Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

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.”

Apostasy Rising: Vatican boldly promotes Evolution of Dogma in wake of Amazon Synod

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:

Papa Pachamama’s Profession of the Modernist Heresy

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

The “But we’ve had Bad Popes before” Objection

from Novus Ordo Watch

With the recent idolatrous, heretical, and blasphemous circus surrounding the Amazon Synod, Novus Ordo and semi-traditionalist authorities and apologists are once again offering false solutions to their hapless followers, solutions aimed at mostly one thing: the continued acceptance of Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) as the Pope of the Catholic Church, no matter how absurd and indefensible the idea may be — for the only truly intolerable view for them is that of Sedevacantism.

One of the most common objections one hears against Sedevacantism is, “But we’ve had bad Popes before” or, “A bad father is still your father!” People who think that such arguments can legitimize Francis are either not familiar with, or incapable of grasping, the difference between, on the one hand, Catholics who lead immoral lives, and, on the other hand, heretics.

Francis isn’t a bad Catholic. He manifests day in and day out that he is a non-Catholic. That’s the crux. Therefore, saying that we’ve had bad Popes in the past and they were still valid Popes, is totally beside the point. A man who professes the Catholic Faith whole and entire, no matter how wicked he may be, remains a member of the Catholic Church. Even if he hate God. Even if he be a murderer. Even if he be a sodomite.

God forbid, of course! Such a man, if he does not repent, will have an eternity of suffering in hell. His Church membership will have profited him nothing; his Faith, entirely dead because without charity, will not save him in the least. His knowledge of the True Faith will merely add to his misery in hell because he will have sinned with full knowledge of the sinfulness of his deeds.

Yes, all this is true. But such a man, if elected to the papacy, would still be a valid Pope, because what keeps a man from being validly elected to the papacy is not a lack of holiness but the public profession of heresy (among other things). In other words, what keeps him from being a valid Pope is not the commission of sins against morals (otherwise no one could be Pope, since we are all sinners), no matter how many or how grievous, but the commission of certain sins against Faith.

That is standard Catholic teaching and not controversial. Pope Pius XII put it best when he taught authoritatively in his beautiful encyclical on the Church:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed….

Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 22-23; underlining added.)

Note well, ladies and gentlemen: The only sins that by their very nature sever a man from the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, are the sins of schism, heresy, and apostasy. What this means is that these sins are such that committing them renders one a non-Catholic. A heretic, after all, professes a different religion than a Catholic, and so he cannot be a member of the Church, because one cannot be a Catholic and a non-Catholic at the same time. (The same goes, even more so, for an apostate. Schism is slightly different because it is a sin against charity and not against Faith, but this need not concern us here.)

Therefore, a schismatic, a heretic, or an apostate could not be a valid Pope, for this would mean that a man who is not a member of the Mystical Body can nevertheless be the head of that Mystical Body, which is a contradiction. The Catholic Encyclopedia, compiled during the reign of Pope St. Pius X, states very plainly: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void” (s.v. “Papal Elections”).

To appreciate how important and serious this difference is between bad Catholic and non-Catholic, let us take a look at one of the most immoral Catholic Popes in history: Pope John XII, who reigned from 955 to 963. Prince Octavian (his birth name) was only 16 years of age when elected, and he was a complete moral reprobate:

Nothing in his life marked him for this office, and everything should have kept him from it. He was rarely seen in church. His days and nights were spent in the company of young men and of disreputable women, in the pleasures of the table and of amusements and of the hunt, or in even more sinful sensual enjoyments. It is related that sometimes, in the midst of dissolute revelry, the prince had been seen to drink to the health of the devil. Raised to the papal office, Octavian changed his name and took the name of John XII. He was the first pope thus to assume a new name. But his new dignity brought about no change in his morals, and merely added the guilt of sacrilege.

Divine providence, watching over the Church, miraculously preserved the deposit of faith, of which this young voluptuary was the guardian. This Pope’s life was a monstrous scandal, but his bullarium is faultless. We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy. There is not a heretic or a schismatic who has not endeavored to legitimate his own conduct dogmatically: Photius tried to justify his pride, Luther his sensual passions, Calvin his cold cruelty. Neither Sergius III nor John XII nor Benedict IX nor Alexander VI, supreme pontiffs, definers of the faith, certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole Church, uttered, from the height of their apostolic pulpit, a single word that could be an approval of their disorders.

At times John XII even became the defender of the threatened social order, of offended canon law, and of the religious life exposed to danger.

(Rev. Fernand Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, Vol. 3 [St. Louis, MO: Herder Book Co., 1946], pp. 510-511; underlining added.)

BAM! Did you get that?

Yes, there can be bad Popes, indeed. But in the exercise of their office they will be as orthodox and as Catholic as any other. Christ promised as much: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). That is the Catholic doctrine on the Papacy, backed by God Himself:

…the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling? Blessed be the strength of his arm and the multitude of his mercies!

(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 349.)

The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.

(Pope Pius XII, Address Ancora Una Volta, Feb. 20, 1949)

Thus, if one were to say that Francis is the Pope, one would have to conclude that all the Catholic teaching on the Papacy applies to him and that its guarantees are verified in him. To see how Bergoglio measures up, we have put together a handy little tool:

Unlike what so many prominent “traditionalists” have been spouting for decades, the Church is not guaranteed to have a Pope at all times; but when she has one, she is guaranteed to have one who’s Catholic. This is evident also because the Pope is the principle of unity in the Church and the proximate rule of Faith; he is the guarantor of orthodoxy and to him all must submit as a condition of their salvation (see Denz. 469). The idea that a public heretic could be Pope and teach in accordance with his heresies, would throw all of this completely out of sync.

Thus St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Papacy, taught:

The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.

Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.

On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err.

(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation; underlining added.)

Whereas certain self-appointed recognize-and-resist traditionalists want to “unite the clans” so as to mount a unified defense against their “Pope’s” open heterodoxy, the Catholic Magisterium is quite clear that the only principle that can produce the unity of the flock is the Pope, who alone possesses authority over all Christians and who cannot lead the flock astray in matters of Faith and morals:

The vigilance and the pastoral solicitude of the Roman Pontiff … according to the duties of his office, are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God. They strive also to the end that the faithful of Christ, not being like irresolute children, or carried about by every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men [Eph 4:14], may all come to the unity of faith and to the knowledge of the Son of God to form the perfect man, that they may not harm one another or offend against one another in the community and the society of this present life, but that rather, united in the bond of charity like members of a single body having Christ for head, and under the authority of his Vicar on earth, the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Blessed Peter, from whom is derived the unity of the entire Church, they may increase in number for the edification of the body, and with the assistance of divine grace, they may so enjoy tranquility in this life as to enjoy future beatitude.”

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Pastoralis Romani Pontificis, March 30, 1741; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 31; underlining added.)

The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the entire world. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of Christ, Head of the whole Church, Father and Teacher of all Christians.

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 32; underlining added.)

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.

(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert; underlining added.)

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

(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam)

Union with the Roman See of Peter is … always the public criterion of a Catholic…. ‘You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.’

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 13; underlining added.)

…[T]he strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate.

(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution of Feb. 20, 1903; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 353)

What? You haven’t heard these things lately from your favorite semi-trad newspaper, blog, or clergyman? You don’t say! Try applying the above quotes to the Vatican II Sect and its “Popes”, and you realize very quickly that their goose is cooked. Is Francis, even in his official acts, “the strong and effective instrument of salvation”? Hardly! If there’s anything he’s strong and effective in, it’s causing loss of Faith and thus damnation.

Take a good look also at the dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council on the connection between the Papacy and the True Faith, a connection which is not merely incidental but essential and necessary:

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” [Luke 22:32].

(Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, n. 4; Denz. 1836; underlining added.)

It’s time to change the channel, folks. It’s time to stop imbibing the semi-traditionalist propaganda produced by The Remnant and its theological cousins.

As Catholics, we can take a debauched but Catholic Pope John XII over a “nice” but heretical Francis any day. Pope Pius IX reminds us of this once more:

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 [of St. Peter]; 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; underlining added.)

But the supposed “Chair of St. Peter” in the Vatican II Sect has tottered and fallen; it therefore cannot be the true and genuine Chair of St. Peter.

Where, then, is the true Pope? We do not know. For all we know, we do not have a Pope. The See of Peter has been either vacant or impeded since 1958. It has most definitely not been validly occupied by the impostors of the Vatican II Church (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis).

But keep in mind: Though the Church may not always have a Pope, she will always have the True Faith. And for this reason alone we know that the Vatican II Sect cannot be the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So… now what, you ask? Now go and be a real Catholic.

Destroying the Papacy in Order to Save Bergoglio

from In Veritate

[Taken from the September issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]

In a recent speech, reported by the website wherepeteris, Cardinal Burke proposed yet another episode of his curious manner of dealing with the heresies of Bergoglio.

He spoke about the change of the catechism, made by Bergoglio, which condemns the use of capital punishment. The Cardinal called this change the “personal opinion” of Francis. Although Francis called the use of the death penalty inadmissible, Cardinal Burke dismissed this term which Francis used as “a relative term” which has no doctrinal import. The Cardinal declared that the exclusion of the death penalty by Francis has no basis in doctrine, and concluded: “This is an opinion of Pope Francis as a man.” He continued: “Once in a while, a pope would express his personal opinion about something and generally caused a lot of confusion and turmoil. And so, but Pope Francis does this a lot, but you can’t – this, this kind of argumentation that’s given in this text – it simply won’t do it.”

These and similar statements of Cardinal Burke and other Novus Ordo conservative prelates have the single effect of degrading the papacy and the magisterium in an effort to preserve Bergoglio as a supposed pope.

Bergoglio’s insertion of the condemnation of capital punishment into the catechism is an act of authentic magisterium, assuming that he is the pope for a moment, and requires our religious assent. It is absurd, not to mention disrespectful, to characterize such an act on the part of the pope as “his opinion as a man.” This description of it would be true if Francis merely had written a book and expressed his ideas about it. To include it in the catechism, however, lifts it to the level of magisterium.

If we are free to reject the catechism of “Pope” Francis as merely his opinion, then we are also free to reject the catechism of Saint Pius V, namely the Catechism of the Council of Trent. We could also pooh-pooh the catechism of Saint Pius X.

Cardinal Burke is institutionalizing the very serious error of “recognize and resist,” the flagship doctrine of the Society of Saint Pius X. At bottom, this error does not differ from Protestantism, for it appeals to an authority — Tradition — over and above that of the pope. It differs from Protestantism only inasmuch as they appeal to Sacred Scripture over and above the pope. But just as the Church is the supreme interpreter of Sacred Scripture, so it is the supreme interpreter of Tradition. There would be no Tradition to appeal to if the Church, through its magisterium, had not proposed to us what the handed down word of God is.

Of course Cardinal Burke is right in his assessment of Bergoglio’s error. The teaching of the Church concerning the lawfulness of the death penalty falls under its universal ordinary magisterium, for it is attested to in Sacred Scripture, and it has been everywhere taught by the hierarchy.

In his attempt to “save” the Catholic doctrine concerning the death penalty, the Cardinal is undermining the very foundation of all dogma, by destroying the teaching authority of the pope.

In his efforts, therefore, to save Bergoglio’s papacy, Cardinal Burke destroys the papacy itself.

The unfathomable mystery. What is most mysterious about these attempts to save Bergoglio is: “Why do they want to save Bergoglio?” What purpose does it serve for the Catholic Church to retain this man in his supposed office as pope?

The magisterium, Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and Catholic theology attest to the principle that there is an intimate, indeed inseparable, connection between

the Catholic Faith and the office of the papacy. No one could possibly err in saying that a man who had deviated from the Catholic Faith — and worse, who taught heresy — could not be the pope. Cardinal Burke himself made this point clear in an interview about two years ago. It is an ironclad Catholic principle.

Furthermore, the Church’s indefectibility is a dogma of faith, which requires that the Church remain the same throughout all of its existence until the end of time. If the Church were to change its dogmas or moral teaching, it would not remain the same, and would therefore be defective. So if a pope attempts to change Catholic dogma or moral teaching, the dogma of indefectibility demands that the Church reject him as pope.

Why do not these Novus Ordo conservatives invoke these certain principles against Bergoglio? Why preserve him? Why descend into a form of Protestantism in order to keep this man, supposedly, in the chair of Peter?

By analogy, if a toilet is clogged, it does not help in any way to merely announce that it is clogged, and should not be used. Instead one has recourse to a plunger in order to remove the problematic excrement.

Time for Diwali: Vatican promotes Idolatry in Message to Hindus

from Novus Ordo Watch

Enough digital ink has been spilled on the Pachamama worship in and around the Vatican — it’s time we looked at what other idolatries the inglorious pack of Roman apostates likes to promote. Such as Hinduism, for example.

Frequent visitors to this blog will remember the following story we published this past summer:

Now the Vatican has doubled down. In its newly-released message to Hindus for the feast of Diwali (aka Deepavali), which is celebrated from Oct. 27-31 this year, the Modernists in Rome express their best wishes for a happy and fruitful celebration:

Dear Hindu Friends,

The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sends you cordial greetings and sincere good wishes as you celebrate Deepavali on 27 October this year. May this festival of lights illumine your hearts and homes and bring to your families and communities joy and happiness, peace and prosperity. At the same time, may it strengthen your spirit of fraternity with one another.

Alongside the experience of unprecedented advancement in many fields, we live at a time when, on the one hand, efforts are being made towards interreligious and intercultural dialogue, cooperation and fraternal solidarity. On the other hand, there is apathy, indifference and even hatred among some religious people towards others. This is often caused by a failure to recognize the ‘other’ as a brother or sister. Such an attitude can arise from misguided, ungenerous or unsympathetic sentiments, which upset and unsettle the very fabric of harmonious coexistence in society. It is with concern about this situation that we deem it fitting and beneficial to share with you some thoughts on the need for every individual, particularly Christians and Hindus, to be builders of fraternity and peaceful coexistence wherever they are.

Religion fundamentally inspires us “to see in the other a brother or sister to be supported and loved” (Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, co-signed by Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Abu Dhabi on 4 February 2019). It teaches us, moreover, to respect the inviolable dignity and the inalienable rights of others without any unwarranted bias towards their creed or culture. Only when adherents of religions demand of themselves a life consistent with their religious ethic will they be seen to fulfill their role as builders of peace and as witnesses to our shared humanity. For this reason, religions are to sustain the efforts their adherents make in leading an authentic life so as to “bring forth the fruits of peace and brotherhood, for it is in the nature of religion to foster… an increasingly fraternal relationship among people” (Pope John Paul II, Message for the World Day of Peace, 1992). As such, living in a spirit of fraternity and fellowship through constant dialogue should be a natural corollary of being a religious person, Hindu or Christian.

Though negative news dominates the headlines, this should not dampen our resolve to sow seeds of fraternity, for there is a hidden sea of goodness that is growing and leads us to hope in the possibility of building, together with the followers of other religions and all men and women of goodwill, a world of solidarity and peace. The conviction that building a world of fraternity is possible is reason enough for us to engage all the more in efforts towards building the edifice of fraternity and peaceful coexistence, keeping “the good of everyone at heart” (Pope Francis, Message for the Opening of the Annual Interreligious Prayer Meeting for Peace, “Bridges of Peace”, Bologna, 14 October 2018).

It is a happy coincidence that the beginning of this month marked the 150th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi, “an outstanding and courageous witness to truth, love and nonviolence” (Pope John Paul II, Prayer for Peace at the Conclusion of the Visit to Raj Ghat, Delhi, 1 February 1986) and a valiant protagonist of human fraternity and peaceful coexistence. We would do well to draw inspiration from his example in living peaceful coexistence.

As believers grounded in our own religious convictions and with shared concern for the welfare of the human family, may we join hands with those of different religious traditions and all people of goodwill, and strive to do all we can – with a sense of shared responsibility – to build a more fraternal and peaceful society!

Wishing all of you a joyful celebration of Deepavali!

(“Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue Greets Hindu Feast of Diwali”Zenit, Oct. 21, 2019; underlining added.)

There is much that could be said about this message, but we’ll focus only on one element: the expressed wish that the observance of this idolatrous feast would “illumine your hearts and homes and bring to your families and communities joy and happiness, peace and prosperity” and “strengthen your spirit of fraternity with one another.”

Notice that the Vatican is not saying anything about the conversion of the Hindus — which would be seeking their true happiness — nor are they merely wishing them well in some vague way, or wishing good things to them without reference to their idolatry. Rather, the Novus Ordo authorities are wishing that Hindus would receive the benefits enumerated precisely as the fruit of their observance of this pagan feast! It is precisely through this “festival of lights” that these blessings are to be received. That is the outrage; that is the apostasy!

That “Pope” Francis himself agrees wholeheartedly with that approach goes without saying, of course.

This year’s Vatican message to Hindus is entitled “Believers: Builders of Fraternity and Peaceful Coexistence”. To refer to Hindus as “believers” is apostasy already, since Hindus are unbelievers (infidels), that is, they do not have Faith — the virtue of Faith being the firm adherence of the mind, aided by grace, to what God has revealed because He, who cannot lie or be mistaken, has revealed it. Hindus have fallen for the lies of the devil and are therefore un-believers.

Wikipedia explains what Hindu gods are worshipped on Diwali: On the eve of the feast, “families offer prayers (puja) to Lakshmi and Ganesha, and lay offerings of puffed rice, candy toys, rice cakes and batashas (hollow sugar cakes)”. Ganesha is the Hindu god of beginnings, science, and wisdom; and Lakshmi is the goddess of wealth, fortune, and prosperity, according to their respective Wikipedia entries.

According to the Novus Ordo news org Zenit, Diwali is “based on ancient mythology, [and] it represents the victory of truth over lies, of light over darkness, of life over death, and of good over evil. The actual celebration lasts three days, marking the beginning of a new year, family reconciliation, especially between brothers and sisters, and worship of God [sic].”

Worship of God! No! The idols Ganesh and Lakshmi are not God, they are demons! “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…” (Ps 95:5). This is how low the Vatican II Sect has fallen! If there is one religion in the world that can be said to be truly and properly engaging in polytheistic idolatry, it’s Hinduism.

Polytheism is the belief that there are many gods, and idolatry, we recall, is a sin against the pre-Vatican II First Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” (Ex 20:2-5).

Unlike what “Pope” Francis would have the world believe, commandments are not mere suggestions. They are commandments, and if we break them without repenting of our sins before we die, we will be damned: “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 7:21; cf. Jn 14:15,21,24). This concept is not hard to grasp.

Ladies and gentlemen, they are clearly moving towards an “all religions worship the same God” doctrine. This idea, of course, is a necessary prelude to having peace between religions, which will presumably be the “peaceful” message of the Antichrist when he appears. Peace in the world cannot be had without peace between religions, said none other than hell’s apostle, Hans Kung. This peace will be a false peace, of course, because it will not be the peace only Christ can give — the kind that is “not as the world giveth” (Jn 14:27). It will be a “peace” based on lies, blasphemy, and apostasy. It will be premised on the outrageous lie that Christ is equal to the devil, that the Creator is equal to the creature, that good is equal to evil, that truth is falsehood, that wrong is equal to right (cf. 2 Cor 6:14-17).

The end result will be a one-world religion based on “unity in diversity”, where each religion retains certain outer trappings (“legitimate traditions”) but all share the same Masonic, Antichrist creed: peace, harmony, solidarity, human dignity, diversity, fraternity, dialogue, and helping the needy. Frankly, we’re almost there already, especially since Francis signed the Abu Dhabi declaration this past February, which states that God wills the diversity of religions just as He wills male and female. The premises are there — now someone just needs to draw the conclusion.

None of this wickedness would have been possible without Vatican II, the Second Vatican Council. Ever since that abominable assembly, the “Catholic Church” has been engaging in so-called “interreligious dialogue with non-Christian religions.” This always involves the Roman Modernists sending greetings to their dialogue partners, congratulating them for whatever feasts they happen to be celebrating; it also includes occasional visits to the houses of idolatrous or false worship, and sometimes it even includes celebrating the anti-Catholic feasts on Vatican property and joining in the festivities.

Long-time readers of this blog may recall that in January of 2014, Benedict XVI’s and Francis’ interreligious frontman “Cardinal” Jean-Louis Tauran happily visited a Hindu temple in London, where he paid homage to its false deities. On July 5, 2018, Tauran was summoned before the Judgment Seat of God to render an account of his works, and he received his just reward.

The current president of the so-called Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Interreligious Dialogue is 67-year-old “Cardinal” Miguel Ayuso Guixot. The fact that the man is a “missionary” shows how the concept of mission has been utterly subverted in the Vatican II religion. And no wonder.

The wicked Vatican II robber council taught that “in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry” (Decree Nostra Aetate, n. 2). It outrageously proclaimed, furthermore, that the “Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in [other] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men” (ibid.).

How stark is the contrast of this to the truly missionary, true Catholic position, expressed in the beautiful Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, composed by Pope Pius XI, in which Catholics pray to Jesus Christ: “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God” (underlining added).

That is a truly Catholic prayer: It is not afraid to call idolatry by its name and to condemn it as spiritual darkness, for that it truly is; at the same time, it seeks not the destruction but the conversion and eternal happiness of those who are unhappily caught up in the service of idols. It thus reflects the Church’s divine mission to convert the nations to Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church (see Mk 16:15-16; 1 Cor 12:27; cf. 1 Tim 2:4).

To sum up: The true Catholic Church rejects Hinduism as being “the darkness of idolatry”, whereas the Vatican II Sect rejoices in Hinduism as representing “the victory … of light over darkness.” Yet our Blessed Lord said: “I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness” (Jn 14:56). Indeed, Jesus Christ alone is “the light [that] shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (Jn 1:5). He is “the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world” (Jn 1:9).

He who does not have Christ, necessarily has darkness. That goes for Hindus as much as it goes for the apostates in Vatican City.