introibo

      Delete
  18. Introibo,

    Don't worry I'm very careful. But what you're indicating is not at issue here. What's at issue is whether at the time of promulgation John XXIII's Pacem in Terris was accepted by the Church as orthodox. Undeniably it was. In 1963 there were a vast amount of extremely well educated Catholic clerics and laymen on this mortal coil. They didn't attack it. I'm only stating what's in the encyclical. What Roncalli left out in other places is neither here nor there unless one can clearly show that by doing so Roncalli was clearly preaching heresy. There was no dissent, no murmuring about it being heretical by anyone.

    I'm not talking about what's possible (ref. the Siri theory) - the whole point is that we need solid evidence to enable us to make a judgment of so serious a nature about someone the College of Cardinals elected as pope. As a lawyer, you more than most know that this is true. It'd be easy if Roncalli were in the same category as Paul VI and V-II as far as blatant heresy. But the facts are he isn't.

    But rest assured that we're on the same side here. Neither of us are Roncalli fans in the slightest. But don't expect me to subscribe to, for example, a well known sedevantist bishop's opinion that the mere fact that John XXIII called a Council is clear evidence that he set out to destroy the Church. Yes, an unbelievable conclusion, I know! Grasping at straws? Yes! Hearsay and faulty notions such as the above example don't suffice as proof, except in "kangaroo courts."

    Again, thank you for your opinions. Your rundown on Roncalli has value in itself.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, my friend, there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt regarding Roncalli. There is such evidence as regards to Montini, at least since he signed Lumen Gentium in 1964.

      I believe there’s clear and convincing evidence that would lead us to conclude that he was more than just a bad person/pope. As a lawyer that’s enough to win a tough civil case, but not enough to win a criminal conviction!

      You’ve got me thinking. I’m going to try and dig deeper into this issue. For that I thank you.

      May I ask you—-Do you recognize Roncalli as pope? Why or why not?

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  19. Introibo,

    Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Do you know what year/s they (Fr. Pauw and Cardinal Ottaviani) questioned Pacem in Terris, and on what basis? Was it done verbally in private or by private correspondence or both?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In private conversation, at the time of Pacem in Terris, the Cardinal and Fr began to seriously question Roncalli’s orthodoxy. The Cardinal related that he had once asked Roncalli (after his election and coronation), if he planned on Infallibility declaring Mary Mediatrix of All Grace. Roncalli alleged said, “Of course not. The pope is not infallible.”
      The Cardinal said Roncalli later told him he was “just joking.” However, he scrapped the draft of the Apostolic Constitution drawn up by theologians at the request of Pope Pius XII concerning said definition and did not seem to be jocular when he said it. Hence, I don’t believe Roncalli was pope. But as this was just anecdotal, I cannot prove it happened. I’m sure Father could, but he left this world for a better place.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. Introibo,

    In the absence of compelling proof to the contrary I'm forced to accept John XXIII as a genuine pontiff.

    I've been trying for years to find hard evidence that he was a false pope. I can't find anything definitive. Every time I thought I'd found something I'd ask myself, "Would this cause him to lose the papacy?" I had to answer in the negative. Believe me, it's very frustrating, because my gut feeling is that he was an impostor. The situation equates to either a crook getting off on a technicality or a someone who is rotten but isn't actually guilty of the murder of which he is accused. (Bad but not actually a heretic and false pope.)

    Today, in 2018, Roncalli doesn't really impact me. (If he didn't preach heresy in his encyclicals I'm not giving my assent to heresy.) I'm a sedevacantist. I don't attend SSPX Mass centers, and I can't dictate to the sede priests whose Masses I attend that they really should be using the John XXIII Mass as they have no proof that Roncalli was not putative pope. (Many of them, as you know, have decided without any real proof that Roncalli is a pseudo-pope.)

    Fr. Cekada tells people that if they don't agree with his decision to not use the post 1954 Pius XII liturgical practices, to bear in mind that the minor changes that Paul VI made to the John XXIII Mass up until 1964 (Lumen Gentium) need to be followed because up until then Paul VI was putative pope. (But if you're a sede who thinks that Paul VI was never pope this obviously wouldn't apply.) It gets complicated for poor sedes, eh? The last thing I need is to be guilty of judging Roncalli a fake without justification. Paul VI onwards I assure you my conscience is clear.

    I wish you luck in your endeavors. Please keep us informed of your progress.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Introibo -
      I have read where John XXIII created the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in 1960 and appointed Cardinal Augustin Bea as President. This council, it seems to me, was the first regarding Ecumenism and was the forerunner to Vatican II. Your thoughts? Thanks.

      Delete
    2. I agree. Bea was a snake-in the-grass if ever there was one. According to author John O'Malley ("What Really Happened At Vatican II"), it was Bea who wrote the part of "Nostra Aetate" in which "absolved" the Jews of Deicide. Bea claimed Roncalli had expressly asked for such to be done by the Council. The sole purpose of that "Secretariat" was to promote Indifferentism/ecumenism. Another reason I'm convinced Roncalli was a false pope, although I must admit as per the commenter above, there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Roncalli wasn't pope. I know what I was told to be true about Roncalli, because Fr heard it firsthand from Ottaviani. Unfortunately, I cannot convince others with evidence not capable of being presented to them. I will dig deeper, and write a post should I find the "smoking gun"!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Wouldn’t the fact that Roncalli created the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity be enough for him to lose the papal office?

      Delete
    4. Brilliant minds think alike! I have to see the stated purpose and what was actually done during Roncalli’s alleged reign. Many Traditionalists reject the Pope Pius XII changes because they became noxious in a way the legislator could not have foreseen. Could the same hold true regarding the Secretariat AT THE TIME? In others words, it had no overtly heretical intention until AFTER Roncalli died? If not, and there was an expressed heretical intent—that indeed may be proof he defected!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Introibo - I came up with following regarding Roncalli:

      His stance on the ecumenical movement stretched back to the years he was apostolic delegate to Turkey. He gave a Homily in 1944 setting forth his commitment to ecumenism.
      ncregister.com/daily-news/christian-unity-a-goal-shared-by-John-XXIII-and-John-Paul-II

      The following article shows the origin of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is linked with Roncalli’s Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and was the beginning of the Church’s formal commitment to the ecumenical movement.
      vatican.va/roman curia/pontifical council/chrstuni/document/ rc pc chrstuni pro 2005 1996 chrstuni pro en.html

      Are either of the above citations of significance in showing Roncalli lost the Papal Office, or never attained the Papal Office??

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @ 3:49 am

      He did this in 1944 when he was Apostolic Delegate to Turkey. Long after a file was opened up on him in 1925 for being "suspected of Modernism." If Roncalli had publicly defected from the Faith in 1944 surely the Vatican and Pope Pius XII were aware of their Bishop's offensive homily which brought about his defection? Surely he was cautioned over his errors? Or was it heresy that he was censured over? If he was censured, surely he recanted, because I somehow don't recall Bishop Roncalli being put on trial for heresy? Let's cut to the chase: Is there any official record of Roncalli being censured over those public statements/homily, because if he were it'd have been BIG NEWS, and something that would've been impossible to hide? Has anyone previously thought this was an issue or identified the errors/heresy contained therein his homily? (Has anyone even clearly demonstrated beyond all doubt that he was speaking about *false* ecumenism?) Do you honestly think that the Vatican in 1944 would have let him get away with publicly preaching false ecumenism, considering they already suspected him of Modernism? Do you honestly think what he said made him unpapabile, bearing in mind he was never publicly censured, he was never compelled to publicly recant his errors? Do you honestly think he fell into the category of Pius XII's teachings about whom is ineligible to take part in papal elections?

      This doesn't pass the sniff test, and neither does the above objection, unless it can be shown that the intended purpose went beyond wishing to invite protestant observers to Vatican II. If he's guilty of heresy for merely inviting observers I guess it means that the Prime Minister of England is guilty of High Treason for inviting observers to their elections.


      Delete
    7. Anon @7:40 - Must you be so condescending?? I guess it reflects your insecurity in trying to prove not every is as smart as you.

      Delete
    8. Your interpretation that I'm being condescending is false. It's amazing how you ascertained that from mere text which carries no tone or inflection? You must be a genius! Seriously now, I'm asking questions to stimulate critical thinking. If you find that condescending that's your problem. If you feel inferior - not my problem. I'd like to say "thanks" for your contribution to the conversation but it's impossible to do so honestly.

      Delete
    9. Anon @8:37 - In my original post I was addressing Introibo. I don’t know who you are, but unless your name is Introibo, I am putting everything you say in the wash and you can “sniff” that.






      Delete
    10. Anonymous @ 11:12 am
      Sure. I completely understand, and I'm completely unconcerned. I'm sure you realize I wasn't posting for your eyes only. In this environment it goes without saying that anyone may pass comment on any post they like, so I've not broken any blog protocols, as it were.

      Anyway, God bless and have a super
      weekend! :)

      Delete
    11. In response to anon @ 3:49:

      I don’t believe after a cursory reading that there is enough (based on that information alone) to conclude Roncalli defected. I’m still looking into all angles and will let my readers know what I come up with by writing a post. I know Roncalli defected, but I cannot used information I learned from another to prove it to anyone else.

      Thanks for the information my friend!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  21. Getting back to St. Paul 'rebuking' St. Peter for a moment, anonymous is right is saying that the Dimonds did not come up with anything original on this. Over two years ago I wrote a blog article questioning this 'rebuke,' and it has some links that might be useful. Anyway, I think I might have even sent a copy to the Dimonds (mea culpa). http://divinefiat.blogspot.com/2015/07/did-st-paul-withstand-st-peter-to-his.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frank, interesting. I would be interested in knowing how much of your material Fred "borrowed" and whether due credit was given. In my experience, the Dimonds are plagiarizers and rarely, if ever give credit to their sources. They would like their audience to believe all of their material is original. I will give them credit however for coming up with the theory that demons are flying space ships.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the information Frank! You’re a good man—please don’t give any more of your work to those malevolent “monks”!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Frank Rega & Anonymous who argued that MHFM did not come up with this theory -- what exactly has that to do with the point? Unless one makes up a completely new theory or invention, everything will already have been looked into before by others, since there is nothing new under the sun. Yes, even early saints spoke of this theory, as MHFM also acknowledges on their website and video.

      What MHFM usually does is to make very good articles and videos on the subjects they are dealing with, and usually with a lot of good and better information than what is already published, or that is made by others. For example, in the blogpost of Frank Rega, no information is available at all of the distinction Peter Dimond made in the video about the name used by this Peter (that was rebuked by Paul) in the original manuscript or Greek, which is different from what is used in naming the Apostle Peter.

      And by the way, one don't have to give credit to others when writing articles or making videos that are largely in part almost completely one's own work. That one may learn from others is normal and we all do, but to claim one have to attribute everything to others, when one may have been familiar with the arguments for years and not even know from where one first learned about this possibility, is ridiculous.

      Also, MHFM have held the opinion that St. Paul did not rebuke the Apostle St. Peter for many years, and long before even Frank Rega posted the article.

      To me, it seems that many anti-MFHM adherents have a bad tendency to complain and find fault with almost any thing when it comes to what they do, even if they do good things. One might not agree with everything they do and even dislike them, but to me it just looks ridiculous to complain about and make arguments out of things like this.

      Delete
    4. Jerome,
      Please keep in mind that Protestants “do some good things too.” While I recognize their works, e.g., against atheism, as good and useful, Protestantism leads souls to Hell. This is reminiscent of V2 ecclesiology whereby there are “elements of truth” in false religions making them more or less praiseworthy and a “means of salvation.”

      The fact remains that the Dimonds are Feeneyites who keep people away from the Sacraments. They lead souls in into error and deprive them of grace. This outweighs any good they otherwise do.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  22. Watch out! MHFM has called me an Apostate, and they might call you one too! Then how would you feel about them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m sure I’m on their list of those “damned to Hell” as well, Frank! Lol!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Frank Rega:

      Your statement that the Dimonds did not come up with anything original on the Gal. 2 issue is a lie, and perhaps a mortally sinful act of bearing false witness. Your attempt to take credit for their video or their work is pathetic, dishonest and disgraceful. Perhaps you are jealous that MHFM’s treatment of the matter is, as far as I’ve seen, by far the best that has been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxDvhDIiVc0

      Bro. Peter Dimond mentioned the possibility that St. Paul did not rebuke St. Peter in an audio in 2009 (six years before your blog post), and he believed it was a possibility for years before that (perhaps seven years or more before that), when he read Clement of Alexandria’s quote in Eusebius’ ecclesiastical history. Since he mentioned the possibility that it was not St. Peter years before your blog post, should we conclude that you got the idea from him? Bro. Peter certainly did not get the idea from your 2015 post, which is inaccurate in various ways, by the way. For instance, you quote something that says St. Jerome thought it was not St. Peter in Galatians 2, whereas Bro. Peter’s video (which reflects a careful study of the issue) correctly points out that St. Jerome held that it was St. Peter but that the event was simulated by Peter and Paul. So, his video covers the issue more accurately and in much more depth. There are perhaps 100 things in Bro. Peter’s video (or more) that are not covered in your post. They include: a detailed discussion of the Greek manuscript evidence and the relevant words and concepts; a detailed look at the chronology between Acts and Galatians; the connections between Acts 11 and Galatians 2 and their relevance to the issue; an examination of the contextual evidence in Galatians 2; and much more. Anyone who actually watches Bro. Peter’s video can see the kind of work, thought and study that went into it, which far surpasses what you have written.

      Delete
    3. Hi Fred! (Or is it Bobby)?,

      Your syntax is immediately clear, unless Your sycophants are starting to imitate that as well! In any case, I’m sure Frank was unaware of anything done by the Dimonds prior to his post. Of course you immediately ascribe bad motivation and call names (“liar”) like good Feeneyites do. The malevolent, misfit, wannabe “monks” have proven themselves dishonest time and time again. It wouldn’t surprise me if the material was lifted from others prior to when they wrote it.

      “A careful study of the issue”? I nearly fell on the floor laughing!! Perhaps they should do a careful study of how the Church teaches us. However, that would mean giving up the entire Feeneyite error—and an end to their role as the greatest proponents of this denial of Church teaching. I’m afraid they have neither the intellect or honesty necessary. They need prayers desperately.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo you are correct to suspect them of "lifting the material" from others. I believe they stole their first book from Richard Ibranyi (I believe they sued for the rights to the material because Ibranyi wrote it while in the "monastery").

      Delete
    5. The Dimonds are so very quick to judge Frank as committing a “mortally sinful act of bearing false witness”. They also told me I was committing a mortally sinful act of smoking cigarettes. They are so busy condemning others that they won’t take a good look at themselves.

      Delete
    6. Anon @ 3:37-Thank you for the information. I'm not surprised they get material from an off-the-wall man who is now a cult leader.

      Anon@ 4:45--Sad but very true.

      God Bless you both,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  23. Anonymous @ 1:35 pm

    You give off a creepy, cultish vibe. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just being honest.

    The Dimonds have many "slavish" followers, and this tendency is a common fault among humans. Some people *need* to have heroes to which they can cling. It's called an "inordinate attachment to creatures."

    As for Frank Rega: Seems like an intelligent, articulate fellow to me? Wrote a good article which importantly wasn't long and boring. Can't say the same for the Dimonds.

    That's my 2 cents worth.

    ReplyDelete