Archive for November, 2019

What will make the Antichrist so Deceptive?

November 26th, 2019 by Vigilo

from Novus Ordo Watch

Although the person of the Antichrist is perhaps not yet in our world, it is clear that the mystery of iniquity that will culminate in his arrival has been at work ever since the fall of Lucifer, and has never been more active than in our own day.

In his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, St. Paul the Apostle warned: “For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way” (2 Th 2:7). Although this interpretation is not required as a matter of Catholic doctrine, according to the research done into the Church Fathers and subsequent theologians by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, “he who now holdeth” that will “be taken out of the way” towards the end of time is none other than the Pope — not any particular Pope but the Pope as such.

In other words, the Antichrist movement is being held at bay for an appointed time by the restraining force of the Papacy, just as our Blessed Lord was untouchable and invincible until He decided that He should be overcome for a short while by His enemies as a condition of His ultimate victory: “Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (Jn 10:17-18; cf. Jn 7:30).

Holy Mother Church, modeling her Divine Lord in all things, must pass through her own Mystical Passion: “From the outset it should be noted that the society established by the Redeemer of the human race resembles its divine Founder who was persecuted, calumniated and tortured by those very men whom He had undertaken to save” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 3).

Just as Jesus Christ was persecuted from the very beginning (see Mt 2:13), so His Vicar has always been the object of the devil’s hatred, especially since the inception of the Masonic sects and anti-Catholic secret societies, regarding whose plots against the Church the Popes warned incessantly. It almost stands to reason, therefore, that before the Church can enter into her own glorious triumph, her visible head, Christ’s Vicar, too, must undergo his own apparent defeat. But, as with the One he represents, this will not take place until the appointed time and only because God so wills it.

Hence Pope Pius IX could declare:

Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7)

Note well that in this the Church’s Mystical Passion, the Pope is the victim of the persecution and not its chief executor, as the apologists of the false opposition would have you believe.

On May 19, 1861, Fr. Frederick Faber of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, a convert from Anglicanism, preached a sermon on Holy Mother Church for the Feast of Pentecost. In it he touched upon the deceptions that would accompany the Antichrist and his wicked works, which would be so great as to deceive, if possible, even the elect (see Mt 24:24). Fr. Faber explained what it would be that would render the infernal deceit so powerful and convincing:

We must beware then of dangers from within. We must be upon our guard even against catholic books, periodicals, journals, and pamphlets, however specious they may be. Our Blessed Redeemer said of the false prophets of the last days (St. Matt. xxiv. 24.) that they should “deceive, if possible, even the elect.” Now we must remember, that if all the manifestly good men were on one side, and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of any one, least of all, the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Antichrist, and so sadly to crucify afresh the Lord whom they do more than profess to love. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that their deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.

(Rev. Frederick William Faber, Devotion to the Church, 2nd ed. [London: Richardson and Son, 1861], p. 27. Available in hardcopy here.)

This is a most valuable and salutary lesson: We will see “good people” — people who truly love God and mean to work for His glory, people who are quite possibly in the state of sanctifying grace — unwittingly but no less truly do the work of the Antichrist. In one way or another, their words and deeds will serve to attack God’s Kingdom on earth and contribute to the ruin of souls. Despite their noblest of intentions, what they do will objectively help bring about the tyrannical reign of Antichrist and all its spiritual destruction.

This concept is not new. We saw it when the Church was just beginning to be born: “But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. And now, brethren, I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:15,17; cf. Lk 23:34; Jn 16:2).

The lesson to be learned here is that we must not attach ourselves to human beings, no matter how highly we may think of them, because they can (and many will) fail. In other words, there will be no excuse to refuse to abandon one’s theological errors on the grounds that some Novus Ordo cardinal, bishop, priest, or layman holds it who is “such a holy and pious man”. It is with good reason that Sacred Scripture counsels: “It is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in princes” (Ps 117:9); “Put not your trust in princes” (Ps 145:2). The Pope would be the only one a Catholic could always safely attach himself to, since he has the divine guarantees and promises; but of course his absence is precisely the cause of the current darkness.

Oftentimes people will try to brush all the known facts about the current ecclesiastical nightmare aside and say that God “would never allow it to happen” that we should be without a true Pope for decades and that so many should be so greatly deceived. And yet He has told us that He would, and why: “And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity” (2 Thess 2:10-11). Could the phrase operation of error describe anything more fittingly than the Vatican II Sect?

When Simon Peter, shortly before becoming the first Pope, similarly protested that God not let anything evil befall his Lord and Master, Christ rebuked him sharply: “Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men” (Mt 16:23). When it comes to God and divine revelation, we are always dealing with mystery. Whether it be the inner workings of the Most Holy Trinity, the creation of all things from nothing, the miraculous parting of the Red Sea, the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union of God the Son, the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Transfiguration, Transubstantiation, Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice on the Cross, His holy Ascension, the birth and spread of His Mystical Body the Church, the conversion of St. Paul, we are always dealing with incredible mystery. Why should it be any different for the arrival of the prophesied Antichrist, the end times, and the consummation of the world?

The following links provide further important information pertinent to this topic:

God had told us beforehand about the mess we would be in. As we patiently suffer through the Church’s darkest hour at this time, let us never forget that this eclipse of the Papacy is nothing short of the divine pledge of her future restoration.

from Novus Ordo Watch

After leaving the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church untouched for over a whole year, it looks like it’s time for another major update. At least that’s an idea Francis is entertaining these days, and he’s not afraid to say so out loud.

As more and more real sins are becoming obsolete under the false Francis magisterium, new “sins” have to be made up to fill the void. The last update to the Novus Ordo Catechism made the state’s use of the death penalty into a mortal sin; the next addition could introduce the concept of “ecocide” — the killing of the environment.

No, this isn’t fake news. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you got paid to!

Today, Nov. 15, the man whose real name is Jorge Bergoglio gave a speech to as many as 600 participants in the 20th World Congress of Penal Law. In it he compared conservative politicians to Nazis, but that’s not even our topic now. Regarding his pet project of integral ecology, under the heading of “the juridical-penal protection of the environment,” the false pope proclaimed:

An elementary sense of justice would imply that some behaviors, of which the corporations are usually responsible, do not go unpunished. In particular, those that can be considered as “ecocide”: the massive contamination of air, land and water resources, the large-scale destruction of flora and fauna, and any action capable of producing an ecological disaster or destroying an ecosystem. We are thinking that we have to introduce into the Catechism of the Catholic Church sins against ecology, “ecological sin” against the common home, because it is a duty.

(Antipope Francis, Discourse to Participants in the 20th World Congress of Penal LawVatican.va, Nov. 15, 2019; translation pieced together from various sources.)

The whole address can be viewed here:

Some initial Novus Ordo news reports covering this include the following:

But Francis wasn’t done yet. He proceeded to quote a definition of “ecological sin” suggested by the “bishops” who attended the Amazon Synod last month, to wit:

We propose to define ecological sin as an action or omission against God, against our neighbor, the community and the environment. It is a sin against the future generations and is manifested in acts and habits of contamination and destruction of the harmony of the environment, a transgression of the principle of inter-dependence and rupture of the solidarity networks between creatures (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 340-344) and against the virtue of justice.

(Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazonian Region, “Amazonia: New Ways for the Church and for an Integral Ecology”, n. 82; Zenit translation.)

Bergoglio went on to speak of ecocide as “the loss, damage or destruction of ecosystems of a specific territory, so that its enjoyment for part of the inhabitants has been or may be severely affected” and demanded that it be recognized as “a fifth category of crimes against peace … by the international community.”

Notice how elastic and vague these definitions are. Of course it is morally wrong for someone to poison a river that a community draws its drinking water from, for example. But what, for instance, should count as an “act or omission” that is destructive of “environmental harmony”?

If such Bergoglian ideas should prevail, confessions will get a lot more interesting in Novus Ordo parishes: “Bless me, Father, for I ruptured the solidarity network between creatures…” — “What do you mean?” — “Well, I disturbed an ant colony, supported the construction of an airport on forested land, and removed two trees from my backyard so I could expand my garage to park my second SUV.” Just think of the penance people will get for whoppers like that!

Francis’ ecological pseudo-morality will leave a lot of confessors scratching their heads. Is driving an SUV a mortal sin only if the vehicle has a combustion engine? Would an electric motor make it venial? Do hybrids render the sin doubtful? The possibilities for theological conundrums are endless!

However, there is good news too: Since most Novus Ordos don’t go to confession to begin with and a great number of their “priests” don’t really care to hear confessions anyway, this shouldn’t disturb the current ecclesial environment too much. Not that most of them could give valid absolution, anyway.

While one may laugh at this, Francis means serious business: He wants international courts to classify grave sins against ecology as “crimes against peace.” Consequently, whatever he and his henchmen decide is a grave enough ecological sin will then be tantamount to an act of war. That, in turn, means that the people responsible are… terrorists! It is not difficult to see where all this is going once you really think about it.

The traditional Catholic definition of sin, by the way, is a lot less complex. Personal or actual (as opposed to original) sin is defined quite simply thus: “Actual or personal sin is a positive act contrary to the law of God” (Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, Outlines of Moral Theology [Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishing, 1958], p. 49). For there to be genuine ecological sin, therefore, any harm done to the environment would have to amount to the transgression of a divine law. Considering that God Almighty gave man “dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth” (Gen 1:26), there is going to be a lot of room for interpretation, to say the least. Perhaps Greta Thunberg could advise.

The definition of ecological sin as “a sin against the future generations” could be an attempt to introduce a new kind of original sin, one that is inherited, as it were, by subsequent generations. Considering that, according to Francis, sins against ecology tend to be committed by “corporations”, there is perhaps also being attempted a notion of collective guilt. Indeed, in the past the papal impostor has accused mankind in general of being guilty of such great evils as “climate change.”

Francis has been busy laying the groundwork for a whole “theology” of ecology lately. Just the other day he claimed that there exists a “covenant between man, animals, plants and even the inanimate realities that make our common home beautiful and colorful.” Got that? We all have a covenant with rocks, dirt, and seashells! And if that covenant is broken, the result is sin, and you can bet your bottom dollar that for that kind of a covenantal rupture, Francis will not offer easy annulments, appeal to the “concrete complexity of one’s limits”, or other mitigating circumstances. In fact, on several occasions he has demanded nothing short of conversion to an ecologically sound lifestyle. For that sort of thing, proselytism is suddenly permitted!

So, what will happen to the Catechism of the Vatican II Sect now? Although Francis has not definitively committed himself yet, it is very likely that he will indeed update it to include “ecological sins”. He’s already got the footnote he needs to source it: his own talk given today. That will be the source, unless of course he issues the much-anticipated “Apostolic exhortation” on the Amazon Synod first, in which case he will use that.

But hey, what can he do? He can’t help himself. As the god of surprises continues to speak through him as his oracle, what is to be done other than update the bogus ordo Catechism one more time? While he’s at it, he may want to delete such hopelessly obsolete concepts as fornication, adultery, and idolatry from the same Catechism, since we now know, thanks to his ever-moving tongue, that the former two are simply imperfect ways of expressing conjugal fidelity, and the latter is wiped away by simply positing non-idolatrous intentions. That this holds true only for literal idolatry and not the metaphorical kind — as Francis demonstrated in the very same speech today, denouncing “market idolatry” — goes without saying.

Once Francis issues the latest edition of the Conciliar Catechism, one may surmise that the pagan god Pan that is displayed on the current cover will then be removed — and perhaps be replaced by Pachamama.

In the face of all this latest nonsense from the occupied Vatican, we recall one pertinent passage from Sacred Scripture:

Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

(Romans 1:21-25)

It’s time to exit the theological hell hole that is the Vatican II Sect and become a real Catholic, wouldn’t you say?

By the way: In his lengthy discourse regarding international penal law and “some behaviors” that ought to “not go unpunished”, Francis did not mention the crime of abortion — infanticide.

Looks like he limited himself to what he really cares about.

from Novus Ordo Watch

[UPDATE 14-NOV-19: Follow-Up to Homo “Wedding”: Diocese explains what happened

It was bound to happen before long: Two lesbian women have “married” each other in a “Catholic wedding” at St. Margarethen Church in Wolfsberg, Austria, which belongs to the diocese of Gurk in the state of Carinthia.

Gloria TV has published a news blurb on this with numerous photos documenting the abomination:

The spiritual criminal who officiated the ceremony was “Fr.” Michael Kopp, who is himself not exactly the epitome of masculinity at least visually. Kopp is from the neighboring diocese of Graz-Seckau, where he is — get this! — the head of the diocesan family office. Until the end of 2018, Kopp had held the same position in the Gurk diocese, and the town of Wolfsberg is his place of birth, according to a diocesan report.

So, now we have the first “official Catholic wedding” of two homo-perverted women. Think about what this means: Not only is unnatural sexual attraction being tolerated here, it is being celebrated and approved; and not only is it celebrated and approved, it is being raised, putatively, to the status of a sacrament! In addition to the horrendous evil of unnatural vice, then, this is also — and this is so much worse — a blasphemy and a sacrilege of such colossal proportions that one shudders to ponder the judgment God is preparing for these people when he calls them from this life, if they do not properly repent in time.

In Austria the diocese of Gurk is currently vacant, that is, there is no Novus Ordo bishop running the show for the time being, as its former long-time ordinary, Mr. Alois Schwarz, was transferred to St. Polten last year and a successor has not yet been appointed. “Pope” Francis has sent “Bp.” Werner Freistetter to play Apostolic Administrator there in the meantime.

As for Kopp’s current diocese of Graz-Seckau, the “bishop” there is Mr. Wilhelm Krautwaschl, another recent Francis appointee. Considering what we know about the man’s own “pastoral outreach” to sodomites, Kopp will have nothing to fear from his boss.

By the way: As evil and abominable as a “gay wedding” before a Catholic altar is, the recent offering to the Mother Earth goddess Pachamama on the High Altar at St. Peter’s Basilica was so much worse.

Image source: gloria.tv (screenshot)
License: fair use

Divine Amnesia?

November 12th, 2019 by Vigilo

from Introibo Ad Altare Dei

When I was in a Vatican II sect high school during the early 1980s (I would leave the sect and become a Traditionalist at the beginning of my junior year) it was taught to the students that Christ didn’t know He was God. As the Marianist brother, old enough to know better, said, “That would be like having an ‘ace up the sleeve.’ How can Christ be fully human and know He was God?” Obviously, the poor brother was himself ignorant of Church teaching (or purposefully pushing the Modernist agenda to denigrate Our Lord). The Modernists had once more started pushing the (false) theory of kenosis, whereby Christ “emptied Himself” of His Divinity. They wrongly interpret Philippians 2:6-7, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing [“emptied Himself”] by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” The idea of Christ being ignorant to one degree or another is rampant today, as belief in the Divinity of Christ continues to be eroded in our society.

The two apostate theologians most responsible for denying Christ’s infallible and perfect knowledge in the wake of Vatican II were arch-heretics Frs. Karl Rahner (d. 1984) and Raymond Brown (d. 1998). Rahner and Brown denied many more truths of faith, but for these purposes, I will focus on this particular denial exclusively. In this post, the objections against Our Lord’s knowledge will be examined, and the teaching of the One True Church will be set forth.

Modernist Teaching Against The Knowledge Of Christ
 The Modernists make several attacks claiming ignorance on the part of Christ, and use Philippians as part of the justification. If Christ “emptied” Himself, He must have somehow become “less.” Karl Rahner, in his book Theological Investigations, [1966], 5:210, states:
This consciousness in Christ realized itself only gradually during his spiritual history, and this history does not consist only, or even first and foremost, in being occupied with this or that fact of external reality but consists rather in the never quite successful attaining of what and who one is oneself, and this precisely as what and whom one always already possessed oneself in the depths of one’s existence. (Emphasis mine).
Rahner’s heretical disciple, Raymond Brown, has stated in his book Jesus God and Man [1967]:”There are texts in the Gospels that seem to indicate that Jesus shared normal human ignorance about the affairs of life . . .” (p. 45; Emphasis mine).
And again: But when all is said and done, the great objection that will be hurled again and again against any exegete (or theologian) who finds evidence that Jesus’ knowledge was limited is the objection that in Jesus Christ there is only one person, a divine person. And so, even though the divine person acted through a completely human nature, any theory that Jesus had limited knowledge seems to imply a limitation of the divine person. Perhaps the best answer to this objection is to call upon Cyril of Alexandria, that Doctor of the Church to whom, more than to any other, we are indebted for the great truth of the oneness of person in Christ. It was that ultra-orthodox archfoe of Nestorianism (two persons or powers in Christ) who said of Christ, “We have admired his goodness in that for love of us he has not refused to descend to such a low position as to bear all that belongs to our nature, included in which is ignorance…(pg. 102; Emphasis mine). Brown adds in footnote #92, “We do not mean to suggest that Cyril grappled with the problem of Jesus’ limited knowledge in the way in which that problem is treated today, but only that the admission which Cyril makes is significant.” 
Oft Cited Scriptural Citations to “Prove” the Ignorance of Christ

  • St. Mark 13:32: “But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.” Christ didn’t know when He would return in glory.
  • St. Mark 5:30-33: “And a woman who was under an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things from many physicians; and had spent all that she had, and was nothing the better, but rather worse,When she had heard of Jesus, came in the crowd behind him, and touched his garment. For she said: If I shall touch but his garment, I shall be whole. And forthwith the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of the evil. And immediately Jesus knowing in himself the virtue that had proceeded from him, turning to the multitude, said: ‘Who hath touched my garments?’And his disciples said to him: ‘Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou who hath touched me?’ And he looked about to see her who had done this.But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.” Christ didn’t know who touched His garment. 
  • St. Luke 2:46: “And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions.” Twelve-year-old Christ didn’t know things and need to ask the learned scholars in the Temple. 
  •  St. Luke 2:52: “And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men.” How could Christ “advance in Wisdom” if He knows all things? 
  • Although Modernists disparage the Infancy narratives in the Gospels, they pose the difficulty, “If the Infant Christ knew everything, was He just pretending to crawl and not speak at birth?”

The Magisterium Against The Modernist HereticsPope Vigillius May 14, 553 “If anyone saith that the One Jesus Christ, True Son of God and True Son of Man, was ignorant of future things, or of the Day of the Last Judgement, and saith that He could know only as much as the Divinity dwelling in Him as in another made known to Him: let him be anathema.” 
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Letter to Eulogius, 600 AD “…in the nature of His humanity He knew the day and hour of the Judgement, but not, however, from this nature of humanity did He know it.” (Emphasis in original).
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane (1907), CONDEMNED propositions of the Modernists numbers 33-35:
32. It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.
33 Everyone who is not led by preconceived opinions can readily see that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate Messianic coming or the greater part of His doctrine as contained in the Gospels is destitute of authenticity.
34. The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.
35. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.
Pope Benedict XV, Decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1918):On June 5, 1918, the Holy Office issued a Decree, approved by Pope Benedict XV, in which it answered several questions: “Can the following propositions be safely taught? 1. It is not evident that there was in the soul of Christ living among men the knowledge which the blessed who have attained [God] have. 2. Nor can that opinion be called certain which states that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing, but that from the beginning He knew in the Word all things, past, present, and future, that is, all things which God knows by the knowledge of vision. 3. The view of certain recent persons about the limited knowledge of the soul of Christ is not to be less accepted in Catholic schools than the view of former [theologians] about [His] universal knowledge.
Response of the Holy Office (approved by Pope Benedict XV on June 6, 1918): To all three questions, In the Negative. Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor (1928):“Now if, because of our sins also which were as yet in the future, but were foreseen, the soul of Christ became sorrowful unto death, it cannot be doubted that then, too, already He derived somewhat of solace from our reparation, which was likewise foreseen, when “there appeared to Him an angel from heaven” (Luke xxii, 43), in order that His Heart, oppressed with weariness and anguish, might find consolation.” (par. #13; Emphasis mine).
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (1943):For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love.” (par. #75; Emphasis mine).
Theologian Ott summarizes well the teaching of the theologians on the knowledge of Christ:

  1. Christ’s soul possessed the immediate Vision of God (Beatific Vision) from the first moment of its existence
  2. Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and error
  3. From the beginning of Christ’s life, His soul possessed infused knowledge from God
  4. Christ’s soul possessed acquired (experimental) knowledge through sense perception

(See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pgs. 162-168)
Modernist Objections Refuted

  • Christ “emptied Himself.” As Pope Pius XII teaches, “There is another enemy of the faith of Chalcedon, widely diffused outside the fold of the Catholic religion. This is an opinion for which a rashly and falsely understood sentence of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (ii, 7), supplies a basis and a shape. This is called the kenotic doctrine, and according to it, they imagine that the divinity was taken away from the Word in Christ. It is a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it. It reduces the whole mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption to empty the bloodless imaginations. ‘With the entire and perfect nature of man’ – thus grandly St. Leo the Great – ‘He Who was true God was born, complete in his own nature, complete in ours’ (Ep. xxviii, 3. PL. liv, 763. Cf. Serm. xxiii, 2. PL. lvi, 201).” (See Sempiterna Rex Christus, para. #29; Emphasis mine). Theologian Ott teaches, that kenosis is really a “humbling or debasement” as the proper linguistic and theological interpretation. The debasement consists in the renunciation (in His human nature) of the Form of God. (Ibid, pg. 135-136)
  • Christ didn’t know the day of the Second Coming and Judgement. According to theologian Parente, “…if Jesus says He does not know the day of the final judgement, this expression must be understood in the sense He cannot manifest it (thus the Fathers).” (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, [1951], pgs. 255-256).
  • Christ didn’t know who touched His garment and asked questions in the Temple. Many teachers use the same ploy to elicit answers and responses in their students (as a former science teacher, I’m fully aware of this technique). Christ was called “Rabbi” or “teacher” and with good reason. He came to rule, teach, and sanctify, both personally and then perpetually through His One True Church. He wanted the women who touched His garment to come forth and tell what He had done for her. She did so, and Christ responds in St. Mark 30:34, “And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.” The doctors of the law in the Temple were being made aware, through the Socratic method of asking questions, as to what to expect of the Messiah. That’s why St. Luke 2:47 states, “And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.” 
  • If Christ was omniscient, He couldn’t “advance in wisdom,” and how could He have been a “normal” Child? The knowledge Christ acquired through use of the human senses (“experimental knowledge”) was already contained in His infused knowledge and by virtue of the Beatific Vision, so the knowledge was not new in its content, only in the mode by which Christ attained it. In this sense He advanced in wisdom. He allowed Himself to experience human growth in the usual process without recourse to using His infinite and perfect knowledge. (See Ott, Ibid, pg. 168). 
  • If Christ possessed the Beatific Vision, which brings Infinite Happiness, how could He suffer in the Passion?   St. Thomas easily explains how the bodily suffering of Christ can be reconciled with the Beatific Vision, since bodily pain is felt with the lower powers of the soul and the joy Christ experiences through the Beatific Vision is limited to His spiritual soul. Aquinas teaches: “As was said above, by the power of the Godhead of Christ the beatitude was economically kept in the soul, so as not to overflow into the body, lest His passibility and mortality should be taken away; and for the same reason the delight of contemplation was so kept in the mind as not to overflow into the sensitive powers, lest sensible pain should thereby be prevented’ (III, Q. 15, art. 5). This follows from the nature of the Incarnation, in which Christ, because of His union to the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, should experience the Beatific Vision, but as true man should still suffer the conditions natural to man (sensible pain, hunger, etc). Again, theologian Ott writes, “that the bliss proceeding from the immediate vision of God did not overflow from the ratio superior (=the higher spiritual knowledge and will directed to the bonum increatum) to the ratio inferior (=human knowledge and will directed at the bonum creatum) nor from the soul to the body.” (Ott, Ibid)Thus, Christ experiences sorrow and sadness in His soul insofar as His truly human soul is directed towards things of earth; but insofar as Christ’s soul, reason and will are fixed on God, He experiences joy. This joy of the higher reason (ratio superior) does not overflow into Christ’s ratio inferior (STh III, Q. 46, art. 8).

ConclusionWith Church teaching on the knowledge of Christ so clear, how do heretics like Rahner and Brown explain it all away? Modernist heretic Avery Dulles, made a “cardinal” by Wojtyla, said it best, “No generation can formulate the abiding content of the faith ‘chemically pure,’ so as to commit all future generations.” (See “Contemporary Understanding of the Irreformability of Dogma,” in CTSA Proceedings 25 [1970] 136). They believe (as all Modernists do) that dogma evolves from one meaning to another over time. What was sly in lessening belief in the Divinity of Christ 40 years ago, is now being boldly asserted, as Bergoglio himself teaches dogmatic evolution.
The Vatican News released a statement of how (allegedly) Limbo for unbaptized babies has “developed” into salvation; religious toleration has “developed” into religious liberty, etc. (See https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2019-10/development-of-doctrine-is-a-people-that-walks-together.html). I could add to the list of “developments” that capital punishment is now intrinsically wrong, and adulterers may receive “communion.” 
At the beginning of this post, I wrote how attributing ignorance in Christ erodes belief in His Divinity. In a sense it is a very real and implicit denial of His Godhood. One of the Divine Attributes is omniscience. How could God forget Who He Is? If God isn’t omniscient He ceases to be God. In the near future, I can see the Vatican II sect come out with the Revised Modernist Version of the Bible. In St. Matthew 16, we will read:
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Thanks, Pete. I had forgotten.”

from Novus Ordo Watch

After a turbulent Pan-Amazon Synod that included open idolatry in addition to the usual errors and heresies, the occupied Vatican clearly feels emboldened to take the next step in its relentless pursuit of apostasy and snuffing out the last remaining vestiges of Catholicism from souls haplessly caught up in its tentacles.

On Oct. 29, two days after the official close of the synod, Vatican Media published an article by Sergio Centofanti, entitled “Development of doctrine is a people that walks together”. As the idiotic title suggests, the content is anything but Catholic; in fact, it is openly Modernist. Now long-time sedevacantist priest and author Fr. Anthony Cekada has written a powerful refutation of it. With the permission of the author, we reproduce it in full below.

Centofanti is deputy editorial director of the Dicastery for Communications, appointed earlier this year by the Frankster himself. After this latest contribution of his to Francis’ magisterium of surpriseology, he may just get a promotion.


Papa Pachamama’s Profession of the Modernist Heresy

by Fr. Anthony Cekada

“ALL THE Gods of the heathens are demons,” says Psalm 95 — but that didn’t stop Jorge Mario Bergoglio from sponsoring pagan idol worship of the Amazonian earth goddess, the Pachamama, in the Vatican gardens on October 4. Nor did it stop him, during the Offertory Procession of a Mass two weeks later, from smilingly receiving the traditional red-ribboned flower offering to the Pachamama — and instructing his Master of Ceremonies to place it on the High Altar of St. Peter’s, which stands directly over the tomb of St. Peter himself.

Heresy and apostasy, canonists and moral theologians teach, can be committed dictis vel factis — not only in words, but also in deeds. And if Bergoglio’s latest deeds aren’t proof that he has totally repudiated the religion revealed by God, the very words heresy and apostasy — and indeed the whole First Commandment — have utterly lost their meaning.

How did it become possible to justify these actions — ones which the martyrs refused to perform under threat of torture and certain death — and all in the very place where St. Peter himself died?

The answer, of course, is Vatican II, which taught that pagan religions are “means of salvation” used by the Holy Ghost. And this heresy, in turn, is the product of another: the modernist meta-heresy of the evolution of dogma.

So it was perfectly appropriate that, two days after Bergoglio installed the Pachamama offering over St. Peter’s bones, the Vatican Press Office published a clear and open profession of this heresy in an article entitled “Development of Doctrine is a People that Walks Together.”Its source (the Vatican’s official news service), the timing of its release (following the controversial Amazon Synod) and topic it treats (a general rationale for sweeping changes in church doctrine and discipline) are meant to signal the article’s importance. It lays the broad theoretical groundwork for the changes Francis intends to introduce in his soon-to-appear post-synodal exhortation, which will implement the resolutions of his rigged synod.

Its contents are a bell that cannot be un-rung, and a nuclear bomb that cannot be un-detonated. It is now forever part of the permanent public record. While the article does not have Francis’ name on the bottom of it (in order to allow neo-con chumps to argue that the blame lies elsewhere), it has his filthy fingerprints and those of his fellow modernist theological thugs all over it. It is his work, his teaching, and theirs — and indeed is posted on the Vatican site under the heading of “Pope Francis” and “Papal Magisterium.”

“People that Walks Together” presents nothing less than the classic modernist argument for dogmatic evolution — the heresy which holds that revealed truths are not immutable, but are conditioned by and subject to change in light of men’s evolving “experience” in various ages. This heresy is everywhere in the Novus Ordo.

Dogmatic Evolution: A Real Heresy?

Why, one might ask, would such a notion be heretical? It doesn’t explicitly deny or call into question individual dogmas, such as Christ’s divinity, the Virgin Birth, or transubstantiation, does it?

The answer is, Oh yes, it does. Dogmatic evolution denies or calls into doubt every religious truth, because it renders the very idea of a religious truth impossible. It runs each dogma through the philosophical meat-grinder of relativism, subjectivism, psychology, personal experience and “historicism,” and turns it into mush. The truth that it expressed (we are made to understand) has been “surpassed,” gotten around, ignored in practice, or emptied of its essential meaning. “We are really beyond that now,” is the common refrain.

Dogmatic evolution, then, is not merely a heresy.  It is, as St. Pius X said, the sewer of all heresies, and practically speaking, apostasy, because it implicitly denies the possibility of objective truth in any dogma.

The modernists camouflage their heresy, here and elsewhere, with the phrase “development of doctrine,” which they lifted from 19th-century Catholic convert and apologist John Henry Newman. But Newman meant one thing — the Church over the centuries acquires a deeper understanding of a fundamental theological truth — while the modernist means entirely another — “experience” can alter the original sense or essence of that truth, even in such a way as to contradict its original and essential meaning.

Those of us who survived modernist seminaries in the 1960s and thereafter saw this heresy in action, and know exactly how it operates. After Vatican II, its adepts sowed its poison in exactly the same way that they did during the times of heresy’s archenemy, St. Pius X — through confusion, obscurity, contradiction, hypocritical lip service to traditional doctrines, pretensions of “returning to the sources,” and a variety of false flags, all of which combined to undermine doctrinal certitude.

Pope Francis: In Your Face

From the moment that Bergoglio stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter’s on the night of his election, it was obvious to us greyed and balding 60s survivors that, while Wojtyla and Ratzinger camouflaged their adherence to modernism under Marian piety or lace-dripping High Church ritualism, Bergoglio would be in everyone’s face with it. And so he was.

Thus in every news cycle, through press conferences, Wednesday audiences, sermons, off-the-cuff remarks, phone calls, encyclicals, public gestures, photo ops, Scalfari interviews, calculated omissions, and countless other channels, Bergoglio cast doubt, time and time again, on Catholic dogmas and objective moral principles. The continuing process was all of a piece. His method, and that of his theological homeboys, was not to directly deny articles of the divine and Catholic faith (e.g., to deny outright that a sacramental marriage was indissoluble), but rather to cast doubt on them (e.g, by instituting and approving a process of  post-divorce “discernment” makes the sacramental bond — poof! — disappear.)

Many conservatives and trads in the Novus Ordo institution, while deeply unsettled by Bergoglio’s pronouncements, hesitated (and still do) to characterize his words as heresy, or to call Bergoglio himself as a heretic. What article of the divine and Catholic faith does Pope Francis directly deny? the objection goes.

But heresy also consists in casting doubt on a dogma— whether through words or deeds, as we have noted — and this is exactly the method modernist heretics like Bergoglio use to do their dirty work.

The Latest: Modernism for Dummies

We now turn to the recent Vatican document in order to understand how Bergoglio intends to apply this heresy to implementing the Pachamama Synod.

Instead of the convoluted and purposely obscure prose of the 60s-era theologians, Bergoglio’s “A People that Walks Together”  is absolutely clear and open in professing the heresy of dogmatic evolution and in telling us exactly how to apply it — as if the works of Alfred Loisy, George Tyrell and Hans Küng, had been rewritten by the editors of USA Today. It offers a Dick-and-Jane, see-Spot-run modernist apologia that even the thickest and dumbest diocesan bishop could understand and adopt as his talking points to promote the Bergoglian agenda.

The underlying analogy for the article is Bergoglio’s favorite 60s modernist cliché: “journey.” You know how it works. We’re people on a journey, on the move. We’re walking together hand-in-hand, going from one destination to another. Where we are today is different from where we were yesterday and different from where we will be tomorrow. We can’t just remain in one place. We can’t really know where the journey will lead us, but that’s how the Holy Spirit (or “the God of Surprises”) works. Thus:

Two thousand years of history teach us that the development of doctrine in the Church is a people that journeys together. Journeying through the ages, the Church sees and learns new things, always growing deeper in her understanding of the Faith. During this journey, there are sometimes people who stop along the way, others who run too quickly, and yet others who take a different path.

Why is “the development of doctrine in the Church” a people, of all things? Isn’t a “people” a collection of individual human beings? And isn’t “development” a process? How can you claim that a collection of individual human beings is a process?

Well, first of all, if you’re a modernist, you avoid defining the essences of things —too precise and too “old church” that! — and substitute stupid analogies or mystifying jargon after the verb “is.” Thus, in response to the question “What is the Church?” you might get something like “Church [no definite article, please!] is the living Sacrament of the pneuma, the freedom of our freedoms.” Got that? Oooh, deep!

But more to the point here, a people can “be” a process because, in the modernist system, religion does not come from above(=eternal truths revealed by God), but from below (=it coalesces from interior experiences common to the “journeying” people).

Frozen Magisterium! Brr!

The next bit is a Three Stooges-like double eye-poke, delivered simultaneously to neo-con Ratzinger fans and traditionalists of the SSPX, “recognize-and-resist” (R&R) variety:

Benedict XVI: the Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen

In this regard, the words of Benedict XVI – in a Letter written in 2009 on the occasion of the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops illicitly consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X – are significant:

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life“.

So pause a minute, and admire what Bergoglio’s number one Chosen Friend Rabbi Abraham Skorka would call the chutzpah here. The conservatives’ favorite “Rottweiler of Orthodoxy,” Ratzinger-Benedict, is quoted back against them, all the better to shepherd them along on the modernists’ evolutionary journey, while simultaneously lumping would-be laggards into the same category as excommunicated Lefebvrists. Zeyer klug. Very clever…

Then comes a second shot at the “frozen Magisterium.”

Drawing together new things and old

Two elements must be considered: not freezing the Magisterium in a given age; and at the same time remaining faithful to Tradition. As Jesus says in the Gospel: “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (Mt 13:52). We cannot simply cling to old things, nor can we simply welcome new things, separating them from the old.

“Freezing the Magisterium in a given age.” This phrase dismisses in seven short words the notion that dogmatic truths, the very foundation of our faith as Catholics, must be regarded as immutable because God has revealed them and His infallible Church has taught them. “We cannot simply cling to old things.”

And what’s the desirable alternative to a frozen Magisterium anyway? A melted Magisterium? A fresh and locally sourced Magisterium?From the looks of this document, it’s likely a free-range Magisterium that Farmer Frank and his hired hands have kept in fresh fertilizer for decades.

Spirit Good. Letter Bad.

Then we get the old modernist-progressive, near shamanic “spirit vs. letter” incantation. Spirit good! Letter — ugh! — heap bad medicine!

Not stopping at the letter, but allowing oneself to be guided by the Spirit

It is necessary to understand when a development of doctrine is faithful to tradition. The history of the Church teaches us that it is necessary to follow the Spirit, rather than the strict letter. In fact, if one is looking for non-contradiction between texts and documents, they’re likely to hit a roadblock. The point of reference is not a written text, but the people who walk together. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Christian faith is not a ‘religion of the book’. Christianity is the religion of the ‘Word’ of God, ‘not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living’. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, ‘open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures” (CCC, 108).

These three paragraphs improperly apply what is a prudential moral principle (One should not merely act according the letter of the law in one’s conduct, but also according its spirit if possible) to doctrinal formulations, implying that the latter need not always be understood in the same sense and with same meaning (in eodem sensu atque eadem sententia). This principle is an integral feature of the standard modernist theory on dogma. St. Pius condemned it in Pascendi and, in the anti-Modernist oath, required priests to repudiate it.

Hippity-Hoppity with Pachama Pappity!

Then our journey-walk turns a little more athletic with…

The great leap forward at the Council of Jerusalem, the first Council

If this spiritual and ecclesial viewpoint is lacking, every development will be seen as a demolition of doctrine and the building up of a new church. We should feel great admiration for the early Christians who took part in the Council of Jerusalem in the first century. Although they were Jews, they nonetheless abolished the centuries-old tradition of circumcision. It must have been very traumatic for some of them to make this leap. Fidelity, however, is not an attachment to a particular rule or regulation, but a way of “walking together” as the people of God.

Another phony analogy. Circumcision was a ritual law which the new covenant that Our Lord established made void, not an immutable revealed truth to which God expects our assent, and which of its nature cannot be abolished — even by people who are “walking together” on a journey (or for that matter, leaping).

And a “great leap forward”? Students of twentieth-century history will recognize that the author has unwittingly employed the title that Chinese Communist dictator Mao Tse-tung gave to his 1958-1962 social “reform” program. This wound up killing 18–56 million people — which, if you’re talking about the spiritual effects of Vatican II, is not an entirely skewed comparison.

Truth Evolves into an Error

The next argument for dogmatic evolution begins with the question: “Do unbaptized babies go to heaven?”

Perhaps the most striking example concerns the salvation of unbaptized babies. Here we are talking about what is most important for believers: eternal salvation. In the Roman (“Tridentine”) Catechism, promulgated by Pope St Pius V in accord with a Decree of the Council of Trent, we read that no other possibility of gaining salvation is left to infants, if Baptism is not imparted to them. And many people will remember what was said in the Catechism of Saint Pius X: “Where do babies who die without Baptism go? Babies who die without Baptism go to Limbo, where there is neither supernatural reward nor penalty; because, having original sin, and only that, they do not merit heaven; but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory”.

Note: the article correctly recapitulates the dogmatic teaching: infants have no other possibility of gaining salvation (=heaven) unless they are baptized. But since the modernist system is based on the evolution of dogma, there was a…

Development of doctrine from St Pius X to St John Paul II

The Catechism of the Council of Trent was published in 1566; that of St Pius X, in 1912. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church, produced under the direction of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and approved in 1992 by Pope St John Paul II, says something different:…

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God…  Indeed, the great mercy of God ‘Who desires that all men should be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused Him to say: ‘Let the children come to Me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism” (CCC, 1261).

So the solution was already in the Gospel, but we did not see it for many centuries.

The argument here, once again, is that a dogma can “evolve” to have a new meaning which is the diametric opposite of its original sense. Thus, we can evolve from the proposition, “Lacking baptism, an unbaptized child cannot go to heaven,” to “Well, we can hope that that dogma is false, because we now realize that the Church misunderstood the Gospel.” This is yet another real twofer: No only does it get you dogmatic evolution, but it also gets you a magisterium that can teach the opposite of a truth of revelation.

Who needs that, as I always say, when you can get the same thing in the Episcopal Church, but with great music and no confession?

So Bring on the Deaconettes!

The no-to-yes evolution on unbaptized infants is then the perfect set-up for our tour guide to hint at a much-anticipated possible future stop on our merry peregrinations, and another no-to-yes flip:

The question of women in the history of the Church

The Church has made a great deal of progress on the question of women. The growing awareness of the rights and dignity of women was greeted by Pope John XXIII as a sign of the times. In the First Letter to Timothy, St Paul wrote, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men” (v. 11-12). It was only in 1970’s, during the pontificate of St Paul VI, that women began to teach future priests in the pontifical universities. Yet even here, we had forgotten that it was a woman, St Mary Magdalene, who first proclaimed the Resurrection of Jesus to the Apostles.

Hmm. Here we are meant to conclude that if “growing awareness” and “signs of the times” on the question of women has made it permissible for them to teach in pontifical universities — with the full approval of  a pope-saint, and in apparent contradiction of Holy Scripture, no less! — what other “teaching” functions might now be open to them? That teaching function of preaching the Gospel, which is entrusted to deacons in virtue of their reception of Holy Orders?

Once you have so firmly and clearly enshrined the modernists’ evolutionary principle, Doris donning a dalmatic is not such an earth-shaking proposition. It’s merely another stop on the ever-ongoing journey!

And an Error Evolves into a Truth

Then comes yet another example of doctrinal evolution, wherein the “signs of the times” transform a teaching that popes in the past condemned as a pernicious error into fundamental human right that Vatican II and its popes proclaimed as a religious truth: Religious liberty.

The truth will set you free

A final example is the recognition of freedom of religion and of conscience, as well as freedom in politics and freedom of expression, by the Magisterium of the post-Conciliar Church. It is a real leap forward from the documents of 19th century popes such as Gregory XVI, who, in the encyclical Mirari vos, defined these principles as “most poisonous errors”. Looking at this text from a literal point of view, there seems to be a great contradiction, rather than a linear development. But if we read the Gospel more closely, we recall the words of Jesus: “If you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn 8:31-32).

The foregoing is another modernist double-whammy: On one hand, the language is a slap at the conservatives who, employing a strained Ratzingerian “hermeneutic of continuity,”  tried desperately to reconcile the consistent pre-Vatican II papal condemnations of the religious liberty with Vatican II’s explicit approval of it. On the other, it’s a major blow-off to SSPX, who with its founder Abp. Lefebvre, denounced the Vatican II teaching on religious liberty as a poisonous error, if not an actual heresy.

And as for appealing to Our Lord’s words that “the truth will make you free,” this He promises only to those who “continue in my word” — hardly possible for the modernist gangsters who undermine that very word by turning the history of His life into mythical fairy stories, denying the reality of His miracles, effacing His stern condemnations of sin and emptying of meaning His Church’s dogmas which authoritatively explain that word.

Aaaw, Poor Baby!

So what is the course of action the modernists recommend to Novus Ordo conservatives, Summorum Pontificum trads, and the SSPX/R&R wing of the trad movement? Why love the pope, of course!

The sorrow of the Popes

The saints have always invited us to love the Popes, as a condition for walking together in the Church. Speaking to the priests of the Apostolic Union in 1912, Pope St Pius X, with “the outpouring of a sorrowful heart”, said, “It seems incredible, and even painful, that there should be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but in our days we are unfortunately in this harsh, unhappy condition of having to say to priests: Love the Pope!”

Pope St John Paul II, in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, noting “with great affliction” the illegitimate episcopal ordinations conferred by Archbishop Lefebvre, recalled that “a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops” is “especially contradictory”. He continued, “It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ Himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church”.

And Benedict XVI, in a “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre” expressed the same sorrow: “I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility”.

Catholics should not only never be lacking in respect toward the Pope, but should love him as the Vicar of Christ.

Tacked on at the end of an open declaration for the modernist heresy of dogmatic evolution — which overthrows the teaching of all the pre-Vatican II popes — these quotes are rolling-on-the-floor, laughing-my-head-off (at least) punchlines. They put the boot in not only for conservatives who denounced the left for ignoring the teaching of JP2 and B16, but also for the SSPX, whose lip service to supposed papal authority without actual submission to it we sedevacantists have denounced for years, often quoting the same 1912 Letter of St. Pius X to the Apostolic Union.

Love the pope indeed!

Your Tour Guide Weighs In!

And finally, to wrap things up with a big, red Pachamama-pleasin’ bow, the article concludes with a call for unity on the journey:

Appeal to unity: Walking together toward Christ

Fidelity to Jesus does not, therefore, mean being fixated on some text written at a given time in these two thousand years of history; rather, it is fidelity to His people, the people of God walking together toward Christ, united with His Vicar and with the Successors of the Apostles. As Pope Francis said at the Angelus on Sunday, at the conclusion of the Synod:

What was the Synod? It was, as the word says, a journey undertaken together, comforted by the courage and consolations that come from the Lord. We walked, looking each other in the eye and listening to each other, sincerely, without concealing difficulties, experiencing the beauty of moving forward together in order serve”.

But at this point, it should be clear that the journey Catholics are henceforth expected to take will be no leisurely walk. Instead, it’ll be a ride with tour guide Jorge Mario Bergoglio on his speeding bus, under which he’ll be deftly throwing one chunk of the divine and Catholic faith after another .

All that Is Solid Melts Into Air…

Bergoglio’s public promotion of idolatry, followed by an open profession of the modernist heresy that makes it all possible, dogmatic evolution, should move not only R&R traditionalists (like SSPX, the Remnant/Catholic Family News crowd) but also conservatives and traditionalists officially affiliated with the Novus Ordo institution to say “Enough,” and denounce Bergoglio as a heretic and not a pope.

Should, but won’t.

  • The Society of St. Pius X will denounce Bergoglio only because “People that Walks Together” insulted them, but even then, they will do no more than trot out the usual “Bad Dad” bromides. Had Bergoglio given SSPX permission to confer yet another sacrament, we wouldn’t hear a peep, except “Holy Father this” and “Pope Francis that,” and “Please contribute to the $31 million Cornfield Basilica of Glory Fund, because we now have another approval from ‘Rome’.”
  • Remnant editor Michael Matt will produce another whiny and theology-free video, and with CFN, organize their fiftieth pointless, forest-slaying, sign-the petition drive.
  • OnePeterFive will tell us that we can ignore Bergoglio, because ordinary papal magisterium is not binding anyway, and to believe otherwise is to fall for the erroneous teaching of the pre-Vatican II papalist dogmatic theologians, who were “papaloters” and “ultramontanists.”
  • LifeSite and Edward Pentin will move on to something else.
  • Bp. Athanasius Schneider will ask Bergoglio in private for a “clarification,” which he will excitedly circulate in the press.
  • The Fatima Industry will say that Bergoglio, no matter what he does, still remains pope, because you need one of those to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and Pius XII didn’t do it correctly.
  • Jimmy Whats-His-Name with the beard will give us Ten Things to Know and Share.
  • Father Z will tell us all: “Go to confession.”
  • And the High Church ritualist wing of the Novus Ordo will ignore the whole episode, and turn its attentions to more important matters, such as reenacting the 14th century Norbertine ritual for the blessing of doughnuts in the Cathedral of St. Bavo of Ghent. Now, what color should those appareled amices be…

In other words, for most “on the right,” it will back to business as usual — recycling hoary trad myths, bad theology and endless evasions, so they can ignore the actual teachings of the man they insist is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.

For most, but not all — because not all those who are unnerved by Bergoglio have been raised on and bought into the prevalent myths.

Because I have been writing and making videos about sedevacantism for more than two decades, I now hear from people all over the world — at the rate of two to three a week for several years now — who concluded that sedevacantism is the onlytheologically coherent explanation for Vatican II, its disastrous reforms, and the scandalous and faith-destroying words and deeds of the “popes” who have promoted them. These people, the majority of them young (and many of them converts or reverts) have read their way into or back to the Catholic faith. They are quick to perceive that what they see and hear in Novus Ordo churches is not Catholicism, and they are just as quick to conclude that once you say that the Novus Ordo religion is false, you have one of two choices:

  1. The Catholic Church has defected from the faith (which faith itself tells us is impossible)
  2. The men who held themself out as popes defected from the faith, even before their putative elections, and therefore possessed no authority from Christ (which Catholic theology and canon law tells us is possible).

Put another way, their heretical words and manifestly evil deeds prove that the Vatican II “popes” were never true popes in the first place, so that far from losing the papacy through heresy, from the beginning these men truly “had nothing to lose.” Slice it any other way, and all that’s left on the table is a defected and equally fake Church.

Finally, while Bergoglio’s madcap and blasphemous antics have forced many Catholics “on the right” to focus on errors and issues they would never have even thought of a mere six years ago, they shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking “It’s just a Bergoglio problem.”

Rather, it’s a Vatican II problem. Sure, enshrining the Pachamama in Santa Maria in Transpontina was a real horror. But it’s a passing trifle next to enshrining as a permanent principle in “papal magisterium” the heresy of dogmatic evolution. And that idol, before which all dogma melts into air, can’t be made to disappear by just tossing it in the Tiber. Vatican II, the Robber Council, has be dumped over the rail first — and this time, weigh it down.

Source: Quidlibet blog, Nov. 3, 2019. Republished with permission. Original formatting retained; pictures and captions removed.


More from Father Cekada:

from Quidlibet

“ALL THE Gods of the heathens are demons,” says Psalm 95 — but that didn’t stop Jorge Mario Bergoglio from sponsoring pagan idol worship of the Amazonian earth goddess, the Pachamama, in the Vatican gardens on October 4. Nor did it stop him, during the Offertory Procession of a Mass two weeks later, from smilingly receiving the traditional red-ribboned flower offering to the Pachamama — and instructing his Master of Ceremonies to place it on the High Altar of St. Peter’s, which stands directly over the tomb of St. Peter himself.

Heresy and apostasy, canonists and moral theologians teach, can be committed dictis vel factis — not only in words, but also in deeds. And if Bergoglio’s latest deeds aren’t proof that he has totally repudiated the religion revealed by God, the very words heresy and apostasy — and indeed the whole First Commandment — have utterly lost their meaning.

How did it become possible to justify these actions — ones which the martyrs refused to perform under threat of torture and certain death — and all in the very place where St. Peter himself died?

The answer, of course, is Vatican II, which taught that pagan religions are “means of salvation” used by the Holy Ghost. And this heresy, in turn, is the product of another: the modernist meta-heresy of the evolution of dogma.

So it was perfectly appropriate that, two days after Bergoglio installed the Pachamama offering over St. Peter’s bones, the Vatican Press Office published a clear and open profession of this heresy in an article entitled “Development of Doctrine is a People that Walks Together.”

Its source (the Vatican’s official news service), the timing of its release (following the controversial Amazon Synod) and topic it treats (a general rationale for sweeping changes in church doctrine and discipline) are meant to signal the article’s importance. It lays the broad theoretical groundwork for the changes Francis intends to introduce in his soon-to-appear post-synodal exhortation, which will implement the resolutions of his rigged synod.

Its contents are a bell that cannot be un-rung, and a nuclear bomb that cannot be un-detonated. It is now forever part of the permanent public record. While the article does not have Francis’ name on the bottom of it (in order to allow neo-con chumps to argue that the blame lies elsewhere), it has his filthy fingerprints and those of his fellow modernist theological thugs all over it. It is his work, his teaching, and theirs — and indeed is posted on the Vatican site under the heading of “Pope Francis” and “Papal Magisterium.”

“People that Walks Together” presents nothing less than the classic modernist argument for dogmatic evolution — the heresy which holds that revealed truths are not immutable, but are conditioned by and subject to change in light of men’s evolving “experience” in various ages. This heresy is everywhere in the Novus Ordo.

Dogmatic Evolution: A Real Heresy?

Why, one might ask, would such a notion be heretical? It doesn’t explicitly deny or call into question individual dogmas, such as Christ’s divinity, the Virgin Birth, or transubstantiation, does it?

The answer is, Oh yes, it does. Dogmatic evolution denies or calls into doubt every religious truth, because it renders the very idea of a religious truth impossible. It runs each dogma through the philosophical meat-grinder of relativism, subjectivism, psychology, personal experience and “historicism,” and turns it into mush. The truth that it expressed (we are made to understand) has been “surpassed,” gotten around, ignored in practice, or emptied of its essential meaning. “We are really beyond that now,” is the common refrain.

Dogmatic evolution, then, is not merely a heresy.  It is, as St. Pius X said, the sewer of all heresies, and practically speaking, apostasy, because it implicitly denies the possibility of objective truth in any dogma.

The modernists camouflage their heresy, here and elsewhere, with the phrase “development of doctrine,” which they lifted from 19th-century Catholic convert and apologist John Henry Newman. But Newman meant one thing — the Church over the centuries acquires a deeper understanding of a fundamental theological truth — while the modernist means entirely another — “experience” can alter the original sense or essence of that truth, even in such a way as to contradict its original and essential meaning.

SUPPORT SGG’S LIVE WEBCAST APOSTOLATE!

Those of us who survived modernist seminaries in the 1960s and thereafter saw this heresy in action, and know exactly how it operates. After Vatican II, its adepts sowed its poison in exactly the same way that they did during the times of heresy’s archenemy, St. Pius X — through confusion, obscurity, contradiction, hypocritical lip service to traditional doctrines, pretensions of “returning to the sources,” and a variety of false flags, all of which combined to undermine doctrinal certitude.

Pope Francis: In Your Face

From the moment that Bergoglio stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter’s on the night of his election, it was obvious to us greyed and balding 60s survivors that, while Wojtyla and Ratzinger camouflaged their adherence to modernism under Marian piety or lace-dripping High Church ritualism, Bergoglio would be in everyone’s face with it. And so he was.

Thus in every news cycle, through press conferences, Wednesday audiences, sermons, off-the-cuff remarks, phone calls, encyclicals, public gestures, photo ops, Scalfari interviews, calculated omissions, and countless other channels, Bergoglio cast doubt, time and time again, on Catholic dogmas and objective moral principles. The continuing process was all of a piece. His method, and that of his theological homeboys, was not to directly deny articles of the divine and Catholic faith (e.g., to deny outright that a sacramental marriage was indissoluble), but rather to cast doubt on them (e.g, by instituting and approving a process of  post-divorce “discernment” makes the sacramental bond — poof! — disappear.)

Many conservatives and trads in the Novus Ordo institution, while deeply unsettled by Bergoglio’s pronouncements, hesitated (and still do) to characterize his words as heresy, or to call Bergoglio himself as a heretic. What article of the divine and Catholic faith does Pope Francis directly deny? the objection goes.

But heresy also consists in casting doubt on a dogma— whether through words or deeds, as we have noted — and this is exactly the method modernist heretics like Bergoglio use to do their dirty work.

The Latest: Modernism for Dummies

We now turn to the recent Vatican document in order to understand how Bergoglio intends to apply this heresy to implementing the Pachamama Synod.

Instead of the convoluted and purposely obscure prose of the 60s-era theologians, Bergoglio’s “A People that Walks Together”  is absolutely clear and open in professing the heresy of dogmatic evolution and in telling us exactly how to apply it — as if the works of Alfred Loisy, George Tyrell and Hans Küng, had been rewritten by the editors of USA Today. It offers a Dick-and-Jane, see-Spot-run modernist apologia that even the thickest and dumbest diocesan bishop could understand and adopt as his talking points to promote the Bergoglian agenda.

The underlying analogy for the article is Bergoglio’s favorite 60s modernist cliché: “journey.” You know how it works. We’re people on a journey, on the move. We’re walking together hand-in-hand, going from one destination to another. Where we are today is different from where we were yesterday and different from where we will be tomorrow. We can’t just remain in one place. We can’t really know where the journey will lead us, but that’s how the Holy Spirit (or “the God of Surprises”) works. Thus:

Two thousand years of history teach us that the development of doctrine in the Church is a people that journeys together. Journeying through the ages, the Church sees and learns new things, always growing deeper in her understanding of the Faith. During this journey, there are sometimes people who stop along the way, others who run too quickly, and yet others who take a different path.

Why is “the development of doctrine in the Church” a people, of all things? Isn’t a “people” a collection of individual human beings? And isn’t “development” a process? How can you claim that a collection of individual human beings is a process?

Well, first of all, if you’re a modernist, you avoid defining the essences of things —too precise and too “old church” that! — and substitute stupid analogies or mystifying jargon after the verb “is.” Thus, in response to the question “What is the Church?” you might get something like “Church [no definite article, please!] is the living Sacrament of the pneuma, the freedom of our freedoms.” Got that? Oooh, deep!

But more to the point here, a people can “be” a process because, in the modernist system, religion does not come from above (=eternal truths revealed by God), but from below (=it coalesces from interior experiences common to the “journeying” people).

Frozen Magisterium! Brr!

The next bit is a Three Stooges-like double eye-poke, delivered simultaneously to neo-con Ratzinger fans and traditionalists of the SSPX, “recognize-and-resist” (R&R) variety:

Benedict XVI: the Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen

In this regard, the words of Benedict XVI – in a Letter written in 2009 on the occasion of the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops illicitly consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X – are significant:

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life“.

So pause a minute, and admire what Bergoglio’s number one Chosen Friend Rabbi Abraham Skorka would call the chutzpah here. The conservatives’ favorite “Rottweiler of Orthodoxy,” Ratzinger-Benedict, is quoted back against them, all the better to shepherd them along on the modernists’ evolutionary journey, while simultaneously lumping would-be laggards into the same category as excommunicated Lefebvrists. Zeyer klug. Very clever…

Then comes a second shot at the “frozen Magisterium.”

Drawing together new things and old

Two elements must be considered: not freezing the Magisterium in a given age; and at the same time remaining faithful to Tradition. As Jesus says in the Gospel: “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (Mt 13:52). We cannot simply cling to old things, nor can we simply welcome new things, separating them from the old.

“Freezing the Magisterium in a given age.” This phrase dismisses in seven short words the notion that dogmatic truths, the very foundation of our faith as Catholics, must be regarded as immutable because God has revealed them and His infallible Church has taught them. “We cannot simply cling to old things.”

SUPPORT ST. GERTRUDE BISHOP’S APOSTOLATE

And what’s the desirable alternative to a frozen Magisterium anyway? A melted Magisterium? A fresh and locally sourced Magisterium?From the looks of this document, it’s likely a free-range Magisterium that Farmer Frank and his hired hands have kept in fresh fertilizer for decades.

Spirit Good. Letter Bad.

Then we get the old modernist-progressive, near shamanic “spirit vs. letter” incantation. Spirit good! Letter — ugh! — heap bad medicine!

Not stopping at the letter, but allowing oneself to be guided by the Spirit

It is necessary to understand when a development of doctrine is faithful to tradition. The history of the Church teaches us that it is necessary to follow the Spirit, rather than the strict letter. In fact, if one is looking for non-contradiction between texts and documents, they’re likely to hit a roadblock. The point of reference is not a written text, but the people who walk together. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Christian faith is not a ‘religion of the book’. Christianity is the religion of the ‘Word’ of God, ‘not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living’. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, ‘open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures” (CCC, 108).

These three paragraphs improperly apply what is a prudential moral principle (One should not merely act according the letter of the law in one’s conduct, but also according its spirit if possible) to doctrinal formulations, implying that the latter need not always be understood in the same sense and with same meaning (in eodem sensu atque eadem sententia). This principle is an integral feature of the standard modernist theory on dogma. St. Pius condemned it in Pascendi and, in the anti-Modernist oath, required priests to repudiate it.

Hippity-Hoppity with Pachama Pappity!

Then our journey-walk turns a little more athletic with… 

The great leap forward at the Council of Jerusalem, the first Council

If this spiritual and ecclesial viewpoint is lacking, every development will be seen as a demolition of doctrine and the building up of a new church. We should feel great admiration for the early Christians who took part in the Council of Jerusalem in the first century. Although they were Jews, they nonetheless abolished the centuries-old tradition of circumcision. It must have been very traumatic for some of them to make this leap. Fidelity, however, is not an attachment to a particular rule or regulation, but a way of “walking together” as the people of God.

Another phony analogy. Circumcision was a ritual law which the new covenant that Our Lord established made void, not an immutable revealed truth to which God expects our assent, and which of its nature cannot be abolished — even by people who are “walking together” on a journey (or for that matter, leaping). 

And a “great leap forward”? Students of twentieth-century history will recognize that the author has unwittingly employed the title that Chinese Communist dictator Mao Tse-tung gave to his 1958-1962 social “reform” program. This wound up killing 18–56 million people — which, if you’re talking about the spiritual effects of Vatican II, is not an entirely skewed comparison.

Truth Evolves into an Error

The next argument for dogmatic evolution begins with the question: “Do unbaptized babies go to heaven?”

Perhaps the most striking example concerns the salvation of unbaptized babies. Here we are talking about what is most important for believers: eternal salvation. In the Roman (“Tridentine”) Catechism, promulgated by Pope St Pius V in accord with a Decree of the Council of Trent, we read that no other possibility of gaining salvation is left to infants, if Baptism is not imparted to them. And many people will remember what was said in the Catechism of Saint Pius X: “Where do babies who die without Baptism go? Babies who die without Baptism go to Limbo, where there is neither supernatural reward nor penalty; because, having original sin, and only that, they do not merit heaven; but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory”.

Note: the article correctly recapitulates the dogmatic teaching: infants have no other possibility of gaining salvation (=heaven) unless they are baptized. But since the modernist system is based on the evolution of dogma, there was a… 

Development of doctrine from St Pius X to St John Paul II

The Catechism of the Council of Trent was published in 1566; that of St Pius X, in 1912. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church, produced under the direction of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and approved in 1992 by Pope St John Paul II, says something different:… 

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God…  Indeed, the great mercy of God ‘Who desires that all men should be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused Him to say: ‘Let the children come to Me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism” (CCC, 1261).

So the solution was already in the Gospel, but we did not see it for many centuries.

The argument here, once again, is that a dogma can “evolve” to have a new meaning which is the diametric opposite of its original sense. Thus, we can evolve from the proposition, “Lacking baptism, an unbaptized child cannot go to heaven,” to “Well, we can hope that that dogma is false, because we now realize that the Church misunderstood the Gospel.” This is yet another real twofer: No only does it get you dogmatic evolution, but it also gets you a magisterium that can teach the opposite of a truth of revelation.

Who needs that, as I always say, when you can get the same thing in the Episcopal Church, but with great music and no confession?

So Bring on the Deaconettes!

The no-to-yes evolution on unbaptized infants is then the perfect set-up for our tour guide to hint at a much-anticipated possible future stop on our merry peregrinations, and another no-to-yes flip:

The question of women in the history of the Church

The Church has made a great deal of progress on the question of women. The growing awareness of the rights and dignity of women was greeted by Pope John XXIII as a sign of the times. In the First Letter to Timothy, St Paul wrote, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men” (v. 11-12). It was only in 1970’s, during the pontificate of St Paul VI, that women began to teach future priests in the pontifical universities. Yet even here, we had forgotten that it was a woman, St Mary Magdalene, who first proclaimed the Resurrection of Jesus to the Apostles.

Hmm. Here we are meant to conclude that if “growing awareness” and “signs of the times” on the question of women has made it permissible for them to teach in pontifical universities — with the full approval of  a pope-saint, and in apparent contradiction of Holy Scripture, no less! — what other “teaching” functions might now be open to them? That teaching function of preaching the Gospel, which is entrusted to deacons in virtue of their reception of Holy Orders?

Once you have so firmly and clearly enshrined the modernists’ evolutionary principle, Doris donning a dalmatic is not such an earth-shaking proposition. It’s merely another stop on the ever-ongoing journey!

And an Error Evolves into a Truth

Then comes yet another example of doctrinal evolution, wherein the “signs of the times” transform a teaching that popes in the past condemned as a pernicious error into fundamental human right that Vatican II and its popes proclaimed as a religious truth: Religious liberty.

The truth will set you free

A final example is the recognition of freedom of religion and of conscience, as well as freedom in politics and freedom of expression, by the Magisterium of the post-Conciliar Church. It is a real leap forward from the documents of 19th century popes such as Gregory XVI, who, in the encyclical Mirari vos, defined these principles as “most poisonous errors”. Looking at this text from a literal point of view, there seems to be a great contradiction, rather than a linear development. But if we read the Gospel more closely, we recall the words of Jesus: “If you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn 8:31-32).

The foregoing is another modernist double-whammy: On one hand, the language is a slap at the conservatives who, employing a strained Ratzingerian “hermeneutic of continuity,”  tried desperately to reconcile the consistent pre-Vatican II papal condemnations of the religious liberty with Vatican II’s explicit approval of it. On the other, it’s a major blow-off to SSPX, who with its founder Abp. Lefebvre, denounced the Vatican II teaching on religious liberty as a poisonous error, if not an actual heresy.

GET NOTICES FOR ARTICLES LIKE THIS

And as for appealing to Our Lord’s words that “the truth will make you free,” this He promises only to those who “continue in my word” — hardly possible for the modernist gangsters who undermine that very word by turning the history of His life into mythical fairy stories, denying the reality of His miracles, effacing His stern condemnations of sin and emptying of meaning His Church’s dogmas which authoritatively explain that word.

Aaaw, Poor Baby!

So what is the course of action the modernists recommend to Novus Ordo conservatives, Summorum Pontificum trads, and the SSPX/R&R wing of the trad movement? Why love the pope, of course!

The sorrow of the Popes

The saints have always invited us to love the Popes, as a condition for walking together in the Church. Speaking to the priests of the Apostolic Union in 1912, Pope St Pius X, with “the outpouring of a sorrowful heart”, said, “It seems incredible, and even painful, that there should be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but in our days we are unfortunately in this harsh, unhappy condition of having to say to priests: Love the Pope!”

Pope St John Paul II, in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, noting “with great affliction” the illegitimate episcopal ordinations conferred by Archbishop Lefebvre, recalled that “a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops” is “especially contradictory”. He continued, “It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ Himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church”.

And Benedict XVI, in a “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre” expressed the same sorrow: “I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility”.

Catholics should not only never be lacking in respect toward the Pope, but should love him as the Vicar of Christ.

Tacked on at the end of an open declaration for the modernist heresy of dogmatic evolution — which overthrows the teaching of all the pre-Vatican II popes — these quotes are rolling-on-the-floor, laughing-my-head-off (at least) punchlines. They put the boot in not only for conservatives who denounced the left for ignoring the teaching of JP2 and B16, but also for the SSPX, whose lip service to supposed papal authority without actual submission to it we sedevacantists have denounced for years, often quoting the same 1912 Letter of St. Pius X to the Apostolic Union.

Love the pope indeed!

Your Tour Guide Weighs In!

And finally, to wrap things up with a big, red Pachamama-pleasin’ bow, the article concludes with a call for unity on the journey:

Appeal to unity: Walking together toward Christ

Fidelity to Jesus does not, therefore, mean being fixated on some text written at a given time in these two thousand years of history; rather, it is fidelity to His people, the people of God walking together toward Christ, united with His Vicar and with the Successors of the Apostles. As Pope Francis said at the Angelus on Sunday, at the conclusion of the Synod:

What was the Synod? It was, as the word says, a journey undertaken together, comforted by the courage and consolations that come from the Lord. We walked, looking each other in the eye and listening to each other, sincerely, without concealing difficulties, experiencing the beauty of moving forward together in order serve”.

But at this point, it should be clear that the journey Catholics are henceforth expected to take will be no leisurely walk. Instead, it’ll be a ride with tour guide Jorge Mario Bergoglio on his speeding bus, under which he’ll be deftly throwing one chunk of the divine and Catholic faith after another .

All that Is Solid Melts Into Air…

Bergoglio’s public promotion of idolatry, followed by an open profession of the modernist heresy that makes it all possible, dogmatic evolution, should move not only R&R traditionalists (like SSPX, the Remnant/Catholic Family News crowd) but also conservatives and traditionalists officially affiliated with the Novus Ordo institution to say “Enough,” and denounce Bergoglio as a heretic and not a pope.

Should, but won’t.

  • The Society of St. Pius X will denounce Bergoglio only because “People that Walks Together” insulted them, but even then, they will do no more than trot out the usual “Bad Dad” bromides. Had Bergoglio given SSPX permission to confer yet another sacrament, we wouldn’t hear a peep, except “Holy Father this” and “Pope Francis that,” and “Please contribute to the $31 million Cornfield Basilica of Glory Fund, because we now have another approval from ‘Rome’.”
  • Remnant editor Michael Matt will produce another whiny and theology-free video, and with CFN, organize their fiftieth pointless, forest-slaying, sign-the petition drive.
  • OnePeterFive will tell us that we can ignore Bergoglio, because ordinary papal magisterium is not binding anyway, and to believe otherwise is to fall for the erroneous teaching of the pre-Vatican II papalist dogmatic theologians, who were “papaloters” and “ultramontanists.”
  • LifeSite and Edward Pentin will move on to something else.
  • Bp. Athanasius Schneider will ask Bergoglio in private for a “clarification,” which he will excitedly circulate in the press.
  • The Fatima Industry will say that Bergoglio, no matter what he does, still remains pope, because you need one of those to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and Pius XII didn’t do it correctly.
  • Jimmy Whats-His-Name with the beard will give us Ten Things to Know and Share.
  • Father Z will tell us all: “Go to confession.”
  • And the High Church ritualist wing of the Novus Ordo will ignore the whole episode, and turn its attentions to more important matters, such as reenacting the 14th century Norbertine ritual for the blessing of doughnuts in the Cathedral of St. Bavo of Ghent. Now, what color should those appareled amices be…

In other words, for most “on the right,” it will back to business as usual — recycling hoary trad myths, bad theology and endless evasions, so they can ignore the actual teachings of the man they insist is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.

For most, but not all — because not all those who are unnerved by Bergoglio have been raised on and bought into the prevalent myths.

Because I have been writing and making videos about sedevacantism for more than two decades, I now hear from people all over the world — at the rate of two to three a week for several years now — who concluded that sedevacantism is the only theologically coherent explanation for Vatican II, its disastrous reforms, and the scandalous and faith-destroying words and deeds of the “popes” who have promoted them. These people, the majority of them young (and many of them converts or reverts) have read their way into or back to the Catholic faith. They are quick to perceive that what they see and hear in Novus Ordo churches is not Catholicism, and they are just as quick to conclude that once you say that the Novus Ordo religion is false, you have one of two choices:

  1. The Catholic Church has defected from the faith (which faith itself tells us is impossible)
  2. The men who held themself out as popes defected from the faith, even before their putative elections, and therefore possessed no authority from Christ (which Catholic theology and canon law tells us is possible).

Put another way, their heretical words and manifestly evil deeds prove that the Vatican II “popes” were never true popes in the first place, so that far from losing the papacy through heresy, from the beginning these men truly “had nothing to lose. Slice it any other way, and all that’s left on the table is a defected and equally fake Church.

Finally, while Bergoglio’s madcap and blasphemous antics have forced many Catholics “on the right” to focus on errors and issues they would never have even thought of a mere six years ago, they shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking “It’s just a Bergoglio problem.”

Rather, it’s a Vatican II problem. Sure, enshrining the Pachamama in Santa Maria in Transpontina was a real horror. But it’s a passing trifle next to enshrining as a permanent principle in “papal magisterium” the heresy of dogmatic evolution. And that idol, before which all dogma melts into air, can’t be made to disappear by just tossing it in the Tiber. Vatican II, the Robber Council, has be dumped over the rail first — and this time, weigh it down.

SUPPORT SGG’S LIVE WEBCAST APOSTOLATE!

Watch Fr. Cekada’s series of ten entertaining and informative YouTube videos:

Traditionalists and the Pope