Back To The Future
by Thomas A. Droleskey
This will be a very brief article. It has to be very brief considering the fact that yesterday's article, Alinsky's Sheen, was not posted until around 3:30 a.m. yesterday.
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the Society of Saint Pius X has let the world know that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did indeed write in his own hand both in 2009 and in June of this year that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, had demanded complete and full acceptance of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" for the Society of Saint Pius X to be "reintegrated" back into the life of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:
"[T]he agreement considered in 2011-2012 lasted for six months, it has not been blessed by the Blessed Virgin. (We had prayed rosary after rosary, and we keep doing that, that is very good.) But the Blessed Virgin was clearly not behind this idea. She did not walk this path, because on June 30 (it's a secret that I reveal to you, but it will be made public), on June 30, 2012, the Pope wrote with his own hand a letter to our Superior General, Bp. [Bernard] Fellay, signed personally: 'I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly reintegrated into the Church [Tissier says:] (let us move beyond this expression), it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium.'
"It is, as a matter of principle, a stopping point, because we could not accept it anyway; we would not sign it anyway. One can enter into details, because the Council is so vast one can find good things in it, but this is not the essence of the Council."
"Evidently, we could not sign it. Because we are required to sign it, the agreements do not move forward. I would say that [if] on this point there is no agreement, there will be no agreement.
"This is all I can tell you, I do not think Rome will let us go. The Modernist Rome [sic] will come close to us [once again], it is inevitable. They are determined, they are persistent, they want to lead us to the Council, therefore pray. Personally, I would never sign things like that, that is clear." (As found on the Rorate Caeli blogspot.)
With all due respect to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, it is delusional to think that "Modernist Rome will come close" to the Society of Saint Pius X. Upon what rational basis can one have such an expectation? As we would say on the streets of New York and environs, "This is crazy. This is nuts." Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, who is a wonderful champion of the Social Reign of Christ the King and who knows the heresies of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI very well and has written a scholarly treatise on them, wants Catholics to believe the "pope" who personally demanded an adherence to the "Second" Vatican Council and the "post-conciliar" magisterium is going to one day move "close" to the Society of Saint Pius X or that his successor will do so?
Alas, the Society of Saint Pius X is founded on the falsehood that restricts papal infallibility, believing that true popes can teach erroneously when they are not defining something dogmatically, reserving unto itself the right to "sift" through the orthodoxy of a true pope's words. They believe that they have had a mission to "convert" the man they believe to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to "Eternal Rome," heedless of the simple truth that True Popes Never Need to Convert to the Faith. Although I have put you good readers through this drill before, the appendix below will give you a review as to why the ecclesiology of the Society of Saint Pius X is as false as that of the "new ecclesiology" of conciliarism.
The long soap opera between the leadership of the Society of Saint Pius X and the leadership of the counterfeit church of conciliarism has had man episodes. This particular saga began on August 29, 2005, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, when Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, and Father Franz Schmidberger met with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict at his summer residence, Castel Gandolfo. It was at that meeting that the man who had written in 1982 that it the "integralists" ("traditionalists") "could not be resisted too firmly" expressed his desire to have the "new theologians" taught at the Society of Saint Pius X's seminaries.
Yes, Ratzinger/Benedict, who is himself a product of the "new theologians, whose work was summarized very succinctly by my former colleague John Vennari in A Short Catechism on the New Theology, expressed a desire over seven years ago for his beloved "new theologians" to be taught. That was not enough right then and there to stop any thought of "reconciliation" with a man whose very false "new theology" had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950?
Yet it is that Bishop Fellay proceeded to believe that a "reconciliation" was possible with a man whose very "hermeneutic of continuity" was but a repackaging, revealed in his infamous December 22, 2005, Christmas address to his curia, of what his own Hegelian mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, referred to as "living tradition," a phrase invoked endlessly by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II during his twenty-six and one-half years as the head of the counterfeit church of concilairism. Indeed, Wojtyla/John Paul II was so dedicated to Hans Urs von Balthasar's "living tradition" that he was prepared to give him a red hat as a member of the conciliar church's college of "cardinals," being unable to do so only by the fact that God saw fit to prevent this by happening by summoning von Balthasar to his Particular Judgment on June 26, 1988, two days before the consistory at which "Pope" Wojtyla would have so honored him.
Expecting the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to be "liberated" and a gesture of "good will" on the part of the "pope," Bishop Fellay rarely said a word as his "pope" said and did things offensive to God and thus contrary to the good of souls and of the state-of-the world (see What Lines Are You Reading Between, Bishop Fellay?). When that "pope" "liberated" the "modernized" version of the Immemorial of Mass of Tradition by means of Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, he promised to review the "possibility" of incorporating some of the elements of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, a promise he meant to keep and is in fact fulfilling come the First Sunday of Advent, December 2, 2012 (see Next Stop On The Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round: 1969 And Beyond).
"Pope" Ratzinger made it clear in 2008 and 2009 that he wanted to "pacify the spirits" of the members of the Society of Saint Pius and to "break down" what he considered to be "obstinate" and "one-sided" opinions:
Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?
Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu
Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those
people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar
with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group,
because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain
culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let
them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the
faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no
opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and
On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in
accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived
of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this
century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its
development, retains its identity.
Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there
remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an
opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy.
In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment
of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and
must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc....
On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common
participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community,
but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all
believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems
to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the
renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)
Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and
episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify
the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the
Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to
set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the
possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that
of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been
seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits
is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt
that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all,
lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the
Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and
never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost,
entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can
only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us
therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle
Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)
Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible:
this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the
Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is
that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity,
their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility
of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority.
Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in
seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey
together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of
Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is
Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to
the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the
social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the
Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.
"So if the arduous task of working for faith,
hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always)
the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of
reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of
extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the
opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must
accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to
meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek
reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall
forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the
extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus
avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can
it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and
narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for
the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the
return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their
interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church
enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole.
Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests,
215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level
institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands
of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the
Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed
their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have
chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements,
they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and,
with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives
of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What
would then become of them?
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on
this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that
community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions,
etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a
number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an
openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to
be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of
the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas?
And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged
in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society
needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown;
which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to
approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to
tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or
to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the
excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)
Summorum Pontificum was a trap from the very beginning. Undaunted, though, Bishop Fellay walked readily into that trap, and only time will tell how many of younger Catholics who assist at Holy Mass at the Society's chapels will now drift over, at least now and again, to a staging of the conciliar "Motu Mass" after seven years of waiting for a "reconciliation" that they believed might ease some of the estrangements with family members and friends who consider them schismatic and disloyal to the "pope" for adhering to the Society of Saint Pius X.
Another trap was set when the "excommunications" of the four bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer on June 30, 1988, was "lifted" on Saturday, January 24, 2009, as the stage was then set for the beginning of the "doctrinal" discussions that have now stalemated once again, perhaps ad infinitum, because of Ratzinger/Benedict's entirely unsurprising demand for there to be complete adherence to the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath that was ordered on its final day, December 8, 1965, by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, to be "religiously observed:"
APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING
OF THE COUNCIL - DECEMBER 8, 1965, read at the closing ceremonies of
Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St.
Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul,
must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church.
In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat
of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the
hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest
because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed
carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune,
because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all
it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of
charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians
still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole
At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the
help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees,
declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the
synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all
intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical
council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened
October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
We decided moreover that all that has been established
synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the
glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and
peace of all men. We have approved and established these things,
decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and
are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain
full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by
those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so
that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these
things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be
invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the
fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. (APOSTOLIC BRIEF - IN SPIRITU SANCTO.)
Why the surprise or shock at Ratzinger/Benedict's demand for what "Pope" Montini, who could be called the non-pope in red (for his Communist sympathies, that is) or, as a former friend of mine in the conciliar presbyterate used to say mockingly, "Paul the Sick," demanded at the end of the "Second" Vatican Council.
While I did really believe that Bishop Fellay was going to lead the Society of Saint Pius X into "full communion" with the conciliar authorities, the fact that this did not occur was not for the superior-general's surrender of his integrity as he tried to justify various conciliar apostasies, including "religious liberty," and kept his mouth very quiet as Ratzinger/Benedict went into mosques and synagogues and gave "joint blessings" with the "clergy" of Protestant sects. Bishop Fellay even made gestures of acceptance of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service itself now and again in the past seven years, which have been nothing other than a gigantic farce that some believe has finally made "possible" a debate by theologians in the conciliar structures about the "council" that has been analyzed very well for decades by those who came to realize that it is not possible for men who defect from the Faith by holding to one condemned proposition after another cannot hold ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church legitimately.
This is what I wrote at the beginning of "stage two" of this farce back in 2009:
Ratzinger/Benedict is not seeking to end the conciliar revolution with alleged strokes of "conservatism." He is seeking to preserve the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism by
neutralizing the most identifiable source of "resistance" affiliated
with his conciliar structures, the Society of Saint Pius X, as all other
voices belonging to clergy in the Motu communities have been muted to
such an extent that they cannot be raised in defense of the honor and
majesty and glory of God when he, Ratzinger/Benedict commits,
objectively speaking, Mortal Sins against the First Commandment such as
occurred on Thursday, April 17, 2008, in Washington, District of
Columbia, as he esteemed with his own priestly hands the symbols of five
false religions. Then again, where was Bishop Fellay's voice when this
blasphemy against God took place on April 17, 2008? The neutralizing
effect of the "process" of the Society of Saint Pius X's regularization
is already being evidenced. (Nothing to Negotiate.)
The Catholic Church can never make any terms with error:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that,
where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies
new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the
advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is
overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which
it can be found without even a light tarnish of error.
Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation
of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak
here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently
brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which
comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does
not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic
inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain
doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most
conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support
that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate.
It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own
order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and
which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the
Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the
Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached
the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in
the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised
it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the
commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ
to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to
protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in
order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that
they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men,
and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops
who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it
sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is
necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or
more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful
with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
It's one or the other. Catholicism or conciliarism. It cannot be both.
It was a conciliar official, now deceased, who recognized that the See of Peter would be vacant in the case of heresy even though he, the late Mario Pompedda "Cardinal" Francesco, did not believe that the situation obtained at the time that he spoke (in February of 2005 as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was dying of Stage III Parkinson's Disease). Yes, sedevacantism is a canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church, Bishop Fellay, not some kind of "false solution" as it was called by Father Niklaus Pfluger four months ago now (False Doctrine, Father Pfluger?).
It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy.
... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what
judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation
or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005; see also see also Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty.)
Unlike what many
traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the
Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest
enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical
doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests
and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied
in our circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council. I
was not one of them.
We separate ourselves from the
conciliarists because they offend God by defecting from the Faith,
starting with their rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth and their
making complex what it is: the knowledge of Him that He has deposited in
Holy Mother Church. We must understand, however, that offenses against
the moral order are no less of a concern to God than offenses against
doctrine. Offenses against the moral order, many of which have been
committed by the conciliar "bishops" and their chancery factotums and
their insurance companies are not "little things," unless, as I have
noted in other commentaries in recent weeks, that the loss of the Faith
in a single soul is a "little thing" and that the clergy responsible for
indemnifying the loss of just one soul do not show themselves to be
enemies of the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as a result.
Although there are those who tell us that we should
"stay and fight" in once Catholic parishes that now in the hands of
apostates (or their enablers who refuse to speak out against them), we
must recognize that offenses against the doctrines of the Faith and
offenses against the moral order are never the foundations upon which
God will choose to restore His Holy Church. Truth in the moral order is
as black and white as truth in the doctrinal realm. Conciliarism
consists of its very nature in a rejection of various parts of the
Catholic Faith, and it is this rejection that leads in turn to the same
sort of despair and hopelessness in the souls of so many men now as
existed at the time before the First Coming of Our Lord at His
Incarnation and, nine months later, His Nativity.
We do not need to conduct a "search" for the "true meaning" of the doctrines contained the Sacred Deposit of Faith. We accept what has been handed down to us as docile children of Holy Mother Church.
We must remember at all
times because the crosses of the present moment, no matter their source,
are fashioned to us from the very hand of God Himself to be the means
of our participating in Our Lord's Easter victory over the power of sin
and eternal death. It matters not what anyone thinks of us for refusing
to accept the conciliarists as representatives of the Catholic Church or
for refusing to associate with those who believe act in a de facto
manner as the authority of the Church while looking the other way at
grave abuses of the moral order and indemnifying wrong-doers time and
time again. All that matters is that we carry our cross as the
consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through
the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, looking for no other
consolation than that which is given to the souls of the elect upon the
Particular Judgment and that is ratified for all to see at General
Judgment of the Living and the Dead:
Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou
hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many
things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25: 21.)
We just have to recognize apostasy when it is before our very eyes and then flee from it.
Invoking the intercession of our Holy Guardian Angels, may we continue to make reparation for our own many sins by giving everything do and everything
we suffer to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and
Immaculate Heart of Mary. May our Holy Guardian Angels help us to remain faithful
to the Catholic Church without once making any further concessions to
conciliarism or its false shepherds who violate the First Commandment
so regularly, so openly and so egregiously.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, 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.
Our Holy Guardian Angels, 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.
See also: A Litany of Saints
The Ecclesiology of the Society of Saint Pius X Condemned, Mocked, Explained
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it
is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary
rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good
government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith
and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of
which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the
universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.
7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously
a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this
"against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God
and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that
a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they
prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the
consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these
customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of
law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.
8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a
bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church
cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the
exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever,
a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often
as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that
it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and
coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does
not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
The violent attacks of Protestantism against the
Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it
scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror;
nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all,
perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing
closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard
against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his
treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her
sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of
Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that
agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See,
and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of
fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already
notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign
Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church,"
were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in
the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others
might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by
principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must
love him that governs her, else she can never obey.
These weaknesses should at least have been hidden
in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere
and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no!
parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A
strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world;
kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were
really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates,
bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to
Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the
Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his
words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined,
and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or
dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are
strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to
universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the
Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors,
December 8, 1864; see also two appendices below, reprised from five
days ago to drive home the point that no one can sift through the words
of a true pope to "determine" their orthodoxy as popes cannot err on
matters of Faith and Morals.)
A Reprise: Mr. Michael Creighton's List of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X
Mr. Michael Creighton has catalogued the principle
errors of the Society of Saint Pius X and the ways in which those who
assist at Society chapels justify these errors by way of responding to
an article that appeared last year on the Tradition in Action website:
To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:
1 A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium
(Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For
instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his
“Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his
catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his
“apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound
everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in
“ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.
2 A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching
expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope]
cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim.
(2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum
Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this
3 A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually
all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a
heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law
itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4
which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum
ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on
penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law
itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the
code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction
are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265).
This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to
help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the
office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX
pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication
cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227).
This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic
(latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent
judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore
it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not
automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says
is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.
4 The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy
that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already
tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those
schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies
canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a
juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy
and crime which automatically takes effect.
5 The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest
the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy
can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I,
Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917
code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the
seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords
words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers
[Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.
6 The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and
every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is
outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction &
pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is
proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest
heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the
magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.
7 Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is
misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against
the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he
automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and
hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their
offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The
cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are
still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not
cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does
excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith.
This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post
1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove
ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus
Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I.
Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or
bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a
public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even
supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics),
Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to
remain in vigor” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious
heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an
absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the
Church in her canonists.
Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:
1) We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]
2) The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on
faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by
Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]
3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary
magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This
rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or
the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the
conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I
(Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]
4) The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of
reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge.
[Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].
5) The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this
is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to
the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier
councils mentioned above].
6) Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious
liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a
Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church
and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV
(Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)]
7) Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine
against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be
contradictory, they are.
When I point out these positions are against the
Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in
attendance at the SSPX chapel.