Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

Pope St. Pius X on Cardinal John Henry Newman

from Novus Ordo Watch

Tomorrow, Oct. 13, Antipope Francis will pretend to declare Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-90) a saint. He cannot actually declare him a saint since such a privilege is reserved to the Pope, and if there’s one thing that lousy Modernist Jorge Bergoglio is not, it’s Pope of the Catholic Church.

In any case, the Novus Ordo Modernists have long hijacked Cardinal Newman for their own nefarious ends, spinning him into a forerunner of the Second Vatican Council, and consequently they have no objection to his canonization. Even long before the council, however, the original Modernists were already claiming to have a friend in Cardinal Newman, as we will see momentarily.

The impending worthless canonization of Newman by the Vatican II Sect is thus a golden opportunity to demonstrate that the celebrated convert from Anglicanism was certainly a Catholic. We need not undertake any lengthy in-depth study of his thought in order to be assured of this, for we can turn to the one man who, more than any others in the history of the Church, had the greatest authority, competence, and credibility to speak on the matter: We have in mind none other than Pope Pius X (reigned 1903-1914), the powerful progenitor of the Church’s anti-Modernist campaign, himself declared a saint on May 29, 1954, by Pope Pius XII.

On Sep. 8, 1907, St. Pius X released his landmark encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis against the doctrines of the Modernists. The following year, the local ordinary of Limerick, Ireland, Bp. Edward Thomas O’Dwyer (1842-1917), published a little 44-page book entitled Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (a paperback copy may be purchased here). What occasioned the publication of the latter was the fact that some of the partisans of the Modernism the Pope had just condemned were appealing to the celebrated name of Cardinal Newman in their defense.

Bp. O’Dwyer wrote:

…I observe that some of the persons who feel the severity of the Pope’s condemnation try to shield themselves under the venerable name of Newman. They would make believe that, in his writings, they can find, if not in express terms, at least in germ and embryo, the very doctrines for which they are now condemned, and they seem to hope that, in England, the name of Newman will be more authoritative on Catholic doctrine than the teaching of the Holy See. It is an uncatholic position, in principle, but it is as untrue to fact as it is unsound in faith. There is nothing in Newman to sustain, or extenuate, or suggest a particle of their wild and absurd theories. Newman was a Catholic to the tips of his fingers.

(Most Rev. Edward T. O’Dwyer, Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis: An Essay [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1908], p. 5; paragraph breaks removed.)

The remainder of the work is the author’s defense of the illustrious convert, showing that Modernists can lay no claim to the name of Newman.

On Mar. 10, 1908, Pope St. Pius X wrote a letter to Bp. O’Dwyer, commending him for his fine work defending the good cardinal and endorsing it wholeheartedly. The papal document was published in the Acta Sanctae Sedis, and we reproduce an English translation of it below for the benefit of our readers (taken from Michael Davies’ book Lead Kindly Light):

In which Pope Pius X approves the work of the Bishop of Limerick
on the writings of Cardinal Newman.
To his Venerable Brother
Edward Thomas Bishop of Limerick

Venerable Brother, greetings and Our Apostolic blessing. We hereby inform you that your essay, in which you show that the writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it, has been emphatically approved by Us: for you could not have better served both the truth and the dignity of man.

It is clear that those people whose errors We have condemned in that Document had decided among themselves to produce something of their own invention with which to seek the commendation of a distinguished person. And so they everywhere assert with confidence that they have taken these things from the very source and summit of authority, and that therefore We cannot censure their teachings, but rather that We had even previously gone so far as to condemn what such a great author had taught.

Incredible though it may appear, although it is not always realised, there are to be found those who are so puffed up with pride that it is enough to overwhelm the mind, and who are convinced that they are Catholics and pass themselves off as such, while in matters concerning the inner discipline of religion they prefer the authority of their own private teaching to the pre-eminent authority of the Magisterium of the Apostolic See. Not only do you fully demonstrate their obstinacy but you also show clearly their deceitfulness.

For, if in the things he had written before his profession of the Catholic faith one can justly detect something which may have a kind of similarity with certain Modernist formulas, you are correct in saying that this is not relevant to his later works. Moreover, as far as that matter is concerned, his way of thinking has been expressed in very different ways, both in the spoken word and in his published writings, and the author himself, on his admission into the Catholic Church, forwarded all his writings to the authority of the same Church so that any corrections might be made, if judged appropriate.

Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy. And indeed, in the domain of England, it is common knowledge that Henry Newman pleaded the cause of the Catholic faith in his prolific literary output so effectively that his work was both highly beneficial to its citizens and greatly appreciated by Our Predecessors: and so he is held worthy of office whom Leo XIII, undoubtedly a shrewd judge of men and affairs, appointed Cardinal; indeed he was very highly regarded by him at every stage of his career, and deservedly so.

Truly, there is something about such a large quantity of work and his long hours of labour lasting far into the night that seems foreign to the usual way of theologians: nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith. You correctly state that it is entirely to be expected that where no new signs of heresy were apparent he has perhaps used an off-guard manner of speaking to some people in certain places, but that what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning. We therefore congratulate you for having, through your knowledge of all his writings, brilliantly vindicated the memory of this eminently upright and wise man from injustice: and also for having, to the best of your ability, brought your influence to bear among your fellow-countrymen, but particularly among the English people, so that those who were accustomed to abusing his name and deceiving the ignorant should henceforth cease doing so.

Would that they should follow Newman the author faithfully by studying his books without, to be sure, being addicted to their own prejudices, and let them not with wicked cunning conjure anything up from them or declare that their own opinions are confirmed in them; but instead let them understand his pure and whole principles, his lessons and inspiration which they contain. They will learn many excellent things from such a great teacher: in the first place, to regard the Magisterium of the Church as sacred, to defend the doctrine handed down inviolately by the Fathers and, what is of highest importance to the safeguarding of Catholic truth, to follow and obey the Successor of St. Peter with the greatest faith.

To you, therefore, Venerable Brother, and to your clergy and people, We give Our heartfelt thanks for having taken the trouble to help Us in Our reduced circumstances by sending your communal gift of financial aid: and in order to gain for you all, but first and foremost for yourself, the gifts of God’s goodness, and as a testimony of Our benevolence, We affectionately bestow Our Apostolic blessing.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, on 10 March 1908, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.
Pius PP. X

(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Tuum Illud; original in Acta Sanctae Sedis XLI [1908], pp. 200-202; underlining and paragraph breaks added.)

This should definitively put to rest the suspicion that Newman was putting forward Modernist ideas. Obviously he had held many errors before his conversion, as an Anglican, but that cannot be laid to the charge of the Catholic Newman. Cardinal Henry Edward Manning (1808-92), likewise a convert from Anglicanism but so different from Newman, declared at the latter’s passing: “We have lost our greatest witness for the Faith” (source).

Newman converted in 1845. He was ordained a Catholic priest on May 30, 1847. He never became a bishop, but Pope Leo XIII raised him to the rank of cardinal on May 12, 1879. (The rule that all cardinals had to be bishops was introduced by Antipope John XXIII in the early 1960s.) One of the reasons why Newman at times gives rise to confusion is that he employed his own peculiar vocabulary, he was not a systematic theologian, and he was not a Thomist or a scholastic. None of this should be too surprising, however, considering that the great Neo-Thomist revival of the 19th century did not begin until long after his conversion, with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris, in 1879. [Correction: We have been informed since that the Thomist revival was already underway before, but mostly confined to Dominican schools, and that Leo XIII merely gave this movement papal impetus.]

People who are interested in investigating Newman’s theology in-depth and seeing its orthodoxy vindicated, are encouraged to consult, in addition to Bp. O’Dwyer’s book linked above, Fr. Edmond D. Benard’s work A Preface to Newman’s Theology (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1945). We had intended to make this work available as a free PDF download; however, we were not able to obtain the copyright as the publisher is going to re-release it into print in the near future.

A succint preview of what the reader can expect is found on the inside flap of the dust jacket of the original 1945 edition: “A PREFACE TO NEWMAN’S THEOLOGY is a close study of the great man’s Catholic orthodoxy. Was Newman a Modernist or did he have Modernist leanings? If so, he would be an unsafe guide. This question is here discussed with scholarly acumen. Some writers have criticized Newman’s teaching on the development of Christian doctrine. The arguments on this question also are carefully sifted and scrutinized….”

The author, Fr. Benard, was an incredibly gifted young priest who was just rising to prominence as a Newman scholar. He died a premature death in his study at the Catholic University of America, during a fire on Feb. 4, 1961, presumably of smoke inhalation. However, knowing all the evils that would afflict the Church and society afterwards, we can see what a great mercy of Almighty God it was to call him to judgment when He did. Fr. Benard died at the young age of 46, but he lived long enough to leave to posterity this magnificent vindication of Newman’s orthodoxy.

Traditional Catholics, then, should not allow the Modernists to claim Newman as one of their own, for he most certainly wasn’t. Not only learned authorities such as Bp. O’Dwyer and Fr. Benard but even Pope St. Pius X himself assure us of this.

Image source: Composite with elements from Wikimedia Commons (Sirilusmaxii [cropped] and Babouba) / (cropped)
Licenses: CC BY-SA 4.0 and public domain / fair use

Eugenio Scalfari says Francis told him Jesus Christ is Not God; Vatican reacts evasively

from Novus Ordo Watch

[UPDATE 10-OCT-2019 15:19 UTC: Vatican spokesman Paolo Ruffini:“The Holy Father never said what Scalfari wrote”]

[UPDATE 09-OCT-2019 22:52 UTC: Revised post to include complete English translation of Scalfari’s article]

Forget the Amazon Synod for a minute, folks. Right now all hell is breaking loose over something that happened apart from the synod: Francis’ favorite journalist, the apostate (former Catholic turned atheist) Eugenio Scalfari, published an article in today’s edition of La Repubblica (pp. 1, 33) that is causing an earthquake around the globe.

According to the 95-year-old Scalfari, “Pope” Francis told him that Jesus Christ is not God. The veteran Vaticanist Marco Tosatti was the first to blog about this bombshell story found in the Italian paper. Rorate Caeli was the first to provide a reliable English translation of the key passages. Now (this being a revision of our original post) Vaticanist Edward Pentin has provided an English translation of Scalfari’s entire article.

Here is what Scalfari wrote:

Francis and the Spirit of the Amazon

His Holiness Pope Francis has convened a synod in which more than two hundred cardinals and archbishops are taking part to deal with the problem of the Amazon.

The theme is of fundamental importance for the whole of humanity.

Francis has been launching the idea of the One God for years now.

It is obviously a revolutionary idea that involves the examination of a serious problem that affects everyone, rich and culturally evolved peoples as well as poor and desperate peoples.

The unification lies in the fact that there is an interior community: everyone must live and everyone should do so, one helping the other which in turn should adequately correspond. Rich and poor, men and women: this is our world of humans and this is what the Pope continually considers. “We have come to contemplate, to understand, to serve the people.” In this way, Pope Francis opened the work of the Synod.

The Amazon is a very serious case but it represents the history of the human race, for six years now Francis has been pointing the finger at this dramatic theme

It begins from the first page: “We have not come here to invent programs of social development or be guardians of cultures. This is not our task or at least not the main one” were the words of Francis. “Our work will be first of all to pray and then to reflect, to dialogue, to listen with humility and to speak with courage. We do not need to demonstrate our possible power in the media. This would constitute a sensationalist Church, but this is not what we conceive, we know that humans are all a part of the world in their external diversity”. Pope Francis never spoke of the “I” as the determining element of man.

Those who have had, as I have had many times, the good fortune to meet him and speak to him with the greatest cultural confidence, know that Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, man, not God incarnate. Once incarnated, Jesus ceases to be a God and becomes a man until his death on the cross. The proof that confirms this reality and that creates a Church completely different from the others is proved by some episodes that deserve to be recalled. The first is what happens in the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus goes after the Last Supper. The apostles who are just a few meters from him hear him pray to God in words that were once reported by Simon Peter: “Lord,” said Jesus, “if you can take this bitter cup away from me, please do so, but if you can’t or won’t, I will drink it to the end.” He was arrested by Pilate’s guards as soon as he left that garden. Another episode, also well known, occurs when Jesus is already crucified and there again repeats and is heard by the apostles and women who are kneeling at the foot of the cross: “Lord, you have forsaken me”.

When I happened to discuss these phrases, Pope Francis told me: “I am proof [NOW comment: this is ambiguous and should probably be translated as “They are proof”, referring to “these phrases”] that Jesus of Nazareth, once he became man, even if he were a man of exceptional virtue, was not a God at all”.

I remember these events that allowed me to meet Pope Francis several times, to discuss with him themes and problems that concern the history of humanity as a whole, but above all that closest to us from the Enlightenment to the end of our days. Pope Francis wanted to have an unscrupulous image of modern culture and he asked me to point it out to him and to examine it.

These talks were all and always reported literally in our newspaper and that is why today I feel the need to remember them, because Francis addresses the theme of ‘Amazonia but broadens the scope and comes to the conclusion that men are substantially all equal and all different. This is the trait that differentiates us from the animal genus to which we belong, we are also endowed with instincts but we do not limit ourselves to these: we have feelings. They can be good or bad, selfish or altruistic; our body and our vital organs develop these moral diversities and create a precious yet completely incorporeal organ that is our Mind. This is the reason why I have once again recalled the interests of Francis in the corporeal and spiritual knowledge of man.

He loves culture and wants to know modern society as much as possible for the obvious reason that even the Church he leads must acquire modernity in its highest part, which best contributes to a humanity that makes our existence worth living.

(Translation: Edward Pentin; bold print given; scan of original available here.)

Denying the divinity of Christ is the heresy of Arianism. It is apostasy from the Catholic religion because if Christ were not divine, the entire religion would collapse.

Various English-speaking Novus Ordo and semi-trad news sites and blogs have begun covering this story:

The Vatican has already issued a reaction; but whoever thought that for such a whopper as this one, surely Club Bergoglio would issue a strong and categorical denial, was disappointed. The Vatican statement, released by official press spokesman Matteo Bruni, merely says:

As stated on other occasions, the words that Dr. Eugenio Scalfari attributes in quotation marks to the Holy Father during the conversations with him cannot be considered as a faithful account of what was actually said, but represent, more than anything, a personal and free interpretation of what he has heard, as seems quite evident from what is written today regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ.

(Source; Google translation with our adjustments.)

That’s it! That’s basically an elaborate way of saying, “Yeah, whatever.”

Imagine if a woman says to her husband, “Honey, what’s this I hear from your best friend Fred about you admitting to having a mistress? What happened to our marriage vow? Do you not love me anymore??” And he responds: “That cannot be considered a faithful account of what I told him since Fred only quotes from memory. Besides, you can assume it’s colored by his own interpretation, and that should be obvious.” What woman would not be furious at such an evasive answer that’s playing her for a fool?!

Ah yes, the case of Eugenio Scalfari (pictured left). He is old; he is an atheist; he doesn’t take notes and writes all his interview texts based on memory (as he himself has admitted). And yet Francis keeps giving him interviews, and the paper in which they are published, La Repubblica, is the only newspaper Francis says he reads. Any reasonable person understands that that means Francis considers what Scalfari publishes in La Repubblica to be an accurate transcription of what he actually said, a faithful presentation of his thoughts — at least accurate enough to get the point across. Besides, as Rorate Caeli notes, “the papal interviews to Scalfari have been published on the Vatican website, [and] they have been occasionally published by the Vatican publishing house (LEV) itself”.

But we need not even rely on all that. We can simply review how Scalfari’s claims have measured up in the past. Keep in mind that not once has Francis ever disputed the accuracy of any of Scalfari’s reporting or claimed to have been misunderstood or misrepresented:

The bottom line is this: When you put all the evidence together, you have to conclude that until there is a clear and firm denial, everything Scalfari has reported about Francis is true — even if the “Pope” didn’t say everything verbatim as reported, certainly Scalfari’s paraphrases convey accurately enough the ideas Francis communicated to him.

Part of the front page of the Oct. 9 edition of La Repubblica, in which Scalfari’s article appears

In case anyone is still trying to excuse all this, let’s be clear that if Francis did not say what Scalfari reports him to have said, the impostor from Buenos Aires has a strict duty to issue a firm, clear, and categorical denial. It is not everyone else’s job to excuse Francis; it is Francis’ job to contradict what has falsely been said about him, especially in so weighty and serious a matter — but only if it is actually false, of course.

With Francis’ history of continually giving interviews to the nonagenarian journalist in the privacy of his room at the Casa Santa Marta, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the strategy here: Francis uses Scalfari to conveniently release all sorts of theological, spiritual, and moral poison into people’s minds. He knows the press will report it everywhere, the Vatican will issue a caveat that can — but doesn’t have to be — read as a denial, and countless souls will be impacted. His useful idiots, also incorrectly known as “Catholic apologists”, will bend over backwards to tell those few who bother to look at this in depth that Scalfari is just an elderly, frail, and unreliable atheist, whereas the bulk of people will simply imbibe what Scalfari reports as “coming from the Pope” — and that’s precisely what’s intended. This is a very clever way for him to get his message out while leaving enough room for plausible deniability, should the need ever arise. This way he can say what he wants to say without having really said it. It is devilishly clever!

One might ask oneself what cause Francis would have to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Would it really make sense for him to say Jesus isn’t God? When one looks at Francis’ pseudo-pontificate of the last six-and-a-half years, the frightening reality is that it would actually fit right in with his “gospel of man.”

It is easy to see that the Triune God is superfluous for Francis, whose “theology” is basically a spiritualized version of left-wing politics, mixed with existentalism, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, and humanitarianism. For his soup-kitchen theology and greeting-card spirituality, he doesn’t need our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ to be divine. As long as He was a model human, that’s good enough for him, because all Bergoglio uses our Lord for is to give people a reason to be nice to other people. Christ is used only insofar as He can be hijacked to advance the gospel of man.

Recall that in February of this year, Bergoglio signed the apostate “Declaration on Human Fraternity” in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In the Vatican’s interreligious dialogue with Muslims and Jews, Jesus Christ is a real stumbling block, at least if He is accepted as divine. Jews believe in God being one person; Muslims believe in God being one person as well. But Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity: One God in Three Divine Persons. That isn’t helpful to interreligious dialogue! It is only reasonable, therefore, that the same Vatican II religion that claims Catholics, Jews, and Muslims “adore the one [i.e. same] God” (see Vatican II, Decree Nostra Aetate, n. 3), now has to move to deny, or at least downplay at first, the divinity of Jesus Christ. (They will take care of the Holy Ghost later, and probably with much more ease, since they can easily reduce Him to a mere “force” or “power” of the one God.)

In fact, as quoted above, Scalfari begins his article in today’s edition of La Repubblica by talking about Francis’ efforts to preach “the idea of the One God” — not “One God” in the Catholic sense of the Holy Trinity being One, but in the sense of there being “one and the same god” that is supposedly adored and shared by all religions, or by most. With hindsight we can now see that Francis has gradually been working towards this idea in the last six years, as is particularly evident in his interreligious claims and practices, for example, in his apostate Pope Video of January 2016. All this also explains why Francis has so much contempt for our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, for His holy Mother, and for the Most Holy Trinity.

We’ll finish this post with an exhortation from St. John the Apostle: “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (1 Jn 2:22-23).

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Image sources: / Wikimedia Commons (Presidenza della Repubblica; cropped) / La Repubblica
Licenses: paid / use permitted with attribution / fair use

Talking Sedevacantism with an SSPX Lay Kahuna

from QuidlibetFather: Even though I’ve figured out that sedevacantism is the only possible theological explanation for Bergoglio and the whole Vatican II mess, I still have a lot of friends and acquaintances in SSPX circles. Word of my change of position has gotten around, so the topic now comes up in conversations. Lay SSPX-ers agree with my arguments … up to a point. Their priests respond like they are brain dead, and either have no answer at all or tell me to read the Salza-Siscoe book.

Recently, though, a layman who is a respected major player in the SSPX empire invited me over to talk with him about sedevacantism. He’s an intelligent guy, and probably hopes to “convert” me back to R&R from the “errors” of sedevacantism. Any ideas about how to handle him?

LOOK ON IT as an opportunity to get him thinking about some of the unquestioned “givens” the Society has handed him about “evil, schismatic, proud” sedevacantism.

Like the SSPX priest, your friend also probably told you to read the Salza-Siscoe book, which is like Ambien in print. Zzzz. Instead of sending him links to Dead on Arrival and A Dignified Burial, my two videos refuting the book’s arguments,  I’d recommend you point him to a big wave coming from another direction.

A SEDE behind that smile?

I. Abp. Lefebvre in Favor of Sedevacantism?

For any SSPX kahuna, clerical or lay, the gold standard for explaining the state of the Church after Vatican II is supposedly “the position of Archbishop Lefebvre,” as if this were some great body of fixed and consistent teaching — which, of course, it was not. (See a 1984 article here.)

But since the notion of Lefebvre’s supposed authority casts such a long shadow in SSPX-land, you should meet your friend’s suggestion that you read the Salza-Siscoe book with another suggestion to him: that he take a close look at the material found at these two links:

Chances are, the lay kahuna will run this rather surprising information by an SSPX priest, perhaps even the District Kahuna himself. These priests — unlike me — did not know Abp. Lefebvre personally or hear him say these things, and they will not have a convincing way to explain them away for your friend.

So, an intelligent and reasonable man, having been told for ages that “the archbishop’s thinking” on Vatican II mess was nearly divine revelation, may indeed rightly begin to question the SSPX party line that sedevacantism is “schismatic.”

How could it be, if the the Iron Bishop himself so repeatedly spoke in favor of it?

The only conclusion if you say “true popes.”

II. The Real Problem: A Defecting Church

But serving up Abp. Lefebvre’s pro-sede statements is just a little hors d’oeuvre.

The essential argument against R&R and for sedevacantism is based upon ironclad principles of Catholic (i.e. pre-Vatican II) dogmatic theology concerning the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church — n.b. not just the infallibility of Roman Pontiff alone in rare ex cathedra pronouncements. I have provided a summary and application of the teaching in Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Frankenchurch, and again in Section I of Sedevacantism: A Quick Primer.The logical corner to force intelligent SSPX-ers like your lay friend into is the defecting Church.

(1) If Vatican II is error and the new laws are evil — as SSPX and R&R firmly insist —and at the same time, and the men who promulgated them somehow still had authority from Christ, the Church herself has defected, and Christ’s promises have failed — especially, “I am with you always.”

(2) But faith tells us this is impossible.

(3) The only alternate solution consonant with the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility is that the men who promulgated these errors and evils never received authority from Christ in the first placethey defected — not the Church herself — and became incapable of being validly elected popes or of receiving authority from Jesus Christ.

(4) The judgement that the changes were errors and evils is thus implicitly a judgment that those who promulgated them had no authority.

In other words, the errors and evils of the officially-approved changes is the smoking gun which leads to an unassailable and ironclad verdict: No authority, fake popes.

III. Wait for the Lame Excuses…

Your friend will probably have heard the standard objections that SSPX has employed to get around this argument, and may repeat them to you:

  • Where would we get a true pope, then?
  • Vatican II is not universal ordinary magisterium because it is not in accord with previous “tradition,” so we’re not bound by it.
  • The pope is like a bad dad whom we can disobey.

All these have been answered over the years, and answered in spades:

(1) Not having absolute certitude how to get a pope does not make a heretic a true pope by default OR solve your defecting Church problem.

(2) ALL the bishops came home from the Vatican II and, in union with the Vatican II popes, taught the Council’s doctrines, which John Paul II then duly enshrined and imposed as obligatory in his universal catechism; so, if you believe the V2 popes are true popes, Vatican II is universal ordinary magisterium.

(3) The SSPX argument that universal ordinary magisterium, to be such and to be binding, must first be “in accord with tradition”

a. Erroneously turns a consequence into a condition. In fact, a teaching is “in accord with tradition” and infallible because a true pope and his bishops universally teach it — that’s how Christ’s promise works — not because you, Mr. Layman or Father SSPX, have checked out the hierarchy’s pronouncement and decided that it is consistent with “tradition.”

b. Was an argument of the anti-infallibilist “Old Catholic” party that was rejected by Vatican I.

(4) A bad dad’s authority is paternal, domestic, private and expressed in particular commands, whereas a pope’s authority is jurisdictional, universal, public and exercised through universal disciplinary laws, which are infallible. Sorry, there are no common points, making this old analogy particularly bone-headed and silly.

There are other equally worthless evasions that have likewise been answered again and again. (See section 3 of Sedevacantism: A Quick Primer.)

•  •  •  •  •

YOUR LAY FRIEND should have no difficulty understanding the argument: once you say that the officially-approved changes in doctrine and discipline are errors and are evil, you are logically stuck with one of two explanations: the Church has defected, or the individual or individuals who imposed them have defected.

Sedevacantists like Bp. Daniel Dolan, Bp. Donald Sanborn and myself have been making this same argument for decades, and no one — not Michael Davies, not The Remnant, not SSPX, not its SS shock troops, not anyone on the R&R side — has been able to come up with a convincing refutation for it based on the principles of pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology.

If the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical changes are error-ridden, evil and sacrilegious, the papacy of the Vatican II popes is toast. It is a straight-line argument to that inexorable conclusion.

Your lay friend may indeed be comfortably basking in the SSPX empire’s sunny climate at the moment. But forcing him to think logically about the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility may well lead him to say a final aloha to the R&R myths, and bid a new one to sedevacantism as his own wave of the future…

October Devotion to Honor St. Joseph

On this the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we should also recall another devotion for the month of October, that to blessed St. Joseph.

Pope Leo XIII ordered this prayer to St. Joseph to be said as a devotion after the rosary throughout October. It is a really good prayer, so remember to include it in your devotions.

Prayer to Saint Joseph for the October Devotions

Ordered by Pope Leo XIII to be set as part of the devotions for the Month of October

To thee, O blessed Joseph, do we fly in our tribulation, and having implored the help of thy most holy spouse, we confidently crave thy patronage also. Through that charity which bound thee to the immaculate, Virgin Mother of God, and through the paternal love with which thou didst embrace the Child Jesus, we humbly beseech thee graciously to regard the inheritance which Jesus Christ hath purchased by His blood, and with thy power and strength to aid us in our necessities.

O most watchful Guardian of the Divine Family, defend the chosen children of Jesus Christ; O most loving Father, ward off from us every contagion of error and corrupting influence; O our most mighty Protector, be propitious to us and from heaven assist us in this our struggle with the power of darkness: and, as once thou didst rescue the Child Jesus from deadly peril, so now protect God’s holy Church from the snares of the enemy and from all adversity: shield, too, each one of us by thy constant protection, so that, supported by thine example and thine aid, we may be able to live piously, to die holily, and to obtain eternal happiness in heaven. Amen.

Indulgences: I. Seven years and seven quarantines, if said after the Rosary in October. II. 300 days, once a day, at other times (and in this case the words in italics are omitted) – Leo XIII Enc., August 15th 1889; Indul., September 21, 1889.

Thoughts on Impeachment

from In Veritate

The recent decision to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Trump is a very troubling historical event.

The reason is that the government of the United States, in pursuing this path, is showing the telltale signs of decline, which will eventually lead to its downfall.

The strength of the United States of America, over the nearly 250 years of its existence, has been the stability of its government on the one hand, and the civility of its citizens, on the other. Both of these qualities are remarkable, given the fact that it is a federation of many states, covering a vast territory, and a people consisting of many differing cultures, backgrounds, races, and religions.

These disparate elements have managed to stay the course of unity through the determination of its citizens to make it work. Even the War Between the States was unable, in the long run, to reduce the nation to political rubble.

In the political world, there has always been a toleration and forbearance of the opposing party or parties, since there was a mechanism in place to peacefully replace the bearers of governmental power. The losers of an election, whether the liberals or the conservatives, simply had to bear up until the next election.

In the cultural and religious world, Americans always practiced a civility towards those who were not of your fold. America was a place in which you could make your own world, whether political, cultural or religious, while at the same time carefully observing a civil kindness and decency toward those who disagreed or who were different.

These factors are central and essential to America’s strength as a nation. They are disappearing.

Civil toleration of opposing political ideas has eroded very seriously.

In regard to the political situation, let us abstract for a moment from who is in the right in this impeachment controversy.

These troubling factors disquieted me very much in recent weeks:

• That the President of the United States could be spied upon in his own house in his private phone calls to foreign heads of State.
• That he would be accused by the Congress of serious (impeachable) wrongdoing on the word of one anonymous accuser.
• That the testimony of the “whistleblower” is based on second- and third-hand information, what is commonly known as hearsay evidence.
• That Mr. Schiff, who is effectively the prosecutor in this case, could so embroider the contents of the President’s conversation, that his rendering of it became an outright lie, although he himself dismissed it as a parody.
• That there was no outrage on the part of the members of Congress at this gross misrepresentation of the President’s words.

That these extremely grave violations of fundamental justice could take place at the highest levels of government is a very bad sign for the future of this country.

The fall of the Roman Empire was caused precisely by the uprising of various factions in the Roman government against the incumbent emperor, many times causing their untimely and violent deaths.

The Byzantine Empire also succumbed to the Mohammedans because of an interior weakness of warring factions in the government, which also resulted in the ousting of emperors, often with cruel tortures, such as having their eyes gouged out.

The Russian Empire fell to communism not only because of weakness of the Czarist government, but mostly because of strident factionalism within the Kerensky government.

France, since the Revolution of 1789, has changed constitutions and forms of government a dizzying amount of times, at least four times from 1789 to 1804, and then thirteen more times from 1804 to the present. Although it had a stable monarchy for one thousand years, from Charlemagne to Louis XVI, its course over the past 230 years has resembled more the government of a banana republic.

America, however, despite some fiery political oppositions, has managed to avoid up to now this instability of government through patience and civility.

The heat to impeach is so virulent that it reminds me of the Jacobins calling for the head of Louis XVI.

Impeachment of a president is so grave, and so dangerous to the general order of the nation, that it should be conducted with the utmost care, calm, and gravest respect for all of the standards of evidence and justice. But we have seen the precise opposite in recent weeks.

The very idea of an anonymous accuser is absolutely contrary to American culture and ideals. Who even knows if the “whistleblower” is a real person? The identity of the accuser is of supreme importance in any accusation, since his character and background are determining factors in his credibility. It is for this reason that they must appear in
court, and give their testimony in person.

Who ever heard of secret denunciations in the United States of America? And everyone knows that hearsay evidence is worthless in a court of law. Yet these are the very instruments being used to cut off the head of the President.

And how can can someone lie to Congress in a matter of so great moment as that of impeachment, and not be prosecuted for a crime?

For all of these reasons, the events of recent weeks are the sign of a deep political cancer in the organs of government, and are a portent of a fatal political instability and of a future weakness in the face of our enemies.

What I have said here could apply to any president, whether Republican or Democrat, whether liberal or conservative. For the stringent demands of justice, particularly in what concerns the impeachment of the Head of State, transcend political parties.

God have mercy on us.

Amazon Primed

from Introibo Ad Altare Dei

The Amazon Synod is approaching wherein the Argentinian apostate of the Vatican II sect, Jorge Bergoglio, looks primed and ready to decimate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It is widely believed that he will make de jure what has been the case de facto, namely, to allow those divorced and “remarried” adulterers to receive their invalid “communion” as long as the adulterer subjectively feels alright about it.  According to the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators authored by Kenneth C. Jones [pub. 2003], in 1968, the nascent Vatican II sect granted just 338 annulments to its U.S. members. Thirty years later, in 1998, there were 50,498 granted in the United States. (See pg.70). These were divorces euphemistically referred to as “annulments;” if  someone could pay the price you got the worthless piece of paper that declared a marriage null and void.

The reason behind the dramatic increase came especially after 1983, when the Vatican II sect’s “Code of Canon Law,” based on the heresies of the Robber Council, added “psychological immaturity” (whatever that means) as a reason to abandon your spouse and commit adultery. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, an approved pre-Vatican II canonist, sounded the alarm through the media (even making an appearance on NYC talk radio) that this would wreak havoc on the institution of marriage and cause many divorces in the name of “religion.” It happened exactly as he said it would. Not being content with phony annulments, which declare marriages as non-existent at the time of their inception, Bergoglio seeks to undermine marriage by allowing adulterers who don’t even pretend their first marriage was invalid to receive “communion.” He has already done so in Amoris Laetitia (2016), and that will most likely be “ratified,” so to speak, at the Amazon Synod; perhaps even made more radical.

The apologists for the Vatican II sect claim that this abandoning of Church teaching concerning the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is merely a “development of dogma.” On April 8, 2016, The Washington Post published an opinion piece by one Stephanie Coontz, who made the following ignorant and unsubstantiated claim:

The Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 13th century, and only began to enforce strict religious conformity in marriage in the 16th century — in part as a reaction to criticism from Protestants that Catholics were insufficiently enthusiastic about the institution. (See

While I understand this is an opinion, I also agree with a former New York politician who said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.” The article contains no citation to any relevant authority for the purpose of even attempting to make this lie seem plausible. It merely stands on the author’s own ipse dixit.

The purpose of this post is to explain what is (and what is not) a true development of dogma, showing the truly Catholic meaning with the heretical Modernist understanding which holds sway over most people today.

The “Evolution” of Dogma is Condemned by the ChurchWhat Vatican II apologists refer to as “development of dogma” is in actuality an “evolution” into something altogether different. One need only refer to what happened on August 2, 2018.  Bergoglio announced that he was changing the Vatican II sect’s stance on capital punishment. According to the Modernist Vatican’s Congregation for the [Destruction of the] Doctrine of the Faith:
Ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people.

Compare with the true teaching on capital punishment:

Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, “Killing human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment)” (See Moral Theology 2: 100). They also assert, “Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means.” (See Moral Theology, 2: 101).

Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas taught, “It is lawful to kill an evildoer insofar as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the communities welfare…[to] lawfully put evildoers to death.” (See ST II-II, 64, 3)

Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori taught, “…if it is necessary for the defense of the republic…[or] in order to preserve the order of law” the death penalty is licit.” (See Theologia Moralis III, 4, 1).

How is it possible to go from a position that capital punishment is in principle licit (although not mandatory to use), to a position where it is “inadmissible” in principle, and not call it a denial of Church teaching? This is not, in any way, a “development” of doctrine. If capital punishment really were, after all, always and intrinsically immoral, this would be an admission that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium can teach error and give evil—a denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.

This is the most recent and concrete denial of dogma disguised under the Modernist conception of “development of dogma.”

The Church teaches:

From the letter Quantum presbyterorum of Pope St. Simplicius to Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, January 9, 476]:
Because, according to the extant doctrine of our predecessors of sacred memory, against which it is wrong to argue, whoever seems to understand rightly, does not desire to be taught by new assertions, but all [matters] in which either he who has been deceived by heretics can be instructed, or he who is about to be planted in the vineyard of the Lord can be trained, are clear and perfect; after imploring trust in your most merciful leader, have the request for calling a synod refused. I urge (therefore), dearest brother, that by every means resistance be offered to the efforts of the perverse to call a synod, which has not always been enjoined in other cases, unless something new arose in distorted minds or something ambiguous in a pronouncement so that, if there were any obscurity, the authority of sacerdotal deliberation might illumine those who were treating the ambiguous pronouncement in common, just as first the impiety of Arius and then that of Nestorius, lastly that of Dioscorus and also of Eutyches caused this to be done. And –may the mercy of Christ our God (and) Savior avert this–it must be made known, abominable [as it is], that [the purpose is] to restore [to their former positions] in opposition to the opinions of the priests of the Lord of the whole world and of the principal rulers of both [scil., worlds] those who have been condemned. . . .

This letter clearly instructs the bishop to oppose summoning a council on the grounds that said council was intended to teach new doctrine, whereas the Church already possessed all true doctrine in its entirety and used councils only for the condemnation of new heresies or for the clarification of ambiguities. Compare to Roncalli, Montini, and Vatican II.

From the Vatican Council of 1870, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:

 For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding “Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.” [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3]. (Emphasis mine)

Canon III: If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

From the Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

From Lamentabili Sane of Pope St. Pius X (1907):
CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 21: Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

True Development of DoctrineDogma cannot change. This is made absolutely clear by the Church, as cited in the section above. However, there is an authentic, Catholic, non-Modernist way in which doctrines can be said to “develop.” This will be outlined below.
1. A doctrine can be formulated more clearly than it had been previously. The term Transubstantiation was adopted by the Church in the Middle Ages as the most precise way of expressing the manner in which the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ during the Consecration at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 
2. A doctrine may be defined by the Church, which was part of the Deposit of Divine Revelation, but that was not recognized as such by all. Two such examples are the Immaculate Conception, and the Particular Judgement.
3. When heretics put forth statements incompatible with Catholic belief, the controversy that ensues exposes them as errors. Their solemn condemnation increases the number of beliefs Catholics are bound to accept. However, that simply means that the implications of the unchanging Deposit of Faith have been manifested by the Church; the infallible Guardian and Teacher of that Divine Deposit of Revelation. The condemnation of the errors of the Modernists by Pope St. Pius X is a good example of this type of development.
Notice that none of these three ways constitutes a change in doctrine. The first way is a linguistic improvement to make something more lucid. The second way gives a Divine guarantee as to their apodictic certainty. The third way establishes the logical consequences of doctrines. Notice it is not a true change in meaning, nor an addition or deletion of what has always been believed since public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle in 100 A.D. 
The Spurious “Defense” of Giving “Communion” to Adulterers by the V2 Sect Given all the above, how can V2 sect apologists claim giving their “communion” to divorced and “remarried” adulterers is not a change in doctrine, but a permissible development? One such lofty sounding defense was offered by Paul Fahey on the blog Where Peter Is (See 
The article begins thus:
In chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis teaches that individuals in objective situations of sin (being divorced and remarried), but who are not subjectively culpable because of mitigating factors (insufficient knowledge and/or consent) may, in certain cases, receive Communion…This is entirely in line with the Church’s teaching concerning mortal sin. The [Vatican II sect] Catechism says that mortal sin prevents one from legitimately receiving Holy Communion (CCC 1415). However, the Catechism also says that “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” (CCC 1859). Further, the Catechism states that, “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735).
Here, Fahey is trying to circumvent the idea of a change by claiming that the Church forbids Her members in mortal sin from receiving Communion (this is true). He then reminds his readers that mortal sin requires full knowledge that the act is wrong (and the act must be a grave matter), as well as full consent of the will. (This also is true). From these starting principles he will try to make a case that in certain instances the necessary consent of the will to make living in adultery a mortal sin is absent. If there is no mortal sin, then there is nothing stopping that adulterous person from receiving Communion. I will demonstrate why his theory falls flat on its face. 
Someone who is divorced and contracts a second phony “marriage” is living in adultery, a mortal sin against the Sixth Commandment and may not be admitted to Communion. If they wish to be forgiven and admitted to the sacraments, the adulterer must separate bed and board from their partner. If, because of children and/or lack of financial ability to do so, they must live as brother and sister. In addition, the admission to Communion must avoid the appearance of scandal. It is thought that the Amazon Synod will allow those living in open adultery (having sexual relations) to receive Communion. Bergoglio allowed it in “certain cases” in Amoris Laetitiae (2016). Even if the Amazon Synod enshrines Amoris with the same qualifier of “certain cases” it cannot escape the charge of heresy. Amoris is a heretical change of doctrine. 
Fahey doesn’t claim the person living in adultery doesn’t have full knowledge. This is good because Amoris Laetitia talks about people no longer being barred from Vatican II sect “sacraments.” Hence, they had knowledge of the sinfulness of their living in adultery since they had been publicly denied the Novus Bogus “communion.” Fahey gives us two examples that center on “full consent of the will.” 
Say there’s a woman who is divorced and civilly remarried. She is Catholic and has recently gone through a personal conversion and wants to be reconciled to the Church. However, her “second husband” who is also the primary breadwinner for the family, threatens to leave her and the kids if she stops having sex with him for the twelve or more months it will take for their annulment to come through (this is assuming that they live in an area that has a functioning tribunal). Because of the threat to her and her children’s well being, she is not fully able to say no to the objectively sinful act of having sex with her civil husband…Another possible example could be a situation where there’s a Baptist couple who have been married several years and have multiple children. After attending Mass with a friend the husband finds himself intrigued and attracted to Catholicism and begins RCIA [Vatican II sect’s “Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults”] with the intention of joining the Church. During those classes he learns that he and his wife aren’t really married because she was previously married to someone else for six months when she was in his early 20s. Thus, in order for the husband to receive Communion, he and his wife must abstain from sex for the rest of their lives because they live in a diocese that does not have a tribunal. The wife simply refuses to submit to Catholic teaching on this matter and won’t accept living with her husband in total abstinence.

As we learned in law school, “hard cases make bad law.” In other words, trying to make a principle of general applicability based on difficult, rare cases, leads to a faulty principles. Here, when dealing with God’s Law, the cases are meant to (a) appeal to the emotions and (b) make “compulsion” reduce adultery from the status of mortal sin. As the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians tells us, there are five (5) factors that mitigate the seriousness of a sin: ignorance, concupiscence (or “passion”), fear, habit, and violence (See theologian Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 1:11-16; See also theologian Davis [1934], Moral and Pastoral Theology, 1:16-30).  As already demonstrated, ignorance cannot be a mitigating factor

What about concupiscence? Theologian Slater says concupiscence “signifies the inclination to evil, which in human nature is a result of the Fall of our First Parents.” Further, it is a strong feeling and “movement of the sensitive appetite” towards some perceived object of desire. Concupiscence may be antecedent or consequent. Only antecedent concupiscence diminishes moral culpability. (See Slater, Ibid, pgs. 13-15). Example: A man find’s out his wife has been having an affair with his neighbor. He sees the neighbor, and in a fit of spontaneous rage, beats him severely. His passion (anger) temporarily deprived him of right reason. Nothing even remotely analogous applies to those persistently living in adultery.  Hence, concupiscence is not a mitigating factor.

What about habit? According to theologian Jone, a habit is “a facility and a readiness of acting in a certain manner acquired by repeated acts.” (See Moral Theology, [1962], pg. 10). A bad habit would be, e.g. consenting to impure thoughts. Habits mitigate culpability only if a person would “strive earnestly to rid himself of a bad habit,” and “does not sin in doing the evil deed by force of habit without advertence [full knowledge] to its sinful character.” (Ibid, pg. 10). Living in a state of adultery can in no way be deemed a “habit.”

What about violence? If you are violently compelled to do something evil, there is no culpability provided one offers as much resistance as possible externally, and does not consent internally. (See theologian Jone, Ibid, pg. 7). However, if one is not simply passive, but cooperation is offered (or no external resistance is given when possible), the action will be voluntary and imputable to that extent. (See Slater, Ibid, pg. 18). Therefore, as the adulterer chooses to stay in that situation and consent to an intrinsic evil, violence cannot be a mitigating factor. Here, you’d basically be discussing forcible rape. No one should stay in such a situation. Take the children (if any), go to a shelter, and have the perpetrator arrested and prosecuted. There are also people to help such victims get back on their feet.

What about fear? This is one of the driving factors used by Fahey in his hypotheticals quoted above.  According to theologian Davis, “Fear is defined as a shrinking from impending evil.” (Ibid, pg. 27). Fear, unless it “deprives a person of the use of reason” does not excuse from an intrinsically evil action. That’s why fear of death is not an excuse for apostasy. (Ibid, pgs. 27-28).

What about “…inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735)”? Pure Modernist claptrap that was never considered “mitigating factors” prior to Vatican II. Since it is Modernist drivel, it need not be considered.

Therefore, “communion” for divorced and remarried adulterers is not a “development of doctrine.” It is the heretical denial of the Indissolubility of marriage.

ConclusionBergoglio seems primed and ready to continue Modernist decimation of any last remnants of Catholic teaching from his sect. Holy Matrimony is under attack as never before from both the world and the Vatican II sect. Sodomite “marriage,” so-called domestic partnerships, no-fault divorce, easy to obtain phony annulments, and now “communion” for open adulterers, makes a sham of true marriage. There are more broken families than ever before, and the number of psychologically scarred children grows steadily. 
The Amazon Synod will attempt to portray any heresy, like the one in Amoris Laetitia, as another “development of doctrine.” It has been demonstrated that this idea of “development” is a heretical, Modernist concept solemnly condemned by the Church. One of the many sickening implications of this teaching in regards to marriage, is that King Henry VIII was right and St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher both died in vain. They didn’t realize that living in a persistent state of open adultery might not be seriously sinful if done for the social factor of wanting a male heir; it’s a doctrinal development. I’m sure it will be extra hot in the Amazon during the Synod–not to mention the stench of brimstone.