Chesterton Contra Ratzinger
Thomas A. Droleskey
Every once in a while, perhaps only two or three times a week depending upon the circumstances of the moment, it is prudent to remind the few people who actually read these articles of the simple fact that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes in a nature of dogmatic truth that defies both natural reason and the anathematized propositions of the Catholic Church, which means that he does not really believe in God as He has revealed Himself to be through His Catholic Church. It is that simple.
The evidence is clear. Consider some of it yet again:
1971: "In theses 10-12, the
difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is
debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure
point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the
Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out
that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been
in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare
it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and
the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial
Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the
different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps
for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the
magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are,
in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of
pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus
remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times
influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last
century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the
anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all,
the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism].
As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they
will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz
said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the
great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois
world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they
became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation,"
published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia,"
in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)
It is precisely in this
combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that
the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of
innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically
than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for
example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation
of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely
because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to
recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that
express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent,
motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that
depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
Impermanence is a necessity to the Modernist mind as to accept the permanence and immutability of dogmatic truths is to prevent the evolutionary processes of "change" and "novelty" and "progress" from unfolding as they should in the life of Catholic theology and liturgy. It is this commitment to doctrinal and liturgical evolutionism that drives Ratzinger/Benedict to defend the "changes" and the "progress" of the past five decades since the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, by seeking to institutionalize them so as to better direct their implementation and acceptance. He is a Girondist as opposed to a Jacobin, a Menshevik as opposed to a Bolshevik. In other words, Ratzinger/Benedict is a complete and total conciliar revolutionary. He helped to plan the agenda of the "Second" Vatican Council, and he sees his role now as "Pope" Benedict XVI of having it viewed as part of the "tradition" of the Church according to his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity."
This is one of the reasons that Ratzinger/Benedict's acceptance of what is called "Theistic Evolutionism" (that God created the world and then set the evolutionary forces into motion that have produced the development of the species since that time) is very important to understand. Here are two examples of the false "pope's" words in support of the disproved farce that is the ideology of evolutionism and of the theological evolutionism of the late pantheist named Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.:
POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.
The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his
holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the
voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.
In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke
of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and
his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said.
“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific
proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must
see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God.
“Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'“
His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design. (Ratzinger and Evolution.)
Though few might have cast him in advance as a "green
pope," Pope Benedict XVI has amassed a striking environmental record,
from installing solar panels in the Vatican to calling for ecological
conversion. Now the pontiff has also hinted at a possible new look at
the undeclared patron saint of Catholic ecology, the late French Jesuit
scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
Benedict's brief July 24 reference to
Teilhard, praising his vision of the entire cosmos as a "living host,"
can be read on multiple levels -- as part of the pontiff's rapprochement
with the Jesuits, or as a further instance of finding something
positive to say about thinkers whose works have set off doctrinal
alarms, as Benedict previously did with rebel Swiss theologian and
The potential implications for
environmental theology, however, are likely to generate the greatest
interest among Teilhard's fans and foes alike -- and more than a
half-century after his death in 1955, the daring Jesuit still has plenty
of both. Admirers trumpet Teilhard as a pioneer, harmonizing
Christianity with the theory of evolution; critics charge that
Teilhard's optimistic view of nature flirts with pantheism.
Benedict's comment came during a July 24 vespers
service in the Cathedral of Aosta in northern Italy, where the pope took
his annual summer vacation July 13-29.
Toward the end of a reflection upon the
Letter to the Romans, in which St. Paul writes that the world itself
will one day become a form of living worship, the pope said, "It's the
great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will
have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.
"Let's pray to the Lord that he help us be
priests in this sense," the pope said, "to help in the transformation of
the world in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves."
Though offered only in passing, and
doubtless subject to overinterpretation, Benedict's line nevertheless
triggered headlines in the Italian press about a possible
"rehabilitation" of Teilhard, sometimes referred to as the "Catholic
Darwin." That reading seemed especially tempting since, as a consummate
theologian, Benedict is aware of the controversy that swirls around
Teilhard, and would thus grasp the likely impact of a positive papal
At the very least, the line seemed to offer
a blessing for exploration of the late Jesuit's ideas. That impression
appeared to be confirmed by the Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr.
Federico Lombardi, who said afterward, "By now, no one would dream of
saying that [Teilhard] is a heterodox author who shouldn't be studied."
Teilhard's most prominent living disciple
in Italy, lay theologian Vito Mancuso, told reporters that he was
"pleasantly surprised" by Benedict's words and that they have "great
Teilhard, who died in 1955 at the age of
73, was a French Jesuit who studied paleontology and participated in the
1920s-era discovery of "Peking Man" in China, a find that seemed to
confirm a gradual development in the human species. Teilhard has also
been linked to the 1912 discovery of "Piltdown Man" in England, later
exposed as a hoax.
On the basis of his scientific work,
Teilhard developed an evolutionary theology asserting that all creation
is developing towards an "Omega Point," which he identified with Christ
as the Logos, or "Word" of God. In that sense, Teilhard broadened the
concept of salvation history to embrace not only individual persons and
human culture, but the entire universe. In short order, Teilhard's
thought became the obligatory point of departure for any Catholic
treatment of the environment.
Yet from the beginning, Teilhard's theology
was also viewed with caution by officials both of the Jesuit order and
in the Vatican. Among other things, officials worried that his
optimistic reading of nature compromised church teaching on original
sin. In 1962 -- seven years after his death -- the Vatican's doctrinal
office issued a warning that his works "abound in such ambiguities and
indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine."
In 1981, on the 100th anniversary of
Teilhard's birth, speculation erupted about a possible rehabilitation.
It was fueled by a letter published in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican
newspaper, by the then-Cardinal Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli,
who praised the "astonishing resonance of his research, as well as the
brilliance of his personality and richness of his thinking." Casaroli
asserted that Teilhard had anticipated John Paul II's call to "be not
afraid," embracing "culture, civilization and progress."
Responding to ferment created by the
letter, the Vatican issued a statement insisting that its 1962 verdict
on Teilhard still stands -- to date, Rome's last official pronouncement
on Teilhard. (The statement was issued in July 1981, four months before
then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, took over
as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)
Across the years, Benedict has sometimes seemed to be of two minds himself.
In his 1968 work Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger wrote that Eastern Christianity has a deeper appreciation for
the "cosmic and metaphysical" dimension of Christianity than the West,
but that the West seemed to be recovering that perspective, "especially
as a result of stimuli from the work of Teilhard." He argued that
Teilhard gave authentic expression to the Christology of St. Paul.
As pope, Benedict has occasionally used
language that seems to reflect a Teilhardian touch. In his 2006 Easter
homily, the pontiff referred to the theory of evolution, describing the
Resurrection as "the greatest 'mutation,' absolutely the most crucial
leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long
history of life and its development."
Yet Ratzinger's ambivalence about Teilhard
is of equally long vintage. In a commentary on the final session of the
Second Vatican Council (1962-65), a young Ratzinger complained that
Gaudium et Spes, the "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern
World," played down the reality of sin because of an overly "French,"
and specifically "Teilhardian," influence.
Overall, the impression is that Benedict
finds much to like about Teilhard's cosmic vision, even if he also
worries about interpretations at odds with orthodox faith.
Benedict's July 24 remark on Teilhard
builds upon the pope's strong record on the environment, considered by
many observers to be the most original feature of his social teaching.
Most recently, Benedict devoted a section of his new social encyclical,
Caritas in Veritate, to a call for deepening what he called "that
covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror
the creative love of God."
In her recent book Ten Commandments for the
Environment: Pope Benedict XVI Speaks Out for Creation and Justice,
Catholic writer Woodeene Koenig-Bricker described Benedict as "the
greenest pope in history," arguing that he has not only made strong
environmental statements but also put them into practice.
In that light, one wonders if Benedict's
shade of green could eventually allow Teilhard to be named the patron
saint of Catholic ecology de jure, as well as de facto. If so, July 24
could be remembered as the first stirring of an "evolutionary leap" in
the late Jesuit's reputation and official standing. (http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host)
The "cosmos as a living host"?
No true Successor of Saint Peter has ever spoken in such a way. And
while some who are desperate to maintain that Ratzinger/Benedict is
indeed a true Successor of Peter might contend that the views about
Chardin expressed by Ratzinger/Benedict are merely "personal" views, it
is indeed one's personal views that cause one to defect from the Faith
by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law. One falls from the Faith
by holding even just one proposition that has been condemned by the
authority of the Catholic Church. One does not need to make any "formal"
declaration to fall from the Faith. An antipope does not need to
attempt to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce a false doctrine as
true in order to fall from the Faith. All one needs to do is to hold to
one proposition that has been condemned by the authority of the
Catholic Church. (See Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, Number 9.)
Thus is that John L. Allen, Jr., does not
understand that Ratzinger/Benedict does indeed believe in a similar,
although not entirely identical, concept of dogmatic truth as that held
by the late Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Although Ratzinger/Benedict
uses a different linguistic device (the "hermeneutic of continuity and
discontinuity), he believes in the sort of evolutionary principles of
doctrine and liturgy as did Chardin, whose "cosmic Christ" is a denial
of the God of Revelation, the God Who became Man in Our Lady's Virginal
and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the
Annunciation and Who made of Himself a propitiatory offering for our sins
on the wood of the Holy Cross to make it possible for us to eternal life
in the glory of the Beatific Vision for all eternity.
Ratzinger/Benedict has cited with great
approval the work of a direct disciple of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,
the late Abbe Paul Couturier, whose discipleship of the pantheist is document on a website devoted to promote the abbe's work and theology of "spiritual ecumenism":
A third influence on Couturier was Teilhard de Chardin. Both men were scientists, and Teilhard's vision of the unity of
creation and humanity expressed in the unity of Christ and the life of
the Church appealed both scientifically and spiritually to Couturier. A reasoned consequence for him was that the unity of Christians was the
sign for the unity of humanity, and that praying for the sanctification
of Jews, Muslims and Hindus, among many others, could not fail but to
lead to a new spiritual understanding of God where Christ could at last
be recognised and understood. Couturier felt this keenly as he was
partly Jewish and had been raised among Muslims in North Africa. It is
worth noting that among Couturier's voluminous correspondents were Jews,
Muslims, and Hindus, as well as every kind of Christian, all caught up
in the Abbé's spirit of prayer, realising the significance and
dimensions of prayer for the unity of Christians. Coincidentally, years
later Mother Theresa spoke of the considerable number of Muslims who
volunteered and worked at her house in Calcutta: 'If you are a
Christian, I want to make you a better Christian - if you are a Muslim, I
want to make you a better Muslim'. It cannot be denied that what those
Muslims were seeing in Mother Theresa was Jesus Christ himself, just as
the Abbe attracted so many to prayer across previously unbridgeable
divides by his humility, penitence, and joyful charity in the peace of
2003-2004 also marks the 50th Anniversary
of the launch of the Week of Prayer in Morocco as an act of charity and
prayer among the people of Islam, a significant milestone in the
experiences of today as much as then. (The Abbé Paul Couturier and Spiritual Ecumenism)
Here is one of Ratzinger/Benedict's references to Chardin's disciple, Paul Couturier:
I see good reason in this context for optimism in the
fact that today a kind of "network" of spiritual links is developing
between Catholics and Christians from the different Churches and
Ecclesial Communities: each individual commits himself to prayer, to
the examination of his own life, to the purification of memory, to the
openness of charity.
The father of spiritual ecumenism, Paul Couturier,
spoke in this regard of an "invisible cloister" which unites within its
walls those souls inflamed with love for Christ and his Church. I am
convinced that if more and more people unite themselves interiorly to
the Lord's prayer "that all may be one" (Jn 17: 21), then this prayer,
made in the Name of Jesus, will not go unheard (cf. Jn 14: 13; 15: 7,
With the help that comes from on high, we will also
find practical solutions to the different questions which remain open,
and in the end our desire for unity will come to fulfilment, whenever
and however the Lord wills. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne: Address, August 19, 2005.)
Does one begin to see a
"convergence" in the direction of the the "Omega point" of the
"synthesis of faith" in Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's mind? A belief
in some form of the evolution of the species is necessary to justify the
evolution of dogma, to justify "evolving" the modernized version of the
Immemorial Mass of Tradition and a the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service into a "reform of the reform." Catholics to "evolve" to a blithe acceptance of the Novus Ordo service and of conciliarism's novelties.
I am not accurate? What, do you have that short of a memory? Look again, my few and impossibly invisible readers:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on
use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just
the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's
top ecumenist said.
The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new
rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by
the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch,
president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity,
said May 14.
In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform
movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid"
progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture
with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.
Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on "Summorum
Pontificum," Pope Benedict's 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider
latitude for use of the Tridentine rite. The cardinal's text was
published the same day by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.
Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II
liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also
problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect
of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal
said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had
intentionally gone beyond the council's stated intentions.
He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new
reform movement, beginning with "Summorum Pontificum." The aim, he
said, is to revisit Vatican II's teachings in liturgy and strengthen
certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial
dimensions of the Mass.
Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement."
"In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we
cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the
extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the
church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said.
"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided
theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the
pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the
Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.
Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and
see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of
the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized,
Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an
organic process of growth, he said.
On the final day of the conference, participants attended a Mass
celebrated according to the Tridentine rite at the Altar of the Chair
in St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller presided over the
liturgy. It was the first time in several decades that the old rite
was celebrated at the altar. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)
Doctrinal evolutionism. Liturgical evolutionism. Biological evolutionism. Each of these is near and dear to the heart of the Modernist named Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, which is why it might be useful to provide you with several passages from late Gilbert Keith Chesterton's Orthodoxy to demonstrate that evolutionism is a negation of thought and of a reality no matter what form it takes:
At any street corner we may meet a man who
utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every
day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not
be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not
his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally
modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of
seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy
own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these
are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the
modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is
exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problem.
The last chapter has been concerned only with
a fact of observation: that what peril of morbidity there is for man
comes rather from his reason than his imagination. It was not meant to
attack the authority of reason; rather it is the ultimate purpose to
defend it. For it needs defence. The whole modern world is at war with
reason; and the tower already reels.
The sages, it is often said, can see no
answer to the riddle of religion. But the trouble with our sages is not
that they cannot see the answer; it is that they cannot even see the
riddle. They are like children so stupid as to notice nothing
paradoxical in the playful assertion that a door is not a door. The
modern latitudinarians speak, for instance, about authority in religion
not only as if there were no reason in it, but as if there had never
been any reason for it.
Apart from seeing its philosophical basis, they cannot even see its
historical cause. Religious authority has often, doubtless, been
oppressive or unreasonable; just as every legal system (and especially
our present one) has been callous and full of a cruel apathy. It is
rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But the modern
critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police
without ever having heard of burglars. For there is a great and
possible peril to the
human mind: a peril as practical as burglary. Against it religious
authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. And against it
something certainly must be reared as a barrier, if our race is to avoid
That peril is that the human intellect is
free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very
existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping
into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further
thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in
any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of
reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of
assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you
are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the
question, “Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction?
Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both
movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?” The young sceptic says, “I
have a right to think for myself.” But the old sceptic, the complete
sceptic, says, “I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to
There is a thought that stops thought. That
is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil
against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the
end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H. G. Wells has
raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism
called “Doubts of the Instrument.” In this he questions the brain
itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own
present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all
the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The
creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions
were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of
reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by
a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned,
reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve,
of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify:
these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority,
more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all—the authority of a man
to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing
it. For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of
authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her
throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are
both of the
same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof
which cannot themselves be proved. And in the act of destroying the idea
of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human
authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained
tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head
has come off with it.
Lest this should be called loose assertion,
it is perhaps desirable, though dull, to run rapidly through the chief
modern fashions of thought which have this effect of stopping thought
itself. Materialism and the view of everything as a personal illusion
have some such effect; for if the mind is mechanical, thought cannot be
very exciting, and if the cosmos is unreal, there is nothing to think
about. But in these cases the effect is indirect and doubtful. In some
is direct and clear; notably in the case of what is generally called
Evolution is a good example of that modern
intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution
is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly
things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack
upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not
destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a
positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing
called a man, then
it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just
as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian
God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that
there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man
for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing.
At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and
anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you
cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think
if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I
think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and
negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”
Then there is the opposite attack on
thought: that urged by Mr. H. G. Wells when he insists that every
separate thing is “unique,” and there are no categories at all. This
also is merely destructive. Thinking means connecting things, and stops
if they cannot be connected. It need hardly be said that this scepticism
forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech; a man cannot open his
mouth without contradicting it. Thus when Mr. Wells says (as he did
somewhere), “All chairs
are quite different,” he utters not merely a misstatement, but a
contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could
not call them “all chairs.”
Akin to these is the false theory of
progress, which maintains that we alter the test instead of trying to
pass the test. We often hear it said, for instance, “What is right in
one age is wrong in another.” This is quite reasonable, if it means that
there is a fixed aim, and that certain methods attain at certain times
and not at other times. If women, say, desire to be elegant, it may be
that they are improved at one time by growing fatter and at another time
thinner. But you cannot say that they are improved by ceasing to
wish to be elegant and beginning to wish to be oblong. If the standard
changes, how can there be improvement, which implies a standard?
Nietzsche started a nonsensical idea that men had once sought as good
what we now call evil; if it were so, we could not talk of surpassing or
even falling short of them. How can you overtake Jones if you walk in
the other direction? You cannot discuss whether one people has succeeded
being miserable than another succeeded in being happy. It would be
like discussing whether Milton was more puritanical than a pig is fat.
It is true that a man (a silly man) might
make change itself his object or ideal. But as an ideal, change itself
becomes unchangeable. If the change-worshipper wishes to estimate his
own progress, he must be sternly loyal to the ideal of change; he must
not begin to flirt gaily with the ideal of monotony. Progress itself
cannot progress. It is worth remark, in passing, that when Tennyson, in a
wild and rather weak manner, welcomed the idea of infinite alteration
society, he instinctively took a metaphor which suggests an
imprisoned tedium. He wrote—
“Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change." He thought of change itself as
an unchangeable groove; and so it is. Change is about the narrowest and
hardest groove that a man can get into.
The main point here, however, is that this
idea of a fundamental alteration in the standard is one of the things
that make thought about the past or future simply impossible. The theory
of a complete change of standards in human history does not merely
deprive us of the pleasure of honouring our fathers; it deprives us even
of the more modern and aristocratic pleasure of despising them.
This bald summary of the thought-destroying
forces of our time would not be complete without some reference to
pragmatism; for though I have here used and should everywhere defend the
pragmatist method as a preliminary guide to truth, there is an extreme
application of it which involves the absence of all truth whatever. My
meaning can be put shortly thus. I agree with the pragmatists that
apparent objective truth is not the whole matter; that there is an
need to believe the things that are necessary to the human mind. But
I say that one of those necessities precisely is a belief in objective
truth. The pragmatist tells a man to think what he must think and never
mind the Absolute. But precisely one of the things that he must think is
the Absolute. This philosophy, indeed, is a kind of verbal paradox.
Pragmatism is a matter of human needs; and one of the first of human
needs is to be something more than a pragmatist. Extreme pragmatism is
as inhuman as the determinism it so powerfully attacks. The
determinist (who, to do him justice, does not pretend to be a human
being) makes nonsense of the human sense of actual choice. The
pragmatist, who professes to be specially human, makes nonsense of the
human sense of actual fact.
To sum up our contention so far, we may say
that the most characteristic current philosophies have not only a touch
of mania, but a touch of suicidal mania. The mere questioner has knocked
his head against the limits of human thought; and cracked it. This is
what makes so futile the warnings of the orthodox and the boasts of the
advanced about the dangerous boyhood of free thought. What we are
looking at is not the boyhood of free thought; it is the old age and
dissolution of free thought. It is vain for bishops and pious
bigwigs to discuss what dreadful things will happen if wild scepticism
runs its course. It has run its course. It is vain for eloquent atheists
to talk of the great truths that will be revealed if once we see free
thought begin. We have seen it end. It has no more questions to ask; it
has questioned itself. You cannot call up any wilder vision than a city
in which men ask themselves if they have any selves. You cannot fancy a
sceptical world than that in which men doubt if there is a world. It
might certainly have reached its bankruptcy more quickly and cleanly if
it had not been feebly hampered by the application of indefensible laws
of blasphemy or by the absurd pretence that modern England is
Christian. But it would have reached the bankruptcy anyhow. Militant
atheists are still unjustly persecuted; but rather because they are an
old minority than because they are a new one. Free thought has exhausted
freedom. It is weary of its own success. If any eager freethinker
now hails philosophic freedom as the dawn, he is only like the man in
Mark Twain who came out wrapped in blankets to see the sun rise and was
just in time to see it set. If any frightened curate still says that it
will be awful if the darkness of free thought should spread, we can only
answer him in the high and powerful words of Mr. Belloc, “Do not, I
beseech you, be troubled about the increase of forces already in
You have mistaken the hour of the night: it is already morning.” We
have no more questions left to ask. We have looked for questions in the
darkest corners and on the wildest peaks. We have found all the
questions that can be found. It is time we gave up looking for questions
and began looking for answers. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908, Chapter III.)
No evolutionism. No pragmatism. Never. It is not to be an "idealist" to reject pragmatism, which is one of the many false philosophies of the past one hundred fifty years, that we can, in other words, "solve problems" without understanding their remote and proximate root causes, which means, of course, without understanding the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
It is not to be an "idealist" to point out that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI expelled himself from the bosom of Holy Mother Church long ago by holding and advancing beliefs that defy both Faith and Reason. His concepts of dogmatic truth, apart from having been eviscerated by the bitting satire of Gilbert Keith Chesterton twenty-nine years before his birth in 1927, stand condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church:
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too, that meaning of the
sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by
holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this
sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are
not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church,
or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .
3. If anyone says that it is possible that
at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be
assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from
that which the church has understood and understands: let him be
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral
office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the
authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful
Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of
teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off
and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of
the light of the pure faith.
But since it is not enough to avoid the
contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which
approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to
observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions,
though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and
forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III,
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and
Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for,
in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so
must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as
instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their
turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the
object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute,
possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another,
may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of
varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must
be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change.
Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have
an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the
apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and
always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical'
misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to
another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the
modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or
what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with
the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple
fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact,
namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have
continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his
apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the
belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was,
and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the
apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be
tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture
of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by
the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different,
may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles
faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way
deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing.
Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)
The Catholic Church cannot teach error, which is why, yes, as I will never tire of reminding you, that conciliarism is not and can never be Catholicism:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that,
where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies
new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the
advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is
overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which
it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the
Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth.
You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also
of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and
is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the
contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth
where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather,
other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by
the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that
these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the
soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life
without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who
is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the
consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders
heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was
a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as
Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which
unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that
world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and
peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not
be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a
sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the
Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself
with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society,
which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its
visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles.
It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and
the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has
defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine
assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It
makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which
it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost
limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its
inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of
the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer
of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and
charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and
of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the
doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and
marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The
equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the
different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself
demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from
Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in
no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are
superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights
of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere
numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are
superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
For the teaching authority of the Church,
which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that
revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be
brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and
which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who
are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees
fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is
necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or
more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful
with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
The [First] Vatican Council and our true popes have taught us that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes in notions of dogmatic truth that defy both Faith and Reason. Gilbert Keith Chesterton's Orthodoxy, written fourteen years before he converted to Catholicism in 1922 at the age of forty-eight, provides a different perspective from which to judge the madness that is conciliarism and Ratzinger/Benedict's Sixty Years of Priestly Apostasy in its behalf at every successive turn (before, during and after "the council").
Chesterton, however, also provided us in the conclusion of Orthodoxy with a bit of sage advice for us all: to remain joyful in the midst of these modern times. We must remember that God has known from all eternity that we would be living now, that is, in the exact circumstances that afflict the anti-Incarnational world of Modernity and the state of Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal as she remains in the tomb mystically awaiting her Resurrection whenever it is within God's Holy Providence for that to occur. We must remain joyful as joy the keynote of being a member of the Catholic Church, something that Chesterton understood as an Anglican, not knowing that he was to find real joy in Catholicism as a preparation for the joys of eternity:
It is said that Paganism is a religion of
joy and Christianity of sorrow; it would be just as easy to prove that
Paganism is pure sorrow and Christianity pure joy. Such conflicts mean
nothing and lead nowhere. Everything human must have in it both joy and
sorrow; the only matter of interest is the manner in which the two
things are balanced or divided. And the really interesting thing is
this, that the pagan was (in the main) happier and happier as he
approached the earth,
but sadder and sadder as he approached the heavens. The gaiety of
the best Paganism, as in the playfulness of Catullus or Theocritus, is,
indeed, an eternal gaiety never to be forgotten by a grateful humanity.
But it is all a gaiety about the facts of life, not about its origin. To
the pagan the small things are as sweet as the small brooks breaking
out of the mountain; but the broad things are as bitter as the sea. When
the pagan looks at the very core of the cosmos he is struck cold.
the gods, who are merely despotic, sit the fates, who are deadly.
Nay, the fates are worse than deadly; they are dead. And when
rationalists say that the ancient world was more enlightened than the
Christian, from their point of view they are right. For when they say
“enlightened” they mean darkened with incurable despair. It is
profoundly true that the ancient world was more modern than the
Christian. The common bond is in the fact that ancients and moderns have
both been miserable about
existence, about everything, while mediaevals were happy about that
at least. I freely grant that the pagans, like the moderns, were only
miserable about everything—they were quite jolly about everything else. I
concede that the Christians of the Middle Ages were only at peace about
everything—they were at war about everything else. But if the question
turn on the primary pivot of the cosmos, then there was more cosmic
contentment in the narrow and bloody streets of Florence than in the
theatre of Athens or the open garden of Epicurus. Giotto lived in a
gloomier town than Euripides, but he lived in a gayer universe.
The mass of men have been forced to be gay
about the little things, but sad about the big ones. Nevertheless (I
offer my last dogma defiantly) it is not native to man to be so. Man is
more himself, man is more manlike, when joy is the fundamental thing in
him, and grief the superficial. Melancholy should be an innocent
interlude, a tender and fugitive frame of mind; praise should be the
permanent pulsation of the soul. Pessimism is at best an emotional
half-holiday; joy is
the uproarious labour by which all things live. Yet, according to
the apparent estate of man as seen by the pagan or the agnostic, this
primary need of human nature can never be fulfilled. Joy ought to be
expansive; but for the agnostic it must be contracted, it must cling to
one comer of the world. Grief ought to be a concentration; but for the
agnostic its desolation is spread through an unthinkable eternity. This
is what I call being born upside down. The sceptic may truly be said to
topsy-turvy; for his feet are dancing upwards in idle ecstacies,
while his brain is in the abyss. To the modern man the heavens are
actually below the earth. The explanation is simple; he is standing on
his head; which is a very weak pedestal to stand on. But when he has
found his feet again he knows it. Christianity satisfies suddenly and
perfectly man’s ancestral instinct for being the right way up; satisfies
it supremely in this; that by its creed joy becomes something gigantic
something special and small. The vault above us is not deaf because
the universe is an idiot; the silence is not the heartless silence of an
endless and aimless world. Rather the silence around us is a small and
pitiful stillness like the prompt stillness in a sick-room. We are
perhaps permitted tragedy as a sort of merciful comedy: because the
frantic energy of divine things would knock us down like a drunken
farce. We can take our own tears more lightly than we could take the
levities of the angels. So we sit perhaps in a starry chamber of
silence, while the laughter of the heavens is too loud for us to hear.
Joy, which was the small publicity of the
pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian. And as I close this
chaotic volume I open again the strange small book from which all
Christianity came; and I am again haunted by a kind of confirmation. The
tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in
every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall.
His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern,
were proud of
concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them
plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of
His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and
imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never
restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the
Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell.
Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that
personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was
something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray.
There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or
impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God
to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied
that it was His mirth. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908, Chapter IX
We turn, as always to Our Lady, who holds us in the crossing of her arms and in the folds of her mantle. We must, as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, trusting that we might be able to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of that same Immaculate Heart and thus of her Fatima Message.
We may not see until eternity, please God and by the graces He sends to us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, the fruit of the seeds we plant by means of our prayers and penances and sacrifices, given unto the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in this month of June through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must remain confident, however, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wants to us, as unworthy as we are, to try to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics in the conciliar structures, both "priests" and laity alike, will recognize that it is indeed a sin to stand by He is blasphemed by Modernists, that He--and His true priesthood--are to be found in the catacombs where no concessions at all are made to conciliarism or its wolves in shepherds' clothing.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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.
See also: A Litany of Saints
A Reprise: Mr. Michael Creighton's List of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X
(Just in case you still believe that a Catholic may "resist but recognize" a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter)
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.