All of us familiar with the Vatican II sect know it was a creation of what was supposed to be the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church. Since the alleged "pope" who convoked it (Roncalli--John XXIII), and the alleged "pope" who signed the documents (Montini--Paul VI) were not true Vicars of Christ, the Council and its decrees are worthless. Nevertheless, how many Traditionalists understand what, exactly, an Ecumenical Council is and what it is supposed to do? How many understand what Vatican II produced and how it cannot be reconciled with true Catholic teaching? In this post, I will set forth in part one, the theology of an Ecumenical Council, and in part two, the specifics regarding Vatican II. The information for part one I have gotten and condensed from theologian Fenton in a chapter he wrote for a theological work entitled The General Council: Special Studies in Doctrinal and Historical Background, CUA Press, , pgs. 149-182.
Part One:The Theology of Councils
- How many kinds of Church councils are there?
According to Theologian Turrecremata there are three classes of councils: Ecumenical (aka "Universal" or "General"), provincial councils, and diocesan synods. The last two categories are usually disciplinary in nature and are a function of the Authentic Magisterium. Unless specially promulgated by the pope, they have no binding force upon the entire Church.
An Ecumenical Council, Turrecremata defines as, "...the congregation of the major prelates convoked by the special authority of the Roman Pontiff to deal solemnly and with common purpose with the Christian religion under the presidency of the Pope or his delegate." (Cited by theologian Fenton, as above, pg. 158).
If an Ecumenical Council teaches on a matter of Faith and/or morals it is infallible by the extraordinary Magisterium (i.e., in Dogmatic Canons approved by the pope) or by virtue of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) if not by Dogmatic Canons.
Even in matters of Universal Disciplinary Law, all decrees would be infallible.
There have been twenty Ecumenical Councils from Nicea I in 325 AD to the Vatican Council of 1870.
- What are the twelve reasons for which Ecumenical Councils can/should be called?
2. That there may be a more solemn and extensive authority for the repudiation of heresy and the condemnation of heretics
3. To put an end to schism
4. For bringing back heretics into the Church, and/or for the confutation of heretics through disputation
5. When great and powerful enemies face the Church
6. To ask God's guidance required for the proper direction of the Church
7. When grave danger or grave threat of persecution faces the Church, and when the aid of the entire Church is considered requisite to deal with this problem
8. In order that the integrity or the solidity of the Faith may be assured through a complete acceptance of the constitutions and the definitions issued by some preceding council--there would be failure on the part of considerable numbers of prelates to enforce the decrees issued previously by one of the sovereign pontiffs
9. In order to inquire into a suspicion of heresy directed against the Roman Pontiff [Turrecremata held, as do all theologians and canonists since at least the Vatican Council of 1870, that the Roman Pontiff, as a private theologian, can fall into heresy and lose the pontificate. This would not be the case of a Council judging the pope (which cannot be done), but of a Council under a pontiff judging whether or not a previous pope was a heretic and non-pope.]
10. In order to defend the Roman Pontiff against attacks made against him
11. When there is grave doubt as to the validity of a papal election
12. For a more efficacious, solemn, and universal reformation of the Church
- What is to be done if the decrees of one Council seemingly ran counter to another Council?
1. Where there are two genuine Ecumenical Councils, both of which are legitimately approved by the Holy See, there is no possibility of any contradiction between them in matters of Faith and Morals.
2. Where there is a difference in terminology, it is essential that the meaning set forth in the earlier of these two legitimate Ecumenical Councils should not be represented as having been modified or corrected by the later Council.
3. Where laws passed or enacted by a later Council differ from precepts imposed by a former Council, those of the more recent Council are to be followed.
- What are the six causes which make the calling of an Ecumenical Council useful?
2. Two heal a schism between two or more men (who have reasons to be taken seriously) claiming to be the validly elected Roman Pontiff
3. The common and united resistance against some enemy of the Church
4. The suspicion of heresy against some Roman Pontiff
5. A serious doubt as to the validity of a papal election
6. The general reformation of abuses and vices that have crept into the Church
Part Two: Vatican II Facts In Light of the Above Principles
- When did Vatican II take place and why was it convoked?
Vatican II opened on October 11, 1962 and closed on December 8, 1965. There were four (4) sessions:
First Session: October 11 to December 8, 1962.
Second Session: September 29 to December 4, 1963.
Third Session: September 14 to November 21, 1964.
Fourth Session: September 14 to December 8, 1965.
You will look in vain among the reasons for calling an Ecumenical Council (listed above) which would justify Vatican II.
- How many documents did Vatican II produce?
- What were the documents about?
Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation
Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
Gaudium et Spes, Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
The nine decrees:
Christus Dominus, The Pastoral Charge of Bishops
Presbyterorum Ordinis, The Ministry of Priests
Perfectae Caritatis, Restoration and Adaptation of Religious Life
Optatam Totius, Training Priests
Apostolicam Actuositatem, Apostolate of the Laity
Ad Gentes, Missionary Activity of the Church
Orientalium Ecclesiarum, The Eastern Rite Churches
Unitatis Redintegratio, Ecumenism
Inter Mirifica, Social Communication
The three declarations:
Dignitatis Humanae, Religious Liberty
Nostra Aetate, Relationship of the Church with non-Christian Religions
Gravissimum Educationis Momentum, Christian Education
- Are these documents of the Council compatible with past Councils and papal teachings?
- How is this possible? Wouldn't the Holy Ghost prevent the pope from promulgating error, evil, and outright heresy?
Therefore, we must conclude either: (a) the Church can defect and we must deny the dogma of Indefectibility, ceasing to be Catholic [and give $teve $kojec a large donation on his useless blog] OR (b) Montini was not the pope. This is the precise reason I'm a sedevacantist.
You will often hear Feeneyites claim e.g., that Pope Pius XII taught Baptism of Desire in his Address to Midwives, which is not infallible, so it doesn't affect his papacy. They get it exactly wrong. They understand defection in a way contrary to Church teaching. As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."(See Oeuvres Completes. 9:232; Emphasis mine). The defection can't take place in his official capacity as pope. It is not that Paul VI was a true pope, picked up his pen, signed Lumen Gentium, and the Holy Ghost left him because he ceased to be pope. Rather, had Paul VI been pope on November 21, 1964, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing that document. The fact that he signed is morally certain proof that he had already fallen from office through the profession of heresy as a private person.
- What are the major errors of Vatican II?
- Explain these two major errors and how they conflict with past Church teaching.
The paragraph in question states, "This Church [of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity." (Emphasis mine). The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, because She possesses all the "elements" of the Church of Christ, but the Church of Christ also subsists in other religions according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but having just some is good too, and it brings religions to "unity" and people to salvation.
Traditional Teaching: "22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed...It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit." (See Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, para. #22; Emphasis mine)
Vatican II applied by "St." JPII (Wojtyla): "There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ...It is rooted in recognition of the oneness of Baptism...This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement." (See Ut Unum Sint, para. #42; Emphasis mine).
2. Ecumenism. The traditional and true teaching of the Church is that salvation is found in the One True Church alone. All other religions are false and are pathways to Hell. True ecumenism is converting those outside the Church. In Unitatis Redintegratio, we read in para. #3: "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..." In Nostra Aetate we read, "She [the Church] regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." (para. #2).
Traditional Teaching: "We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: 'The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved.' Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: 'There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.'" (Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, para. #5;Emphasis mine).
Vatican II teaches: "Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination...The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions...The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems." (See Nostra Aetate, para. #2 and 3; Emphasis mine).
- What are we to conclude about Vatican II?
2. It taught great evils, especially a false and heretical ecclesiology and an evil ecumenism.
3. These false and evil teachings directly contradict the teachings of all past popes and Councils.
4. The Church cannot give that which is false and/or evil. It is the dogma of Indefectibility.
5. Therefore, these evil teachings were produced by a false Robber Council, convoked by a false pope (John XXIII) and promulgated by another false pope (Paul VI).
Vatican II and its false popes created a new, man-made sect that is not Catholic and must be rejected.
There have only been twenty Ecumenical Councils from 325 AD to 1870. The alleged twenty-first Council can in no way be considered legitimate, nor can its "popes." There is nothing to "recognize and resist." There is only a man-made sect spawned in the Masonic Lodges and constructed by Modernists, both of whom take their marching orders from Satan. We must rather be part of the Traditionalist movement, the remnant of the One True Church. The Vatican II sect we must "denounce and destroy" by making others aware and getting them to leave and join with us.
Wasn't the first Ecumenical Council the Council of Jerusalem? If it wasn't Ecumenical, what exactly does the Church consider it to be?ReplyDelete
The Council of Jerusalem took place circa 50AD, and consisted of only the local clergy--therefore not "Ecumenical" with representatives from all or most parts. It was described in Acts 15, and is known as an APOSTOLIC COUNCIL because one or more Apostles were present.
Very informative article and explanation of Vatican II. Whenever I read the Vatican II documents my blood pressure must go sky high as I get so upset. God does not change - "Jesus Christ, the same,yesterday today and forever"!!ReplyDelete
Happy New Year,
Thank you, and a very Happy and Blessed New Year to you!
Which document dealt with the changing of Sacramental rubrics?ReplyDelete
The general changes came in through Sacrosanctum Concilium. The specifics were accomplished by a Concilium or Commission of Modernists including six Protestant ministers:
1. Raymond George (Methodist)
2. Ronald Jaspar (Anglican)
3. Massey Shepherd (Episcopalian)
4. Friedrich Kunneth (Lutheran)
5. Eugene Brand (Lutheran)
6. Max Thurian (Calvinist-community of Taize).
Happy, Healthy, Holy New Year Andrew!
You too Sir.Delete
Happy New Year!
Great perspective. Thank you and may God continue to bless you throughout Christmastide and beyond.ReplyDelete
Thank you my friend! A Happy, Healthy, and Holy New Year to you!
Thank you, Intro for the well researched information you have continued to provide.ReplyDelete
Have a very Happy and Blessed New Year.
A Healthy, Happy, and Holy New Year to you!
I am wondering if anyone is aware of how many Novus Ordo bishops & cardinals remain living who were consecrated prior to the NO Montini change in consecration? Thank you!ReplyDelete
According to catholic-hierarchy.org, there are 38 validly consecrated bishops left in the world. The oldest is Archbishop Bernardino Piñera Carvallo who is the last living bishop appointed by Pope Pius XII and was consecrated in 1958. He is currently 104 years old. The last validly consecrated bishop who made it just under the wire—-7 days before the Pauline Rite took effect on June 18, 1968, is Bishop Alfred Kleinermeilert; currently 91 years old.
God Bless and Happy New Year,
I've read some were validily consecrated prior to Aug.15 1968 though I don't know if it's true.Delete
We should pray for the validily ordained Priests + consecrated Bishops in the Novus Ordo who are still alive.Delete
The new Rite was imposed on June 18, 1968. Yes, we should pray for those few valid bishops and priests left to return to the True Faith!!
I just finished up a book called "The Undermining of the Catholic Church" by Mrs. Mary Ball Martinez, a long time professional correspondent on Vatican affairs, and what she had to say in her book was unique. Her thesis is that the changes that took place in the Church did not start with Vatican II, but that the council was the culmination of a series of ideas put slowly into action decades, even a century before. Although she cites the work of Pius XII as the first big agent of change on the throne of Peter in the 20th century, even to the point of dreaming of a Council in his own time, she does not accuse him of desiring to overthrow the Church or create a new sect. Her belief is that Pacelli and Montini were, due to their similar upbringingings, more victims of their time and the new ways of thinking. Difference being that Montini was the one who eventually brought to fruition a Council which actually did change the constitution of the Church into a whole new sect.ReplyDelete
I have not read that book, but I will make a couple of observations. Modernism began in the 1800s. They continued to grow and thought they could change the immutable Church. Pope St Pius X was God’s warrior. He beat them back but did not extirpate them.
Pope Benedict XV unwisely thought the danger was over and failed to implement the further measures his predecessor wanted. The result was a second wave of Modernism that grew strong by the reign of Pope Pius XII.
Pius imagined a new anti-Modernist plan of action. He considered a Council for its implementation but was afraid of what might happen. He knew how many Modernists there were and their speeches would stir up more agitation and bring more sympathizers.
His liturgical changes were the beginning of what I believe was a plan to make a more anti-Modernist Mass suitable to the times. When the conclave of 1958 went horribly wrong and Roncalli emerged as “pope,” the Council was called and the Mass was put into the hands of God’s enemies.
Thank you for the excellent comment!
I am also reading Mary Ball Martinez’s book. You can find it here: http://www.olvrc.com/reference/general/documents/UnderminingOfTheCatholicChurch.pdfDelete
You perhaps ought to read it and do a review. There are many, many controversial claims in the book, but it is not footnoted, so further research of these assertions is difficult.
Some claims against Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli) from the book are
His favorite theologian claimed to be the Swiss Calvinist Karl Barth. (page 21) I cannot find a primary source for this on the internet, but it may have been Paul VI who said this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43250187?seq=1
His grandfather Marcantonio followed his brother Ernesto to Rome, where Ernesto was working for the Rothschilds as they ensnared the Vatican in a giant loan. (page 33) High-ranking employment by the Rothschilds almost certainly means that the family is Talmudic.
As a youth, was educated privately. Received high school education at Liceo Visconti, “well known among Romans to be the state-run educational center more hostile to the Church than any other in the city.” First trained privately as a priest and then received final two years of priestly education at the Istituto Capranica, “the headquarters of the kind of theological radicalism soon to be labeled ‘Modernism.’” (page 35)
Mentored by Mariano Rampolla, who held the office of Cardinal and was a member of the occult, Masonic Ordo Templi Orientis and became Rampolla’s “private secretary and regular traveling companion on important diplomatic missions.” (page 38)
The Pius XII encyclical you cite above, Mystici Corporis Christi, expanded the description of the Church as a “Society” with one of a “Mystical Body,” liking the Church to a flesh-and-blood organism, even though the Vatican Council bishops had explicitly precluded such a concept as “confusing, ambiguous, vague and inappropriately biological.” In fact, such a definition may even be heretical, since it promotes immanence, an old heresy that had been condemned anew in Pius X’s Pascendi. [This would make Pius XII a heretic if true.] Mrs. Ball Martinez says many theologians complained at the time, but unfortunately does not list any. This redefinition of the Church in this particular encyclical is specifically cited by the modernist Virgilio Rotondi as the beginning of the revolution. (pages 15-20) However, there is this letter stating that the Vatican Council used the term “Mystical Body” in a dogmatic constitution: https://catholictruthblog.com/2017/10/09/american-reader-on-mystical-body-deliberate-mistake-in-october-newsletter/
Approved a “catechetical center” called Lumen Vitae described as “dedicated to the more or less rejection of all received ideas and the divesting of religious teaching of all traditional content.” (pages 90-91)
His encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu on biblical study allowed scholars “to consider that the early chapters of Genesis were not historical, that the Book of Isaiah was not a single book, that Matthew was not the work of an eye-witness, that the four Gospels were not four harmonious biographies and were sometimes inaccurate in detail,” (Raymond Brown) and demonstrated “how far the Church is willing to go in accepting modern attitudes toward exegetical methods and along with it, shows a tacit disapproval of the anti-Modernist decrees of Pope Pius X. Moreover the document gives clear recognition of the authority of the original texts over that of any translation, ancient or modern. Hence it gives a definite decrease in the importance of the Vulgate.” (Hans Kung) (Pages 94-95)
Mrs. Ball Martinez also fingers Giacomo della Chiesa (Benedict XV) and Pietro Gasparri (the director of the 1917 Canon Law codification) along with Pacelli, Roncalli, and Montini as being responsible for the events that led to Vatican II. Pacelli, Giacomo della Chiesa (Benedict XV), and Gasparri were closely tied to Rampolla, with della Chiesa and Pacelli serving as his secretaries and Gasparri as his chief assistant. Benedict XV is know to have been close to Rampolla and did in fact roll back Pius X’s strict efforts against the modernists.Delete
I agree that Pope Benedict was a weak pope, and did many things that were unwise. I wish Cardinal Merry del Val had been elected instead, but God has His reasons!Delete
That book sounds like pure calumny on many counts. I will try and do a book review in the near future. It is also wrong on many points.
Did not St Paul write in 1 Corinthians 12:12, "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ"
Thanks for the information Jannie. Please see my post on poor old battered Pope Pius XII
Mrs. Ball Martinez says that Pius XII’s use of “body of Christ” in Mystici Corporis Christi differed from its use by the Church and figures such as St. Paul in the past. She is apparently claiming that Pius XII was promoting in Mystici Corporis Christi the heresy of immanence condemned in Pius X’s Pascendi:Delete
“Rarely found in Catholic writing prior to 1943 and not at all as an image of the Church in the liturgy, the phrase 'body of Christ' meant for St. Paul simply the Christians of his time. Three centuries later St. Augustine used the Pauline term, adding to the 'body' all the just since Abel. For St. Thomas Aquinas the words signified 'living Catholics in the state of grace'. Apparently what inspired Pius XII to give quasi canonical status to the term, elevating it to 'mystical', were the writings of a contemporary, Emile Mersch. By-passing objections voiced at the first Vatican Council, this Belgian Jesuit presented a new concept by identifying the Church with the human body, adding to it, as the encyclical would, two Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In the analogy Our Lord is taken as the head, popes and bishops the bones and ligaments, the Holy Ghost the life force. Although difficult to find in print today, A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS IN 1943 ARE KNOWN TO HAVE ECHOED THE PROTESTS OF VATICAN I, pointing to a departure from reality in the divination of the Church and the unsuitability of the biological references.
“Should the boast of the neo-Jesuits of Civiltá Cattólica that the Pacelli encyclical opened the way to Vatican II appear far-fetched, consider the fact that until then the Magisterium had insisted that God was God and that we were His creatures, Christians among us the group or body of Christ. The body Pius XII envisioned must be capitalized and raised to mystical status, since he declared it contained God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
“Why did the still-orthodox Council fathers of 1870 reject this arbitrary new arrangement of God and man? Because it reduced the transcendent God to the immanent God, the ancient heresy…. Everyman’s Encyclopedia (1958) takes from Pius X’s Pascendi precise definitions: ‘Immanence is a philosophical term used to denote the concept that the Deity pervades the universe, that His existence is expressed only by the unrolling of the natural cosmos. It is in opposition to transcendentalism, which teaches that the Deity has an existence apart from the universe, which is only a subsidiary expression of His activity.’… To the serious student of theology, however, it was clear that the phrase 'mystical body' in the mind of Pope Pius XII went much farther than mere pious name-giving. Used as he used it in the encyclical, the phrase tore the Church away from its institutional character of nearly two millennia, thus setting aside its ancient identity for a thrust into the future.”
She says that numerous theologians complained about this encyclical but doesn’t name any. Her book has no footnotes but does have a bibliography. Do you know of theologians who complained about this use of the term “Mystical Body of Christ” in the encyclical? As pointed out above, the Vatican Council actually used it in a Dogmatic Constitution. If Pius XII was promoting the immanence condemned in Pascendi, then wouldn’t that make him a heretic?
Mrs. Ball-Martinez is R&R and I would not waste my time reading her garbage. I can call it that after reading your quotes. She was a writer for the R&R flagship "The Wanderer" which is a classic example of shoddy theology (to be charitable).
Whenever an author makes broad, sweeping claims, without citations, it is a serious lack of scholarship and should not be taken seriously by anyone. Pope Pius XII was not promoting vital immanence, or any other heretical idea.
She can't cite even one of the "numerous theologians" allegedly against using the term "Mystical Body of Christ," because no approved theologian did so. Theologian Van Noort calls the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ "proximate to Divine Faith," He goes on to expound the history of the belief, deeply rooted in both Scripture and the writings of the earliest Fathers including St. Ignatius Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian and St. Augustine. (See "Dogmatic Theology" 2:216-230).
The only heretic is Mary Ball-Martinez.
Prior to 1951,liturgy was considered untouchable.Delete
I'm keenly aware of prior Pope's doing slight
Modification to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
His changes from 51-58 were a radical departure from
The older I get the more his reign literally makes me sad.
Why did he help destroy
what had stood so firmly and resolutely for Centuries?!?!
P XII will be remembered as the one who opened the floodgates of Hell.
Thank you, Introibo. Mary Ball Martinez's book reads like a novel and from memory there are no footnotes or references. Typical R&R rubbish which trashes the papacy. It should be on the Index of Forbidden Books.Delete
It would DEFINITELY be on the Index—if only we had a real pope!
thank you for yet another concise and informative piece on Catholic theology. Your work – always well-researched on pre-Vatican II sources – is truly one of a kind among the myriad of ‘me-thinks’ self-appointed trad gurus. The fact that you actually take time and effort to respond to your readers in a meaningful manner is also quite extraordinary. I’d like to thank you for the Singing for Satan series – being an avid fan of the history of popular music it made me even more sensitive to the lyrics and musicians’ bios (though, it also made listening to music quite uncomfortable at times, I must admit – I guess this is where the choice between good and evil starts). I’ve only discovered your site a few months ago and still have a lot of reading to do – realizing I have actually NOT been a Catholic all my life is a tough one, especially when all you get from family members is either extreme hostility or indifference. A Blessed New Year 2020 to you and your family! Keep up the good work for it is truly appreciated by many!
Greetings from Poland,
I can’t begin to tell you how much your comment means to me. It keeps me writing! I’m sorry for the hostility you must endure for the Faith. I’ve experienced it as well. One of the reasons I remain anonymous is to spare my family members and close friends that kind of treatment.
Thank you for reading, and a holy, healthy, and Happy New Year to you! When things go against you, be encouraged by the words of Our Lord, “ Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. ” (St Luke 6:22).
I’ll be praying for you and the conversion of your family.
Thank you so much, Introibo - the very thought that there is someone out there who cares to say a prayer for me is truly comforting. I will keep you in my prayers as well.Delete
When it comes to V2, for me it was a real eye-opener to learn that the man behind the disastrous Nostra Aetate declaration was Gregory Baum. Such a corrupt and perverted mind would have never produced anything Catholic.
There is a book by Fr. Dominic Radecki and Fr. Francisco Radecki titled "Tumultuous Times. Twenty General Councils of the Catholic Church and Vatican II and its Aftermath" - also uploaded on Youtube as an audiobook. Should be a great reference for some comparative studies in pre- and post-Vatican II ecclesiology.
I agree the book by the Frs. Radecki on Ecumenical Councils is excellent! I highly recommend it to my readers.
Dear Introibo, this is off topic question but do you know anything about this Jacobus Maria DeJesus D.D. person who calls himself the Patriarch of the Ancient Roman Rite of the Catholic Church? I came across him while doing some research on the late Bp. Thuc. Here is his website: http://www.traditionalcatholicmass.com/home-m153.html. He is very "quiet" about his lineage. Could it be that he comes from the Francis Schuckardt "line?" Any info will be much appreciated. God bless to you and your loved ones.ReplyDelete
I’ve never heard of him. I looked at his website and I found nothing about his history or episcopal lineage. I looked it over for about 10 minutes because I’m pressed for time (as usual). If I missed something pertaining to such, I apologize in advance. I see nothing overtly heretical but the fact he refers to himself as “Patriarch” is an automatic red flag. Anyone who does not openly state their lineage and basic info is a cleric I would definitely avoid. It seems to me that he has things to hide.
Many thanks, Introibo. God bless.Delete
Jacobus claims to have died and was resurrected byDelete
St.Michael the Archangel.
He will not tell you about his ordination + consecration unless you have known him for 10-15 yrs.
Both statements are on his website.
Sounds like a Palmar De Troya type post 1978.
Thanks for the informative article. The work you do is much needed and appreciated. God Bless and Happy New Year!ReplyDelete
Thank you my friend!Delete
Happy, Healthy, Holy New Year!
Please pray for Fr. Jaqmin. He destroyed an image of a crucified cow on a church and now the liberals on his country want to jail him.ReplyDelete
Blessed be the Most Holy Name of Jesus for ever.
Prayers for Father.Delete
"Pope" Francis slapping the woman has shown his true colors to the world. I have had multiple people bring the slapping incident up in conversation mentioning their disgust and questioning what type of "Pope" he is as a result of the slap. That really opens the door for me to explain about the fake Popes, the fake new Mass, Vatican II and the great apostacy!!
A great opportunity for all of us!
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Vatican II was characterized as “pastoral,” which you noted in your thread on the Ordinary Magisterium at https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/11/nothing-out-of-ordinary.htmlReplyDelete
You did say that an Ecumenical Council cannot be ignored because it is “pastoral,” as the R&R gang does, but does the term “pastoral” formally or legally mean anything in regards to Ecumenical Councils? Was it ever used before Vatican II?
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the designation "pastoral" for an Ecumenical Council is unique to Robber Council Vatican II. The R&R will try to say pastoral means that "it is not dogmatic and misinterpreted by 'liberal' bishops'" That simply is not the case. In my post on the Ordinary Magisterium which you cite, it would not be infallible by way of the extraordinary Magisterium, but by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. The end result is the same--if Vatican II were an Ecumenical Council its decrees are infallible, and even in matters of discipline, a universal disciplinary law cannot teach error, heresy, or give evil. It is a secondary object of infallibility, and is necessary for the Church to be Indefectible (which is a dogma).
Was Gommar DePauw R&R? On more than one occasion, he recognized the term “pastoral” as denoting a variety of Ecumenical Council and differentiated “pastoral” and dogmatic councils as being mutually exclusive, with the latter establishing doctrine and the former not.Delete
“1962 was the first step in the establishment of the schismatic, heretical, Conciliar sect which is now posing as the Catholic Church establishment in the United States. Because now we are faced with Conciliarism. Pope John XXIII convoked his Vatican Council – and ladies and gentlemen, let no one tell you that I personally, or the Traditional Catholic movement, are fighting the decisions of the Ecumenical Council. Oh no, we are not! No Catholic could! What we are fighting today are the false interpretations of the Second Vatican Council and it is high time for the present Holy Father to declare that the Vatican Council was BIG MISTAKE, and that it is now completely eradicated from the record. He could do it! He is the pope! And it isn’t just to the credit of Pope John XXIII, because it is much more to the credit of the Holy Ghost, that John XXIII made it crystal clear from the very beginning when he convoked that council. And I should know; I heard him say it! Yes, he said it in Latin, but I still understand a little Latin. He made it clear that, unlike all previous Ecumenical Councils, the Second Vatican Council was to be, not a Doctrinal Council, but a pastoral one, leaving the door open for any subsequent pope to just say ‘BASTA!!’”
–CATHOLIC OR CONCILIAR? (1967) http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/depauw67.txt
“Even the most ardent Vatican II-fans - if there are any left! - admit that there is no comparison between the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The first one was definitely a "dogmatic" Council, defining articles of Faith to be believed and promulgating laws to be observed under the most severe sanctions and penalties, including excommunication. Vatican II, on the other hand, by decision of Pope John XXIII who convoked it, was meant to be "just pastoral," resulting in no new definitions or laws, and occupying itself only with "updating and adapting" existing beliefs and practices. One existing law and practice Pope John explicitly excluded from any ‘aggiornamento’ was the use of Latin in the Mass!”
–THE NEW MASS WARNING http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/priest/priest_unchanged.htm
DePauw also endorsed both John XXIII and Paul VI as a valid Popes and said (as shown above) that Vatican II was a valid Council and that it was merely misinterpreted.
The early writings of Fr. DePauw were R&R. He did not WANT to think of the Church he loved and served so well as being "sent underground" and replaced by a false sect.
He was intellectually honest enough to realize there was no more defending the indefensible. By 1999 he was sedevacantist. He did not use the name of Wojtyla in the Canon and referred to him as either "John Paul II" (no longer with the title "pope") or most often "the man in white at the Vatican." It pained him more than anyone could imagine. He was not forthright about it and would not discuss it with me.
There is this statement on the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) website by the man that DePauw handpicked to lead the CTM after his death:Delete
“As to the anonymous blog, also full of glowing compliments to Father and Bishop Kurz, it too, is loaded with historical inaccuracies.
“I can firmly and unequivocally deny, having had the privilege of serving his Mass for over 40 years, and after having had several discussions with him on the topic, that Father never eliminated the name of the reigning Pontiff from the Canon of the Mass. While he never hesitated or shirked his responsibility to express his dissatisfaction with certain things done by the Popes since the ending of the Vatican Council, I can unequivocally state that he never sympathized or espoused the theory of sede-vacantism, right up until his last breath.
“Those of you, who have attended this Chapel for a long time, are familiar with his explanation of the Solemn Prayer ‘Pro Summo Pontifice … for the Supreme Pontiff’ during the traditional Good Friday service. And countless times, he stated that position in the various publications of the CTM. Those publications were written during the pontificates of Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II.
“Having been sitting right next to him as Cardinal Ratzinger, someone whom he often described as the arsonist turned fireman, was announced to the world as the new pope after the death of Pope John Paul II, and being only days away from his own death, he never hinted, spoke or gave any sign that he was changing his loyalty to the Papacy or now espousing the sede-vacantist line.” http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/ctmnews/September2013.htm
Was the anonymous blog disputed above yours? Clearly, one of you is not telling the truth.
Yes, it was a reference to one of my posts. I know Richard Cuneo personally for decades. He is a good man but he does not know Latin well. I will not ascribe bad motives to him. I attended in the first pew for DECADES and he clearly did NOT use Wotyla’s name in the Canon since at least 1999. There is the video of his 1992 50 year anniversary of his priestly ordination where he DOES state the name of Wojtyla. He changed thereafter. In the official CTM video of Low Mass he does NOT mention Wojtyla’s name—and you can head the Canon.
Mr. Cuneo was not present for MY conversations with Father, and he is either Culpably ignorant of the Latin, or is trying to cover up a position with which he disagrees.
Given the information you have made public about yourself (taught science, now practice law, and have degrees in both, etc.) and the small size of the congregation at DePauw’s chapel, couldn’t your identity be determined by the people there who know you?Delete
Do you know Latin? One doesn’t need to know Latin to recognize the name of the Pontiff in the Canon, especially if he is following along with a Missal. One should become very familiar with the form of the Mass after having attended it for decades.
Is Richard related to the Michael Cuneo who also lives in New York and who wrote “The Smoke OF Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism,” which said “For a brief period in 1967, (Fr. Gommar) De Pauw entered into an alliance with a controversial organization called the…OSJ…”?
Can you link to the video in which DePauw does not mention Wojtyla’s name in the Canon? Is there any other video or audio in which he does not mention Wojtyla’s name? Did DePauw ever publicly withdraw his recognition of Wojtyla as Pope?
Since the theory of sedevacantism was already well-developed by the early eighties, why did DePauw take so long to embrace it, given his theologian expertise? For that matter, how could he not have recognized the heresy in Vatican II?
And if DePauw determined that the Holy See was vacant and the men occupying it imposters, didn’t he have a grave obligation to inform his parishioners? They are still looking to the imposters as the leaders of the Church and imbibing their rancid theology. And where then did DePauw claim he got the jurisdiction to run his chapel and celebrate Mass if there were no Pope to supply it?
1. The Traditionalists at Ave Maria keep to themselves. There are people who I attended Mass with for almost 25 years who don’t know my name and I don’t know their names, let alone personal information. I know most only by face recognition and the few I know by name don’t know much at all about me. Sounds strange but true. People come to Mass and disperse quickly. The only one who knew my life story well and would know me was Fr DePauw himself. I started this blog, inspired by him, 5 years after his holy death. I would never be so foolish as to give away my identity.
2. Yes, I know Latin having studied at the college level for three years. What you say is generally true, but there are simple people who simple don’t understand or pay attention. I’m not going to judge the current CTM President of the Board.
3. He is NO relation to Michael Cuneo.
4. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0uLuKpKja1c Listen in beginning at 15:15 until the Te Igitur.
5. It’s a long and complicated story. Don’t play Monday Morning quarterback, or judge matters Of which you know nothing. You would not be reading this blog if he had not converted me.
P.S. Many who attended Ave Maria left after Fr passed. Many parishioners are fairly recent.Delete
The person who posted the video said it is from 1986. It looks to be 70s or 80s vintage judging by the poor quality. You said he wasn’t a sedevacantist until 1999. Is there any other reason he wouldn’t have been using Wojtyla’s name, such as the video being taken in the interregnum between the death of John Paul I and the election of Wojtyla?Delete
If DePauw was running his operation with the approval of the Vatican II antipopes in the 80s – which he must have been if they were on good terms with him and praising him, as is shown on the CTM website – and how did he get approval to say the 1955 form instead of the 1962? – then it was an appendage of the antichurch, and he converted you into the antichurch, not the true Catholic Church.
Do you think he is culpable for not warning his flock away from the antipopes?
After becoming sedevacantist, where did he say he got jurisdiction for his chapel since there was no Pope to supply it?
It was filmed in June of 1986 on VHS. I should know; I was there. There was no interregnum in 1986. I said he was CONVINCED by AT LEAST 1999. Obviously he was conflicted and had doubts beforehand. You just don’t “wake up” as a sedevacantist one day overnight.
He was no more an “appendage” of the Vatican II sect than SSPX. He woke up. They still have not.
As I said before,Fr. DePauw’s story is a long and complex one much of which I learned in confidence and am not at liberty to say more. As far as I am concerned; and I know the FACTS having been with him all those years (having much personal correspondence with him and private talks), that someday he will be recognized as a Saint God used to preserve the Faith in near universal apostasy.
I will say no more.
I don't understand all the nitpicking regarding Fr. DePauw? V2 caused much confusion. I don't know any official documents or the Bible that states one must be a Sedevacantist to go to heaven. I do know one needs to be in the STATE of GRACE!Delete
Thank you for saying it so well!
The R´n´R will claim that the men behind all this sacrilege (Roncallli, Montini, Loose-iani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio) are true popes.ReplyDelete
I have an idea. Maybe we can do a dossier on the R´n´R position, on Novus Ordo Watch or in a separate website, in which we bring together the arguments that refute their position and answers to objections against sedevacantism.
A laudable effort! Perhaps contact NOW or you can start a website to do this project. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time at present.
But you have very good blog posts that refute them. Deo Gratias. Blessed be the Holy Name of Jesus Christ. Sweet Heart of Mary be My Salvation.Delete
Was Pius XII, speaking in Mystici Corporis Christi exactly the same way John Paul II did in Ut Unum Sint (not Ut Unam Sint, note your typo)?ReplyDelete
Pius XII wrote in paragraph 96: For the Church, the Bride of Christ, is one; and yet SO VAST IS THE LOVE OF THE DIVINE SPOUSE THAT IT EMBRACES IN HIS BRIDE THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Our Savior shed His Blood precisely in order that He might reconcile men to God through the Cross, and might constrain them to unite in one body, however widely they may differ in nationality and race. True love of the Church, therefore, requires not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another  as members and sharing in their suffering  but likewise that WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE IN OTHER MEN, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT YET JOINED TO US IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, OUR BROTHERS IN CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation….
And again, Pius XII spoke in 1945 (quoted in the book Angelic Shepherd, written by Father Senan) and said, “They (the Jews) are the people whose country God chose to be the birthplace of his Son. OUR GOD IS THEIR GOD, and OUR LAWGIVER IS THEIR LAWGIVER. For centuries they have been most unjustly treated and despised. It is time they were treated with justice and humanity. God wills it and the Church wills it. St. Paul tells us that THE JEWS ARE OUR BROTHERS. Instead of being treated as strangers, THEY SHOULD BE WELCOMED AS OLD FRIENDS. It is not by our own merit that we have had the heritage of the Lord. We are all entitled to see the light of Faith...Their entry into the Church will mark the spiritual renovation of the world.”
Thank you for pointing out my typo. Please bear in mind I'm an attorney who works many hours per week and I have a family. What (very little) time I have left goes into this blog, so I hope I'll get a pass if I make an occasional typo; it's very hard to proofread your own work under tight time constraints. Thank you for your consideration.
Was Pope Pius XII speaking the same as Wojtyla? Ut UNUM Sint is a masterpiece of the Vatican II ecclesiology. Here are but two examples:
"To the extent that these elements [of truth/sanctification] are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stresses that the Catholic Church "recognizes that in many ways she is linked" with these Communities by a true union in the Holy Spirit." para. #11
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." Pope Leo XIII Satis Cognitum, para. #9
Wojtyla in Ut UNUM Sint para. #14:
"The elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other Communities, where certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized. Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity."
Note Pope Pius XII as I quoted in Mystici Corporis Christi that "It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body[The Church}, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."
See also Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum para. #4
"But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: "I believe in one Church."
These teachings are clearly irreconcilable.
Your citation to Pope Pius XII I have not been able to corroborate. I don't know what document Fr Senan is citing or if it was a private audience, etc.
Nevertheless, if accurate, there is nothing even remotely like Ut UNUM Sint. Notice Pope Pius talks about "Their entry into the Church..." referring to THEIR CONVERSION. Why do they need conversion? Because Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Wojtyla talks about those Outside the Church having some "unity" so that they possess the "elements" of truth such that "certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized" Really? False sects have MORE EFFECTIVELY emphasized features Christianity than the One True Church?? Heretics thus possess "elements of truth" more effectively emphasized than the True Church. So, in some sense the false sects are SUPERIOR to the True Church. Rank heresy and blasphemous.
As to the Jews, insofar as they were the true religion prior to the Catholic Church and were blessed by God and given the Ten Commandments, there God is our God (although they now have a heretical conception of Him by denial of the Trinity) and we have the Ten Commandments. It does not mean they "possess" the Ten Commandments and we have some wacky "unity" with them. They should be welcomed as old friends when the convert not by staying in grievous error. As the one who "canonized" Wojtyla infamously said, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense."
I am not disputing that John Paul II contradicted Catholic teaching in Ut Unum Sint, and my question was about Pius XII’s writings, not Pope Leo XIII’s.Delete
What is meant by Pius XII’s statement SO VAST IS THE LOVE OF THE DIVINE SPOUSE THAT IT EMBRACES IN HIS BRIDE THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE WITHOUT EXCEPTION? The whole human race is NOT in his bride (the Church), only those who meet the conditions listed in paragraph 22.
And again, this statement WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE IN OTHER MEN, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT YET JOINED TO US IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, OUR BROTHERS IN CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. Non-Catholics are NOT our brothers in Christ, right?
Wrong. Like a typical Vacancy Pusher, R&R, etc. you twist cherry picked quotes to suit your needs. Here is paragraph # 96 of Mystici Corporis which you cited:
And first of all let us imitate the breadth of His love. For the Church, the Bride of Christ, is one; and yet so vast is the love of the divine Spouse that it embraces in His Bride the whole human race without exception. Our Savior shed His Blood precisely in order that He might reconcile men to God through the Cross, and might constrain them to unite in one body, however widely they may differ in nationality and race. True love of the Church, therefore, requires not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another  as members and sharing in their suffering  but likewise that we should recognize in other men, although they are not yet joined to us in the body of the Church, our brothers in Christ according to the flesh, called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation.“
He is not saying that the whole human race is in the Church rather that Christ’s LOVE IN HIS BRIDE EMBRACES EVERYONE BECAUSE HE WISHES ALL TO ENTER HER AND BE SAVED.
Non-Catholics are IN THE RESTRICTED SENSE IN WHICH HE WROTE—-OUR BROTHERS IN CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. What does that mean? It’s the part YOU left out... “CALLED, TOGETHER WITH US, TO THE SAME ETERNAL SALVATION. “ Insofar as they are called to enter the Church and be saved they are our brothers in the flesh as God positively wills no person's damnation. They are not our brothers in Christ according to the soul, which must be a member of the Church.
When you read the entire Encyclical in context and not just paragraph 96 (with the aid of the approved theologians) it is 100% Catholic.
Please pray for Twitter Ed Young. He had a heart attack. He makes beautiful posts with St. Alphonsus books.ReplyDelete
I will pray for him and ask all my readers to do the same.
The V2 sect is constantly reaffirming the "truths" in all religions. My question is "why being in the State of Grace" is never mentioned? Also, the V2 sect claims that everyone is a "child of God". To be a child of God, one needs to be in the State of Grace - again they never speak of the State of Grace as I am aware.ReplyDelete
To be in the state of Grace implies there are people NOT in the state of Grace. That brings up the possibility of Hell and they reject it for Universal salvation. You’re speaking of “negative theology.”
Introibo, What do they think happens to evil unrepentant people?Delete
They lose their soul to the fires of Hell.
Introibo, I realize "they lose their soul to the fires of Hell". My question is where do the Universal Salvation people think the evil unrepentant go? Do they think everyone, including the evil, float away to heaven?Delete
Universalists believe either (a) all go to Heaven or (b) some go to Hell temporarily and then to Heaven.
I just want to correct the impression you had that I was the poster of the 1-5 @6:54 (?) comment who wrote at length adding "links" to quotes in the book 'The Undermining of the Catholic Church'.
I did not make the comments.
Thanks as always for sharing your sources and what you know with so many.
Thank you for the clarification! I thought perhaps you were continuing the thread and posting just as an “anonymous” for some reason.
You cite the quote, "As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches, 'If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.'" That clearly must be a case of a quote out of context. Could the great sainted Doctor of the Church have been altogether ignorant of the case of Pope John XXII, who really DID fall into heresy as a private teacher with his radical opinion about the afterlife? Though he did not attempt to teach or impose it upon the entire Church, nevertheless, he did promote it at every turn to anyone who would listen to him, including any number of Curial officials who, to a man, all disagreed with him.ReplyDelete
If that were really what St. Alphonsus Liguori really meant, then Pope John XXII became a heretic as a private teacher and thereby completely lost his pontificate the first time he ventured his heretical opinion, and once not Pope, the Holy Ghost would have left him, thus enabling him to teach his heresy to the whole Church (since he is no longer "really" a Pope and no other kind of person of any sort is divinely prevented from teaching heresy), and that furthermore, the whole Church (or nearly the whole Church, excluding only some tiny minority of traditionalists) would simply have followed him into his heresy as his thoughts on the afterlife get enshrined as irreformable teachings of the Church.
Those "Romans" of various sorts around him who heard his heresy and disagreed with him, despite that observation on their part, DID nothing, other than to try to talk him out of his heresy. Fortunately, John XXII made no attempt to teach that, or any other heresy, to the whole Church, and even more fortunately their attempts to talk him out of it bore fruit and the man did repent and recant his heresy shortly before his death, so all was well as ended well. But what was to happen were he to attempt to teach that or any other heresy to the whole Church? Would they then have issued a follow-up declaration to the effect that “Sorry folks, John XXII became a heretic three weeks ago and so was no Pope, but we neglected to tell you that, hoping we might be able to talk him out of it, but that has failed and so you can just ignore that last teaching of his”? And did he become a Pope again once he recanted?
I cannot bring myself to believe that that is what St. Alphonsus Liguori really meant to teach.
But that does seem to be your understanding of what went wrong, or how things went wrong, as a sequence of events. It appears you are thinking thus: a man is lawfully elected Pope by the Church; the man IS Pope. But then, somehow, some heresy takes hold in his heart, and sooner or later "out of the heart's abundance the mouth speaks" and he expresses (albeit privately, or only as a private teacher) his heresy. Then BOOM, he loses the Holy Ghost and ceases to be the Pope (or even merely a Catholic at all). And since only some very few persons of his inner circle might even be aware of this happening, the whole rest of the world and Church still think he is Pope. In short, the long rejected “second opinion” of the five cited by St. Bellarmine is to be considered true.
You are mistaken about the case of Pope John XXII and the necessity of pertinacity for their to be heresy. Many other sedevacantist authors have explained this issue, such as Fr. Cekada.
I will condense it for you:
The accusation of heresy arose from a series of sermons John XXII preached in Avignon, France in which he maintained that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. Sounds promising as an anti-sede argument at first, since John XXII was always recognized as a true pope. However:
(a) The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined — John XXII’s successor, Benedict XII would do that. There was no prohibition on theologians debating the issue.
(b) Then there is the mode that John XXII, who had been a theologian before his election, employed to present his arguments and conclusions.Here, the theologian Le Bachlet says that John XXII proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (“Benoit XII,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.)
In the pope’s second sermon, moreover, he said the following:
“I say with Augustine that, if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the Church would so declare with a contrary statement [nisi ostenderetur determinatio ecclesie contraria] or unless authorities on sacred scripture would express it more clearly than what I have said above.” (Le Bachelet, DTC 2:662.)
Such statements excluded the element of “pertinacity” proper to heresy.
Conclusion: Pope John XXII was never a heretic and the objection against him necessarily fails.
(Credit to Fr. Cekada. (SEE http://www.fathercekada.com/2015/01/28/dr-de-mattei-prescribes-an-anti-sede-tranquilizer/)
But continuing, and now, no longer protected by the Holy Ghost (not being a Pope anymore) he can teach error and heresy to the whole Church. Now hopefully, the papal electors, or the Curia, or any other "Romans" on hand who happen to hear his heretical teaching also manage to so recognized it as the heresy that it is, and announce that he has stepped out of the pontificate and so the electors begin at once to elect a new Pope, even while the man who was Pope before is still alive. But unfortunately, this time around, none of that happened, and so Paul VI, apparently "Pope" to all the rest of us, just merrily promulgated all manner of errors and heresies and the Church, by and large, just as blithely follows him into his heresies. Is that about it?ReplyDelete
It is good to be trying to plumb the depths of "What happened, such that we Catholics have before us the unspeakably absurd and impossible situation as we in fact do have?" That so many others seem content to throw up their hands and conclude that "it's all just some big fat mystery which can never be plumbed so no one need bother to try" is all the more annoying to me that even any mistaken attempt. So please understand, I do applaud the attempt, despite its self-evident failure, and sincerely hope that you will try again.
The key difficulty here seems to be one of focusing on "the Pope" personally failing to be truly Papal in his administration of the Church. But the solution is obvious, and you have hinted at it yourself in the first sentence: "the Vatican II sect . . . was a creation of what was supposed to be the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church." Call it "the Vatican II sect" or "the Conciliar Church" or anything else, one thing it positively cannot itself be is the real and historic Catholic Church. (Else the Church has defected, lost all its Marks, etc. . . .)
I note a trend during the last decade or so of many prominent sedevacantist leaders (such as Fr. Cekada) having shifted over from focusing on a valid and truly elected Pope subsequently losing his pontificate through heresy to an election process that fails to provide the Church with a Pope in the first place. Of itself I don't think really changes much or solves much of anything, but it does I think begin to back up a bit and begin taking a bigger and longer view of things, to focus not quite so much on the men and their personal failures, as on the nature and identity of the society which elects them to lead it. After nearly two thousands years of unfailing ability to elect true Popes, all in a row without failure (though some were clearly far more holy than others, but none attempted to teach or impose error or heresy to the whole Church), and now all of a sudden "the Church" has somehow become altogether incapable of electing a real Catholic Pope, altogether failing each time, all in a row, and without exception.
The answer begins to be seen once one focuses on the society itself as being no longer "the Church" but now something else, "the Vatican II sect," or "the Conciliar Church," or etc., but not itself the real and historic Catholic Church. The bare fact of that change raises at least two major questions, but let's put that on the back burner for the moment while we observe how very much is solved by the simple fact of that change: That the "Vatican II sect" or "Conciliar Church" fails to evidence anything at all of indefectibility and infallibility, and even anything at all of the classical "Four Marks" of the Church becomes perfectly reasonable and proper. Why should it exhibit any characteristic of the Church at all? Even its continuous, ongoing, and permanent inability to create a real Catholic Pope becomes obvious and straightforward, fully predictable.ReplyDelete
But now we need to move those questions back up to the front burner: 1) when, where, and how did that which seems to have been "the Church" cease to be the Church for real? And 2) where, therefore, is that which is the real and historic Catholic Church to be found today? The answer to (2) is far too vast for a mere post so we must return it to the back burner (beyond the obvious and basic fact that it has to be among those "who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed"), so let's just look at (1). While the ability of a Pope to fall into heresy (thereby losing his pontificate) remains hypothetically possible, a corresponding and similar fall of the Church (as a society) to fall into heresy is dogmatically impossible. Most importantly, a society which is the Visible Church, cannot go from being the Visible Church to Not being the Visible Church, through an invisible process. Can you identify precisely where, in "what was supposed to be the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church" the "Vatican II sect" was visibly created alongside and in parallel to the real Catholic Church? Or was it visibly created alongside and in parallel to the real Catholic Church at some previous point (and if so, then precisely where)?
I'll cut to the chase:
While the ability of a Pope to fall into heresy (thereby losing his pontificate) remains hypothetically possible, a corresponding and similar fall of the Church (as a society) to fall into heresy is dogmatically impossible.
Reply: This is incorrect. First, some preliminary remarks about the papacy are in order. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…
For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine). Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)
Hence, the Church continues to exist without a pope and hierarchy, albeit in a different an imperfect way as the theologians teach. It is NOT as you suggest, a "Visible Church to Not being the Visible Church through an Invisible process."
Next, you ask:Delete
Can you identify precisely where, in "what was supposed to be the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church" the "Vatican II sect" was visibly created alongside and in parallel to the real Catholic Church? Or was it visibly created alongside and in parallel to the real Catholic Church at some previous point (and if so, then precisely where)?
History can shed light on this:
There was a de facto interregnum for 51 years during the Great Western Schism from 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff. Prior to this, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or none) could be the true pope. Which one was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit? Was the Church a "three headed monster" during this time? If you chose wrongly (in an age of limited education with no Internet or daily papers) are you "schismatic" and damned to Hell? There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.
Let's not forget the Great Apostasy foretold in the Bible, and taught by the Church. According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , , pg.119; Emphasis in original) This is not incompatible with the visibility of the Church.
So what then, constitutes the visibility of the Church? According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "... [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned..." (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ.
When Montini signed the heretical document "Lumen gentium" with its false and heretical ecclesiology on November 21, 1964, it was morally certain he CAN NOT be pope, for the Holy Ghost could not allow him to sign such. Prior to that time, he either professed heresy as a private teacher and fell from office OR was a heretic who was NEVER pope (my belief).
That is Church teaching and Church history that, when applied to the problem of Vatican II, explains what happened.
Sorry, but that answer ducks and dodges around the real question. By apparent legal and visible continuity, what was once the real and Catholic Church now continues on as a false and Conciliar Church. Now unless real equals false and Catholic equals Conciliar (and I can't believe that's what you are saying) there HAS to have been a break somewhere. Furthermore, one has to be able to point at what, at that time of that "break" continued on as the Church and what did not, what visible delineation existed from that point, such that the Church truly continued and continues to this day, for otherwise all one has is the defection of the Church or else the disappearance of the Church, and all without any apparent announcement or visible act.Delete
Another problem: your present model here above seems to suggest that the Church IS defectible whenever She is between popes, and I am unaware of any theologian who has ever described the Church's indefectibility as something conditioned on Her having a living Pope at this or that given time.
There is also the doctrine of the passive infallibility of the Church, the other side of the Pope's active infallibility. Yet it is the passive infallibility of the Church which is alone of these two expressly mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "The Sheep know His voice and a stranger they will not follow." What kind of "Church" can it be when it blithely follows the strangers Montini and those coming after him into all their heresies?
1. I have given the morally certain date of the defection.
2. I have not suggested in the slightest that the Church can defect between popes. It is not “my model”—the approved theologians teach it whom I have cited.
3. Theologian Berry answers your question by saying that Satan can set up a false Church with false sacraments and a false pope that is more numerous than the true Church. Sounds like Vatican II !
“1. I have given the morally certain date of the defection.”
I have searched this exchange carefully and find no clear date when “the defection” actually took place; the closest I find to it amounts to a “maybe here, maybe anywhere from here to there, but in any case prior to here” in “When Montini … the Holy Ghost could not allow him to sign such. Prior to that time, he either professed heresy as a private teacher and fell from office OR was a heretic who was NEVER pope.” That really doesn’t nail it down.
More importantly, “the defection” of what? The Church? As that cannot be (right?), then what?
“2. I have not suggested in the slightest that the Church can defect between popes. It is not ‘my model’—the approved theologians teach it whom I have cited.”
I would like to understand what, then, precisely IS your model?
But perhaps it would be helpful for me to point out what it was in your statements above which certainly SEEMS to me to suggest that you think the Church can defect between popes:
You quoted me as saying “While the ability of a Pope to fall into heresy (thereby losing his pontificate) remains hypothetically possible, a corresponding and similar fall of the Church (as a society) to fall into heresy is dogmatically impossible,” to which you replied, “This is incorrect.” What is incorrect in what I said? If your only problem with what I said is how soft I was by describing such a loss of the pope as “hypothetically possible” instead of a “sadly realized fact,” as many of our fellow sedevacantists hold, then well and good; perhaps I should have said “remains AT LEAST hypothetically possible (and at most actually realized).”
But somehow, I get the impression that is not what you disagree with, which only leaves you with disagreeing with “a corresponding and similar fall of the Church (as a society) to fall into heresy is dogmatically impossible.” I consider that statement a dogmatic fact, given the definition of indefectibility and the dogma that the Church is indefectible, but according to you it seems that the Church (as a society) really CAN defect/fall into heresy, presumably even as a Pope could, especially (apparently) if lacking a Pope for a prolonged duration. For then you devote several paragraphs to discussing how the Church is monarchial even when lacking a Pope, that when lacking a Pope “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,” that “the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate,” that the presence of the head is not strictly necessary, and finally how the Pope is a “secondary foundation.” All of this is perfectly well and good and fine, no disagreement there, but none of it has anything to say whatsoever, one way or the other, about the scenarios of either the Pope as a man, or the Church as a society, defecting by falling into heresy.
1. November 21,1964, the signing of the heretical document “Lumen Gentium” by Montini. What defected? Montini from the Faith prior to that date as a private theologian. He either (a) never attained to the papacy or (b) lost his office.
2. It is heretical to say the Church as a society can defect. The problem was in being “too soft.”
Instead, you conclude with “the Church continues to exist without a pope and hierarchy, albeit in a different an imperfect way as the theologians teach.” This ambiguous statement leaves me wondering, as it could be taken in either of two senses: one (1) being that the (now) Novus Ordo apparatus which indeed, lacking any real “pope and hierarchy” however deceived otherwise they may be, is still in some legal or visible sense the Church, but lacking a living Pope to keep everyone on the straight and narrow, “the shepherd is struck” the sheep wander and scatter, even into mass heresy, as the “imperfect way as the theologians teach” which WOULD be a defection of the Church, despite the presence of some tiny number of individuals therein personally avoiding heresy; and (2) the other being the traditional Catholic community getting by in “an imperfect way as the theologians teach,” without a Pope, without territorial bishops (but still with real bishops and priests, albeit in an unconventional structure), all still maintaining the true Faith. If the first, the Church defects for lack of a (living real) Pope, and if the second, then there is no defection. Whatever happens to the Novus Ordo really is of no relevance.ReplyDelete
The former “Great Western Schism” has no bearing on that question since throughout that entire problem there was no defection. None of the various successions of claimants taught any errors or heresies in either Faith or Morals, nor even imposed any injurious disciplines, no defective liturgies, etc., so despite the papal confusion there was NO defection; the Church still existed and still served fully well in its apostolic mission. One relevant lesson as CAN be gleaned from that is the whole “visibility” issue: the alternate papal (?) successions did not simply condense gradually from the ether, each was openly started by a gathering of legitimate cardinals of the Church gathering together, electing someone to lead the Church, that person accepting the role, and then the lot of them proclaiming to the whole world “Habemus Papum!” on a specific and known date, time, and place.
Even the devil’s counterchurch, as mentioned in prophecy, cannot just “condense gradually out of the ether” but must also be officially founded. How else would those most satanic leaders and founders thereof get others to submit to them and disseminate their heresies and deceptions? Just as the true Church could never have been merely some loose association of people who happen to have liked this guy named Jesus, but was specifically set up as an organized society, the Devil, who mocks and apes all things, must also go through some equivalent process, else his evil designs will go nowhere. Every sect was founded at some point: the Eastern Schism with the excommunication of the Pope in 1054, the Anglican with the signing (by each cleric) of the Declaration of Royal Supremacy, and the same can be said of every sect, if only one traces its history in detail.
So again, the question still stands as originally asked: Where, in "what was supposed to be the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church" was the "Vatican II sect" visibly [legally, ontologically] created alongside and in parallel to the real Catholic Church? Or was it visibly created alongside and in parallel to the real Catholic Church at some previous point (and if so, then precisely where)? I do not believe the whole Conciliar Church just condensed gradually out of the ether; it, too, had to have been specifically and formally founded and chartered as a society legally and ontologically separate and distinct from the Church at some identifiable time and date and place, else it would never have amounted to much of anything.
Once the defection of the hierarchy took place, you were no longer dealing with the Catholic Church. The One True Church continues through the Traditionalist Movement. Such a scenario was contemplated by the theologians (e.g., Berry).Delete
Blessed Virgin Mary guarded me as i walked me through possibilities after i got on internet.. Burke, voris,salza, gruner, vennari.. She got me to Sedevacantism as i was thinking: recognize and resist? I barely know Catholic faith.ReplyDelete
I can't even now what to believe.
Then sedevacantist clergy said: i don't have right to reject UOM.
Blessed Virgin Mary...i can't grasp Her Greatness. John
Introibo, what extend does the pope use of his infallibility in an ecumenical council? Does he use it the same way that popes have proclaimed the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, or does he do it as head/representative of the infallible college of bishops?ReplyDelete
If in an ecumenical council attended by all the bishops of the world, all bishops voted no, but the pope said yes, and closed the council, was the council still valid by the pope's decree?
Do bishops just have an advisory role in a council, where their votes really don't matter?
The pope is not the representative of a Council. Councils depend on the pope or it is not a legitimate Council. The role of the bishops is to express the faith throughout the world and have that expression fulfilled by decrees of a Council. If the pope signs the decree, it is binding upon Catholics worldwide. If proposed dogmatically, they are infallible, as long as the pope signs.
Even if every single bishop voted for a decree, if the pope rejects it, the decree has no authority.
Much appreciated. Thank you.Delete