Although the usual suspects in the never-never land that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism are marveling at their “pope’s” decision to declare Gregory of Narek, who lived his entire life as a member of the schismatic and heretical Armenian Apostolic Union, as the “thirty-fifth” doctor of what they think is the Catholic Church, there are some in the “resist while recognize” movement who are taking exception to the latest of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis’s “surprises.”
A writer named Ann Barnhardt, has written a commentary that is very critical of Jorge’s latest “surprise,” and I thank Mr. Frank M. Rega, the author of Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, for sending out a notice of this commentary to his e-mail list. Here is just a brief excerpt from Mrs. Barnhardt’s commentary:
Look, we all know that Pope Francis and his toadies are nefarious characters by now. I will have more to say about their efforts to schism and destroy as much of the Church Militant as possible using the Sixth Commandment as their primary locus of attack. HOWEVER, something happened yesterday that is far more subtle, but perhaps more intensely nefarious. Pope Francis Bergoglio announced that an Armenian theologian from the Tenth Century, Gregory of Narek, is going to be named a Doctor of the Universal Church.
Yawn. Snooze. So what? Booooooring. Whatever.
Not so fast.
Gregory of Narek, while certainly a very holy man, was outside of communion with Rome, and also was a heretic, namely a Miaphysitite.
Yawn. Snooze. So what? Booooooring. Technical. Whatever.
No, not whatever. Miaphysitism holds that Christ has only one nature, which contains both a divine “character” and a human “character”. Miaphysitism is the heresy held by what are referred to today as the “Oriental Orthodox” churches, which includes among others the Armenians and also the Copts in Egypt.
This is wrong. Christ is One Person with two natures: divine and human. Jesus Christ is FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. This truth, given to the Church by the Holy Spirit at the Council of Chalcedon in ARSH 451, is technically referred to by Christological theologians as Dyophysitism. Recalling the post earlier this month about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and logic, we must remind ourselves, as products of a diabolic system of post-Christian contra-education, that two contradictory premises cannot both be true. Period. And if we do in fact believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then we KNOW and CANNOT DOUBT what the truth is in this case. The Church teaches infallibly that Dyophysitism is TRUE and everything else, including Miaphysitism is false, and thus heretical. Period. Full stop. End of story. (The First Commandment is First for a Reason.)
What Mrs. Barnhardt misses in an otherwise well-written commentary, of course, is that none of this confusion can come from the Catholic Church, she who enjoys enjoys a complete and perpetual immunity from error and heresy. Furthermore, no one can recognize a true pope while resisting him, not unless Pope Leo XIII’s reiteration of Catholic teaching on this point of Catholic doctrine can be dismissed with the ease with which the conciliar revolutionaries dismiss the binding nature of the Definition of Faith issued by the Council of Chalcedon (see Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position).
Another “resist while recognize movement” website, Rorate Caeli, however, has lauded “Pope Francis” for his decision to declare Gregory of Narek a “doctor” of what is thought to be the Catholic Church:
As reported today on the Vatican Bollettino, Pope Francis has decided to elevate Gregory of Narek (c. 950 - c. 1005) perhaps the greatest of Armenian sacred writers, sometimes called "the Armenian Pindar", as Doctor of the Church. A translation of his Book of Lamentations can be found here.
Although not mentioned in the Bollettino, this act also apparently serves as an equipollent canonization of Gregory, who was already venerated as a Saint in both the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Catholic Church.
It is interesting to note that Gregory lived at a time when the Armenian Church, to which he belonged, was not formally in communion with Rome and Constantinople. However, as those interested in the extremely tangled history of Christianity in the first millennium are well aware, one cannot always speak straightforwardly of "schism" and "heresy" when dealing with the theological and ecclesiastical divisions of Christendom in that era. (For the record: A new Doctor of the Church.)
Even though it is certainly true that the conflicts of the First Millennium are fraught with complexity, it is not true that we cannot always “speak straight straightforwardly of ‘schism’ and ‘heresy’ when dealing with the theological and ecclesiastical divisions of Christendom in that era.”
There is nothing unclear or not straight forward about the fact that the American Apostolic Union in which Gregory of Narek lived his entire life rejected the Council of Chalcedon, Holy Mother Church’s Fourth Ecumenical Council, which issued the following Definition of Faith in the year 451:
So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.
Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised. (Translation as found at Dogmatic Definition of the Council of Chalcedon. A different translation is found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, no. 148, pp. 60-61.)
The clarity of the Council of Chalcedon was emphasized in Father John Murphy’s General Councils of the Church, a passage of which was quoted by Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, in their very readable survey of the Holy Mother Church’s twenty general councils, Tumultuous Times:
Of the first four councils, Chalcedon stands out as by far the most important and glorious. It was attended by more bishops (almost 600) than any of the previous gatherings. They came mostly from the East because of difficulties with the barbarian invasions from the West. …This council also stands out because of the profundity of the doctrinal decree, which is a superb summary of all that had been clarified concerning Christ and the Trinity during these first centuries; it also established firmly the terminology that has remained with the Church until this very day. In this way, it completed the work of the earlier councils. (Father John Murphy, General Councils of the Church, p. 60, as cited in Fr. Francisco Radecki, CMRI, and Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, St. Joseph’s Media, Wayne, Michigan, and Newhall, California, 2004, p. 43.)
How sad it is such a forthright and clear characterization of the Council of Chalcedon as being a summary and confirmation of defined teaching of the Catholic Church is now considered to be a subject of ambiguity and confusion. The Modernist mind must, however, live in such a fog.
The text of Tumultuous Times that follows this quote is also very instructive:
The Council of Chalcedon deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem and four other bishops who were the ringleaders of the “Robber Council,” declared the innocence of St. Flavian and Eusebius and denounced and exiled Dioscorus and Eutyches. Sadly, Eutyches continued to teach his heretical doctrines while in banishment and died shortly afterwards.
Among the bishops whose cases were discussed at Chalcedon two are especially important because of the role of their writings will play in the next century. One was Ibas, the bishop of Edessa; the other, Theodoret of Cyrrhus. These two had been condemned along with Flavian at the “Robber Synod.” They were now reinstated by the General Council. (Father John Murphy, General Councils of the Church, p. 63.)
When the Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great was published, which contained the beliefs of the Catholic bishops, was read to the Council fathers, there arose the cry: “That is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe. Peter has spoken through Leo.” The Creeds of Nicea and the First Council of Constantinople were publicly reconfirmed by the Council Fathers.
Tragically, however, many monks became Monophysites or joined schismatic churches. What began as a heresy ended in schism.
The definition of Chalcedon was not accepted by the whole Church. The Monophysite controversy went on for nearly a hundred years. Finally all those parts of the Eastern Empire in which Greek was not the language of the people severed themselves from the Church and have remained in schism. (Father John Laux, Church History, p. 156.)
The Oriental Orthodox Churches are independentb ut jointly reject the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon. These include the Armenian Apostolic, Coptic (Egyptian), Ethiopian and Syrian (Jacobite) Churches. (Fr. Francisco Radecki, CMRI, and Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, St. Joseph’s Media, Wayne, Michigan, and Newhall, California, 2004, p. 44.)
No member of the Catholic Church is free to reject a doctrinal decree issued by one of her true general councils. Each of Holy Mother Church’s twenty general councils have been guided by the infallible help of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, and it is not a minor matter to depart from even one article of the Faith they define, something that Pope Leo XIII, noted in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, while making specific reference to the Eutychians:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
It has not passed the notice of many Bergoglians that Gregory of Narek is the first “doctor” of what is purported to be the Catholic Church who lived his entire life outside of communion with Rome. Some are trying to claim that he actually supported the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, although the evidence for this is very slim.
Whether Gregory of Narek accepted the Council of Chalcedon or was a Monophysite or a Miaphysite is, however, entirely irrelevant as Bergoglio’s intention of honoring him as a “doctor” is to make it clear that there can be “ecumenical doctors” as well as “ecumenical martyrs.” Remember, it was just a few weeks ago that Jorge claimed that the Coptic Christians, whose church believes in Monophysitism, had died for a Faith that they did not hold. There is only one true Faith, Catholicism.
Just as the conciliar “popes” have used the artifices of “living tradition” or the “hermeneutic of continuity” to dispense with supposedly “outdated” formulations or “understandings” of Catholic doctrine, so has it been the case that they made appeals to “linguistic difficulties” as factors that led to schisms in order to come to “common understandings” with heretics who do not hold to the Sacred Deposit of Faith as Our Lord Himself had entrusted to Holy Mother Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
The great Modernist for whom I shamefully carried watered over a period of a little more sixteen years, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, was intent on glossing other what he called “linguistic difficulties” to begin a rapprochement with the heretical and schismatic Armenian Apostolic Church on December 13, 1996:
As they bring to a close their solemn meeting which they are deeply convinced has been of particular significance for the ongoing relations between the Catholic Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church, His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and His Holiness Karekin I, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, give humble thanks to the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who has enabled them to meet in his love for prayer together, for a fruitful discussion of their common desire to search out a more perfect unity in the Holy Spirit, and for an exchange of views about how their Churches may give a more effective witness to the Gospel in a world approaching a new millennium in the history of salvation.
Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I recognize the deep spiritual communion which already unites them and the Bishops, clergy and lay faithful of their Churches. It is a communion which finds its roots in the common faith in the Holy and Life-giving Trinity proclaimed by the Apostles and transmitted down the centuries by the many Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the Bishops, priests, and martyrs who have followed them. They rejoice in the fact that recent developments of ecumenical relations and theological discussions carried out in the spirit of Christian love and fellowship have dispelled many misunderstandings inherited from the controversies and dissensions of the past. Such dialogues and encounters have prepared a healthy situation of mutual understanding and recovery of the deeper spiritual communion based on the common faith in the Holy Trinity that they have been given through the Gospel of Christ and in the Holy Tradition of the Church.
They particularly welcome the great advance that their Churches have registered in their common search for unity in Christ, the Word of God made flesh. Perfect God as to his divinity, perfect man as to his humanity, his divinity is united to his humanity in the Person of the Only-begotten Son of God, in a union which is real, perfect, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without any form of separation.
The reality of this common faith in Jesus Christ and in the same succession of apostolic ministry has at times been obscured or ignored. Linguistic, cultural and political factors have immensely contributed towards the theological divergences that have found expression in their terminology of formulating their doctrines. His Holiness John Paul II and His Holiness Karekin I have expressed their determined conviction that because of the fundamental common faith in God and in Jesus Christ, the controversies and unhappy divisions which sometimes have followed upon the divergent ways in expressing it, as a result of the present declaration, should not continue to influence the life and witness of the Church today. They humbly declare before God their sorrow for these controversies and dissensions and their determination to remove from the mind and memory of their Churches the bitterness, mutual recriminations and even hatred which have sometimes manifested themselves in the past, and may even today cast a shadow over the truly fraternal and genuinely Christian relations between leaders and the faithful of both Churches, especially as these have developed in recent times.
The communion already existing between the two Churches and the hope for and commitment to recovery of full communion between them should become factors of motivation for further contact, more regular and substantial dialogue, leading to a greater degree of mutual understanding and recovery of the communality of their faith and service.
Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I give their blessing and pastoral support to the further development of existing contacts and to new manifestations of that dialogue of charity between their respective pastors and faithful which will bear fruit in the fields of common action on the pastoral, catechetical, social and intellectual levels.
Such a dialogue is particularly imperative in these present times when the Churches are faced with new challenges to their witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ arising out of the rapidly changing situations in the modern world so deeply affected by an extreme secularistic and secularizing pace of life and culture. It requires closer collaboration, mutual confidence and a greater degree of concern for common action. It presumes and requires an attitude of service which is not self-seeking and which is characterized by a mutual respect for the fidelity of the faithful to their own Churches and Christian traditions.
They appeal to their clergy and laity to carry out more actively and effectively their full co-operation in all fields of diaconia, and to become agents of reconciliation, peace and justice, struggling for the true recognition of human rights and dedicating themselves to the support of all those who are suffering and are in spiritual and material need throughout the world. (Common Declaration Made by Two Friendly Heretics.)
Obviously, the “common declaration” made by “Saint John Paul II” and Catholicos Karekin I nineteen years ago is just a variation of other such declarations made by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. One wonders if there is not a standard form that is used in the “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity as a template, permitting the specifics of whatever “historical” or linguistic “dispute” to be filled in according to whichever heresy or set of heresies professed by a particular non-Catholic Christian denomination.
Although longtime readers of this site are well familiar with the following quotation from Pope Leo XIII’s Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894, that explains the only foundation of a true union between schismatic Eastern churches is their complete adherence to Catholic Church is perhaps apropos once again:
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, referring to the Orthodox in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884.)
One will note that Pope Leo XIII made proper use of the word subsist in order to reject the notion that a reunion of East and East can be found in an “certain kind of agreement in the Tenets and Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.”
This is not what has been preached by the conciliar "popes," figures of Antichrist that they are, who have spoken as one voice to advance the heresy of the "full" and "partial" communion that is based upon an abject rejection of the following reiteration of Catholic teaching by Pope Pius XII:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
The conciliar revolutionaries simply dismiss any and all dogmas that they deem to have grown “obsolete in the particulars they contain” by claiming that they were “misunderstood” by heretics. Everything is a matter of “linguistics” and the supposedly “time-conditioned” nature of specific dogmatic formulations that must be understood anew. This is how each of the tenets of conciliarism have been defended by the conciliar “popes” and their willing apologists, and it is how Jorge Mario Berogoglio has called Coptic Christians who were killed savagely by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as “martyrs for the Faith” and how he has now declared a man who lived his entire life outside of the Catholic Church to be one of her doctors.
However startling this might appear to some, though, the case of Gregory of Narek, whose name was inserted into the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s Roman Martyrology in 2005 with the approval of Ratzinger/Benedict, and who is venerated as a saint by the Armenian Catholic Church (which was the outgrowth of Pope Benedict XIV’s belief in the Eighteenth Century that the decisions of the Councils of Orange and Lyons had been accepted by enough Armenians as to warrant papal permission to form themselves as members of the Catholic Church under a pope’s authority), is really nothing new at all.
After all, the claim that a past decision of the Catholic Church had been “misunderstood” by heretics is something of a slight variation of the claim made by none other than Ratzinger/Benedict himself in 2001 that Pope Leo XIII had condemned forty of Father Antonio Rosmini’s propositions because he, Pope Leo, had “misunderstood” them.
Yesterday’s condemned propositions can be rehabilitated very simply by rejecting Thomism and claiming that it is “impossible” to express dogmatic truth adequately at any particular time because of the influences of historical circumstances and the vagaries of human language.
Rosmini’s rehabilitation in 2001 was merely a prelude to his “beatification,” which occurred on November 18, 2007, after his cause had been approved by the man who rehabilitated him, Ratzinger/Benedict:
The events following Rosmini's death required a certain distancing of the Church from his system of thought and, in particular, from some of its propositions. It is necessary to consider the principal historical-cultural factors that influenced this distancing which culminated in the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" of the Decree Post obitum of 1887.
The first factor is the renewal of ecclesiastical studies promoted by the Encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) of Leo XIII, in the development of fidelity to the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. The Papal Magisterium saw the need to foster Thomism as a philosophical and theoretical instrument, aimed at offering a unifying synthesis of ecclesiastical studies, above all in the formation of priests in seminaries and theological faculties, in order to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach. The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St Thomas Aquinas.
A second factor to keep in mind is the fact that the condemned propositions were mostly extracted from posthumous works of the author. These works were published without a critical apparatus capable of defining the precise meaning of the expressions and concepts used. This favoured a heterodox interpretation of Rosminian thought, as did the objective difficulty of interpreting Rosmini's categories, especially, when they were read in a neo-Thomistic perspective. (Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati; please see the Appendix below for the view of a ultra-progressive conciliar revolution on the revolutionary meaning of this "note.")
There are two things that stand out in this passage of the "note" reversing Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of the propositions of Father Antonio Rosmini.
First, "Cardinal Ratzinger," with the full approval and "papal" benediction of John Paul II, essentially said that Pope Leo XIII was too stupid to understand the complexity of Rosmini's admittedly ambiguous work, leading to that pontiff's misunderstanding of that work. Ratzinger's contention was that the "misunderstanding" served the Church well at the time as, in essence, most other people would have come to the same conclusions as they lacked the "tools" to unlock the "true" meaning hidden deep within Rosmini's words. Ratzinger, of course, had those "tools" at his disposal, most fortunately for the cause of conciliar "truth," you understand.
Second, Pope Leo XIII's "rigidity," if you will, was caused by his "adoption" of Thomism that created the "premises for a negative judgment" of Rosmini's work. Ratzinger was asserting that Pope Leo XIII "adopted" Thomism in Aeterni Patris rather than providing us with a cogent summary of how pope after pope had endorsed the work of the Angelic Doctor and his Scholasticism as the official philosophy of the Catholic Church:
But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull 'In Ordine;' Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull 'Pretiosus,' and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull 'Mirabilis' that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull 'Verbo Dei,' affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: 'It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.' Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: 'is teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.'
The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the 'Summa' of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.
A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)
The rejection of Scholasticism by John Paul II and Benedict XVI has made it possible for the ultimate triumph of the former's concept of "living tradition," which the latter termed as the "hermeutic of continuity and discontinuity," which is simply a repackaging of the condemned Modernist proposition concerning the nature of dogmatic truth that Pope Saint Pius X dissected in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and that Pope Pius XII condemned anew in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
Thus it is that the rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth, which is in and of itself a rejection of the very immutability of God and represents a denial, therefore, of His essence as God, has been used to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and prayer services, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, undermining the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification, treating the "clergy" of various Protestant sects as having valid orders even while maintaining the official position of the Catholic Church, and any number of other matters that time simply does not me to enumerate yet again. Undermine the nature of dogmatic truth, my good and very few readers, and you make the triumph of conciliarism possible.
Rosmini’s rehabilitation in 2001 was merely a prelude to his “beatification,” which occurred on November 18, 2007, after his cause had been approved by the man who rehabilitated him, Ratzinger/Benedict.
Similarly, none other than that great “restorer of Tradition,” used his variation of the historical-critical method to accept the Assyrian Church of the East’s Anaphora of Addai and Mari of the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East that does not contain any actual words of consecration within its text. The fact that this Anaphora, which was rejected by the authority of the Catholic Church in the Sixteenth Century when the Chaldeans (the former Nestorians) were reunited with Rome and once again in 1902 when news reached Rome that many priests of the Chaldean Rite were still using the old Assyrian Anaphora of Addai and Mari without the words of consecration. Nonetheless, however the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, who was one very busy little ecclesiastical termite in the years prior to his "election" on April 19, 2005, used the exact same false methodology in this instance as he had when rehabilitating Rosmini:
The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments.
In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.
Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15). Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15).
Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.
4. Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist
Considering the liturgical tradition of the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, the doctrinal clarification regarding the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the contemporary context in which both Assyrian and Chaldean faithful are living, the appropriate regulations which are foreseen in official documents of the Catholic Church, and the process of rapprochement between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, the following provision is made:
1. When necessity requires, Assyrian faithful are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in a Chaldean celebration of the Holy Eucharist; in the same way, Chaldean faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
2. In both cases, Assyrian and Chaldean ministers celebrate the Holy Eucharist according to the liturgical prescriptions and customs of their own tradition.
3. When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East.
4. The above considerations on the use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari and the present guidelines for admission to the Eucharist, are intended exclusively in relation to the Eucharistic celebration and admission to the Eucharist of the faithful from the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East, in view of the pastoral necessity and ecumenical context mentioned above.
Rome, July 20th, 2001 Guidelines for Chaldean Catholics receiving the Eucharist in Assyrian Churches
What's a mere matter of words to men who make short work of the nature of dogmatic truth, thus making short work of the very nature of God Himself? Words? Mere words? They matter? Oh, yes, they sure do.
Let us turn to the wisdom of Pope Saint Pius X, who forewarned us of what would be happening in our times as he condemned by the false principles of the Sillon in France that serve as cornerstones for conciliarism:
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that - their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution - they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
We need a true pope.
Pray more Rosaries for this intention.
Beg Our Lady of Fatima, for this intention and to suffer through the chastisements of these present times with joy, love and gratitude, remembering also to pray to our great Wonder Worker, Saint Philomena.
Rest assured that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, virginal Mystical Spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Christ the King Himself.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour of our death. Amen.
Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.