On June 30, 1988, His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Levebvre (with the assistance of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer) consecrated four Society of St. Pius X priests to the Episcopacy in opposition to the Modernist Vatican. Those two brave prelates along with newly consecrated Bishop Bernard Fellay (now age 52), Bishop Alfonso de Galleretta (now age 53), Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerias (now age 65) and Bishop Richard Williamson (now age 70) were "excommunicated" by Karol Wotyla (John Paul II) the next day. Wotyla began the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission on July 2, to try and keep as many away from the Society by offering them the Traditional Mass if they would accept the poison of Vatican II and the "papacy" of Wotyla.
Now, 22 years later, "Operation Survival" as the Archbishop called the consecrations, can be seen in light of history. The Archbishop, who had come to a de facto acceptance of sedevacantism, went to his eternal reward March 25, 1991. Bishop de Castro Mayer, who shared his views, departed a month later on April 25. Bishop Bernard Fellay took control of the Society in 1994 and began "negotiations" with the Modernist Vatican. The Archbishop had broken off his negotiations when he realized (a) a Catholic doesn't negotiate with a Pope, he obeys, and (b) the continuation of the Church with a valid Apostolic succession needed to be preserved. When you add (a) plus (b), you get the formula for sedevacantism.
Bp. Fellay thinks that you can have a pope and not obey. It's "Cathestant"--the mixing of Catholicism with Protestantism. You have a Holy Father and you decide when and what to obey! Against abortion? Yes, your Holiness! You want us to celebrate the Novus Ordo? No, your Holiness can not command us to go against Tradition. You decry homosexual "marriage"? Yes, your Holiness! Archbishop Levebvre died excommunicated? No, Your Holiness, it was illegal for John Paul II to do so. And so it goes on and on.
On July 7, 2007, Ratzinger issued Summorum Pontificum, which allowed the 1962 Missal to be used as the "Extraordinary Rite" of the Church (a sort of "Equal Rites Amendment"). In January 2009, he lifted the "excommunications" against the four living SSPX Bishops. A month later when Bishop Williamson disputed a point of secular history (how many Jews died in the Holocaust and were gas chambers used), Ratzinger jumped through hoops to apologize and "silenced" Bp. Williamson, demanding a retraction and apology. Had Bp. Williamson sodomized some young boys and/or denied some Truth of Divine and Catholic Faith, Ratzinger would have helped hide his crimes (no apology necessary), and to silence a heretic is intolerable!
Readers wonder why I don't consider the SSPX as Traditionalist. The foregoing should make it obvious. You can't pick and choose what commands of a pope to follow. You must follow them all! If the Novus Ordo is as good as the "Extraordinary Rite", you have no doctrinal basis not to use the New Mass. It becomes a matter of preference; you like vanilla and I like chocolate. You can't claim that the Traditional Mass is more reverent, because that implies that the Church gave us a Rite that is less reverent. The Dogma of the Indefectability of the Church assures us the Church can not give that which is evil--and not to give God the most reverence is an evil (think of Cain and Abel--Cain gave God less than the best he had, and God was not pleased)!
Only sedevacantism gets you out of this conundrum. Ratzinger is NOT pope, therefore we need not obey him--period! The fact that the Novus Ordo is the Novus Bogus (invalid and irreverent), is proof that those who gave it to us are not part of the Church but defected through the profession of heresy. I beg all SSPXers to leave before the sell-out to Ratzinger. Stop trying to walk the fence. If the SSPX is to really survive, the operation they most need is one to remove the deadly disease of Ratzinger from the Body of Christ.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Vatican II, The "Punk Priest" and the Highway to Hell
" In the Traditional Mass only the bread and wine ever change. In the New Mass everything EXCEPT the bread and wine changes."--Attributed to Bp. Blaise Kurz, circa 1969
"Before an institution self-destructs the more ridiculous it becomes."--Voltaire
Apologists for the Deformation that was Vatican II will frequently complain that the wacky goings-on are "abuses never sanctioned by the Council or Pope." The facts tell a different story. Meet one "Fr." Bob Lubic, a Vatican II priest in the Diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Known like most Vatican II clerics as just "Father Bob" (just a regular guy, no alter Christus here!) he has the distinction of also being called the "punk priest" for his use of rock music and punk attire in and out of church. Check out his web site at http://www.thepunkpriest.com/. Fr. Bob has actually sang the infamous AC/DC song Highway to Hell (a song about the band's love and admiration for "Father Satan") in Church and made it part of his "homily" (formerly known as the sermon). He's also used Led Zepplin's Stairway to Heaven---most probably for a Vatican II "Mass of Christian Burial" wherein everything is draped in white and each departed person is de facto canonized as being in Heaven. I wonder if Fr. Bob realizes that Jimmy Page, guitarist for Led Zepplin, was an admirer of Aleister Crowley, the renowned satanist? So enamoured with Crowley, Page purchased the castle where he lived in England. The song even has a proven backward masked message (which I heard) saying "my sweet Satan."
Ah, well, how can Gregorian Chant or Mozart's Requiem Mass in D minor compete with such superior musical talent? Before the chorus of "this is an abuse" chimes in, consider that Fr. Bob operates with the full knowledge and blessing of his "bishop" who in turn is united to Ratzinger. And why shouldn't he; after all, if you read his web site he's simply trying to make the priesthood and Catholicism (at least his parody of it) "more relevant to the people." This WAS and REMAINS the rubric of Vatican II--"making things relevant to modern man." How is this accomplished?
First, downplay/deny "negative theology" which is repugnant to the modern mentality. Such concepts as Hell, Satan, and God's Vengence for Sin must go. Sing a satanic song because (a) there probably is no Hell, so why worry? (b) If there is, no one goes there because we're all good and God will never permit it, so still don't worry! (Maybe Fr. Bob might want to make Don't Worry, Be Happy the official parish anthem).
Second, conform the Church to the modern world. Imitate the world, don't make the world imitate Christ as those "pre-Vatican II schismatics" try to do and whom Fr. Bob condemns on his web site. Interestingly, for someone so eager to placate everyone, we Traditionalists are the ONLY PEOPLE he condemns(Deo gratias!). Actually, under Fr. Bob's theology on Hell, who cares if we're schismatic or not--sin and Hell must go! (The baby-boomers might say "Hell? No, we won't go"!).
Now, you might think I'm making this up. Where does the Vatican II sect teach such things? The General Instruction for the New Mass (GI 69 section 24, DOL 1414) states "..the faithful coming together establish communion among themselves, and dispose themselves for properly hearing the Word of God and worthily celebrating the Eucharist." The Modernist heresy to "establish communion"is nebulous language employed to devalue the real Communion at Mass. This concept of "Christ in the Assembly as Communion" was a driving force of the Modernists which accounts for the numerous times the General Instruction allows the priest to ad lib or omit parts "for pastoral reasons." This explains how the Novus Ordo can be so different from parish to parish or even priest to priest. Use the Motu Mass, Fr. Conservative? Sure! There are pastoral needs! Fr. Bob wants to sing a song about Satan and give a homily that rants with "Amen" responses like a Jimmy Swaggert revival? Sure! Pastoral needs rule again! What are these "pastoral needs", you ask? Why anything that Fr. Conservative or Fr. Bob concoct in their heads, you silly goose!
After the "Prayer after Communion", the GI allows for more impromptu speeches and/or announcements for that warm, fuzzy feeling. Fr. Bob can sell tickets to the Woman's Ordination Conference, tell everyone to give at the Blood drive, ask the people for donations to the Bishop's fund for his million dollar wine cellar, or ask that greeting cards be sent to the former pastor at the local prison. It's all good; and really cool! Then when Fr. Bob says, "The Mass is ended", I can't help but think, "Yep. And I know the heretics who destroyed it, dude."
"Before an institution self-destructs the more ridiculous it becomes."--Voltaire
Apologists for the Deformation that was Vatican II will frequently complain that the wacky goings-on are "abuses never sanctioned by the Council or Pope." The facts tell a different story. Meet one "Fr." Bob Lubic, a Vatican II priest in the Diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Known like most Vatican II clerics as just "Father Bob" (just a regular guy, no alter Christus here!) he has the distinction of also being called the "punk priest" for his use of rock music and punk attire in and out of church. Check out his web site at http://www.thepunkpriest.com/. Fr. Bob has actually sang the infamous AC/DC song Highway to Hell (a song about the band's love and admiration for "Father Satan") in Church and made it part of his "homily" (formerly known as the sermon). He's also used Led Zepplin's Stairway to Heaven---most probably for a Vatican II "Mass of Christian Burial" wherein everything is draped in white and each departed person is de facto canonized as being in Heaven. I wonder if Fr. Bob realizes that Jimmy Page, guitarist for Led Zepplin, was an admirer of Aleister Crowley, the renowned satanist? So enamoured with Crowley, Page purchased the castle where he lived in England. The song even has a proven backward masked message (which I heard) saying "my sweet Satan."
Ah, well, how can Gregorian Chant or Mozart's Requiem Mass in D minor compete with such superior musical talent? Before the chorus of "this is an abuse" chimes in, consider that Fr. Bob operates with the full knowledge and blessing of his "bishop" who in turn is united to Ratzinger. And why shouldn't he; after all, if you read his web site he's simply trying to make the priesthood and Catholicism (at least his parody of it) "more relevant to the people." This WAS and REMAINS the rubric of Vatican II--"making things relevant to modern man." How is this accomplished?
First, downplay/deny "negative theology" which is repugnant to the modern mentality. Such concepts as Hell, Satan, and God's Vengence for Sin must go. Sing a satanic song because (a) there probably is no Hell, so why worry? (b) If there is, no one goes there because we're all good and God will never permit it, so still don't worry! (Maybe Fr. Bob might want to make Don't Worry, Be Happy the official parish anthem).
Second, conform the Church to the modern world. Imitate the world, don't make the world imitate Christ as those "pre-Vatican II schismatics" try to do and whom Fr. Bob condemns on his web site. Interestingly, for someone so eager to placate everyone, we Traditionalists are the ONLY PEOPLE he condemns(Deo gratias!). Actually, under Fr. Bob's theology on Hell, who cares if we're schismatic or not--sin and Hell must go! (The baby-boomers might say "Hell? No, we won't go"!).
Now, you might think I'm making this up. Where does the Vatican II sect teach such things? The General Instruction for the New Mass (GI 69 section 24, DOL 1414) states "..the faithful coming together establish communion among themselves, and dispose themselves for properly hearing the Word of God and worthily celebrating the Eucharist." The Modernist heresy to "establish communion"is nebulous language employed to devalue the real Communion at Mass. This concept of "Christ in the Assembly as Communion" was a driving force of the Modernists which accounts for the numerous times the General Instruction allows the priest to ad lib or omit parts "for pastoral reasons." This explains how the Novus Ordo can be so different from parish to parish or even priest to priest. Use the Motu Mass, Fr. Conservative? Sure! There are pastoral needs! Fr. Bob wants to sing a song about Satan and give a homily that rants with "Amen" responses like a Jimmy Swaggert revival? Sure! Pastoral needs rule again! What are these "pastoral needs", you ask? Why anything that Fr. Conservative or Fr. Bob concoct in their heads, you silly goose!
After the "Prayer after Communion", the GI allows for more impromptu speeches and/or announcements for that warm, fuzzy feeling. Fr. Bob can sell tickets to the Woman's Ordination Conference, tell everyone to give at the Blood drive, ask the people for donations to the Bishop's fund for his million dollar wine cellar, or ask that greeting cards be sent to the former pastor at the local prison. It's all good; and really cool! Then when Fr. Bob says, "The Mass is ended", I can't help but think, "Yep. And I know the heretics who destroyed it, dude."
Monday, June 21, 2010
Religious Liberty, Religious Tolerance, and Vatican II
Mr. Peter Gaffney has seen fit not to continue our dialogue after I posed some direct questions to him (see post of 6/14/10). Moreover he has purged his blog "Aretheos" of my comments and any ability to make further comments! Such is the typical Vatican II sect member. Unable to refute or answer our arguments, they retreat to a place where they don't have to face the ugly reality of a false pope and counterfeit church. For them ignorance is bliss (except on Judgement Day when it will be asked why they did not perform due diligence into this matter). Pray for Mr. Gaffney and his coreligionists that they may seek the Truth wherever it may lead.
One point on his blog I never touched upon was his endorsement of so-called "religious liberty." He says "error has no rights. People do." Well, people don't have the right to be wrong and lead others into error. Might as well say, "Murder has no rights, but murderers do." Yes, but it doesn't mean they have the right to murder and disrupt the public order! If, as Mr. Gaffney contends, people can not be made to act against their religious consciences, what about Satanists who wish to sacrifice their babies to the devil? People whose religions compel them to make abortion legal? All persons are free to profess their mistaken beliefs in private and not proselytize. This is religious tolerance, the teaching of the Church before Vatican II.
Here is what Vatican II says about religious "liberty":
"The Declaration of this Vatican Council (Dignitatis Humanae)on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be more fully known to human reason through centuries of experience... Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions.”
The Vatican II decree demands that states concede false religions the right to exist:
(P.2) “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom... The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”
(P.2) “Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth... and the exercise of this right is not be be impeded?”
Now for the True Traditional Teaching--please compare--on religious TOLERANCE:
“Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. Those remain ever one and the same and are no less changeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity to an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
As His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII said, “It is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.” The Popes, the true Vicars of Christ on earth, have had the perennial duty to root up and destroy heresy while planting and nourishing what is true. Divine Justice and the integrity of the true religion demand that error be condemned and that the forces of evil be thwarted. Evil and error can be, at most, tolerated in this vale of tears. Never can it be said to have the right to exist.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition “that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.”
Both Pope Leo XIII, above, and Pope Pius IX, below, condemn the notion that states should sanction false religions:
“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
One point on his blog I never touched upon was his endorsement of so-called "religious liberty." He says "error has no rights. People do." Well, people don't have the right to be wrong and lead others into error. Might as well say, "Murder has no rights, but murderers do." Yes, but it doesn't mean they have the right to murder and disrupt the public order! If, as Mr. Gaffney contends, people can not be made to act against their religious consciences, what about Satanists who wish to sacrifice their babies to the devil? People whose religions compel them to make abortion legal? All persons are free to profess their mistaken beliefs in private and not proselytize. This is religious tolerance, the teaching of the Church before Vatican II.
Here is what Vatican II says about religious "liberty":
"The Declaration of this Vatican Council (Dignitatis Humanae)on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be more fully known to human reason through centuries of experience... Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions.”
The Vatican II decree demands that states concede false religions the right to exist:
(P.2) “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom... The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”
(P.2) “Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth... and the exercise of this right is not be be impeded?”
Now for the True Traditional Teaching--please compare--on religious TOLERANCE:
“Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. Those remain ever one and the same and are no less changeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity to an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
As His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII said, “It is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.” The Popes, the true Vicars of Christ on earth, have had the perennial duty to root up and destroy heresy while planting and nourishing what is true. Divine Justice and the integrity of the true religion demand that error be condemned and that the forces of evil be thwarted. Evil and error can be, at most, tolerated in this vale of tears. Never can it be said to have the right to exist.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition “that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.”
Both Pope Leo XIII, above, and Pope Pius IX, below, condemn the notion that states should sanction false religions:
“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
What True Catholics Must Believe: The Role of Theologians
In my prior posts, and in talking with aquaintances and friends, many non-Traditionalists don't understand the obligation for true Catholics to assent to the common teaching of the theologians. Here, I will reprint a text that will explain a true Catholic's obligation in this matter.
Taken from:I. Salaverri SJ. Tractatus de Ecclesia, 3rd ed., Madrid, BAC 1955, 846ff.
Thesis 21. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.
A. Dogmatic Value of this Thesis. It is:
1. Catholic Doctrine. (From the teaching of Pius IX )
2. Theologically Certain. (From the practice of Trent & Vatican I.)
B. Proof of the Thesis
1. Major Premise. The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would
necessarily lead the whole Church into error.
2. Minor Premise. But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church is infallible.)
3. Conclusion. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.
C. Proofs of the Major Premise.
1. Citation of Theological Works. Popes, bishops, etc., from the 8th century onwards taught material which they drew from the teaching of theologians.
2. Supervision. From the 12-16th centuries, the Church founded, directed, and watched over all theological schools.
3. Legislation. From the time of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes.
4. Consultation. Church used theologians as her consultors for doctrinal matters.
5. Implicit Approval. The Church implicitly approves the contents of theologians’ works by not censuring them, which she is obliged to do in case of theological errors.
6. Recommendation. The writings of various theological schools are praised by popes and held out as examples to imitate.
Opponents to Authority of Theologians.
A. Humanists. (Rejected supernatural principles. Put man at center
of universe.)
B. Protestants. (Rejected doctrines theologians defended.)
1. Luther. Scholastic theology is “ignorance of the truth and
inane falsehood.”
2. Melancthon. Scholastic theology is “the Gospel obscured,
the faith extinguished.”
C. Jansenists. (Claimed that theologians “obscured revealed doctrine.”)
D. Modernists, liberals rationalists. (Reject the immutable nature of Truth).
“The teachings of theologians were responsible for the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. Because these theologians erred and we reject their teachings, we are also therefore free to reject the teaching of earlier theologians if a teaching ‘does not make sense’ to us.”
Response: The group of European modernist theologians primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and had been suspect of heresy by the Holy Office and otherwise censured or silenced byChurch authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, Ratzinger, Kung,etc. When the strictures were removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.
Taken from:I. Salaverri SJ. Tractatus de Ecclesia, 3rd ed., Madrid, BAC 1955, 846ff.
Thesis 21. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.
A. Dogmatic Value of this Thesis. It is:
1. Catholic Doctrine. (From the teaching of Pius IX )
2. Theologically Certain. (From the practice of Trent & Vatican I.)
B. Proof of the Thesis
1. Major Premise. The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would
necessarily lead the whole Church into error.
2. Minor Premise. But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church is infallible.)
3. Conclusion. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.
C. Proofs of the Major Premise.
1. Citation of Theological Works. Popes, bishops, etc., from the 8th century onwards taught material which they drew from the teaching of theologians.
2. Supervision. From the 12-16th centuries, the Church founded, directed, and watched over all theological schools.
3. Legislation. From the time of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes.
4. Consultation. Church used theologians as her consultors for doctrinal matters.
5. Implicit Approval. The Church implicitly approves the contents of theologians’ works by not censuring them, which she is obliged to do in case of theological errors.
6. Recommendation. The writings of various theological schools are praised by popes and held out as examples to imitate.
ADDENDUM:Those Who Reject the Common Teaching of Approved Theologians
Opponents to Authority of Theologians.
A. Humanists. (Rejected supernatural principles. Put man at center
of universe.)
B. Protestants. (Rejected doctrines theologians defended.)
1. Luther. Scholastic theology is “ignorance of the truth and
inane falsehood.”
2. Melancthon. Scholastic theology is “the Gospel obscured,
the faith extinguished.”
C. Jansenists. (Claimed that theologians “obscured revealed doctrine.”)
D. Modernists, liberals rationalists. (Reject the immutable nature of Truth).
Another objection:
“The teachings of theologians were responsible for the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. Because these theologians erred and we reject their teachings, we are also therefore free to reject the teaching of earlier theologians if a teaching ‘does not make sense’ to us.”
Response: The group of European modernist theologians primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and had been suspect of heresy by the Holy Office and otherwise censured or silenced byChurch authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, Ratzinger, Kung,etc. When the strictures were removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.
Monday, June 14, 2010
False Charges Part II
I continue my exchange with Mr. Gaffney.
He writes: "You equate "Sacred Tradition" erroneously with "Magisterium". One is a source of Revelation and the other is the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS who interpret that source for the Body Of Christ. An individual may be excommunicated and lose his office but the Magisterium never fails. NO NOT YOUR PILE OF CANONISTS AND CITATIONS BUT THE OFFICE! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OFFICE! And, for courtesy sake, do not reply on my poem"
Reply: Sorry about the reply on your nice poem! As to your comment, the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS are expressing themselves through the solemnly approved tomes of canon law, moral theology, and dogmatic theology! The Church itself has taught that the hierarchy could defect. In such a case, those who hold on to the Traditional teaching remain the Church until the papacy and hierarchy can be restored by an imperfect general council, which was discussed by the pre-Vatican II theologians.
Read this again:"Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition."
The citations to the theologians and canonists EXPRESS THE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM!
A query for Mr. Gaffney: Are the words of consecration necessary to effectuate Transubstantiation? What does the Magisterium teach? How can you be sure that your answer is correct? Answer these three questions and we can proceed from there.
He writes: "You equate "Sacred Tradition" erroneously with "Magisterium". One is a source of Revelation and the other is the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS who interpret that source for the Body Of Christ. An individual may be excommunicated and lose his office but the Magisterium never fails. NO NOT YOUR PILE OF CANONISTS AND CITATIONS BUT THE OFFICE! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OFFICE! And, for courtesy sake, do not reply on my poem"
Reply: Sorry about the reply on your nice poem! As to your comment, the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS are expressing themselves through the solemnly approved tomes of canon law, moral theology, and dogmatic theology! The Church itself has taught that the hierarchy could defect. In such a case, those who hold on to the Traditional teaching remain the Church until the papacy and hierarchy can be restored by an imperfect general council, which was discussed by the pre-Vatican II theologians.
Read this again:"Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition."
The citations to the theologians and canonists EXPRESS THE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM!
A query for Mr. Gaffney: Are the words of consecration necessary to effectuate Transubstantiation? What does the Magisterium teach? How can you be sure that your answer is correct? Answer these three questions and we can proceed from there.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The False Charge of Private Interpretation--Again!
I have been having a charitable discussion with one Mr. Peter Gaffney (readers should refer to my post of 6/10/10). Mr. Gaffney has responded with a comment accusing us Traditionalists of "private interpretation." I have already dealt with this fallacy in my post of 6/5/10, and I would kindly ask all readers, including Mr. Gaffney, to please refer to it. However, I will respond to what Mr. Gaffney wrote point by point.
He writes: "You have no authority to interpret Sacred Tradition."
Response: You're correct, I don't. However, the Church does. As I wrote previously, Traditionalists are not in the business of judging and deposing popes with private interpretations. We look at reality (contradictions in the teachings of Vatican II with prior teaching as defined by the Church and Her appointed theologians and canonists), tries to explain it (true authority can't give evil/errors), and act accordingly (get out/keep out of the false sect of Vatican II and join/remain with the Remnant Church--the Traditionalists). No private interpretations, just public determinations.
He writes: "Martin Luther could not prefer his interpretation of the 'black and white' of Scripture and you can not pile up citation after citation to provide the clothing of office which you lack"
Response: Mr. Gaffney's argument misses the point repeatedly made that this is not MY INTERPRETATION! It is that of the CHURCH! Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?
Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition. Interestingly, the "conservatives" of the Vatican II sect have swallowed a chief doctrine of Modernism hook, line and sinker!
Do not counter with "the Holy Ghost would not permit this to happen to a pope." You would have said the same thing ten years ago if I proposed that the pope could do away with the words of consecration to effectuate Transubstantiation in the Mass---but this is EXACTLY what happened in 2001! (See my post of 6/10/10). It IS TRUE that the Pope can not teach error when exercising his Petrine Office. However, the Church teaches that a pope can fall into heresy as a private theologian and lose his office. So, in one sense Mr. Gaffney is correct, the Holy Ghost would not permit the POPE to teach heresy, yet heresy has been taught, so it could not come from a True Pope. Therefore, Ratzinger, as a private theologian, fell into heresy and lost his office.
Finally, he writes: "Vatican II sect--how convenient. How many sects of Traditionalists are there?"
Response: An argument that is very glib, but doesn't get you very far. I have demonstrated by logical argumentation that Vatican II set up a false religion based on the heresy of Modernism. It is "counterfeit Catholicism." Traditionalists agree on all defined matters of Faith and Morals as taught by the Church pre-Vatican II. We disagree on issues novel to the terrible times in which we live (e.g. how to proceed in the absence of a pope for many years). But, as Scripture tells us, "when the Shepard is struck, the sheep are scattered." It is to be expected that this will occur when people disagree and we have no supreme authority to "kick it upstairs" and make a binding determination.
In the case of the Vatican II sect, you supposedly have a supreme authority, but like Anglicans, have three divisions: a high church, broad church, and low church. The high Vatican II division doesn't like Vatican II yet tries to live in a state of contradiction, unable to reconcile the changes with perennial teaching, yet accept Ratzinger as pope, ignore the illogic of their position, and content themselves with traditional trappings (e.g. Society of St. Peter,Motu Mass parishes, etc). The broad Vatican II division likes Vatican II, but not alleged "abuses" (e.g. "Clown masses' for kids, etc). The low Vatican II division thinks the Council wasn't heretical enough (!) and clamor for woman "priests", abortion "rights", etc. If Ratzinger were truly pope, why the divisions? They did not exist before--you obeyed or were excommunicated. The fact of the matter is Ratzinger will tolerate, indeed accept, ANYTHING, as long as you submit to the heretical teachings of his ecumenical one-world religion.
Mr. Gaffney I pray that like the women who went to see Our Lord on Easter morning, you will realize that what the angel told them applies to your sect, "You're looking for the Lord, but He is not here." More disturbing than the vacant see of Peter, is the vacant tabernacles of Vatican II which contain mere bread. For the love of God and His Blessed Mother, may your eyes be opened and convert!
He writes: "You have no authority to interpret Sacred Tradition."
Response: You're correct, I don't. However, the Church does. As I wrote previously, Traditionalists are not in the business of judging and deposing popes with private interpretations. We look at reality (contradictions in the teachings of Vatican II with prior teaching as defined by the Church and Her appointed theologians and canonists), tries to explain it (true authority can't give evil/errors), and act accordingly (get out/keep out of the false sect of Vatican II and join/remain with the Remnant Church--the Traditionalists). No private interpretations, just public determinations.
He writes: "Martin Luther could not prefer his interpretation of the 'black and white' of Scripture and you can not pile up citation after citation to provide the clothing of office which you lack"
Response: Mr. Gaffney's argument misses the point repeatedly made that this is not MY INTERPRETATION! It is that of the CHURCH! Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?
Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition. Interestingly, the "conservatives" of the Vatican II sect have swallowed a chief doctrine of Modernism hook, line and sinker!
Do not counter with "the Holy Ghost would not permit this to happen to a pope." You would have said the same thing ten years ago if I proposed that the pope could do away with the words of consecration to effectuate Transubstantiation in the Mass---but this is EXACTLY what happened in 2001! (See my post of 6/10/10). It IS TRUE that the Pope can not teach error when exercising his Petrine Office. However, the Church teaches that a pope can fall into heresy as a private theologian and lose his office. So, in one sense Mr. Gaffney is correct, the Holy Ghost would not permit the POPE to teach heresy, yet heresy has been taught, so it could not come from a True Pope. Therefore, Ratzinger, as a private theologian, fell into heresy and lost his office.
Finally, he writes: "Vatican II sect--how convenient. How many sects of Traditionalists are there?"
Response: An argument that is very glib, but doesn't get you very far. I have demonstrated by logical argumentation that Vatican II set up a false religion based on the heresy of Modernism. It is "counterfeit Catholicism." Traditionalists agree on all defined matters of Faith and Morals as taught by the Church pre-Vatican II. We disagree on issues novel to the terrible times in which we live (e.g. how to proceed in the absence of a pope for many years). But, as Scripture tells us, "when the Shepard is struck, the sheep are scattered." It is to be expected that this will occur when people disagree and we have no supreme authority to "kick it upstairs" and make a binding determination.
In the case of the Vatican II sect, you supposedly have a supreme authority, but like Anglicans, have three divisions: a high church, broad church, and low church. The high Vatican II division doesn't like Vatican II yet tries to live in a state of contradiction, unable to reconcile the changes with perennial teaching, yet accept Ratzinger as pope, ignore the illogic of their position, and content themselves with traditional trappings (e.g. Society of St. Peter,Motu Mass parishes, etc). The broad Vatican II division likes Vatican II, but not alleged "abuses" (e.g. "Clown masses' for kids, etc). The low Vatican II division thinks the Council wasn't heretical enough (!) and clamor for woman "priests", abortion "rights", etc. If Ratzinger were truly pope, why the divisions? They did not exist before--you obeyed or were excommunicated. The fact of the matter is Ratzinger will tolerate, indeed accept, ANYTHING, as long as you submit to the heretical teachings of his ecumenical one-world religion.
Mr. Gaffney I pray that like the women who went to see Our Lord on Easter morning, you will realize that what the angel told them applies to your sect, "You're looking for the Lord, but He is not here." More disturbing than the vacant see of Peter, is the vacant tabernacles of Vatican II which contain mere bread. For the love of God and His Blessed Mother, may your eyes be opened and convert!
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Church's Teaching on Loss of Ecclesiastical Office by the Pope
As a follow-up to my last post of 6/10/10, I would like to set out the Teaching of the Church, as expounded by Her theologians, on the subject of the possibility of a pope who loses his office through the profession of heresy. This proves the CHURCH teaches that the hierarchy, including the pope himself, can defect from the Faith and lose their authority!
Heresy and Loss of Papal Office
It may seem surprising to Catholics who have been taught the doctrine of papal infallibility that a pope, as a private teacher, can nevertheless fall into heresy and automatically lose his office. Lest it be thought that this principle is a fantasy invented by Traditionalist 'fanatics', or, at best, just a minority opinion expressed by an obscure Catholic writer or two, we reproduce some texts from popes, saints, canonists and theologians.Lay readers may not be familiar with the names of Coronata, Iragui, Badii, Prummer, Wernz, Vidal, Beste, Vermeersch, Creusen and Regatillo. These priests were internationally recognised authorities in their fields before Vatican II. Our citations are taken from the massive treatises they wrote on canon law and dogmatic theology.
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950)
"III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy [i.e. papacy]. 1o What is required by divine law for this appointment: (a) The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment.Also required for validity is that the man appointed be a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded."...2o Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways:....c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic.It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic - if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed without a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority."Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1:312,316.
Pope Innocent III (1198)
"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore (should a pope 'lose his savor') could cast him out or trample him under foot - since of the pope it is said 'gather thy flock into thy fold'. Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.Still less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men'."Sermo 4.
St Antoninus (1459)
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond, publisher.
Pope Paul IV (1559)
"Further, if ever that it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:- Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.- It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded to him by all.-Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way....- Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected - and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom - shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.- Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power."Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. 16 February 1559.
St Robert Bellarmine (1610)
"A pope who is a manifest heretic (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."De Romano Pontifice. II.30.
St Alphonsus Liguori (1787)
"If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes. 9:232.
Vatican I (1869), Serapius Iragui (1959)
"What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?The response was thus: 'Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.' [Mansi 52:1109]Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute impossibility of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.
J. Wilhelm (1913)
"The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Encyclopedia Press 1913. 7:261.
Caesar Badii (1921)
"c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:....Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptised, heretics and schismatics....Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases:....(d) Through notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165.
Dominic Prummer (1927)
"The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost:....(c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably....The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.Based on the supposition, however, that a pope could fall into heresy, as a private person (for as pope he could not err in faith, because he would be infallible), various authors have worked out different answers as to how he could then be deprived of his power. None of the answers, nevertheless, exceed the limits of probability."Manuale Iuris Canonici. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. 95.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943)
"Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453.
Udalricus Beste (1946)
"Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e. the See of Peter] is judged by no one.The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously cannot be its head. We can find no example of this in history."Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St John's Abbey Press 1946. Canon 221.
A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen (1949)
" The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy.At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically [ipso facto] fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess."Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340.
Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956)
"The Roman Pontiff ceases in office:....(4) Through notorious public heresy? Five answers have been given:1. 'The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.' A pious thought, but essentially unfounded. 2. 'The pope loses office even through secret heresy.' False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church.3. 'The pope does not lose office because of public heresy.' Objectionable. 4. 'The pope loses office by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.' But who would issue the sentence? The See of Peter is judged by no one (Canon 1556). 5. 'The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.' This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could be its head." Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396.
Citations taken from the scholarly work, Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope, by Fr. Anthony Cekada, 1995.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)