Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

Pope Gregory XVI condemns Innovators who would “Renew” the Church

from Novus Ordo Watch

Vatican II condemned in 1833…

The ideas of the Vatican II revolution weren’t new in the 1960s. In the post-Reformation period, various errors along the lines of Liberalism and Modernism had already infected sundry innovators who were trying to introduce these novelties into the Church. The errors manifested themselves in revolutionary movements to bring the Church “up to date”, introducing vernacular tongues into the sacred liturgy, changing the Mass to correspond more to the demands of modern man, adapting Church discipline to modernity, etc.

The Holy See, of course, always sternly and competently condemned these errors and defended the Immaculate Bride of Christ from the snares of the innovators. One of the greatest documents defending the Church against the “renewal” proposed by the Liberals of the time is the encyclical Quo Graviora of Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846), published in 1833, which we highly recommend you read in full, but from which we shall provide only a brief excerpt for purposes of this post.

The Holy Father instructed his bishops as follows:

You know, venerable brothers, on what erroneous principles the abovementioned men and their followers depend and where that desire which moves them to begin effecting a revolution in the Church has its origin. We do not think it superfluous to clarify many of those things and to explain them here. A false idea has for a long time grown stronger and spread widely through these regions. This idea is spread by an impious and absurd system of indifference toward religious matters which claims that the Christian religion can become perfect in time. While the patrons of such a false idea are afraid to adapt the shaky possibility of perfection to the truths of faith, they establish it in the external administration and discipline of the Church. Moreover, in order to bring about faith in their error, they wrongfully and deceitfully usurp the authority of Catholic theologians. These theologians propound here and there a distinction between the teaching and the discipline of the Church which underlies this change, that it will always stand firm and never be harmed by any alteration. Once this is established, they state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith and morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church.

Truly such reformers use these principles. In addition, they disclose and propose them in many pamphlets…. While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?

(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Quo Graviora, nn. 4-5; underlining added.)

The underlined portions are typical errors spread by the Vatican II religion today and/or adhered to by a great number of people who believe themselves to be Roman Catholics. Yet, Holy Mother Church had long and frequently condemned these things as incompatible with and injurious to the true Faith. So much for that “hermeneutic of continuity”!

For example, in 1907, Pope Saint Pius X, quoting his predecessor Leo XIII, warned: “It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind” (Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 55; underlining added). Is this not essentially a condemnation of the entire Vatican II religion in its very foundations?

Many people do not realize that a lot of the Church’s disciplines and laws are so closely bound up with divine revelation and the truths of the Faith that to change them would be tantamount to changing the Faith itself. This is why Pope Gregory speaks of the “law of the believer” producing “the law of the doer.” It is natural for a man to act as he believes, and to believe as he acts. Should there temporarily be a difference between the two, resulting in what is today often called “cognitive dissonance”, it will resolve itself before long, either by the person changing what he believes to agree with his actions, or by changing his actions to agree with his beliefs.

This is where the New Church has been so successful in destroying the true Faith in millions upon millions: They have changed the disciplines (for example, and most especially, the Holy Mass) to agree with the New Faith, and by making people act in accordance with the new beliefs, they have ensured that they will, before long, also change what they believe, gradually and without even so much as noticing it.

Perfect cases in point: Mass facing the people. Communion in the hand. Reducing the Holy Mass from the August Sacrifice of the Altar to a communal meal. Talking and dancing in church. Absurd clown liturgies. Using churches for profane events. Marriage “annulments” handed out so lightly and numerously that they are now the de facto “Catholic” equivalent to secular divorce, having harmed thousands of families, esp. children. And so forth. The list is endless.

Who today in the Vatican II Church is still a Catholic in what he believes and professes? The message the changes since Vatican II have been sending is essentially: God is not to be taken seriously; the Catholic Church is not to be taken seriously. Everything changes with the times, including religious things. And that’s precisely the message that people understood, and they imbibed it deeply and acted accordingly.

In short, the Novus Ordo Church has made itself irrelevant, and that is exactly what it is today and why no one in the secular world really takes it seriously. All the crocodile tears now being shed about “abuses” and desired “continuity” with the past and lost influence with the secular governments of the world, are not going to change the fact that this Vatican II Revolution was begun by and imposed from the top. Never forget this. It all began with Angelo Roncalli, “Pope” John XXIII. And it went downhill from there.

All of this was no accident, however; it was by design. It had been planned by those whom the true Popes had always warned us about as conspiring against the very Body of Christ: the Freemasons. Is it any wonder that ever since the beginning of the Vatican II Church, Freemasonry was no longer considered a threat to the church?

For a clearer picture, be sure to read the 1993 essay “Freemasons and the Conciliar Church” (PDF), made available exclusively on this web site with the gracious permission of the author. Also, see our 2013 post “Freemasons Support ‘Pope’ Francis” for additional information.

Other Important Papal Condemnations of Modern Errors

Book Recommendations

Sodom and Gomorrah in St. Stephen’s Cathedral

from Novus Ordo Watch

Drag queen Wurst performs in St. Stephen’s Cathedral at the invitation of “Card.” Schonborn

It’s that time of the year again: “Cardinal” Christoph Schönborn, the pretend-Archbishop of Vienna, Austria, has once again invited representatives of the sodomite lobby and their abettors to desecrate the Cathedral of St. Stephen (Stephansdom) with “artistic performances” under the pretext of raising money for people who suffer from AIDS or are infected with HIV. He hosted this “charity” event together with his sidekick, the cathedral rector “Fr.” Anton “Toni” Faber, who is notorious for conferring blessings on “gay” couples on St. Valentine’s Day.

This latest abomination took place on Saturday, Nov. 30, 2019, the eve of World AIDS Day. One of the star performers was Thomas Neuwirth, the famous Austrian drag queen (transvestite) better known by his blasphemous pseudonym Conchita Wurst. The following video clips summarize what transpired in the cathedral, which, it bears repeating, is not a multipurpose event hall but an edifice built for, and consecrated exclusively to, the worship of the Most Holy Trinity:

As is evident in these videos, Schonborn was seated in the front pew, right next to Gery Keszler, organizer of the “Long Night of Solidarity” (Lange Nacht der Solidarität), of which the concert inside St. Stephen’s was the main event.

Keszler is himself an open sodomite. Last year, Keszler revealed in a public discussion that Schonborn had given him and his homosexual partner a blessing in private on Aug. 15, 2018. Schonborn never disputed the testimony and now invited Keszler back into his cathedral. That is a tacit admission that the claim is true, for keeping silence when one has an obligation to speak, implies consent.

Having a blast before going to hell: Schonborn, left, with Keszler (center) and singer Dorretta Carter

The Archdiocese of Vienna reported on this “charity event” on its web site, quoting Schonborn as saying during the Nov. 30 jamboree: “God wants no one to feel excluded; he wants all to feel safe.” To emphasize that he was turning St. Stephen’s Cathedral into a “safe space” for sexual perverts and those who support them, he added: “I want you to know that in this cathedral we are all at home” (our translation).

Unfortunately for Mr. Schonborn, God’s own Revelation regarding inclusion and exclusion says something different:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without [i.e. outside] are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

(Apocalypse 22:14-15)

Of course, the Modernists have never let Divine Revelation get in the way of their heresies, so the Scriptural truth isn’t going to bother Schonborn or Faber very much.

Some people will object that there is nothing wrong with raising money to help AIDS victims. That may be true, but the end does not justify the means, and the means to do it was evil: the desecration of a Catholic cathedral and the celebration of unnatural vice. One is never permitted to commit or promote mortal sin — not for any reason!

“Archbishop” Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Vatican nuncio to the United States who is still in hiding after a series of public missives against “Pope” Francis, released a letter in which he condemned the profanation of Vienna’s glorious cathedral:

Once again Vienna, the glorious capital that was able to resist the advance of the Ottoman Horde with the weapons of light and faith, suffers — dismayed and scandalized — yet another homoerotic and blasphemous provocation. Gay activists, transvestites and transsexuals perform on the Cathedra of St. Stephen, when instead they should receive from the Catholic Church the proclamation of Christ’s liberating Truth and the gift of his saving Love, freely offered to all those who, from the depths of their wounds and repentance, dare to acknowledge their need for salvation.

(Carlo Maria Viganò, Letter to Alexander Tschugguel et al., Nov. 30, 2019; in “Archbishop Vigano Condemns Vienna Cathedral Pro-LGBT Concert as ‘Blasphemous’”Edward Pentin, Dec. 1, 2019; translation by Diane Montagna.)

Vigano continued with an interesting choice of words, saying: “I join with all my heart the little flock, who are perhaps without a Shepherd but are called to gather in the Heart of the Immaculata to implore from her, through the reparative prayer of the Holy Rosary, God’s forgiveness for the offenses and outrages that have been perpetrated” (underlining added).

Is Viganò hinting that Francis might not be the Pope (anymore)? If Vigano ever comes to that conclusion, it would make him the second Novus Ordo bishop to do so (that we know of), the first one being Fr. René Gracida.

As for Schonborn, this is nothing unusual for him. Quite possibly a Freemason, he has a long history of anti-Catholicism. He is known for his continued support of sexual perversion and for his repeated facilitation of blasphemy and sacrilege. The following posts make clear what kind of a man he is:

Schonborn, by the way, is a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Destruction of the Faith. He is the man Francis chose to explain his exhortation Amoris Laetitia to the public on Apr. 8, 2016. Schonborn is also one of the chief theologians behind the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, first published in 1992.

In other words: Schonborn is a man after Francis’ heart.

Watch out, he may just become his successor.

Image source: youtube.com (screenshots)
Licenses: fair use

What will make the Antichrist so Deceptive?

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.

Pacha Papa: Francis announces he may update Catechism to include ‘Ecological Sins’

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.

Official “Catholic” Same-Sex “Wedding” in Austria

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?

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.”