Athanasius Contra Mundum

The Immaculate Conception part I

2009-12-08T10:52:00.000-08:00

Today is the feast of the Immaculate Conception, which was elevated by Bl. Pius IX from a doctrine to a dogma of the faith by his ex cathedra statement Ineffabilis Deus. There is however even today, confusion about what this doctrine means and its history. I will attempt a series of posts on this dogma, as my time allows.

In the first place, many non-Catholics and uneducated Catholics when they hear Immaculate Conception think of the conception and birth of our Blessed Saviour, but that doctrine is called the Incarnation. The Immaculate conception refers to Mary, and can be defined as: Mary's passive conception in which she was granted the singular privilege by Almighty God through the merits of Jesus Christ, to be preserved from all stain of original sin.

Often Protestants will say, how is it that the Mary could be free from original sin? Doesn't that mean she will not need a divine redeemer?
The first point is that the redemption won for us by Jesus on the cross is an a-temporal event, the grace flowing from that redemption flows in time to us today, and to the old testament patriarchs before Christ. Because God can apply the merits of the cross at any point in time, it is easily possible for him to apply the merits of Christ's redemption to Mary in her moment of conception. Thus Mary is not released from the need of a Saviour, but that redemption is accomplished for her in a different manner, by a singular grace from God. This is described in technical theology this way, every member of the human race incurs the debitum contrahendi, and there is a twofold debitum to be distinguished in this:

debitum remotum by which signifies simply that one is a member of the human race and

debitum proximum which involves the inclusion in the willful act by which Adam, as the representative of the whole human race, rejected the grace of God and implicated human nature in sin.

If Mary were exempt from the debitum contrahendi the Immaculate Conception could not properly be described to be an effect of the atonement, and thus Mary while subject to the debitum remotum, was never at any time subject to the debitum proximum. What this essentially means is that as a member of the human race, Mary is subject in a remote sense to the consequences of original sin, but she is not stained in any manner of her being by original sin, thus the Immaculate Conception is a miracle and a singular gift given to her, not to St. John the Baptist nor to St. Joseph.

Scripture

Another objection to this dogma is that it is not mentioned in scripture. Neither of course is the Trinity, but it is affirmed implicitly by the statements of our Saviour and the baptismal formula He provides. Likewise the Immaculate conception is affirmed implicitly in the New Testament.

Luke I:28 says in the Greek:

Χαίρε κεχαριτωμένη ο Κύριος μετα σου

(I apologize to experienced Hellenists, I do not have a greek font that allows me to accurately accent the text). The Greek here provides us with the obvious effects of the Immaculate Conception, Mary's complete holiness."χαριτόω" in a strict sense means to show favor, or give grace. Thus modern biblical translators falsely take this word in only a strict sense to retract the sense of the angelic salutation to "Highly favored one", which ignores the word μένη which means to abide. The term properly translated means hail [you] perfected in grace, or in whom grace itself is abiding. Thus the Vulgate renders it "Gratia plena", full of grace. What does "full" of grace mean? It would mean there is no room left for more, or else full to capacity with something. Thus the one full of grace possesses the fullness of sanctifying grace possible. This is the doctrine of Mary's plenetudo gratiae, one of her positive prerogatives which is an effect of her Immaculate Conception and a necessary predisposition for her divine motherhood.

Bl. Pius IX cites this as one of the main scriptural texts in declaring this doctrine a solemn dogma of the faith:

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." (Ineffabilis Deus)

Mary would have lacked the fullness of grace, if for but one moment she had been tainted by original sin.

Another scriptural argument is from the old testament, namely what the Fathers call the protoevangelium, in Genesis III:14, where God declares: "I shall place enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed, she shall crush your head and you shall lie in wait for her heel."

This brings an interesting interpretation. The Hebrew and the Greek use the masculine "he shall crush your head", while the Vulgate uses the word ipsa, "she" will crush. (NB this is another reason to avoid the abominable new Vulgate put out by JPII, which uses "ipsum", "it" will crush your head, which is grammatically nonsensical) However this does not present any problems for us either way if it is understood correctly. The fathers teach that the "crusher" is certainly Jesus Christ the son of God, but He must come through a woman, and the enmity between the woman and her seed is in contradistinction to satan and his seed (sinners). The enmity will prove fatal to the latter and his seed. If Mary had at any one point been tainted by original sin, she could not stand with her seed triumphantly, because she would rather be part of the serpent's seed. Thus Christ crushing the serpent's head through Mary can be understood correctly as the root of the Vulgate's ipsa.

Next time we will consider the historical unfolding of this dogma, as well as certain other effects.

The Immaculate Conception part II

2009-12-09T16:20:00.000-08:00

Historical unfolding of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

There is a lot of confusion amongst Catholics about the historical unfolding of this doctrine. Some people think Bl. Pius IX came out with it out of the blue, as if it had never been taught before. Some act as though it was denied by the Church and that she later changed her mind, and some act as though St. Thomas explicitly denied it, both those who understand it was not formally defined and those who do not and think he fell into heresy, while other suggest he affirmed it, and some think that everyone opposed it until Bl. Duns Scotus changed their minds.

There are however two periods of this doctrine's development, one is for the whole Church until the High Middle Ages, roughly nine hundred years when it was believed, and the second from that period until Bl. Pius IX's 1854 solemn declaration which could be described as a period of clarification.

Firstly there is the testimony of the tradition. From roughly 150-1100 the Eastern Church universally confessed this dogma, while in the west it is not attested to as much, but also not denied.

The teaching is found in the traditional dichotomy the fathers set up between Mary and Eve, through Eve sin entered the world, through Mary, life. If Mary were not parallel with Eve, this could scarcely occur.

St. Justin Martyr

"The First-born of the Father before all creatures became a man through the Virgin, that by what way the disobedience arising from the serpent had its beginning, by that way also it might have its undoing. For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings answered: 'Let it be done unto me according to thy word." (Dialogue with Trypho)

St. Hippolytus

"The ark which was made of indestructible timber, was the Redeemer Himself. The ark symbolized His tent, which was impervious to decay and engendered no sinful corruption. The Lord was sinless, because, according to His humanity, He was fashioned from indestructible wood, out of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost, lined within and without with the purest gold of the Logos." (Migne P. G. X 863)

Dionysius the Great of Alexandria

"Christ did not live in a servile tent, but in His holy ark and He preserved His mother as one who was blessed from head to food, undefiled even as He alone knew the manner of her conception and birth." (Ep. Adv. Paul Samosata)

Tertullian

"For into Eve, as yet a virgin, had crept the word which was the framer of death. Equally into a virgin was to be introduced the Word of God, which was the builder-up of life; that what by that sex had gone into perdition might by the same sex be brought back to salvation. Eve had believed the Serpent, Mary believed Gabriel; what Eve sinned by faith, Mary atoned by faith." (De Carne Christi, 17)

St. Ephrem the Syriac

"Those two innocent, those two simple women, Mary and Eve, had been indeed created quite equal, but afterwards one became the cause of our death, the other of our life." (Opera Omnia Eph Syr, II, 327)

"Thou and Thy mother are the only ones that are perfectly beautiful in every respect; for there is no spot in Thee, O Lord nor any taint in Thy mother." (Ibid)

Theodotus of Ancrya

"Instead of the virgin Eve, who was unto us the instrument of death, God for the purpose of giving life, chose a virgin most pleasing to Himself and full of grace, who included in woman's sex, was free from woman's sin, a virgin innocent, without taint, holy in soul and body, as a lily budding in the midst of thorns, unlearned in the evils of Eve... who was a daughter of Adam, but unlike him." (Hom. in S. Deiparam, VI, n. 11)

St. Augustine:

"Of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for the honor of Christ, when we treat of sin, I do not wish that she should be involved. For we know that a greater grace was accorded her wholly to conquer sin, by the very fact that she merited to conceive and bear Him of whom we certainly know that He had no sin." (Contra Iulian V, 15)

St. John Damasus

Hail thou the only blessed one among women, who has repaired the fall of our first mother Eve... Hail thou who art truly full of grace, because thou art holier than the angels and more excellent than the archangels... Hail thou full of grace because thou art more beautiful than the Cherubium and more exalted than the Seraphim... Hail full of grace, because thou are higher than heaven and purer than the sun which we behold." (Hom. in Annunt. BMV II)

Apart from the ancient witness, the Immaculate Conception is part of the pious tradition in the West, and may have been in the East until the late middle ages.

St. Andrew of Crete, wrote a hymn for use in the liturgy titled "Die nona Decembris Conceptio Sanctae ac Dei Aviae Annae".

In Ireland, the feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated as early as the 8th century, and may have been celebrated earlier there. In Naples and Sicily, with large Eastern rite communities (as it was under the Eastern Empire until the Normans) celebrated it in about 840 (Prohle-Preuss, Mariology, pg. 55) It was also celebrated in England for a time.

The controversy erupts first with St. Bernard, who opposed the canons of Lyons celebrating the feast of the Immaculate Conception. He declared:

Sed non valuit ante sancta esse quam esse, siquidem non erat, antequam conciperetur. An forte inter amplexus maritales sanctitatis se ipsi conceptui immiscuit, ut simul et sanctificata fuerit et concepta... Sed id hactenus inauditum." (Ep. ad Canonicos Lugd. Migne P. L. CLXXXII, 333)

However she could not be holy before she existed, for she did not exist before she was conceived. Or did material sanctity perhaps intermix with her conception, in order that she might be sanctified and conceived at one and the same time? But this is something as yet unheard of."

The principle problem is that St. Bernard could not comprehend Mary's being cleansed at the instant of her conception. In ignoring this possibility, he missed the real issue at the heart of the doctrine as did many other medievals following him. The reason is they had not yet worked out how Mary could be redeemed, as all needed a redeemer, yet have been free from the taint of original sin which is what our Redeemer came to cleanse from our souls. Others however, such as Friar Nicholas of St. Alban's protested Bernard's letter, and the Pious tradition was largely unaffected by the controversy, which was restricted to the schools and later the universities. St. Anselm and St. Thomas both however, worked out all the principles later found in Bl. Pius IX's declaration, particularly the distinction between the debitum remotum and the debitum proximum, later to be given those names by Suarez (unless I'm mistaken, but I believe he is the first to characterize the distinction under those terms).

"His (Thomas') great difficulty appears to have arisen on the question how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he has raised in not fewer than ten passages of his writings. But whilst St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, it is most worthy to be remarked that he himsel laid down the principles which after they had been drawn together, and worked out through a longer course of thought, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of his difficulty from his own premises." (Ullathorne, the Immaculate Conception pg. 137)

St. Thomas wrote:

"But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. XVII:6 "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently on the other hand the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (II Cor. VI:15) 'What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is divine Wisdom, dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wisd. I:4) 'Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."
We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial, so that what is written is fulfilled: Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee." (Cant. IV:7). (Summa Th. secunda secundae, q 81, a 3)

Thus the principles are almost all admitted, but in the end he sided with the opinion of his day.

St. Bonaventure also declared for his opinion against the Immaculate Conception, although he stated clearly the reasons for it, thought it open, and likely set Scotus on the correct path (Alastruey, the Blessed Virgin, pg. 96). He makes the distinction between the ensoulment and the bodily corruption, and also the atemporal power of the Cross which are key in the doctrinal definition.

It was Scotus int he 14th century who put together the Thomistic teachings (in spite of his opposition to the teachings of some later Thomists) and provided the thinking which shaped the debate until the Church taught in favor of the Immaculate conception.

"Perfectissimus mediator habet perfectissimum actum mediandi respectu alicuius personae, pro qua mediat. Sed Christus est perfectissimus mediator, sed respectu nullius personae habuit excellentiorem gradum quam respectu Mariae. Sed hoc non esset nisi meruisset eam praeservari a peccato originali." (Comment. in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, III dist. 3, qu. 1 n 4)

"The most perfect mediator must have a most perfect act of mediation with respect to some person on whose behalf he mediates. Now Christ is a most perfect mediator, yet in this respect He had no more exalted relation to any person than to Mary. This however could not be, had he not merited for her preservation from original sin."

and again he argues:

Alii post casum erecti sunt, virgo Maria quasi in ipso casu sustenta est, ne rueret sicut exemplum ponitur de duobus cadentibus in luto. (ibid, qu. I, no 15)

"Others, have been raised up for this reason [after they had fallen], but the Virgin Mary was, as it were, sustained in the very act of falling, and prevented from falling, like the two men who were about to tumble into a pit."

This concept is what we call "pre-redemption" (praeredemptio), and it is the theology on which the doctrine is predicated, and I noted in the previous post, that Mary still needed a redeemer. Her redemption, by a singular grace from God, was achieved at the moment of her conception. Yet for Scotus' correct annunciation of the dogma and his putting the question on the map, he erred with respect to whether Mary was free from the debitum remotum, teaching that she was. This would however make the doctrine untenable since there is no sense in which she could be redeemed, since the debitum remotum in a broad sense means simply being a child of Adam.

Scotus invented nothing new, he did not create a doctrine out of nothing. He placed the question within the context of the distinctions around which the doctrine is actually at issue, and put together the thought of the tradition marvelously to harmonize the doctrine.

For the period following Scotus the question continued to be debated in schools. The doctrine finally gained magisterial recognition when Sixtus IV, decreed in 1476 that all who recite the office or hear the Mass of the Immaculate Conception should gain indulgences. St. Pius V made the Immaculate conception a holy day of obligation, and the Council of Trent prior taught it as a doctrine. While some continued to demur (mostly Dominicans holding to St. Thomas), the question was settled finally on two fronts: one by Pope Alexander VII declaring that all those who taught against the Immaculate Conception would be placed on the index (decree Solicitudo 8 December 1661) and lastly by Bl. Pius IX's solemn ex cathedra statement on 8 December 1854.

Thus ends the interesting history on the development of the Church's holy doctrine with respect to our Lady's Immaculate conception. There is much more, and many more names to place, but in the short of things it expresses the problem. It is also important to remember, that while the schools debated the issue vigorously, the feast of the Immaculate Conception spread rapidly to many dioceses, and even to Rome in the 14th century. The pious tradition, coming from the Fathers, held true while the doctrine was being worked out theologically. It was not like today when a priest has some private theory of interpretation with respect to the tradition or theology, and then comes out to confuse his congregation, such as we see with novel theories about Judas' possible redemption (which exorcists who have cast Judas out of possessed individuals could tell you is false), or whether there was really a miracle with respect to loaves and fishes or if our Lord taught everyone to share, both of which are bafoonish.

In the last installment, we will consider what this means effectively of our Lady in terms of her nature, and her virtues.

Social Modernism

2009-12-04T06:53:00.000-08:00

I should never be surprised, but often am, when I see people who are supposed to be intelligent saying things completely unintelligible and irrational.

Recently, I viewed a video of George Weigel, biographer of the late Holy Father, speaking on EWTN in tribute to the late Father Neuhaus, someone of like mind. In it, he completely denied a doctrine of the Church, namely that Christ is not merely the king of individuals, but king of all nations.

But such things are par for the course for Weigel, who in spite of his celebrity status amongst neo-conservatives is little more than a liberal hack, who has not recovered since the death of the late Holy Father. Weigel of course was an insider under John Paul II, and was frequently in the Vatican, but since the election of Pope Benedict has been out of favor, which we see in the misrepresentations and falsities he attempts to project on the current ecclesial climate. We'll return to that later, but for now, I should like to take note of Wiegel's social modernism:

Now, watch it again, and compare what Weigel has said to what two Popes have formally defined as Catholic teaching:

Leo XIII:

As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -- it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. (Immortale Dei, no 6)

Pius XI:

Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. "For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?" If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. "With God and Jesus Christ," we said, "excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation." (Quas Primas, no 18)

Yet Weigel would have you believe that this teaching is contrary to the Church's teaching, and then quotes Vatican II.

But before dealing with that, Weigel gives a fundamentally dishonest answer, which is fundamentally irrational and at odds with the whole Catholic tradition with respect to the role of government. Joseph Bottum, the other commentator, attempts the foolhardy argument that America is not Catholic, therefore a Catholic doctrine binding the nation would be bad, something that Pius XI explicitly rejected. It comes from a relativist (which is the same as modernist) outlook, that Christ can only be king of Catholic nations. No nation can be healthy, Pius XI teaches, unless it has Jesus Christ as its king. The particular fallacy of the two commentators is the claim that we are not required to work for the kingship of Christ because of the whole movement of the Church "towards" democracy since Leo XIII. Firstly it is fallacious to suggest the Church moved "toward" democracy. Every Traditional Pope has affirmed whatever government the state chooses to use in order to govern is its own business so long as it is just. Traditionally of course, the Church preferred monarchy, as in the old altar and throne arrangement which worked a lot better than modern secularism whatever its failings. Nevertheless, just because a state is run democratically does not mean that it can not acknowledge Christ as its king. It is a complete non-sequitur. But its okay, its not what Richard would have wanted!

Secondly, it is in no ways a contradiction for a constitutional amendment declaring Christ the King to pass and be enacted in a country that tried to get away from kings, because we are not talking about a merely temporal king with human failings. It was the human failings of George III and the British monarchy that caused the American Revolution. At first, Washington et al appealed to medieval traditions going back to Magna Charta to appeal to a limited government. They only broke away when it was clear this could not be obtained. Thus this claim that "America was founded in contradistinction to monarchy" has absolutely nothing to do with proclaiming Christ as its king, since this entails no alteration to America's democratic traditions. But that doesn't matter, its not what Richard would have wanted!

Thirdly however, and this reveals what a complete liberal hack Weigel is, (and when I say liberal, I mean in its classical sense, not in the sense of its current use to refer to neo-fascists) he makes the claim that government is "incompetent to declare what the true religion is."

This argument has already been rejected by magisterium, but moreover, Weigel really shows us that he is either ignorant or else dishonest when he tries to claim that this is what Vatican II taught. In the first place, such a statement is found nowhere in Vatican II or in Dignitatis Humanae, the Vatican II document addressing religious liberty. The argument that the state is incompetent to declare a true religion originates with Fr. John Courtney Murray, but when he presented this argument to the council fathers who were drafting the document, it was rejected. This is something little known and not often talked about, but it is clear in the acta. Liberals and some conservatives like to show that Fr. Murray more or less ran the debate on this document and that everyone was impressed with his arguments and followed his teaching. Nothing could be further from the truth. Though some of his ideas make it into the document, the idea that Vatican II taught that the state can not determine the true religion is completely false, and demonstrates that if nothing else, Weigel is completely ignorant not only of the Council but of Catholic social teaching in general.

Dignitatis Humanae teaches:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. (DH no. 1)

Now this is not to say that I think everything in Dignitatis Humanae is great, I don't, it is a flawed document with respect to the Church's tradition, and it is something the magisterium needs to address. However, it in no ways says that the state cannot confess the true religion, but rather reinforces Pius XI's clear teaching that it must. It clearly distinguishes its aims in addressing this matter, namely that everyone is free from coercion, something taught by the Church from time immemorial. Moreover if a constitutional amendment were brought forth which would declare Christ king of this nation, it would by no means disenfranchise non-Catholics from the life of the state, nor force all to be Catholic, which some maintain and Weigel implies in his response. On the contrary, all it means is that the government of this nation acknowledges Christ as its king and will abide by the public morality of His Church in the public administration of the common good. For when we boil law down, all law means is the right of the one who has proper authority over the common good, to lay down laws for the ends of the common good. Since God is the public authority Who has jurisdiction over all creation, it follows by necessity in that He is the king in a real sense of every nation and people, both in their individuality and in their government, which is nothing more than a society of rulers, elected or no, who administer the common good.
Dignitatis Humanae, for all of its other faults, sees no contradiction in a society where Christ is king and where the state does not engage in coercion, as it clearly states that it upholds the traditional doctrine yet teaches against coercion, also with the tradition. But not with Richard (Father Neuhaus that is).

Then Weigel, not satisfied with his non answers, must defend with yet one more asinine statement, which has its origin in Murray, that the state is not competent to declare the state religion a) because it can't repair a pothole and b) because if it could declare Christ king today, it could declare Muhammad king tomorrow, or Oprah queen.
I perhaps insult those whose positions could be described as asinine by describing Weigel's position as such. But sadly few stronger words exist that I could use. The fact is there was a time when government could fix a pothole, namely when it was not clogged up with useless bureaucracy or beholden to large corporations. It is not inherently true that government can not fix a pothole. This argument from Weigel is an attempt to grasp at something entertaining to obfuscate the stupidity of his argument. The fact that someone could make a wrong choice neither invalidates the right choice, or the use of power to make the choice. The fact that I could commit adultery does not mean I am not competent to marry. The fact that my town council could levy taxes to send its members to the Bahamas scarcely invalidates their authority to raise taxes to fix the roads [sic], the fact that government could enter into an unjust war tomorrow doesn't invalidate their right to enter a just one, etc. Likewise in the first instance, the failings of our particular government scarcely affect their obligations towards the common good to maintain a healthy society (as Pius XI AND Vatican II maintain). You might as well have no government, since under such absurd reasoning, government will always fail because it could fail. Just because the government could grant fictitious rights to a false religion, or to man, does not negate the rights of Jesus Christ over every society, as the divine and public authority. After all, what is government but a collection of individuals? How could a collection of individuals be exempt from the same morals, justice and obligations that they are required to have individually?

But this is par for the course with someone such as Weigel, who not only routinely misreads papal documents, but projects his own particular views onto the public actions of the Church. Take his reaction to Pope Benedict's encyclical Caritas in Veritate, that half of it is the Pope's wisdom (the parts he likes) and half is a draft of the council for Justice and Peace (which he doesn't like). This thesis, when under critical examination, can be seen obviously to be false (see here and here). Thus again, Weigel is shown to be completely ignorant if he is not disingenuous.

There are many other issues to address, particularly Weigel's complete support of Free Market Capitalism, which the Church has condemned since Leo XIII. One could almost put the name of Weigel into the mouth of Pius XI, who condemned people claiming to be faithful to Catholic social teaching, yet deny it with the same breath:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism. (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, nos 60-61)

Thus Pius XI is placing very clearly those social teachings which involve Catholic morality on the same level as the Church's dogmatic teaching which all Catholics must give assent, and comparing those who reject it to those who reject dogmatic teaching. He calls the social teaching of his predecessors "Solemn pronouncements", part of the Church's Universal Ordinary Magisterium. This is because the philosophical principles are exactly the same. Modernism functions by the principle of Immanence, as Cardinal Billot teaches, evincing the principles from St. Pius X's great encyclical Pascendi. Immanence is the principle that truth begins in the individual, and it inverses the proper order of knowledge. Since truth is determined by the individual, he reinterprets all doctrine according to his belief and opinion. This is why St. Pius X called it the synthesis of all heresies, because that is the effect. Sadly, modernism has so triumphed that it is the default position of our culture, not only American but European as well (in fact it started with them). It is the default position which Catholics, not unlike Weigel, fall into. It is also the position that traditionalists often fall into, believing that the tradition binds the magisterium (which is true) but then thinking it doesn't bind them to fast on ember days or follow the Church's traditional practice.

Nevertheless, Weigel's complete rejection of the core teaching of Pius XI's pontificate and of something long held in the Church's teaching and practice is endemic of the modernism that pervades our culture. Does he think he is faithful to Church teaching? I sure hope so, but the fact evinced from his own words, is that he is not by any stretch, but rather, faithful to an American brand of Catholicism that allows you to sacrifice at two altars rather than one. Our Lord reminds us however, that one can never serve two masters for he must love one and despise the other. Who does Weigel despise?

Returnavi sicut McArthurus

2009-12-02T09:17:00.000-08:00

I have returned, but not quite like McArthur.
Nevertheless, after my lowest posting month in history, I plan on getting back to full vigor very soon.

What is amusing is that while the computer was broken down my microwave broke and my car broke down. Probably a demon of destruction. Although with the microwave it did me a favor, I hate them and now it takes away excuses for my wife to forget to take out a roast the night prior. :D As for everything else it looks like things are getting back to normal.

What is Western Civilization?

2009-12-01T18:58:00.000-08:00

I still have no idea what the status is with Athanasius' computer - I have seen him lurking around Facebook the past few days so I know he must have some access, but apparently his home computer is still down. Let us pray for his speedy return!

I figured I'd better man up and post something on here to keep the show going, but inasmuch as I didn't really have time I thought it'd be easier to just link to something on my blog.

I noticed recently that traditional Catholics and political conservatives both like to talk about "Western culture" and "Western civilization" as our cultural heritage and, as such, something that ought to be defended and preserved. However, a quick breeze through some conservative publications and books by various authors reveals that they mean something radically different from traditional Catholics when they use this term "Western civilization." Please click here to check out the post I did over on Unam Sanctam about this issue and let me know your thoughts on the matter.

Computer Woes

2009-11-23T15:21:00.000-08:00

In case you are wondering why there has not been a post in almost two weeks, I am here to inform you that our beloved Athanasius has been having some serious computer woes - I believe of a viral nature. He should be back soon and I know he has several posts working. Check back every couple of days in the meantime. Blessings.

Liturgical minimalism hurts the poor

2009-08-18T18:11:00.000-07:00

Too often, when every other attack by liturgical progressives has been exhausted, we get the absurd old argument trotted out that reverent celebrations of the liturgy are too triumphalist and unconcerned about the poor. This is a technique they pick up from the political left - that of attempting to establish a monopoly on care of the poor. Of course, everybody who is a true Christian cares about the poor. But if you do not care about the poor in the manner they think best, then you are accused of not being sensitive to the plight of the needy.

I didn't think this debate about who really cares about the poor could come into the discussion of the sacred liturgy, but it has been brought up by progressives who think that Masses that are reverent are too "vertical" and thus not concerned enough with human-to-human relations, especially the scourge of poverty. There is very often a false dichotomy brought up between good liturgy and service to the poor - missionary priests preaching on behalf of the poor are often the worst abusers, and as mentioned above, those who care about reverence are accused of being cold to the poor. What can be said about this accusation?

I think we could not only answer this accusation but really flip it on its head: it is actually liturgical minimalism that injures the poor. In a 2004 conference at the Augustinianum in Rome, Cardinal Cottier stated that beauty was an important means of evangelization and hence not something merely aesthetic or "showy" that could be discarded without consequence:

"In order to fulfill the New Evangelization, we have two extraordinary means: beauty and novelty. The beauty of Christian heritage, which is constantly being rediscovered through all of Europe, and the always effacacious novelty of the Grace of the Holy Spirit" (29 Jan, 2004).

I would have chosen a better word than "novelty" to describe the movements of the Holy Spirit, but I get his point. At any rate, he says that it is the "beauty of the Christian heritage" which is leading to a rediscovery of the faith throughout Europe. To understand the argument for liturgical excellence, we have to see beauty as essential to the liturgy rather than extrinsic. This is not hard once we have established the liturgy as being principally about God.

Those who accuse traditionalists of being unconcerned with the poor seem to maintain two contradictory positions: on the one hand, they castigate the traditional liturgy for being too God centered. But then when they accuse a reverent liturgy of being unconcerned with the poor, it is like they are assuming that we are the ones for whom all of this is being done! In an excellent letter sent out by the priests of the Miles Christi order this month, Fr. Patrick Wainwright made an excellent argument along these lines:

"Why do we always want to insult the care, attention, and primacy given to God in the liturgy, attention truly set apart due to the detail of the gestures and the beauty of the sacred vessels and vestments? The priests are not the ones being enriched by using them, but rather it is God, to whom we tribute respect, who is visibly and publicly honored" (bold in original)

The excellence demanded of a reverent liturgy is not for the benefit of the priests, or for us (well, indirectly it is insofar as we are able to better participate in the liturgy). It is about worshipping God, and part of worshipping God should be coming into contact with mystery and transcendence, which human kind approaches through beauty. Thus, to deprive the liturgy of beauty is to deprive men of one the most common and universal means of approaching God.

Here's another great quote from Loïc Merian, president of the CIEL (the Centre International d'Etudes Liturgiques) on how this minimalism actually hurts the poor:

"When the Pope no longer appears elevated in the portable Throne, when Bishops are no longer clothed with rich adornments, when the Mass is celebrated in the language of the people, when Gregorian chant is consigned to the old-recording museum, and things of that sort, they have determined that the Church will there be the Church of the poor. That means, when the poor were deprived of the only beauty which they can freely access, which is known to be accessible to them, which is known to be friendly to them without losing any of its transcendence - as is liturgical beauty. When the ceremonies of the Church are debased, trivialized, and no longer evoke the glory of the Heavens, when those liturgies do not transport them to a loftier world, when they no longer lift them beyond themselves, when, to sum up, the Church has nothing but bread to offer them - and Jesus said that man does not live on bread alone. Who has told the poor that they have nothing to do with beauty? Who has told them that respect for the poor does not require offering to them a religion of beauty, in the same way that true religion is offered to them? Why are some so insolent to the poor denying them the sense of the sacred?...Is it the poor who cried out due to the waste when Mary Magdalen poured the oil of spikenard on the head of Jesus, even breaking the flask so that no perfume be saved?...What will the poor gain from all of this? Oh, they will lose everything!" (La Nef, May 2004)

When we minimize our liturgies in hopes of making them more accesible to the poor, we actually rob the poor of the one free access to beauty that they have available to them, and thus shut off another door by which the poor can come in contact with the divine mystery. Liturgically minimalist Masses do no good for anybody, neither the well-to-do, for whom it just reinforces them in their complacency, or the poor, for whose sake these are ostensibly carried out.

Stupak Amendment: A $2 Ticket

2009-11-10T12:17:00.000-08:00

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), author of the amendment to the House health care bill that prohibited funding for policies that cover abortion.

We are only one more step away from Obamacare in this country following Saturday's passage of the House version of the health care bill (by a narrow margin - 220 to 215 - hardly a mandate). Shortly before the passage of the bill, an amendment authored by Michigan pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak was tagged on that prohibits federal funds from paying for any policies that cover abortions. Following the successful passage of this amendment, the bill was voted on and, as we know, passed.

I am not surprised that our House passed this 1,990 page monstrosity. What I am appalled at, however, is the way that many mainstream Catholics have rolled over and lauded this bill as a pro-life "victory" because of the addition of the Stupak Amendment. Two examples: I spoke with a Catholic gentleman the other day who said, "Since abortion isn't an issue anymore I am pretty excited about this bill. A lot of people need coverage and I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next." Another Catholic I spoke to, who works in DC, claimed that the passage of the bill with the amendment was a huge pro-life victory, that we should all be proud, and that he "didn't want to associate with any party or organization that couldn't value the obvious pro-life victory." I don't know to what degree these opinions represent the mainstream, but they are very troubling to me personally. I think the best quote on the Stupak Amendment, and the one that most reflects the truth of the situation, came from a friend of mine. When I described how the health care bill had passed, but with this pro-life measure tacked on, he said, "That's kind of like buying a $10 lottery ticket and winning $2." That's exactly what this amendment represents: a meager gain in the face of an overwhelming loss.

Perhaps it was different for other Catholics, but I was never opposed to the health care bill just because of the abortion issue. Of course I am against abortion and of course that factored into my opposition. But that was never the totality of my opposition, nor would I even say it was the locus of my opposition. The tremendous cost, the abuse of power, the rationing of care, the death panels, the philosophical problems with government setting itself up to get into the health care business, health care for illegal aliens, the bureaucratic complexity, the increased taxes, the decreased quality of care...all of these things factor into my opposition to Obamacare. The simple fact that abortion has been knocked out of this list does not make the bill any more palatable to me, and I was quite shocked at the amount of Catholics (and more than just the few I spoke to) are enthused about this bill now that the moral issue of abortion is out of the way.

First point: abortion is not taken care of definitively. The Senate still needs to pass their version, and then it will go to committee. I am positive this Stupak Amendment will get scrubbed from the final version. The director of Planned Parenthood, when told about the anti-abortion amendment, was not at all put out. She simply said, "I'm not worried; I trust Nancy Pelosi." Do you really think a President and a government as liberal and insane as the one we now have will settle for socialized medicine without abortion? Will their liberal base go along with this? You better believe that the final bill will not have these prohibitions. If Obama wants socialized health care to pass, he will have to get rid of this amendment. A group of democrats sent a letter to Pelosi following the vote, in which they stated :

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law (source).

Obama has staked his entire political career on Obamacare- will he see it fall apart over this amendment? It'll be gone in the final version.

Second point: My wife made the observation that this Stupak Amendment was really not a victory at all - it was merely "defending the castle" as she said. We stopped something worse from happening but didn't make any positive gain. I suppose that could be considered some sort of victory in a certain sense, but really we are worse off now: we got the Amendment, but the bill as a whole still passed. We are much closer to nationalized medicine than we were a week ago. Again, the lottery ticket analogy comes to mind. "I lost $8, but at least I won $2!" If this is a victory, it is a Pyrrhic one at best.

Also, what is the strategy here? What is the objective? The objective is to kill nationalized health care. That, in my opinion, is what we should view as the end of all this. The objective was not to make socialized healthcare more palatable by putting pro-life provisions into it. We want (or I least I want) this bill killed dead in its entirety, whole and complete with all its parts. How does it aid the defeat of the socialized health care agenda if we suddenly act like the important work is done now that the Stupak Amendment is tacked on? The one man I mentioned above was positively excited about the prospect of Obamacare now that abortion is taken out of the equation. Since the amendment has been added, it's back to business as usual for the pro-life movement, and back to sleep for many mainstream Catholics who are washing their hands over this monstrous bill now that this pro-life amendment is there to soothe their consciences.

This reflects (in my opinion) a certain narrowness in the pro-life movement's focus. They protest and pray and get active when some life issue is up for grabs, but back off and let us get rolled over if there is not an immediate abortion connection. The pro-life movement, as it now exists, would happily agree to oppressive taxes and even the confiscation of our guns if they could get some minor anti-abortion statute attached to a bill. I know they are an issue-driven movement that could argue that it's not their job to get involved in these other issues; but for heaven's sake, how can they roll over so easily on an issue so critical?

Socialized health care is not a positive good, and we should not see this furthering of this horrid bill as some kind of backhanded pro-life victory. Do you really think that if Obama gets his way there will be less abortions? Think about it. I, for one, will never ever support this bill or anything like it. There are many valid ways to approach health care; this I do not deny. And it is true that we need reform in health care. But I deny that a nightmarish socialist agenda put forward by the most radical President ever to hold the office suddenly becomes not so bad just because abortion is out of the picture. Even if this amendment became a permanent feature of the final bill, do you not think a vast number of immoral actions will still occur? Think about the fate of seniors under Obamacare...

In conclusion, this pro-life "victory" reminds me of this poem "Smart" by Shel Silverstein:

My father gave me one dollar bill
Because I’m his smartest son,
And I swapped it for two shiny quarters
Because two is more than one!

And then I took the quarters
And traded them to Lou
For three dimes -I guess he doesn’t know
That three is more than two!

Just then, along came old blind Bates
And just because he can’t see
He gave me four nickels for my three dimes,
And four is more than three!

And I took the nickels to Hiram
Down at the seed-feed store,
And the fool gave me five pennies for them,
And five is more than four!

And then I went and showed my dad,
And he got red in the cheeks
And closed his eyes and shook his head-
Too proud of me to speak!

Am I completely off, or does any of what I am saying strike a chord with here?

All Souls and recovering a culture of death

2009-11-02T04:54:00.000-08:00

I have written before of recovering a culture of death, and I clarified that I meant a culture of holy death. For today we live in a culture of death, but not of holy death, rather of attachments to those things of the world which can not save a man.

Thus the Church recalls our attention to death in the liturgy on several occasions. One such time is on Ash Wednesday when the priest places ashes on our heads declaring from Scripture "Memento homo, quia pulvis es, et ad pulveram reverteris." (Gen. III:19) Another manner is with the Daily Requiem Mass, which may be celebrated on a low class feast or a feria for the departed, and in which the priest wears black vestments, as it should be. Another occasion is the Requiem Mass for the dead, or the funeral Mass, which fixes our mind on prayers for the departed and also for our own death. Lastly, the Church gives us, right after the commemoration of all the Saints, the Mass of All Souls, or properly of the faithful departed.

It is a Mass in which the Church throughout the world prays for the faithful who have died in Christ. The merits of this Mass are not only applied to get them out of purgatory, but retroactively for their life on earth as well. It strengthens the Church's teaching for us that when we die, we take only three things with us, our virtues and vices, our habits, and our supernatural merit (or lack thereof). What the Church intends on this day is eminently clear not only from the requiem liturgy but also from the juxtaposition of All Saints on the preceding day. This is a day where we focus our prayers for the Church suffering (those in purgatory) who came before God either with venial sin, or some vices and inclinations in their appetites which had to be burned out of them. In offering our prayers for them we help them purify their habits and atone for their venial sins. We do not however help them gain more merit, since your level of supernatural merit, that is how much sanctifying grace we had in the soul at death, can not be increased except by God, in accord with us doing a supernatural act that merits us communing closer with Him. It is a personal acquisition for the soul, it cannot be communicated. Payment for sin however is vicarious, God will except your penance for another soul's crimes, this is what St. Paul was talking about when he spoke of making up "what is lacking" in the sufferings of Christ.

The day also reminds us that we too will die. Death is a reality check for man, who is afflicted by the effects of original sin, and by actual sin, it cuts man off from the goods of this life, so in remembering death, we can orient our affections toward their proper end. There is no escape. St. Bonaventure teaches, he that is attached to the world, can not rise up to meet Christ on the cross. Thus the Church dons black, at a high Requiem for the day she places a catafalque outside the sanctuary as she does at funerals, and sings the ancient requiem chants reminding us that life is short, death comes quickly, and that we must atone for our sins in this life or in the next. Yet merit is fixed at death, it is in this life alone that our level of supernatural merit can increase or decrease.

There is a false theology today, pedaled and flamed by modernism, that there is in fact no hell, and that all souls really go to heaven because, God is so loving he wouldn't condemn anyone to hell. Thus they dress up the liturgy with white vestments and alleluias, they cut out the Dies Irae and triumphantly declare that all souls have gone to heaven. This is problematic because, we pray as we believe. The modernists in altering the liturgical spirit of this day are attempting to change the theology of death altogether. This is not only dangerous because it is a heresy, but it leads souls into hell, it lessens prayers for souls in purgatory, it conditions us to treat sin as if it didn't matter, or was but a slight thing and encourages recidivism. It conditions us to love the world and think that whatever judgment is coming we will get off because God is loving.

Not a chance in.... you guessed it.

God is the judge, He owns creation because it belongs to Him, and He has rights to it, as well as justice for the infractions of His law. If a soul dies in mortal sin, it dies without supernatural merit, and thus when it appears before God it appears as a stinking, wretched stench which He does not want in His sight. That hell exists and souls go there, is a formal definition of the Catholic faith. Pope Benedict XII declared in his dogmatic constitution "Benedictus Deus":

"According to God's general ordinance, the souls of those who die in a personal grievous sin descend immediately into hell, where they will be tormented by the pains of hell." (Dz 531).

There are the numerous writings of saints, theologians, and and Our Lord's words themselves which prove the existence of hell.

"And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished." (Mark IX:42-43)

"The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt XIII:41-42)

St. John the Baptist:

"Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." (Matt III:12)

St. Paul:

"And to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels of his power: In a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (I Thessalonians I:8-9)

"For if we sin willfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people." (Hebrews X:26-31)

Even St. Francis of Assisi, the saint of brotherly love whom everyone adores Christian or no, declared in the canticle of Brother Sun:

"Praised be sister death, for no one can escape her grasp. Woe to those who die in mortal sin."

For a Catholic, there is simply no way to explain away hell. Nor should we wish to, rather, we should prepare to embrace death in this life by purifying ourselves of our attachments, our venial sins, our love of sins, our disordered appetites, and then, (only then) will we find ourselves able to ascend to Christ on the cross.

The False teaching of Sedevacantism, part I

2009-03-01T16:45:00.000-08:00

Having discussed the false principles of Sedevacantism (part I and II), we now move on to refuting the false teaching of Sedevacantists. The "False Principles" series, in my opinion, is sufficient in itself to demonstrate to any Catholic why they can not say the Pope has lost his office, even if the claims of sedevacantists are true as regards heresy. However it is not sufficient in itself without a refutation of their overall program.

In this first posting we will examine the claim that the Novus Ordo, that is the 1970 Missal promulgated by Paul VI, is "invalid". This is a key area of Sedevacantist teaching, and while not everyone who believes the new Mass is invalid is a sedevacantist, they ought to be since it follows logically. The Church cannot promulgate invalid sacraments, since it is contrary to one of the four marks of the Church, namely holiness. The means by which the Church sanctifies her people is by means of the sacraments, if they are invalid she cannot sanctify her people. If the New Mass is invalid that means that the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church, unless, it was not really the Church which promulgated the liturgy by a magisterium of impostors. Enter loss of Papal office.

Thus this line of argument is one of the most important for sedevacantists. Now there are several points of attack which they make:

1) The vernacular Novus Ordo is invalid because of the change of "for many" (pro mulits) to "for all" in most vernacular editions, and the moving of "Mysterium Fidei" invalidates it since St. Thomas taught that the Tridentine formula can't be changed.

This is an argument that has often been advanced and is probably the most common. I wonder what they will do when "for many" goes back in the Novus Ordo.

In any event some background is necessary on this.

The argument essentially has three points a) The words pro multis are used in the Vulgate, and in Greek (pollōn), b) "For all" appears heretical since it teaches universal salvation c) St. Thomas teaches the consecration words can't be changed. To answer this in detail we must deal with all three points.

a) The fact is that "many" and "all" linguistically can refer to similar concepts and similar things, and may sometimes be used interchangeably. The question is that of precision. The Roman Catechism teaches:

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. (Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 227, Tan)

It can't be denied that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was for all. This means that if we deny that it is a heresy. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that for all is complete. That is where the Catechism teaches further that many is more precise because it teaches about the elect. How do we know that the modern translations do not mean all the elect? We don't. Which is why to claim this is a heresy is a claim that can't be substantiated. That doesn't mean the change is imprudent or that it is sufficiently clear, because it isn't. Moreover everyone agrees that it must be changed. All conservatives agree that "for many" is more precise. Many [sic] priests agree "for many" is more precise. Even the Vatican agrees "for many" is more precise and has ordered the change in vernacular missals to "for many".

b) That doesn't mean it is a heresy, and moreover does not invalidate the Mass. The Roman Catechism clearly teaches that Christ did in fact die for all, thus it can not be a heresy which invalidates the consecration to use the words "for all", since it is not a manifest, obstinate denial of faith. As we noted, that does not mean it is the only or best formulation, it is not, as everyone admits.

c) Garrigou LaGrange, the greatest Thomist of the 20th century, opines in his treatise De Eucharistia, that:

"It is disputed also amongst Thomists, for in the body of the article, St. Thomas says indeed, rejecting the prior opinion, that the following words are of the substance of the form; but a little later he says, they pertain to the integrity (but integrity is distinguished from essence).[1] And in article 1 in the body and to the 4th he says simply: “These words ‘This is the chalice of my blood,” are the form of the sacrament.”

According to Billuart and many others, more probably, only the words, this is the chalice of my blood, or this is my blood, suffice for validity. It is proved in the first place from the Fathers especially St. Justin, Apolog. 2,[i] and Damascene bk. 4, Concerning the Orthodox Faith, c. 14,[ii] who say that the consecration is brought about in these words: this is my body and this is my blood. Likewise the author Concerning the Lords Supper in St. Cyprian, and Innocent III in bk. 4 de Missa, c. 6.

Secondly, it is proved from the liturgies of the Greeks. The Greeks preserve the essential form, for they validly consecrate, as all confess. But they do not mention the words: of the new and eternal testament, etc.

Thirdly, it is proved by theological reason: Those words alone are essential which signify the real presence of the blood of Christ. But the aforesaid words independently from those following signify this real presence, no less than “this is my body,” in dependently from the following, that is handed over for you. Therefore the last words of the consecration of the wine are not for it’s essence, but for it’s integrity. Gonet responds: this would suffice indeed for the Eucharist as sacrament but not as sacrifice, in which the pouring out of blood ought to be signified. But this does not seem certain, for from the very fact that the second consecration produces, by the power of the words the presence of the blood only, so that the body of Christ is not there save concomitantly, the sacramental pouring out of blood is already expressed, because the mass is sacramental and unbloody sacrifice.

Lastly, St. Thomas himself, in our question, a. 1 c. et ad 4 says, “if the priest would mention only the aforesaid words (this is my body and this is my blood, with the intention of confecting the sacrament, this sacrament would be accomplished.” Indeed, in our article 3, St. Thomas says “through the first words ‘this is the chalice of my blood’ the very conversion into blood is signified. But through the words following, the power of the blood poured out in the passion is designated.” Therefore through the last words the very conversion is not signified, which was already effected by the prior words which signify it. Moreover, as we have noted, a little while before, St. Thomas said: these words following pertain to the integrity of the form, and he generally distinguishes the integrity of a thing from its essence; e.g. the foot and hand pertain to the integrity of man, not to his essence. Therefore probably St. Thomas would not deny, especially if he would have considered the liturgies of the Greeks, the position which is now considered more probable. Nevertheless, he holds that the subsequent words are not merely accidental, but pertain to the integrity of the formula." (De Eucharistia, Q. 78, article 3) Is he a heretic too?

2) The claim that it teaches, both by its omissions and by its symbolism and gestures, heresies and errors concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

This argument simply doesn't hold. That doesn't mean the loss of the symbolism from the Traditional Missal is good, however the mere lack of clarity is insufficient to be heretical (obstinately denying faith and morals) or affect the validity, since the validity is dependent upon matter, the form and the intention of the priest. Parts of the rite before and after simply can't invalidate it.

Moreover the symbolism is stripped, but what symbolism that is prescribed by the rite actually denies the sacrifice? Here we must be careful. How do we even define the Novus Ordo? We could include every clown "mass", rainbow stole peace fest, and pizza mass under the title of "Novus Ordo", but that would be disingenuous. We can't. The only sensible way to define the Novus Ordo is by that missal and its actual rubrics promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

So the question becomes, what does the Mass of Paul VI command that is actually evil in its symbolism, gestures or rubrics? Not the abuses, not the clown "masses", not the youth Masses, the 1970 Missal as it is prescribed. One argument is that because Jewish meal prayers are employed at the offertory, the concept of sacrifice is denied and therefore it is not a valid Mass even if the consecration is valid. Now this argument fails for two reasons:

a) The failure to announce the sacrifice is not tantamount to denial, it is simply ambiguous
b) The notion of sacrifice is included in the Novus Ordo, not only in the Orate Fratres but in the tone of the prayers which is in fact of offering albeit not as clear or beautiful as the Traditional offertory prayers. Moreover, the sacrificial dimension of the Mass is more clear in the Novus Ordo than in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. While the latter is more beautiful than the former, by the principle of sacramental reciprocity if the lack of sacrificial mention from the new to old rite was sufficient to invalidate it, it would invalidate most of the Eastern Rites, some of which go back a thousand plus years and were always considered valid by the Church.

What else? That the priest can face the people reduces the belief in the sacrifice of the Mass.

This does not hold necessarily, but even if it did it would fail to invalidate the Mass. Many great Popes including St. Pius X said Mass in St. Peter's that was, strictly speaking, facing the people since he was facing the doors, and people standing in the nave of the Church would look up and see St. Pius X facing them. Now there were large candles and a large crucifix, the papal court, baldochino, so it is not like the stripped down parish with a mensa altar. Moreover, there is not a tabernacle on the High altar of St. Peter's, it is in a side chapel. That is not new, it was that way before Vatican II. This is not to make an apologia for the practice of moving the tabernacle away from the altar, but it is nowhere commanded. Moreover, if the removal of a tabernacle in and of itself represented a denial of Eucharistic or Sacrificial teaching, just as if the priest facing the people were a denial of doctrine, then Popes for centuries prior to Vatican II, not to mention the Apostles in the early Church who had no tabernacles, would have been heretical. It doesn't take much reason to realize that this is not the case. That doesn't mean we get rid of them of course, I'm not taking the liberal argument. These things have become part of tradition, they are monuments, but they cannot invalidate the Mass, again due to the principle of sacramental reciprocity, and that they have nothing to do with the form and matter.

Moreover, it may very well be that there have been many [sic] Novus Ordo Masses which were invalid, either due to defects in matter (not real bread, or bread leavened with ingredients that invalidate it, or grape juice, or corn chips), or defective intention (the priest did not intend to confect the Eucharist), but none of these things are prescribed in the rite itself. Therefore the Church has not promulgated a bad sacrament. It may be, that it is not as good as the traditional Mass (which I would argue extrinsically even in the Latin), but it does not command evil.

3) The prayer of consecration in the Novus Ordo is offered as a historical narrative, while in the TLM it is said in the present.

This argument has been advanced to me by several Sedevacantists, and it is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Normally I do not like to poison the well with ad Hominem attacks, but this is an ad ignorantia logical fallacy coming from idiots arguing ex ignorantia. It is an argument from people who not only do not know the tradition, do not know Latin, do not know theology, but who haven't even looked in their own missal. Just a basic comparison will do:

TLM (left) NO (right) (Euch. P. I)

P: Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and having lifted up His eyes to heaven, to Thee, God, His almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, blessed it (+), broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying:		P: The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
Take ye and eat ye all of this:

FOR THIS IS MY BODY.

THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

All in the past tense. But wait they say! The Novus Ordo form adds "which will be given up for you", thereby making the consecration a historical narrative and not something living here and now. First of all that is asinine since St. Paul uses those very same words in the formula he puts forth in I Corinthians XI, which is what he himself received from the apostles. If the words from scripture would be invalid for the consecration formula, I don't know what would be valid. This doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the old prayer, which has a bi-millenial tradition in the Roman rite almost up to its inception. Furthermore I don't think it needed to be changed. Nevertheless the idea that using a future or past tense in the consecration formula invalidates it by making it a "narrative" would also invalidate the old rite.

In the consecration of the wine, the priest declares:

FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

P: As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in memory of Me.

THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT, IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.

P: Do this in memory of me.

Wait! He used the future tense! It wasn't in the present! The Traditional Latin Mass makes the consecration a historical narrative!

This is why this argument is asinine, and anything a person making it tells you should be taken cum granu salis. The reality is that the Crucifixion of our savior is both historical, and atemporal, it is not something which can be limited to either sphere. It is an infinite offering which occurs in history, and therefore we refer to it as an event which happened, even as we experience it mystically each day at Mass.

4) Its authors systematically deleted from its prayers and lessons doctrines which would be offensive to heretics and utilized 6 protestants.

This again recalls what we have already said, an omission is not tantamount to denial. No Traditionalist is going to defend the use of Protestants advising the Concilium. It is one of my favorite polemics against the Novus Ordo. But, that scarcely invalidates it. One has to draw the causal effect, what in the Novus Ordo actually invalidates it? It may be that the intent was to water down doctrine, I'd say the Novus Ordo does that pretty well. Yet where is the heresy? We know the abuses. We know the Latin Novus Ordo in union with the rubrics is not as good or rich in symbolism as the Traditional Mass. But where is the denial of the faith of the latter? Some important things are omitted, true. Yet that does not constitute positive error, as some would have you believe. And seriously, how many of us have seen real clown masses? I've seen one. They are not ubiquitous, and in the early Church and Middle Ages crazy experimental liturgies occurred, principally in the former. The mere existence of such a thing does not constitute positive heresy on the part of the magisterium. That such things haven't been quashed shows a lack of prudence and a failure to exercise its right authority on the part of the same, but it does not constitute the grounds for judging the internal forum of the Pope who promulgated it, or of priests who say it.

5) Quo Primum says that the decree of Pope St. Pius V remains valid in perpetuity.

This argument sounds the best but is almost as vapid as the "historical narrative" argument. At first one is presented with Pope St. Pius V declaring this about the Traditional Mass, which he did not create but received from Tradition:

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing. (Source)

The problem is no Pope can bind another juridically. In as much as Quo Primum lays down liturgical legislation, it is not infallible since the creating of legislation, or mandating the use of one rite does not and can not be an article of faith. As long as the authority of the Church maintains the document, then altering the missal or attempting to substitute another by a priest or even a Bishop would be forbidden by the decree. Yet no Pope can bind another Pope in matters of law. What the document declares is that the Traditional Mass is completely free from error. It is also a testament to the decree of Vatican I that the Pope enjoys complete, total and absolute jurisdiction throughout the world.

This is principally understood in that subsequent Popes did in fact alter the Missal of 1570 in one way or another, even Pope St. Pius X. The alterations were developments to meet new conditions, such as giving more precedence to the Sunday liturgy in Divinu Afflatu. Notice, Quo Primum declares that no one may presume to alter the missal in anyway. If this document bound future Popes, such as Paul VI, it would also bind Clement VIII, Leo XIII and St. Pius X. It doesn't. It can't.

Now that doesn't mean one must go in the same direction as the liberals and say so what? The document has value in the tradition and effectively fixes the Roman Missal as the missal of the West. This doesn't mean a future Pope can not decide to institute a new Missal ad experimentum, irrespective of whether such a move is prudent or very foolish.

Moreover, I bring as witness Fr. Anthony Cekada, a sedevacantist priest who rejects the Novus Ordo's validity to soundly rebut the Quo Primum argument:

A (true) pope is the supreme legislator for ecclesiastical law and has the power to change ecclesiastical laws enacted by his predecessors. Quo Primum was an ecclesiastical law, and a true pope did indeed have the power to abrogate it or modify any of its provisions.

The “forever” clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation...
The language was simply a standard formula in church legislation that referred to one of the qualities a law is supposed to have: stability.

Frequent changes in laws harm the common good because people do not know how to act — hence, laws are supposed to be relatively stable. But a human legislator (unlike God) cannot foresee all future circumstances, so his successor has the power to change existing laws if he decides the circumstances warrant it. (source)

Lastly, as we noted previously, the experience of exorcists gives us an indicator. Any exorcist will tell you that the demons respond exactly the same when exposed to hosts consecrated at the Novus Ordo as they do to those consecrated at the Traditional Mass. If the Novus Ordo were invalid this would be impossible. Moreover if it were evil, as certain priests of the SSPX opine, this would also be impossible since it would strengthen the demon.

Thus, we can conclude that there is no logical reason to reject the validity of the Novus Ordo when celebrated correctly, even though many traditionalists like myself have strong misgivings about its extrinsic form. The novelty of the thing and the manifold options that make it difficult to attain any interior unity of the Missal's celebration, and the constantly increasing, changing and dissapearing laws in the rite, should be enough to give any clear thinking individual pause.

But that doesn't mean we are invested with the authority to judge the thing heretical or invalid, especially when in many cases we are simply not aware of the tradition. Once I heard a Traditionalist complaining about a Novus Ordo collect, and alleging heresies in the thing when in reality it was a collect from the Traditional Mass which survived Bugnini's butchers and made it into the NO, though with a different translation and on a different day. This is why people must be careful not to make judgments which they are not fully equipped to render.

The Churching of Women

2009-10-29T16:23:00.000-07:00

There is a tradition associated with baptism and childbirth which is part of the traditional ritual, but fallen out of practice and knowledge since Vatican II, and that is called the "Churching of Women".

This ritual takes place when a woman has recovered sufficiently from giving birth that she is ready to go back to Church. At one time this was a separate occasion from the baptism, but today often are combined for convenience. Partly that is because some people wait too long for the baptism, even in Traditional parishes which is a cause for alarm.

Nevertheless, this tradition recalls Jewish law in the Old Testament, where the woman would undergo a ritual of purification after having given birth. We commemorate Mary undergoing this ritual on 2nd February in the liturgy. The Church in her sacramental practice commemorates this for Christian women, although it has nothing to do with "purification" in itself. It offers special graces to the mother for raising the child with Christian virtue. The ritual is intended for the benefit of the mother, but traditionally it was customary for the woman to bring the newborn baby to specially dedicate him to God. Now my wife is a real trooper, she was ready for this three days after the baby was born! Thus we had it combined with the baptism. The text of the ritual is taken from the fisheater's website with my quick re-translation.

V. Our help is in the Name of the Lord.	V. Adjutórium nostrum in nómine Dómini.
R. Who made Heaven and Earth. ANT. She shall receive.	R. Qui fecit cælum et terram. ANT. Hæc accípiet.
Psalm 23
The Earth and its fullness are the Lord's; the whole world, and all they that dwell therein.	Dómini est terra et plenitúdo ejus: orbis terrárum, et univérsi qui hábitant in eo.
For He hath founded it upon the seas; and hath prepared it upon the rivers.	Quia ipse super mária fundávit eum: et super flúmina præparávit eum.
Who shall ascend onto the mountain of the Lord: or who shall stand in His holy place?	Qui ascéndet in montem Dómini? aut quis stabit in loco sancto ejus?
The innocent by his hands and clean of heart, who hath not taken his soul in vain, nor sworn to his neighbor by deceipt.	Innocens mánibus et mundo corde: qui non accépit in vano ánimam suam, nec jurávit in dolo próximo suo.
He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his Savior.	Hic accípiet benedictiónem a Dómino: et misericórdiam a Deo salutári suo.
This is the generation of those seeking Him, of them seeking the face of the God of Jacob.	Hæc est generátio quæréntium eum, quæréntium fáciem Dei Jacob.
Lift up the gates, O ye princes, and be ye lifted up, O eternal gates: and the King of glory shall enter in.	Attóllite portas, príncipes, vestras, et elevámini, portæ æternáles: et introíbit Rex glóriæ.
Who is this King of glory? the Lord strong and mighty: the Lord mighty in battle.	Quis est iste Rex glóriæ? Dóminus fortis et potens. Dóminus potens in prælio.
Lift up the gates, O ye princes, and be ye lifted up, O eternal gates: and the King of glory shall enter in.	Attóllite portas, príncipes, vestras, et elevámini, portæ æternáles: et introíbit Rex glóriæ.
Who is this King of glory? the Lord of powers, He Himself is the King of glory.	Quis est iste Rex glóriæ? Dóminus virtútum ipse est Rex gloriæ.
Glory be to the Father.	Glória Patri.
ANT. She shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God her Savior: for this is the generation of those seeking the Lord.	ANT. Hæc accípiet benedictiónem a Dómino, et misericórdiam a Deo salutári suo: quia hæc est generátio quæréntium Dóminum.
The priest places the end of his stole in the woman's hand and leads her into the church while saying:
Go forth into the temple of God, adore the Son of the blessed Virgin Mary, who gave fertility and rendered children unto you.	Ingrédere in templum Dei, adóra Fílium Beátæ Mariæ Virginis, qui tibi fœcunditátem tríbuit prolis.
Outside the sanctuary, the mother kneels before the Altar and prays, thanking God for her child.
Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. (Now the Our Father is said silently)	Kyrie eléison. Christe eléison. Kyrie eléison. (Pater Noster is said silently)
V. And lead us not into temptation.	V. Et ne nos indúcas in tentationem.
R. But deliver us from evil.	R. Sed líbera nos a malo.
V. Save your handmaid, Lord.	V. Salvam fac ancílliam tuam, Dómine.
R. My God who is hoping in thee.	R. Deus meus, sperántem in te.
V. Send her help, Lord, from the sanctuary.	V. Mitte ei, Dómine, auxilium de sancto.
R. And uphold her out of Sion.	R. Et de Sion tuére eam.
V. That the enemy may prevail against her in nothing.	V. Nihil profíciat inimícus in ea.
R. Nor the son of iniquity attempt to harm her.	R. Et fílius iniquitátis non appónat nocére ei.
V. O Lord, hear my prayer.	V. Dómine, exáudi oratiónem meam.
R. And let my cry come to Thee.	R. Et clamor meus ad te véniat.
V. The Lord be with you.	V. Dóminus vobíscum.
R. And with thy spirit.	R. Et cum spíritu tuo.
V. Let us pray.	Orémus.
Almighty, everlasting God, through the delivery of the blessed Virgin Mary, Thou hast turned the pains of the faithful in giving birth to joy; look mercifully upon this Thy servant, coming in gladness to Thy temple to offer up her thanks: and grant that after this life, by the merits and intercession of the same blessed Mary, she may merit to arrive, together with her child, at the joys of eternal beatitude. Through Christ our Lord.	Omnípotens sempitérne Deus, qui per beátæ Mariæ Virginis partum fidélium pariéntium dolóres in gáudium vertísti: réspice propítius super hanc fámulam tuam, ad templum sanctum tuum pro gratiárum actióne lætam accedéntem, et præsta, ut post hanc vitam, ejúsdem beátæ Mariæ méritis et intercessióne, ad æternæ beatitúdinis gáudia cum prole sua perveníre mereátur. Per Christum Dóminum nostrum.
R. Amen.	R. Amen.
The priest sprinkles the mother with holy water in the shape of a Cross.
The peace and blessing of God almighty, the Father + and the Son and the Holy Spirit, descend upon you and remain always.	Pax et benedíctio Dei omnipoténtis, Patris + et Fílii et Spíritus Sancti, descéndat super te et máneat semper.
R. Amen.	R. Amen.

If you have never undergone this ritual, it would be good not only to do so with your next child, but to ask the priest for the ritual, even if it has been several years since the birth of the last child, since the graces can be applied through time to after you did give birth.
(note: pictured in color is my wife and my newborn receiving the blessings)

Anglicans return-Deo Gratias!

2009-10-24T08:24:00.000-07:00

There is some exciting news recently, as nearly 1,000 Anglican priests and some of their faithful will enter full communion with the Catholic Church. To facilitate this, the Holy Father is expanding the already extent "Anglican Rite" to incorporate the Anglican Tradition.

Now this may give some traditional Catholics pause, but once we understand what this is, and what it represents historically it should pose for us but a few difficulties.

If one recalls correctly the history of the Church, the English Church had its own liturgy (Sarum Rite) and had for the most part its own ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For lack of a better term it was a western rite different from the Roman, much as the Ambrosian rite, or the Mozarabic rite in Spain. These rites enjoyed their own canonical status and their own rights and customs. If Henry VIII for example, had not left the Church to found his own sect, St. Pius V's bull Quo Primum would have had no effect on the liturgical customs of England since those went back nearly 1000 years.

Thus to bring the Anglicans into the Church under their own rite with their own liturgy, provided they are re-ordained (or at least conditionally re-ordained where they can't prove orders coming from valid Bishops today), is not an utter and complete novelty. It rather would restore a situation which was in place for a good part of the Church's history.

Now if we look at more recent history, such as the union of Brest, what do we find? The formula for reunion between the Ukranian Orthodox and the Church was brought about by allowing them to retain all of their religious customs and rites, but requiring only professing all articles of the Catholic faith and being loyal to the Pope. The Clergy of the Eastern Rites which followed the Ukranians on the same model were allowed not only the traditions of the Eastern Church, but to retain the right of married clergy.

This presents one of the largest problems for establishing an Anglican Communion that accepts all Catholic teaching and Papal infallibility. It was not the tradition prior to 1531 to have married clergy, yet even amongst anglo-Catholics most clergy are married. This presents us with a problem. Does the Church acknowledge the tradition which persisted from St. Patrick and St. Augustine of Canterbury until 1531, in accord with the customs of the West, or does it follow the more recent custom since the revolt from the Catholic faith?

It seems to me that it makes the most sense that after those who wish to join now, the priests of the Anglican rite ought to be celibate, in accord with the millennial tradition of celibacy that persisted amongst English clergy, and also for greater conformity with the customs of the Roman Rite. This is also most beneficial for retaining that apostolic discipline, which in the west has realized itself in perpetual continency of the clergy in the Roman rite as well.

Now there is also an added benefit to this move, the vast majority of the clergy from the Anglican Church which will be coming home are high Church. This is one of the reasons the liberal stalwart of Westmisnter, Bishop Murphy-O'Connor, resisted such a move for so long. Since Newman's time, the Anglican Church has suffered the full effects of modernism taken to its conclusions, nothing is true and tradition doesn't matter. This is a blow to those in the Catholic Church who should like to see the same happen in the bride of Christ, who wish to have a man centered liturgy cut off from tradition.

One more thing useful thing has occurred as well. It is a blow to the Ecclesiology of those such as Cardinal Kasper, who claim that there is no ecumenism of return. He has been noted in the press in recent days only by his absence, because he can have no positive view of this development. All the more reason to welcome it.

However there is one thing which is disconcerting, especially as we witness further talks with the SSPX which may result in an apostolic administration of some sort. Those priests who have remained faithful to Rome, such as we see in the FSSP, ICKSP, and those many diocesan priests who have been scorned by the modernists for saying the Traditional Mass for years, they still have no apostolic administration of any sort, no bishops, and no priviledges which are now to be given to groups which were either schismatic, left the Church or persisted for hundreds of years out of full communion. What does that say about the virtue of fidelity? Not that this move should not be made to the Anglicans, because I think it ought, but that the same rights and priveledges to celebrate the sacraments of the Church's immemorial tradition ought to be granted to those who have been faithful. Otherwise all one does is encourage disobedience.

Yet that has been the very thing encouraged by the Vatican for 50 years now. The faithful get punished, while the disobedient tacitly criticized, every once in a while publicly condemend (as we see with the SSPX), but privately tolerated and approved of. We see this as well with the Eastern Catholic clergy, who endured persecution and martyrdom to be Catholic and remain so, who for being faithful are ignored by Rome, while every move is made to pacify the Orthodox who have been out of communion for 1,000 years and hurled insults at Rome matched by only the worst schismatics of our day. What this move evinces is the need for interior unity in Rome both in terms of policy and in its behavior toward various groups in the Church.

More False teaching from Sedevacantists: The Dimond "Brothers"' private judgment

2009-10-17T17:00:00.000-07:00

I was going to leave this issue alone, but the buffoonery of certain sedevacantists is just too tempting to refute. Now there are certain sedevacantists, such as Fr. Cekada, whom I will acknowledge to be intelligent, even if they are absolutely wrong on these issues.

Then there are the Dimond "brothers", so-called since they are no brothers at all but two hacks doing satan's work, reaping the profits form peddling misinformation to confused Catholics. I have given them a thrashing before, and they deserve another one, in the form of a refutation of one of their supporters, who claims to not support them but then takes all of their positions.

There is an interesting development which has emerged as I prepared this overall refutation. The immature, untrained, foul mouthed and frankly unChristian sedevacantist who is about to be soundly refuted, Rafael deMontis, asked me to debate the Dimond "brothers" via phone. I told him to pick up and go somewhere else because the Dimonds are not theologically qualified to speak on these issues. Neither is this gentleman, as we see below. Then he continued e-mailing the challenge, and I finally I said "I don't have time to deal with a bunch of hacks who are not theologically qualified for the debate. If they send me something written I might deal with it." Then sure enough I get an e-mail for a phone challenge from the Dimond "brothers" who claim they received word I was eager for a debate, which is Mr. deMontis lying from his foul mouth. So I replied to them the exact same thing I said in five e-mails, while I am working and awaiting the birth of my second son, and with these senseless e-mails stacking up while my wife is in labor. Just for some perspective.
The laymen in monks garb, quite annoyed at being told what they are and where they can go, decided to put up a youtube video attacking me. I say thank you. Let me say again, THANK YOU DIMOND "BROTHERS". Why? They say some pretty mean things. I say good. I welcome it, because it will simply drive traffic to my blog and allow more people to see the truth of their false teachings, not only sedevacantism, but other things. Also, apparently my pipe is not big enough for them. I will have to fix that.

But I thought it should be clear, that I never backed out of anything because I never agreed to anything, and if the foul mouthed DeMontis decides to publish the e-mail exchanges, anyone with eyes to see will see that I consistently said the same thing from the beginning: the Dimond "brothers" are not theologically qualified. It is the same thing as debating with a protestant who insists that you must only use the bible. Then you debate, and you bring the Catholic interpretation to the Bible, and he says "where did you get that, its not in scripture." You point to him where it is, he says it isn't. Then you quote authority, "stop! no Tradition! only what's in the bible." And you have thus wasted your energy and your time. Which is why I said look, if you want to send me something written, I'll deal with it when I have time. The Dimonds are quite happy to call it cowardly, and they can call it whatever they want. What is cowardly, is to sit behind a computer, and declare with your private judgment that the successor of St. Peter is a heretic and has no office or the powers thereof, without the benefit of any challenge or discussion. The idea that they need to debate with me is ludicrous, I'm a lay theologian. They need to talk to the man they claim is a false claimant to the see of Peter, they need to give him the chance to convert if they really believe their nonsense.

They do not and will not because they are the true cowards. If they want to do some real theological work, and make use of real Catholic interpretive principles, they can talk to me, but what they should really be doing is talking to the man they believe is a false claimant to the throne of the fisherman.

Oh well. The following is a demonstration of what happens when you have no theological training, no knowledge of the tradition, and no philosophical training but pick up vernacular copies of some Church teachings and usurp the authority properly belonging to the magisterium. It is not only a refutation of this gentlemen, but of the Dimond "brothers" false teaching on several issues, which should show anyone still confused that these men can not be your guides, because they have no one to guide them. They have made themselves the magisterium.

Rafael DeMontis, an untrained and ill-equipped and foul mouthed sedevacantist (as he knows no Latin and hasn't the faintest clue about Tradition, but loves to speak of vulgar things), will be in red, while my originals will be in blue and my responses in black.

<<Truth begins with them, not outside of them. We see this with the various positions they hold contrary to what the Church has proposed for our belief, that one can be a member of the Church by grace,>>

This is false and heretical, the Church has never taught that someone can belong to the Church by "grace"; the only way that you can belong to the Church and the way that you actually become a member of the Church is only through the Sacrament of Baptism:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: "Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have been baptized with the Sacrament of Baptism and profess the true faith."
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: "But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made 'members of his own body' (1 Cor. 12:13)."

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, "Exultate Deo", Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, 'unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,' as the Truth says, 'enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water." Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: "In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration." I could quote others, but these are enough. It is a Dogma that only through the Sacrament of Baptism are we made members of the Church, as the 2 dogmatic decrees above declared. And you're going to tell me that what I just quoted to you "is against to what the Church has proposed for our belief"???

Are you going to tell me that what you have quoted discounts baptism of blood and desire, something formally proposed to us by the Church?

First of all, you like all sedevacantists can not make correct distinctions in theology, because this whole process is appetetive and not intellectual for you. The teachings of baptism of blood and desire do not deny membership in the Church. The Church is not merely what is on earth, it is also the Church triumphant. If someone is saved by extraordinary means they are in the Church triumphant, end of story. There are no non-Catholics in heaven. Thus this doctrine does not come into conflict in the slightest with the teachings outlined above.

Secondly you do not understand baptism of blood. The council of Florence, if you read the thing in context, is teaching that heretics do not get saved if they suffer martyrdom, unless before their death they should make an act of union with the true Church. For those in false religions, they too as long as they persist in teachings contrary to the natural law. The Council says nothing about one who is not baptized, as it says that one can not merit anything by shedding his blood in the name of Christ unless he has remained in the Catholic Church. St. Cyprian of Carthage teaches the same thing:

"[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church." (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]).

"[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]" (Exhortation to the Martyrs, 72[73]:22).

As a whole, when you claim that there is no extraordinary means and act as if the Church teaches us this, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Saint Emerentiana: In the traditional Breviary we have the story of this virgin and martyr who Holy Mother Church has had Her religious commemorate on a yearly basis for some 1800 years. Let us quote the Breviary directly:

“Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, stepsister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God.

Virgin and martyr, d. at Rome in the third century; The old Itineraries to the graves of the Roman martyrs, after giving the place of burial on the Via Nomentana of St. Agnes, speak of St. Emerentiana. Over the grave of St. Emerentiana a church was built which, according to the Itineraries, was near the church erected over the place of burial of St. Agnes, and somewhat farther from the city wall. In reality Emerentiana was interred in the coemeterium majus located in this vicinity not far from the coemeterium Agnetis. Armellini believed that he had found the original burial chamber of St. Emerentiana in the former coemeterium. According to the legend of St. Agnes, Emerentiana was her foster-sister. Some days after the burial of St. Agnes, Emerentiana, who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on 23 January. In the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" she is mentioned under 16 September, with the statement: In coemeterio maiore. She is represented with stones in her lap, also with a palm or lily.”

That would mean for 1800 years this saint was falsely honored in monumental tradition. That is contrary to what all the writers on Tradition have told us, (Vincent of Lerins, Franzelin, Billot, Dorsch) namely that God could not let error persist in His church for such a long time.

Moreover, the Fathers taught baptism by desire and blood, as we saw above with St. Cyprian of Carthage.

Tertullian tells us:
"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).

St. Gregory Nazianzen

"[Besides the baptisms associated with Moses, John, and Jesus] I know also a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which also Christ himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be defiled by later sins" (Oration on the Holy Lights 39:17 [A.D. 381]).

St. Ambrose

"But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?" (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

St. Augustine

"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]).

"That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart [i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism" (ibid., 4:22:29).

"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism of desire]" (ibid., 5:28:39).

"Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ [Matt. 10:32]" (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).

Fulgentius of Ruspe "From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

St. Thomas Aquinas Universal doctor of the Church

Q. Can the Baptism of blood, or the Baptism of desire, take the place of the Baptism of water?

A. Yes, the Baptism of blood, which is martyrdom and figures the Passion of our Blessed Lord, and the Baptism of desire, which consists in an act of the love of God through the action of the Holy Ghost, can both take the place of the Baptism of water; but in this sense, that the grace of Baptism can be obtained without the reception of the sacrament itself when this reception is impossible; but not in the sense that the character of the sacrament can be received apart from the sacrament itself (LXVI. n).

"Some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification; it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification”
Summa Theologica III, q68, a 2

St. Bonaventure:

“God obliges no one to do the impossible and therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of desire without the baptism of water is sufficient, provided the person in question has the will to receive the baptism of water, but is prevented from doing so before he dies."
-In Sent. IV, d.4,P.2,a.I,q.I.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our saviour; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it (voto), as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”277

St. Alphonsus Ligouri:

Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
-St. Alphonsus Liguori on the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128 -129 (published by James Duffy, Dublin, 10 Wellington Quay).

“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water.”
-Summa Theologia Moralis, tomus VI

"The baptism of blood is the shedding of blood, or death suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue... this baptism... remits the fault and the punishment due sin"
-Theologia Moralis, Tomus III, Tract II

The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

The delay [in baptizing adults] is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to recieve Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. (Tan edition, pg. 179)

Pope St. Pius X's Catechism 17: Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Do you believe that St. Pius X was your Pope? Pius IX, Pius XII? DO you? Why do you support someone whom your teaching would say is a heretic?

No, every Father who wrote on the subject, every medieval and contemporary theologian who wrote on this subject affirms that one can receive the affects of baptism by grace. The only ones who reject it are the Dimond "brothers" and YOU. YOU are rejecting teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, because you believe your private interpretation is above what the holy Fathers and Doctors (and even Popes) have proposed for your belief. You take the Dimond's as your teacher, yet they are wrong about something like this which has the support of the universal tradition.

Moreover, St. Robert Bellarmine taught Baptism of Desire. Yes, St. Robert Bellarmine.

“Boni Catehecumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa” "Catechumens however if not in re at least in voto are in the Church and are therefore able to be saved." (De Ecclesia Militante, Lib. III, Cap. 3)

"Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism"
-De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI

That would mean according to you he is a heretic, and therefore his teaching, all of it (including that a heretical Pope might lose his office) is invalid, unless you want to say you have been instructed by a heretic. You also have to deal with the fact that the 1917 Code of Canon Law grants burial to unbaptized Catechumens:

1267. Unbaptized persons may not receive ecclesiastical burial, with the exception of catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism, and are therefore to be regarded as among those baptized. Canon (1239)

Van Noort:

Necessity by positive ordinance results from an extrinsic bond established between two things by God’s fiat: so that the sacrament of baptism as a remedy for original sin. Such a means can have a substitute, or the means can be supplied for in some other way than its actual use. In the supernatural order baptism of water is a necessary means for the remission of original sin and the reception of sanctifying grace. But a catechumen who is martyred for Christ before he can be baptized has his sins remitted and receives sanctifying grace by his “baptism of blood”.

Such necessary means, set up by God’s ordinance, are said to be not absolutely, but disjunctively necessary. That is the means must be employed either actually or in desire (in re or in voto). Notice however, that the external means as actually employed and the substitute for it- the internal desire of making use of the external means- are not two distinct means. Rather, they are related to one another as the perfect and imperfect, the full and partial use of one and the same means.

-Van Noort, Ecclesiaology Vol. 2, pg 257

Ludwig Ott, in his fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, summarizes this tradition for us:

The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti) but also a necessity of means (nec. medii) as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows. The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of the incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly (explicite) present, but can also be included in the moral readiness faithfully to fulfil the word of God (votum implicitum). In this manner also those who are in fact outside the Church can achieve salvation."
-Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 312

Non baptizati denique non sunt membra corporis ecclesiae nisi in potentia vel in voto, ut catechumeni et alii fidem habentes, omnes tamen sunt obligati ut membra Ecclesia fiant.

The unbaptized accordingly are not members of the body of the Church unless by potency or in desire, that is catechumens and others having the faith, all nevertheless are obligated to be a member of the Church.

-De Ecclesia pg. 97

Raineri

Great however, as is the necessity of Baptism, it is certain according to the teaching of the Church that it can be supplied in two other wasy- by desire and by martyrdom.

First, by desire- a kind of Baptism which applies to adults only. If an unbaptized adult, finding himself at the point of death, or even at any other time, has a lively contrition for his sins, along with an ardent desire of receiving Baptism, his desire, accompanied by charity, would accomplish in him what the sacrament accomplishes. And in fact the Church has always looked favourably on the eternal salvation of those catechumens who while seriously preparing to receive Baptism, were cut off by sudden death. Nor would it be useless even for us to conceive such a desire; for this reason, that while Catholics born of Christian parents and in Christian countries have usually no reason for doubt as to the Baptism received by them, yet no one can be infallibly certain that he has been validly baptized. True, a faint doubt of this kind should not be allowed to trouble us; but at the same time each one is wisely advised to sometimes excite in himself the desire of being baptized, and renew an act of perfect love of God with sincere sorrow for the sins he may have committed, and along with this the wish to be baptized in case the Baptism already received was null and void.

Secondly, by martyrdom- and this applies to both adults and infants. Hence if a child or an adult is put to death for the cause of Jesus Christ and His holy faith, that death holds for him the place of Baptism. Nor does it matter that a child is not able to suffer death for Jesus Christ with ful knowledge of the cause, and with free act of the will-to be put to death even without knowing it is enough for God to be pleased to consider him a martyr and save him, as He saves other children by means of ordinary Baptism without their knowledge and without any consent of their will. Of this we have an example in the children the impious Herod put to death in Bethlehem and its neighbourhood on the occasion of the birth of Christ. The Church celebrates their feast and honors them as martyrs. In like manner also the Church honours as martyrs numbers of gentiles who, in times of persecution, presented themselves before the tyrants, proclaimed themselves Christians, and on that account suffered death even before they were baptized.

We can, then, distinguish three kinds of Baptism- of water, of blood and of desire. This does not mean that there is not properly only one single Baptism, according to St. Paul's expression: One faith, one Baptism; for Baptism as a sacrement is only one, that is Baptism of water, while the other two are not properly Baptisms nor sacraments conferring grace, but are improperly called Baptisms for this reason, that in defect of the Baptism of water, the other two take its place, and through the merciful disposition of God produce the same effect.

-Compendium of Catechetical Instruction, the Sacraments vol. 1, Ranieri's catechism, pg. 60-61

Popes

St. Leo the Great:

Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Those who are threatened by death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at any time." Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed by the Church, he is saved, yet "so as by fire," as stated above (2, ad)

Pope St. Leo the Great, A.D. 461
“Those whom the wicked king removed from this world were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood.” (In Epiph, 1,3)

Pope Innocent III

Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Pope Innocent III, DZ 413)

Bl. Pius IX

"By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord."
-Bl. Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, DZ 1647

Pius XII

"Those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love".
-Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis no. 103

Those are just a minority of the quotes from the tradition that could be produced. Again we see that the Church has overwhelmingly proposed this doctrine for our belief. It is not a mere opinion of one Pope or one Theologian such as St. Thomas. Moreover, St. Thomas is the Universal Doctor of the Church and he teaches very clearly that there is a baptism of desire, and this is after the declaration of Lateran III that outside the Church there is no salvation. Thus, if the Church means the dogma the way you do then St. Thomas would have been a heretic, since this decree was well known and it is unquestionable St. Thomas would have to have known about it. Could the Church long before Vatican II have venerated a Saint and placed on him the title of Universal doctor, who taught a heresy? No. It is you don't know Catholic principles of doctrinal interpretation, and have made yourself teacher with respect to the Church, which is blasphemous.

And again, we have the Catholic encylcopedia of 1911:

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate".

The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent.

In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

Baptism of Blood
The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text.

That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church. Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.) (Source)

What do all of these other teachings mean? Do these mean that the Councils and Popes you quoted above are wrong? Hardly. Does it mean that all these doctors of the Church, Popes, theologians, even a peritus at Vatican I, were heretics? Hardly. It means that the distinctions of membership are slightly wider than you imagine them, and thus there is no contradiction with the teaching of these holy councils and Popes. It means exactly what I told you in our first e-mail, that you lack Catholic principles to properly and accurately interpret Catholic teaching. The same is true with the Dimond brothers, which is why I won't waste my time debating them. They aren't Catholic and they aren't qualified to speak on these issues. They ought to speak on UFOs, they seem good at that. Why are you not qualified to speak on these matters? Because all is subjected to your private judgment. There are many more examples below.

Besides, the Catholic Church is a BODY:

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: "…the mystical body, the Church (corpore mystico)…"

Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: "…the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ…"

Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: "…His mystical Body." To say that someone could be "united" or "part" of the Church without being a member of the body is heretical, because the Catholic Church is a body, and to further say that they can even be "saved" is even more heretical. You're either inside the Church and a member or you are outside and not a member. There is no middle ground. And you have to be a member of the Church to be saved. But you're just a heretic who obviously believes in salvation outside the Church, for non-Catholics; "baptism of desire and blood" for pagans, idolaters, people who don't even know of the Church or of Jesus, etc.; in the "Soul of the Church" heresy; and "invincible ignorance". You're an apostate. Have you even read the Athanasian Creed, "Athanasius"? "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each person preserves this Faith whole and undefiled, he will without a doubt perish in eternity." You're an outrage and a disgrace to everything that is Catholic, but you're not even Catholic anyways.

Coming from someone ignorant of Church teaching, I take that as a complement.

That the Church is a body does not exclude one being a member of that body by grace. You demonstrate, much like the Dimond "brothers" that you do not understand fundamentally the doctrines they condemn as heretical. This line of argument is entirely irrelevant.

<or Our Lady's title of co-redemptrix>

So I guess you are saying that the Councils of Trent and Florence are wrong then?

No, you are incompetent and know nothing of this doctrine which the Church has indeed proposed for our belief.

The Councils of Trent and Florence dogmatically defined that Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is our Redeemer:

And if you knew anything about this teaching, you would know that there is nothing in it which contradicts that.
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: "...the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Savior...But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema." Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino", 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, through His death alone laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our sins, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost with all succession..."

These pose no problem for the doctrine of co-redemptrix. Do you know what it is? Do you know I already refuted the Dimond "brothers" shoddy work on this subject? I will post it here again to save you from making a click.

Secondly, Peter Dimond demonstrates he does not even understand the doctrine of Mediatrix, Co-Redemtrix, Advocate, nor basic philosophy or logic which underpin the doctrine. He may not share the same doctrine as Protestants about Our Blessed Mother, but the manner in which he denies this doctrine of the Church is indicative of the same private judgment that Protestants apply to the Bible. None of the quotes provided above refute the doctrine of our Lady as Co-Redemtrix. However, I will let the Mr. Dimond stick his foot through his mouth and very far down his throat:

These facts [sic] considered, it is contrary to Catholic Teaching to say that Mary is Co-Redemptrix. Certainly, it’s possible for people to express themselves erroneously on this topic in good faith before the specific dogmatic definitions above are presented to them. But once they have seen these dogmatic definitions they must reject this idea; it is, strictly speaking, a heresy which contradicts the dogmatic teaching of Trent and Florence. Mr. Dennis M. defended it and insulted this teaching as “Protestant” after he saw the dogmatic definition of Trent, which shows that he has no fidelity to the infallible teaching of the Church. It shows that he is of bad will. And he cannot have it both ways. He cannot hold with Trent and Florence that Christ alone is our Redeemer while he obstinately defends that Christ and Mary are our Redeemers.

(my emphasis)
Now Mr. Dimond's position ought to be clear enough. As I said the first principal problem is that Dimond does not understand the doctrine, nor does he take the time to find out. Admittedly Co-Redemtrix is a problematic translation in English because of what it seems to represent, but if Mr. Dimond can not do the research or talk to theologians about its meaning, he should not be doing theology period.

C0-Redemptrix might be translated as woman working with the redeemer, or one might translate it "redemptress with". In either case it is clear what the Church means when she proposes this doctrine to us. It means Mary shares in the one redemption of Jesus Christ, and in a unique way as opposed to all the saints. This is fitting because Mary stands apart from the saints in excellence, she is immaculately conceived and receives a veneration above that of that saints (hyper-dulia) which is unique to her person. Hence, when she cooperates in the work of Christ's redemption, she does so in a unique way. Ludwig Ott, summarizing the tradition and the dogmatic manuals since the 15th century, taught:

"The title Corredemptrix =Coredemptress, which has been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church documents under Pius X (Dzgr 1978,) must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (I Tim. II:5) As she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by Christ, she could not of her self merit the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem merito. (The author of an act of merit cannot be a recipient of the same act of merit.) Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the redeemer, and under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 213) (My emphasis)

Ott's analysis is important because he affirms exactly what the councils quoted from Dimond's copiously thumbed copy of Denzinger declared, yet nevertheless explains the doctrine correctly in a manner that demonstrates no contradiction between the two propositions. Ott is not the only pre-Vatican II source.

St. Albert the Great taught, based on the Father's teaching of Mary as the new Eve:

"To her [Mary] alone was given this privilege, namely a communication in the Passion; to her the Son willed to communicate the merit of the Passion, in order that He could give her the reward; and in order to make her a sharer in the benefit of Redemption, He willed that she be a sharer in the penalty of the Passion, in so far as she might become the Mother of all through recreation even as she was the adjutrix of the Redemption by her co-passion." -Comment. in Mattheaum, I, 18; Opera Omnia T.20,

St. Bonaventure teaches:

"Mary also merited reconciliation for the entire human race...She paid the price of redemption as a woman brave and loving, namely, when Christ suffered on the cross to pay that price in order to purge and wash and redeem us, the Blessed Virgin was present, accepting and agreeing with the divine will." -Collatio VI de donis Spiritus Sancti, n. V, n. 15)

In the modern period, Pope Leo XIII declared on this doctrine:

"When Mary offered herself completely to God together with her Son in the temple, she was already sharing with Him in the painful atonement on behalf of the human race. It is certain, therefore, that she suffered in the very depths of her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with His torments. Finally, it was before the eyes of Mary that the Divine Sacrifice for which she had borne and nurtured the victim, was to be finished... we see that there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who in a miracle of charity, so that she might receive us as her sons, willingly offered Him up to divine justice, dying with Him in her heart, pierced by the sword of sorrow.... She who had been the cooperatrix in the sacrament of man's redemption, would be likewise the cooperatrix in the dispensation of graces deriving from it." -Adjutricem populi

Pope St. Pius X, the anti-modernist Pope, taught:

"Owing to the union of suffering and purpose existing between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and for this reason, the dispenser of all the favors which Jesus acquired for us by His death and His blood. Nevertheless, because she surpasses all in holiness and in union with Christ, and because she was chosen by Christ ot be His partner in the work of human salvation, *she merits for us fittingly (de congruo) that which Christ merits for us by right (condigno). (*[Beata Virgo] de congruo, ut aiunt promeret nobis quae Christus de condigno promeruit.)" -Ad diem illum

I here provided the Latin because there are no good English equivalents. De congruo means that a thing is right and fitting, whereas condigno refers to something which can only be done by right. Since Christ alone is God, He alone can create the work of our redemption. Yet this does not mean that He can not let another partake in His act of redemption, and since it is fitting, Mary partakes uniquely in that act of redemption, though she is not the cause of that act. Moreover, Christ could have accomplished His work of Redemption without Mary, and likewise dispense graces without Mary if he preferred, but it is fitting that this be done. Likewise for the Immaculate Conception, or any other aspect of Mary's role in the work of redemption, Christ could have done it without her, but it was fitting for her to be included uniquely in the plan for salvation. In short, what all this means is that Christ alone merits the graces necessary for the redemption of the world, but it is also fitting that the Father in His generosity of grace should reward the chosen Mother of the Saviour who cooperated and suffered with the Redeemer in the work of salvation.

Furthermore, Pope Benedict XV taught:

"The fact that she was with her Son crucified and dying, was in accord with the divine plan. To such extent did she suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son; to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son's for man's salvation and immolated Him-insofar as she could-in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ." -Inter Sodalicia

Pope Pius XI taught:

"O Mother of love and mercy who, when thy sweetest Son was consummating the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, did stand next to Him, suffering with Him as a Coredemptrix, preserve in us, we beseech thee, and increase day by day the precious fruit of His redemption and the compassion of His Mother." -Prayer of the Solemn closing of the Redemption Jubilee, 28 April 1935, L'Osservatore Romano, 29-30 April 1935

"She brought forth Jesus the Redeemer, fed Him, offered Him as a victim at the cross, by her hidden union with Christ, and an altogether singular grace from Him, was likewise the Reparatrix." -Miserentissimus Redemptor

"From the nature of His work the Redeemer ought to have associated His Mother with His work. For this reason we invoke her under the title of Coredemptrix. She gave us the Savior, she accompanied Him in the work of Redemption as far as the Cross itself, sharing with Him the sorrows of the agony and of the death in which Jesus consummated the redemption of mankind. And immediately beneath the Cross, at the last moments of His life, she was proclaimed by the Redeemer as our Mother, the Mother of the whole universe." -Allocution to Pilgrims of Vicenza, 30 November 1933, quoted in L'Osservatore Romano, 1 Dec. 1933

Pope Pius XII, echoing and strengthening what medievals and every recent Pope from Leo XIII onward had emphasized, declared:

"Are not Jesus and Mary the two sublime loves of the Christian people? Are they not the new Adam and the new Eve whom the tree of the cross unites in sorrow and in love in order to make satisfaction for the guilt of our first parents in Eden?" -L'Osservatore Romano, 22 April 1940

"She offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love like a new Eve for all children of Adam." -Mystici Corporis

The Church has never taught that the Virgin is our co-redemptrix, that would be heretical; it has simply been a wrong exaggerated form of piety from 2 popes, Leo XIII and Benedict XV, which proves nothing. Like when St. Louis de Montfort said that man actually becomes God, which is actually heretical. Leo XIII borrowed it from St. Thomas, and yet St. Thomas also said that the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin, and are you going to believe that? And Benedict XV was wrong as well. Both popes did not say it infallibly or anything of the sort.

Now why the double standard? You can not possibly maintain that these Popes were unaware of the conciliar definitions you quote above? If they advocated this position, and as you maintain it is heretical then it is clear these Popes are denying the dogma. You are selectively applying your principles to Popes you don't like and giving a pass to Popes you do. If Leo XIII and Benedict XV (not to mention in fact Pius X, XI and XII also) taught our Lady was a co-redemptrix they would indeed have to have known what Florence and Trent taught, therefore they would be heretics and anti-Popes. When are you going to get consistent? Of course as I showed above you haven't the slightest clue what this doctrine is about, these Popes did and taught it correctly.

But of course, this is not to attack or diminish Our Lady in any way obviously, I'm simply saying the truth about the matter.

Yet again, it is anything but the truth. It does indeed diminish our Lady because it denies the unique way in which she participated in our Lord's act of redemption.

< which was sanctioned by the Church in Pius IX's time, something the Dimonds wouldn't know because they don't know Latin and can't read the sections of denzinger which are not translated.>>

Pope Pius XI infallibly condemned the very thing that NFP is in Castii Connubii: a use of the marital act without it's primary end in mind, which is the procreation and education of children. NFP is sinful and heretical birth control. Case closed. You don't even posses a whiff of the Faith. Saint Caesar of Arles: "As often as he knows his wife without a desire for children…without a doubt he commits sin." Errors Condemned by Pope Innocent XI: "9. The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect."–Condemned

As I alluded to previously, Pius XI never addressed the subject of NFP, and neither do your quotes. The Church while Pius XI was a seminarian clarified this matter for us, but since you don't know Latin at all, you have no way of knowing that, something I find highly defective in someone claiming to be part of the remnant stressing his theological credentials. If you don't know Latin you have no business speaking on these issues.

In 1880 a dubium was sent to the Sacred Penitentiary on the subject of abstension of sex during the fertile periods for a grave cause. The Penitentiary responded:

"Qu:. An licitus sit usus matrimonii illis tantum diebus, quibus difficilior est conceptio?
"Resp.: Coniuges praedicto modo utentes inquietandos non esse, posseque confessarium sententiam de qua agitur, illis coniugibus, caute tamen, insinuare, quos alia ratione a detestabili onanismi crimine abducere frustra tentaverit" (DS 3148)
"Qu: Whether it is lawful that one might make use of marriage only on such days, in which it is more difficult for conception to occur?"

Resp: "Spouses using the aforesaid method are not to be disturbed; and a confessor may, with due caution, suggest this proposal to spouses, if his other attempts to lead them away from the detestable crime of onanism have proved fruitless."

Yet since this is not in the Loretto copy of Denzinger, you had no idea that the Church authoritatively allowed couples the use of NFP. Not only was this done in 1880, but just a year after the publication of Casti Conubii:

Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?

"Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880."

"Qu. Whether the practice may in itself be licit by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons.

"Resp. Provided for through the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of 16 June 1880."

Do you mean to tell me that the Pope would allow the publication of something heretical, just a year after he condemned it in his encyclical? Do you mean the Sacred Penitentiary would teach what was just condemned in an encyclical a year previous?

NFP, though its prevalence in the modern period is questionable for many reasons, is not inherently sinful because it doesn't involve a defect in terms of matter. The body is not fertile at the times the marital act is engaged in. Nothing natural is undone. This differs in matter from Onanism and birth control.

< of some Church teachings which they then make themselves the infallible judges over. That is not traditional Catholic, it is the essence of modernism.>>

Oh, "some Church teachings" eh? This is just grasping at straws. FYI, all of the Councils of the Church, all of the Papal Encyclicals, all of the Dogmas of the Church, all of the writings of the Fathers, theology, the Bible, etc. IS AVAILABLE IN THE VERNACULAR. All that is necessary is available in the vernacular. Unless you're going to argue that all of the things of the Church that are in the vernacular right now, which is like 95%, is useless, and that somehow all that is in the vernacular is a "mistranslation" or whatever, I don't see your point bringing this up.

You have no business engaging in discussions of this topic. Why? Because the fullness of the Church's teachings on these subjects are not found in vernacular translation, as we already have seen with NFP and Baptism of Desire and Blood. Because you and the Dimond heretics have no grasping of Latin, or principles of theology, you are unable to make the necessary distinctions to even understand the teachings you condemn. If that is so on these matters, how much more so on the question of the Pope's office?

The corpus of Catholic theology has still not been translated. How the Church understands herself, is largely colored by those theologians commissioned by authority and whose teachings she makes use of to disseminate her doctrine. The mere fact that the majority of extraordinary magisterial teachings are available in vernacular does not make the one who reads them qualified to declare everyone they feel is teaching contrary to those teachings a heretic, because the principles and teaching of Catholic theology is necessary before one can correctly interpret doctrine. This is why it is the magisterium, not private lay theologians of questionable training, which determines those who are formal heretics and who are not. If you don't know Latin, and you have not studied the tradition (which is the consequence of not knowing Latin) then you are not fit to even attempt comment on these issues, let alone determine what is and is not heresy. That is the magisterium's job, and it is a job that must be done. Sedevacantism however, holds essentially that there is no visible magisterium, that the teachings of the past are sufficient to guide us through over a generation with no magisterium. The problem is someone has to do the job because new issues always arise that require clarification. So in the void you folks step in. Boom, you have made yourself the magisterium. It is untraditional, unCathoilc, and exactly what the devil wants to see.

Furthermore, although I do not agree 100% with them, they do not "make themselves the infallible judges" of Church teaching. That objection is simply moronic, and reveals your ignorance of Church teaching.

How so? EVEN OTHER SEDEVACANTISTS say this about the Dimond "brothers". We have seen exactly how this happens above. They are ignorant on what the Church has taught, and consequently teach contrary to the mind and intention of the Church.

And don't give me that "I don't agree with them" nonsense, EVERYTHING YOU HAVE QUOTED TO ME IS FROM THEIR WEBSITE!!! You need to get away from these false teachers before the place in hell with your name on it finds it's occupant.

And again, FYI, even if that were true (which is not), that's not Modernism anyways you genius. Modernism is the heresy that Dogmas can evolve and change their defined meaning, the heresy which says that the Church has to "adapt to the times", the exact heresy which Vatican II and the last 4 "popes" are filled with.

Again you don't understand modernism, because you have never read the theologians who wrote on modernism. Moreover, if you are ill-equipped to know something as basic as the Vatican approved NFP in 1880, as we saw in the Latin Denzinger above which you have no access to since you don't know Latin, how can we trust you are making the correct distinctions and analysis of the Popes since Vatican II? (NB: that doesn't mean there are no problems since Vatican II, we know there are, but can we trust someone who ignores bi-millenial teaching and can not make correct distinctions to get these issues right?)

Don't all you false schismatic "traditionalists" call the Novus Ordo installment the "Newchurch", "Modernist Rome", "Novus Ordo"??? Are you under the command of you local V-2 "bishop"??? Do you operate in communion with the "hierarchy" of the Novus Ordo??? Do you go to the New (and as even you phonies call it) "mess" ??? You're all a bunch of HYPOCRITES and phonies who are not even remotely Catholic but complete heretics and schismatics.

You have condemned yourself before the seat of the divine judge. You yourself profess to be out of communion with your bishop, with your Pope, you are not in the ark of salvation. There is a place in hell for you already, and if you do not abjure your false sect, you will go there and suffer the eternal malice of satan. He will laugh at you and mock you to the point where you could not feel more empty, for claiming judgment over God's Church, for professing to be a theologian when you deny things which even the demons are constrained to confess. Come back to Jesus Christ and His Church. You don't ever have to admit it publicly, and you don't ever have to admit it privately to me or anyone else, but you need to do so before you find yourself in the mystical body of satan.

"Traditionalists". "Recognize and resist". "Recognizing the "pope", but for display purposes only". What a load of hypocritical garbage. I don't know who's worse: you phonies or the neo-apostates in the Vatican II sect.

Real traditionalists obey when their Pope calls for obedience, and resist and respectfully criticize those things which may be imprudent, yet strive to keep alive within the Church the tradition. We do not usurp the authority of the priest and make ourselves teachers of the hierarchy, as Dimond blasphemously did when he kicked the priest he hired out in the street for failing to preach on his UFO tracts before he moved his sham operation to New York. The only garbage I see are from those apostates who out of complete and total private judgment have made themselves their own hierarchy and founded their own sect, and through a lack of faith declared the hierarchy to be formal heretics when they themselves do not understand doctrine.

On top of obstinately recognizing a completely apostate and heretical sect such as the Novus Ordo as the Catholic Church, which is a complete blasphemy against the Church, and on top of being in communion with and recognizing manifest heretics and apostates as the true "popes" of the Church, all of you phonies are complete heretics and modernists and complete and utter liars who are not even remotely Catholic. You phonies only go by the externals. "Recognizing the "pope", but for display purposes only". Cekada illustrated it perfectly.

Why do you reference Cekada? According to you he is a heretic because he believes the Church's teaching on baptism of desire and blood.

Besides that, we need no more proof that you are outside of the Church. Those who lose the virtue of faith due to heresy are unable to deal with problems intellectually, and take them in only in their appetites, which in turn disorders their appetites. They lash out uncontrollably, much as the souls in hell, and instead of making judgments on principle or according to the order of charity, slip into insults.

Which again, it is one thing to pose as an option someone is lying, but to declare someone is lying without clear proof is the sin of calumny, of course I've got a thick skin having dealt with foul-mouthed individuals such as yourself for a long time. I'm rather more concerned with your soul. You are not advancing in virtue on this course, you need to stop and consider am I becoming a saint? Or am I habituating myself to behavior which will place me in hell. That is more important than all this other nonsense.

< intellectually, it is all in the appetites.>>

Yeah, sure, Mr. "sophisticated" I-know-Latin-I'm-so-smart-when-I-don't-even-know-what-Modernism-is.

And again, as I showed above you are the one who doesn't understand it (again because you don't know the tradition) and these type of responses demonstrate further slavery to the appetites. You're life is already approximating hell, you have one foot in the fire, the next one is not far off. Come back to the Church before it is too late.

< read nothing outside of vernacular editions of works and make themselves the magisterium.>>

The same ridiculous argument already refuted and exposed above. Is the little that is in Latin more valuable than the Dogmas or the Councils? Are all the Dogmas in Latin? Are all the Councils in latin? Are all the Encyclicals and writings of the Church Fathers found only exclusively in latin? Again:

What you know about the councils is limited to what is in Denzinger. In reality the full text of the conciliar teachings are in Latin or Greek. The same follows for the consensus of theological teachings which the Church has never had to defend in councils or papal teaching. In reality you have this completely backwards. Only the most essential things are in vernacular. The vast majority of the Church's thought on a number of issues is found only in Latin. Not even all of Denzinger is in the vernacular as we saw above in your incorrect position on NFP.

According to your ridiculous arguments, anyone who doesn't know latin can't know anything about the Church and can't defend Her or defend himself against false teachings and heresiarchs.

Not at all. That is just another one of your straw men. What it does mean is that those who do not know Latin are incapable of taking up the Church's full teaching on these issues, and will invariably fall into judgments they are not qualified to make, such as we have seen on EVERY issue we have discussed so far. It doesn't mean one can not speak on things which are well diffused in the vernacular, such as the sacraments, grace, the Mass, etc., or one well read in scripture who has the use of good commentaries can not speak on scripture, however on dogmatic theology the majority of the Church's teaching is not translated. If you ain't read it you ain't qualified.

<<It also demonstrates your un-Catholic principles, that you can't distinguish between the authority of the ordinary and extraordinary magisteria, and that you don't understand Vatican I's definition.>>

Hahaha, we'll see who doesn't understand what in my next post below.

We're all holding our breath.

< magisterium may be infallible if it teaches what the Church has always and everywhere believed. If there is some question as to the latter the faithful can suspend their judgment until the magisterium adequately deals with the problem.>>

You couldn't be more dead wrong.

Oh? You haven't been right on a single charge thus far. Still confident?

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, chapter 3, ex cathedra: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, if you knew anything, is different from the Ordinary Magisterium, and is infallible, as Pope Pius IX taught. The teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can never contradict the teachings of the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium (Pope ex cathedra).

My poor Rafael, if only you could hear yourself. You need to study before spewing nonsense at someone who has done a little research and has a little training. You have made my case for me. Do you understand the difference between the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and that which is merely the Ordinary Magisterium? You give something close, but you don't understand it in practice. Yes you quote Vatican I, but you don't have any idea what it means by Universal Ordinary Magisterium. It does not deny a single thing I said. Neither did I deny the universal ordinary magisterium, I rather affirmed it. It simply isn't relevant, since I have in fact acknowledged it when I said that ordinary magisterial teaching may be infallible if it in fact teaches what the Church has always believed. It is the infallibility given to all the Bishops diffused throughout the world or gathered in council who meet the conditions, (and are in union with the Pope), it is the infallibility given to the Fathers when they speak unanimously, and medieval theologians when they speak unanimously (Tuas Libenter).

If something is taught that doesn't appear to have sufficient backing in the tradition, it is merely ordinary magisterial teaching and is consequently not infallible. That doesn't mean of course that it therefore must contain error, but it certainly can, as in the case of Florence's ordinary magisterial teaching on the matter of Holy Orders, which was based on a historical error. It was ordinary magisterial teaching because it was not found in the tradition, rather than being Universal Ordinary which has always and everywhere been believed, but not promoted with a solemn judgment. As we have seen again and again, you do not have the ability to make proper distinctions.

Who's not "theologically qualified" now?

You. Still. That ain't changed. And we can gleam your maturity from putting up an animated pile of dung with flies around it.

I supposed you think you look like the big shot with your "pipe" and throwing smoke and your face all serious don't you? LOL. What a douchebag.

More lessons in the virtue of charity? What man walks around in heaven talking like that? This is again more proof of what I said at the outset, that this is not an intellectual exercise for you, but an appetetive one. Your habits do not leave you at the moment of death. If you talk to your neighbor thus, you will speak thus to Christ on your deathbed. Don't doutb that, read the moralists and the spiritual writers.

< Dimond is that desperate for a debate he can send me something by e-mail. Otherwise I have more important things to do than waste what little time I have on the phone with a couple of hacks.>>

The Dimonds haven't said anything, nor have they told me to say something to you; what I merely said was that, if you would be willing to debate them in a telephone conversation publicly, they would be as well.

Then why are you offering public debates on their behalf if you have never talked to them? If as you say, I am not theologically qualified (which in fact we have shown to be the other way around on EVERY point you have brought forth thus far) then why would they even care? Why would they want to expend the time and energy?

However we have already seen what your game is. You e-mailed them to say I wanted a phone debate, then when I said the same thing I have said since email one, you can call me a coward.

If you want I could ask them if they want to debate you in a telephone conversation or in a written debate. You claim the truth is by your side, so what do you have to lose? You claim you know more than them, so why don't you call them up and challenge them to a debate? They would certainly agree to debate you publicly.

Because that is stupid. I'm a lay theologian. I don't have time to waste on a bunch of hacks that are incapable of distinctions in theology and know absolutely nothing of the tradition but what they find in vernacular editions of books. If they are so learned and brilliant let them debate the Public Authority, which is the Pope, instead of scandalously peddling books and media in the shadows declaring him to be a formal heretic, when they have never even met him. Let them ask him for correction (I should love to see that), let them call him a heretic to his face like men with some shred of integrity, instead of making profits off the whole thing. They won't because if they are wrong, they have to go out and get a real job. They can't take that chance.

Besides that they are thieves and crooks. Not only do they lie to confused Catholics to get their money, and they appear to have stolen well over a million dollars from another man. Even if the worst you could say about the Pope is true, the Dimonds will be far lower in hell than he could ever be in that event. Get away from them and come back to the Catholic Church.

Habemus Puerum!

2009-10-17T13:41:00.001-07:00

Petrus Joseph Maria Teresiae Expectatus! Born at 4:30 Thursday!
Deo Gratias!

This is why I have done almost no posting of late. More important things on my mind.

Sungenis Responds to Hahn

2009-10-09T19:15:00.000-07:00

Check out this post over at Unam for the latest in the continuing saga as Dr. Robert Sungenis responds to Dr. Scott Hahn's defense of his theory that the Holy Spirit can be understood in a maternal sense. I am amazed at the amount of attention this issue has been getting, but the discussion is helpful and it is an important issue. Many Trads are distrustful of Scott Hahn because of this very point, and anything that can clear the air, one way or another, is welcome in my opinion.

The Greatest Saint of Modern Times

2009-10-03T16:55:00.000-07:00

I can't let St. Thérèse's feast day pass without making a few comments.

Pope St. Pius X, even before her canonization, declared that she was the greatest saint of modern times.

This means that in the sainted Pope's estimation, when she is weighed with saints such as St. John Neuman, St. Julian Emyard, St. John Bosco, St. John Vianney or even the great Cardinal Newman of England for who Pius X had great admiration, St. Thérèse was the greatest.

Why is that? She wrote no treatises on theology. She would never have dared to enter into such a task since she had no formal theological education. In fact, her actual writings can be difficult for educated men to digest since they often come across as too emotional. She did not travel widely, she was not a missionary (though she longed for the chance), she received no revelation and started no devotions. (Some credit her with devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus but this was actually begun by another Carmelite nun, Mary of St. Peter) During her life she was known outside of the convent by few, two missionary priests, a Jesuit in Canada, her family and some people in the town of Lisieux. No miracles are related of her childhood (other than her cure from an unknown disease), no examples of miraculous piety such as St. Gerard Majella refusing to nurse on Fridays when an infant.

She is great precisely for what she did not do, and in modern times it is a work of greatness. To be a simple soul, trying to purge her defects to be closer to Jesus. A simple soul, tempted by atheism and afflicted with disease quite young, who never did anything so great as doing nothing great, but relying on Jesus to inspire each action, and to give it back to him, and to long to purchase souls with the trials of this world. She is a mark, a beacon and a guide for us poor moderns, bamboozled by technology, the ready availability of good food, and tempted by unbelief by "progress". The common man of today has much more to deal with than the common man of 800, or even 500 years ago. It is easier to live a spiritual life when there are fewer distractions, when science doesn't represent a counter-religion and is rather something understood within its proper faculties, and when the culture itself aspires to glorify God. In the modern period, where Christendom has been dissolved, its corpse flogged and its memory despised (even sadly by many in the Church), where public discourse takes modernism and atheism as the default systems of thought, living a truly Catholic life is much more difficult, and requires a keen simplicity to penetrate the veil. St. Thérèse exemplifies the practice of virtue in the face of animosity. Ultimately the little way is the anti-dote to modernism.

Modernism functions by the principle of immanence, which is that truth begins in the individual. It is the operating principle of all modern thought, relativism, of the modern errors concerning freedom, economics and almost all other things we see today. It even colors our notion of the four last things, death, judgment, hell and heaven. Yet just as truth begins in the individual for the modernist, it ends with him too. Anyone not seen accepting his truth must be resisted, fought and ultimately put to death. We see this in the so-called "pro-choice" movement, which fights assiduously to prevent parental notification, conscience clauses and even information about abortion given to women. We see this with the media which scorns anything religious, because it promotes something contrary to their lifestyle.

For a true Catholic, especially a saint, truth begins outside the individual, and to know it (in this case, to know Him since God is truth itself) one must conform themselves to truth, not the other way around. St. Thérèse was tempted by atheism in her last days. Her intellect could not see God as it did earlier in her life, and she felt interiorly all her senses react against the notion of religion, suffering, and God Himself. So, she ignored them, and with a supernatural fortitude sought heaven and God alone, to the mortification of her senses. It is one of the hardest things to purge oneself of his defects. It is for this reason so many of the saints wanted to be martyred, because martyrs go straight to heaven. There is a justice in that, in as much as what more could God require from man than that he willfully separate himself from all the goods of this world for God's sake. In some of Thérèse's letters, we see there is a certain fear in the convent due to the rising anti-clericalism in France, that the convent would soon be destroyed and the nuns to mount the scaffold as their predecessors had during the French Revolution. One can gleen a certain relish that she might have had at the thought. Yet, St. Thérèse was not to receive so quick a path to heaven. She entered on a path which few in this world have ever entered, and she did it in the modern period when never has so strong a counter-religion, a counter-world existed in opposition to the true faith.

Our Blessed Lady has the title of Co-Redemptrix, she shared in, participated in, and suffered with our Sacred Redeemer in a way greater than any of us ever could (which is why she has the highest place in heaven of the created). We too are called, as Pope Pius XI taught, called to be co-redeemers, by participating in Jesus' one act of suffering and redemption. Throughout history, the Church has suffered a passion, from its infancy under the Romans, to unfaithful kings in the middle ages, missionaries in foreign lands, under the apostasy of Henry VIII (a persecution which nearly rivals the Roman persecution), and the saints share in that passion of the Church. St. Thérèse participated in the passion of the Church in greater manner than any of us in the modern period, and in a greater way even than some saints of the modern period based on her circumstances. She is a light to how we ought to walk, with supernatural faith to combat the world.

We are all called to enter unto the way of transforming union. She walked that way, and she did it simply, by offering to Jesus a participation of his passion in all the little things of her life. That is why we are called to live that life. Not only to pay for our sins, not only to work on our own defects, but to purchase the salvation of others who can not see the light of faith. Sacrifice and suffering alone will convert modern minds who can not see the light of faith. Moreover, sacrifice and suffering alone can free the Church from the influence and the domination of modernism, which has been so strong since the beginning of the 20th century, both before and after the Council.

If we walk along the little way of St. Thérèse, we will find the sacrifices of our lives will be the price required to purchase the souls of wayward clergy. If Catholics had been living the little way, how dramatically different would the clergy have been before and after the Council. How different it would be today, if we lived more like her.

Testimony from former Sedevacantists

2009-10-01T05:53:00.000-07:00

Dear Sir,

I thank you for your writings on Sedevacantism. Unlike some other critiques I have seen, yours are well thought out and well argued.

I first came to Sedevacantism because of some videos from the Dimond Brothers of Most Holy Family Monastery, which convinced me that Pope John Paul II could not be the real Pope. From there I began attending Sedevacantist chapels and read their literature. For many years I have been hateful of all around me, sad, depressed, and truthfully without the virtue of hope, because I felt God had really abandoned the Church.

I found your website a year ago, and enjoyed reading it even though I thought you were wrong about the Pope. Your writings on Sedevacantism began to challenge me very seriously, and I found that I couldn't refute them. I got down on my knees and asked God to give me the virtue of faith, truly and fully in the true doctrine of the Catholic Church, and if Benedict is indeed my Pope to be able to accept him. Almost instantly I had a peace of mind and soul, because God had granted me the grace to see that Benedict is our Pope, for better or for worse.

I thank you truly for bringing me to such a point of humility that I could ask God to show me the truth. May God bless you.

Sincerely,

Grace *******

Dear Sir,

Although I don't necessarily agree with everything you have written on sedevacantism, I felt you made many good points. I was once a sedevacantist, and one day the despair of that whole system dawned on me. We basically believed that God had abandoned us without a hierarchy, and that seemed ridiculous. The more I thought about it, the more I realized we needed to have a valid Pope, so I left their miserable sect and came back to the true Church.

I thank you for your postings because they have confirmed me in times of weakness and kept me from reverting. God bless and keep you,

John ************

Athanasius,

Your posts on sedevacantism are great! They have really helped with some relatives of mine, especially the argument about the need for a living magisterium to hand down the tradition to us, and the fact that every generation has had that. I also thought it significant that the longest interregnum in history was just over 2 years, so going from that to 50 years is a massive stretch! God bless your work, keep it up we really need people to challenge these guys.

Sincerely,

Brad ***

Converts & Traditionalism

2009-09-28T11:11:00.000-07:00

Some time ago, Athanasius did a great post on small "t" Tradition and the role of popular EWTN-friendly apologists who are Protestant converts in advancing liturgical and doctrinal minimalism in the life of the Church. In the teaching of many of these popular Protestant converts, there is often an excessively narrow focus on the de fide ("Big-T") traditions of the Church in such a way as to exclude or even regard as utterly dispensible the so-called "small-t" tradition. The Traditionalist, who embraces all of the Church's legitimate traditions, must wonder if they actually assisting the ecclesiastical deconstructionists in jettisoning all of the small "t" traditions?

This is an excellent topic to look into more, because it is a fact that Traditionalists often make the point when referring to a certain Catholic pop-apologist that he is an "ex-Protestant" (as, for example, is done in Chris Ferrara's book "EWTN: Network Gone Wrong"). This is especially prominent in the circles of extreme traditionalists who deny the validity of the NO. To them, the popularity of men like Hahn, Kresta, etc. is just an extension of the Church's apparent love-affair with Protestant ideology that began in the 1960's.

But we need not poitn out only extreme examples - many sound Traditionalists - myself included- have sometimes wondered about what under-the-surface "baggage" Protestant converts bring to the Church. This is a legitimate question.

But before answering it, we ought to ask ourselves first: why bring up that such-and-such an apologist is a convert? After that we should wonder: what do we imply by pointing out that they are?

By labelling an apologist as a convert or "ex-Protestant," we are implying that there exists some kind of dynamic or paradigm about converts from Protestantism within the Catholic Church. Before we go any further, we ought to establish that this label is not in any way meant to deny the fidelity of these convert apologists. We are not attempting (or at least we should not be) to cast suspicion on their orthodoxy, as if they are modern day moriscos or maranos of whom we need to be extra cautious. What we do need to acknowledge, however, is that since converts from Protestantism come into the Church from a different path than cradle Catholics, their view of what is important about the Church will necessarily be a little different. I come at this from a unique position, as a cradle Catholic who toyed around with Protestantism and then "reverted" back to Catholicism, and so I can see where both sides are coming from, and I see that the first thing we need do is acknowledge that such a dynamic between cradle Catholics / converts does in fact exist.

Of course, it does not apply universally. Few labels do. Of course, it does not apply universally. Few labels do. But here is how it works, as one commentator on Athanasius' original post pointed out:

While the cradle Catholic-turned-Traditionalist is deeply disappointed that he had never heard of Benediction, Processions, Te Deum, Salve Regina, etc. before finding his way into traditionalism, the convert is so thrilled to have access to the sacraments and the magisterium that he cannot imagine the leadership in the church having ever done anything wrong by getting rid of or hiding so many small-t traditions. One who comes into the Church from Protestantism naturally finds great excitement in the fact that the Catholic Church worships liturgically, that Christ's grace is present through the sacraments ex opere operato, that the authority claimed by the papacy is authentic, that Marian veneration is in fact biblical, etc. He has come to the Church of Christ and finally feels at home.

However, because he is so excited to be home, he frequently ignores what state the home that he came back to is in. A convert is so overwhelmed and over joyed that the Church does in fact have an infallibe head (something he denied as a Protestant) that he has a hard time imagining how such an infallible head could permit the Church to fall into such disastrous straits, if he even gets around to realizing that the straits are disastrous. He is so thrilled with liturgical worship (as opposed to his former, anything-goes, a-liturgical, non-denominational Protestant emotional sob-fest) that he takes little thought as to the quality or history of the liturgy he participates in. He is more impressed with that it is as opposed to what it is.

When somebody once commented to me, around eight years ago, about the sad state of Catholic liturgy today, I glibly told them, "Why not just be humble and happy that you have a liturgy and that you can receive Christ in the Eucharist?" I was making several errors in my thought here:

1) I was failing to distinguish between the objective validity of the sacrament itself and the fittingness of the decora that surround that sacrament, and that the latter can actually influence the amount of grace ex opere operantis I can receive through the former.

2) I was failing to distinguish between the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the reception of the sacrament at the Mass.

3) I had the mistaken minimalist notion that proper Catholic worship (or theology, or whatever) consisted of several essential elements, and that so long as the essentials were present, everything else was just a matter of "taste" (like Gregorian Chant vs. praise & worship).

I'm sure there are some more errors in this line of thought that some of you could pick out, but I think that suffices for now. I know this was the case for me, and I can only imagine that this frequently happens with other converts (or reverts) from Protestantism. We tend to stay in a convert mentality for a long time. We can spend years rejoicing that we have found our home before we look around and decide it is in need of cleaning. Coming into the Church can be a matter of only a few months, but working Protestantism out of the system can take decades.

Is it wrong to suggest that the Church needs cleaning? Absolutely not; St. Augustine himself says that the Church is always in need to purification and reform. It is no help to our individual holiness or to that of the Church Universal to deny that it is so. What is so offensive to many, however, is the suggestion that the reform is needed to counteract certain tendencies that originate from within the Church itself.

This is where the convert mentality breaks down. He has just spent months, maybe years, discovering the impassible, infallible, one, holy, catholic and apostolic Bride of Christ, so much so that he has left his Protestant tradition as wholly as Abraham leaving Ur. And how can he, in this mindset, see that the Church has some very serious problems originating from the acts of the very hierarchy and papacy that he has just learned how to defend to his Protestant friends and family? I'm not saying it cannot happen, but that in these circumstances it becomes less likely that a new convert will be inclined to see things from a traditionalist angle. That is what this dynamic is all about: what is more or less likely based on how a person comes to the Church.

While the convert to Catholicism tends to react to Traditional things with a manner of indifference (or, at best, curiosity), the cradle Catholic who comes in contact with Tradition tends to respond with feelings of having been cheated or short-changed; Disinherited would be a better word. He is able to respond to these things this way because he has never had to come into Catholicism through the door viewing the liturgy or the sacraments as complete novelties. Therefore, instead of asking, "How is this worship different than Protestant worship?" he is in a sense freer to examine the more practical dimension of the matter: "How does is this worship more or less conducive to faith?" He can view the sacraments and the liturgy in a more holistic way, with sacraments, form, matter, vestments, music, architecture and all rolled up into one experience, because this experiential totality is Catholicism for him. For the new convert, it is perpetually a contrast to his previous experience with a focus on the essentials to the exclusion of what are errantly deemed irrelevant trivialities ("Who cares what type of music is being played? You get to receive Jesus!")

But as time goes by and the convert begins to feel at home within the Catholic Church, and continues to study and grow in prayer, he begins to come into the birthright that he obtained through baptism, and it is then that as liturgy becomes the pulse of life, he can begin to see the forest and not just the individual trees within it. This is why many converts become conservatives (no converts from Protestantism become liberal Catholics: that category is made up exclusively of poorly formed cradle Catholics). These conservatives then begin to gravitate towards Traditionalism as they feel more at home in the Church and begin to see themselves no longer as converts but as regular Catholics, especially if they are sensitive to the disorders within the Church and begin to ponder why the Church is in such a dire state.

While many Catholics remain NO conservatives their entire lives, I think conservatism in the Church, philosophically speaking, is a kind of halfway house. The conservative position is to the Catholic Church what Anglicanism is to Christianity as a whole: a stop-over point where people can rest momentarily before delving further into where their beliefs will logically lead them.

And so, that brings us back to Tradition. The roads by which we get here and becomes Traditionalists are many and varied: Protestantism, conservative Catholicism, charismatic Catholicism. While we ought never to be calling into question the orthodoxy or fidelity of people just because they used to be something else, we still ought not to be afraid to acknowledge that we did all in fact get here by different doors, and that those doors color what we see once we arrive.

Change of Habit

2009-09-24T11:25:00.000-07:00

The following is from the 1969 film "Change of Habit" starring Elvis Presley. I'm not going to say anything (it is beyond words), but I am curious on what you think after watching this.

Ember Days

2009-09-23T08:49:00.000-07:00

One of the chief virtues of the Christian life is fasting, and sadly today most Catholics have no concept of this virtue. It is to the point where the two days in which they must fast every year are arduous at best.

The virtue of fasting is essentially the habit of giving up meals of your volition. It is part of the virtue of temperance which means it is a natural virtue, and hence a requirement of the natural law. Now traditionally the Church, having been endowed with a great knowledge of human nature by Jesus Christ, instituted through the Apostles a period of fasting called in English Lent (Latin Quadragesima, the forty) by which man, for forty days must fast and pray. The beauty of fasting for forty days every year is that it instills the virtue of fasting, so that at other periods of the year fasting becomes a thing to which our habits are more inclined. Throughout the remainder of the year according to the Church's traditional discipline, one fasted on the vigils of great feasts and on ember days, which are days of fast during one Wednesday, Friday and Saturday of every liturgical season.

Sadly however, the current law of the Church on fasting is insufficient to fulfill the dictates of the natural law when it comes to the virtue of fasting. What it commands is good in itself, a fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but two days of the year is insufficient to instill a habit toward the virtue. As a result the vast majority of Catholics do not create habits inclined to this virtue. I once dialogued with an orthodox priest (he was also helping me learn Greek) on the faith and it happened to be Lent and we were both fasting so we only ate bread. He made the comment that "Catholics don't fast." Though a useless segue in doctrinal differences between orthodox and Catholics, the point was in fact true enough. The Orthodox Church's laws do in fact help their members develop habits ordered toward the virtue of fasting, by the many and demanding fasts of their tradition. (Other of their laws are contrary to evangelical teaching, like divorce and remarriage, but that is something for another time.)

I spoke last week of recouping the Tradition, and that now that we have the Motu Proprio, the means to recouping the tradition are largely in our hands, not in Rome's. Not totally, and of course, I was not saying that all debate must stop, but that it must take second place. People have this idea that reform happens from the top down, on the contrary it often happens from the ground up, by the faithful meriting for clergy certain graces, and they for their bishops, and up to the Pope. This is why the Missal (before Bugnini messed around with it and produced for us the '62 Missal) had extra collects praying for the Pope. Take those away and is it any wonder that we begin to have bad Popes?

Nevertheless, one of the essential pillars to recouping the tradition by making ourselves holier is inculcating the virtue of fasting. This can be done by fasting for all of Lent, not merely abstaining from meat on Fridays (these two are often confused, abstinence and fasting, but they are separate virtues). It can also be done, by once again fasting during the Ember days. Today is one such day, as are the Friday and Saturday of this week. There will be another set in Advent (which is also a penitential season) and in the spring and summer. By fasting on these days, as well as the vigils of major feasts (such as All Saints or the Immaculate Conception) are excellent means of instilling the habit. When God asks us at our particular judgment why we did not work to establish the virtue of fasting, it will not be a sufficient answer that the Church's law post Vatican II failed to instill the habit. Fasting is a natural virtue, and there are many natural virtues which positive law does not provide for per se, rather we must inculcate ourselves through our good actions and habits. This has now become one of them, and there is no better way to recoup the tradition than by following the Church's traditional practice. It is also worth noting that since the Church no longer commands this (though it should) we do in fact gain more grace than our ancestors by going above and beyond the law to do it!

If that is done, there will be much more grace in our lives, which will allow us to increase our dispositions to sanctifying grace which in turn will make our prayers more efficacious. If we are serious about a true restoration of Catholic tradition, this is one of the doors we must walk through. If we like instead of being Trads, being modernists, who go to the Traditional Mass, picking and choosing which traditions to follow, one can ignore these traditional days of fast and continue along his way.

Mary queen of virtues, prayer for us!

The exaltation of the Holy Cross: re-evaluating Traditionalism

2009-09-14T05:45:00.000-07:00

Today is the feast of the exaltation of the Holy Cross, which is a distinct feast from the finding of the true Cross by St. Helena. This feast, commemorates the victory of the Eastern Roman Empire over the Persians in the 7th century, and the recovery and return of the cross to Jerusalem. In most Traditional Missals there will be a description of the event, that Heraclius, the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, could not enter the city with the cross because of some spiritual force which stopped him. When he asked a priest, he was told that it was because he was dressed in kingly robes. To enter, he had to dress in rags, so as to not carry the cross into Jerusalem in a manner above our Lord who carried it in rags. After that he was able to carry the cross in.

However there is much more to this story, and the background history deserves to be told. In the year 570, the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, Maurice, supported Khusru, or Khusroes II (sometimes written Chosroes in western history books) to the throne in Persia, and gave Roman aid to his cause. (Roman here refers to what scholars call the “Byzantine empire”, but I use Roman generally speaking since it was the accepted term by which the Byzantines called themselves as well as what their enemies called them). Khusroes showed his gratitude by ending the war with Constantinople, and ceded to the Eastern Empire half of Armenia, which had long been disputed. After hundreds of years there was peace between Rome and Persia.

Then something else happened. In the year 602, The emperor Maurice was overthrown, and replaced by Phocas, a centurion who was selected by the troops present. He was little more than a monster, who murdered all of Maurice’s family save a few, was a rapist and a completely inept leader. He was completely ineffectual against incursians by Avars, Slavs and assorted steppe peoples, emptied the treasury and brought the Eastern Empire to near destruction. He was unable to restore order when Monophysite mobs rose all over Syria and Egypt and killed orthodox bishops, replacing them with heretics.

Theodosius, a surviving member of Maurice’s family, escaped to Persia to Maurice’s friend and ally, Khusroes. What landed in his lap was a sequence of events few leaders could hope for. Politically, he could march on the Eastern Empire as Theodosius’ champion, much as Maurice had done for him. He could also use it to take control of a good chunk of territory, if not destroy the Roman Empire for good and reestablish ancient Persia, and on top of that Phocas was a murderer and a barbarous tyrant which made some moral right.

Though slow to get started, under Khusroes the Persians invaded the Levant and took every city from Antioch to Alexandria, including Jerusalem in 608. They took the true Cross from the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, and brought it back with them to Persia, and were prepared to march on Constantinople. It appeared as if the Eastern Empire was to be destroyed. However, there was Africa, where St. Augustine lived and preached and which Justinian’s able general, Belisarius, had recovered a century earlier. Its general, Heraclius was a pious man, fully orthodox, and in 610 he set sail for Constantinople with an army, and an icon of Our Lady on the masthead of his flag ship. The coup was almost instant, everyone wanted Phocas gone, and he was killed by a mob.

Heraclius was crowned in the Church of St. Stephen and could now set on the task of saving the Empire. Phocas had ruined the treasury, and sunk the last gold to keep Heraclius from getting it. To fight the Persians, who now marched on Constantinople after three years of unbroken victory, Heraclius needed an army. The loss of Jerusalem had inspired temporary reunion of the Monphyistes, and inspired the Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople to offer to Heraclius all the gold available at that time in the Churches for equipping, feeding and transporting an army. For two years the emperor raised this army. Then in 622, he prayed at Hagia Sophia on Easter Monday then embarked with his troops and an image of Jesus Christ as the army’s banner to Asia Minor, where he won victory after victory and drove the Persians back. He made straight for Persia, preparing to devastate it. He made an alliance with a Mongol people, the Khazars, and with their troops and his own (plus reinforcements of troops which had broken a Persian siege of Constantinople when he was away) he swept into Mesopotamia with a huge force, and smashed Khusroes near the ruins of Nineveh. The latter fled and was killed in an uprising while hiding in the mountains. Peace was made with Persia, and the true cross was returned to Jerusalem, which Heraclius brought to Jerusalem himself. That is the principle event which is commemorated in the liturgy today.

However, there is one more important facet to this story. Heraclius had returned to Constantinople, and the patriarch Sergius, bowing to pressure from those who thought Church riches ought not to have been given for worldly ends (no matter how necessary), demanded repayment of all the Church’s wealth in full. No man could have seen the firestorm about to come from Arabia, it appeared as if no enemy remained for the Romans to fight, with Persia having been completely laid low and reduced to a conquered nation which sent tributes to Constantinople. Thus it seemed wise to reduce the military apparatus to the same level of weakness it had prior to the Persian assault. This is because the greater good of society, in fact a goal to which society ought to be working was not correctly grasped.

The significance of these events will soon be seen in light of this feast. For it not only commemorates the exaltation of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, it also commemorates the date, two years ago, when the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, went into juridical effect, which established in Church law that every priest in the world has a right to say the Traditional Mass, irrespective of the opposition of Bishops and other clergy. The day should be one of great rejoicing amongst Traditional Catholics, but it should also be a moment for pause, reflection, and the establishment of a common goal.

For many years, with the onset of modernism after the Council, and the apparent lack of clarification on law which was due to the faithful from the magisterium not only in prudence but also in charity, the prime goal of the Traditional movement was the restoration of the Traditional Mass to the life of the Church. Toward that end much material on the efficacy of that Mass, its value as an expression of the faith in tradition superior to that of the “reformed” rite, and the rites of Catholics to continue as they did before the Council had been penned, argued and debated for nearly 40 years. The goal common to all Traditional Catholics was the restoration of that Mass. That happened. As surely as Heraclius could place the true Cross into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, so too the Pope had placed again in the sanctuary of the Church (juridically speaking) the Roman Rite handed down by the Roman Church through countless centuries. Yet this goal having been reached, the Traditional movement has failed, it would seem to me, to make proper account of the event and proper planning of the future, much as Heraclius and Sergius had ill planned on the needs of the state in its future, which led to its defeat in Syria by the Muslims.

Thus it has become time to reevaluate the purpose of the Traditional movement, because too much of it had been focused on the Mass. That was the obvious first step, but if the only reason one calls himself a traditionalist is for the Traditional Mass, then in the end he has failed to grasp the full vision of Traditional Catholic life.

To begin with, though the Pope has in fact said yes, Traditionalists have been right all of these years, and neo-conservative and liberal apologists have been wrong, this has unfortunately emboldened some Trads in their sense of personal superiority. That the Traditional Mass in its extrinsic celebration is superior to the new, does not make the attendee holier or better than the attendee at the new. That the grace is there, does not mean it is automatically supplied on the side of the worshiper, yet there is the unfortunate tendency of Trads to think that it does, or that if they go to the Traditional Mass and send their kids to a good Catholic school this takes care of all their obligations.

Now here it is important to make distinctions, what we speak of here is not the angry traditionalist, since many of the worst qualities of angry trads can also be found in many who go to the Novus Ordo. That they exist is certain, but we shouldn’t worry about them here. What we should be worried about is the majority of Trads who do not advance in the spiritual life, because they become complacent with the way things are. Okay, we have the Mass, we have a traditional catholic parish life, now we are set. Much like Heraclius and Sergius, who said we have no more enemies, we are set, let’s allow things to get as bad as they were since it isn’t a problem any more.

To move forward in the spiritual life, (which is veritably a combat) we must realize that access to the sacraments, and staying out of sin is only the beginning of where we ought to be. It does not automatically order our faculties and desires, it does not make us see straight spiritually. Traditional Catholics, where they are not utterly complacent and have hung up their armor, are fighting battles that are already more or less done with. There are people, and they are numerous, who will read all the books on the state of the Church, read the internet on how bad things are, act as if the world is ending but not spend 5 minutes of prayer outside of Mass and (hopefully) the rosary. Prayer, whether in the form of meditation, or of various indulgences given us by the Church, is the first step to getting our faculties in order. While it is not a bad thing to have some concept of what is going on in the Church, some people allow it to consume them, so that it is always on their minds and then spend no time working on their imperfections or advancing in the spiritual life. One ought to ask the question, am I working on my vices of talking too much? Of immodesty (in its scholastic sense), that is for failing to maintain right decorum, am I too worried about the sins of my neighbor or of correcting my neighbor when it isn’t called for? Am I working on the defects of my marriage, not doing the things that sends my spouse into orbit, assuming the burdens correctly, using my authority rightly (men), whittling away at the habits toward the 6^th and 9^th commandments which will lead one back to those sins? Are we practicing self exorcism and using our authority to keep demons out of the home? When we sin, there are effects which naturally come about, not merely as a punishment, but as a fact because when we sin we detract from God’s glory. Moreover, when we have defects, but do not work on them, in that we also detract from God’s glory. In a book on purgatory, a Saint sees a soul in purgatory and asks whether or not they would prefer to be in heaven. The soul replied that it would rather stay in purgatory for eternity, than be in the sight of God with a single blemish. Why? It is because they can not endure it. Not one of us could do so. St. Paul says to run that we might win the prize. Not that we get second. The prize is the beatific vision, yet many of us do not live as though we wanted to get there.

Sadly I even found myself in that state of affairs several years ago. That is why one will find, the most blog posts ever were in 2006, and gradually they have dropped, until now I get scarcely more than a post a week if I’m lucky. Why? I’m tired of wasting time surfing around the internet, or debating the obstinate, when I should be an athlete for Christ, running to win the prize.

Trads often find such language annoying, because they remember being around some Novus Ordo person who was always attempting to turn subjects to good and holy things. Granted there is a disordered sense in which one can do so and be unable to enjoy legitimate satire or right recreation but what I’m talking about here is the discomfort we have when around people who pray and devote their lives to Jesus Christ. Many of us, if we seriously look at ourselves, will come to the conclusion we are not doing enough, whether in spiritual works, meditation, or even engaging the spiritual life.

Thus I would argue, the Traditional movement really is at a crossroads. We have gotten our goal, although it is not universally realized, that is of having the Traditional Mass restored lawfully to the life of the Church. Now what? The focus should be not on the problems of the Church but on the spiritual life, on ceasing to detract from God’s glory through outrageous sins and imperfections, but contributing to it by exhibiting his grace in our lives. There are people, who think we need more argument and more debate on other subjects, and some is indeed needed, but some people live as if it were still 1970 and there were a handful of Traditional Masses around. There is an ancient dictum, you get the leaders you deserve. St. John Eudes taught that the presence of bad clergy is a sign to the people that God is displeased with them. The sacraments are not enough. To be actualized in our wills and in our faculties we need to make use of the grace that flows through them to be holy. If the Traditional movement was known for its holiness (rather than its minority of complainers or its greater majority of complacent souls) the grace brought forth by the increase of God’s glory would also bring us good leaders. We might also put it another way: got a problem with your bishop? It is more likely a problem with you.

Thus now that we have had this immense victory, inconceivable 40 years ago, we have the obligation to use the spoils (that is the graces) prudently to their right purpose, the salvation of our souls, so that when the assaults of the world come, we are prepared to meet them and not succumb to them, as Heraclius’ ill-prepared army succumbed to the Arabs, because the spoils of victory had been ill-used. It is in this life alone that we can increase our place in heaven, and we ought to do so while we can. That, if no other goal, ought to be the current goal of the Traditional movement, which is to say, it should make its goal, having recovered a more efficacious means, to do what Catholics have always strived to do, to come away from the world of created things and to the cross of Jesus Christ. As St. Bonaventure teaches, "No one can serve God perfectly who does not try energetically to break the bonds of the world and rise above all earthly cares." Now that we have the Mass back, although it is not universal, the step which should be taken is to re-establish a traditional Catholic based on the Traditional sacraments, spiritual leading, and complete self-dedication to God. There is no better way to eliminate wayward clergy and heresy in the Church.

Further Refutation of the Errors of Sedevacantism, pars II

2009-09-03T08:00:00.000-07:00

“That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by our Lord, but it flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the Primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death, consequently, his office must be transmitted to others. The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it: Christ’s flock cannot exist without shepherds.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 282)

This is a continuation of the response from a sedevacantist to my post "The False Principles of Sedevacantism". At the rate I'm going I might see one a week, depending on my time. As before I'm in black and Lasker, sedevacantist whino (see bottom) extraordinaire is in good ol' commie red.

Cases #4 & 5: Popes Honorius I and John XXII "Honorious I permitted a cousin heresy of monyphysitism, monothelytism (that our Lord had only one divine will and not a human will also) to be taught. He wrote so in a document and was condemned by a future Pope, Pope St. Agatho and an ecumenical council. No one said that Honorious lost his office, and neither that he ceased to be Pope after writing his infamous letter. He did not meet the conditions for infallibility. Likewise with Pope John XXII, who professed a heresy that particular judgment of the soul was delayed until final judgment. Scholastic theologians did not say that John XXII lost his office. The latter submitted his position to a commission of theologians who said that he taught error. No one said that John XXII had lost his office, not even Cardinal Orsini who was a true schismatic and supported an anti-Pope. His claim was that John XXII was invalidly elected, not that by heresy he lost his office." You proceed here with still more lies, corruption of facts, and corruption of history itself. But the truth will be revealed here. (A) Unsavory Company: Citing these cases puts you in some very unsavory company:

Opponents of papal authority — protestants, eastern schismatics, Conciliarists, Gallicans, the anti-infallibilists at Vatican I, etc. — routinely pointed to John XXII and Honorius to shore up attacks against Catholic teaching. (C) Missing Elements: Your citings of these cases fail on several points, because in both, one or several of the elements required for a heretical pope to lose office were missing.

On the contrary, the facts of the case bear this out and separate me completely from those you mention. I said Honorius allowed monophysitism to be taught. I did not say he taught it. Protestants and the Orthodox claim that he actually taught it. Secondly, as I noted these did not meet the conditions for infallibility. Protestants and Conciliarists claim it did. The letters were not known about until after Honorius' death. The former claim that they were acts teaching the Church. What they do prove is that the assertion of certain sedevacantists, namely the Dimond Bros, that if a Pope fails to condemn error as the last 5 loses his office, is false since when Pope Agatho condemned Honorius for accepting a conciliatory condition, he mentioned nothing of the Pope losing his office for allowing a heresy to be taught in his private capacity. The argument is not dependent on who knows, but on what a Pope actually does.

(1) John XXII (1316-1334) preached a series of sermons in Avignon, France in which he taught that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. But this case fails because: (a) The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined, so a denial of it would not constitute heresy. (b) The pope, who had been a theologian before his election, proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (Le Bachlet, “Benoit XII,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.) In the pope’s second sermon, moreover, he said the following: “I say with Augustine that, if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the Church would so declare with a contrary statement [nisi ostenderetur determinatio ecclesie contraria] or unless authorities on sacred scripture would express it more clearly than what I have said above.” (Le Bachelet, DTC 2:262.) Such statements excluded the element of “pertinacity” proper to heresy. Furthermore, how convenient that you failed to mention point (a) in your article... (2) Honorius I (625-638) wrote several letters relating to the Monothelite heresy (=Christ had only one will, the divine), for which he was later accused, variously, of being a heretic himself or being soft on heresy. The ins and outs of this complex case need not detain us, except to mention the following fact: The disputed formulas came to light only after Honorius died. According to the theologian Hurter, it is certain that “the letters of Honorius were unknown [ignotae] until the death of the Pontiff and [the Patriarch] Sergius.” (Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae, 360.) Hence, even if heretical, Honorius’ statements could not have constituted the “public” heresy required for a pope to lose office.

We've already dealt with that. Pope Agatho with the 2^nd Council of Constantinople condemned Honorius as a heretic. That means he was formally declared to be a heretic, which is the Church’s judgment of his pontificate. Nowhere did his worst detractors teach that he lost his office or that his acts had to be annulled. I never mentioned the fact that the letters to Sergius only surfaced after the death of Honorius because they are irrelevant to the question. The issue is that Honorius was perceived as a heretic on account of it, but no one claimed that his ecclesiastical office was void from the time he had apparently lapsed into heresy.

Second with John XXII, it should be obvious from the quote of St. Francis de Sales I provided in the original posting, that I am well aware that John XXII was not obstinate. However the doctrine of the beatific vision is attested to in the tradition, if it were not the case John XXII would not have received the correction which he did, nor the rebuke of the Parisian theologians. The doctrine of the beatific vision was always and everywhere believed, and John XXII’s teaching was a novelty. Moreover it was widely believed on account of this that he was a heretic (often as a pretense to resisting this Pope in general), and if it was the case that a Pope ipso facto lost his office for a mere heresy in his private opinion (as sedevacantists hold with the last 5 Popes) then his enemies surely would have declared John XXII to have completely lost his office. This did not happen.

(D) Failed Analogies: To sum up, your attempt to refute sedevacantism with FALSE facts about these 2 popes and with an analogy to the cases of both these same Popes fails because these popes were not public and manifest heretics, which is a requirement for loss of papal office. Furthermore, what you write about both these cases is completely false, if anyone wants to know the real facts about these cases, just read the Catholic Encyclopedia. Your reasoning in both these cases is thoroughly dishonest, and you are either: A): Ignorant of the real facts of these cases; or B): Concealed the true facts on purpose, which is even worse. [Oh? How do you know that? This is more private judgment, now of another individual rather than the magisterium. I haven’t concealed anything, I only omitted things which you think were important but in fact were not] Whichever it was, they prove nothing against sedevacantism. Additionally, are you completely oblivious to the fact that every Saint, theologian, Canonist, Pope, etc. that dealt with the matter of a heretical Pope losing office (and answered in the affirmative, should such a case happen [by your own admission in our e-mails this is false]) said that it would happen for a Pope as a private person? Why are you talking about papal infalllibilty? The case of a heretical Pope losing his office has nothing to do at all with Papal infallibility, nor if what he said met the requirements for it, nor anything of the sort whatsoever. You are confused in this issue, and are inventing false conditions for a Pope to lose office.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with papal infallibility, because it is intrinsically connected with the promise of Christ to protect his Church. Infallibility as defined by Vatican I protects the Church from a Pope proposing error, and gives us a clear sign of how to navigate the current crisis in the Church. By denying the conditions for infallibility (along with so many innumerable teachings and hermeneutics of Catholic interpretation of doctrine) you are setting up the condition for your false teaching which is leading Catholics out of the true Church.

After giving all those false examples, you confidently state: "What we gain from this consideration is that Vatican I , studying all of this, saw the demonstration of the principles which they later laid down, and was able to safely decree there would be a valid succession of Popes forever. Every generation." Hahaha. Yeah. Sure. "Every generation" eh? Where did Vatican I assert such? As I proved above, you are mistaken on Vatican I's definition. Next, you say: "By laying down the principles by which the Pope can is infallible, Vatican I by extension is admitting when he is not infallible, and in those instances he can say something heretical. It doesn't matter what saint has theorized about the loss of papal office. The Church teaches us infallibly that there will be a valid succession of Popes for every period until the end of time." Such a statement is completely false. Answer the following: -Where did Vatican I state, in it's definition of Papal Infallibilty, that, in his fallible capacity, a Pope can say something heretical (true) and remain Pope??? -It doesn't matter what Saint has "theorized" about the loss of papal office eh? Did you know that even 2 Popes taught this? (Popes Paul IV and Innocent III) Did you know that St. Robert Bellarmine said that the teaching of immediate and ipso facto loss of office for public and manifest heretics, be it a Pope, Bishop or anyone, is the teaching of all the Ancient Fathers??? (De Romano Pontifice). -You (and every other anti-sedevacantist) show again your hypocrisy for completely dismissing what Saints and Doctors have said about this matter, when it doesn't benefit you, but when it does benefit you, you don't hesitate to present the Saints as infallible teachers.

Saints and doctors do not have authority by themselves, Councils in union with the Pope do. I have never produced the witness of a saint or doctor of the Church for anything other than to demonstrate a tradition behind Papal teaching. I have never presented a saint or doctor of the Church as an infallible teacher, because there is only one, the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

Secondly, by asserting that the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, Vatican I is also asserting the negative, that outside of that condition the Pope can err.

Thirdly, Innocent III’s quote proves nothing, and Paul IV’s teaching was juridical in nature and superseded by the 1917 code of Canon Law (see below). No Pope has taught that the magisterium will survive when for 51 years there is no true Pope and the whole Church defects to honor anti-Popes as Popes, and all the Bishops defect to an “anti-Church”.

Fourthly, by saying “successors”, Vatican I is asserting that there will be a valid succession of physical men who will occupy the Papal office. If a man does not occupy that office, the powers of the papacy are useless since they can be wielded by none other than the successor of St. Peter. If they are not in use, they are not handing down the dogmas of the faith to every successive generation. If a generation of Catholics come and go with no Pope, there is a break in the succession and consequently the succession is no longer perpetual.

-And again, you quote once more your misunderstood and false definition of Vatican I.

Answered above. The only one who doesn’t understand Vatican I is you. Although, there is a certain humor in the fact that by you saying Vatican I, you are necessarily admitting that there was a Vatican II. Continue doing so and you may yet find yourself on your way back into the Church.

DIFFERENCES OF PAPAL TEACHING

Your statement that "If it was possible for the Pope to lose his office through some form of heresy, Vatican I would have indicated that this could happen." is irrelevant, because Vatican I was not touching on those matters, which you and everyone else have misunderstood, and besides, the Church has already taught that it is possible for a Pope to lose his Office through heresy. This teaching is rooted in the Dogma that heretics are not part of the Church, nor can they hold any office whatsoever. Theologians, Saints, Popes, etc. have merely explained how this happens in the case of a Pope, to avoid confusion; they didn't say it couldn't happen.

Sed Contra, that some theologians have taught that the Pope would lose his office were he a manifest heretic does not constitute that the Church teaches that, especially when it can be shown that several theologians do not agree with this proposition. We also come to the problem again of a heretic vs. someone who has lapsed into heresy with no obstinacy in the will (at least that can be proved).Only the public authority of the Church can determine if someone is a heretic.

You then say: "The fact is that in history Popes have taught error, but Vatican I never declares that these Popes lost their office." And we saw that all your "examples" of this were completely false and untrue. What history has taught is that the ones who appeared to have been heretics (Honorius) was later condemned as a heretic, and the one who appeared to be a heretic (Liberius) was deposed and considered to have fallen from office.

As I showed last time my historical examples were on point, and the claim that Liberius was lawfully deposed and replaced by another Pope is unique to Bellarmine, completely false since it contradicts all historical evidence, and no Historian since the event has ever maintained that and the official list of Popes throughout the centuries has always accounted Felix II as an anti-Pope, not to mention that he was consecrated by Arian bishops. Moreover, at Felix’s ascension as an anti-pope, Liberius had not yet submitted to sign the first creed of Sirmium, hence he could not have been counted as a heretic. And we also have a problem. If Honorius was condemned as a heretic, (by a public act of the Church, an ecumenical council and decree of a Pope) how can he have been maintained to have kept his office if in fact he was no longer a member of the Church? The Council anathematized him while he was Pope, which means he was a heretic while he was Pope. No one claimed his pontifical acts were invalid. All historical lists of Popes never mentioned Honorius having been declared to have lost his office and become an anti-Pope, and his pontifical acts null and void. There is no history of re-ordination, and there is neither a history that the Church responded the way Sedevacantist teaching claims she would have to if the Pope was a heretic.

Further, your completely mistaken and inadequate example, if I understood it correctly, of Pope Pius XII teaching "heresy" in his Encyclical Sacramentum Ordinis, for changing (not declaring incorrect) the form of the Council of Florence for Holy Orders, reveals once again that you do not know what you are talking about, at all. (i’ve deleted the rest because it will be shown to be redundant in a moment)

Actually, this turns the other way since you did not understand my argument, which is typical of what happens when you run out of material on Sedevacantist websites to plagiarize. NOWHERE did I teach that Pius XII taught a heresy (I would never say anything about such a great and holy Pope without a very large smoking gun anyway). What I said was:

A perfect example of this is a declaration of the Council of Florence, approved by the Pope that the form of Holy Orders is the handing of the chalice and patten to the new priest. Pope Pius XII, utilizing historical research, taught in his encyclical Sacramentum Ordinis that this teaching was incorrect and promulgated the correct teaching

I never said Pius XII taught Heresy. You probably don’t have any clue what I’m talking about and didn’t bother to look into it before going on copying stuff off of websites.

For a refresher, and a fuller explanation of what I wrote in the original, the Council of Florence taught that the essential matter of the sacrament of order in conferring priestly orders was “the matter of which is that through whose transmission the order is conferred: just as the priesthood is transmitted through the offering of the chalice and with wine and of the paten with bread” (Denz 701)

However this was historically not the matter and Pius XII corrected this teaching. The ordinary magisterial teaching of Florence was in fact mistaken. This however should not bother us in the least because the ordinary magisterium is not infallible and irreformable in and of itself, it may be if it is passing on what the Church has always and everywhere believed.

What this demonstrates for us, is that a pastoral council such as Vatican II, or the past 5 Popes may in fact make mistakes, even in the ordinary magisterium, but at the same time not become formal heretics.

So this example you gave, far from proving anything for your position, proves one more thing for the sedevacantists: the Church does not have, nor any Pope, the power to change the substance of the Sacrament which Our Lord instituted, like the Eucharist, but this is exactly what they did with the form of the Consecration for the New "mass", when they were creating it: in the vernacular, they altered the form of the Sacrament from "for you and for many", which were Our Lord's words, to "for you and for all". This sacrilege ran rampant in every single Novus Ordo "mass" said in the vernacular, up until 2006, supposedly, but some still say it, but that doesn't matter, because the point is that they did change it, when they couldn't, but they really didn't change anything because they had no authority at all.

This teaching is inane and worthless, as I’ve already shown here. However we may revisit certain elements of it. The altering of “for you and for many” to “for you and for all” in the vernacular does not and can not invalidate the Mass because it is not apart of the essential form. This is an opinion held long before the Council. .

But there is still more.

Don’t leave us in suspense, please...

CUM EX APOSTOLATUS AND THE LOSS OF OFFICE

You really sell yourself out here.

[yawn]
Since you give a little background about this Bull, I will give some background as well:

***

In particular, Pope Paul IV wished to bar from the papacy in the next conclave Giovanni Cardinal Morone (1509-1580), whom he suspected of being a secret Protestant heretic, and whom he even imprisoned in the Castel’ Sant’ Angelo. It was for planning to sell out to the Lutherans on the doctrine of justification that Paul IV barred Morone from papal office as a heretic and threw him in jail. (See Francesco Ricossa, “L’heresie aux Sommets de l’Eglise,” 50-1.)

This, of course, is exactly what the heretics Ratzinger and John Paul II did in 1999: sold out the Catholic teaching on justification to the Lutherans.

Nonsense. First of all the document was revised by the current Holy Father when he was prefect of the CDW, who recognized some theological deficiencies in it. Second the document was not even an act of the ordinary magisterium, and never promulgated as teaching, so even if it did agree to a heresy, in the end it never became an official formulary of the Church. Lastly, it appears in no teaching document of the Church, hence it can’t be brought for consideration any more than Honorius’ private letters can be considered acts of the Magisterium. If this is the best you have to offer for sedevacantism you are not going to get very far.

***
You begin by saying, again, to your own benefit, that "one of the principles of canon law is that when a legal document is restricting a law it is read restrictively, and whenever it is permitting something it is read in the widest possible sense", when that doesn't really matter and is irrelevant.

It absolutely matters, as we will see.

You then say that "Once the Pope is elected, he is judged by no man as he has no earthly superior, and therefore could not be removed except by God or condemned by a future Pope", when that is false and in the very Bull Paul IV says otherwise.

Where in the bull does it say otherwise? Where does it say that a sitting Pope may be judged by the Church and removed? It only says that a Pope invalidly elected is not a true Pope. That is restrictive, and thus is not applicable beyond those enumerated.

It is simply ironic that you say this, while also speaking of the Bull, because, look at what the very own Bull says:

1. "Whereas We consider such a matter [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] to be so grave and fraught with peril that the Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by none in this world - (even he) may be corrected if he is apprehended straying from the Faith."

Apparently you missed this part of the Bull eh? How appropiate!

How appropriate that you should highlight my point for me. Thanks! Saves me the trouble.

That he is caught and corrected only re-enforces my point, that the Pope is not listed in this Bull as losing his office to heresy.

The very own Bull says that "the Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by none in this world" may be apprehended if he was merely "caught" deviating from the Faith!
The verb in the Latin phrase si deprehendatur a fide devius connotes not just a pope who is “found” to have deviated from the faith, but one who is “caught” — as in “caught red-handed” in a crime.

Again, caught? Caught does not equal deposed, caught does not equal ipso facto loss of office in spite of what anyone else thinks, caught does not mean that if the Pope should say something heretical he will have lost his office. Caught means that the Pope maintains his office and the Church can rebuke him, as St. Paul rebuked St. Peter for failing to enforce his own ruling at the Council of Jerusalem.

If anything this proves the example of the Avignon Pope John XXII (supra) who was caught red handed introducing a heresy into the Church, and he was rebuked by theologians, to the point where he constituted a commission and submitted to their judgment. If Paul IV intended to say that a sitting Roman Pontiff lost his office due to being a manifest heretic, he would have included the Roman Pontiff in the list of those whose offices are deprived. However he does NOT, which suggests what? Paragraph 1 says nothing of the loss of office. Therefore why should it be relevant to paragraph 5? IT ISN’T. This is a case of you not having any material on your sedevacantist websites to use, so you tried to wing it on your own, and failed miserably. If you can tell me how the Church rebuking a sitting Pope for erring as a private individual is equivalent to the Pope losing his office, Bishop Williamson must be a Jew since that conclusion is impossible.

Then there is the verb redargui —rebuke. What “rebuke” did Paul IV envision for a pope caught this way? Not, as you or anyone of the likes of Chris Ferrara might have us think, forty years of open letters/we-contradict-you-to-your-face articles written by laymen for some Counter-Reformation equivalent of The Angelus, Fatima Crusader or Catholic Family News.

Rather, Paul IV promulgated the Bull to automatically deprive or bar from office those who had defected from the faith, whether secretly or openly.

Then you say that "In that list, the Roman Pontiff does not appear once. Hence we must restrict those who lose their office for heresy to these categories, namely everyone below the Pope, because they all have earthly superiors.", did you not read paragraph 1 in the Bull?

This is a non sequitur, you’re drawing conclusions not supported by your premise. Why is the sentence: “The Roman Pontiff shall be deprived of his office if he is a manifest heretic” not present any where in this bull? Redargui and Deponere are entirely different concepts. This is one of the more fallacious arguments you have presented so far.

The Bull can be applied to any of the last 5 antipopes in any case, because it can be proven that either of them held to heresies before their "election", but that's a separate debate and issue which is not even necessary to get into to prove sedevacantism. But if you want, we could apply the Bull only to Albino Luciani or to Wojtyla, for some "traditionalists" have the impression that Paul VI didn't held to any heresies before his "election".

You are conflating terms, and if you can prove it then I urge you to prove it. Even if it can be proven that they “held to heresies” how does that amount to being formal heretics? Without a judgment of the Church, a public judgment according to canon law, it is impossible to know if these figures are formal heretics. Moreover, no one at the time of the election of Bl. John XXIII or Pope Paul VI said they were heretics. If it was so manifest someone would have said so. For 4 years after the election of Pope Paul VI not one theologian or cleric maintained anywhere in the world that the election was invalid. Why did the original sedevacantists drop the ball for so many years? As for John Paul I, I don’t know why he is even an issue as he was dead after 30 days. Let’s skip straight to Pope John Paul II. What heresies did he hold prior to his election? Can you prove that he was a formal heretic? Did he receive correction at any time by the Magisterium to which he was obstinate in rejecting? Did he express an actual will to disregard the regula fidei proposed to us by the Magisterium? Of course all of it is irrelevant anyway as we shall see in the abrogation of Cum Ex Apostalatus Officio and the teaching of Cardinal Billot, echoed by many other theologians about the nature of an uncontested Papal election.

Then you say: "Even those, are canonical sanctions which can be undone by future Popes, and in fact they were. Pope Pius XII declared, that for the purposes of papal election Cardinals otherwise interdicted could or be elected". Here, again, like in the previous example of Pope Pius XII, you and every other "traditionalist" have managed to once again get this wrong as well, and got the notion that a heretic could be the Pope.

No, I have shown that the canons of this are no longer in force. The question of whether a Pope can be a heretic is by no means settled doctrine, having no magisterial teaching as its backing. My quoting Pius XII on this subject was to show that the provisions of Cum Ex Apostalutus could in fact be overturned. Thus a discussion of major and minor excommunication was not necessary, especially given that Pius XII fails to distinguish which offenses one who is interdicted from may vote under. He does not distinguish between major and minor excommunication.

As I have already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a pope is the head of the Church. It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be the head of the Church, since he is not a member of it.

You still can not prove that the Popes are heretics. It is mere private judgment on your part. No one in the world thought that John XXIII and Paul VI were heretics at the time of their election, not even the original sedevacantists. No one in authority condemned or corrected the writings of John Paul II and the current Pope, moreover they write in the style of modern theology which does not have the exactitude of scholastic exposition which means there are many possible interpretations of their writings. The burden of proof is on you to show that the heresy is so manifest that no one can deny it, and frankly, many do deny it. Within the whole magisterium of Paul VI no one said this Wojtyla guy is a problem.

What, then, does Pope Pius XII mean in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis? First off, one needs to understand that excommunication can be incurred for many things. Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins. Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church. Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction.

The rest of your section attempting to “educate me” on something I already know very well (namely minor and major excommunication) will be deleted because Pius XII makes no mention of minor and major excommunication. He declared in the document:

"None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor" (VAS 34).

Thus you have Pius XII, whom you would assume understands dogmatic theology, and again, whom one would assume understood Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, teaching us that an excommunicated person can be elected Roman Pontiff. To read into this document distinctions which Pius XII did not put in is to essentially redefine the law contrary to the intentions of the law giver.

Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, but impediments flowing from the divine law. Pius XII’s legislation doesn’t apply to heresy because he was speaking about ecclesiastical impediments: “…or any other ecclesiastical impediment…” Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, which is why he didn’t mention heretics. Pope Pius XII was referring to Catholic cardinals who may have been under excommunication.

But that assumes the prescriptions of Cum ex are of Divine Law, whereas in reality they are not. This bull was abrogated by the 1917 Code of Canon Law which incorporated these penalties but never for a Pope prior to his election (let alone after). It only says:

Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso jure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus A fide Catholica publice defecerit.

(Can. 188.4)

And:

Omnes a christiana fide apostatae et omnes et singuli haeretici aut schismatici incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem. (Can. 2314 1.1)

Again, none of these address what to do about the Roman Pontiff. If Cum Ex was still in force the Code of Canon Law would have taken note of it. The editors of the 1917 Code did not put it in because of the problematic nature of actually enforcing Cum Ex. No dogmatic theology textbook references it, and not one work of Ecclesiology from any of the authors you site (Dorsch, etc.) or other recent authors such as Billot, Franzelin, Van Noort, Palmieri or Berry. As the sedevacantist journal Sodalitum frankly admits:

“This task (proving an election invalid by the precepts of Cum Ex] however in the current state of affairs, shows itself doubly arduous. To begin with, it is necessary to prove the formal and notorious heresy of the errant one. Failing a (hypothetical) admission of the guilty party, an intervention of the Church and its Magisterium then takes place, in accordance with the words of St. Paul to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” What Paul IV perhaps did not foresee-like all the classical writers on the question of the “heretical pope”- was that no authority would arise in such a case to make the admonitions required by scripture and canons.

The second difficulty consists in the current juridical value of the Constitution of Paul VI. The sixth canon of the Code of Canon Law prescribes that what is not taken up again in the 1917 Code should be considered as abrogated, unless the law is evidently by divine right. Now the prescriptions of Paul IV are only partially resumed by the Code (Can. 188.4 and 2314.1) without any mention of the case of the supreme pontiff. Doubt therefore remains about the character of Paul IV’s proclomation-whether it belongs to divine law, and thus is always valid, or to ecclesiastical law. (Sodalitium, no. 14 pp.9-10)

Why would the major Sedevacantist journal in Europe not consider it obvious that the bull of Paul IV still applies if it was so evident that it is of divine right and still in force? For the simple reason that it does not.

There is still one more point to consider. What does the 1917 Code of Canon Law say about the loss of office?

“Actus jurisdictionis tam fori externi quam fori interni positus ab excommunicato est illicitus; et, si lata fuerit sententia condemnatoria vel declaratoria etiam invalidus, salvo praescripto can. 2261.3 secus est validus.”

-Canon 2264

“An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or external forum is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to Canon 2261.3; otherwise it is valid.”

You assert that a heretic can not conduct his office is a dogmatic fact, yet the Church’s law tells us something entirely different, where the Church has failed to makes someone a formal heretic, the powers and uses of his office are still considered valid though illicit. Thus, if a Pope had lapsed into heresy, and he received no correction from the Church (rebuke), but following this theory through, that he had in fact lapsed into heresy, his acts would continue to be valid but gravely illicit. Only once the Church had made a judgment of some kind, or better a rebuke (as in the case of John XXII) could we consider the Pope a formal heretic. Even then however, there is the question of the right to judge. Either way this is not the case of the last five Popes. This is because you refuse (or else are entirely ignorant of canonical distinctions) to admit the difference between a formal heretic, one who has been condemned by the Church and is obstinate, and someone who has not been officially condemned by the Church. If you are going to maintain that ipso facto a heretic is unable to exercise his office, you are going to have to square with the fact that the 1917 Code of Canon law does the opposite. Unless you want to adopt the line from the guy I referenced in part 1 of this refutation whom denies that Benedict XV was a true Pope which would allow you to deny the 1917 Code.

Lastly, the Code of Canon Law grants jurisdiction to excommunicated of all classes (vitandi and tolerati) in order to hear confessions if the penitent is in danger of death (Can. 2261). Thus it is inherently possible for the Church to grant jurisdiction to the excommunicated, which means again, it is by no means certain beyond a reasonable doubt that a material heretic could not remain Pope, or even a formal one.

To further prove the point, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Pope Pius XII’s legislation did mean that a heretical cardinal could be elected pope. Notice what Pius XII says:

“We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.”

Pius XII says that the excommunication is suspended only for the time of the election; at other times it remains in vigor. This would mean that the excommunication for heresy would fall back into force immediately after the election and then the heretic who had been elected pope would lose his office! Thus, no matter what way you look at it, a heretic could not be validly elected and remain pope.

As we saw above, he could indeed continue in the office illicitly according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Thus, I can only echo the great honesty of the Sodalitium article, which noted that all proponents of the hypothesis of a heretical Pope could not foresee what the Church could do in such a situation.

Moving on, you quote the rest of St. Francis de Sales's quote, which proves that a heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto, like if it proves that a heretical Pope doesn't lose his office! A few comment on this:

1-St. Francis de Sales, after declaring that an explicitly heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto (immediately, without any declaration), says that "the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric."

Now, I ask you: what does this quote say, other than that when an explicitly heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto, the Church should formally remove him and elect a new Pope? Does this quote in any way, shape or form says that the explicitly heretical Pope, who just lost his office ipso facto, is still the Pope, until the Church formally removes him? Do you really believe that?

The Code of Canon Law says that the office is still exercised validly but illicitly (supra). Since it mentions nowhere the Roman Pontiff falling into heresy ANYWHERE, it can only be assumed that the Canon is applicable in such a case.

Moreover you are perverting the quote from St. Francis De Sales, he said nothing of the kind. This is why I said there is too much in Sedevacantist teaching a denial of Vatican I. St. Francis’ teaching only applies to a Pope who teaches heresy ex cathedra, unless you have a quote besides the one in “The Catholic Controversy”.

2-Does the fact that the Church, or the Roman Clergy or whatever you prefer, does the formal deposing and declaring of his vacant office, in any way means that the said explicitly heretical Pope remains the Pope until the Church does the deposing? What if all the Clergy or what would-declare the Pope deposed follows him into his heresies? Does he remain the Pope? Are we supposed to wait until some "formal deposing", and still regard him as the valid Pope? Any honest and good-willed person will see the falsity and absurdity of such a position.

Every single writer on the heretical Pope which you have sited thus far has said that it is impossible but if this could happen God would provide. If all the clergy followed him into heresy, what then is there to conclude but that God did NOT provide? That would be blasphemous.

Then you proceed to corrupt and twist St. Francis's own words by saying: "Therefore, if we break this down, in light of Vatican I's clarification, St. Francis is saying virtually the same thing. Not that for merely believing something heretical does the Pope lose his office, but for obstinately teaching the whole Church in an erroneous manner. At that time it would be clear, and the whole Church could then depose such a man, according to St. Francis. St. Francis is not saying that a Pope who may believe this or that which is ambiguous, which taken in a strict sense would be heretical will lose his office, and that the Popes for an entire generation would lose their office! And even if he did, a saint's opinion does not matter in comparison with Vatican I's teaching."

Did St. Fancis say that a Pope would lose his office "for merely believing something heretical" or "for obstinately teaching the whole Church in an erroneous manner"? No! He said a Pope who is "explicitly a heretic" and nothing else. Your added conditions are false and irrelevant.

On the contrary they are completely relevant. But as usual your argument is weakest when you have no material on sedevacantist websites to use. Read the quote from St. Francis again, which is so falsely exploited by you and Trailer Park monastery:

“Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric. When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilst he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the Extravagantes which begins Benedictus Deus. But when he is clothed with the pontifical garments, I mean when teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth.” (The Catholic Controversy, pg. 305-306)

Take serious note of how you are distorting the passage. St. Francis de Sales is saying that one must be an explicit (formal) heretic, and moreover, that one must be obstinate. That means that while John XXII did not lose his office because he was “far from obstinate”, were he obstinate he would have lost his office.

Thus if you will pull your head out of Trailer Park Monastery with its fake brothers peddling a bunch of nonsense to swindle people out of their money (how else do they make a living?) and actually read the whole reference, one will see that it is only an obstinate heretic here who is under consideration. Obstinacy is in the will, how can you or I or the lamppost be certain that the last 5 Popes are heretics? Particularly when smarter people than you or I who lived with some of those Popes, such as Cardinal Ottaviani, saw no heresy in either John XXIII or Paul VI we would have to question how we could know he was obstinately denying some element of Catholic doctrine. Moreover, how can you say that Pope John Paul II, or that Pope Benedict did not merely err as private individuals, most especially when they were never corrected by the Church? We do not and cannot know if they were obstinate (that is assuming their works are completely heretical with no possibility of being read in an orthodox manner), since that is apart of the internal forum.

LOSS OF THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH

It is again simply ironic that you mention the loss of the Marks of the Church in an attempt to disprove Sedevacantism, because it is easily proven that the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, and that last 5 antipopes, deny several of the Marks of the Church which are an article of the Creed: "I believe in ONE Church...", that the Church is Apostolic, they deny Her Catholicity, Her Universality, Her Visibility, etc. This is just another area out of the many that one could get into to prove the sedevacantist position.

If you want, we could get into a debate specifically about this issue, but you're not a qualified person, so you would immediately perish in such a debate, and it would be a loss of time for me, but if you do want, we could do it.

Please, by all means bring it. Based on what we’ve seen thus far you would be easily vanquished, and the fact that you don’t even venture to try shows this is nothing more than a drive by comment. That debate would easily be won if the arguments you would advance would be as lame and full of logical fallicies and half truths as what you’ve presented so far. You don’t even understand what the Church’s Apostolicity is, or else you would not be a sedevacantist. However this is just a cute way to avoid serious discussion of the points in the original, because there is no material on sede sites for you to plagiarize.

Let us however make a slight segue here, since you are so confident that the last 5 POPES were heretics. In one of your e-mails you said:.

If that's the case, salvation for so-called "invincibly ignorants" is heretical. Even St. Thomas rejected it. Do you even know the Athanasian Creed?

"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity." - Athanasian Creed

You also obviously believe in Salvation outside the Church and for non-Catholics, you are thus a bold heretic who is not even inside the Church.

Why do you "quote" what Pope Boniface VIII declared in Unam Sanctam? Know you not that that Bull is dogmatic? Do you even know that that there is no salvation outside the Church, for non-Catholics, or for anyone at all without exceptions, is a dogma???

Lastly, Pope Pius IX did not teach salvation for "invincibly ignorants"; that's a separate issue that we could get into, but we're not talking about that.

However, Bl. Pope Pius IX said the following:

"It is likewise certain that those who are in ignorance of the true religion are not accountable for any guilt in the matter before God if the ignorance be invincible.” (DZ 1647). [And again], “It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.” (Quanto Conficiamus Moerore, DZ1677)

If what you wrote, and what Trailer Park monastery maintains is true, that the teaching of Boniface VIII can be understood in no other sense but that each man must have water baptism to be saved, then Bl. Pope Pius IX was a heretic, and by your same teaching lost his office, since by being a heretic he could not be the head of the Church. Do you accept Bl. Pius IX as a true and valid Pope? If so then you must admit that your teaching on salvation is private judgment, if not then why do you accept Vatican I since it would have been promulgated by an anti-Pope?

Just more examples of why you are obviously not even Catholic, and have no grasp of the Church's teaching on grace, or even membership. If one is saved extra-sacramentally they will be in the communion of saints as a Catholic, which means that they will be "within the Church".

But anyways, in closing this the "Part I" of your article, you again contradict Vatican I's definition and even your very own position!

During the entire course of you article, you said:

"Without a visible head, the principle of unity would in fact be lost." "Perpetuity is purposely emphasized because its meaning is obvious. Forever. Both Trent and Vatican I are clearly teaching that the Popes will reign perpetually." "What happens if that principle of Unity is removed? There can be no true visible head, which is contrary to all of Catholic teaching." "The Church teaches us infallibly at Vatican I there will be a continual succession of Popes, Peter's reign is perpetual." But then at the end you proceed to contradict all this and prove the sedevacantist position! "Thus during a Papal inter-regnum (when a sede vacante is possible) ordinary jurisdiction continues through the Church herself. The longest Papal interregnum in history is 2 and 1/2 years." Huh? Didn't you say that we woud have a Pope sitting in St. Peter's Chair "forever"?; Didn't you say that there would always be a Pope reigning "perpetually"? Didn't you say that without a visible head the unity would in fact be "lost"? Didn't you say that if the principle of unity would be removed that there would be no true visible head, which is contrary to all Catholic teaching? Doesn't an interregnum (a period without a Pope) contradict Vatican I's "perpetual" decree? Wouldn't a 3 1/2 year interregnum contradict this decree? The obvious answer, which I have already shown, is that you "traditionalists" have got it all wrong and that Vatican I didn't teach what you say it did.

I’ve already completely rebutted that, as we saw last time. The Potestas docendi and the Potestas regendi reside in both the Church and the Pope, thus in between the election of Popes the Church maintains these powers. There is no contradiction. The primacy goes to Peter alone. I have already clarified many times the distinction between an inter-regnum and 51 years with no valid Pope and every diocese in the world not having a lawful occupant and a loss of Jurisdiction. THAT IS NOT AN INTER-REGNUM. That is the end of the Church. Get that through your skull. If the scenario you propose is correct, both Church and Pope have defected from the Catholic faith. Where then is the Church? Where then is jurisdiction? Where then is the teaching Church? Hint it is not in Cincinnati, and it is not in Trailer Park Monastery.

Here's a question for you: has the Church ever said how long a papal interregnum should last? Has the Church ever said how much a Papal interregnum should last, before it is considered to violate the "perpetuity" decree? The theologians Salaverri and Dorsch further shed more light on this issue and refute all of these errouneous assertions: Instead of being a “primary foundation…without which the Church could not exist,” the pope is a “secondary foundation,” “ministerial,” who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448) “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

“Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…
“For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

“These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

Again, this simply doesn’t cut it. You are applying the teaching of two theologians on the powers of the Church’s Potestas Regendi to the question of the complete loss of Ordinary Jurisdiction. Not only did these theologians not foresee the present situation, they make now account of the full body of Bishops, and the sensus fidelium all falling into complete heresy. If the complete body of the Church remained without a Pope crystalized as it were in 1958, then one could argue that the magisterium was sufficiently in tact to elect a valid Pope. None of these writers considered a situation where the whole Church accepts five anti-Popes as true Popes and gives them submission when they had no right to it, and gave submission to men in all the sees of the world that had no right to them. They never foresaw a situation where the Church’s tradition had no magisterium to hand it on to the faithful. With 51 years of no Pope, no Bishops, no teaching Church you have a break in the tradition. If that is the case then the reign of Peter’s successors is not perpetual, and the perpetual principle of unity would have failed, contrary to Vatican I’s teaching. The only way around this is to claim that sedevacantist bishops are now the magisterium which is equally problematic for the same reason (among many others which I will treat in a future installment, namely that there is no right to consecrate the said Bishops). Bishop Thuc did not consecrate the first Sedevacantist Bishop until 1976. Until then he himself had waxed and waned in his opinions, even reconciling with Rome at one point. He did not even declare a Sedevacantist position until 1982. That means from 1958-1976 there was not one Bishop not in submission to the alleged “anti-Popes”. This means, after what you call the defections of the Bishops of the world from the Catholic faith, there was not one Bishop present to carry on the teaching of the Apostles. That means again for nearly 20 years there was NO MAGISTERIUM.

It was not for three years after the Council that a single priest had declared sedevacantism. This means all Masses said in the world “una cum”, that is in union with Pope John XXIII were in fact displeasing to God, and for 10 years no Masses on the planet were at all pleasing. This is completely contrary to what the saints tell us, in the oft repeated statement: “The Earth could survive better without the sun than without the Mass.”

Sedevacantism is a false teaching which not only leads to the vacant seat of Peter, but to an empty Church whose marks have been lost and hose visible link of unity, both in terms of the Perpetual principle of Unity and the link to it through the local Bishop, have been lost to the faithful. That means that Christ’s promise was completely false, which we know is blasphemous.

Contrary to this, we learn from Van Noort:

“Apostolicity of government- or mission, or authority- means the Church is always ruled by pastors who form one same juridical person with the apostles. In other words it is always ruled by pastors who are the apostles legitimate successors. It has already been proved that Christ Himself founded a living organization, a visible Church. Granted that fact, it should be obvious that an essential part of that Church’s structure is apostolicity of government. For on no one but the Apostolic College, under the headship of Peter, did Christ confer the power of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling the faithful until the end of the world. This triple power, therefore necessarily belongs, and can only belong, to those who form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate successors.”

“How can we know that a Bishops is indeed a successor to the apostles?.... The second method is quite brief. First one locates the legitimate successor of the man whom Christ Himself established as the head and leader of the entire apostolic college. Once that has been done we can find out whether the particular bishop under scrutiny is united to Peter’s successor and is acknowledged by him as a genuine successor in the apostolic office. It is easy enough to investigate these two points; it is also a perfectly satisfactory method of procedure.

“It is certainly not a backbreaking job to find the legitimate successor of St. Peter. First it is a fact beyond question that the Church can never fail to have a successor to Peter... Any man, then, who boasts of apostolic succession but is not united to the Roman pontiff, may indeed actually possess the power of orders; he may even by purely physical succession occupy a chair formerly occupied by an apostle-at least he could do so- but he would not be a genuine successor of the apostles in their pastoral office. He would be a usurper.” (Christ’s Church, pg. 151-153)

That concludes this installment. There will be more responses to other objections raised to last week’s response, but those will be done in the future when time allows.

Although with rants like this, I'm not sure how much more I'm willing to bother:

I'm done talking with you moronic, blind, brute, schismatic, heretical, modernist, neanderthal false "traditionalists", so if you want don't even post my reply, because this is the last email that I send to you. Don't even bother in responding to this email. I won't keep wasting my time with neanderthals like you.

Music to my ears. It is probably worth noting that he wasn't really done, I got 5 more after that to about the same effect. By their fruits you shall know them.

Benedict on papal masses

2009-09-07T21:05:00.000-07:00

What can we deduce about how we should celebrate the liturgy from how the pope celebrates papal masses? Pope Benedict XVI recently made some comments to members of the Pontifical Choir about just that. Click here for my post over on Unam on what Benedict says should be the purpose of a papal liturgy.

Further Refutation of the Errors of Sedevacantism

2009-08-26T04:00:00.000-07:00

“Sed quidquid demum de possibilitate vel impossibilitate praetatae hypothesis adhuc sentias, id saltem veluti penitus inconcussum extra omnem dubitationem positum firmiter tenendum est: adhaesionem universalise Ecclesiae fore semper ex se sola infallibile signum legitimitatis personae Pontificis, adeoque et existentiae omnium conditionum quae ad legitimitatem ipsam sunt requisitae.”

“Whatever one may think of the possibility or impossibility of the named hypothesis [Bellarmine’s] at least one element must be maintained as unshakable and absolutely certain: the universal adhesion of the Church will always be, simply in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the pontiff and likewise of the existence of all the required conditions for his legitimacy.”

-Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, q XIV, th 29, a.3

A Sedevacantist has made the following response to my rebuttals to their false and diseased teaching which is leading his and many souls to the lowest pits of hell. Our Sedevacantist champion has also called me and other Trads who defend the Pope against the idiotic claims of this schism “anti-sedevacantist controversialists”. It should be noted, at least for me, I can’t speak for others such as Chris Ferrara, that I am no controversialist. I do this not because I feel like it, nor because I have an abundance of free time, nor because I expect to make a name for myself, but because I have seen too many good Catholics, including my own brother, accept this schism which will lead them to the hottest places in hell, to be mocked by the demons for their marks of Baptism for all eternity. To avert that (God willing), and give aid to Catholics who are not learned in theology who might be bamboozled by this rash and idiotic teaching which has no other source but modernism, I have taken the time to refute Sedevacntism, and for that reason alone would be happy to give up what little free time I have. As this is already very long, I’ve had to trim my responses and some of my lengthy citations, but may bring them back in a future installment. Now, this response is divided into two parts, the second will appear in the future, and this certain Lasker, our Sedevacantist champion is in red and I am in black. New updates may be provided.

The first thing that you say, or rather, the first false accusation you make against us, is, that we Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position employ the "false principles" of "derogating authority from the Church to ourselves to interpret doctrine". This is simply false, for a number of reasons.

First, every sedevacantist (that I am aware of) makes no such thing. We simply reiterate what the Church has said and declared. We simply present the principles and teachings as the Church, theologians, Saints, Doctors, etc. have interpreted and undestood them, we never "interpret doctrine" for ourselves or in our own way.

That is obvious, and so didn't every heretic in Church history. The point is not that you think you are engaging in private judgment of the magisterium, it is that you do it by that fact through your application of doctrine to give you the authority to deny rightful submission to the successor of St. Peter based on what you believe to be heresy. That is an interpretation whether you like it or not. However our Saviour did not give you, or me the obligation of teaching the deposit of faith, he gave it to the Church's magisterium. The fact is that Sedevacantists routinely engage in private interpretation, and your divisions make this clear. Trailer park monastery (the Dimond bros) are Feenyites and condemn all non-Feenyites as heretics. Cekada and his group do not accept Feenyism. Which one is right? One of them is interpreting doctrine for themselves whether you like it or not. This is so because you have lost your principle of unity by denying the Pope. Then there is this fellow, who has given himself the authority to declare Pope Benedict XV a heretic, and every Catholic in communion with him in the early 20th century a heretic, and consequently he rejects Fatima (not to mention Pius XI and XII) because the seers were "schismatics". You have David Bowden, now anti-Pope Michael I who has elected himself (through his mother) ". You have Mr. Pulvermacher who was elected Pius XIII. The latter two have determined that in spite of the fact that the laws governing Papal conclaves are intact until the next Pope, they had the authority to violate Pius XII's rules and be elected to the Papacy. Without the principle of unity Sedevacantists ultimately make themselves into the magisterium.

Second, are you aware that Dogmas are to be understood and believed in as they are once declared by the Church?

According to whom? Are you aware that the full extent of any teaching is not understood in this life? There is a thing called the development of doctrine. Truths of revelation become more apparent over time, or are deduced from earlier truths. The principle problem here is what is meant by declared by the Church? I've never read that before and would like to see what textbook of dogmatic theology you are getting that from since the Tradition of the Church shows Theologians behaving in a contrary manner. Look at the whole Thomistic tradition on salvation, even adopted by catechisms and Bl. Pope Pius IX! It might appear contrary to what Pope Boniface VIII "declared", if one read what was to read Unam Sanctam as the Church declared it, that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Thomistic tradition, adopted by the Church's magisterium, goes beyond this, and states that this also means the Church triumphant, and thus God's grace can incorporate those unbaptized in this life into the Church triumphant. Again, Fr. Cekada accepts this, the Feenyite sedes do not (e.g. Dimond bros and their progeny). One of them is giving authority to themselves.

Theologians often explicate, examine and widen the scope of teaching based on deducing truths following from dogmas.

And thirdly, if your accusation were true in any way, shape or form (which it isn't), I could make the same accusation against you, for you yourself are interpreting the Church's doctrine to draw your own conclusions and to "refute" sedevacantism, are you not? Wouldn't this be an incredibly blasphemous accusation to make against someone? To accuse someone who simply reiterates, presentes and applies the Church's doctrine, as She has defined it and explained it, of being guilty of "private interpretation"? This is the accusation that you make against us, which is completely false and absurd. Although in your case, you really do derogate authority from the Church to yourself to interpret doctrine, and you interpret it and present it contrary to how the Church has interpreted it and explained it.

Its not blasphemous if its true, and secondly your objection does not follow because sedevacantism has never been taught by an ecumenical council. It has even been rejected by many theologians, and those few who held it did so as a theory without application, because they could not see it realized. That the Pope is only infallible in faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra (and the negative proposition that outside of that he is not) have been, and that principle is denied by Sedevacantist teaching. Sedevacantism is only tenable between Popes. It may be possible, as theologians suggest (and you go a long way fruitlessly asserting) that a Pope could lose his office by being a heretic. I didn’t intend to promote, refute or address that as a possibility, because that is not refutation that I have laid down. What I have called heretical teaching is that the magisterium has ceased to exist, which is the consequence of over a generation not having a perpetual principle of unity to hand the tradition on to them. I never even took up the issue of whether or not it is possible for the Pope to lose his office per se, though I do deny it as applicable in fact for reasons we shall see; I only took up the issue of whether or not there could be no Pope for 50 plus years. In the end you do not even understand the claim made against sedevacantism. It is not that you propose to teach what the fathers have in contradistinction to widespread heresy in the Church, it is that you take that teaching, make yourselves absolute judge of the Pope and declare that he has lost his office, when you do not know the internal forum, and can not even prove beyond a doubt that he is heretical. It is that in teaching that the last 5 Popes have no office you are teaching that there has been NO MAGISTERIUM for 50 years, which means a generation plus has not been handed the tradition by the magisterium which alone is empowered to hand it on, which means the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. You make false teachings against the New Mass and the New ordination rite based on your understanding of the sacraments and their historical usage which is entirely false. I do no such thing.

Against this completely false and absurd proposition, Don Felix de Sarda y Salvany said the following:

"What would be the point of the rule of faith and morals if in every particular case the simple layman could not himself apply them directly?" (Don Felix de Sarda y Salvany: Liberalism is a Sin, Chap. xxxviii, p. 203)

So we can see now how this accusation of "private interpretation" is against reason itself.

That is simply a non sequitur and shows you failed to grasp the argument at hand. The objection against Sedevacantism is not that it makes use of prior teaching but that it falsely does so based on its false starting proposition, that the Pope has lost his office, and a rejection of the magisterium which alone has the office of teacher and shepherd of all Christians.

PERPETUAL PRINCIPLE OF UNITY

"To assert that the Pope would lose his office for more than a generation is contrary to this principle." This assertion isn't even worded correctly; what you are trying to say should read: "To assert that the the Church/Papacy would be without a Pope for more than a generation is contrary to this principle."

This is just semantics. First the papacy can not be without a Pope because the Papacy is defined as the rule of the Pope. If there is no Pope there is no man who has a Papacy that is papal rule. Secondly, the Church being without a pope is an incomplete concept which doesn't take into account the realities of the proposition. This is not a mere continuation of an interregnum. That idea needs to be dropped because it is the most absurd argument in all of history, more absurd than Luther's teaching on salvation. The sedevacantist claim is that the Pope has lost his office and is a false claimant to the throne and that no one currently holds the throne. What I wrote is far more complete and more exact than stating the Church is without a Pope.

My only question to this is: contrary according to whom?

According to the fact that Ordinary Jurisdiction would be lost, and consequently one of the powers Christ gave to the Papacy, which is impossible because the gates of hell would triumph. Without ordinary jurisdiction there can be no supplied jurisdiction (which flows from ordinary) and consequently there can be no absolution of sins and no authority to bind the faithful to the teachings of the Church. Those are not inherent to holy orders. A generational gap means that the thing is not perpetual.

In the same paragraph, you say: "Without a visible head, the principle of unity would in fact be lost." Well, I guess this means then that every time a Pope died, and in every Papal interregnum (more than 260) throughout the whole history of the Church, the principle of unity was "lost".

Now you are engaging in facile reasoning, I explicitly defined what I meant in the original, and explicitly distinguished the death of the Pope from a generation not receiving the tradition from the Magisterium. You have either ignored it or are playing a slight of hand to introduce an argument against a claim I never made. The statement was that the principle is lost if the Church was without the Pope for a generation of Catholics, secondly I argued that the principle was lost based on jurisdiction. You perhaps find this argument ignorant because you are incredibly unlearned and didn't comprehend anything I wrote. All of your objections so far are already answered in the false principles. During an Interregnum the principle of unity is not lost because ordinary jurisdiction (Potestas Regendi) is not lost, and consequently the teaching authority is not lost since the teaching Church (Potestas Docendi) is also comprised of the Bishops who, at the death of a Pope, are diffused throughout the world. The faithful have received the faith and the organs of the Church continue functioning, the Bishops hold their offices. Even the longest Papal interregnum of 2 ½ years the tradition was handed down to the next generation. (More on this later). Furthermore certain Sedevacantists know this, such as Gerry Matatics, or else he would not be postulating that there is a secret Pope somewhere who guarantees these things are passed on, a position completely absurd because the Pope is the visible head, he must be seen and known.

I suppose that, in the longest interregnum of the Church (besides this one), which was 3 1/2 years long, this principle of unity was "lost".

It was 2 1/2 years. For claiming that all my facts are wrong you sure can't seem to keep them straight yourself. The episode to which you are referring was the election of Pope Gregory X in 1271, at Viterbo in Italy. Many Churchmen, including St. Bonaventure, had demanded a decision be made by the cardinals because “It was not good for the Church not to have a Pope.” (White smoke over the Vatican, pg.9) Eventually they walled them up in confinement until they would make a decision. That is the origin of the rules which governed all conclaves even to today. If there was no danger to the faith Bishops and Theologians everywhere would not have been pressuring this conclave to get its work done more quickly. Temporary appointments would have been made, after all better to get the thing right. On the contrary, it was necessary to get a Pope elected immediately, because the Pope is the perpetual principle of Unity. The fact that the Church has never gone as much as three years without an occupant to the see of Peter should tell us something that no generation has been without a Pope.

Next, you proceed with Vatican I's famous decree that by divine right St. Peter has “perpetual successors” in the Primacy. (DZ 1825: “perpetuos successores.”) which you (along with every other anti-sedevacantist controversialist out there), have managed to completely get it wrong and which wrong understanding, is actually contrary to what Vatican I even defined, and could even be considered heretical.

I love it. Vatican I says that Peter will have perpetual successors, and you say that to say that is heretical. No, no one could consider that heretical because they are the very words of the Council itself. Did you not before argue that the Church's dogmas must be read as the Church pronounces them?

To borrow Fr. Cekada's own words, this you (and everyone else) took to mean that, except for the brief period between the death of a pope and the next conclave, Christ promised and the Church taught that you’d always (perpetually) have a real, live pope on Peter’s throne.

Conclusion: good-bye, sedevacantism! [Exactly. What’s so hard about that?]

It is hard to imagine a more concentrated dose of pure theological ignorance. [yawn]

Vatican I’s definition was directed against heretics who contended that (1) the Primacy was an extraordinary power Christ gave to St. Peter alone, (2) Christ did not intend it to be passed along in perpetuity to his successors, (3) this power either died with St. Peter, or was passed along to the Church or episcopal college. (See Dorsch, de Ecclesia, 2:191-2)

Catholic dogma and doctrine is not limited merely to a specific matter at hand. The truth of propositions provides for the truth of those propositions which follow from it. Otherwise it would have been impossible for the ancient Fathers to deduce the teachings of Nicea and Constantinople I from the Apostles Creed and the Bible, it would have been impossible to deduce the teachings of Ephesus and Chalcedon from biblical proofs and the fathers at that time. Certainly it could scarcely be argued that St. Athanasius or St. Iraneus taught the doctrine that Jesus was one person with two natures human and divine, they may have believed that very thing without that predication but the doctrine had not yet been developed. If it is true that God has given a perpetual succession of Popes to the Church that also includes the powers of the Papacy, those offices given jurisdiction for teaching, preaching, and those powers given to appoint Bishops with jurisdiction to preach, bind to their authority and hear confessions fit follows that the purpose of that succession is that these powers shall be unbroken. When you have a generational gap, you have a break.

These powers do not reside with the Bishops, they are granted to them. They only resided objectively with the Apostles and continually with the successor of St. Peter. If there is no Pope for a generation, there is a break, e.g. the succession is not perpetual which we know is false, and consequently these offices decay, the Bishops appointed by the Pope die, and the jurisdiction granted by Christ to Peter is lost. If it goes on for a whole generation, that means a whole generation of Catholics live and die without having the faith handed to them by the magisterium, which alone is granted the guidance of the Holy Ghost. That is contrary to the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail. What else do perpetual successors mean other than there will be a man who is the visible head of the Church and the source of unity for all Catholics?

What does the definition itself mean? That “a primacy of true jurisdiction, together with a full scope of rights and duties would continue in the Church, and this in virtue of the will of Christ or by divine law.” (Dorsch 2:191)

The dogmatic theologian Salaverri devotes 23 dense pages to this passage in Vatican I, nearly all of it directed at proving that Christ intended the office of the Primacy to be perennis — not limited to Peter, but rather “a power which will perpetually endure to the end of the world.” (de Ecclesia, 1:385.)

You (and every other anti-sedevacantist), then, have confused two things: (1) the perpetuity of the papacy as a perpetual institution whose rights and duties continue forever, and (2) always having a live pope to fill it. So we can see very clearly that, contrary to your asserion, what Vatican I defined with "perpetual successors in the Primacy", means that St. Peter's extraordinary powers which Christ gave to him, the Primacy, did not end with St. Peter, but would pass on, perpetually, to evey valid Pope who would be elected. It did not define that "we would always have a Pope, at every time, and at every generation."

On the contrary, those are two distinct offices of the exact same thing. The powers do not exist in ether or abstraction but always in an individual. Without the institution of the Papacy there is no Pope, and without the occupier of the office there is no one who wields the power of the Papacy, which returns to the essential of the argument. Obviously the Church herself objectively maintains the powers, or else they would disappear on the death of the Pope. Yet if there was no Pope for over 50 years, the guiding and ruling of the Church would not take place, likewise the perpetual principle of unity would not exist for a whole generation and ordinary jurisdiction would disappear in the Church. Ludwig Ott teaches:

“That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by our Lord, but it flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the Primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death, consequently, his office must be transmitted to others. The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it: Christ’s flock cannot exist without shepherds.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 282)

Its time for you to apply doctrine. Pius XII dies, according to you and your schismatic cronies a heretic is elected, he is not really Pope. All of his appointments and acts are null and void. Bishops die and he appoints new ones, but they do not have real authority. He dies and a new Pope is elected, all of his acts are null and void, all Bishops he appoints do not have their authority and the faithful in those sees have no immediate link of unity, not to mention the perpetual principle of unity in Rome. He dies and three more men, one currently claiming to reign, are elected, but none of them are Pope either.

This means there is not now one bishop in the world occupying a diocese who has authority to occupy his see, and there is not one Bishop in the whole world with jurisdiction. It means the teaching Church has ended, contrary to the promise of Jesus Christ to the Church:

Ίδού έγω μεθ’ ύμων είμι πασας τάς ήμέρας έως της ςυτελιας του αιωνος (Mt. XXVIII:20)

It means that for 51 years there has been no principle of unity to hand on the tradition to the Church, which means we are approaching the edge of living memory. But Christ’s flock cannot exist without shepherds. Where is jurisdiction? It could not exist in the life of the Church, and it does not exist at Sedevacantist Churches since being ordained and consecrated outside of the Church Holy Orders alone, not jurisdiction were passed on. It doesn’t exist with the SSPX by the admission of their Bishops. Where is it? Under this schema the Church is ontologically incapable of fulfilling its own mission. Jursidiction, teaching, authority, primacy, do these exist in some nominal idea of the Papacy which exists in principle according to the words of Christ yet not in actuality in the world? Sheer and utter nonsense the whole bit of it. It means not only is there NO MAGISTERIUM, not only are there NO BISHOPS WITH JURISDICTION, but there is no way to elect another Pope since it is impossible to meet the laws in place at the death of Pius XII. Knowing this the Dimond bros. claim that Jesus Christ Himself will give us a Pope, which is contrary to the principle of economy and fraught with horrors of private revelation and error, since private revelation can only be confirmed as authentic by the magisterium which, again, when the sedevacantist position is applied concretely, NO LONGER EXISTS. We know this is impossible, as Pope Leo XIII taught in his encyclical Satis Cogitum “Therefore, Jesus Christ instituted in the Church a living, authentic and likewise permanent magisterium, which he strengthened by His own power, taught by the Spirit of Truth and confirmed by miracles.” (DZ 1957) Concretely, the fact that no see would be occupied by a valid Bishop or one with jurisdiction and that there is no Pope to hand on jurisdiction means we have lost the mark of Apostolicity within the Church, and likewise we have lost the mark of unity. And those Bishops consecrated outside the Church only pass on the material apostolic succession, they do not pass on formal apostolic succession. The distinct powers can not be separated. The Sedevacantist teaching of today is heretical, because it claims that these powers can be validly separated and again, it is heretical because the consequence of its teaching is that the Magisterium has ceased to exist.

Furthermore, just because the position of certain protestants that Peter’s authority died with him and is not perpetual was refuted by the Vatican decree, does not deny what we true Catholics in union with our Father Benedict XVI assert, that the decree also means there will be a man occupying the office of Peter to hand on the tradition to every successive generation. If this were incorrect to do, then it would also have been incorrect for Pope Leo the Great (and also St. Augustine and Jerome) to use the teaching of Nicea that Christ was consubstantial with the Father and born of the Virgin Mary to mean he was both God and man to refute Eutychus, since that teaching was meant to refute Arius.

So we can see [not] how your accusation against us sedevacantists of "a lack of philosophical and theological understanding of doctrine in general, and Papal authority in particular", far from being true about us, is true about you. [Already refuted.]

DENIAL OF VATICAN I

It's ironic that you say "No one can claim that those drafting the definition of Papal infallibility at Vatican I were ignorant of history and could not anticipate a situation when a Pope might speak error" and then you falsely conclude: "Had sedevacantism been believed, all of these figures would have been deposed. They weren't and no one suggested they ought to be", for the theologian Serapius Iragui wrote the following:

"What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy? The response was thus: 'Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.' [Mansi 52:1109] Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute impossibility of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head." Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.

That is a half truth; some theologians concede that if the Pope was a manifest heretic, he would lose his office because he was no longer a member of the Church. I don't have any problem with that taken as a theory, and note Iragui does not take it as a fact, he is speaking hypothetically that God would provide the Church with a means of recovering. Even if granted, to that I say so what? We are not speaking here of one Pope who lost his office, was removed and promptly replaced. Neither has any theologian who formulated or is alleged to have formulated conditions by which the Pope would lose his office. We are speaking of the idea that the Popes since John XXIII have all lost their office or were invalidly elected, and neither Iragui nor any other theologian has ever addressed the idea of the Church being without a principle of Unity for over a generation, because such a thing would mean concretely that God did not provide the Church the means to overcome the situation, which is blasphemous. Again I site Cardinal Billot’s teaching at the head of this response, and note not one of the Popes of the last 50 years have had their elections contested of even a large portion of the Church. You also have the problem that a manifest heretic is someone who obstinately denies faith and morals. Obstinacy is in the will, neither you nor I can know the will. Neither can a Bishop, Cardinal or any theologian. Thus how do we know someone is a manifest heretic? (More on this later)

Then in the second paragraph of this section, while giving no souces whatsoever to verify what you say, you give out various examples of Popes who "fell into heresy" or "promoted heresy" and then conclude by saying that "the Chruch never deposed them and no one suggested they ought to be."

I didn't need to give sources, because the cases are so well known. However since you're into revisionism I'll be happy to provide them.

This is really one of the most dishonest (or ignorantly written) things I have seen about this issue. Which ever it is, all that you wrote here is false. Perhaps the fact that no anti-sedevacantist that I am ware of uses these cases as "proof" for Popes who "were heretics" (except for the cases of Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII, whcih will be proven to be false) and "remained Popes" to "disprove" the sedevacantist position, should warn anyone against the credibility and truthfulness of these so-called cases.

Yawn. Better go get another beer.

Preliminary Note: it is very interesting that, you and nearly all "traditionalists" like Ferrara that have made these comparisons of these Popes who supposedly were heretics (which were not) to attempt to disprove sedevacantism, don't even hesitate to condemn all these Popes as undeniable heretics, and even exaggerate the matters and say bold lies about these cases. But when talking about the last 5 antipopes that we have had (who are not even comparable to the cases you cite, for they are unimaginably heretical) [proof?], which are undeniable and clear-cut heretical apostates and who have even commited Satanic and anti-christ apostasies (John Paul II in Assissi 2002), all you false "traditionalists" diminish and explain away and deny that even the slightest thing is a heresy, let alone an apostasy; you raise the bar for what constitutes heresy so high that nothing is heretical. Very interesting indeed...

Firstly, if Assisi is proof that JPII lost his office or could not have been Pope, we have a problem. Assisi represents at worst a sin against the 1^st Commandment, namely communicatio in sacris universally condemned by the Fathers. But, then you would have to deal with the fact that Pope Vigilius is implicated by historical evidence in the murder of Pope Silverius and took gold from Theodora to be installed as Pope(see below), Pope John XII turned the Lateran into a brothel, Pope Stephen IV had rivals and an anti-Pope visciously murdered, and we will remember the episode when Stephen VI dug up the body of Formosus his predecessor and had it sat in the Lateran to be condemned for heresy, and then desecrated in the streets of Rome. Renaissance Popes had illegitimate children and devoted the treasures of the Church to worldly pursuits, and look nothing like the saintly Popes since St. Pius V. No one claimed they lost their office, and there is not even any writings amongst theologians that you can site which would allow for them losing their office due to moral degeneracy. Assisi will rank as problematic, but there is nothing in that episode that could have caused JPII to lose his office, presuming that the teaching is true. This is why distinctions are important. It is not a question of explaining away difficult passages; it is proving that the thing is heretical rather than ambiguous and that the author is a manifest heretic (i.e. obstinate). That is a tough bill to fit.

Nevertheless you are shifting the burden of proof. No one that I am aware of condemns the historical example of Popes who may have lapsed into error as “heretics”. I only wrote that they lapsed into error, and no one removed them from office. The biggest problem with you and other sedevacantists is that you are completely unlearned in Canon Law and the definition of a heretic. It takes a public act of the Church to condemn a heretic, which is why Bellarmine’s thesis is not applicable (he only considered it an improbable theory) because it takes the public authority of the Church to declare someone a heretic, not by a bunch of guys running around on the internet with their interpretation of doctrine claiming the Pope lost his office. Given that according to common sedevacantist teaching there are no bishops, it is impossible to carry that. Besides, no one at the time of these historical instances did that. The opinion of the theologians often sited (including Bellarmine) is that if the Pope is a manifest heretic, not if he merely professes a heresy, which is apart of the internal forum and can’t be judged publicly, except by the Magisterium (which again if you are right no longer exists) he would lose his office. Even Paul IV's bull Cum Ex (which I have shown and will again in the next installment is no longer valid) refrains from making any mention of the loss of Papal office due to heresy, principally because the Pope has no Earthly superior. Not the cardinals, not the Bishops, not a Council, not Trailer park monastery or Gertrude the Great Church. The fact that you are claiming that in noting cases where the Pope erred we condemn them as heretics is proof that you don’t understand the distinction the Church makes between someone who lapses into heresy and a heretic.

Case #1: Pope Liberius You wrote: "Pope Liberius confessed Arianism and excommunicated St. Athanasius. No contemporary and neither did any historical commentator claimed that Liberius lost his office." Answer: FALSE. It is not true that Pope Liberius gave in to the Arians, signed any Arian formula, or even excommunicated St. Athanasius. Pope Liberius was a staunch defender of the truth during the Arian crisis, but his return from exile gave some the idea that he had compromised, when, in fact, he had not. I quote Pope Pius IX: Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 16), January 6, 1873, On False Accusations: “And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.”
Pope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro (# 3), Oct. 5, 1920: “Indeed, lest they should prove faithless from their duty, some went fearlessly into exile, as did Liberius and Silverius and Martinus.” According to Pope Pius IX and Pope Benedict XV, Pope Liberius didn’t falter in any way during the Arian crisis, and was falsely accused by the Church’s enemies for standing firm. Pope St. Anastasius I bears witness to this as well.

You've got the history all wrong, those are two different events. It was on account of this specific accusation that the Arians made that the Western Emperor ordered Liberius and Ostius of Cordoba to sign and Arian creed and for Liberius to excommunicate St. Athanasius. Osius was whipped until he did so, Liberius imprisoned. THIS IS EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED AT VATICAN I, where they determined that this did not compromise the definition of Papal infallibility because it was not ex Cathedra and a statement gained by force is no real statement.

Pope St. Anastasius I, epistle Dat mihi plurimum, about 400 AD: “For at this time when Constantius of holy memory held the world as victor, the heretical African faction was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe, our God provided that the holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men…For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is Dionysius, thus a servant of God, prepared by divine instruction, or those following his example of holy recollection, LIBERIUS bishop of the Roman Church, Eusebius also of Vercelli, Hilary of the Gauls, to say nothing of many, on whose decision the choice could rest to be fastened to the cross rather than blaspheme God Christ, which the Arian heresy compelled, or call the Son of God, God Christ, a creature of the Lord.
It was not Pope Liberius, but the pseudo-bishop Ischyras, who, before he usurped the See of Alexandria, ejected St. Athanasius from his See. Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 14), April 13, 1791: “Perhaps in appreciation of these actions, the bishop of Lidda, Jean Joseph Gobel, was elected Archbishop of Paris, while the archbishop was still living. He is following the example of Ischyras, who was proclaimed bishop of Alexandria at the Council of Tyre as payment for his sinful service in accusing St. Athanasius and ejecting him from his See.”

You’re conflating all kinds of things. Do you know how to interpret historical evidence or are you being purposely dishonest? Athanasius was ejected many times from his see, by the Eastern Roman Emperor, who empowered heretics in his place. Excommunication had nothing to do with that. Moreover Ischaryas could never have ejected St. Athanasius without imperial aid because the people would not stand for it. When St. Athanasius was excommunicated, even though the excommunication was dubious and later rescinded when Liberius was set at liberty, he obeyed it, respecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

Nevertheless, Liberius resisted Arianism and refused the demand of the Roman Emperor Constantius to excommunicate St. Athanasius for many years. Finally in 355 Liberius was taken prisoner at Rome and sent to Thrace where he was held in jail and whipped. The Emperor held a synod (which was believed at the time to be an ecumenical council because of the number of Bishops) where several semi-Arian formularies were put together. Liberius was forced to sign the first formulary of Sirmium which was ambiguous, it could have been read in an orthodox or heretical manner. At that time he also signed the excommunication of St. Athanasius (Duchesne, Early History of the Church, II 227-228) which he rescinded in 358. Realizing this was not sufficient, the Arians at Constantius’ direction tried to force him to sign the second formulary of Sirmium, which was certainly Arian. He did not and I never claimed he did. Several letters which appeared to be Arian or Semi-Arian were also signed by Liberius, but again forced. Lastly a third formulary was presented to him in 358 which he did sign with an addendum confessing the Creed of Nicea.

Furthermore, St. Robert Bellarmine demolishes the Liberius case, and even proves the point for the sedevacantists: St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15: "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic." St. Robert says that, although Pope Liberius seemed to be a heretic (even though he wasn't!), the Roman clergy stripped him of his Pontifical dignity (deposed him from the Papacy) because he appeared to have become a heretic. What would they say of the last 5 antipopes, who have been teaching and espousing heresy and apostasy on a weekly basis for more than 40 years? So much for your claims against sedevacantism.

Okay Janus. Firstly this contradicts flatly what you wrote above. You tried to argue that Liberius never confessed Arianism or conceded anything, now you provide a quote from Bellarmine which declares the contrary. Which is it? You can’t speak out of both sides of your mouth. Secondly, I have studied ecclesiastical history for 8 years in Latin, Greek and English and I have NEVER, EVER, seen any account of this in any work of any historian, Catholic, clerical, lay or non-Catholic. Since I don’t own a copy of De Romano Pontifice, perhaps you will scan the page in and send it to me so I can verify that Bellarmine said that.

Even if he did teach that, Bellarmine is not infallible and his opinion can be easily rejected because it contradicts ALL of the established evidence on the episode with Liberius. NO CATHOLIC HISTORIAN EVER ACCOUNTED FELIX II AS A TRUE POPE. Only some of the Roman Clergy when Constantius’ troops were present, after they broke their oath not to honor anyone else. Liberius was taken by night to Beroea (Thrace) and no ceremony could be conducted by which he could be stripped of anything unless it was during his exile. Felix was the Archdeacon of Rome put in place by the Roman Emperor Constantius after sending Liberius into exile, but before imprisoning Liberius until he confessed Arianism. Like all anti-Popes who are put in place by civil authorities, whether Roman, Byzantine or German, Felix disappeared as soon as the civil authority ceases to back them. The faithful in Rome never accepted Felix as the Pope because Liberius was still alive. (Kidd, History of the Church, II, 150-151, Catholic Encyclopedia, Chapman, A History of the Popes, Duchesne, Early History of the Church II;) Moreover, at the time Felix was put in place (by the Roman Emperor) Liberius had not even signed the first formulary of Sirmium, but had stood firm in defending Nicea making no common cause with the Arians. Likewise the letters accepting semi-arianism which were published (as noted above, likely forced on him or forged) when Felix II was placed as an anti-Pope by the Roman Emperors in 355. Thus no one could perceive him as a heretic when he went to exile because he hadn't done anything yet. As soon as Liberius was released from Sirmium in 358 the people in Rome rose against Felix and he hid in the Church of Santa Maria in Trestevere, until he was banished by the people in Rome to Porto, where he lived until he died. It could be that Bellarmine confused the historical evidence on this point because early pontificals mixed up anti-pope Felix with a martyr Felix who was buried in a church built by an anti-pope. Nevertheless the fact that Felix was consecrated by Arian Bishops disproves Bellarmine’s opinion on that.

More importantly why claim that I was entirely wrong about Liberius, then come out and say that I was right when you could have just given the quote from Bellarmine as evidence. Didn’t you realize the quote contradicted what you wrote above?

Case #2: St. Ostius of Cordoba Perhaps you could give me your source as to where exactly did you read this?

Duchesne, Early history of the Church, II 227-228; Carrol, The Building of Christendom, pg. 32, Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Hosius (Osius) of Cordoba

Case #3: Pope Vigilius You say: "Pope Vigilius was put into power by Justinian's prostitute wife Theodora to profess the monophysite heresy. Vigilius was a probably a monophysite heretic, and he supported the restoration of apostate patriarchs because he knew it would be a chance to win favor with Justinian. And was elected Pope. Then the grace of the Papal office worked on him, and he refused to restore monophysite heretics to their eastern sees and furthermore returned the money paid to him to declare monophysitism true. No contemporary and neither did any historical commentator claim that he was elected invalidly due to being a heretic. Pope Vigilius' situation is more telling since when he was elected he was an anti-Pope since the true Pope was still alive in Justinian's jail. When he died, the clergy re-elected Vigilius Pope, and at that time he still professed monyphysitism, not to mention that he was involved in the murder of his predecessor. No one ever said he lost his office." This is also false, and a complete lie, and doesn't prove anything against sedevacantism, nor that he was a heretic. Of this case the Catholic Encyclopedia says: Catholic Encyclopedia, "Pope Vigilius": "Owing to the pressure exerted by the Byzantine commander, Vigilius was elected pope in place of Silverius and consecrated and enthroned on 29 March, 537. Vigilius brought it about that the unjustly deposed Silverius was put into his keeping where the late pope soon died from the harsh treatment he received. After the death of this predecessor Vigilius was recognized as pope by all the Roman clergy. Much in these accusations against Vigilius appears to be exaggerated, but the manner of his elevation to the See of Rome was not regular. Empress Theodora, however, saw that she had been deceived. For after the latter had attained the object of his ambition and been made pope he maintained the same position as his predecessor against the Monophysites and the deposed Anthimus.

I never claimed anything to the contrary, namely that after his election he maintained the policies of Pope Silverius and Agaptius.

It is true that there is an alleged letter from the pope to the deposed Monophysite patriarchs, Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius, in which the pope agrees with the views of the Monophysites. [I never mentioned the letter because until recently most scholars contested their authenticity, and Vigilius was still an anti-Pope when they were written.] This letter, however, is not regarded as genuine by most investigators and bears all the marks of forgery (cf. Duchesne in Revue des quest. histor. (1884), II, 373; Chamard, ibid., I (1885), 557; Grisar in Analecta romana, I, 55 sqq.; Savio in Civilta catt., II (1910), 413-422]. The pope did not restore Anthimus to his office. It was not until the year 540 that Vigilius felt himself obliged to take a stand in regard to Monophysitism which he did in two letters sent to Constantinople. One of the letters is addressed to Emperor Justinian, the other to the Patriarch Menas. In both letters the pope supports positively the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon, also the decisions of his predecessor Leo I, and throughout approves of the deposition of the Patriarch Anthimus." So we can see that your claims that "When he died, the clergy re-elected Vigilius Pope, and at that time he still professed monyphysitism, not to mention that he was involved in the murder of his predecessor. No one ever said he lost his office" are blatantly FALSE and calumny and slander against Pope Vigilius. Pope Vigilius was not a heretic, so your guess that Pope Vigilius "was probably a monophysite heretic" is is clearly false, and this case doesn't prove anything against sedevacantism. This only reveals that you are a liar.

Again, your argument is less than convincing, as there is a whole array of contrary evidence, and you haven’t seriously taken up what I wrote. I never meant to say that Vigilius was a “heretic” because again, being a heretic is dependent upon obstinacy which is in the will. I said probably, because materially he had lapsed into the monophysite heresy, as we shall see in a moment, and his later support for the three chapters strengthened the belief that he was in Rome. It may also be that he was never really a monophysite heretic but was willing to profess it for ulterior reasons. It might be that he never entertained it at all, hence I wrote “probably”. Secondly I made a special point of the fact that once Vigilius was truly Pope he changed his tune. I wrote that he failed to restore the monophysite patriarchs and that he refused to give Theodora what she empowered him for. I never denied that once he was actually Pope, he was faithful to Tradition and suffered exile.

Now however to historical evidence. That you have not seriously studied the history of this period is absolutely clear.

Augusta vero vocans Vigilium Agapeti diaconum profiteri sibi secreto ab eo flagitavit, ut si papa fierit, tolleret synodum et scriberet Theodosio, Anthimo et Severo, et per epistolam suam eorum firmaret fidem; promittens dare ei praeceptum ad Belisarium ut papa ordinaretur, et dar centenaria septem. Lubenter ergo suscepit Vigilius promissum eius, amore episcopatus et auri, et facta professione Romam profectus est. –Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum of Liberaturs of Carthage, written in 575, 25 years after the event took place.

This is more or less a contemporary witness. But I suppose he was lying too. The Liber Pontificalis also supports the promise. Other authorities note that while Vigilius was with Pope Agaptius in Constantinople, he was not pleased with the anathematization of Anthimius (Chapman, Age of Justinian: Studies on the Early Papacy, pg. 223, Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique (DCT), XV 2995-2998; Frend the Rise of the Monophysite movement, pg 273-275)

However when Vigilius returned to Rome, he found that Pope Silverius had already been consecrated and installed by the Roman clergy. Silverius also had the backing of the Gothic king Theodahad, which becomes important later as Roman troops retook Rome and a political struggle ensued between the Roman general Belisarius and the Goths. When Silverius refused to restore the patriarchs Theodora instructed Belisarius to find a cause to remove him, and to work with Vigilius. When the Goths attempted to retake Rome, Belisarius accused him of treason and sent him with an imperial guard to exile in Patara. When he was removed from the city the Roman Clergy were forced by Belisarius to elect Vigilius as an anti-Pope. That he was an anti-pope is attested to by numerous sources. (Baronius in his history remarks on the subject, Chapman, “Age of Justinian”; Carroll “The building of Christendom”; Catholic Encyclopedia) It is from this point that the alleged letter promising to restore the patriarchs date. While there is an open question as to whether or not the letters were forced, almost all modern Catholic scholars claim they are authentic. Given that it is not clear that they were authentic I never mentioned the letters in the original post because Vigilius was not even the true pope at this time. Silverius was still alive in exile. However E Amann in the DCT makes a good argument for their authenticity (DCT XV, 3003).

When the Bishop of Patara got to know Silverius he appealed to Justinian, who upon hearing the case ordered Silverius returned to Rome immediately. This occurred in 537 but he could not be returned until Belisarius re-opened the city with reinforcements to break the Gothic siege. He delivered Silverius to Vigilius, and Vigilius an anti-Pope who aspired to the Papacy for love of gold as Liberatus of Carthage tells us, sent the true Pope to the island of Palmaria to die, approximately 19 November in 537. He died the next year of starvation. (Carroll, the Building of Christendom pg. 171; Richards “Papacy in the early middle ages”, pg. 130; Bury, Later Roman Empire, II, 187-189; Dictionary of Christian Biography (DCB) IV, 672, 1145; Catholic Encylclopedia; Davis, “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils”, pg. 235). Once was for sure dead, Vigilius was confirmed as the Pope and is one of four men to move from anti-Pope to Pope.

In this, Cardinal Baronius tells us that Vigilius was re-elected, something pushed through by his supporters so that the Roman Clergy faithful to the true Pope now dead would be able to support him. There is no contemporary evidence of it. But if nothing else he was now accepted as Pope. The Ecclesiastical Dictionary (Rev. John Thein, 1900) tells us: “Vigilius- Pope from 540 to 555. he was forced upon the Romans as Pope by the Empress Theodora in 536, agaisnt the legitimately elected Silverius. After the death of the latter, in 540, Vigilius resigned the papal dignity which he had usurped, but was then canonically re-elected, after which he defended the orthodox doctrine and declared himself against the monophysites.” (pg. 703)

Warren Carrol tells us:

“[On the death of Silverius] the see of Peter became vacant-and who but Vigilius could fill it? The example of Silverius and his fate stood starkly clear: any new Papal election advancing anyone other than Vigilius would mark the man elected for death. There was no choice and no escape. The clergy of Rome, the faithful of the Church, must accept as Pope this man who had in all probability martyred his predecessor, who had promised to embrace heresy to gain the Papacy-and collected seven hundred pounds of gold in the bargain. Even if few then knew this last, something of the kind must have been suspected. In all the history of the See of Peter there is no darker moment from this, the Year of Our Lord 538, with Rome in the hands of Theodora’s minions while she waited in Constantinople for the fulfillment of the remainder of the promise of “our most dear deacon Vigilius”” (The Building of Christendom, pg. 172)

More proof that Vigilius was willing to gain the Episcopate can be deduced from the fact that when the Papacy had a short experiment of determining the successor by appointment of the last Pope, Boniface II had chosen Vigilius, who was from a noble family to be Pope. Before he died however he scrapped the decree and brought it to the vote of the Roman clergy, who elected Agaptius Pope, not Vigilius. Essentially the guy was disinherited, which combined with coming from nobility makes even more creditable Liberatus of Carthage’s account that Vigilius loved gold and the episcopacy. All the historical evidence proves he was willing to embrace heresy to gain it, since he had the troops of the Roman Empire on his side. As I noted in the original, once he became Pope he changed his tune. He refused to give Theodora what she asked for. He was imprisoned in Constantinople when he refused to condemn the Three Chapters much later, but finally he gave in and was released. The important point is that he was considered a monophysite by the people for signing the three chapters, since it was seen as a repudiation of Chalcedon. (E Amann, DCT 3004-3008; Carroll, ibid pg. 178; Richards, Papacy in the early middle ages)

This historical case proves precisely what I argued, that you have a man who murdered his predecessor and was willing to pronounce monophysitism in exchange for gold and elevation to the office he had been disinherited from. When he was taken to Constantinople people threw rocks at his boat and cursed him (History of the Popes, Charles Coulombe, pg. 102). When he left Constatninople, agreeing to condemn the three chapters, which in itself presents no doctrinal problem, he was viewed as a monophysite, especially in light of his past. No one thought to remove him from his office. No one attempted to depose him, and no one said he wasn’t the Pope from the time of his re-election to his death in Syracuse.

Here ends part I, but there is much more which will appear later.

The False Principles of Sedevacantism, part II

2009-02-17T05:07:00.000-08:00

Manifest Heresy and a Manifest Heretic

Having shown in my last writing on this subject that the principles which underlie Sedevacantism are entirely false because they inherently deny the four marks of the Church and lead to the eradication of Tradition, we now move on to more of their false principles.

The next Sedevacantist principle we will have to deal with is manifest heresy and manifest heretics. On this issue Trailer-park monastery is all over the map, calling anyone who does not agree with their private magisterium a heretic, even other sedevacantists, so I will leave them out of it more or less.

The real issue at hand is what constitutes a manifest heretic, and whether or not Vatican II and the post-conciliar Popes are actually manifestly heretical, and if their teachings are heretical could that constitute a loss of office.

First we must address the question of the authority of the Church, and when it is infallible, which we touche don last time.

Fr. Anthony Cekada, in his FAQ on a Sedevacantist website, declares:

3. Why cannot the authority of the Roman Catholic Church give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines?
Precisely because it is the authority of Christ. The Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost in the promulgation of dogma and morals, and in the enactment of liturgical laws and pastoral disciplines. In the same way that it is unimaginable that Christ could promulgate these errors or enact these sinful disciplines, so it is unimaginable that the assistance which He gives to the Church through the Holy Ghost could permit such things.

Firstly, there is an error in the nature of the assistance of the Holy Ghost. The fact is the Tradition, the Deposit of Faith which Christ handed down, is what is invested with divine authority and infallibility. The Pope as Christ's visible head is invested with authority to carry on that tradition, and is guaranteed by the promise of Jesus Christ to not err when communicating this tradition ex catehdra. Vatican I tells us explicitly what an ex cathedra statement is:

in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church (4th session, chapter 4)

It does not extend the guarantee of infallibility to the ordinary magisterium, rather, it limits it to this one area. Vatican I makes this distinction on purpose, and blurring the distinction is an implicit denial of this council.

Thus the answer given above by Fr. Cekada is in fact heretical, since it fails to make the distinction between teaching which meets the conditions for infallibility, and that which does not. It also fails to distinguish between the office of the Pope and the person of the Pope, and likewise the magisterium and those occupying it. Vatican I would not have given us these definitions if it were up for debate.

Moreover it is a complete denial of history since this did happen in two ways: Popes have in fact used the authority given to them by Christ wrongly, and Popes have in fact taught error, held error, before and after election long before there was ever a Vatican II. This is why the whole Sedevacantist enterprise is not only heretical, but is as modernist as protestant interpretation since they have made themselves the principle of judgment, which is anti-traditional. Vatican I had to contend with historical facts when it made its definition, which is why the council restricted the guarantee of infallibility to explicit conditions. Even an Ecumenical council does not meet the conditions of infallibility in and of itself.

Hence, the fact that the Vatican II popes have done these things is a certain sign that they have do not have the authority of Christ. The teachings of Vatican II and the reforms which proceed from it are contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal salvation. But since the Church is both indefectible and infallible, it cannot give to the faithful doctrines, laws, liturgy, and disciplines which are contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal salvation. We must therefore conclude that this Council and these reforms do not proceed from the Church, that is, the Holy Ghost, but from an evil influence within the Church. From this it follows [sic] that those who have promulgated this evil Council and these evil reforms have not promulgated them with the authority of the Church, which is the authority of Christ. From this we rightfully conclude that their claim to have this authority is false, despite whatever appearance they may have, even despite an apparently valid election to the papacy.

There are two things which must be noted here. First the "we". This is the principle heresy of the Sedevacantists, namely that of modernism. The essence of modernism is private judgment. When we say private judgment, we do not mean it as the Neo-cons mean it when they misuse the term to describe the rightful criticisms of the hierarchy by Traditionalists. Rather, we mean this as the Church does, when one makes himself, as is clearly being done in this case, the standard of judgment. Without giving the magisterium the benefit of the doubt (which is the teaching when the ordinary magisterium appears to be contradictory), and determining for himself things which are subject to the internal forum (namely whether the Conciliar Popes are heretics, the Mass is invalid, etc.) he has determined from himself, based on his rendering of tradition, that it is all false. It is not only intellectually facile, it is based on emotions. It can't be this bad, I don't like these statements, the Pope can't do wrong therefore he is not using the authority of Christ, to not be doing that he can't be the Pope.

Now the last quote is based on the principle I just refuted, namely that any act of the Pope is an act ipso facto of the Church's authority and guarded by the guarantee of infallibility. Those who claim that are heretical, both Sedevacantists and certain Neo-Cons who hold anything the Pope does is right, because both are denying Vatican I's conditions for infallibility. Thus the claim that Vatican II, and conciliar Popes are heretical and invalid is made contingent upon whether or not any of the above qualify for the conditions laid down by Vatican I for infallibility.

When we examine Vatican II however, there is only one condition met, namely the subject is addressed by the Magisterium to the whole Church. To be infallible one must meet all of them which are: Addressing the Universal Church, pertaining to Faith and Morals, being clear as to its mode of teaching (e.g. using declarative language) and finally understood as infallible unequivocally by the Pope.

Now Pope Paul VI, declared at the closing session of the Council "Nothing extraordinary occurred at the Council." As Father Chad Ripperger, FSSP has pointed out, this is simply technical theological language to say that nothing Infallible, nothing ex Cathedra was defined at the council. Moreover, there is not one Vatican II document which is clear in its mode of teaching. By departing from propositions, teaching and canons, a style indicative of all ecumenical councils and making use of essay format, Vatican II is making its pastoral nature clear. Moreover the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium indicates that nothing within the Council is infallible unless noted. Where did that happen?

Thus Vatican II does not meet the conditions for infallibility, and therefore is not subject to the guarantee, which means that it is possible for the Council to teach erroneously. It would essentially be non-infallible Ordinary Magisterial teaching, which is to be judged by its own weight. Not everything in Vatican II is evil, in fact, many things contained in the documents are infallible propositions which were previously defined.

Thus the claim that Vatican II constitutes a great apostasy in itself is fallacious, and heretical since it fails to take into account distinctions laid out by Vatican I. It is just as heretical as the claim made by some people that everything in Vatican II is infallible and requires absolute assent. However this does not mean we fudge the Ordinary magisterium, if it doesn't make sense or appears to contradict the deposit of faith it is wise to suspend judgment until the Magisterium withdraws it or pronounces judgment on it. If it is in fact contrary to the Tradition, we can withhold our assent from it provided it is manifest and obvious. Since it is ordinary magisterial teaching there are conditions under which we can withhold our assent from something. Another instance would be if what was alleged was irrational.

Therefore one does not even need to cover the particulars of the sedevacantist objections to Vatican II, by the principles of Vatican I if we were to grant all their claims of heresy in the Council (which I don't), their argument still fails on principle.

But what of the Pope?

The Conditions for the guarantee of infallibility are the same. It has to be clear as to its mode of teaching, be on faith and morals, and addressed to the whole Church. For instance John Paul II's teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is ordinary magisterial teaching, but it is infallible. This is because Ordinary Magisterial teaching may or may not be infallible depending upon declaritive language and whether or not it is handing on the tradition, as that document did. Moreover, it is addressed to the whole Church. Other documents however are not, either because they don't address faith and morals, they are not addressed to the whole Church or they are not clear as to their mode of teaching. Since nothing has been declared ex Cathedra either by or since the Council, the Sedevacantist position is null and void, because it is only in that sense in which their claim of a Pope apostatizing could hold any merit based on the principles of Vatican I.

Even when considering Ordinary magisterial teaching, the question of heresy is difficult to prove, and one must make the proper distinctions. We are not free to make careless judgments of papal teaching. Hence the Wednesday audiences of JPII are not infallible magisterial teaching, known as theology of the body, because they are not addressed to the whole Church, and also because they are not found in the tradition. Furthermore they are not declared to have any extraordinary character, or infallibility, which means they do not enjoy the guarantee of protection from error. They are however an act of the Pope's teaching authority, because the power and obligation to teach was invested by Christ to the magisterium. Thus, we do not have to accept theology of the body, coming from such a low level proclamation, but we do have to acknowledge it as part of JPII's teaching. If we don't understand it we can suspend our judgment, and given that it comes from such a low level document we need not trouble very much over it. What if something in one of his Wednesday audiences contradicts an encyclical such as Casti Conubii? There again, the minor gives way to the major, and given that Pius XI's teaching is in an encylical, that is what we should adhere to. Tangentally in actuality it was in one of those Wednesday audiences where JPII declared you can't throw out the key teaching of Pius XI, namely that procreation and education of children are the primary end of marriage.

But what if a Pope's teaching in higher level documents, such as Encyclicals, contradicts a prior Pope's? There again we go back to the mode of teaching. Ecumenism becomes an obvious problem. That Communicatio in Sacris is a sin was held universally by the early Church, and by the Scholastics, which means according to Pius IX's teaching on theological consensus in Tuas libenter, that teaching is infallible. Now John Paul II in his encyclical "Ut unum sint", speaks of an Ecclesiology which is clearly at variance with tradition. He almost acts as though the Church is not one. He writes:

"Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his agape.
"In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion. The faithful are one because, in the Spirit, they are in communion with the Son and, in him, share in his communion with the Father: "Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 Jn 1:3). For the Catholic Church, then, thecommunion of Christians is none other than the manifestation in them of the grace by which God makes them sharers in his own communion, which is his eternal life. Christ's words "that they may be one" are thus his prayer to the Father that the Father's plan may be fully accomplished, in such a way that everyone may clearly see "what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (Eph 3:9). To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ's prayer: "Ut unum sint". (Ut Unum Sint, no. 9)

This needs some unpacking. It would seem to suggest that the Church is not yet one, that rather she is divided, and if this is true we would know this is heretical. One of the four marks of the Church is that she is one, not many. However such a reading is not absolute or necessary, there is another interpretation. The Church is one and the Pope hopes by creating Christian unity to add to that already existing oneness those who are not in it. The latter is perfectly orthodox. But what if John Paul II believed the former? Sedevacantists claim that they do know he believed heresy and is therefore a heretic.

This brings us to the next fallacious principle, namely private judgment of heresy.

In the Church's power of Jurisdiction there are two forums which the Church distinguishes: the internal forum and the public forum. The public forum is a more objective criteria for judgment, and relates to public judgments by the authority of the Church. The internal forum deals with subjective criteria that relate to individuals. The absolution of sins belongs to the internal forum, while the power of a priest to hear concessions belongs to the public forum. Moreover, judgment on whether or not a person is a heretic belongs to the public forum, because it is a public act of the authority of the Church. The Church is empowered to make this determination by Jesus Christ Himself, and considered practically, they are in a position (even if they scarcely use it in our day) to examine the heretic and determine if he is obstinate. It must be remembered, even while heresy is a obstinate denial of faith and morals, the individual may not be obstinate in himself. Hence, whether or not a member of the faith is a heretic belongs properly speaking to the internal forum until the public authority of the Church declares otherwise.

If it belongs to the internal forum, WE CAN NOT KNOW IT, which means the above statement from Fr. Cekada that "we conclude" is in reality somewhat blasphemous. He is not in a position to conclude anything dealing with the internal forum, even if everything he says is absolutely right about heresy in the last few Popes' writings. Only the public authority of the Church can declare someone a heretic. And in the case of the Pope moreover, he has no earthly superior. Yet as I have shown the Pope can err in his teaching authority unless it is an extraordinary statement, such as something ex catehdra or a solemn definition of an ecumenical council which he approves and declares binding (unlike Vatican II where the opposite was declared). Thus, the only one who can judge the Pope according to the public forum, that is the Church's full authority, is a future Pope, or God.

This is why the Parisian theologians presented a letter to Pope John XXII informing him that his ordinary magisterial teaching on delayed judgment was heretical, but respected his authority. That Pope then examined the issue, created a commission and recanted after its findings found his teaching false according to Tradition. (This should be a reminder to the other side of this argument, that the Pope is himself a servant of divine tradition and can be corrected). Pope Honorius who died without the benefit of reforming his false teaching and permissions for false teaching, was condemned not by an ecumenical council per se, but by Pope St. Agatho who directed the 3rd Council of Constantinople through his legates to make such a condemnation. Until that time, no one ran around declaring Honorius to have lost his authority while in office. This is why as we noted in part I, when Pope Paul IV wrote Cum ex apostolatus, and laid his juridic conditions for loss of office (which can not bind future Popes) he limits his judgment as concerning a heretical Pope to prior to his election, showing that as recently as the Council of Trent a Pope believed along with antiquity that the Pope has no human superior, and therefore can not be judged in the public forum.

Lastly, our practical experience can give us a clue as to the reality of the situation. If one talks to any exorcist, they will all tell you that without ordinary jurisdiction you can not conduct an exorcism. Sometimes the demons will let you poke around with chapter III, but after a while they will laugh and say "where is your authority?". Let any sedevacantist priest try and conduct an exorcism. Seriously. It won't happen. On the other hand priests whose faculties come from Bishops who are probably speaking heretics can conduct Chapter II of the ritual (which can't be done without jurisdiction) and the demon can be cast out. If authority in the Church were gone then no one would be able to conduct an exorcism.

Thus all the principles of Sedevacantism are inherently false. There is no truth in them. If it were the case as I showed in part I then the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church, not merely because it would mean a long time without a Pope, but what happens to Jurisdiction in that time without a Pope. The loss of Jurisdiction, the power which Christ gave to the apostles would mean effectively the loss of the power of the Church to forgive sins, which means there would be no way to sanctify the Church, much less rectify the situation by electing a Pope. And moreover they are not fit to judge whether the Popes and hierarchs are heretics, since these belong to the internal forum. The whole enterprise is a smoke and mirrors game based on facile thinking and effeminacy, which refuses to submit to the authority of the Church and deal with the demonic disorientation which affects us today. Instead they have taken the easy road, like every heretic and schismatic in history, and they need to be re-incorporated into the Church for their own etneral salvation, and that is my prayer.

Next time we will take up the false teaching of Sedevacantism, especially as concerns the New Mass and St. Robert Bellarmine.