Please Help Bishop Fellay Find His Hermeneutic of Continuity
Thomas A. Droleskey
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has propagated the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned proposition that dogmatic truth is so complex and multifaceted that it can never be expressed adequately at any one time in human language. The complex layering of dogmatic truth, Ratzinger/Benedict insists, is such that future generations must reexamine those "formulations" that have become "obsolete" in order to understand them anew.
Ratzinger/Benedict has been thoroughly consistent on this matter throughout the course of his priestly life. It is the cornerstone of his own convoluted thought process the centerpiece of his "new theology" that has replaced the clearness of the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, endorsed as has been by true pope after true pope (see Appendix C below), with murkiness, illogic and irrationality that has prevailed in the counterfeit church of conciliarism for the past five decades.
Here is a little review of Ratzinger/Benedict's defections from the Catholic Faith on the nature of dogmatic truth that represent nothing other than an attack upon the very nature of God Himself:
"In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the
relationship between language and thought is debated, which in
post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian
'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that
no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in
its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it
unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the
content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It
affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are
decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter
as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all
an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition.
The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances
of the times influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations
of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as
well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century,
above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on
evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and
superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage
such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's
anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from
falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of
the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having
fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial
Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e
Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)
It is precisely
in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels
that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of
innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically
than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for
example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation
of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely
because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself.
It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is
only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain
as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005. See Appendix B below for the Catholic Church's condemnation of these apostate views.)
It was but a scant seven months ago that Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, was attempting to make his own "reconciliation," however tentative, with the "hermeneutic of continuity" to rationalize his efforts to make a rapprochement with the conciliar revolutionaries. This is part of one those canned "interviews" that appeared on the Society's DICI website on June 7, 2012"
"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
"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.)
Ah, that's when Bishop Fellay had those proverbial "high hopes" for entering into "full communion" in the counterfeit church of concilairism so that the Society of Saint Pius X could take its place alongside Focolare, the "Catholic" Charismatic Movement, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic
Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of
Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel
Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and.
among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way while claiming to be working from "within" for the restoration of the Catholic Church. There never can be a restoration, however, based upon an admixture of truth and error. Never.
Well, that was then.
This is what Bishop Fellay said about the "hermeneutic of continuity" on Friday, December 28, 2012, the Feast of the Holy Innocents, during a conference in Toronto, Canada, as he tried to explain in a very meandering way his seven year-effort to "normalize" relations with the Occupy Vatican Movement:
And so, so from the start this text we could not accept. And that's what I told Rome: we can't accept. I told it even two times. The first time, I tried to remain broad because my aim was to demolish the frame which they were trying to impose to us. This frame is called the Hermeneutic of the Continuity. That means that we have to interpret, or to understand, they pretend that the Council is in the line of Tradition, and that's the only way, we have to the Council in the light, not only the light, but to say that the Council is traditional. And we say no, that's not true, we say, that we should that we should understand that we should understand anything that comes from Rome in the light of Tradition, it's the only Catholic way, but precisely this Council, with this Council, we can't do that because the texts are opposed to Tradition, they're contrary; what they say in the Council has been condemned before. Especially Religious Liberty, but also Ecumenism for example, very clearly the contrary.
And so, we say: no it doesn't work. Doesn't work. But, I didn't want to go into the details, I just wanted to, so to say, to *ppprrr* to explode the frame. Because they said if I go into the details, they will change the details but they will try to remain, to remind, to keep the frame. So I say no, it doesn't work. They were not happy with it, and they called me and they asked me if I could not be more precise. I said OK, I will do it that, I will do that. So I sent a second answer. It was not that I would correct the first, no. It was exactly the same answer, but more precise, according to their text. (Transcript of Bishop Fellay's Meandering Musings, December 28, 2012.)
One's head spins.
One's eyes roll at the sheer madness of making an effort to claim an openness to the "hermeneutic of continuity" when an agreement appeared between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Occupy Vatican Movement appeared likely in May of last year before claiming eight months later to have been firmly opposed to it all along.
This is nothing other than revisionist history.
Fellay's "first assistant," Father Niklaus Pfluger, himself spoke highly of the "hermeneutic of reform" in May of 2012:
That was actually our argument, and then this Pope
comes and says: Stop! The council is being interpreted falsely. That
was his famous sermon, an important talk, in December, 22 December,
2005, where he said we need a new interpretation of the council. Up
until now, people have been abusing the council, in the name of the
council, but that isn't what the council wanted. We need a new
interpretation and using the greek term, a new hermeneutic, a new
understanding... it's not bad, 40 years after the council, to understand
the council correctly, and the correct understanding of the council is
the hermeneutic of reform.
So it isn't a contradiction after all, no discontinuity between the
council and tradition. It is a continuity, and this continuity is made
visible through a healthy reform. That is important for the reason that
from now on this is the idea that defines his pontificate. Everything
that he does, and thereby the permission for, or the liberation of the
ancient mass, plays a very decisive role, everything he does, everything
he attempts, is to show that there isn't a break. The council, our main
argument for this resistance, for holding firmly to Tradition, for
rejecting the ideas of the council, the important ideas of the council
-- the Pope wants to say that this argument is no argument at all. It is
just... it is just a matter of harmonious development of tradition,
this Second Vatican Council. (http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42305.)
It appears as though close exposure to those infected with the spiritually fatal disease of the "new theology" comes to think and to speak in form of Hegelianism where truth contains within itself the seeds of its own internal contradiction.
More seriously, however, the disease from which the Society of Saint Pius X suffers is a simple one: utilitarianism.
That is, the leadership of the Society of Saint Pius X, starting with its courageous founder, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, has expected the faithful attached to their chapels to believe whatever is they are told without regard for how credulity is strained in the process, without regard for consistency, without regard for objective truth, without regard for right principles. The "end result" is the only thing that has mattered. The faithful just have to believe what they are told and suspend all rationality while doing so.
To wit, Catholics attached to the Society of Saint Pius X have been told that a pope can teach error if he is not "teaching from the Chair." He cannot.
Catholics attached to the Society of Saint Pius X have been told that the Catholic Church can promulgate liturgical rites that are "evil" or defective, if not invalid, in some way. She cannot.
Catholics attached to the Society of Saint Pius X have been taught to believe whatever the leadership tells them. And the current leadership has encouraged "loyalists" to spy on "rebels," who are considered "enemies" and must shunned, if not denounced as treacherous, ungrateful souls, in order for this or that current "grand scheme" to succeed.
The end result is the only thing that matters, not intellectual consistency and not truth.
For a Catholic, however, the dispassionate adherence to truth without regard for human respect and without regard for a very misplaced and all too frequently highly manipulated, emotionally-laden sense of personal loyalty to various persons who not have the charism of personal infallibility must outweigh all other considerations.
What matters is the truth, not who one likes or what one wishes to be the case, not what desires to be true even though level-headed, sensible human beings, deemed "enemies" by the "leaders," present cogent arguments to explode the mythical contentions by which autocrats seek to aggrandize themselves and arrogate power to themselves while using various emotional devices and mind-control games to control the faithful, fearful of losing the sacraments by being expelled for thinking and an acting as Catholics and not a blind loyalists to this or that person or to this or that community.
The truth about the Society of Saint Pius X, no matter its historic defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King and its firm, clear an absolutely correct teaching on morality that rejects such anti-Catholic notions advanced by the conciliarists as "natural family planning" and "brain death," is that its entire ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church and her Divine Constitution) is false.
In essence, the Society of Saint Pius X's institutional belief that the popes can err if not teaching infallibly or that they can promulgate defective, if not offensive, liturgical rites places them in essential agreement with Joseph Ratzinger's long-held belief that the Catholic Church is "sinful" and thus can err:
One of the progressivist attacks against the sanctity of the Spouse of
Christ is to affirm that sin
is present in the essence of the Church. That the Church is a sinner
and in constant need of reform are affronts made by the heresiarch
These affronts were heard again at Vatican II and are repeated by significant representatives of the Church.
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Card.
Joseph Ratzinger made clear that he considers that the note of sin exists in
the essence of the Church. He said these words in a speech to the Pontifical
Faculty of Theology, Lima, Peru, in July 1986.
The idea of the Body of Christ developed in the Catholic
Church with the meaning that the Church presents herself as ‘the Christ
who continues to live on earth.’ She is described as the Incarnation of
the Son that will continue until the end of time.
This raised the opposition
of the Protestants, who saw this as an insupportable identification
of the Church with Christ, an identification in which the Church, so to
speak, would adore herself and consider herself to be infallible.
Some Catholic thinkers, without reaching this point, also began
to conclude that this formula would attribute a definitive character to
every ministerial word and action of the Church, which would make
any critique of her seem an attack on Christ himself, thus forgetting
her human element.
For this reason, it was affirmed that it is necessary for the difference
between Christ and the Church to become clearly manifest, that is to
say, that the Church is not identical to Christ but is different
She is the Church of sinners, which incessantly needs
to purify and renew herself. Thus, the idea of ‘reform’ – which
could not develop easily in the notion of the Body of Christ – became
a decisive element of the concept of People of God.
(J. Ratzinger, “La eclesiología del Vaticano,” Iglesia-Mundo, Madrid,
October 1986, p. 19) (As found at: Progressivist Document of the Week.)
Obviously, the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X do not believe in Ratzinger's false view of the Church. However, their own Gallicanism, condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, and mocked by Bishop Emile Bougaud in the Nineteenth Century, mimics it by contending that the Catholic Church can be stained by error, ambiguity, falsehood and sacrilege. The Society of Saint Pius X's "governing magisterium" as opposed to the "authentic magisterium" (the "Rome of all time") is a work of fiction. It is as much a work of fiction as conciliarism itself.
Quite despite what the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X have contended, although errors have existed to a greater or lesser extent in the minds of Catholics during various times in the history of Holy Mother Church, she Church cannot be stained by any taint of error, as pope after pope has taught us:
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.)
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
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
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) or is being, perhaps more accurately, intellectually dishonest. If the conciliar church has brought forth its
teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men," why 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"?
No, the Catholic Church has never endorsed error in any of her officials documents and we have never seen anything like the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges that have characterized the the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" in the past fifty-four years now.
Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., explained in but one
sentence the simple fact those steeped in error cannot have any part in
the Catholic Church, meaning that Federico Lombardi's desire to put
aside "differences" is of the devil, not of God:
There is a fatal instinct in error,
which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its
unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her
children. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, commentary on the life of Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen.)
The true Church, the Catholic Church, cannot countenance falsehood and error.
Perhaps, Bishop Fellay ought to watch For Greater Glory, especially the scene that depicts the bravery of Jose Luis Sanchez Del Rio after he had been tortured and before his martyrdom in defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King, which his "pope" rejects both in theory and in practice.
Young Jose Luis Sanchez Del Rio was told by his Godfather, the Mayor of Sahuayo, that all he had to do was to save his life was to say "Death to Christ the King, Long Live the Federal Government." Jose exclaimed in a loud and clear voice after he expressing his love for his mother, "Viva Cristo Rey!"
Bishop Fellay did say last year that it was possible for "Vatican II to be understood in light of Tradition, something he does not say now is the case and would have us believe he never said.
Please help Bishop Fellay find his own internal hermeneutic of continuity.
While you are at it, please forward Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty.
No one can be forced to "see" the truth of our situation (or of any situation involving conflict with others) for what it is, that the conciliar revolutionaries are not Catholic and that they belong to a counterfeit church bereft of Holy Orders and of the graces that flow therefrom. That any of our true bishops and priests, among so many others, who have seen things clearly in the past forty years, right in the midst of a most diabolically clever use of the media to convey images of Catholicism and Catholicity, is the working of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flowed into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. We must remember that it is very easy to go "back," to refuse to "kick against the goad," to "conform" to what the "mainstream" believes is "respectable" and "prudent."
The "mainstream" is not to be followed.
God permitted one hundred percent of the human race to be deceived in the Garden of Eden.
God permitted all but eight members of the human race to be deceived and deluded prior to the Great Flood.
Almost all of the Chosen People who had been led out of their bondage to the slavery of the Egyptian Pharaoh by Moses built and worshiped a molten calf whilst Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai.
All but a handful of people stood by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He suffered and died for us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.
All but one bishop, Saint John Fisher of Rochester, England, defected from the Faith at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England when King Henry VIII took this thoroughly Catholic country out of the Church.
All but thirty bishops defected from the Faith at the time Queen Elizabeth I took England out of the Church once again in the 1660s following the brief restoration that took place under the reign of her half-sister, Queen Mary, from 1553 to 1558.
The "mainstream" is not be followed. We need apostolic courage in these times of apostasy and betrayal. God's greater honor and glory must be defended against the against of men who have proved themselves to be precursors of the Antichrist.
How do we think that we are going to recognize, no less resist and reject, the Antichrist when he comes we are so complacent and smug in the face of the groundwork that is being laid by his conciliar minions for his coming? Will the emotionalism of sentimentality and the delusion of positivism not prevail then in the minds and hearts of most men?
It's been over six years ago now since I began to publicly write about the plausibility of the sedevacantist thesis. I can report that those six years have been difficult ones, humanly speaking, as friendships have been strained or broken and as many former contributors stopped donating to us. Obviously, friendship is a free gift and people are free also to end non-tax-deductible donations whenever they want to do so. It is not for the "money" or for any kind of "honor" or "prestige" that one comes to recognize that the conciliar "popes" have indeed been figures of Antichrist. To embrace sedevacantism is to lose one's credibility on all subjects, including that of the defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King, in the eyes of traditionally-minded "gatekeepers" in the "resist but recognize movement," some of whom would rather turn to lifelong Protestants or to Catholic apostates turned Protestants or Mormons for "commentary" on the events of the day.
No, embracing the truth of our ecclesiastical situation does not make one any bit better than those who do not. Indeed, some of the worst witnesses in behalf of sedevacantism are sedevacantists, both clergy and laity. The bad example given by those who do see the truth of our ecclesiastical situation does not make invalidate the truth that they seek to defend despite all of the opposition that is engendered thereby.
No one has anything to gain, humanly speaking by recognizing that the conciliar "popes" are apostates and their liturgical rites are sacramentally barren and offensive to God and their doctrines have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church. Yes, it is good to suffer for one's sins. It is necessary to do so in order to save one's soul. One does not embrace the truth in order to suffer, though, as that suffering will find him in due course.
Sedevacantists compose only a handful of mostly warring tribes. They are not the problem facing Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal. Just take a look at the evidence presented above if you believe that I am mistaken.
All the more
reason, of course, to flee from everything to do with conciliarism and
its false shepherds. If we can't see that the public esteeming of the
symbols and places of "worship" of false religions is offensive to God
and can in no way lead to any kind of authentic restoration of the
"Catholic" Church, then it is perhaps necessary to recall these words of
Saint Teresa of Avila in her Foundations:
"Know this: it is by very
little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the
greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: 'This is nothing, this is
an exaggeration.'" (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)
We turn, as always to Our Lady, who holds us in the crossing of her arms and in the folds of her mantle. We must, as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, trusting that we might be able to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of that same Immaculate Heart.
We may not see until eternity, please God and by the graces He sends to us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, the fruit of the seeds we plant by means of our prayers and penances and sacrifices, given unto the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must remain confident, however, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wants to us, as unworthy as we are, to try to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics in the conciliar structures, both "priests" and laity alike, will recognize that it is indeed a sin to stand by He is blasphemed by Modernists, that He--and His true priesthood--are to be found in the catacombs where no concessions at all are made to conciliarism or its wolves in shepherds' clothing.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
(Part two of this series will deal with the firestorm caused by Bishop Fellay's comments about Jews being "the enemies of the Church" that he made that December 28, 2012, talk.)
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Primus and Felician, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Mr. Michael Creighton's List of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X
Mr. Michael Creighton has catalogued the principle
errors of the Society of Saint Pius X and the ways in which those who
assist at Society chapels justify these errors by way of responding to
an article that appeared a few years ago on the Tradition in Action website:
To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:
1 A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium
(Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For
instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his
“Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his
catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his
“apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound
everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in
“ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.
2 A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching
expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope]
cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim.
(2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum
Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this
3 A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually
all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a
heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law
itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4
which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum
ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on
penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law
itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the
code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction
are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265).
This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to
help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the
office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX
pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication
cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227).
This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic
(latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent
judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore
it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not
automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says
is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.
4 The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy
that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already
tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those
schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies
canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a
juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy
and crime which automatically takes effect.
5 The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest
the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy
can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I,
Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917
code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the
seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords
words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers
[Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.
6 The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and
every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is
outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction &
pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is
proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest
heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the
magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.
7 Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is
misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against
the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he
automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and
hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their
offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The
cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are
still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not
cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does
excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith.
This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post
1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove
ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus
Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I.
Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or
bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a
public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even
supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics),
Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to
remain in vigor” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious
heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an
absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the
Church in her canonists.
Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:
1) We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]
2) The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on
faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by
Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]
3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary
magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This
rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or
the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the
conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I
(Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]
4) The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of
reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge.
[Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].
5) The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this
is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to
the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier
councils mentioned above].
6) Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious
liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a
Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church
and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV
(Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)]
7) Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine
against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be
contradictory, they are.
When I point out these positions are against the
Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in
attendance at the SSPX chapel.
The Catholic Church's Condemnation of the Concept of the Evolution of Dogma
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. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too, that meaning of the
sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by
holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this
sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are
not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church,
or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .
3. If anyone says that it is possible that
at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be
assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from
that which the church has understood and understands: let him be
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral
office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the
authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful
Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of
teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off
and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of
the light of the pure faith.
But since it is not enough to avoid the
contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which
approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to
observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions,
though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and
forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III,
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and
Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for,
in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so
must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as
instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their
turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the
object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute,
possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another,
may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of
varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must
be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change.
Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have
an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the
apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and
always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical'
misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to
another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the
modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or
what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with
the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple
fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact,
namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have
continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his
apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the
belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was,
and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the
apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be
tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture
of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by
the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different,
may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles
faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way
deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing.
Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)
Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been
reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs,
that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern
philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some
more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold
that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate
concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which
the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted.
Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that
theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in
keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it
uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to
divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still
equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas
consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth
has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance
with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the
course of the centuries. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
The Popes In Support of Scholasticism
For just as the opinion of
certain ancients is to be rejected which maintains that it makes no
difference to the truth of the Faith what any man thinks about the
nature of creation, provided his opinions on the nature of God be sound,
because error with regard to the nature of creation begets a false
knowledge of God; so the principles of philosophy laid down by
St. Thomas Aquinas are to be religiously and inviolably observed,
because they are the means of acquiring such a knowledge of creation as
is most congruent with the Faith; of refuting all the errors of all the
ages, and of enabling man to distinguish clearly what things are to be
attributed to God and to God alone….
St. Thomas perfected and augmented still further by the almost angelic
quality of his intellect all this superb patrimony of wisdom which he
inherited from his predecessors and applied it to prepare, illustrate
and protect sacred doctrine in the minds of men. Sound reason
suggests that it would be foolish to neglect it and religion will not
suffer it to be in any way attenuated. And rightly, because, if Catholic
doctrine is once deprived of this strong bulwark, it is useless to seek
the slightest assistance for its defense in a philosophy whose
principles are either common to the errors of materialism, monism,
pantheism, socialism and modernism, or certainly not opposed to such
systems. The reason is that the capital theses in the philosophy of St
Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being
debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations
upon which the science of natural and divine things is based; if such
principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily
follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to
perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of
divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church. . . . (Pope Saint Pius X, Doctoris Angelici, quoted in James Larson's Article 11: A Confusion of Loves.)
Innocent VI: "The teaching of this Doctor above all others, with the exception of Canon Law, has
precision in terminology, propriety of expression, truth of judgment:
so that never is one who has held it been found to have deviated from
the path of truth."
Pius V: "It was wrought by the
providence of Almighty God that by the force and truth of the Angelic
Doctor's teaching, by which he illumined the Apostolic Church with the
refutation of innumerable errors, that the many heresies which
have arisen after his canonization have been confounded, overthrown and
dispersed. This has been made evident both earlier and recently in the
sacred decrees of the Council of Trent."
Clement VIII to the Neapolitans:
"Devoutly and wisely are you thinking of adopting a new patron of your
city, your fellow citizen, the Angelic interpreter of the Divine Will,
splendid in the sanctity of his life and by his miracles, Thomas
Aquinas, since indeed is this honor owed with the greatest justification
to his virtues joined to his admirable doctrine. Indeed, witness to his
doctrine is the great number of books which he composed, in a very
brief time, in almost every class of learning, with a matchless
arrangement and wondrous clearness, without any error whatsoever."
Paul V: "We greatly rejoice in the
Lord that honor and veneration are increasing daily for the most
splendid champion of the Catholic Faith, blessed Thomas Aquinas, by the shield of whose writings the Church Militant successfully parries the spears of the heretics.
And Leo XIII, at once embracing
hand surpassing all of the praises of his predecessors, says of him:
"Distinguishing reason from Faith, as is proper, but nevertheless
combining the two in a friendly alliance, he both preserved the rights
of each and had regard for the dignity of both., in such a way too that
reason, carried on the wings of Thomas to the highest human
limit, now almost cannot rise any higher, and faith almost cannot expect
more or stronger helps from reason than it has already obtained through
--And again, presenting St. Thomas to Catholics as a
model and patron in various sciences, he says: "In him are all the
illustrious ornaments of mind and character by which he rightly calls
others to the imitation of himself: the richest doctrine, incorrupt,
fittingly arranged; obedience to the Faith, and a marvelous consonance
with the truths divinely handed down; integrity of life with the
splendor of the greatest virtues." (Readings from the Dominican Breviary
(II Nocturn) for the feast of the Patronage of Saint Thomas Aquinas,
But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman
pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional
tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the
bull "In Ordine;" Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of
Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull "Pretiosus," and others bear
witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable
teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull "Mirabilis" that
heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were
dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others,
such as Clement XII in the bull "Verbo Dei," affirm that most fruitful
blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church,
and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest
Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome;
while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar
and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they
may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed
Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: "It is our
will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of
Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with
all your force to profit by the same." Innocent XII, followed the
example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter
in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6,
1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on
August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these
judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning
testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others,
the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of
language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who
hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who
dare assail it will always be suspected of error."
The ecumenical councils, also, where
blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to
hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna,
Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part
and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers,
contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and
rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But
the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none
of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of
the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred
Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the "Summa" of Thomas
Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.
A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable
man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the
very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that
there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who
openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken
away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the
victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain
Joseph Ratzinger's Rejection of Scholasticism
The cultural interests pursued at the seminary of
Freising were joined to the study of a theology infected by
existentialism, beginning with the writings of Romano Guardini. Among
the authors preferred by Ratzinger was the Jewish philosopher Martin
Buber. Ratzinger loved St. Augustine, but never St. Thomas Aquinas: "By
contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas
Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself,
too impersonal and ready-made" (op. cit., p.44). This
aversion was mainly due to the professor of philosophy at the seminary,
who "presented us with a rigid, neo-scholastic Thomism that was simply
too far afield from my own questions" (ibid.). According to Cardinal
Ratzinger, whose current opinions appear unchanged from those he held as
a seminarian, the thought of Aquinas was "too closed in on itself, too
impersonal and ready-made," and was unable to respond to the personal
questions of the faithful. This opinion is enunciated by a
prince of the Church whose function it is to safeguard the purity of the
doctrine of the Faith! Why, then, should anyone be surprised at the
current disastrous crisis of Catholicism, or seek to attribute it to the
world, when those who should be the defenders of the Faith, and hence
of genuine Catholic thought, are like sewers drinking in the filth, or
like gardeners who cut down a tree they are supposed to be nurturing? What
can it mean to stigmatize St. Thomas as having a "too impersonal and
ready-made" logic? Is logic "personal"? These assertions reveal, in the
person who makes them, a typically Protestant, pietist attitude, like
that found in those who seek the rule of faith in personal interior
In the two years Ratzinger spent at the diocesan
seminary of Freising, he studied literature, music, modern philosophy,
and he felt drawn towards the new existentialist and modernist
theologies. He did not like St. Thomas Aquinas. The formation described
does not correspond to the exclusively Catholic formation that is
necessary to one called to be a priest, even taking into account the
extenuating circumstances of the time, that is, anti-Christian Nazism,
the war and defeat, and the secularization of studies within seminaries. It seems that His Eminence, with all due respect, gave too much
place to profane culture, with its "openness" to everything, and its
critical attitude...Joseph Ratzinger loved the professors who asked many
questions, but disliked those who defended dogma with the crystal-clear
logic of St. Thomas. This attitude would seem to us to match
his manner of understanding Catholic liturgy. He tells us that from
childhood he was always attracted to the liturgical movement and was
sympathetic towards it. One can see that for him, the liturgy was a
matter of feeling, a lived experience, an aesthetically pleasing
"Erlebnis," but fundamentally irrational (op. cit. passim.). (The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones.)