Old Errors And Old Catholics

 

An old error is enjoying a resurgence of sorts. The R&R is attempting to "prove" that a pope can be a heretic. Having been frustrated that their position is refuted over and over by Catholic theology, some former R&R now take a new tack. They claim Traditional Catholic teaching regarding the papacy is itself heretical. Pope Pius IX was allegedly a Freemason and false pope. The teaching of the Vatican Council of 1870 was heretical, imposed by "Ultramontanists." This enabled the Masons to orchestrate Vatican II and no one could call the pope a heretic. Here is a recent comment I received on my post of 1/12/26, "Recognizing And Resisting The Errors of R&R:"

You're all ridiculous. Old Catholicism is the only thing that actually makes sense. Pius IX was a Freemason, on the books as such in their ledgers, and could not be Pope. The robber council of Vatican I forced things in such a way that Pastor Aeternus could never be denied by the gathering of bishops. Pius IX is even recorded as saying that if the Council didn't agree to the "dogma" that he would "clarify" it himself as he did the Immaculate Conception!

The first rupture was Vatican I. Holding the council in a place where the older, more infirm bishops could not stay or participate for the entire length of the event was a calculated move to make sure only Ultramontanists could get in, then they with their Masonic collaborators could create the chimeric abomination that is the Vatican II pseudo-church we see today.

Taking the statements and actions of the Pian Popes in-line, it's obvious to see that they were all for the reform, and establishing an ever firmer Papal power structure that nobody could resist and still call themselves Catholic. Pius X taught very clearly that if you are not in complete agreement with the rites and teachings of the Pope, you are no longer Catholic.

Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, Paragraph 58:

"It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, which involve the religious life of Christian society, the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; nor may they be allowed to set up customs that may lead to the introduction of theological errors, or a tendency to a separate sect, or any other deviation highly harmful to the faith."

Pope Leo XIII says as much, in his Sapientiae Christianae:

"In settling how far the limits of obedience extend, let no one imagine that the belief that the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops must be obeyed only in those matters which the Church has decreed by solemn definition...

"For, in the making of a Christian, after the necessity of believing, there comes next the obligation of being in complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.

"...Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect... and must be such as no one can even call in question."

As does Pius XII, in Humani Generis:

"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 same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question free for discussion among theologians."

Since the "Popes" defined these matters as to leave zero room for calling them heretics, and those who proclaim their Catholicism in light of Vatican I agree to all the above at least tacitly — if not explicitly, as shown in your article — all Sedevacantists are Protestants by their own judgment.

Therefore, Old Catholicism "makes sense" and sedevacantists are "Protestants." 

In this post, I will refute the contentions as expressed by the commenter. (N.B. The material herein was taken from many sources, both online and in print. I take no credit for the information. All I did was condense it into a terse and readable post. I also wish to credit Mr. Mario Derksen of the amazing Traditionalist website Novus Ordo Watch for having done top-notch research on the topic of Pope Pius IX and his alleged Masonic membership. I was able to find and use some of the excellent works he cited.---Introibo). 

Was Pope Pius IX a Freemason?

In a word: NO! This calumny has been around way before certain people decided to revive the evil accusations against a good and holy pope.  I will examine three aspects: (a) the cause of the accusation; (b) who started the accusations; (c) the demonstrated falsity of the accusations.

(a) Why was Pope Pius IX accused of Freemasonry?

Pope Pius IX was frequently called a "liberal," and the following incident earned him that appellation by some, as cited in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

In 1831 when 4000 Italian revolutionists fled before the Austrian army and threatened to throw themselves upon Spoleto, the archbishop [Mastai-Ferretti] persuaded them to lay down their arms and disband, induced the Austrian commander to pardon them for their treason, and gave them sufficient money to reach their homes…. His great charity and amiability had made him beloved by the people, while his friendship with some of the revolutionists had gained for him the name of liberal. (See entry "Pope Pius IX"). 

According to journalist and historian Yves Chiron:

[There were] three different currents of thought. 1) The ‘Austrian’ party, which favored the extension of Austrian rule over all the Legations. 2) The ‘papal’ or ‘sanfedist’ party (which defended the pope and the ‘holy faith’), which not only sought to preserve the pope’s temporal authority in these territories, but also favored the domination of the clergy in social and political areas. 3) The ‘liberal’ party, which wanted to see the end of the pope’s temporal power or, at least, wide reforms in all areas. At that time the term ‘liberal’ included a great diversity of political doctrines and programs…. Msgr. Mastai did not support any of these three parties, in spite of what has been said by some of his contemporaries who, when he was elected to the Sovereign Pontificate, presented him as a "liberal." Some months after he arrived in Imola, in a letter to his friend and neighbor Cardinal Falconieri, Archbishop of Ravenna, he gave a very description of his ‘golden mean’ approach: ‘I detest and abominate, in the very marrow of my bones, the liberals’ ideas and actions; but I have no sympathy, either, for the fanaticism of the so-called ‘papalist’ party. The golden mean, the Christian golden mean — and not the diabolical golden mean which is fashionable today — is the path I would like to follow, with the Lord’s help. But shall I succeed in this?’ [Letter of June 3, 1833]” (See Pope Pius IX: The Man and the Myth, [2005], pgs. 558-59; Emphasis mine). 

The accusation is clearly inaccurate and false. "Liberal" did not signify "Freemason." Rather, it was a calumny leveled at him by his enemies.

(b) Freemasons started the accusations:

Pius IX had given an allocution on September 25, 1865, entitled Multiplices Inter Machinationes, in which he severely condemned Masonry and the Masons’ wicked secret scheming. It reads in part:

In this situation, fearing that imprudent men, and especially the youth, allow themselves to be misled, and that Our silence occasion anyone to protect error, We have resolved, Venerable Brethren, to raise Our apostolic voice; and, confirming here, before you, the constitutions of Our predecessors, by Our apostolic authority, We reprove and condemn this Masonic society and the others of the same kind, which, while differing in appearance, gather every day for the same goal, and conspire either openly or clandestinely against the Church and the legitimate authorities; and We order under the same penalties as those specified in the preceding constitutions of Our predecessors all Christians of every condition, every rank, every dignity, and every country, to regard these same societies as proscribed and condemned by Us. Now there only remains for Us, in order to satisfy the desires and solicitude of Our paternal heart, to warn and exhort the faithful who would associate themselves with sects of this kind of the necessity to obey wiser inspirations and to abandon these baneful secret meetings, so that they not be led into the abyss of eternal ruin. 

The Freemasons were enraged:

In the months that followed this public condemnation of Freemasonry, several Masonic publications in France and Italy, intent on revenge, propagated the story that Pius IX himself, in his youth, had been a Freemason. Apparently it was the Lodge of Palermo that first put out the accusation… In France, the journal Le Monde Maçonnique immediately went into print with this information (See Chiron, Ibid, pgs. 217-218). 

(c) Falsity of the Masonic claims against His Holiness Pope Pius IX:

From the book A Study in American Freemasonry, edited by Arthur Preuss, [1908], pgs. 267-272, it describes in detail how the enemies of the pope began the calumny against him:

“It started in Germany,” says John Gilmary Shea, in his Life of Pope Pius IX, pp. 291, 292, “and they thought that by putting the scene in America, they would escape detection. They declared positively that Pius IX had been received into a Masonic lodge in Philadelphia, cited his discourses, and declared that a number of his autographs were preserved in the lodge. Unfortunately for the story, Philadelphia is in the civilized world. People there could read and write. They examined and found that there was no Masonic lodge in that city by the name given; they found that no lodge in Philadelphia had ever received John Mary Mastai [Pius IX’s baptismal name]; they could find no trace of his ever having been there, as he never was; no lodge had any of his autograph letters; Masons themselves attested that the whole was a pure invention. The slander thus refuted has been revived from time to time, but in later versions, care is taken not to specify the lodge or city too distinctly.”

Did the 1870 Vatican Council Teach Heresy?

Once more, the answer is a resounding NO! The "Ultramontanists" (i.e., those who believed in the supremacy of the pope on matters of faith, morals, and governance. The term originates from "beyond the mountains" [referring to the Alps], as Rome was viewed from northern Europe) were just Catholics while the Gallicans (who denigrated papal authority) were heretics. 

 The idea that the definition of papal supremacy and infallibility were "invented," or not the dogmatic view of the Church, is simply wrong. It was taught from the beginning of the Church. The commenter is a Vacancy Pusher, claiming that all popes since at least Pope Pius IX were false popes. So what of these pontiffs below? 

1302 Pope Boniface VIII: Unam Sanctam (ex cathedra):

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

If submission to the pope is necessary for salvation, then the pope must be the standard of faith whereby we can be safely guided to Heaven. If he could teach heresy, there's no difference between a sect (e.g., Lutherans) that lead people to Hell, and the Catholic Church with a "heretical pope." 

There are numerous actions taken by the popes far prior to the 1800s that show the development of the doctrine:

• Therefore, we ask first: if you believed, do you believe, or are you prepared to believe with the Armenian Church that obeys you, that blessed Peter received the most complete power of jurisdiction over all faithful Christians from the Lord Jesus Christ, and that all the power of jurisdiction that Jude Thaddeus and the other Apostles had in certain lands and provinces and different parts of the world in a special and particular way was subject to the most complete authority and power that blessed Peter received from the Lord Jesus Christ himself over all believers in Christ in all parts of the world, and that no apostle or anyone else received the most complete power over all Christians except Peter alone? (Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, 1351)

• Secondly : if you have believed, have held, or are you prepared to believe and hold, with the Armenians subject to you, that all the Roman Pontiffs who have canonically entered and will canonically enter succeeding Blessed Peter, have succeeded and will succeed Blessed Peter the Roman Pontiff in the same fullness of jurisdiction and power that Blessed Peter himself received from the Lord Jesus Christ over the whole and entire body of the Church Militant? (Ibid)

• Third: if you and the Armenians subject to you believed and still believe that the Roman Pontiffs who were and We who are the Roman Pontiff and those who will be successively in the future, as legitimate and most powerful Vicars of Christ, received all the potentative jurisdiction that Christ as the conformed Head had in human life, immediately from Christ Himself over the whole and entire Body of the Church Militant? (Ibid)

• That blessed Peter the Apostle had no more authority than the other Apostles had nor was he the head of the other apostles. Likewise that God did not send forth any head of the Church, nor did He make anyone His vicar. (Pope John XXII condemning the errors of Marsilius of Padua, 1327)

• We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons. (Council of Florence, 1439)

For anyone interested in a complete refutation of the Gallican heretics at the Vatican Council of 1870, read Anti-Janus by theologian Hergenrother. It was a defense against a tract by the Gallicans entitled The Pope and the Council ---written by an apostate theologian Ignaz von Dollinger, under the pseudonym "Janus."  Those minority of prelates and theologians who were against Pastor Aeternus fell into two categories: those who thought the time was "inopportune" as it would agitate anti-Catholic bias, and those who claimed it "went too far" and was "not taught from the beginning of the Church" were heretics. St. Anthony Mary Claret, a Council Father, did not hesitate to call them such.  There's no way around the definition of Florence. Papal infallibility was so proximate to the Faith, there was no way to deny it without committing a mortal sin. 

Objection: If the Vatican Council of 1870 taught the truth, and its development subsequent to 1870 is true, then we have "zero room for calling them [V2 "popes"] heretics," as the commenter wrote, and sedevacantists are "Protestants" for picking and choosing which popes are heretics. 

Reply:

False. At the Vatican Council of 1870, Archbishop John B. Purcell related the following:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(See McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII, [1903], pg. 241). 

A famous R&R "boogeyman": Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter the R&R is correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta).  Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened.

So a true pope cannot be a heretic. The converse is also true, a heretic cannot be a true pope. Even laymen  can and should recognize heresy. Theologian Sarda y Salvany clearly teaches this in his theological work entitled Liberalism is a Sin. The book was published in 1886. It was endorsed and praised by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index under Pope Leo XIII. Here's what Chapter 32, "Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases" has to say:

Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions. (Emphasis mine).

Who are "Old Catholics"

"Old Catholics" 

General name for various national churches that at different times separated from the Roman Catholic Church. Three main segments are distinguishable.

The Church of Utrecht in Holland, which separated from Rome in 1724. The immediate occasion for the break was the Jansenism of some of the Dutch Catholics, notably their archbishop, Petrus Codde (1648-1710).

The German, Austrian, and Swiss Old Catholics were organized after certain leaders in these countries rejected the two dogmas of papal infallibility and the universal ordinary magisterium, defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870. Their principal intellectual leader was John Joseph Ignatius Dollinger (1799-1890), Bavarian priest and Church historian. (N.B. Dollinger is pictured at the top of this post---Introibo). 

Slavic Old Catholic Churches, mainly Polish, Croat, and Yugoslav, came into existence in America and elsewhere because of alleged discrimination by Anglo-Saxon bishops, but also because of clerical celibacy.

The doctrinal basis of the Old Catholic Churches is the Declaration of Utrecht in 1889. Its main provisions are the rejection of the papal primacy and obligatory auricular confession; married clergy; and in general acceptance of the first seven ecumenical councils as adequate statements of the Christian faith.

In 1925 the Old Catholic communion formally recognized Anglican ordinations, and in 1932 entered into full communion with the Church of England, based on the Bonn Agreement of July 2, 1931.

(See Modern Catholic Dictionary by Hardon; a V2 sect source with the most terse and correct explanation).

Any examination of their beliefs and practices will show that they:

• Ordain women as "priests" and consecrate them as "bishops" 
• Accept sodomites as "normal" and not being sinful
• Have optional celibacy 
• All but eliminated Confession
• Are ecumenists 

Sounds like an even more advanced Vatican II sect. Yet the commenter praises the Old Catholics while denouncing the Vatican II sect; not too coherent. The Vatican II sect and Old Catholic sect are exactly what you get without a "ultramontane" pope. 

Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII condemned Masonry and worked against it tirelessly thus preventing Vatican II and the Modernist takeover. No Mason would ever condemn the Lodge as Pope Pius IX did in his amazing Syllabus of Errors. 

Conclusion

The idea that Pope Pius IX was a Mason and pushed for stronger papal authority so that Vatican II could transpire 84 years after his death, can now be seen for what it is---nonsense on stilts. To think that this is how far (low?) people will go to avoid the inescapable conclusion of sedevacantism since the death of Pope Pius XII. Pray for them.