Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy
Thomas A. Droleskey
Revolutions come complete with programs.
Martin Luther posted his program on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517.
King Henry Tudor had his revolutionary program rubber stamped and placed into law by a willing Parliament and the Catholic bishops who had apostatized to support him as he commenced shedding the blood of over 72,000 Catholics between 1534 and 1547.
John Calvin had a master plan for the implementation of "purified Gospel" that he implemented with theocratic abandon in Geneva, Switzerland.
The French Revolutionaries outlined their own Anti-Theistic revolution in the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" before codifying its text in the completely Constitution of the First French Republic of 1792, which established the so-called "Constitutional Church," a year after the implementation of the short-lived Constitution of 1791 whose provisions for "religious liberty" were denounced as "monstrous" by Pope Pius VI in an Apostolic Brief, Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791:
The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by
the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the
obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a
right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the
right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full
license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes
on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a
monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from
equality and the natural liberties of all men.
"But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality
and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most
precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from
"After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God
threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and
evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish
limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby
incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses?
And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and
evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could
save him “if he would observe them”? …
"Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the
Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is
this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to
whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact
that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his
"Man should use his reason first of all to
recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and
submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should
be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be
governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to
their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated
equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is
born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words." (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right").
The anticlerical revolutionaries of the Italian Risorgimento responsible for the overthrow of the Papal States on September 20, 1870, had a whole passel full of "plans" designed to strip Holy Mother Church of her property and to persecute priests and consecrated religious.
The hateful Freemason named Otto von Bismarck took advantage of the unification of Germany after the Franco-Prussian War to enact a whole series of measures in Prussia to persecute the Catholic Church in what was known at the time and should forever be emblazoned in the memory of Catholics as the Kulturkampf, which lasted from 1871 to 1878.
Vladmir Lenin had a master plan to transform what remained of the Russian Empire after World War I into the prototype of the totalitarian Communist state, replete with the world's first concentration camps. Joseph Stalin had an endless succession of "five year plans" to further institutionalize the Bolshevik Revolution as he engaged in bloody purges against those deemed to be ideologically impure or corrupt. A entire network of gulags, described by one of its prisoners, Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, that feature the use of psychological torture and manipulation to bend the will of prisoners was established to eradicate opposition to the Marxist-Leninist blueprint.
Mao Tse-Tung had his "little red book" of sayings that he used to implement his own brand of Maoist Communism, in mainland China after his violent revolution against the Nationalist government of President Chiang Kai-Shek on October 1, 1949 and presided as the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Part of Red China over brutal massacres thereafter, including the vast social engineering enterprises known as the "Great Leap Forward" and "The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Other such revolutions followed in other parts of Asia, including North Korea, North Vietnam and, ultimately, Laos and Cambodia.
The anticlerical Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, Our Lady's country, who had the full backing of successive American presidential administrations dating back to the time that Freemason Joel Poinsett became the first American Ambassador to Mexico in the 1820s, eventually implemented their ultimate goal of an unrelentingly bloodthirsty campaign against the Catholic Church. The blood lust of Plutarco Elias Calles in the 1920s resulted in the executions of thousands of Catholics that gave rise to the Cristeros War between 1926 and 1929 (please see Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part one, Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part two, Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part three, Then, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part four and Then, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part five).
In each and every single one of the revolutions listed above, starting with the Protestant Revolution inaugurated by Martin Luther, Holy Mother Church counterattacked. She denounced each of the revolutions as her true popes decried error by its proper name without fear of earthly consequences.
The counterfeit church of conciliarism, however, is premised upon a "reconciliation" with each of the revolutions listed above, having been taught by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in his opening address to the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that the time to apply the "balm of mercy" rather "severity" had arrived, that the council fathers to whom he spoke should not publish condemnations of error but to make Catholic teaching more fully the "purport of her doctrines.
None other than a council peritus from Germany named Father Joseph Ratzinger wrote the following precisely twenty years after Roncalli had spoken: Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It
means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even
begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was
not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear
precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was
identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an
attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the
text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its
development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not,
therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That
means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have
marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly
conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long
run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of
the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as
early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p, 391.)
Revolutionaries always tear down existing structures in order to impose with brute force supposedly "new" and "liberating" arrangements to "improve" the lot of men on earth. As a true doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral revolutionary, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is intent on making it clear that his program for the "demolition of the bastions" is meant to be irreversible, making it very difficult, it not impossible, for some fictional "conservative" successor to get his revolutionary toothpaste back in its diabolically-manufactured tube.
Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, is meant to leave no doubt about any possible "restoration" of the "past." Everything must be made "new," something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made clear in the last eight months, fifteen days, including in the text of his own revolutionary blueprint, Evangelii Gaudium.
IV. Intent on Making an Indelible Impression on the Minds of Catholics Who Have Felt "Rejected" by the Catholic Church
Bergoglio expressed his desire for a permanent state of revolution as a "state of mission." This is quite accurate as he is certainly on mission to make and implement revolutionary changes that will further tickle the itching ears of the people, who are always the alleged objects of "concern" in the rhetoric of revolutionaries:
25. I am aware that nowadays documents do not arouse the same interest as in the past and that they are quickly forgotten. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that what I am trying to express here has a programmatic significance and important consequences. I hope that all communities will devote the necessary effort to advancing along the path of a pastoral and missionary conversion which cannot leave things as they presently are. “Mere administration” can no longer be enough. Throughout the world, let us be “permanently in a state of mission”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio may speak randomly, haphazardly at the Casa Santa Marta every day. However, he knows precisely what he wants to do, and he knows that most people do not read long tomes such as Evangelii Gaudium. He knows full well that the mainslime media would "run" with the text of Evangelii Gaudium and report its essential highlights, exciting the masses no end to dream the wildest dreams imaginable of "reforms" that many within their midst have been clamoring for decades in other to reaffirm themselves in their own "goodness" despite living in what are, objectively speaking, states of Mortal Sin. Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants people to "make a mess" in their dioceses, you see, and to demand adherence to his, Bergoglio's, revolutionary program of ceaseless change in the name of "serving" the needs of the "people," especially the "poor," without any "barriers" or preconditions. This is the work of sheer demagoguery.
Moreover, Bergoglio's program of revolutionary change, which is impossible even for some "conservatives" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to deny, further adds to the painful divisions that the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisteria" of the postconciliar "popes" have caused so needlessly in the lives of families. There will be many non-practicing, fallen away Catholics who will be wagging their fingers at dinner tables around the United States of America on what is called Thanksgiving Day (please see a past commentary on this day, John Calvin Could Not Be Happier) and getting "in the faces" of "conservative" and/or traditionally-minded Catholics who operate under the mistaken presumption that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a valid and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to tell them off once and for all for daring to laugh at their insistence over the years that what they think is the Catholic Church has to change, and that there would come a day when such change would take place. Such fallen-away Catholics will play the "obey the pope" card mercilessly to tweak the noses of those who had told them that such a day would never come.
Thus it is that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has made the Catholic Faith, the one and only unifying force on earth, a source of endless division and conflict, a source of bitterness and scorn as families and friends are divided. The divisions are such that many "conservatives" and Motumaniacs displace their anger at Bergoglio to vent against Catholics who adhere to the canonical-doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church that those who defect from the Catholic Faith in one thing defect from It in Its entirety and cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately within the ranks of Holy Mother Church. The final part of this series, which will be longer than I had anticipated last night or yesterday morning, will deal with this particular point in some additional depth as "sedevacantists" did not cause the difficulties of the conciliar era and they are not profiting from it in earthly terms.
For the moment, though, suffice it to say that it is not pleasant, humanly speaking, to be separated from family member, friends, former acquaintances and colleagues. Truth comes before human respect and any kind of supposed "strategy" that is premised on silence about the monstrous work of figures of Antichrist such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and/or the belief that a "pope" can be "resisted" in his teaching.
Indeed, Evangelii Gaudium will be published soon in the Acts of the Apostolic See, making it an official document of what the "recognize while resist" crowd thinks is the Catholic Church. Father Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote a scholarly article about the binding nature of encyclical letters, papal allocutions and other published documents of the Successor of Saint Peter that is appended below for those interested in understanding the fallacy of the "resist while recognize" position, which makes a mockery of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church and reduces the papacy to but a nominal figurehead whose occupants can stumble their way through allocutions and encyclical letters by contradicting her defined teaching on numerous points, something that is as false as the "hermeneutic of continuity" itself.
V. Invoking the Words of Paul The Sick
As work began on part two of this series began much later than I would have liked and to justice to the apostasy in the passages that have been selected for further commentary, only one additional section of Evangelii Gaudium will be discussed today.
The section below makes it clear that almost everything in what is thought to be the Catholic Church will be changed:
26. Paul VI invited us to deepen the call to renewal and to make it clear that renewal does not only concern individuals but the entire Church. Let us return to a memorable text which continues to challenge us. “The Church must look with penetrating eyes within herself, ponder the mystery of her own being… This vivid and lively self-awareness inevitably leads to a comparison between the ideal image of the Church as Christ envisaged her and loved her as his holy and spotless bride (cf. Eph 5:27), and the actual image which the Church presents to the world today... This is the source of the Church’s heroic and impatient struggle for renewal: the struggle to correct those flaws introduced by her members which her own self-examination, mirroring her exemplar, Christ, points out to her and condemns”. The Second Vatican Council presented ecclesial conversion as openness to a constant self-renewal born of fidelity to Jesus Christ: “Every renewal of the Church essentially consists in an increase of fidelity to her own calling… Christ summons the Church as she goes her pilgrim way… to that continual reformation of which she always has need, in so far as she is a human institution here on earth”.
There are ecclesial structures which can hamper efforts at evangelization, yet even good structures are only helpful when there is a life constantly driving, sustaining and assessing them. Without new life and an authentic evangelical spirit, without the Church’s “fidelity to her own calling”, any new structure will soon prove ineffective.
An ecclesial renewal which cannot be deferred
27. I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation. The renewal of structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be understood in this light: as part of an effort to make them more mission-oriented, to make ordinary pastoral activity on every level more inclusive and open, to inspire in pastoral workers a constant desire to go forth and in this way to elicit a positive response from all those whom Jesus summons to friendship with him. As John Paul II once said to the Bishops of Oceania: “All renewal in the Church must have mission as its goal if it is not to fall prey to a kind of ecclesial introversion”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was very correct to invoke the words of Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick as the second conciliar "pontiff" did much to change "things," starting with the revolutionary documents he helped to shepherd through the "Second" Vatican Council and, of course, the very Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Montini/Paul The Sick even made symbolic points by doing such things as genuflecting before the schismatic and heretic Greek Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras and by taking off the Papal Tiara and placing it on an altar, an act that was meant to convey the conciliar teaching that the "pope" is not a monarch but a fellow pilgrim whose position is seen principally in terms of "service," not governance. Subsequent "popes" have each done much to change what they thought to be the "papacy" (see Whittling Away At The Last Catholic Bastion), and part three of this commentary will discuss Bergoglio's oft-expressed desire to change it in an even more revolutionary way than has been done in the past fifty-five years.
For the present, however, it is important to point out yet again that Jorge Mario Bergoglio's efforts to teach that the structures that have existed from time immemorial for the proper governance and functioning of the Catholic Church have "failed" because they were the products of sinful men who sought to "protect" the Church from the "outside world," thus making it "too closed-in on itself," were anticipated and condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:
63. Hence, this word in its
correct signification gives us to understand that the Church, a perfect
society of its kind, is not made up of merely moral and juridical
elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human
societies;  it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things
immortal are above all those that perish.  Such human societies,
and in the first place civil Society, are by no means to be despised or
belittled, but the Church in its entirely is not found within this
natural order, any more than the whole of man is encompassed within the
organism of our mortal body.  Although the juridical principles, on
which the Church rests and is established, derive from the divine
constitution given to it by Christ and contribute to the attaining of
its supernatural end, nevertheless that which lifts the Society of
Christians far above the whole natural order is the Spirit of our
Redeemer who penetrates and fills every part of the Church's being and
is active within it until the end of time as the source of every grace
and every gift and every miraculous power. just as our composite mortal
body, although it is a marvelous work of the Creator, falls far short of
the eminent dignity of our soul, so the social structure of the
Christian community, though it proclaims the wisdom of its divine
Architect, still remains something inferior when compared to the
spiritual gifts which give it beauty and life, and to the divine source
whence they flow.
64. From what We have thus far written and
explained, Venerable Brethren, it is clear, We think, how grievously
they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and
invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution
possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking
power to communicate supernatural life.  On the contrary, as
Christ, Head and Exemplar of the Church "is not complete, if only His
visible human nature is considered. . ., or if only His divine,
invisible nature. . ., but He is one through the union of both and one
in both . . . so is it with His Mystical Body"  since the Word of
God took unto Himself a human nature liable to sufferings, so that He
might consecrate in His blood the visible Society founded by Him and
"lead man back to things invisible under a visible rule." 
65. For this reason We deplore and condemn
the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind
of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which,
somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical.
But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to
understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the
community of man He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect of
its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements -namely,
that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption  --
was also the reason why He willed it to be enriched with the heavenly
gifts of the Paraclete. The Eternal Father indeed willed it to be the
"kingdom of the Son of his predilection;"  but it was to be a real
kingdom, in which all believers should make Him the entire offering of
their intellect and will,  and humbly and obediently model
themselves on Him, Who for our sake "was made obedient unto death."  There
can, then, be no real opposition or conflict between the invisible
mission of the Holy Spirit and the juridical commission of Ruler and
Teacher received from Christ, since they mutually complement and perfect
each other -- as do the body and soul in man -- and proceed from our
one Redeemer who not only said as He breathed on the Apostles "Receive
ye the Holy Spirit,"  but also clearly commanded: "As the Father
hath sent me, I also send you";  and again: "He that heareth you heareth me." 
66. And if at times there appears in the
Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it
should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but
rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual,
which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted
members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of
the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the
merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not
wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members
are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should
lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should
increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving
Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and
nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved
inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical
counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary
graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity,  she generates
hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be
laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name
she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses"; and with the brave
heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing
them back to spiritual health. When therefore we call the Body of Jesus
Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn
warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo:
"Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the
divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of
unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a
member."  (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Holy Mother Church has no need to engage in a "self-examination" as she is perfect, without any spot of error or taint of any kind.
As a true revolutionary, however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio must contend that this is so in order to justify his own schemes of revolutionary change that have been condemned solemnly by the infallible teaching authority of Holy Mother Church:
These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we
define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or
to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall
presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand
to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the
Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to
introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things
which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or
clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the
clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be
anathematized. (Constantinople III).
7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of
divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the
doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the
highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a
philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which
Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought
forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity" can very aptly
apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by
human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite
easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority
of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected
by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such
great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of
divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God
has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very
wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given
to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself
to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been
revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)
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.)
Not least among the blessings
which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed
Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from
error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the
Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time
suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to
be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has
afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men's faith, aroused from
its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before. ( Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
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.)
Please make copies of this to share with your relatives at the dinner table today. Explain to them that truth is immutable and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio's program of change from the adversary, not from Christ the King and is thus not in His service or that of His Most Blessed Mother.
Although a ferial day, today is the Feast of Saint Catherine Laboure, to whom Our Lady appeared in 1830 to have the Miraculous Medal struck in honor of her Immaculate Conception fully twenty-four years before Pope Pius IX defined this doctrine solemnly.
A two-part series from 2010, In Ways That Baffle the Minds of "Modern" Men, part one and In Ways That Baffle the Minds of "Modern" Men, part two, provided brief reflection of this humble saint, a woman who spent over forty years of her life as a Daughter of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul without letting anyone know that she was the sister to whom Our Lady had appeared in the chapel of the convent at Rue de Bac in Paris, France, as she kept her word to the Mother of God until she became convinced shortly before her death that it was then Our Lady's desire that her identity be known. In other words, Saint Catherine Laboure was something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not, obedient to the will of God, Who does not condone revolutions of any kind, whether civil or ecclesiastical.
It was a revolution against God that caused Lucifer, the light bearer, to be thrust down into Hell along with the revolutionary angels who followed him. The very head of Satan has been crushed by the Immaculate Mother of God. May we, protected by Our Lady's Immaculate Medal and her Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel, continue to crush the head of the demons in our own lives, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, and to avoid any contacts with the demons of the counterfeit church of conciliarism no matter what it might cost us in human terms, including "peace" at the dinner table on days such as this one.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Part three tomorrow, God willing and Our Lady interceding.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Andrew the Apostle, 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.
Saint Catherine Laboure, pray for us.
Saint Vigilius, pray for us.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Father Joseph Clifford Fenton on the Binding Nature of Papal Allocutions
The papal allocution is a comparative newcomer among the important vehicles of the Holy Father's ordinary magisterium. The first Sovereign Pontiff to employ the allocution extensively for doctrinal purposes was Pope Pius IX. The first allocution cited in Denzinger's Enchiridion symbolorum is the Acerbissimum vobiscum, delivered by Pope Pius IX in a Secret Consistory on Sept. 27, 1852.
Some indication of the frequency with which Pope Pius IX used allocutions to bring out important doctrinal truths may be gleaned from the fact that there are seventeen of these allocutions among the thirty-two sources from which the teachings of the famous Syllabus errorum were derived. The Acerbissimum vobiscum was one of these sources. Like the "Acerbissimum," all of the other allocutions used in drawing up the "Syllabus" were delivered by the Holy Father in Secret Consistories.
Like Pope Pius IX, the present Holy Father [Pope Pius XII] has used the consistorial allocution as an important instrument of his ordinary magisterium. To point to only two examples, during the course of the Marian Year of 1954 he issued doctrinal decisions of outstanding moment in the consistorial allocutions Si diligis and Magnificate Dominum. Pope Pius XII, however, has also made doctrinal statements of great importance in allocutions delivered to private groups, that is, to groups other than those which include the hierarchy. Thus, for example, he has set forth some basic points of Catholic teaching about what should be the relation between the Church and the state in two allocutions, the Ci riesce delivered to the National Convention of the "Unione dei Giuristi Italiani" on Dec. 6, 1953, and the Vous avez voulu, spoken on Sept. 7, 1955, to the tenth annual Convention of the Historical Sciences.
Despite the fact that there is nothing like an adequate treatment of the papal allocutions in existing theological literature, every priest, and particularly every professor of sacred theology, should know whether and under what circumstances these allocutions addressed by the Sovereign Pontiffs to private groups are to be regarded as authoritative, as actual expressions of the Roman Pontiff's ordinary magisterium. And, especially because of the tendency towards an unhealthy minimism current in this country and elsewhere in the world today, they should also know how doctrine is to be set forth in the allocutions and the other vehicles of the Holy Father's ordinary magisterium if it is to be accepted as authoritative. The present brief paper will attempt to consider and to answer these questions.
The first question to be considered is this: Can a speech addressed by the Roman Pontiff to a private group, a group which cannot in any sense be taken as representing either the Roman Church or the universal Church, contain doctrinal teaching authoritative for the universal Church?
The clear and unequivocal answer to this question is contained in the Holy Father's encyclical letter Humani generis, issued Aug. 12, 1950. According to this document: "if, in their 'Acta' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."
Thus, in the teaching of the Humani generis, any doctrinal decision made by the Pope and included in his "Acta" are authoritative. Now many of the allocutions made by the Sovereign Pontiff to private groups are included in the "Acta" of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, as a section of the Acta apostolicae sedis. Hence, any doctrinal decision made in one of these allocutions that is published in the Holy Father's "Acta" is authoritative and binding on all the members of the universal Church.
There is, according to the words of the Humani generis, an authoritative doctrinal decision whenever the Roman Pontiffs, in their "Acta," "de re hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt." When this condition is fulfilled, even in an allocution originally delivered to a private group, but subsequently published as part of the Holy Father's "Acta," an authoritative doctrinal judgment has been proposed to the universal Church. All of those within the Church are obliged, under penalty of serious sin, to accept this decision.
Occasionally we encounter some utterly misleading comment on the meaning of the expression "data opera" in this section of the text of the Humani generis. In the excellent "Harper's Latin Dictionary" the expression "operam dare" is explained as meaning "to bestow care or pains on, to give attention to" something. It should be quite clear that this does not add any new note to a pontifical doctrinal judgment or decision. According to the terms of the tremendous responsibility he has received from Our Lord Himself, the Sovereign Pontiff is definitely expected to give special and outstanding attention to any doctrinal decision he gives at any time and in any way, when he speaks as Pope and uses either his solemn or his ordinary magisterium. Hence, there is and there can be no such thing as a decision in the field of Catholic doctrine, given by the Pope acting in his public capacity, precisely as the pastor and the teacher of all Christians, which is not set down "data opera."
There is an authoritative papal statement, according to the text of the Humani generis, whenever the Sovereign Pontiff takes the trouble to issue a decision on a point which has hitherto been controverted, and inserts that decision in his own "Acta." Basically, such a decision is made in one of two ways. When there is a real controversy, two contradictory and hence mutually exclusive resolutions of an individual question are being urged, one by one group, another by that group's opponents. The Roman Pontiff issues an authoritative decision in that controversy in a positive way when he accepts and presents one of these opposing solutions as "doctrina catholica," or, in some cases, as "de fide" or as "doctrina certa." There is a negative pontifical judgment when the Sovereign Pontiff repudiates one of the two opposing theses as teaching which it is sinful or rash to hold, or, in the case of an infallible definition, as heretical or erroneous.
Now the questions may arise: is there any particular form which the Roman Pontiff is obliged to follow in setting forth a doctrinal decision in either the positive or the negative manner? Does the Pope have to state specifically and explicitly that he intends to issue a doctrinal decision on this particular point? Is it at all necessary that he should refer explicitly to the fact that there has hitherto been a debate among theologians on the question he is going to decide?
There is certainly nothing in the divinely established constitutional law of the Catholic Church which would in any way justify an affirmative response to any of these inquiries. The Holy Father's doctrinal authority stems from the tremendous responsibility Our Lord laid upon him in St. Peter, whose successor he is. Our Lord charged the Prince of the Apostles, and through him, all of his successors until the end of time, with the commission of feeding, of acting as a shepherd for, of taking care of, His lambs and His sheep. Included in that responsibility was the obligation, and, of course, the power, to confirm the faith of his fellow Christians.
And the Lord said: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."
St. Peter had, and has in his successor, the duty and the power to confirm his brethren in their faith, to take care of their doctrinal needs. Included in his responsibility is an obvious obligation to select and to employ the means he judges most effective and apt for the accomplishment of the end God has commissioned him to attain. And in this era, when the printed word possesses a manifest primacy in the field of the dissemination of ideas, the Sovereign Pontiffs have chosen to bring their authoritative teaching, the doctrine in which they accomplish the work of instruction God has commanded them to do, to the people of Christ through the medium of the printed word in the published "Acta."
The Humani generis reminds us that the doctrinal decisions set forth in the Holy Father's "Acta" manifestly are authoritative "according to the mind and will" of the Pontiffs who have issued these decisions. Thus, wherever there is a doctrinal judgment expressed in the "Acta" of a Sovereign Pontiff, it is clear that the Pontiff understands that decision to be authoritative and wills that it be so.
Now when the Pope, in his "Acta," sets forth as a part of Catholic doctrine or as a genuine teaching of the Catholic Church some thesis which has hitherto been opposed, even legitimately, in the schools of sacred theology, he is manifestly making a doctrinal decision. This certainly holds true even when, in making his statement, the Pope does not explicitly assert that he is issuing a doctrinal judgment and, of course, even when he does not refer to the existence of a controversy or debate on the subject among theologians up until the time of his own pronouncement. All that is necessary is that this teaching, hitherto opposed in the theological schools, be now set forth as the teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff, or as "doctrina catholica."
Private theologians have no right whatsoever to establish what they believe to be the conditions under which the teaching presented in the "Acta" of the Roman Pontiff may be accepted as authoritative. This is, on the contrary, the duty and the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff himself. The present Holy Father has exercised that right and has done his duty in stating clearly that any doctrinal decision which the Bishop of Rome has taken the trouble to make and insert into his "Acta" is to be received as genuinely authoritative.
In line with the teaching of the Humani generis, then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of his own "Acta." Now we must consider this final question: What obligation is incumbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the universal Church in this manner?
The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer. This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."
Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved. Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided. A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.
Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine. It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church. This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.
The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it. The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals." Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See." In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.
We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision, and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his "Acta." The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself. The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the "Humani generis." This information is contained in the text of that document. The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:
"And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith - that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition - to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore 'to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,' is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks."
Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church. And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice. There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings. They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities. These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements. The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."
The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence. It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view. The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology. For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth. And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.
But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.
It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes. It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching. The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian.
The man who is privileged to teach the science of sacred theology should never allow himself to lose sight of the fact that he is one of those called in by the apostolic college to aid in a teaching work to which that apostolic college alone has been divinely commissioned. The doctrine which the theologian is expected to teach clearly, accurately, and unequivocally is not some teaching which has been discovered by men, but rather the supernatural revelation of the Triune God. The teacher of or writer in sacred theology is carrying out his task by the orders and under the direction of the apostolic magisterium itself. He accomplishes his work successfully only in the measure that be whole-heartedly accepts the doctrinal decisions addressed to the universal Church by the visible head of the Church. ((The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)
The crashing sound you hear in
the background is the whole facade of the false ecclesiology of the
"resist but recognize" movement that has been propagated in the past
forty years as the "answer" to "resisting" the decrees of the "Second"
Vatican Council and the "encyclical" letters and statements and
allocutions of the conciliar "popes" crumbling right to the ground.
The rejections, for example, of the clear and
consistent Catholic condemnation of religious liberty and separation of
Church and State while endorsing the sort of false ecumenism condemned
by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and while
propagating the "new ecclesiology" of the "new theology" that is a
public and manifest rejection of the very nature of the Church as
summarized by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943,
are no mere acts of "modification" of past papal statements as they are
applied in the world today. They are a wholesale rejection of Catholic
truth, which is why they have been shrouded in a cloud of ambiguity and
paradox as to deceive many of the elect.