Story Time in Econe

A sister, herself now deceased, of the late Father John Joseph "Jackie Boy" Sullivan, asked that question, quite sarcastically, to two seminarians (themselves now presbyters in the counterfeit church of conciliarism) at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, when they related in early-1984 the story that had been told in class by Father Sullivan of how he had been called to administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to a woman dying in the supermarket on a crate of oranges. The woman, he said, turned out to be his own mother. "I couldn't believe it," Father said in class. "My own mother, dying on a crate of oranges. I couldn't believe it!" Father Sullivan's sister told my then fellow seminarians (I was not present when the sister debunked the story), "My mother died in bed at our home at 244 Griswold Street in West Hartford, Connecticut."

Yes, Father Sullivan could, shall we say, exaggerate a story now and again, embellishing it with a few fabricated details, something that I noted in my preface to Jackie Boy. He reminded me in this regard of my late mother's father by adoption, the vaudevillian performer who claimed to be a Sioux Indian chieftain, William Red Fox (whose real name was William Humes, born in Baltimore, Maryland, on June 10, 1884, fourteen years after his own "memoirs" claimed he was born as the nephew of Chief Crazy Horse in the badlands of Montana). Father Sullivan could indeed tell a few stories that were replete with questionable details.

Another one telling stories these days, although stories of longstanding these past few decades, is Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X. A real whopper is contained in his letter to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI that requests the commencement of meetings to discuss the points upon which the Society of Saint Pius X disputes concerning the "Second" Vatican Council:

Yes, it's story time in Econe, well, yes, actually, Meiningen, Switzerland, to be precise. There is no such thing as the "Magisterium of all time." None of the theologians of the Society of Saint Pius X who have worked feverishly to engage in a theology of "special pleading" over the past few decades (efforts to justify the Society's contention that it can operate outside of the authority of a legitimate Roman Pontiff while claiming to recognize him as a true Successor of Saint Peter) can produce a shred of Patristic evidence to support the claim that there is a "Magisterium of all time" that is separate and distinct from the authority of the Catholic Church as represented by a true pope and his bishops at any one point in time. There is simply no such thing

The authority of the Catholic Church cannot give us defective liturgies that are offensive to God. The Catholic Church cannot give us liturgical rites of episcopal consecration and of priestly ordination that must be scrutinized by the theologians of a priestly society of common life. The Catholic Church cannot give us documents as part of its official magisterium that are said to be in conflict with those issued at an earlier time. A true Successor of Saint Peter cannot do and say and believe things that have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church.

The [First] Vatican Council, relying upon the decrees of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, taught that "in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy:"

The leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X have recognized the conciliar "pontiffs" and their appointees as having held and exercised authority legitimately in the Apostolic See while at the same time calling into question the actions and words of those "pontiffs" and their appointees. How can the solemn teaching of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, cited by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council, that "in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy" have said to have been maintained when those who are said to have been true "popes" and "bishops" have done and said things that have "necessitated" their being called into question by the leaders of a priestly society of common life that has no canonical authority from the Apostolic See (whose leaders they accept as legitimate) to train and ordain priests, no less to constitute its own marriage tribunal and to conditionally confirm Catholics who have been "confirmed" according to a rite promulgated by the authority of the "popes" recognized by the leaders of this priestly society of common life?

How can it be that the Catholic Church can promulgate a putative "missal" that could prompt the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, to preach the following sermon in 1976 following his "suspension" a divinis by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI? One sees in this sermon the Archbishop's rejection of the rites and the teaching of the conciliarists, especially concerning their rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King, while accepting them as legitimate holders of office in the Catholic Church:

Even though the late Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo service on some occasions, he did in this one instance refer to it as an "illegitimate rite" and that the priests ordained by by the conciliar church to be "illegitimate priests." It is not possible for the Catholic Church to provide her children with illegitimate liturgical rites and illegitimate priests. It is no more possible for the Catholic Church to endorse what Pope Saint Pius X termed the absolutely false thesis of the separation of Church and State (a thesis condemned as well by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors) than it is for her to deny the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity.

Pope Pius XI made it clear in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, that one must believe in everything contained in the Deposit of Faith without any exception, believing in each article of the Faith as firmly as the others:

God has revealed His Social Doctrine with the same firmness and certitude as He has revealed all other doctrines. Pope Pius XI explained in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, that those reject or "re-define" the Social Teaching of the Church subscribe to a form of social, legal and political modernism that was to be condemned no less vigorously than theological modernism:

Pope Pius XI noted in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio that it "is necessary ever to keep in mind these teaching and pronouncements which We have made." Does the word "ever" have an expiration date of 1962 or 1965 or 1978 or 2009?

No one can remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing and reject the Social Reign of Christ the King by rejecting the obligation of the civil state to recognize the true religion in order to endorse the "separation of Church and State" in the name of a "healthy secularity" or a "healthy laicism."

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who is about to issue a new "encyclical letter" to canonize his embrace of the "healthy laicism" and to explain away the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church as but the product of historically-conditioned circumstances that are subject to "adjustment" over the course of time, has told us that he manifestly rejects the obligation of the civil state to recognize the true religion and to accord her the favor and the protection of the laws. Indeed, he explained this most precisely to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1987:

It is necessary once again to remind readers that Pope Leo XIII taught us in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, that those who defect from the Faith in one thing fall from It in Its entirety:

Although the late Archbishop Lefebvre saw and condemned the conciliarists' rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King, for example, and their embrace of the separation of Church and State and the "right" of false religions to propagate themselves publicly, condemning as well the practice of the conciliarists' engaging in "interreligious prayer meetings" with heretics and schismatics and abject infidels, he did not come the conclusion that Catholics who reject even one article of the Faith reject It in Its entirety and thus expel themselves as members of the Catholic Church by means of violating the Divine Positive Law.

Indeed, as Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos, teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted to His true Church is known and taught with ease. It is not difficult to apprehend what the Catholic Church teaches:

Revealed doctrines must remain intact "for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." There is no need for a priestly society of common life that acts outside the authority of the men they recognize, albeit erroneously, to represent the Apostolic See to "clarify" what the Catholic Church holds intact so that it be taught with ease and security for understanding by her children. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to make difficult or ambiguous that which is to be taught with ease and security. It is never necessary for an archbishop of the Catholic Church to have to write Open Letter to Confused Catholics to explain how liturgical rites promulgated and pronouncements by made by legitimate Successors of Saint Peter are, at the very least, problematic and in need of "clarification."

Indeed, it is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church for an archbishop to have to warn Catholics as follows: about the sacrilegious nature of Mass promulgated by a legitimate Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ

"A religion which is no longer ours" is a religion that belongs to a false church, the counterfeit church of concilairism, not the Catholic Church.

For all of his condemnations of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and religious liberty and the questionable nature of the conciliar rite of priestly ordination, however, Archbishop Lefebvre ran "hot and cold" with conciliar officials, even going so far as to accept its presbyters as legitimately "ordained" priests despite his criticism of what he called "illegitimate rites" (please review Father Anthony Cekada's - The Nine vs. Lefebvre: We Resist You to Your Face and Bishop Donald Sanborn's The Mountains of Gelboe), which was of the breaking points with "The Nine." The Archbishop also accepted the decrees of nullity issued by conciliar marriage tribunals (before the Society established its own tribunal for its own members) and chose to insert the second Confiteor in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that had been omitted from the missal promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962. The Archbishop arrogated unto himself the right to determine that conciliar decrees and "papal" pronouncements were "Catholic" and which were not. This is Gallicanism, not Catholicism. (For a brief discussion of Gallicanism and the mythology of "heretical popes" that was propagated by opponents of papal infallibility at the [First] Vatican Council and has been revived in these our own times by the resist and recognize movement, please see material from Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki's Tumultuous Times that is appended after the Litany of Saints.)

One wonders what will happen to those priests in the Society of Saint Pius X who did undergo conditional ordination, something considered a grave sacrilege by the Catholic Church--which the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X believe has been represented by the "popes" John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI--as it places into question the legitimacy of a rite promulgated by a Sovereign Pontiff, after leaving their dioceses or religious communities. Will these priests be forced to abjure their conditional ordination? Will the Society of Saint Pius X be forced to admit its bishops acted erroneously in performing these conditional ordinations? Will these priests be forced to ask permission from their diocesan "bishops" or the heads of their religious communities to remain in the Society of Saint Pius X? Will they be indemnified from performing the Novus Ordo service? Or will the conciliar officials simply shrug their shoulders about all of this in order to reach a "concordat" that will represent yet another step in the completion of the house that is the One World Church? Inconsistency and inconstancy may indeed serve as a "bridge" between the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X and those of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, therefore, is simply following the trajectory of the Archbishop himself in the current machinations with the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. It is entirely consistent for the Society of Saint Pius X to refer to what Archbishop Lefebvre called the "Mass of all times" as the "extraordinary form of the Roman Rite." As Bishop Donald Sanborn has pointed out, what matters in the Society of Pius X is not the teaching of the Catholic Church but the decisions reached by the Society's leadership, which are presented in an ipso facto manner as that of the Church. As noted just above, there is indeed much more "common ground" between the Society of Saint Pius X and the counterfeit church of conciliarism than one might perceive at first glance.

Alas, Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Satis Cognitum that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is living and permanent. It is impossible for a true pope to put into question the perennial nature of the teaching that has been entrusted by Holy Mother Church's Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as the "magisterium" "of the moment:"

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, as has been demonstrated countless times on this site, defects from the Faith in numerous ways, starting with his embrace of a notion of dogmatic truth that is contrary even to natural reason and has been anathematized solemnly by the authority of the Catholic Church. Perhaps a reiteration of these points, made a month ago today in, A Little Bit "In," A Little Bit "Out", will be helpful:

Ratzinger/Benedict denies the nature of dogmatic truth, cleaving to philosophically absurd notion that dogmatic truth can never be expressed adequately at any one point in time, that each expression of dogma is necessarily "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which it was pronounced. Condemned by the [First] Vatican Council, Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
Ratzinger/Benedict believes in an ecclesiology of "full" and "partial" communion that flies in the face of the teaching of the Catholic Church, a teaching documented so well by His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn in The New Ecclesiology: An Overview and The New Ecclesiology: Documentation and Communion: Ratzinger's Ecumenical One-World Church).
Ratzinger/Benedict specifically rejects the "ecumenism of the return," thereby making a mockery of the exhortations of one true pope after another for such a return of non-Catholics to the true Church.
Ratzinger/Benedict embraces concilairism's definition of "religious liberty" as he praises the nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the "betterment" of nations and the world. Condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, and by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
Ratzinger/Benedict endorses the "separation of Church and State," a thesis called absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and rejects the obligation of the civil state to recognize the Catholic Church as its official religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, an obligation reiterated by pope after pope following the rise of the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity.
Ratzinger/Benedict, therefore, falls into the category of a social modernist described by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922 (see: The Binding Nature of Catholic Social Teaching).
Ratzinger/Benedict has entered one mosque and two synagogues, engaging in acts of apostasy and blasphemy as he, who believes himself to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, has permitted himself to be treated as an inferior as he has treated places of false worship that are hideous to God as worthy of respect, thereby scandalizing His little ones no end.
Ratzinger/Benedict has termed Mount Hiei in Japan, where the adherents of the Tendei sect of Buddhism, worship their devils, as "sacred."
Joseph Ratzinger has long rejected the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in favor of the condemned precepts of the so-called "New Theology, the subject of an article, The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones, on a Society of Saint Pius X website that may well "disappear"--along with other "damaging" citations that will have to be removed as part of the conciliar process of "purification of memory"--once a formal "regularization" takes place. (See also: Attempting to Coerce Perjury.)
Ratzinger/Benedict holds to a view of the Doctrine of Justification that, in essence, hinges on the belief that the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who met under the influence and protection of God the Holy Ghost, were wrong (as is explained in Attempting to Coerce Perjury.)

The desire of the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X to engage in "discussions" with the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism on various points as doctrine is as absurd as the efforts on the part of the conciliarists' to engage in such "discussions" with representatives of other non-Catholic religions. "Dialogue" with heretics and apostates is fruitless. One can just as soon engage representatives of the Anglican "church" in "discussions" as to engage those of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Neither set of representatives are members of the Catholic Church.

To point out these simple truths is not to break "unity" in the "traditional" movement. Catholics seek only to be united in the truths of the Holy Faith. It is not in the service of the Faith to reaffirm others in falsehoods, such as those propagated by the Society of Saint Pius X that it is possible for the Catholic Church to give us defective liturgies and doctrinal pronouncements that must be "filtered" by its own bishops and theologians. Those concerned about "breaking" unity in the "traditional movement" ought to be concerned first and foremost with absolute fidelity to the truths of the Holy Faith, starting with the recognition that it is impossible for true popes to do and to say the things that the conciliar "pontiffs" have said and done in the past fifty years. We might as well adhere to the Novus Ordo service and all of the falsehoods of concilairism if we are concerned first about a "unity" that is founded on anything other than an absolute adherence to everything taught by the Catholic Church, including the nature of her infallibility as summarized by His Excellency Bishop Donald A. Sanborn in Vatican II, the Pope and SSPX: Q & A:

As has been noted before on this site, any "concordat" between the Society of Saint Pius X and the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism would place this priestly society of common life in "full communion" with the likes of Roger "Cardinal" Mahony, who has once again expressed his disdain for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. A "church" composed of men who have a hatred for the Mass that produced most of the canonized saints of the Catholic Church, the Mass that was offered by many of those saints who were bishops and priests, might be many things. Such a "church" cannot be the Catholic Church, however. Those who contend that the true Church can produce the reign of apostasy and blasphemy that is associated with conciliarism do indeed believe in "story time." They are telling "stories" along the lines of "Jackie Boy."

Although each person must consider these points and reach his own conclusions in the Providence of God, we remain grateful to the true bishops and the true priests who helped us find our own way out of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and to avoid even the slightest hint of being "una cum" the arch-heretic who claims to be the Successor of Saint Peter. It is really very simple:

Today is the Feast of Saint Casimir Jagiellon, a magnificent exemplar of the Social Reign of Christ the King, whose just stewardship of temporal affairs according to the Mind of the King of Kings as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church has made his memory revered in both Poland and Lithuania from his own day, the Fifteenth Century, to our own.

Saint Casimir's defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King should inspire us to recognize that not a single, solitary Catholic who rejects the Sacred Rights of Our Divine Redeemer to reign as the King of all men and of each and every nation, including the United States of America, is a member in good standing of the Catholic Church. His example of prayer and penance and fasting and mortification should inspire us as well in the First Week in Lent to deny ourselves in this life so that we might have life everlasting in Heaven, please God and by the graces He won for us and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, that we die in states of Sanctifying Grace.

May we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit so that we might plant more and more seeds for the conversion of all men, including the conciliarists, to the true Faith as we make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Our Lady told us that her Immaculate Heart would triumph in the end. We must place our confidence in this promise that has been made to us by the Mother of God herself.

In the meantime, of course, we continue to entrust our souls exclusively to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions at all to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, false shepherds who defect from the Faith in numerous ways and who think nothing of blaspheming God by esteeming the symbols of false religions and treating the "ministers" of non-Catholic religions as legitimate representatives of God, remembering these words of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians:

Material from Tumultuous Times on Gallicanism and the Mythology of "Heretical" Popes

Papal infallibility had been assailed by an ideology called Gallicanism (Conciliarism) for more than 400 years prior to the [First] Vatican Council. Gallicanism "tended to restrict the authority of the Church regarding the state (Political Gallicanism) or the authority of the pope regarding councils, bishops, and clergy (Ecclesiastico-Theological Gallicanism). These erroneous teachings were widely professed by the clergy of France (formerly called Gaul, hence the name) and later spread to Flanders, Ireland and England. Some prelates at the council followed the Gallican ideology and wished to make papal authority dependent on the bishops and the approbation of general councils.

Many Italians and Romans who opposed Gallicanism and defended the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff became known as Ultramontanists. "Ultramontanism [is] a term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is, beyond the Alps. Ultramontanists stressed the monarchical role of the pope, his universal jurisdiction, his primacy over the Catholic Church and his infallibility in ex cathedra pronouncements.

Pope Liberius reigned during the height of the Arian heresy and was exiled by order of the Emperor Constantius for his opposition to it. Some authors claim that the pope signed a document promoting Arianism. Frs. Rumble and Carty have refused this false claim by asserting:

Ballerini says that if Liberius compromised the faith, " 'which is by no means certain,' ... it was 'not the result of full free-will; for the fear of the Emperor Constantius was the motive; and still les in this fall was a definition of the faith involved.' "Many authors, like Socrates, Theodoret and Sulpicius Severus testify in favor of Liberius. Of the testimonies brought against him, several are evidently spurious, and even if they were genuine, they show only a semi-Arian Catholicizing formula, but not an 'Arian creed.'

Hagemann in the Journal of Theological Literature notes: "Liberius can be accused, not of what he did, but what he omitted to do; he can, from a moral point of view, be blamed for his silence, for his weakness, while the dogmatic purity of his faith remains intact."

The council witnessed many heated debates concerning papal infallibility. Opponents to papal infallibility fabricated every objection possible in order to prevent or defer its definition, even claiming that Honorius I was a heretical pope.

A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.

The attribute of infallibility was given to the popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and St. Peter and his successors.

If a pope did not accept and believe this entire body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head.

One who, after baptism, retaining the name of Christian pertinaciously denies (rejects) or doubts a divinely revealed truth is a heretic and by that fact ceases to be a Catholic. A heretic incurs ipso facto excommunication, i.e., (by that very fact) automatically, without sentence of law. A heretic is not a Catholic and the pope must be a Catholic. . . .

Therefore, a heretical pope is deposed by his public sin against Divine Law. Were a pope ever to teach formal heresy, he would cease to be pope. There can be no such thing as a heretical pope. This is an oxymoron--heresy and the papacy are diametrically opposed and the terms are irreconcilable.

If any baptized person (even an alleged pope) "pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed by an obligation of divine and Catholic faith, he is a heretic; if he gives up the Christian faith entirely, he is an apostate..." Obviously the pope cannot change 2,000 years of Catholic faith, morals and worship. Canon law states: "If one after the reception of baptism, while retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed by an obligation of divine and Catholic faith, he is a heretic."

A heretic ceases to belong to the Catholic Church and loses his office and authority. This is not a matter of "judging the pope," it is a recognition of fact. Popes and general councils don't create new doctrines; they merely clarify existing teaching. . . .

The question of a heretical pope was raised by one of the cardinals at the Vatican Council of 1870:

Christ established His Church upon the rock of Peter and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. St. Ambrose tells us that faith is the foundation of the Church; because of the faith, and the person of Peter, the Church will always be preserved from error.

To guarantee the lifeline of truth, Our Lord gave the attribute of infallibility to His Vicar on earth. If it were possible at any time for the pope using his supreme apostolic authority to teach error on matters of faith and morals to the universal Church, it would affect the entire Church, thereby giving the gates of Hell power to prevail over Her.

If the Vicar of Christ on earth could lead the Church astray, the devil himself would have prevailed over the immaculate Bride of Christ, the Church. this is an impossibility because we have Christ's guarantee that His Church, the Catholic Church, will last until the end of time, unvanquished by the lies and deceits of Satan. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, can neither deceive nor be deceived. He will protect His Church from false doctrine until the end of time.

The attribute of infallibility was given to the pope so that the revealed doctrines and teachings of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. Any pope who changes such teachings held for almost 2,000 years is a heretic and ceases to belong to the Catholic Church. A heretic is not a Catholic and therefore cannot be head of the Church.

Our study of 20 General Councils of the Catholic Church (325 AD--1870) concludes with Vatican I. During the same period, there were also 20 false councils. Some were convoked by antipopes and many taught heresy. On which side would you place Vatican II?

St. Vincent of Lerins asserted: "Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic." (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, pp.236-238; 251-253; 274-275; 276; 278-279.)

Anti-sedevacantist authors assert that Pope John XXII (Jacques D'Euse) was a "heretical pope" because he taught the only souls in Heaven who could see the Beatific Vision were those who had bodies. Theologians beseeched him to correct his error on this matter, which had not yet been defined solemnly by the authority of the Catholic Church. Pope John XXII did recant his error before he died. It is important to emphasize, however, that the matter had not been declared by the authority of the Church. Pope John XXII was not, as Cardinal Manning pointed out at the [First] Vatican Council, a "heretical pope."


© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.

Story Time in Econe

by Thomas A. Droleskey