by
Thomas A. Droleskey
Some traditionally-minded websites have attempted to keep their fingers on the "pulse" of the soap opera involving the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X and the revolutionaries who comprise the counterfeit church of conciliarism. After three years of head-spinning contradictions and thoroughly predictable developments, I decided about a month ago that enough was quite enough of this madness. The conciliar revolutionaries are apostates. It is far past time for the clergy and the laity of the Society of Saint Pius X to recognize that apostates cannot hold office in the Catholic Church legitimately and that it is impossible for any true Successor of Saint Peter to contradict or put into question settled matters of the Holy Faith.
As I have explained before in many other articles on site, something unprecedented is happening. Either the See of Peter is vacant
or God is permitting true popes to defect from the Faith while remaining
members of the Catholic Church in good standing. The former is a
canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. The latter is impossible.
Some anti-sedevacantists argue viscerally that "God
would never permit" there to be a period of papal vacancy lasting over
fifty years now, noting that such a situation is without precedent and
is in violation of the teaching of the [First] Vatican Council that
Saint Peter will have perpetual successors to his throne (for a
refutation of the latter argument, please see An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter). This specious argument, however, means that it is possible for there to be a period of over fifty years wherein true
popes can blaspheme God repeatedly by publicly esteeming the symbols of
false religions, entering into places of false worship and treating the
"ministers" of false religions as having a mission from God to serve and
thus to save souls and of praising the nonexistent ability of false
religions to contribute to the "building" of a "better" world that
corresponds to the "dignity of man" in his quest for the "civilization
of love." Where is the precedent for this? Where?
No one with a shred of intellectual honesty can
assert that there is any precedent for one supposed "pope" after another
doing and saying things that have been anathematized by the Catholic
Church's true dogmatic councils, each of which was guided infallible by
the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, and/or
been condemned by the Fathers of the Church and/or by our true popes.
There is no precedent, not even in the times of
Arianism, for the sort of liturgical abominations that have stemmed from
the liturgical abomination par excellence, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that is hideous in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity.
There is no precedent for a "pope" to deny the very
nature of dogmatic truth or to make it appear as though the Catholic
Church does not have a mission to seek with urgency the conversion of
all non-Catholics to the true Church, outside of which there is no
salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
There is no precedent for a "pope" to deny the very
nature of the Church by stating that non-Catholic Christians have a
"partial" communion with her.
There is no precedent for a "pope" to enter into a
Talmudic synagogue, a place that, like all other temples of false
worship, belongs to the devil himself, and being treated as an
inferior while listening to a demonic hymn that denies that the Messias
has already come.
There is no precedent for a "pope" to enter into a
Mohammedan mosque as he takes off his shoes so as to signify being in a
"holy" place or of assuming the Mohammedan "prayer" position as he turns
in the direction of Mecca at the behest of his Mohammedan host.
Never before has it been the case of the history of the Catholic Church that her officials have sent No true pope in the history of the Catholic Church authorized annual
"Happy Diwali" or "Happy Vesakh" messages to be sent to adherents of two
of the devil's false religions of the "Eastern" variety, Buddhism or
Hinduism (see Have a Happy, Baal, Yes, Most Holy Trinity, No, One or the Other, On A Mission of Their Very Own and A Tale of Two Benedicts).
Never before has a true Successor of Saint Peter praised false religions as instruments for the "building of peace and understanding" in a "more just" world as the means to create a "civilization of love" in an effort to fight irreligion with some generic concept of "religion," a falsehood that was specifically mocked and rejected by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:
Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty,
that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual
reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare
to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to
carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples
might be "one." And did not the same Christ will that His disciples
should be marked out and distinguished from others by this
characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all
men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All
Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much
more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a
serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and
prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and
others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually
repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and
scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have
grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are
directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying
doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so
actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a
number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very
many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a
union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother
Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring
sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these
enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which
the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
This is a ringing condemnation of everything that the false popes have said and done concerning their embrace of false ecumenism and their engaging in the syncretism represented by "inter-religious prayer" services of varying kinds in all manner of places, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
Even the late conciliar head of the Apostolic Signatura, Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda, recognized that sedevacantism is indeed a canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church:
It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy.
... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what
judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation
or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.)
Various priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have spoken up very forcefully and courageously to denounce the heresies and apostasies of concilairism without coming to state publicly that conciliar revolutionaries are part of a counterfeit church, one that is an ape of the Catholic Church and whose officials are but forgettable figures in history even though each is a prefiguring of Antichrist. This most commendable. However, the belief that a public resistance to a true pope is necessary concedes that which the Catholic Church has never taught before, namely, that her true pontiffs can teach error when not proclaiming a doctrine infallibly, and is thus as harmful to the sensus Catholicus as the "new ecclesiology" of the conciliar revolutionaries themselves.
Keeping this mind, therefore, it is nevertheless useful to include here a "canonical warning" issued by Father Daniel Couture of the Society of Saint Pius X, which has no "canonical" status in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, to Father Francois Chazal because of the latter's forthright denunciations of conciliarism without, of course, coming to recognize the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal:
On 8 June 2012 a penal precept and a first canonical monition were issued, with the accord of the Superior General and his Council, in the hope that you would
realize the gravity of the actions, declarations, and publications which
have been the cause of grave scandal and great spiritual damage for our
faithful and for our apostolate.
This document was
hand-delivered to you by Fr. Thomas Onoda on 9 June 2012. That very day
you violated the interdiction of the penal precept by flying to Hong Kong, and then to Korea and to Japan, against explicit orders not to do so.
In
Korea, on 10 June 2012, you preached a sermon called “What’s Next”,
which you publicized in the Internet. This same document, as well as
your other document “War On”, you have also subsequently distributed in
Tanay and Baguio Mass centers, and you have displayed “What’s Next” in
Our Lady of Victories Church, in Manila, on Sunday morning 22 July 2012.
Two other documents of yours, “I accuse the Counsel” and “I Excuse the
Council” have just been put on the Internet as well.
I am hereby
issuing a second and final canonical monition according to can. 697
C.I.C. 1983/ can. 660 C.I.C. 1917, asking you to submit to the penal
precept of 8 June 2012. If you violate its terms once more, the Superior
General will institute penal proceedings leading to your dismissal from
our Society for stubborn disobedience to legitimate orders in a grave
matter and for grave scandal resulting for culpable behavior, according
to can. 696 C.I.C. 1983/ can. 656 C.I.C. 1917, and to the particular law
of the Society of St. Pius X (cf. General Chapter 2006, Cor Unum. 85; Modifications to the Statutes, 4).
You
have already been notified of your right under the law to self-defense,
including a canonical counsel. You have the right as well to present to
the Superior General, in person or in writing, your defense against
this second canonical monition and the proposed dismissal within fifteen
days of receipt of this document. All your communications and responses
will be given due consideration in the process.
Given at Manila, July 31, 2012, Father Daniel Couture (Father Chazal- In Answer to the Second Canonical Monition.)
Father Chazal, whose First Friday Mass on December 6, 1982, at Saint Michael the Archangel Church in Farmingville, New York, was our first at chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X and who just eleven days later offered the Requiem Mass for our dear friend, the late Father Salvatore V. Franco, was defiant in the face of this meaningless letter:
Fr. Daniel Couture
In the presence of Fr. Michael Fortin
+Vienna, Virginia, 06 August 2012
Dear Father Couture,
The
blade is now about to fall. You have kindly notified me that I may
present a defense before the Superior General before that action is
taken. I would be grateful to you if you would convey to him this – my
last defense against the accusation of “stubborn disobedience” and
“grave scandal”, resulting from “culpable behavior”.
There is no
need for me to present again my case of evidence of a clear change of
stance concerning Vatican II, now viewed as a fixable or bypassable
Council; or the dangerous failure to denounce today’s “Magisterium”; or
the desire to place the SSPX under the ongoing fornicating new Rome, not
to mention the new possibilities of placing our houses under the local
dioceses, as well as other practical surrenders.
Since May of
this year, no attempt at resolving these differences has been
successful, and no written refutation of the four documents “War On”,
“What Next”, “I Excuse”, and “I Accuse” has been made thus far,
isolating my arguments and evidence, and then refuting them.
I
would think, in the interest of your cause, that it would be better for
you to do so now; otherwise, you might show the world that your best
argument is the guillotine. As a result, many priests of the Society who
clearly agree with what I have said in the four documents, will be left
without doctrinal protection against what you view as a “great scandal”
and thus be further encouraged to disagree with Menzingen as I will
stand as a punished witness to a yet unrefuted stance.
But the
sole “War On” document alone, some say, contains 33 arguments, and the
whole case rests essentially on the fact that modernist Rome and its
actions are still deeply steeped in heresy.
That is why I have
lost all expectation that you would issue such a refutation, which in
turn opens another question: Is the publication of such a dissenting
line from the party line of Menzingen, in all possible forms – pulpit,
print, speech, internet, beard, red sash, etc. – a “great scandal” and a
“great damage” and a grave disobedience to the Society?
The
answer to such a question is yours, because you know so well that our
founder did much more than I do. He dared to stand against Popes,
Councils, Bishops worldwide and theologians.
Therefore my
condemnation will make sense if the content of these four public
documents is erroneous, and I do believe that I was always glad to obey
my superiors until this crisis.
Lastly, I would like to
complete my defense with Our Lady. To this day, I still do not
understand how the piety of our faithful towards Her was chosen as an
instrument for the reconciliation plans. And is there an awareness that
the man who will process the reconciliation plans is the prefect of the
CDF, a man notorious for his denial of Mother Mary’s virginity? I have
heard from the Horse’s Mouth (the First Assistant) that we cannot build
our plans on a miraculous triumph of Our Lady above the institution of
the Papacy; I remember that Benedict XVI is the most recent chief
plotter of the burial of the message of Fatima, and, in the end, instead
of Our Lady choosing the time and nature of Her Triumph, we will tell
Her what the circumstances are that She must follow and supposedly this
is how the papacy will convert.
Indeed, if you choose to deny me proper trial and examination, I shall rejoice at the fall of the blade.
Reverenter ac devote,
In Iesu et Maria,
Francois Chazal+ (Father Chazal- In Answer to the Second Canonical Monition.)
If the as-yet-to-be publicly-released official response of the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X to the conciliar church's so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's response to Bishop Bernard Fellay's response to the revisions proposed to the "doctrinal preamble" that he was handed eleven months ago now is a "no," I would hate to see what a "yes" looks like. After all, if it's a "no," my good, few and mostly freeloading readers (come on, take a joke, lighten up; I'm stating the truth but condemning no one in the process even though we do need assistance at this time, all right?), why transfer Bishops Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso Galaretta? Why threaten to expel men such as Father Chazal who are simply repeating Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's own condemnations of concilairism? It's because the forthcoming answer of the Society of Saint Pius X to the conciliar revolutionaries will be a heavily nuance "not now," not "no."
What is being threatened against Father Chazal continues some of the most laughable scenes that has played out recently as the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X and their mouthpieces who run various websites, including Rorate Caeli, term those within the Society of Saint Pius X who oppose "reconciliation" with the counterfeit church of conciliarism as "rebels" against their "lawful superiors." What sanctimonious hypocrisy. What hubris.
Let me get this straight. The leaders in the Society of Saint Pius X who rebelled against the theological and doctrinal rebels of the conciliar church who rebelled against God and His Holy Church in the first place are said to constitute "lawful authorities" who can compel "obedience" from others who, if they disagree with various decisions, must be termed as "rebels" in their own right and then expelled from a religious community that has no official "canonical" standing in what its leaders believe is the Catholic Church. Got all that?
Illogic and hypocrisy are not the sole purview of the conciliar revolutionaries. Those who suffer from Romanitas and hold their tongues in what they protest is a "discreet silence" as the man they consider to be the "pope" gives "joint blessings" with the non-ordained "clergy" of Protestant sects and enters into their false temples, being content as well to enter into Talmudic synagogues to be treated as a inferior while hymns are played that express a longing for the "coming" of a Saviour Who has already come to redeem us and will come again in glory to judge and the living and the dead. Silence about these outrages, Rorate Caeli?
Go tell that to Pope Saint Leo the Great:
But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they
do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can
listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )
Gallicanism Must Go, Catholicism Must Guide and Prevail
Taking nothing away the late Archbishop Lefebvre's courage in opposing conciliarism and suffering sanctions and public scorn for doing so, the "founding principles" that have served as the basis upon which the Society of Saint Pius X continues to "resist but recognize" one false claimant to the See of Saint Peter after another is false, being but a contemporary expression of the position embraced by the illegal Synod of Pistoia and that was mocked by Bishop Emile Bougaud in the Nineteenth Century in no uncertain terms. It is not to defame the memory of Archbishop Lefebvre or to denigrate his courage to state that he was not infallibly guided by God the Holy Ghost. He was wrong. As I noted a few months ago, We Must Abide By Truth, Not By Persons, not even courageous prelates when they are wrong.
Here, for a reminder for newer readers, is Pope Pius VI's condemnation of the propositions advanced by the Synod of Pistoia that are identical to the position of the Society of Saint Pius X, followed by Bishop Bougaud's condemnation of the precise theological position concerning the papacy that the Society of Saint Pius X has taken from its inception:
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it
is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary
rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good
government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith
and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of
which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the
universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.
7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously
a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this
"against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God
and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that
a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they
prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the
consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these
customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of
law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.
8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a
bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church
cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the
exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever,
a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often
as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that
it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and
coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does
not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
The violent attacks of Protestantism against the
Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it
scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror;
nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all,
perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing
closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard
against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his
treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her
sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of
Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that
agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See,
and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of
fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already
notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign
Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church,"
were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in
the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others
might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by
principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must
love him that governs her, else she can never obey.
These weaknesses should at least have been hidden
in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere
and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no!
parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A
strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world;
kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were
really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates,
bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to
Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the
Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his
words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined,
and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or
dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)
Pope Pius IX included the following condemnation of the view that
Catholics are bound to accept only those things that are declared
infallibly by Holy Mother Church and are thus free to question or sift
through other teachings, which is what the members of the Society of
Saint Pius X has done with the decrees of the "Second" Vatican Council
and the statements of the postconciliar "popes":
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are
strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to
universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the
Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors,
December 8, 1864; see also two appendices below, reprised from five
days ago to drive home the point that no one can sift through the words
of a true pope to "determine" their orthodoxy as popes cannot err on
matters of Faith and Morals.
Pope Pius XII explained in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950,
that Catholics to believe in the binding nature of the teaching
contained in papal encyclical letters, meaning, of course, that we are
not free to "pick and choose" what we "like" about encyclical letters:
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does
not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not
exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are
taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say:
"He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded
and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to
Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents
purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious
that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any
longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis,
August 12, 1950; please see the Appendix A below for Alfred Cardinal
Ottaviani's own critique of the Modernist effort to disparage the
binding nature of the Church's teaching concerning religious liberty and
the separation of Church and State, followed by Monsignor Joseph
Clifford Fenton's own treatise on the matter in the appendix below.)
The whole foundation of the Society of Saint Pius X's
"resistance" to the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of
the conciliar "popes" is false and without any justification in
Catholic teaching. True popes must be obeyed. The whole "dance" between
the Society of Saint Pius X and the conciliar officials has been and continues to be an
exercise in falsehood as the Society has sought to oppose with the "new
ecclesiology" of with conciliarists with a false ecclesiology of its
very own. None of this is from God. Fighting the falsehoods of
conciliarism with the falsehood of Gallicanism of the Society of Saint
Pius X can produce nothing other than chaos. Behold the chaos in which
the Society of Saint Pius X finds itself at this time.
Giovanni Montini/Paul VI made it very clear at the
close of the "Second" Vatican Council on December 8, 1965, the Feast of
the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that the decisions
on the council had to be religiously observed by Catholics:
APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING
OF THE COUNCIL - DECEMBER 8, 1965, read at the closing ceremonies of
Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St.
Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul,
must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church.
In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat
of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the
hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest
because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed
carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune,
because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all
it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of
charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians
still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole
human family.
At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the
help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees,
declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the
synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all
intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical
council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened
October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
We decided moreover that all that has been established
synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the
glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and
peace of all men. We have approved and established these things,
decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and
are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain
full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by
those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so
that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these
things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be
invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the
fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. (APOSTOLIC BRIEF - IN SPIRITU SANCTO.)
Religiously observed? How can one who says he finds "mistakes" in the "Second" Vatican Council, particularly in Dignitatis Humanae (the Decree on Religious Liberty), be said to have religiously observed its decrees? He cannot.
It is also offensive to pious ears for those in the Society of Saint Pius X to keep insisting, correctly, it should be noted, that there are errors in the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council while continuing to insist that that council did the work of the Catholic Church, which was not the case. The Catholic Church makes no term with error. She is the spotless, virginal Mystical Spouse of her Divine Bridegroom and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Here is what our true popes have told us:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that,
where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies
new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the
advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is
overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which
it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the
Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth.
You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also
of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and
is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the
contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth
where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather,
other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by
the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that
these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the
soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life
without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who
is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the
consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders
heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was
a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as
Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which
unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that
world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and
peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not
be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a
sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the
Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself
with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society,
which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its
visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles.
It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and
the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has
defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine
assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It
makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which
it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost
limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its
inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of
the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer
of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and
charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and
of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the
doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and
marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The
equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the
different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself
demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from
Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in
no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are
superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights
of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere
numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are
superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
For the teaching authority of the Church,
which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that
revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be
brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and
which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who
are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees
fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is
necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or
more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful
with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."
Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes
no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has
received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits
of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable
integrity."
Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."
Anyone who says that this
has been done by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made
its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave
no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign
of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about
as charitably as I can put the matter). If the conciliar church has
brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of
men," why, as noted earlier in this article, is there such disagreement
even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative"
conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second"
Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one
means by "ease and security"?
Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., explained in but one
sentence the simple fact those steeped in error cannot have any part in
the Catholic Church:
There is a fatal instinct in error,
which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its
unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her
children. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, commentary on the life of Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen.)
The counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church.
Spend time in prayer before the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour if this is possible where you live.
Keep praying as many Rosaries each day as your state-in-life permits. Offer everything up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Know this and know it well: the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Henry, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Appendix
Monsignor Joseph Clinton Fenton on the Binding Nature of Papal Declarations
(As Extracted From a Previous Article)
The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who had taught my own late seminary professor, Father John Joseph "Jackie Boy"
at Saint Bernard's Seminary in Rochester, New York, in the late-1930s,
wrote a superb explication of the teaching authority of encyclical
letters a year before Humani Generis, and I thank Mr. Jerry Meng, the author of Joseph Ratzinger Is Not the Pope, for providing me with information about Father Fenton's material, which appeared in the American Ecclesiastical Review,
that I had read several years ago but had faded into the deeper
recesses of my memory in the meantime. Thank you, Mr. Meng. To Father
Fenton:
It would manifestly be a very serious fault on the part of a Catholic writer or teacher in this field, acting on his own authority, to set aside or to ignore any of the outstanding doctrinal pronouncements of the Rerum novarum or the Quadragesimo anno,
regardless of how unfashionable these documents be in a particular
locality or at a particular time. It would, however, be a much graver
sin on the part of such a teacher to pass over or to discountenance a
considerable section of the teachings contained in these labor
encyclicals. In exactly the same way and for precisely the same reason
it would be seriously wrong to contravene any outstanding individual
pronouncement in the encyclicals dealing with the relations between
Church and State, and much worse to ignore or disregard all of the
teachings or a great portion of the teachings on this topic contained in
the letters of Pius IX and Leo XIII.
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its
stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a
papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to
questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The
body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and
State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal
letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could
not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ
wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly
incompatible with such a possibility. (Doctrinal authority of Papal Encyclicals.)
To wit, Pope Saint Pius X wrote the following about the falsehood represented by the separation of Church and State:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a
most pernicious error. . . .
Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required,
to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
Gee, I wonder who has spent a
great deal of the past seventy-three months endorsing this false thesis: Joseph
Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that's who. This cannot be. It is impossible for
a true Roman Pontiff to contradict another on a matter that is part of
the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and
infallible explication.
Some glib commentators might protest that not every
papal statement demands our assent, that we can "sift" through what a
true pope says. This is false, which is one of the reasons why true
popes never spoke in interviews as they knew that their words, which
were carefully chosen and vetted by theological advisers (yes, the
rendering of this word as "advisors" is also accepted usage), carried
the weight of their papal office, that the faithful weren't and could
not be expected to make unnecessary distinctions between "official" and
"unofficial" words and deeds, which was the whole point of Words and Actions Without Consequences.
Monsignor Fenton elaborated on this point when applying the teaching stated by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis to the authority of papal allocutions:
Despite the fact that there is nothing like an
adequate treatment of the papal allocutions in existing theological
literature, every priest, and particularly every professor of sacred
theology, should know whether and under what circumstances these
allocutions addressed by the Sovereign Pontiffs to private groups are to
be regarded as authoritative, as actual expressions of the Roman
Pontiff's ordinary magisterium. And, especially because of the tendency towards an unhealthy minimism current in this country and elsewhere in the world today, they should
also know how doctrine is to be set forth in the allocutions and the
other vehicles of the Holy Father's ordinary magisterium if it is to be
accepted as authoritative. The present brief paper will attempt to consider and to answer these questions.
The first question to be considered is this: Can a
speech addressed by the Roman Pontiff to a private group, a group which
cannot in any sense be taken as representing either the Roman Church or
the universal Church, contain doctrinal teaching authoritative for the
universal Church?
The clear and unequivocal answer to this question is contained in the Holy Father's encyclical letter Humani generis, issued Aug. 12, 1950. According to this document: "if, in their 'Acta'
the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has
hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point,
according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be
regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among
themselves."[6]
Thus, in the teaching of the Humani generis, any doctrinal decision made by the Pope and included in his "Acta" are authoritative. Now many of the allocutions made by the Sovereign Pontiff to private groups are included in the "Acta" of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, as a section of the Acta apostolicae sedis. Hence, any doctrinal decision made in one of these allocutions that is published in the Holy Father's "Acta" is authoritative and binding on all the members of the universal Church.
There is, according to the words of the Humani generis, an authoritative doctrinal decision whenever the Roman Pontiffs, in their "Acta," "de re hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt."
When this condition is fulfilled, even in an allocution originally
delivered to a private group, but subsequently published as part of the
Holy Father's "Acta," an authoritative doctrinal judgment has
been proposed to the universal Church. All of those within the Church
are obliged, under penalty of serious sin, to accept this decision. . . .
Now the questions may arise: is there any
particular form which the Roman Pontiff is obliged to follow in setting
forth a doctrinal decision in either the positive or the negative
manner? Does the Pope have to state specifically and explicitly that he
intends to issue a doctrinal decision on this particular point? Is it
at all necessary that he should refer explicitly to the fact that there
has hitherto been a debate among theologians on the question he is going
to decide?
There is certainly nothing in the divinely
established constitutional law of the Catholic Church which would in any
way justify an affirmative response to any of these inquiries. The
Holy Father's doctrinal authority stems from the tremendous
responsibility Our Lord laid upon him in St. Peter, whose successor he
is. Our Lord charged the Prince of the Apostles, and through him, all
of his successors until the end of time, with the commission of feeding,
of acting as a shepherd for, of taking care of, His lambs and His
sheep.[7] Included in that responsibility was the obligation, and, of
course, the power, to confirm the faith of his fellow Christians.
And the Lord said: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath
desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed
for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted,
confirm thy brethren."[8]
St. Peter had, and has in his successor, the duty
and the power to confirm his brethren in their faith, to take care of
their doctrinal needs. Included in his responsibility is an obvious
obligation to select and to employ the means he judges most effective
and apt for the accomplishment of the end God has commissioned him to
attain. And in this era, when the printed word possesses a
manifest primacy in the field of the dissemination of ideas, the
Sovereign Pontiffs have chosen to bring their authoritative teaching,
the doctrine in which they accomplish the work of instruction God has
commanded them to do, to the people of Christ through the medium of the
printed word in the published "Acta."
The Humani generis reminds us that the doctrinal decisions set forth in the Holy Father's "Acta"
manifestly are authoritative "according to the mind and will" of the
Pontiffs who have issued these decisions. Thus, wherever there is a
doctrinal judgment expressed in the "Acta" of a Sovereign Pontiff, it is clear that the Pontiff understands that decision to be authoritative and wills that it be so.
Now when the Pope, in his "Acta," sets
forth as a part of Catholic doctrine or as a genuine teaching of the
Catholic Church some thesis which has hitherto been opposed, even
legitimately, in the schools of sacred theology, he is manifestly making a doctrinal decision.
This certainly holds true even when, in making his statement, the Pope
does not explicitly assert that he is issuing a doctrinal judgment and,
of course, even when he does not refer to the existence of a controversy
or debate on the subject among theologians up until the time of his own
pronouncement. All that is necessary is that this teaching, hitherto
opposed in the theological schools, be now set forth as the teaching of
the Sovereign Pontiff, or as "doctrina catholica."
Private theologians have no right
whatsoever to establish what they believe to be the conditions under
which the teaching presented in the "Acta" of the Roman Pontiff may be accepted as authoritative.
This is, on the contrary, the duty and the prerogative of the Roman
Pontiff himself. The present Holy Father has exercised that right and
has done his duty in stating clearly that any doctrinal decision which
the Bishop of Rome has taken the trouble to make and insert into his "Acta" is to be received as genuinely authoritative.
In line with the teaching of the Humani generis,
then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision
expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution
delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and
if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of
his own "Acta." Now we must consider this final question: What
obligation is incumbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative
doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the
universal Church in this manner?
The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer. This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,'
the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has
hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point,
according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be
regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."
Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among
themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of
the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved. Once that magisterium has
expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church
universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must
be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided. A man
definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher
of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the
competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.
In line with the teaching of the Humani generis,
then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision
expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution
delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and
if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of
his own "Acta." Now we must consider this final question: What
obligation is incumbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative
doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the
universal Church in this manner? (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)
The crashing sound you hear in
the background is the whole facade of the false ecclesiology of the
"resist but recognize" movement that has been propagated in the past
forty years as the "answer" to "resisting" the decrees of the "Second"
Vatican Council and the "encyclical" letters and statements and
allocutions of the conciliar "popes" crumbling right to the ground.
The rejections, for example, of the clear and
consistent Catholic condemnation of religious liberty and separation of
Church and State while endorsing the sort of false ecumenism condemned
by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and while
propagating the "new ecclesiology" of the "new theology" that is a
public and manifest rejection of the very nature of the Church as
summarized by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943,
are no mere acts of "modification" of past papal statements as they are
applied in the world today. They are a wholesale rejection of Catholic
truth, which is why they have been shrouded in a cloud of ambiguity and
paradox as to deceive many of the elect.
Perhaps Professors de Mattei, Introvigne and
Rhonmeier ought to familiarize themselves with the true scholarship of
Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani and Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton.
Any questions, ladies and gentlemen in the Society of Saint Pius X? Any questions?
