Part Two
by Thomas A. Droleskey
The brawl has commenced. The traditional Catholic war to end each and every traditional Catholic war prior to now is going to be a pitched battle that will make the relatively few Catholics who have paid attention to past disputes fade into the recesses of the memory bank. Forget about "The Nine" versus Archbishop Lefebvre in 1983. The epic battle between the "The Three" bishops versus Bishop Bernard Fellay is shaping up to be, to borrow from the late Saddam Hussein, the "mother of all" traditional battles.
As noted two days ago, the Society of Saint Pius X has operated on a set of principles that have been condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, and which was described so perfectly by Bishop Emile Bougaud, the Bishop of Laval, France, from 1887 to 1888, as being contrary to the very nature of the papacy:
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it
is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary
rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good
government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith
and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of
which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the
universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.
7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously
a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this
"against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God
and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that
a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they
prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the
consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these
customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of
law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.
8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a
bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church
cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the
exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever,
a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often
as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that
it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and
coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does
not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
The violent attacks of Protestantism against the
Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it
scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror;
nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all,
perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing
closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard
against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his
treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her
sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of
Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that
agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See,
and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of
fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already
notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign
Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church,"
were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in
the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others
might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by
principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must
love him that governs her, else she can never obey.
These weaknesses should at least have been hidden
in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere
and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no!
parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A
strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world;
kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were
really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates,
bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to
Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the
Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his
words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined,
and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or
dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29
Pope Pius IX included the following condemnation of the view that Catholics are bound to accept only those things that are declared infallibly by Holy Mother Church and are thus free to question or sift through other teachings, which is what the members of the Society of Saint Pius X has done with the decrees of the "Second" Vatican Council and the statements of the postconciliar "popes":
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are
strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to
universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the
Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors,
December 8, 1864; see also two appendices below, reprised from five
days ago to drive home the point that no one can sift through the words
of a true pope to "determine" their orthodoxy as popes cannot err on
matters of Faith and Morals.)
Pope Pius XII explained in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, that Catholics to believe in the binding nature of the teaching contained in papal encyclical letters, meaning, of course, that we are not free to "pick and choose" what we "like" about encyclical letters:
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does
not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not
exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are
taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say:
"He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded
and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to
Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents
purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious
that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any
longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis,
August 12, 1950; please see the Appendix A below for Alfred Cardinal
Ottaviani's own critique of the Modernist effort to disparage the
binding nature of the Church's teaching concerning religious liberty and
the separation of Church and State, followed by Monsignor Joseph
Clifford Fenton's own treatise on the matter in Appendix B.)
The whole foundation of the Society of Saint Pius X's "resistance" to the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" is false and without any justification in Catholic teaching. True popes must be obeyed. The whole "dance" between the Society of Saint Pius X and the conciliar officials has been an exercise in falsehood as the Society has sought to oppose with the "new ecclesiology" of with conciliarists with a false ecclesiology of its very own. None of this is from God. Fighting the falsehoods of conciliarism with the falsehood of Gallicanism of the Society of Saint Pius X can produce nothing other than chaos. Behold the chaos in which the Society of Saint Pius X finds itself at this time.
Giovanni Montini/Paul VI made it very clear at the close of the "Second" Vatican Council on December 8, 1965, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that the decisions on the council had to be religiously observed by Catholics:
APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING
OF THE COUNCIL - DECEMBER 8, 1965, read at the closing ceremonies of
Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St.
Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul,
must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church.
In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat
of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the
hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest
because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed
carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune,
because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all
it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of
charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians
still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole
human family.
At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the
help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees,
declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the
synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all
intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical
council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened
October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
We decided moreover that all that has been established
synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the
glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and
peace of all men. We have approved and established these things,
decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and
are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain
full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by
those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so
that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these
things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be
invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the
fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. (APOSTOLIC BRIEF - IN SPIRITU SANCTO.)
Religiously observed? How can one who says he finds "mistakes" in the "Second" Vatican Council, particularly in Dignitatis Humanae (the Decree on Religious Liberty), be said to have religiously observed its decrees? He cannot.
Pope Leo XIII, summarizing and expressing quite cogently the patrimony of Catholic teaching, explained that those who defect from the Faith in one thing defect from It in Its entirety:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful
of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she
has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she
regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who
held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it.
Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished
from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors
of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There
can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the
whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison,
infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by
Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been
the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were
wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church,
whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine
proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius,
Augustine, Theodore drew up a long list of the heresies of their
times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a
single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very
fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves
in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a
Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other
heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one
holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
No attempt to employ the the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," which Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, referred to in his letter to Bishops Richard Williamson, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso Galarreta as "the hermeneutic of continuity in renewal" can make Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI a member of the Catholic Church from whose maternal bosom he expelled himself decades ago (see Sixty Years of Priestly Apostasy).
Yet it is that Bishop Fellay is using the repackaged Modernist views on the "evolution" of dogma as the means to justify his impending "reconciliation" with the "pope" who, in his own words, is working to "defend the faith":
"Personally, I would have wished
to wait for some more time to see things clearer," he said, "but once
again it really appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen now."
Bishop Fellay spoke appreciatively of what he characterized as the
pope's efforts to correct "progressive" deviations from Catholic
teaching and tradition since Vatican II. "Very, very delicately -- he
tries not to break things -- but tries also to put in some important
corrections," the bishop said.
Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of
Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a
position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop
Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.
"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.
"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great
tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These
are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop
said. "The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens
really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?"
Insisting that "we don't want to be aggressive, we don't want to be
provocative," Bishop Fellay said the Society of St. Pius X has served as
a "sign of contradiction" during a period of increasing progressive
influence in the church. He also allowed for the possibility that the
group would continue to play such a role even after reconciliation with
Rome.
"People welcome us now, people will, and others won't," he said. "If we
see some discrepancies within the society, definitely there are also
(divisions) in the Catholic Church."
"But we are not alone" in working to "defend the faith," the bishop
said. "It's the pope himself who does it; that's his job. And if we are
called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it." (Traditionalist leader says group could divide over unity with Rome.)
Pure positivism, Bishop Fellay. Pure positivism.
Let's just have a little review of how well Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is working to "defend the faith," as you assert. Let's just have a little review.
To repeat just one of so many examples that have been provided on this site concerning Ratzinger/Benedict's defections from the Faith (see, for example, Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part one, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part two, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part three, Impressed With His Own Originality, Accepting "Popes" As Unreliable Teachers, Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima, On Full Display: The Modernist Mind, Tale of Two Benedicts, Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism, Modernist At Work, part one, Modernist At Work, part two, Modernist At Work, part three, Outcome Based Conciliar Math: Assisi I + Assisi II + Assisi III = A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y), consider how Ratzinger/Benedict's contention that Protestants have a "mission" from God to serve and save souls as members of the "Church of Christ" is contrary to the very nature of Holy Mother Church's Divine Constitution:
Now perhaps one might say: all well and good, but what has this to do
with our ecumenical situation? Could this just be an attempt to talk our way
past the urgent problems that are still waiting for practical progress, for
concrete results? I would respond by saying that the first and most important
thing for ecumenism is that we keep in view just how much we have in common, not
losing sight of it amid the pressure towards secularization – everything that
makes us Christian in the first place and continues to be our gift and our
task. It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we
could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have
in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early
Christian creeds. For me, the great ecumenical step forward of recent decades
is that we have become aware of all this common ground, that we acknowledge it
as we pray and sing together, as we make our joint commitment to the Christian
ethos in our dealings with the world, as we bear common witness to the God of
Jesus Christ in this world as our inalienable, shared foundation.
To be sure, the risk of losing it is not unreal. I would like to make
two brief points here. The geography of Christianity has changed dramatically
in recent times, and is in the process of changing further. Faced with a new
form of Christianity, which is spreading with overpowering missionary dynamism,
sometimes in frightening ways, the mainstream Christian denominations often seem
at a loss. This is a form of Christianity with little institutional depth,
little rationality and even less dogmatic content, and with little stability.
This worldwide phenomenon – that bishops from all over the world are constantly
telling me about – poses a question to us all: what is this new form of
Christianity saying to us, for better and for worse? In any event, it raises
afresh the question about what has enduring validity and what can or must be
changed – the question of our fundamental faith choice.
The second challenge to worldwide Christianity of which I wish to speak
is more profound and in our country more controversial: the secularized context
of the world in which we Christians today have to live and bear witness to our
faith. God is increasingly being driven out of our society, and the history of
revelation that Scripture recounts to us seems locked into an ever more remote
past. Are we to yield to the pressure of secularization, and become modern by
watering down the faith? Naturally faith today has to be thought out afresh,
and above all lived afresh, so that it is suited to the present day. Yet it is
not by watering the faith down, but by living it today in its fullness that we
achieve this. This is a key ecumenical task in which we have to help one
another: developing a deeper and livelier faith. It is not strategy that saves
us and saves Christianity, but faith – thought out and lived afresh; through
such faith, Christ enters this world of ours, and with him, the living God. As
the martyrs of the Nazi era brought us together and prompted that great initial
ecumenical opening, so today, faith that is lived from deep within amid a
secularized world is the most powerful ecumenical force that brings us together,
guiding us towards unity in the one Lord. And we pray to him, asking that we
may learn to live the faith anew, and that in this way we may then become one. (Meeting with representatives of the German Evangelical Church Council in the
Chapter Hall of the Augustinian Convent Erfurt, Germany, September 23, 2011.)
“I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe
in me through them” (Jn 17:20). These words Jesus addressed to the
Father in the Upper Room. He intercedes for coming generations of believers.
He looks beyond the Upper Room, towards the future. He also prayed for us.
And he prayed for our unity. This prayer of Jesus is not simply something from
the past. He stands before the Father, for ever making intercession for us. At
this moment he also stands in our midst and he desires to draw us into his own
prayer. In the prayer of Jesus we find the very heart of our unity. We will
become one if we allow ourselves to be drawn into this prayer. Whenever we
gather in prayer as Christians, Jesus’ concern for us, and his prayer to the
Father for us, ought to touch our hearts. The more we allow ourselves to be
drawn into this event, the more we grow in unity. (Ecumenical Celebration in the church of the Augustinian Convent, Erfurt, Germany, September 23, 2011.)
Pope Pius XII provided us with the antidote to this piece of apostasy:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church
who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been
so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or
been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one
Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in
the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one
Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And
therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered -
so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that
those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the
unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine
Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
It's very easy to be in "good standing" in the conciliar structures and to hold a variety of views, including what Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes is the "integralism" of Bishop Bernard Fellay and those members of the clergy and laity of the Society of Saint Pius X who will be attaching themselves as "full, active and conscious" participants in his counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Sure, it's very easy to be a member in good standing of this false church that is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church.
Support the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children? No problem. You're in. (See, for example, Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortion; To Fall Into The Hands of the Living God and Just Another Ordinary Outrage Permitted by a Conciliar "Ordinary".)
Support the nonexistent "right" of those engaged in
perverse acts against nature to "marry"--and cohabitate with a woman who
is not your wife? No problem here. Stay right where you are in the
place where "unity" is brought out of "diversity," the counterfeit
church of conciliarism. (See Memo To Howard Hubbard: Public Scandal Is Never A Private Matter, Gov. Cuomo puts pressure on state lawmakers to say yes to perverted "marriages," and Catholic Pelosi: ‘my religion compels me’ to support same-gender ‘marriage’).
Pay for children to be killed at an abortuary? No problem. No problem at all. You can remain a priest or a presbyter in good standing in the conciliar structures? (See What's Good For Manel Pousa is Good for Benedict XVI and What's Next? "Beatifying" Manel Pousa?)
Deny that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins? Absolutely
no problem. You can remain an "archbishop" in the counterfeit church of
conciliarism and the president of the conference of conciliar "bishops"
in the Federal Republic of Germany. (See Silence, Refusing Communion With Apostasy and, among many, many others, With A Shrug of the "Papal" Shoulders.)
Personally esteem symbols of false religions with
your own priestly hands? Call places of false worship as "sacred"?
Openly state that dogmatic truth is never expressed adequately at any
one time by human language, therefore necessitating periodic
"adjustments"?
Openly embrace condemned propositions such as religious
liberty and separation of Church and State? Praise the birth of the
"ecumenical movement" that began at the so-called "World Missionary
Conference" in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910, whose tenets were condemned
by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928?
Say that
Jews and Christians "worship the same God"? (See Saint Peter and Anti-Peter.)
Give joint "blessings" with
the "clergy" of non-Catholic religions? Not only is none of this any
problem at all. Indeed, you can reign over us as our "pope."
We'll call
you "Pope" Benedict XVI. (See, among hundreds of other articles on this
site, As We Continue To Blaspheme Christ the King and His True Church.)
Do the same as described in the previous paragraphs
for eighty-five months? Protect and promote "bishops" and "cardinals" who
indemnified child molesters? We'll "beatify" you. We'll call you
"Blessed John Paul the Great." (See "Beatifying" Yet Another Conciliar Revolutionary, "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts, Unimaginable Deceit and Duplicity, Not The Work of God, To Be Loved by the Jews, Perhaps Judas Was the First to Sing "A Kiss is Just a Kiss", Enjoy the Party, George, Enjoy the Party, and Anticlimactic "Beatification" for an Antipope.)
Lest Bishop Fellay contend that all of these examples are "bad" but that nothing of their sort have happened recently, permit me to introduce him to simple truth that the current reality of "Pope" Benedict XVI's false reign is the same as it has been in the past seven years.
Here are words spoken by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict to the Latin American Jewish Congress in a private audience at the Vatican on Thursday, May 10, 2012:
As you know, this October marks the fiftieth
anniversary of the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, whose
Declaration Nostra Aetate remains the charter and guide in our efforts
to promote greater understanding, respect and cooperation between our
two communities. The Declaration not only took up an unambiguous
position against every form of anti-Semitism; it also laid the
groundwork for a theological reassessment of the Church's relationship
with Judaism and it expressed confidence that an appreciation of the
spiritual heritage shared by Jews and Christians would lead to ever
greater mutual understanding and esteem (No. 4). (Ratzinger/Benedict's Address to Latin American Jewish Congress.)
How is "Pope" Benedict XVI working to "defend the faith" by saying what he thinks is the Catholic Church had engage in a "theological reassessment of the Church's relationship with Judaism," Bishop Fellay? Please explain this one.
Still waiting.
Well, here's what the Council of Florence, which did happen to meet under the infallible direction and influence of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable and does not "change" His mind according to the times in which men live, pronounced on the matter:
It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of
the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites,
sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify
something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship
at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them,
ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever,
even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and
submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in
Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet
it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the
promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were
believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the
promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed
without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who
after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other
requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and
not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday
they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in
the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to
cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope
in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal
salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which
can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another
remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are
snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of
God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or
eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people,
but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but
so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form
of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a
priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree
of the Armenians. . . .
It firmly believes, professes, and
proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only
pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become
participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless
before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that
the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those
remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and
exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one,
whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the
name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)
Who had it right, Bishop Fellay? Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence or Benedict XVI and the "Second" Vatican Council? Who had it right?
Pope Pius XII defended the Catholic Faith, not the conciliarist faith that Ratzinger/Benedict defends, on the matter of Judaism in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:
28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the
Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the
Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve,
mother of all the living. [28]
"And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced
side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is
now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is
that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
29.And first of all, by the death of our
Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been
abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries,
enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole
world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine
Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the
sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34]
"To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the
Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the
Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one
Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the
innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently
from top to bottom." [35]
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37]
and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family
in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that
our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church.
"For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching
of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over
the gentiles"; [38]
by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces,
which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His
mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger
was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual
graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the
fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above
all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into
possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical
Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Does all of this just "disappear" with what you call the "hermeneutic of continuity in renewal," Bishop Fellay? It does in the mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, something that he noted in the December 22, 2005, address to the curia that you hail as his devotion to "reconciling" Catholic teaching with concilairism but is actually a celebration of the condemned Modernist belief in the evolution of dogma:
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious
tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the
relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In
particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general,
with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was
necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between
the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
Is this "defending" the Catholic Faith, Bishop Fellay?
I did not invent any of this. It did not take a great of special "insight" fifty-eight months ago to know where Summorum Pontificum was going to lead. All one has to do is to accept the fact that none of
the outrages listed above can come from the Catholic Church. It is that
simple. Here are just a few reminders:
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.)
Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."
Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes
no terms with error but remains faithful to the command 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."
Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."
Anyone who says that this
has been done by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made
its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave
no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign
of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about
as charitably as I can put the matter). If the conciliar church has
brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of
men," why, as noted earlier in this article, is there such disagreement
even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative"
conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second"
Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one
means by "ease and security"?
Perhaps the matter can be summarized even more simply:
O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God,
in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: I believe that Thy
Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to
judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the
truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast
revealed them, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.
This in and of itself, putting
aside all of the weighty and quite binding dogmatic declarations about
the nature of Divine Truth issued by the authority of the Catholic
Church, should be an end to all discussion whatsoever of the "need" for
"understanding" the dogmas of the Faith in different ways at different
times because the language used to express those dogmas in the past was
necessarily "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which they
were pronounced. To assert that dogmatic expressions used in the past
can be understood anew because the language that expressed them was
"conditioned" by historical circumstances is to deny the nature of the
Most Blessed Trinity, Who is immutable, and to blaspheme the Third
Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Whose coming at
Pentecost we will celebrate on Sunday, May 27, 2012, Who has directed
our Popes and council fathers to express doctrine as they have been
expressed consistently--and without even the shadow of ambiguity--prior
to the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XIII on October 29, 1958.
The time has come for those within the Society of Saint Pius X to know all of this to be true to correct to quit protesting that they denounce the orthodoxy of the man they believe to be a true Successor of Saint Peter and to realize that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not a Catholic and thus not a true pope and that he church that he heads is not the Catholic Church. Merely hinting at this is not in the service of truth, which must be expressed clearly without fear of the consequences.
May we cling to the Cross of
Our Divine Redeemer, praying as many Rosaries each day in this month of
May as our state-in-life permits. The sufferings of this present life
will pass. Christ the King will triumph over His enemies in our world of naturalism and in the the
counterfeit church of conciliarism. Every extra moment
we spend in prayer before Our King in the Most Blessed Sacrament and
every extra set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary that we pray
will help us to be more and more conformed to the likeness of Our
Divine Redeemer, Who endured the Cross, heedless of Its shame, to redeem
us and to make us members of His Catholic Church.
We must always remember that this is the time that
God has appointed from all eternity for us to live and thus to sanctify
and to save our immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. The
graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's
Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into
our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix
of All Graces, are sufficient for us to handle whatever
crosses--personal, social and ecclesiastical--that we are asked to
carry. We must give thanks to God at all times for each of our crosses
as we seek to serve Him through Our Lady in this time of apostasy and
betrayal, remember the words in the sky that were seen by the son of Saint Helena, the Emperor Constantine: In hoc signo vinces, in this sign, you shall conquer.
Yes, in the Sign of the Cross we shall conquer as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Queen of Heaven and of Earth.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us now and the hour of our deaths. Amen.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Boniface, Fourth Century Martyr, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Appendix
Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani on the Modernist Methodology to Dispense with the True Social Teaching of the Catholic Church
Here the problem presents itself of how the Church
and the lay state are to live together. Some Catholics are propagating
ideas with regard to this point which are not quite correct. Many of
these Catholics undoubtedly love the Church and rightly intend to find a
mode of possible adaptation to the circumstances of the times. But
it is none the less true that their position reminds one of that of the
faint-hearted soldier who wants to conquer without fighting, or of that
of the simple, unsuspecting person who accepts a hand, treacherously
held out to him, without taking account of the fact that this hand will
subsequently pull him across the Rubicon towards error and injustice.
The first mistake of these people is
precisely that of not accepting fully the "arms of truth" and the
teaching which the Roman Pontiffs, in the course of this last century,
and in particular the reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, by means of
encyclicals, allocutions and instructions of all kinds, have given to
Catholics on this subject.
To justify
themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in
the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and
what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular
passing conditions. Unfortunately, however, they include in this second
zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles
on which the teaching of the Church has remained constant, as they form
part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.
In this matter, the pendulum theory,
elaborated by certain writers in an attempt to sift the teaching set
forth in Encyclical Letters at different times, cannot be applied. "The
Church," it has been written, "takes account of the rhythm of the
world's history after the fashion of a swinging pendulum which, desirous
of keeping the proper measure, maintains its movement by reversing it
when it judges that it has gone as far as it should.... From
this point of view a whole history of the Encyclicals could be written.
Thus in the field of Biblical studies, the Encyclical, Divino Afflante
Spiritu, comes after the Encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus and
Providentissimus. In the field of Theology or Politics, the
Encyclicals, Summi Pontificatus, Non abbiamo bisogno and Ubi Arcano Deo,
come after the Encyclical, Immortale Dei."
Now if this were to be understood in the sense
that the general and fundamental principles of public Ecclesiastical
Law, solemnly affirmed in the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, are
merely the reflection of historic moments of the past, while the swing
of the pendulum of the doctrinal Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI and Pope
Pius XII has passed in the opposite direction to different positions, the statement would have to be qualified as completely erroneous, not
only because it misrepresents the teaching of the Encyclicals
themselves, but also because it is theoretically inadmissible. In the
Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, the reigning Pontiff teaches us that
we must recognize in the Encyclicals the ordinary magisterium of the
Church: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical
Letters does not of itself demand assent, in that, when writing such
Letters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching
authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching
authority, of which it is true to say "He who heareth you heareth Me"
(St. Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in
Encyclical Letters already belongs for other reasons to Catholic
doctrine."
Because they are afraid of being accused of wanting to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions
that are constantly affirmed in the Encyclicals as belonging to the life
and legislation of the Church in all ages. For them is meant the
warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the
combat against error, adds that "care must be taken never to connive, in
anyway, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously
than truth allows." (Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion.)
Appendix B
Monsignor Joseph Clinton Fenton on the Binding Nature of Papal Declarations
(As Extracted From a Previous Article)
The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who had taught my own late seminary professor, Father John Joseph "Jackie Boy"
at Saint Bernard's Seminary in Rochester, New York, in the late-1930s,
wrote a superb explication of the teaching authority of encyclical
letters a year before Humani Generis, and I thank Mr. Jerry Meng, the author of Joseph Ratzinger Is Not the Pope, for providing me with information about Father Fenton's material, which appeared in the American Ecclesiastical Review,
that I had read several years ago but had faded into the deeper
recesses of my memory in the meantime. Thank you, Mr. Meng. To Father
Fenton:
It would manifestly be a very serious fault on the part of a Catholic writer or teacher in this field, acting on his own authority, to set aside or to ignore any of the outstanding doctrinal pronouncements of the Rerum novarum or the Quadragesimo anno,
regardless of how unfashionable these documents be in a particular
locality or at a particular time. It would, however, be a much graver
sin on the part of such a teacher to pass over or to discountenance a
considerable section of the teachings contained in these labor
encyclicals. In exactly the same way and for precisely the same reason
it would be seriously wrong to contravene any outstanding individual
pronouncement in the encyclicals dealing with the relations between
Church and State, and much worse to ignore or disregard all of the
teachings or a great portion of the teachings on this topic contained in
the letters of Pius IX and Leo XIII.
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its
stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a
papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to
questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The
body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and
State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal
letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could
not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ
wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly
incompatible with such a possibility. (Doctrinal authority of Papal Encyclicals.)
To wit, Pope Saint Pius X wrote the following about the falsehood represented by the separation of Church and State:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a
most pernicious error. . . .
Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required,
to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
Gee, I wonder who has spent a
great deal of the past seventy-three months endorsing this false thesis: Joseph
Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that's who. This cannot be. It is impossible for
a true Roman Pontiff to contradict another on a matter that is part of
the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and
infallible explication.
Some glib commentators might protest that not every
papal statement demands our assent, that we can "sift" through what a
true pope says. This is false, which is one of the reasons why true
popes never spoke in interviews as they knew that their words, which
were carefully chosen and vetted by theological advisers (yes, the
rendering of this word as "advisors" is also accepted usage), carried
the weight of their papal office, that the faithful weren't and could
not be expected to make unnecessary distinctions between "official" and
"unofficial" words and deeds, which was the whole point of Words and Actions Without Consequences.
Monsignor Fenton elaborated on this point when applying the teaching stated by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis to the authority of papal allocutions:
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."[6]
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. . . .
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.[7] 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."[8]
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.
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 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.
Perhaps Professors de Mattei, Introvigne and
Rhonmeier ought to familiarize themselves with the true scholarship of
Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani and Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton.
