E.
Michael Jones
@EMichaelJones1
Archbishop Vigano has been excommunicated for the "crime of
schism." Quo vadis, Taylor Marshall? Quo vadis, John-Henry Westen? Quo vadis, Michael Matt? Quo vadis, Robert
Moynihan? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and follow Vigano into schism? Or are you going to apologize for
supporting him and leading your followers into the sin which got him
excommunicated? Non datur tertius. Jul 5, 2024
AUDIO LINK:
EMJ
Live 78: Archbishop Vigano Excommunicated - Culture
Wars Podcast | Lyssna här |
Poddtoppen.se
Bullet Points:
1.
Extra judicial process is an
administrative action that cannot be used without the permission of the accused
in any hearing where the juridic standing in the Church of the accused will be
changed.
2.
Excommunication changes the
juridic standing in the Church.
3.
All heretics are
schismatics.
4.
Since Vatican I, all
schismatics are heretics.
5.
There is only one act that
manifests schism and that is manifest heresy.
6.
Absent manifest heresy a
canonical trial is necessary to establish a schismatic intent.
7.
The essence of schism is
denial of the universal jurisdiction of the pope.
8.
Absent the existence of
manifest heresy no Catholic can be accused of schism without the proof of
denial universal jurisdiction of the pope.
9.
Faith is related to heresy
as Charity is related to schism.
10.
Faith precedes charity.
Without faith there is no charity therefore all heretics are schismatics.
11.
Dogma is the proximate rule
of faith for all the faithful.
12.
E. Michael Jones is a
Neo-modernist and makes the pope his proximate rule of faith and not dogma.
This error leads to conservative Catholicism and Sedevacantism.
13.
Archbishop Vigano's denial that Pope Francis is a legitimate pope is
essentially different from the claims of sedevacantists
and will become moot at the death of Pope Francis.
14.
Pope Francis is a manifest
heretic and therefore a schismatic.
15.
Those that make Pope Francis
their proximate rule of faith will follow him in schism and ultimate damnation.
Open Letter to E. Michael Jones:
Defense of Archbishop Viganò
for the
benefit of E. Michael Jones, who in the end, does not know what schism is
because he does not know the Catholic faith
Let those be hard upon you who do not know what labour
it is to reach the truth and turn away from error. Let those be hard upon you, who know not how
rare a thing it is, and how much it costs, to overcome the false images of the
senses and to dwell in peace of soul.
Let those be hard upon you, who know not with what difficulty man’s
mental eye is healed so as to be able to gaze upon the Sun of Justice; who know
not through what sighs and groans one attains to some little knowledge of
God. Let those, finally, be hard upon
you, who have never known seduction like that whereby you are deceived.... As
for me, who have been tossed about by the vain imaginations of which my mind
was in search, and who have shared your misery and so long deplored it, I could
not by any means be harsh to you.
St. Augustine, Letter to a Manichean heretic
It has been about 30 years
since your debate with Michael Davies on the question, Is the SSPX in Schism,
Yes or No? The debate reflected two entirely different understandings of the
crime of schism, its essential attributes, and its imputability.
You affirmed that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was guilty of schism because that
was the canonical opinion of Pope John Paul II who declared Archbishop Lefebvre
to have been excommunicated latae sententiae, that is, excommunicated by the law itself for
having consecrated bishops. You did not address the objection that the
consecration of bishops without a papal mandate is not under the canonical
heading of schism. You ignored the contention that a state of necessity exists.
You ignored the fact that there was no canonical hearing or determination of imputability beyond the opinion of Pope John Paul II. You
affirmed that schism was a manifest sin similar to abortion. You declared yourself the winner of the
debate in an article published in Fidelity Magazine some say was written before
the debate occurred. This debate was referenced by you in your introductory
remarks in your recent video, Archbishop
Viganò
Excommunicated!, as evidence of your competency to address the question of
schism. In the video you affirmed that Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò is likewise guilty of
schism and excommunicated, however, you did not address that this was done by
means of an "extra-judicial" process. You then called upon the
"Guild Prophets", Catholics with traditional sentiments, to apologize
to their followers for having defended this excommunicate prelate because
"there is no salvation outside the Church".
Although you have been
addressing schism for more than 30 years, your understanding of schism, its necessary attributes, its imputability,
and its relationship with the virtues of faith and charity is as deficient
today as it was 30 years ago. You have learned nothing. Ignorance is not
commended but rather compounded on the grounds of being long-standing. There is
a reason for your complacency and the purpose of the letter is to hopefully
flush it out and explore its other implications for the state of the Church
today.
In the Davies debate you
argued that schism was a manifest sin making a direct comparison to the crime
of abortion. Since you held that schism is a manifest sin you therefore accused
Davies of corrupting moral theology as liberals typically do by making the
subjective motivation of the person the primary determinate of moral guilt
rather than the objective nature of the act itself, as liberals do in
justifying abortion on the personalist grounds of the
psychological burden of an unwanted pregnancy. That is what liberals always do
and why they are called 'liberals', such as, the liberal Pope Francis who
recently admitted divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacrament of Holy
Communion without repentance based upon their subjective disposition. Davies
ignored your equating the manifest sin of abortion with schism but he should
not have because it is essential in understanding what schism is. Davies should
have demanded from you examples of acts that are always and everywhere
schismatic acts that can only be done with a schismatic intent. He should have
asked you to produce citations from moral theologians to support whatever
examples you offered. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
The answer to the question
is that there are no acts that always and everywhere manifest a schismatic
intent with one important exception that is entirely invisible to you, and will
be discussed below. Even the act of consecrating bishops without a papal
mandate is not necessarily a schismatic act. There is no authoritative
reference in Catholic moral theology manuals that claim that any specific act
is in and of itself always and everywhere evidence of schism. If Davies had
asked you this question, you would have ended up falling back on the claim that
schism is a spirit, a pattern, an attitude, a flavor that is unmistakably
recognized by the initiated such as John Paul II and yourself? In the end your
answer would have been, "The pope said so, so it is."
Unlike
schism, abortion and blasphemy are manifest sins because they are acts that can
never be done with a morally right intention; the act itself reveals the intent
in the internal forum as being vicious. These are always and everywhere
necessarily mortal sins. As St. Paul says, "Some
men's sins are manifest, going before to judgment: and some men they follow
after" (1Tim 5:24). St. Paul gives specific examples of "manifest
sins": "Nor the effeminate, nor liers
with mankind (sodomites), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall
possess the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:10). What
exactly is the schismatic motive that a contentious canonical process must
discover for conviction and attribution of imputability
of the crime of schism? This is question a that has never crossed your mind.
Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò was subjected to and convicted by
an "extra-judicial" administrative tribunal of schism and
excommunicated for the purpose of avoiding a contentions canonical trial. Such
an excommunication is not possible in the Catholic Church employing
extra-judicial means.[i]
The reason for this is that no Catholic, particularly a fortiori Catholic bishop, can be forced against his will to
submit to an administrative process, forgoing his canonical rights of due
process, when the outcome of that process changes his juridic standing in the
Church. The crime of schism and excommunication necessarily change the juridic
standing in the Church. The administrative process was employed for the very
purpose of denying Archbishop Viganò his contentious
canonical rights while giving the public the impression that his legal due
process rights were respected. Canonical due process is a contentions forum and
it requires for conviction and punishment both objective acts of schism and the
subjective imputability of the crime establishing
schismatic intent. In a contentious trial the defendant can insist on written
charges that can be answered in writing. The ultimate purpose of the canonical
contentious process is to determine truth and direct those in error back to
truth.
The
canonical definition for both heresy and schism are taken directly almost
verbatim from St. Thomas Aquinas: "Schismatics are those who refuse to
submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of
the Church who acknowledge his supremacy." Schism is the repudiation of
the "supremacy", that is, the universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign
Pontiff, and communion with those who accept his supremacy. It is the burden of
the prosecutor in a contentious canonical trial, in proving the charge of
schism for a specific act, to demonstrate a rejection of the universal jurisdiction
of the pope as the motive for the specific act. While all schismatics are
disobedient to the Sovereign Pontiff, not all who are disobedient to the
Sovereign Pontiff are schismatics. St. Thomas in his examination identifies
schism as a specific species of sin.
St. Thomas says, "Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special
sin, for the reason that the schismatic
intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity:
because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of
spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit." The genus to which schism belongs is acts
opposed to peace which is the fruit of "that unity which is the effect of charity."
Regarding peace, St. Thomas continues: "Peace implies a twofold union... The first is the
result of one's own appetites being directed to one object; while the other
results from one's own appetite being united with the appetite of another: and
each of these unions is effected by charity." Acts that disturb the
fruit of peace that are directed against the cause of peace which is charity
are sinful. Acts that disturb the fruit of peace that are not directed against
charity are not sinful.
Acts
of disobedience against properly constituted authority are only acts of schism
when the intention is to reject the universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign
Pontiff and thus overturn the peace of unity caused by charity. This intention
constitutes the species difference of
schism from other acts opposed to peace, as St. Thomas says, the schismatic "intends to separate
himself from the unity that charity makes" (Q.39, a.1.) among the faithful. St.
Thomas is offering an essential
definition of schism which is the best of all definitions because it is the
most intelligible. Schism, just as other acts opposed to peace enumerated by
St. Thomas which includes discord, contention, war, strife and sedition, requires
contextualization. All these acts disturb the peace which charity makes. There
exists situations of a false peace that is not the work of charity. Thus acts
that disturb peace can also be done from a motive of charity, such as a just
war. Specifically for the case of Archbishop Viganò,
St. Thomas says that morality of contention, which is the "opposition to another in speech"
that disturbs the peace, is determined by the intention: "As to the
intention, we must consider whether he contends against the truth, and then he
is to be blamed, or against falsehood, and then he should be praised." Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò's "contention" against
Pope Francis, while disturbing the "peace", is the contention of
truth against falsehood and is therefore praiseworthy and not schismatic. This
is why a canonical trial is called "contentious" for it is intended
to reveal who is contending for truth.
But the question of truth or falsehood
with regard to contention between Pope Francis and Archbishop Viganò is as
immaterial to you now as it was at the time of the Davis debate on the
excommunication for schism of Archbishop Lefebvre. The proximate motivation for
the consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre was the Prayer Meeting at Assisi by
John Paul II. The poles of contention are truth-falsehood which is the same for
dogmas of faith. As St. Jude admonishes: "I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend
earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Schism
is the rejection of the divinely revealed truth of papal universal
jurisdiction, a dogma of faith since Vatican I. As previously said, schism is
manifested by disobedience, but all disobedience is not schism. Obedience to
God is unqualified. All other acts of obedience are necessarily qualified. Acts
of obedience are morally good only to the degree that they are properly
regulated by the virtue of Religion which is the primary subsidiary virtue
under Justice. Any act of obedience that violates the virtue of Religion is a
sin. The virtue of Religion above all requires that we "give unto God the
things that are God's." This first and necessary act of obedience is to
believe all that God has revealed and to keep his commandments. This is the
virtue of justice. Without this first necessary condition, it is impossible to
keep the greatest commandment to love God above all things and it is impossible
to have "the unity that charity makes." Any state of peace that is
unjust is a false peace and is not the work of charity. The question that you
have never asked which requires your attention: In a state of true peace caused
by charity, what is the primary sign and cause of unity in the Church?
Schismatics "refuse to
submit to the Sovereign Pontiff" because they deny that the pope possesses
universal jurisdiction conferred by God
for the legitimate exercise of the papal office which is a cause and sign of unity
and peace. Universal jurisdiction of the pope is a divinely revealed truth that
was dogmatized at Vatican I Council. St. Thomas says:
"Heresy and schism are
distinguished in respect of those things to which each is opposed essentially
and directly. For heresy is essentially opposed to faith, while schism is
essentially opposed to the unity of ecclesiastical charity. Wherefore just as faith and
charity are different virtues, although whoever lacks faith lacks charity, so
too schism and heresy are different vices, although whoever is a heretic is
also a schismatic, but not conversely.[ii]"
Since the universal
jurisdiction of the pope became a dogma at Vatican Council I, a schismatic is
now also conversely always a heretic. Importantly, faith necessarily precedes
charity. The Church is the society of the faithful. A person becomes a member
of this society through the sacrament of Baptism. In the reception of Baptism,
the priest meets the candidate in the narthex of the church where the candidate
is asked by name, "What are you asking of God's Church?" The reply
is, "Faith"! The priest then asks, "What does faith hold out to
you? The candidate answers, "Everlasting life." Before entering the
Baptistery the candidate recites the Creed, the Profession of Faith.
"Without faith, it is impossible to please God" (Heb 11-6) because,
as St. Thomas says, "whoever
lacks faith lacks charity." Recall from St. Thomas that without
charity, there can be no peace effected because "Peace implies a twofold
union.... The first is the
result of one's own appetites being directed to one object." For
the faithful, that "one object" is God and this union causes peace. The second "results from
one's own appetite being united with the appetite of another (who shares the
same True Faith): and each of these unions is effected by charity." Sins
against faith destroy charity and the consequent loss of peace because there
can be no peace in a souls separated from God and there can be no peace with
another because there can be no unity of appetites with a heretic. Any
"peace" with a heretic is a false peace that is unjust and opposed to
true charity. Faith then is the primary
and essential cause and sign of unity in the Church. The pope is secondarily
and accidentally a sign and cause of unity of Christ's Church.
The
keys of universal jurisdiction were promised to St. Peter after his open
profession of faith which is its proximate formal cause. Many Church Fathers,
such as St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, describe an analogical identity
of the rock (petra) with divine faith, with St.
Peter, with Jesus Christ the "cornerstone," and the Church itself. The faith precedes and is the
proximate cause of the universal jurisdiction conferred by Jesus Christ because
faith is indispensible to the bond of unity which is charity. Cardinal Henry Edward Manning wrote:
“The interpretation by the
Fathers of the words ‘On this rock; etc. is fourfold, but all four
interpretations are not more than four aspects of one and the same truth, and
all are necessary to complete its full meaning. They all implicitly or
explicitly contain the perpetual stability of Peter’s faith...:’
“In these two promises
[i.e. Lk 22:32, Mt 16:18] a divine assistance is
pledged to Peter and to his successors, and that divine assistance is promised
to secure the stability and indefectibility of the Faith in the supreme Doctor
and Head of the Church, for the general good of the Church itself.”
Cardinal Henry Edward Manning,
“The Vatican Council and Its Definitions: A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy”, p.
83-84, 1870
All
this is nicely summed up by St. Paul who admonishes "that you walk worthy
of the vocation in which you are called; With all humility and mildness, with
patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one
Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one
baptism" (Eph. 4:1-5). The primary
and essential cause and sign of the unity in the Church is the faith. The pope
is only secondarily and accidentally the sign and cause of unity in the Church.
If the pope falls from the faith he is to be confronted as St. Paul did to St.
Peter when he "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel" and
accommodated the Judaizers leading others into
"dissimulation" (Gal. 2:11). If the pope is a heretic he necessarily, as St. Thomas
says, "lacks faith (and) lacks charity.... (and) whoever is a heretic
is also a schismatic." The heretic, without charity, breaks the
bond of unity in the Church and necessarily becomes schismatic. Therefore, the
one genus of acts that are necessary
signs of schism are acts of manifest heresy. This truth is invisible to those
who err by holding the pope as their proximate rule of faith.
You
would have accused St. Paul of schism for contending with St. Peter because the
pope for you is the proximate rule of faith, so whatever he says or does is
what you will say and do. Consider this, how did St. Paul know that St. Peter
"walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel"? He knew it from
the Council of Jerusalem where St. Peter presided as our first pope where he
engaged the attribute of infallibility which Jesus Christ endowed His Church to
teach without the possibility of error on this matter of faith which was not,
as some claim, a matter of mere discipline. We know that the judgment was
infallible because: "For it hath seemed good to the
Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary
things" (Acts 15:28). St. Paul contended, with this canon of faith, with
this dogma, against the error of St. Peter. This is the first recorded example
of a Catholic subject to the Roman pontiff employing dogma against the pope. It
would not be the last. It should
be remembered that the famous dictum of St. Augustine that "Rome has
spoken, the case is finished," was indirectly addressed to the reigning
Pope Zosimus, who in the presence of the Roman
clergy, recognized as orthodox heretical statements of Pelagius, which had been
previously condemned by Pope Innocent I and the two Councils of Carthage.
Pope
Zosimus was deviating from the judgment of his
predecessors in the See of Peter regarding the Pelagian heresy. The pope is subject to dogmatic
truth as much as every other Catholic. The principle sign
of and cause of unity in the Church is the faith. The remote rule of faith is
divine revelation found in Scripture and Tradition. The proximate rule of faith
is dogma which is divine revelation infallibly defined and proposed to all the
faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The pope is the
material and instrumental cause of dogma. It is God who is the formal and final
cause of dogma in both the truth expressed and the words chosen to express that
truth. It is as St. Pius X said, "A truth fallen from heaven" (Lamentabili). The pope is only secondarily and
accidentally the sign of and cause of unity in the Church. If this were not so
St. Paul could not have corrected St. Peter.
The fact that dogma constitutes the proximate rule of
faith for all Catholics can be proven from papal citations, the documents from
ecumenical councils (the First Canon of the Fourth
Council of Constantinople referenced directly at Vatican I Council), and theological authorities
such as Scheeben:
"Hence the
original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith (i.e. Scripture and
Tradition), and the continuous promulgation (i.e. Dogma) by the Teaching
Body (Magisterium) is the proximate Rule."
Scheeben, Manual of Catholic Theology
Yet, the simplest, surest and most self-evident is the definition of heresy. St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy as: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". The canonical definition is taken almost verbatim from St. Thomas. This offers an essential definition. The genus is the baptized who "professed the faith of Christ". The species difference: the heretic "corrupts its dogmas" while the faithful do not. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has "withstood" Pope Francis "to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal 2:11), but for you, "blame" has nothing to do with it. The act of contention alone defines schism in your mind because you hold Pope Francis as your proximate rule of faith.
The
heresy of Modernism condemned by St. Pius X has as its end the corruption of
dogma. The heresy of Neo-modernism has the same end but employs different means
and is more subtle. While Modernism denies the objective reality of all dogma,
Neo-modernism denies dogma by driving a wedge between the truth (the form) of
dogma and the words (the matter) used to define that truth. It claims that the
truth is revealed by God while the words are a human approximation of that
truth that must be distilled perpetually in a never ending effort to arrive at
a more perfect understanding and expression of God's revelation, that is, dogma
must evolve. Consequently, the Neo-modernist will in dogmatic propositions 1) subjecting
dogma to historical criticism, 2) alter definitions of terms, 3) change
propositions from categorical to non-categorical, and 4) move propositions from
the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience and then
apply the conditions that excuse from complying to laws, commands, injunctions,
precepts, etc. to excuse from conforming the mind to revealed truth.
A
clear example of Neo-modernism in action was the censoring of Fr. Leonard
Feeney for preaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, a thrice
defined dogma of faith. The 1949 Holy Office Letter signed by Cardinal F. Marchetti-Selvaggiani
sent to Cardinal Richard J. Cushing of Boston and subsequently published
by him teaches the novel doctrine of
'salvation by implicit desire'. The Letter teaches that
"good-willed" Jews as Jews,
Hindus as Hindus, Moslems as Moslems, Protestants as Protestants, Orthodox as
Orthodox, etc. have, by virtue of their good-will, an explicit belief in a god
who rewards and punishes thereby demonstrate an implicit desire to be in the
Church. Furthermore, this "implicit desire" to be a member of the
Church is effective for producing a state of grace and ultimate salvation. The
Catholic dogmas that belief in revealed articles of divine faith are necessary
for salvation (i.e. cannot be a heretic), reception of the sacraments are
necessary for salvation (i.e. must be a member of the Church), and being
subject to the Roman pontiff (i.e. cannot be a schismatic) are necessary for
salvation were uniformly reduced to human axioms that need not be taken
literally and, if overly burdensome, can be entirely set aside. This Letter was
eventually added to the 1962 edition of Denzinger's
edited by Fr. Karl Rahner and footnoted in the
Vatican II constitution Lumen Gentium. The new ecclesiology bore its full fruit at
the Prayer Meeting at Assisi where all the participants, including Pope John
Paul II, holding potted plants, prayed to their common god who rewards and
punishes. The only thing lacking was a credo of
implicit faith.
When
you reminded the "Guild Prophets" that schism is a serious matter
because there is "no salvation outside the Catholic Church," it is
not clear to what version of that dogma you actually subscribe. The sorry truth
of the matter is that the Guild Prophets, like yourself, do not take the dogmas
on salvation literally and the common opinion among the Guild Prophets and
their followers, including the SSPX, is that only those who insist that dogmas
actually mean what they say are outside the Church and beyond the pale of
salvation.
You
end up in this mess because you and the Guild Prophets and the SSPX are all
Neo-modernist. None hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. There is of
course a wide variance how liberal or strict a Neo-modernist is in practice but
they all agree in first principles. Archbishop Lefebvre's belief in the
salvation for "good-willed" " Jews as Jews, Hindus as Hindus, Moslems as Moslems,
Protestants as Protestants, Orthodox as Orthodox, etc. is indistinguishable
from John Paul II excepting that John Paul II included "good-willed"
enemies of the Catholic Church, yet John Paul II faithfully followed his
principles to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi while Archbishop Lefebvre recoiled
from it in horror. Some like Karl Rahner believed
that everyone is saved excepting those who have made a fundamental option for
evil. You and the Guild Prophets accept the principle that dogma evolves and
must continually be interpreted by the "living magisterium"
of the pope to discern new and hidden meanings. Pope Francis' new understanding
that capital punishment is intrinsically evil and the eternal punishment of
hell is contrary to the spirit of the gospel and the dignity of the human
person are recent examples of neo-modernist doctrinal development.
You
are standing so close to the heresy of Neo-modernism that you cannot recognize
it. You deny that dogma is the proximate rule of faith and replace divinely
revealed truth with the person of the pope whom you end up divinizing by making
the divine attributes of the Church the personal attributes of the pope. For
you the pope is the primary cause and sign of the unity of the Church. Any
disobedience is schism by definition and therefore, like abortion, schism
becomes a manifest sin. But this is not so! This is a corruption of the
Catholic faith. The primary sign and cause of the unity of the Church is the
faith. St. Peter by and from his profession of faith was made the foundation of
the Church. His authority and its exercise is prescribed by the faith. The pope
is judged by no one excepting if he falls from the faith. Gratian's Decretum also says that the First See is judged by no one
excepting in case of heresy. It is the teaching of popes Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and Pope Innocent III, Si Papa. There is admittedly no
mechanism universally accepted by which a declaration of heresy can be made
against the pope, but for those who keep dogma as their proximate rule of
faith, the storm can be weathered.
Try
looking at the problem from God's perspective. God founded the Catholic Church
and endowed it with the attributes of Infallibility, Indefectibility and
Authority that correspond to the three duties of teaching, sanctifying (the
faithful and correct worship), and governing that Pope Pius X identified in Pascendi. These
are attributes primarily and essentially of God and only attributes of the
Church because the Church is a divine institution. Infallibility is the power
to teach without the possibility of error. The pope is not infallible per se. He stands in potentia to the Church's attribute of
infallibility which he alone can engage in
actu under specific conditions for specific ends.
When the pope teaches infallibly he is engaging the Magisterium
of the Church teaching by God Himself as opposed to teaching by his personal magisterium grounded upon his grace of state. The Magisterium of the Church is one thing and every pope, from
St. Peter to this present day, when teaching by the Magisterium
of the Church is engaging the one divine power. As Pope Pius XI (Divini Illius
Magistri) said, "God Himself made the Church a sharer
in the divine Magisterium and by His divine benefit
unable to be mistaken." It is when the Magisterium
is engaged that we can repeat with Jesus Christ, "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he
that despiseth you, despiseth
me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth
him that sent me" (Luke 10:26).
Indefectibility
is the power to sanctify the faithful. It is not as many theologians have
taught a negative infallibility that preserves the pope from all error in the
exercise of his personal magisterium. Indefectibility
is a divine guarantee that the Church will never fail in the use of the
"received and approved" rites to offer fitting worship to God and
sanctify his faithful. The "received and approved rites solemnly used in
the administration of the sacraments" was dogmatized at Trent and
incorporated in the Tridentine Profession of Faith.
Any pope who would overthrow the "received and approved" rites of the
Church is by definition a heretic, and thus, lacking charity, attacks the peace
of the Church, the very cause of schism.
Authority
is the power to govern delegated from God to His Church for the ends of
salvation by teaching truth, proper worship of God, and sanctifying the
faithful. No pope, cardinal, bishop, or priest can legitimately exercise
authority to teach error, corrupt worship, deny the sacraments, or impede the
salvation of anyone. The faithful are
obligated to resist any unjust abuse of authority because there is an
obligation to do good and avoid evil. You may choose to personally suffer
injustice but you are not permitted to ignore the injustice visited upon
others. The salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church, the greatest
good. The faithful are also obligated in avoiding evil not to be an accessory
of others' sins either by counsel, command, consent, concealment,
participation, praise or flattery, or defense of the crime. You often
rhetorically ask if we are tainted by a particular pope's or bishop's sins.
Your question implies that we are not, but that is not entirely true. Let me
relate one example, the Catholic faith in the True Presence (the dogma of
Transubstantiation) is believed by about 28% of all Novus Ordo
Catholics as determined by multiple choice questionnaires from a PEW poll in
2019. It is 26% for all Catholics under 40 years of age and 63% of those who go
to Mass at least once each week.
The
USCCB was scandalized by these result so they conducted their own poll in 2023
which focused on regular Novus Ordo attendees and
found that 66% believed in the True Presence. They criticized the PEW results
on the grounds that PEW used theological precise language which apparently
confused modern adult Catholics. The USSCB poll gave fewer options in the
questionnaire and used multiple descriptive questions. They then took
"each respondent's answers collectively" to arrive at a gestalt
impression that they in fact believed what the Church teaches. Still a 66%
belief in the True Presence by regular attendees at the Novus Ordo service is pathetic. The bishop's own poll
demonstrates that most modern Catholics are unable to articulate the truths of
our faith beyond vague notions that approximate orthodoxy.
The
USCCB has not proposed any cause or solution for the shameful ignorance. Let me
suggest one. There is every right to believe that an important cause of this
collapse in faith is the Indult requested by and granted to the USCCB by the
Vatican that grants the privilege to set aside the immemorial Catholic norm for
receiving Communion and allow the novel practice of distributing Communion in
the hand, standing, by lay ministers.
The USCCB has no right to request and the Vatican has no right to grant
any Indult that damages the faith by lessening the belief in the True Presence.
This is not the exercise of the delegated Authority of God for the salvation of
souls but the human abuse of authority that leads to the loss of faith and loss
of souls. Those that participate in this are tainted by the sins of their
ecclesiastical superiors by their willing participation and silence. The two
greatest test by God for His creatures, Lucifer and the angelic hosts and the
Jews at the time of Christ, required the faithful to act in opposition God's
constituted authority. God takes the virtue of Religion seriously and you will
not be able to excuse yourself for just following orders. But you seem
incapable of doing that because the pope is your proximate rule of faith. For
you he is the sign and of unity and therefore any disobedience is schism. You
would side with the Pharisees against the man born blind who was excommunicated
from the Temple for professing his faith in Jesus Christ.
Remember that without the
faith there is no charity. Without charity there is no unity with the pope or
the faithful. St.
Thomas not only says that direct denial of dogma is the essence of heresy but
anything that can lead to the denial of dogma is heretical. Furthermore, heresy
can be expressed in actions alone without words. The heresy of Iconoclasm is
the destruction of images of the faith. The immemorial ecclesiastical
traditions that you treat as matters of mere discipline subject to the free and
independent will of the pope are not in fact merely matters of discipline at
all but rather images that are necessary attributes of the faith alone by which
it can be known and communicated to others. These traditions were incorporated
in the Tridentine Profession of Faith. It is the
reason why Iconoclasm is a heresy. The example given above of standing to
receive communion in the hand from a lay woman signifies a belief in the nature
of the Blessed Sacrament that is contrary to what is signified by kneeling to
receive communion on the tongue administered by a priest with paten and linen
cloth over the altar rail. These acts signify a different belief in the nature
of Blessed Sacrament and the Indult that permitted the current practice is a
form of Iconoclasm.
You
said introducing your video against Archbishop Viganò:
"What
did Jesus Christ have to say about the Latin Mass? Nothing. What did Jesus
Christ have to say about unity? He said a lot!"
From
what has been said these questions can be better answered. Jesus had plenty to
say about unity but that unity is grounded upon faith and forged by charity.
Regarding worship what is clear from all scripture and tradition is that God is
the author of all right worship. Even the word "orthodoxy" translated
into Slavanic literally means "right
worship". Heretics cannot worship God because they cannot worship "in
Spirit and Truth". The "received and approved" immemorial Roman
rite of Mass was dogmatized at the Council of Trent and any pastor of the
churches whomsoever who wants to change them into other new rights is
anathematized. The "received and approved" rites are icons, images of
the faith by which it is known and communicated to others. These images are
immemorial because their exact origin is unknown. They are the work of God and
not man. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has called for
the restoration of these images against the neo-iconoclasts. This is the real
irony: you Dr. Jones have been imposing traditional meanings on the Novus Ordo images since Vatican II because you hold the pope as
your proximate rule of faith and not Catholic dogma. The meanings of these
Novus Ordo images are for you a "category of the mind"
because the images themselves do not have a natural referent to Catholic truth
that you impose on them. A Catholic does not receive the faith from these
images. For Catholics formed by these
images they are "categories
of reality" and the reality formed is not the Catholic faith. And
here is an even greater irony: Iconoclasm is a heresy instigated entirely by Jews.
This is evident from the writings of St. John of Damascene on Holy Images as
well as the writings of other Church Fathers he quotes. You are the author of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and the
Neo-iconoclasm since Vatican II is entirely lost on y0u!
Unless
a child has been formed in the Catholic faith by his parents using traditional
images, pre-Vatican II catechism for children, daily Rosary, homeschooling, and
other traditional images in the home like the Crucifix, the Sacred Heart and
the Immaculate Heart of Mary, he will not learn the Catholic faith. It has been
twenty-two years since the publication of Kenneth Jones, Index of Leading
Catholic Indicators and there are no indications of any reversal of the trends.
Yet, with all this staring you in the face, you said in an interview with an
Irish interviewer that you opposed the Latin Mass because it divided
conservatives and diluted their united influence. Influence for what? If the
pope is the proximate rule of faith why bother about "influencing" anyone
about anything? What Jesus Christ had to say about unity begins with the faith.
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who believes not will
be condemned." "If anyone preaches a gospel different than what you
have received, let him be anathema. I say again, etc." When St. Peter fell
from the faith with the he was confronted by St. Paul with
what? The dogma determined at the Council of Jerusalem where it was declared
that the Holy Ghost had spoken. You would have joined the dissimulation and
accused St. Paul of schism.
You often cite Sun Tze's Art of War
dictum concerning the necessity of knowing your enemy and knowing
yourself. SunTze
says that if you know yourself but you do not know your enemy and will lose as
often as you win. He does not say anything about the converse where you know
your enemy but are ignorant about yourself. I would guess that in this case the
losses would far surpass the victories. The very heart of our culture war is
the conflict between Satan and his followers contending against God and His
Church. You know the enemy, but I contend that you do not know the faith and
the Church, and therefore you do not know what you are defending. You are
corrupting the Catholic Faith and no matter how well you know the enemy you
will lose more often than win. By making the pope your proximate rule of faith,
you are unable to distinguish the moral manifest imputability
of abortion as distinguished from schism. For the same reason you do not see
the relationship between schism and heresy saying in your recent video "There
is no point of debating doctrine with a schismatic because that is not the
issue."
As St. Thomas says, himself quoting St. Augustine, "all heretics are
schismatics," so doctrine is materially the issue for "all heretics
are schismatics" and since Vatican I's dogmatic declarations, all
schismatics are heretics. Without the
faith there is no charity so it is just as pointless to say to you, 'There is
no point in discussing schism with heretics because schism is not an issue'!
From the perspective of a
Catholic faithful to tradition you have added important historical information
regarding the enemy but have added little to the essential outlines and even
less toward knowing the faith and the Church. In the 1970s a modestly educated
Catholic trying to keep our traditions knew the enemy and Church better than
you. From the common literature available and circulating in traditional
communities he knew about the meaning of Catholic culture and civilization from
Dr. Christopher Dawson. He knew from Dr. John Senior that western culture
formally known as Christendom was grounded upon and developed from the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass and the True Presence from which developed all western
music, art, architecture, poetry, literature, social and political structure.
He knew about the enemy from Maurice Pinay, Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Fr.
Charles E. Coughlin, and especially from Fr. Denis Fahey. Fr. Fahey who wrote
about the Jews, the Talmud, Kabbalah, Free Masonry,
organized naturalism, the evils of usury, monetary and banking financial scams
in their never ending purpose to corrupt the faith and destroy the Church. Fr.
Fahey importantly provided the necessary means to combat the enemy through the
social kingship of Jesus Christ. The writings of Historical revisionism were
common knowledge in traditional Catholic circles including the origins of
Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, modern wars, the Holocaust, and political
assassinations and more. You were addressing none of these issues in the 1970s.
The common aphorism is that
the popular style is invisible to its contemporaries. Neo-modernism is the
popular style. Neo-modernism is the common heresy underlying the Vatican II
Church. It was in fact the purpose of the Council announced by Pope John XXIII
at the opening ceremony when he said the truths of the faith are one thing and
how they are expressed another. The Holy
Ghost, unlike the Council of Jerusalem and all other ecumenical councils, was
never invoked. The Council, as Pope Benedict/Ratzinger
said remained at a modest pastoral level defining no Catholic doctrine or moral
truth. The Vatican II council has more in common with the Synod on Synodality than the all the previous ecumenical councils
because it never rose above churchmen teaching by their grace of state. It was
from the beginning to the end an extra-ordinary exercise of the ordinary magisterium of churchmen relying upon their grace of state.
Its erroneous and
ambiguous statements have no impact upon the Church's attribute of
Infallibility so you do not have to keep defending it to save appearances. The
Council did have a real purpose. Pope Benedict XVI in his last address to the clergy of Rome in
December before his resignation said that up to that present time we had seen
the 'Council of the Media' but hereafter
we will see the 'True Council' in all its glory.
Pope
Francis is the "true council" and you must sense this by the way you
have defended Fiducia Supplicans. You
said, "By issuing Fiducia Supplicans,
with its traditional affirmation of the Church’s teaching on marriage, the
Vatican cut the ground from under the feet of those Catholics who wanted to use
the synod to promote gay marriage." You enroll Fr. Brian Harrison into
your camp saying: "Father Brian Harrison defended Fiducia Supplicans in spite of the fact that (he said that the) declaration is
'scandalous in the theological sense of the word, i.e., it is apt to become an
occasion of sin for many by causing serious confusion about basic Christian moral
teaching and shaking some Catholics’ confidence in the papacy.'" The pope
is your proximate rule of faith so somehow everything he says has to be
doctrinally and morally correct or at least free from error. The absurdity is
lost on you. It is impossible for anything to be "scandalous... apt to
become an occasion of sin for many... causing
serious confusion about basic Christian moral teaching and shaking ...
confidence in the papacy" and at the same time, be an "affirmation of
the Church's teaching on marriage...
(that) cut the ground from under the feet of those Catholics who wanted
to use the synod to promote gay marriage." This is an overthrow of the
First Principle of the Understanding from which all right thinking follows.
Michael
Hoffman is correct in saying you are asking the wrong questions. Unfortunately,
the "Guild Prophets" were asking the wrong questions as well. The
sacrament of marriage is contracted by a baptized man and woman in the public
exchange of their vows. The Church provides the blessing and canonically
requires the priest as a witness, however, Catholic couples can and have
historically married in front of witness alone without the priest if the priest
could not be obtained within a period of thirty days. With Fiducia Supplicans as the new standard, a
married couple and a homosexual couple can approach
the same priest asking for the Church's blessing and he will say,
"Liturgical or non-liturgical"? Marriage is the metaphor used by God
to describe His relationship with each of the faithful both individually and
the Church collectively. To so much as discuss the qualities of Holy Matrimony
instituted by God in the same document with Sodomites taints by association and
is a gross profanation of what is holy.
The
damage that will follow from Fiducia Supplicans is analogous in some respects to Humanae Vitae. The nature of a thing is known by what it does and what
can be done to it and not by what it claims to be or what it claims to be
doing. Humanae Vitae of Paul VI was criticized in an
article by Mr. John Galvin and published in 2002 in the Latin Mass Magazine by
its editor, Fr. James McLucas. Fr. McLucas said that never before had he
experienced such virulent and unremitted animosity from conservative Catholics
in his life for any other published editorial. Mr. Galvin argued that Humanae Vitae ultimately undermined Catholic
teaching on the evils of artificial contraception by 1) opening to theological
examination a closed moral question, 2) doing so over an extended period of
time (several years), and most importantly, 3) while endorsing the correct
minority opinion published by the theological ad hoc committee that artificial contraception was an intrinsically
evil act, it did so without the minority opinions theological arguments on
which that judgment was grounded which were God's revealed truth and the
constant tradition of the Church. The majority opinion of the committee
endorsed the use of artificial contraception based upon subjective personalist arguments. Paul VI inverted the personalist subjective arguments used in the majority
opinion and used them as the theological grounds to defend the immorality of
artificial birth control. These personalist
subjective arguments were wholly inadequate to the task of defending Catholic truth.
In the end what followed the publication of Humanae Vitae was a collapse among Catholics in following Catholic moral
norms governing the sexual act in marriage and that collapse continues to this
day.
A
priest in my diocese many years ago was dismissed from his duties as assistant
pastor for preaching a sermon on the sinfulness of artificial contraception. If
you want the truth, the fact is that Humanae Vitae
undermined Catholic morality by faint praise for truth, sloppy theology, and
equivocal language. What
it did should be understood as what it intended to do. A PEW poll from
2016 found only 13% of Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week say
artificial contraception is sinful. Fiducia Supplicans will do far more damage. The 2016 PEW poll reported
that only 50% of regular church attending Catholics "see homosexual
behavior as morally wrong." Now that homosexuals can get
"non-liturgical" blessings you will see that number decline until
sermons against sodomy are as rare as sermons against artificial contraception.
But all this will be as invisible to you because Fiducia Supplicans as you naively say, is an "affirmation
of the Church's teaching on marriage...
(that) cut the ground from under the feet of those Catholics who wanted
to use the synod to promote gay marriage."
Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò has called into question the
papacy of Pope Francis. Unlike sedevacantists (and sedeprivationists) he does not hold that Pope Francis ipso facto lost the office by heresy.
This doctrinal sedevacantism follows from their
believing, like you, that the pope is the proximate rule of faith. Unlike you,
who 'strain the gnat and swallow the camel' defending the pope, they remove him
from office. This version of sedevacantism is
hopeless because it expects everyone of
the faithful to independently impose ipso
facto penalties with an unauthorized "extra-judicial" processes.
They all want to be the "lord of the harvest" and end up in a church
of their own making that is not only missing a necessary attribute of the
Catholic Church, but has not the material or instrumental means to ever correct
the problem. They are permanently in a church of their own making with no back
door.
Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò questions the papacy of Pope
Francis on two grounds.[iii] The papacy is an office created by God
and no man has the authority to change the nature of the office. The
resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is questionable because there is evidence that
he did not resign the office completely. If he did not resign the papacy
entirely, he did not resign it at all.
Examining the motive of the
resignation of Pope Benedict XVI calls into question whether or not it was
forced upon him. The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunications (SWIFT), which is a member-owned cooperative providing
secure messaging for international transfers of money between participating
banks, froze all Vatican financial transactions. The journalist Marco Tosatti reported on April 12, 2020:
Few days before Pope
Benedict XVI unexpectedly and inexplicably resigned in February 2013, the
Vatican Bank (IOR) had been suddenly excluded by SWIFT (the international
system of bank identification codes). By this action, it was impossible for the
Vatican to carry out any international financial transactions, and the Church
was essentially treated as if it were a terrorist state like Iran. This
economic destruction of the Vatican had been long and well prepared ...
And then, as soon as the
resignation of Benedict XVI was announced, the SWIFT system was unblocked for
the Vatican, without waiting for the election of his successor.
And so we see that Benedict
XVI was blackmailed by means of SWIFT, although we do not know from where it
originated. The deeper reasons underlying this story have never been clarified,
but it is clear that SWIFT intervened directly in the affairs of the Church.
Without SWIFT there is no
other means to transfer money. The freeze was lifted within hours of the
resignation of Pope Benedict. Does
financial blackmail force the resignation and then determine its character?
Following his resignation
as pope in 2013, Benedict XVI became the first pope to step down from office
since the resignation of Gregory XII in 1415. But unlike his predecessors who
resigned, he continued to live in the Vatican and to be adorned with the
clothing and regalia of a pope. Archbishop Georg Gänswein,
the private secretary of Pope Benedict XVI, said after his resignation that
Benedict would continue to fulfill the spiritual duties of the papacy. Journalist
Edward Pentin reported in July 8, 2017 (National Catholic Register) that Gänswein said that Francis and Benedict are not two popes
"in competition" with one another, but represent one
"expanded" Petrine Office with an
"active" member and a "contemplative" one. He said that
Benedict had not abandoned the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century
but rather sought to continue his papacy in a more appropriate way given his
frailty and that "Therefore,
from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before. It is and
remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that
Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional
pontificate." This division of the papacy is impossible for the papacy
is of divine institution.
In light of his decision to
resign, Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, the designer of
the Benedict's papal coat of arms, suggested the need to create a new coat of
arms for the former pope. According
to the cardinal, the coat of arms of the retired pope should retain all the
symbolic elements found on the shield, but all the external elements, such as
the two crossed keys and the mitre, should be removed
or modified as they represent an office he no longer holds.
.png)
Cordero presented a
hypothetical design shown above of how he believed the new coat of arms of the
pope emeritus should look, replacing the bishop's mitre
with a white galero with 15 tassels, removing the two
crossed keys, and placing the pope's episcopal motto
"Cooperatores Veritatis"
below the shield (WIKI). The
new coat of arms was offered to but never adopted by Benedict. He
continued to use his papal coat of arms for the rest of his life and it is the
papal coat of arms which was also displayed by his catafalque during his
funeral at St. Peter's.
The second ground Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò questions the papacy of Pope
Francis is that the office Pope Francis accepted is not the office of the
papacy either by entering into the office as a co-papist with Benedict, or
agreeing to accept the duties of an office the nature of which he rejects,
specifically, the papal office exercises universal jurisdiction of the One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. There is evidence
Pope Francis denies the universal jurisdiction of the pope by his documents and
preliminary meetings on the Synod on Synodality.
The Vatican
published, with the direct approval of Pope Francis, on June 13, 2024 from the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity headed by Cardinal
Kurt Koch, a working document entitled, "The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in Ecumenical Dialogue and Responses to the
Encyclical Ut Unum Sint."
The document identifies theological problems surrounding papal primacy taken
from ecumenical dialogue and then provides possible solutions "for a
ministry of unity in a reunited Church," including "a differentiated
exercise of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome" that recommends "a synodal exercise" of papal primacy. It includes the
recommendation from the Orthodox representative who said that "any
restoration of full communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will
require, on both sides, a strengthening of synodal
structures and a renewed understanding of a universal primacy – both serving
communion among the churches." The document specifically proposes "a
Catholic ‘re-reception’, ‘re-interpretation’,‘official
interpretation’, ‘updated commentary’ or even ‘rewording’ of the teachings of
Vatican I." It calls for a "rewording of the dogma of papal
infallibility."
The document, in
perfect Neo-modernist form of doctrinal development, said that the decrees of
Vatican I "were deeply conditioned by their historical context" and
suggested that "the Catholic Church should look for new expressions and
vocabulary faithful to the original intention but integrated into a communio ecclesiology and adapted to the
current cultural and ecumenical context."
Cardinal Mario Grech, the secretary-general of the General Secretariat of
the Synod on Synodality, said that this is a
"convenient time" for the document so it can be used for the second
session of the Synod beginning this fall (2024). He said that in the first
session theologians were asked to study "the way in which a renewed
understanding of the episcopate within a synodal Church
affects the ministry of the Bishop of Rome and the role of the Roman
Curia." In a Catholic News Service article June 14, 2024 Grech said, "If there is a place, a context where
there can be - and where there is - seen
a new mode of exercising primacy, it is precisely in the synodal
process... Pope Francis 'affirmed the necessity and urgency of thinking about a
conversion of the papacy.'" "Conversion of the papacy"? And we
thought Francis hated proselytism. We will soon see the fruit of this
theological speculation. Dogma for faithful Catholics is the end of theological
speculation, but for the Neo-modernist it is a new beginning.
Cardinal George Pell in his last
publication before his unexpected death describes the Synod on Synodality as being both doctrinally and morally a
corruption of the Catholic faith and undermining of the universal jurisdiction
exercised by the papacy. Its relator-general, leading
organizer and one of the nine "Council of Cardinals" advisors
appointed by Pope Francis, Jesuit Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, according to Cardinal Pell, rejects the Catholic
teaching on homosexuality on the grounds that they "contradict modern
science" and is open to the eventual ordination of women. This should not
surprise anyone. In an interview published in the German magazine Herder Korrespondenz, Hollerich said
that his experience in Japan changed him profoundly:
"I am a bishop who
comes from Japan, and I think many in Luxembourg have not yet fully understood
that. In Japan, I got to know a different way of thinking. The Japanese don’t
think in terms of the European logic of opposites. We say: It is black,
therefore it is not white. The Japanese say: It is white, but maybe it is also
black. You can combine opposites in Japan without changing your point of
view."
The entire process of the
Synod employs encounter group psychology techniques that were used in Pope
Francis' own formation in the 1960s and 70s to forge correct group-think in
forming a pre-directed artificial consensus. From Cardinal Pell's analysis it
will take real magic to produce an orthodox interpretation. The Synod on Synodality is on course to overturn papal primacy
altogether so the very notion of schism will only refer to those who believe in
papal primacy with divine and Catholic faith as a revealed truth of God, like
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. But if Fiducia Supplicans
was no problem, the Synod on Synodality with small
bites, well chewed might be eventually digested by those holding the pope as their
proximate rule of faith. Archbishop Viganò may or may
not be correct in his opinion regarding Pope Francis' papacy but unlike other sedevacantists, this problem will be moot with the death of
Francis when God takes him to his eternal reward.
So you and the sedevacantists
hold in common the belief that the pope is the proximate rule of faith. Your
disagreement concerns what to do about it. The "Guild Prophets" are
in the same boat but now thinking about jumping ship. Both of you offer loosing
propositions because you do not know the faith. You are not protecting the
Church by trying to bend everything the pope says into a tortured 'orthodoxy'.
It is not your duty to conform to the pope when the pope does not conform to
the faith. It does not require any careful sifting of Pope Francis to find
direct heresy. Pope Francis has directly offered his unqualified endorsement of
the Lutheran doctrine of Justification condemned at the Council of Trent.
Francis said:
“I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were
not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in
that time, if we read the story of the Pastor, a German Lutheran who then
converted when he saw reality – he became Catholic – in that time, the Church
was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there
was worldliness, attachment to money, to power… and this he protested. Then he
was intelligent and took some steps forward justifying, and because he did
this. And today Lutherans
and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification.
On this point, which is very important, he did not err. He made a medicine for
the Church….”
Pope Francis, public interview, June 26, 2016
Excerpt from Exsurge Domine:
Moreover, because the preceding
errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther,
we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the
writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other
language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be
regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of
the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above
penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print,
publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any
way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly
or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their
own homes or in other public or private places.....
Therefore we can, without
any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and
damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic
with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and
censures......
Therefore let Martin
himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him,
through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the
upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished,
know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the
peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly
to the Father. ....
If, however, this Martin,
his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should
stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned
period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic
after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin,
his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in
Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and
offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian
Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics.
Pope Leo X, 1520, Exsurge Domine,
Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther
The condemnations of Luther
from the Council of Trent are much stronger and more authoritative. This
quotation from Pope Leo X is only to demonstrate how Pope Francis as a
"supporter, adherent and accomplice" of Luther shares in his condemnation
and that applies to every Catholic today who with Francis agrees with the
heretical doctrine of justification taught by Martin Luther. While Pope Leo X
called Luther's doctrine a "deadly poison.... a pernicious poison" ,
Pope Francis calls it "medicine for the Church." As St. Benedict
would say, "Drink your own poison." Those who hold Pope Francis as
the proximate rule of faith instead of dogma are confronted by the division you
described to the Guild Prophets about Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: 'You are either in the Church with
Francis or outside of the Church with Viganò'. That
is an utterly false alternative offered to faithful Catholics. Or rather, it is
a limited choice among those who make the pope their proximate rule faith and
have their "own appetite ... united
with the appetite of Pope Francis." This is the union of the damned who
have no charity and no peace.
Unless you get first things
first you will lose more often than win. The Culture War requires you to know
yourself and this self knowledge requires a proper understanding of the correct
hierarchical ordering of the truths of faith, doctrines, dogmas, and images by
which the faith is known and communicated to others. Only those who keep the
faith can have charity. As long as you want unity without charity you will have
neither. Which, by the way, is why modern ecumenism is utterly heretical. It
seeks unity in accommodation of error which destroys charity. And thus we
arrive at the hoped for unity of Pope Francis who said:
"All religions are
paths to reach God. They are—to make a comparison—like different languages,
different dialects, to get there. But God is God for everyone. If you start to
fight saying 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours
isn't', where will this lead us? There is only one God, and each of us has a
language to arrive at God. Some are Sheik, Muslim, Hindu, Christians; they are
different ways to God."
Pope Francis, Singapore,
addressing children on September 10, 2024
You
have said and defended repeatedly the indefensible Vatican II attribution that
everyone who worships one God worships the same God. So this is your new
church. Unity without charity where everyone can find salvation except those
who hold dogma as their proximate rule of faith and insist upon obeying God
rather than man, like Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Should I ask: What god do you worship? For those that make
the divine attributes of the Church the personal attributes of the pope have
divinized the pope and are guilty of idolatry, and so, we should not be
surprised to find them seeking unity with other idolaters. It was Walter Mayr, in Der Spiegel in December
23, 2o16 (Criticism of Francis "The Pope is
boiling") reported this attribution to Pope Francis: "It is not to be excluded that I will
enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church."
Pope Francis is a heretic and therefore, a schismatic. Mr. Mayr
may prove to be the greater prophet than Francis when he said, "The Pope
is boiling". Those that follow him as their proximate rule of faith will
merit the same reward.
David M. Drew
York, PA
