Catholic Family News and the 100% Challenge
After the passing of John Vennari earlier this year, the new editor of the semi-traditionalist, recognize-and-resist flagship publication Catholic Family News (CFN) is Matt Gaspers. With Gaspers taking over the reins, CFN completely redesigned its web site, and the new version was launched just a few weeks ago. Perusing the revamped CFN web site, we noticed that its "Online Store" page says the following: "Don't miss a single issue of Catholic Family News, the monthly journal 100% faithful to the Catholic Faith of all time, and to Pope St. Pius X's battle against Modernism!" So CFN advertises itself as "100% faithful to the Catholic Faith of all time", by which it means, of course, the Roman Catholic Faith as the world knew it before the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. But is this true? Does CFN and, by extension, the entire recognize-and-resist crowd that takes the same theological position (such as the Society of St. Pius X), truly adhere to the Roman Catholic religion as it was known until, roughly, the Second Vatican Council? Testing this claim is the purpose of this post. Does Catholic Family News teach, defend, and safeguard the following doctrines of the holy Catholic Church, all of which were promulgated before Vatican II? In chronological order...
Pope Pelagius II
(For) you know that the Lord proclaims in the Gospel: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I have asked the Father for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren [Lk 22:31-32]. Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for PETER alone and wished the others to be confirmed by him; and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest, was committed the care of feeding the sheep [cf. Jn 21:15ff.]; and to him also He handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it [cf. Mt 16:16ff.]. But, because the enemy of the human race even until the end of the world does not abstain from sowing cockle [Mt 13:25] over the good seed in the Church of the Lord, and therefore, lest perchance anyone with malignant zeal should by the instigation of the devil presume to make some alterations in and to draw conclusions regarding the integrity of the faith — and (lest) by reason of this your minds perhaps may seem to be disturbed, we have judged it necessary through our present epistle to exhort with tears that you should return to the heart of your mother the Church, and to send you satisfaction with regard to the integrity of faith…. (Apostolic Letter Quod ad Dilectionem; Denz. 246)
Pope St. Leo IX
The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome; thus Truth itself promises, through whom are true, whatsoever things are true: "The gates of hell will not prevail against it" [Mt 16:18]. The same Son declares that He obtained the effect of this promise from the Father by prayers, by saying to Peter: "Simon, behold Satan etc." [Lk 23:31]. Therefore, will there be anyone so foolish as to dare to regard His prayer as in anyway vain whose being willing is being able? By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, been strengthened? (Apostolic Letter In Terra Pax; Denz. 351)
Pope Boniface VIII
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Bull Unam Sanctam)
Pope Pius VII
From these events men should realize that all attempts to overthrow the "House of God" are in vain. For this is the Church founded on Peter, "Rock," not merely in name but in truth. Against this "the gates of hell will not prevail" [Mt 16:18] "for it is founded on a rock" [Mt 7:25; Lk 6:48]. There has never been an enemy of the Christian religion who was not simultaneously at wicked war with the See of Peter, since while this See remained strong the survival of the Christian religion was assured. As St. Irenaeus proclaims openly to all, "by the order and succession of the Roman pontiffs the tradition from the Apostles in the Church and the proclamation of the truth has come down to us. And this is the fullest demonstration that it is the one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church until now since the time of the Apostles and has been handed on in truth" [Adversus haereses, bk. 3, chap. 3]. (Encyclical Diu Satis, n. 6)
Pope Leo XII
But if one wishes to search out the true source of all the evils which We have already lamented, as well as those which We pass over for the sake of brevity, he will surely find that from the start it has ever been a dogged contempt for the Church's authority. The Church, as St. Leo the Great teaches, in well-ordered love accepts Peter in the See of Peter, and sees and honors Peter in the person of his successor the Roman pontiff. Peter still maintains the concern of all pastors in guarding their flocks, and his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir. In Peter then, as is aptly remarked by the same holy Doctor, the courage of all is strengthened and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the constancy conferred on Peter through Christ is conferred on the apostles through Peter. It is clear that contempt of the Church's authority is opposed to the command of Christ and consequently opposes the apostles and their successors, the Church's ministers who speak as their representatives. He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me [Lk 10:16]; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches [1 Tim 3:15]. In reference to these words St. Augustine says: "Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father." Therefore, venerable brothers, keep all these words in mind and often reflect on them. Teach your people great reverence for the Church's authority which has been directly established by God. Do not lose heart. With St. Augustine We say that "all around us the waters of the flood are roaring, that is, the multiplicity of conflicting teaching. We are not in the flood but it surrounds us. We are hard pressed but not overwhelmed, buffeted but not submerged." (Encyclical Ubi Primum, nn. 22-23)
Pope Pius IX
All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 22:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians. Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors. (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17) This chair [of Peter] is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered. Every church must agree with it because of its greater preeminence — that is, those people who are in all respects faithful…. Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees. (Encyclical Inter Multiplices, nn. 1,7) Nor will We permit anything against the sanctity of the oath by which We were bound when, however undeservingly, We ascended the supreme seat of the prince of the apostles, the citadel and bulwark of the Catholic faith. (Encyclical Qui Nuper, n. 3) ...[I]t is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Apostolic Letter Tuas Libenter, Denz. 1684) Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 5) Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3) So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: 'The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [Mt 16:18], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.'… To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world … referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing…. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Lk 22:32]. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell. (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4) The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of "Catholic." The originators and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error…. But to prove that they are Catholics, the neo-schismatics appeal to what they call a declaration of faith, published by them on February 6, 1870, which they insist disagrees in no regard with the Catholic faith. However it has never been possible to prove oneself a Catholic by affirming those statements of the faith which one accepts and keeping silence on those doctrines which one decides not to profess. But without exception, all doctrines which the Church proposes must be accepted, as the history of the Church at all times bears witness. That the statement of faith which they published was deceitful and sophistical is proved also by the fact that they rejected the declaration or profession of faith which was proposed to them on Our authority in accordance with custom. … For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church. As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men. This fact was well known to the illustrious bishops of the Eastern Churches. Hence at the Council of Constantinople held in the year 536, Mennas the bishop of that city affirmed openly with the approval of the fathers, "We follow and obey the Apostolic See, as Your Charity realizes and we consider those in communion with it to be in communion with us, and we too condemn the men condemned by it." Even more clearly and emphatically St. Maximus, abbot of Chrysopolis, and a confessor of the faith, in referring to Pyrrhus the Monothelite, declared: "If he wants neither to be nor to be called a heretic, he does not need to satisfy random individuals of his orthodoxy, for this is excessive and unreasonable. But just as all men have been scandalized at him since the chief man was scandalized, so also when that one has been satisfied, all men will doubtless be satisfied. He should hasten to satisfy the Roman See before all others. For when this See has been satisfied, all men everywhere will join in declaring him pious and orthodox. For that man wastes his words who thinks that men like me must be persuaded and beguiled when he has not yet satisfied and beseeched the blessed Pope of the holy Roman Church. From the incarnate word of God Himself as well as from the conclusions and sacred canons of all holy councils, the Apostolic See has been granted the command, authority and power of binding and loosing for all God's holy churches in the entire world." For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared — and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later — "that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries." This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For "the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment." The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind. These statements were scarcely in any way different from some of John Wyclif's which had previously been condemned by the Council of Constance and [Pope] Martin V. Through human weakness a person could be unjustly punished with censure by his prelate. But it is still necessary, as Our predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned, "for a bishop's subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, develops out of the pride of heated reproof." But if one should be afraid even of an unjust condemnation by one's bishop, what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against their bishop and this Apostolic See and tearing to pieces as they are now doing by a new schism the seamless garment of Christ, which is the Church? … But the neo-schismatics say that it was not a case of doctrine but of discipline, so the name and prerogatives of Catholics cannot be denied to those who object. Our Constitution Reversurus, published on July 12, 1867, answers this objection. We do not doubt that you know well how vain and worthless this evasion is. For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank. Since the faction from Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority. For the Church consists of the people in union with the priest, and the flock following its shepherd. Consequently the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church. Furthermore, as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France, discipline is often closely related to doctrine and has a great influence in preserving its purity. In fact, in many instances, the holy Councils have unhesitatingly cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline. But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since "every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church." Indeed they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed in the Patriarchate of Armenia. Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Teaching of this kind is heretical, and not just since the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council: the Catholic Church has always considered it such and abhorred it. Thus the bishops at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon clearly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly requested from Our predecessor St. Leo confirmation and support for their decrees, even those which concerned discipline. … Accordingly, then, unless they abandon the unchanging and unbroken tradition of the Church which is so clearly confirmed by testimonies of the Fathers, the neo-schismatics can in no way convince themselves that they are Catholics even if they declare themselves such. If We did not thoroughly know the clever and subtle deceits of heretics, it would be incomprehensible that the Ottoman regime still regards as Catholics people it knows to be cut off from the Catholic Church by Our judgment and authority. For if the Catholic religion is to continue safe and free in the Ottoman dominion as the Emperor has decreed, then the essence of this religion should also be allowed, for instance the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. Most men feel that the Church's supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not. But the neo schismatics declare that they do not oppose the Catholic Church's principles in the least. Their sole aim is to protect the rights of their churches and their nation and even the rights of their supreme Emperor; they falsely allege that We have infringed these rights. By this means, they fearlessly make us responsible for the present disorder. Exactly in this way did the Acacian schismatics act towards Our predecessor St. Gelasius. And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius [!], also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy. For as the same holy Pontiff Gelasius wrote to the Emperor Anastasius on this matter, "a frequent characteristic of sick people is to reproach the doctors who recall them to health by appropriate measures rather than agree to desist from and condemn their own harmful desires." These appear to be the main grounds on which the neo-schismatics gain their support and solicit the patronage of powerful men for their cause, most wicked as it is. Lest the faithful be led into error, We must deal with these grounds more fully than if We merely had to refute unjust accusations. (Encyclical Quartus Supra, nn. 6-10, 12-13, 15-16) But you, dearly beloved Sons, remember that in all that concerns the faith, morals, and government of the Church, the words which Christ said of Himself: "he that gathereth not with me scattereth" [Mt 12:30], can be applied to the Roman Pontiff who holds the place of God on earth. Ground your whole wisdom therefore, in an absolute obedience and a joyous and constant adherence to this Chair of Peter. Thus, animated by the same spirit of faith, you will all be perfect in one manner of thinking and judging, you will strengthen this unity which we must oppose to the enemies of the Church…. (Apostolic Letter Per Tristissima; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 419) What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? Again, does not the authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, — a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith? …In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema. (Encyclical Quae in Patriarchatu [Sept. 1, 1876], nn. 23-24; in Acta Sanctae Sedis X [1877], pp. 3-37; English taken from Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 433-434.)
Pope Leo XIII
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. …[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed. (Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua, 1885) In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith." But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See. And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live. (Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24) From this text [Mt 16:18] it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. How could he fulfil this office without the power of commanding, forbidding, and judging, which is properly called jurisdiction? It is only by this power of jurisdiction that nations and commonwealths are held together. A primacy of honour and the shadowy right of giving advice and admonition, which is called direction, could never secure to any society of men unity or strength. The words – and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. "What is the it?" (writes Origen). "Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail" (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. "For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built 'His house upon a rock,' cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it" (Ibid.). Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power. He invested him, therefore, with the needful authority; since the right to rule is absolutely required by him who has to guard human society really and effectively.... Union with the Roman See of Peter is … always the public criterion of a Catholic …. "You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held." (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, nn. 12-13) …the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling? Blessed be the strength of his arm and the multitude of his mercies! (Allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 349.) 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 Saviour, 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 have 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. (Apostolic Letter Annum Ingressi) This is Our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate. (Allocution for the 25th Anniversary of his Election, Feb. 20, 1903; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 653)
Pope St. Pius X
In fact, only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine, law, and end in the midst of the flood of corruption and lapses of her members. Her doctrine, law and end have produced an abundant harvest. The faith and holiness of her children have brought forth the most salutary fruits. Here is another proof of her divine life: in spite of a great number of pernicious opinions and great variety of errors (as well as the vast army of rebels) the Church remains immutable and constant, "as the pillar and foundation of truth", in professing one identical doctrine, in receiving the same Sacraments, in her divine constitution, government, and morality…. (Encyclical Editae Saepe, n. 8) When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext – easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey – that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope. (Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], p. 695)
Pope Benedict XV
…[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says. (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 22)
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. (Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 9) …[I]n order that no falsification or corruption of the divine law but a true genuine knowledge of it may enlighten the minds of men and guide their conduct, it is necessary that a filial and humble obedience towards the Church should be combined with devotedness to God and the desire of submitting to Him. For Christ Himself made the Church the teacher of truth in those things also which concern the right regulation of moral conduct, even though some knowledge of the same is not beyond human reason. …[God] has constituted the Church the guardian and the teacher of the whole of the truth concerning religion and moral conduct; to her therefore should the faithful show obedience and subject their minds and hearts so as to be kept unharmed and free from error and moral corruption, and so that they shall not deprive themselves of that assistance given by God with such liberal bounty, they ought to show this due obedience not only when the Church defines something with solemn judgment, but also, in proper proportion, when by the constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, opinions are prescribed and condemned as dangerous or distorted. Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. (Encyclical Casti Connubii, nn. 103-104)
Pope Pius XII
They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it. (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 41) The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved. (Address Ancora Una Volta, Feb. 20, 1949) Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. (Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 20)
This concludes our test. How's it looking, everyone? Does CFN teach, defend, and safeguard the Catholic teachings quoted at length above? Of course not. In fact, the former editor, John Vennari, even went so far as to say he would never allow the "Pope" to teach religion to his children! Now, either all these doctrines just enunciated all amount to a total of 0% of Catholicism, or else CFN is guilty of false advertising.
Mr. Matthew Gaspers, the new editor of Catholic Family News
Furthermore, since, as Pope Benedict XV taught, the Catholic Faith cannot be had in degrees, what is it with this "100%" qualifier anyway? Is there such a thing as 85% Catholicism?! 22% Catholicism?! No, there is not. Pope Benedict was rather clear about that:
It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. (Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 24; underlining added.)
In other words, there can be no Catholicism other than a 100% Catholicism. But to use the phrase "100% Catholic" is misleading because it insinuates that Catholicism exists in degrees and can be had in greater or lesser quantities. This is, ironically enough, reminiscent of the Vatican II error of considering Catholicism the "fullness of truth" while "partial truth" and "ecclesial elements" are to be found in false religions:
The Catholic Church and the "Fullness of Truth"
What do we learn from this? We learn from it that not everything that says "100% Roman Catholic" on the outside is actually Catholic on the inside. We have here a clear case of false advertising. Gaspers and his subscribers may very well believe themselves to be adhering to the true Roman Catholic Faith, but they do not in fact do so. Rather, the positions Catholic Family News holds betray the fact that certain Catholic teachings have been carefully excised, edited, minimized, ignored, or reinterpreted so as to allow them to be reconciled with the idea that Jorge Bergoglio, despite his anti-Catholicism, is the Pope of the Catholic Church. (This is true of all mainstream "traditionalists", incidentally, in some way or another.) But it is obvious that the traditional Roman Catholic Faith cannot be safeguarded and upheld if at the same time it is being altered or abridged so as to make it conformable to their self-imposed quasi-dogma that Sedevacantism is false. One simply cannot keep the Faith by changing the Faith -- any more than one can borrow one's way out of debt. All of us have an obligation to deal with reality the way we find it and not attempt to give ourselves to the illusion of an altered reality to make us comfortable. That Jorge Bergoglio should not be a valid Pope is entirely possible; but that Catholic teaching on the Papacy should be false, is not possible. Draw the conclusion already.No kidding!
Francis: "Someone might think, 'This Pope is a Heretic'..." for saying Judas Iscariot might be saved!
We all know that "Pope" Francis says the darndest things when he gives a scripted speech, but he is absolutely priceless when speaking off the cuff because it is then that his anti-Catholic mind is revealed most candidly. The Italian Novus Ordo television station TV2000 has been running a broadcast program called Padre Nostro ("Our Father"), featuring in-depth conversations about the Lord's Prayer with none other than "His Holiness", Mr. Jorge Bergoglio. These have now been released as a book, Quando Pregate Dite Padre Nostro ("When you Pray, say Our Father"), and the Italian Corriere della Sera has just published an excerpt of it. A blogger at Aleteia has provided a translation, and it contains bombshells:
The pope shared a meditation on the true meaning of shame. He did so by focusing on the fates of three Biblical people who are involved in Christ's Passion: Peter, the apostle who denied Jesus three times, and who "cries bitterly" with shame; the good thief, who feels "ashamed for being crucified next to an innocent man"; and Judas, the apostle who betrayed Jesus. The third case, "the one that moves me most, is Judas' shame," the pope said. "Judas is a difficult character to understand; there have been so many interpretations of his personality. In the end, however, when he sees what he has done, he turns to the 'righteous,' to the priests: 'I have sinned: I handed over an innocent man to be killed.' They answer him: 'What does that matter to us? That's your affair.' (Matthew 27:3-10) Then he goes away with that guilt that suffocates him." The Pontiff invites us to imagine a different fate for Judas: "Perhaps if he had met the Virgin Mary, things would have gone differently, but the poor man goes away, doesn't find a way out of his situation, and he went to hang himself." "But, there's one thing that makes me think that Judas' story doesn't end there … Perhaps someone might think, 'this pope is a heretic…' But, no! They should go see a particular medieval capital of a column in the Basilica of St. Mary Magdalen in Vézelay, Burgundy [in France]," he said. The Successor of Peter describes how people in the Middle Ages taught the Gospel through sculptures and paintings. "On that capital, on one side there is Judas, hanged; but on the other is the Good Shepherd who is carrying him on his shoulders and is carrying him away." He revealed that he has a photograph of that two-part capital behind his desk, because it helps him meditate. "There is a smile on the lips of the Good Shepherd, which I wouldn't say is ironic, but a little bit complicit," he describes. "There are many ways of reacting to shame; one is to despair, but we must try to help despairing people to find the true path of shame, so they don't go down the path that put an end to Judas' life." "These three personages in Jesus' passion help me a lot. Shame is a grace," the pope said. (Ary Waldir Ramos Diaz, "Pope: What would have happened if Judas had met Our Lady on his way to kill himself?", Aleteia, Nov. 24, 2017)
It should come as no surprise that the one sinful figure in Christ's Passion that Francis has the most compassion for -- pardon, "moves" him the most -- is that of the Traitor. The Novus Ordo Sect has a love affair with Judas Iscariot, and this is not by accident. The case of Judas rains on their parade of universal salvation ("everyone will be saved"), because Judas is the only specific individual whom the New Testament reveals to be among the damned. In a sense, then, Judas embodies the very thing that the Novus Ordo Sect wants to wipe totally from your consciousness: the reality of the eternal punishment of the wicked in hell. The devil himself they have long successfully relegated to the status of a silly myth, a cartoon-like character with a pitchfork no one needs to fear. The Superior General of the Jesuits, "Fr." Arturo Sosa, recently stated explicitly that Satan is just a symbol of evil -- something for which the otherwise so talkative Francis did not, of course, criticize him in the least. This is not the first time that Francis has expressed himself in favor of the idea that Judas Iscariot may have been saved after all. For example, in an interview published in the German Die Zeit in March of this year, Francis insinuated that Judas might not be in hell, since, although he did not ask for forgiveness, he nevertheless "repented". Unfortunately, the Argentinian apostate neglected to mention that Judas' repentance was not of a supernatural kind (contrition) and therefore not able to procure for him forgiveness. The Iscariot was ashamed and sorry for what he had done, it is true -- but he died in despair, taking his own life: "being hanged, [he] burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts 1:18; cf. Mt 27:5). In defense of his thesis, Francis refers to an image sculpted into the column of a medieval French basilica that shows Judas hanged on one side and the Good Shepherd supposedly carrying him, on the other. He had made reference to this before, in an address at St. John Lateran on June 16, 2016, where he also spoke about Judas in the context of not judging. (A video on this in Italian can be watched here.) The depiction Francis has in mind is this one (click image to enlarge):
It is evident that the figure on the left is Judas Iscariot. But what do we see on the right? If we insist on a connection with Judas, then all we can say is that someone is carrying the body of Judas away. The man who does so does not have any striking similarity with any other depiction of Christ, and he does not carry a shepherd's staff. It is simply Francis' claim that he is the Good Shepherd. Another oddity is Francis' claim that the "Good Shepherd" smiles. Does he really? It does not look like it. What is worse is that Bergoglio then says that this smile is "a little bit complicit" -- complicit in what? There is only one possibility: complicit in Judas' crime of betraying Him! This is yet another blasphemy against our Divine Redeemer! For Francis, however, this is but par for the course. But do we really know that Judas is in hell? Can we be sure? We can indeed. Let us review the evidence in this regard, some of it from the sacred lips of our Lord Himself:
And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born. (Mk 14:21) While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled. (Jn 17:12) And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, to take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. (Acts 1:24-25)
Thus we see that it is divinely revealed that Judas Iscariot is in hell, and its doubt or denial therefore constitutes heresy. So, Francis is quite correct in fearing that some people might believe him to be a heretic for doubting that Judas is damned. He is quite an astute fellow, isn't he! The Catholic Magisterium, of course, has also spoken on the fate of the Traitor:
Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honours; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction. (Catechism of the Council of Trent, "The Sacraments: Holy Orders"; underlining added.) Judas, an Apostle of Christ, "one of the twelve," as the Evangelists sadly observe, was led down to the abyss of iniquity precisely through the spirit of greed for earthly things. (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacredotii, n. 49)
Whatever that column at the Basilica of St. Mary Magdalen in Vézelay may be depicting, it most certainly doesn't trump Divine Revelation or the Catholic Magisterium. But it's amazing to see how quickly Francis can discover the Middle Ages! Thus Francis has revealed himself once more to be a heretic and a blasphemer, a true member of the Society of Judas! Image sources: youtube.com (screenshot) / lastampa.it Licenses: fair use / fair useFeeling the heat?
Vatican promotes Book defending Francis against Claims he is not a true Pope
It looks like the pseudo-Catholic establishment in the Vatican is feeling the heat against "Pope" Francis. After more and more people are beginning to voice doubt about the legitimacy of Jorge Bergoglio's claim to being the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Vatican will host the presentation of a book against what they call "Sedevacantism", on Tuesday evening, Nov. 21. The book in question is called Sedevacantisti ("Sedevacantists") and was written by Francesco Antonio Grana. It was released on Oct. 11, 2017 and is being published by Tau Editrice. It is available online for purchase and has already received some reviews. Judging by what has been said about the book, it appears that it is not really about Sedevacantism as it is generally known. Rather, the work seeks to refute arguments made only against the legitimacy of Francis specifically, including arguments advanced by Antonio Socci in his 2014 book Non È Francesco ("He's Not Francis") and those who base their rejection of Bergoglio on conclave rules laid down by "Pope" John Paul II in 1996. It is unclear whether the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI in 2013 -- denied by the so-called "Resignationists" -- is also defended. But regardless: The fact that the words "Sedevacantism" and "Sedevacantists" are now being bandied about is a good thing, as it will lead to more people researching the topic. We remember a few months ago when "Archbishop" Georg Ganswein, who is both the prefect of Francis' "papal" household and the private secretary of "Pope Emeritus" Benedict XVI, was asked to comment on a Novus Ordo Watch blog post. Here are some photos of the author, Francesco Grana, handing a copy of his book to the man he defends as the "Vicar of Christ":
Image source: Tau Editrice
Regardless of the actual content, it is a great satisfaction to know that someone put a book with the word "Sedevacantists" on it straight in Francis' face. The fact that a book that seeks to defend Francis' claim to the Papacy as legitimate is being presented in a Vatican press conference, speaks volumes. Apparently the powers that be have decided that the need for defending Francis is greater than the embarrassment that inevitably accompanies such an occasion. On Nov. 18, the Italian Vaticanist Marco Tosatti noted that the press conference announced by the Vatican for this book is unusually "guarded":
Let us start with an odd announcement, regarding a press conference -- about a book presentation -- very heavily guarded. We reproduce the announcement here: On November 21, in the Vatican, presentation of the book "Sedevacantisti" with Gomez and Saluzzi. On Tuesday, November 21, in the Vatican, at 6 pm in the offices of Vatican Radio (Sala Marconi - Piazza Pia, 3 - Palazzo Pio, Vatican City), Peter Gomez, director of the website ilfattoquotidiano.it and Fq MillenniuM, Paola Saluzzi, journalist of Tv2000, and Javier Martínez-Brocal, director of Rome Reports, will present the book "Sedevacantisti" (Tau publishing house), by Francesco Antonio Grana, the Vaticanist from ilfattoquotidiano.it. Francis has not been legitimately elected. He is a heretic. He even wants to canonize Martin Luther. During five years of pontificate, many critics, outside but especially also inside the Catholic Church, have been attacking Bergoglio, accusing him of heresy, like the four cardinals who have expressed their doubts about Bergoglio's opening towards the divorced and remarried, or like those who printed 200 posters and put them up along the streets of Rome, making fun of the little amount of mercy the Latin-American Pope shows towards his opponents. "Sedevacantisti" aims to reply point by point to the groundless and unjustified attacks against Bergoglio, illustrating his big success in the ecclesiastical field and in the worldwide geopolitical scene. Apart from the fact that the four cardinals did not attack the Pope accusing him of heresy, but asked him -- along with many others -- to clarify some ambiguous and controversial points of an apostolic exhortation; apart from the fact that the "great success" can be the object of a long debate, very lively and with an uncertain outcome; what is most striking is the outstanding preventive security measures. Marconi Hall often hosts press conferences and presentations of various kinds. The only access requirement is usually the mere ability to enter. Instead, take a look at this: Ways of accreditation Journalists and workers of the media who intend to take photos and videos must send a request to the Press Office of the Holy See, by email to accreditamenti@salastampa.va, indicating their press affiliation, their role, and attaching a copy of an identification document. Those who already have an ORDINARY accreditation, which is valid for the Press Office of the Holy See, must submit a participation request. All requests must be received 24 hours before the event. What are they afraid of? That a sedevacantist commando shouting "the pope is not the pope" will overthrow the speakers' desks and beat up our friend Paola Saluzzi? We are afraid that, after the joke of the mobile billboard with the picture of [Cardinal] Caffarra, the sense of the ridiculous under the shadow of the Dome is fading away. (Marco Tosatti, "Bestiario: Chi Ha Paura Del Sedevacantista Cattivo?", Stilum Curiae, Nov. 18, 2017; our translation; special formatting in original.)
In a few hours, we will know what transpired, although we predict it will be pretty much a non-event. It will be an event no one attends about a book nobody reads because at this point the evidence about Francis is so manifest that those who like him, want him to be a true Pope, regardless of the evidence -- and those who dislike him certainly won't be convinced otherwise by reading a book about it that presumably "explains" that it's all just a big misunderstanding. Grana's book could turn out to be very similar to Tom Hoopes' What Pope Francis Really Said. It's too little, too late -- and, at this point, who can take it seriously?Successor to Bp. Donald Sanborn
A New Sedevacantist Bishop:
Fr. Joseph Selway to be consecrated Bishop in Spring 2018
The November 2017 newsletter of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, contains an announcement for an episcopal consecration. The Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn will consecrate Fr. Joseph Selway a bishop in the spring of next year. The precise date is still to be determined. The following is the announcement published by Bp. Sanborn:
Father Selway will be consecrated a bishop in the spring. Obviously sooner or later I had to choose someone to succeed me in what I do and say. I will be sixty-eight in February. I have been mulling over doing this consecration for quite a while, and now God's providence, I believe, has indicated the right time. Fr. Selway is the obvious candidate to be a bishop. He has been under my tutelage continually since he was six years old. He is thoroughly familiar with all of our principles and ways of acting. He already has the respect of all the priests who are associated with us in the Roman Catholic Institute. He is of sterling reputation. I know of no one who would raise the slightest objection to this choice. Many priests already look to him for leadership. Ordained in 2001, he will celebrate his 16th anniversary on December 8th of this year. He will turn forty in January. He therefore has both the age and experience to be a bishop. He is a man of firm faith and strong piety, and is capable of tremendous workloads. He will be a great asset to the traditional movement. I have not yet set a date for the consecration, since to be a bishop requires a great deal of preparation from the point of view of robes and other paraphernalia. He also must learn the various rites of sacraments which only bishops can perform. Please pray for Fr. Selway. Being a bishop in these times is not easy. There is a heavy demand upon you. Fr. Selway's consecration will not mean that I am retiring from my duties. Before Vatican II, priests and bishops never really retired; they just slowed down. I have no intention of slowing down, but having another bishop available to go to the many places which require my services will make my burden lighter. (Source: Most Holy Trinity Seminary Newsletter, November 2017)
Fr. Selway was ordained a priest by Bp. Robert McKenna, O.P., and currently serves as vice-rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary (source). Bp. Sanborn was consecrated a bishop in 2002 by Bp. McKenna, who in turn had been consecrated in 1986 by Bp. Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers, O.P. As a priest, Guerard des Lauriers was theological advisor to Pope Pius XII, taught at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, and co-authored the 1969 Ottaviani Intervention. He was made a bishop in 1981 by the Vietnamese Bp. Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc, who had been appointed by Pope Pius XI in 1938.John Daly destroys Semi-Trad Pioneer
The Errors of Michael Davies: A Comprehensive Refutation
MICHAEL DAVIES — AN EVALUATION by John S. Daly
(1st ed. 1989, 2nd ed. 2015)
One of the most prominent and influential writers of the traditionalist movement in the Vatican II Church was the English writer Michael Treharne Davies (1936-2004), shown above with then-"Cardinal" Joseph Ratzinger. No individual has written more prolifically than Davies on traditionalist issues, and probably no single layman, with the possible exception of Dietrich von Hildebrand, has enjoyed wider prominence, credibility, and trustworthiness than him. But is this respect Mr. Davies has enjoyed really well-founded? If not, what does this mean for the people who base most of their understanding of the traditionalist subject matter on the research and argumentation of this one individual? In a devastating dossier of 584 pages entitled Michael Davies — An Evaluation, Englishman John S. Daly (web site here) thoroughly dismantles the star apologist for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X. This exhaustively-researched and well-documented book exposes and refutes the errors, fallacies, dangers, false theology, and sloppy scholarship of Michael Davies. Twenty-six years after it was first published, a new revised and expanded edition of this invaluable work was made available to the public in 2015, both in hardcopy and electronically, the latter as a free PDF download only through Novus Ordo Watch. We have advertised this outstanding work in various ways on this web site before and are happy to do so once more. The book description provided by the author reads as follows:
Cambridge-educated translator John S. Daly puts the scholarship of the late Michael Davies under the spotlight. What emerges from systematic comparison with statements of the Magisterium and the greatest theologians must destroy Davies's credibility in the eyes of every serious reader. "Michael Davies – An Evaluation" remains not only an unanswered indictment of Davies as a Catholic scholar, but a standing refutation of the entire ecclesiology of those who believe it possible for an orthodox Catholic to reject the doctrinal errors and reformed rites spawned by Vatican II without calling into doubt the legitimacy of recent papal claimants and the validity of the new sacraments…. (source)
There is no doubt, of course, that Davies has done considerable good and provided excellent analysis and refutation of many errors promoted by the Vatican II religion. His work as a whole is certainly responsible for opening the eyes of a great many people to the dangers and heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect (which he, alas, identified with the Catholic Church), and has (re)kindled in countless souls a love for the Holy Catholic Mass offered in the traditional Roman rite. Daly's exposé does not mean to detract from the good which has admittedly been accomplished by Davies over the years. However, this good must be weighed against the considerable damage he has done and harm to souls he has caused, as demonstrated throughout this work. A glass may be filled 80% with nutritious juice, but if the remaining 20% are poison, the entire glass will be contaminated, and death or serious illness will result. Pointing out that 80% of the contents were good, will not help to undo or minimize the damage of the 20%. It would also be quite irresponsible and deceptive to focus only on the healthful content and pretend the poison does not exist. It is for this reason that we wish to assist in the distribution of Mr. Daly's dossier — to reveal, for the good of souls, the many dangerous errors, fallacies, and problems in the research and argumentation of Michael Davies, upon whom so many, quite unjustifiedly but in good faith, have relied in their understanding of traditionalist Catholic issues over the years. The author himself clarifies his motives for exposing Davies in the introduction to his study:
In view of Mr. Davies's uniquely influential position in the Catholic world today, a candid examination of his writings to assess to what extent his facts, theology and reasoning can be relied upon seems to be an appropriate undertaking. That is what this Evaluation sets out to achieve by subjecting Mr. Davies's writings to careful analysis in the light of Catholic authority. …After several years of study and work in Catholic publishing I reached the conclusion that an Evaluation such as this was necessary in order to accomplish three main objectives: (i) To refute the gravely erroneous positions of Mr. Davies ... in which his assertions have been responsible for leading many souls astray in matters upon which salvation may quite literally depend. (ii) To show by careful analysis that Mr. Davies is a grossly unreliable author whose statements about Catholic doctrine should never be accepted without verification from genuine Catholic authorities. (iii) To set out in a single study the main points of disagreement among those commonly referred to as traditional Catholics, allowing both sides to state their case, and showing by rigorous demonstration in each case where the truth lies. (John S. Daly, Michael Davies — An Evaluation, new ed. [Saint-Sauveur de Meilhan: Tradibooks, 2015], pp. XIII-XV)
Davies was a very interesting speaker, and his writing was usually quite pleasant to read. His English accent and delightful humor contributed to his affable personality. We have already conceded that much of his research and argumentation was valid and good. However, this cannot exonerate him from the many erroneous arguments he advanced and the inadequate or selective research he engaged in, often with regard to issues impacting Sedevacantism (case in point: his widely-repeated but false thesis that St. Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius, refuted here and also here). The conclusions author John Daly reaches about Michael Davies are less than flattering:
The conclusions reached in this Evaluation are that Mr. Davies is a shameless purveyor of false doctrine, sometimes reaching actual heresy; intensely ignorant even on many elementary points of theology as well as on matters of historical fact and general Catholic knowledge; not infrequently guilty of downright dishonesty; an execrable scholar; arrogant and foolish; a source of huge scandal and, in fine, an utter disgrace to the name of Catholic. Naturally these conclusions are far from savoury. My only justification for reaching them is that they are inescapably true, and my justification for publishing them is that the good of souls demands that so great a source of danger be exposed as publicly as possible. (Daly, Michael Davies, p. XV)
To give you a snapshot of the valuable information contained in Michael Davies — An Evaluation, we are reproducing here its table of contents:
Introduction to the New 2015 Edition Introduction I. Davies's Attitude to Authority II. Shockingly Slipshod Scholarship III. The Vacancy of the Holy See
Appendix: Suarez on the Heretical Pope
IV. Dishonesty, Inconsistency and Arrogance V. Which Side is Michael Davies on? VI. Miscellaneous Doctrinal Errors VII. The Society of St. Pius X VIII. Davies as an Anarchist IX. Errors of Sacramental Theology
(a) The Orders of Archbishop Lefebvre (b) The 1968 New Rite of Ordination (c) Validity and "Significatio Ex Adjunctis" (d) Validity of the Novus Ordo Missæ
X. The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius XI. Salvation Outside the Church? XII. Doctrinal Evolution? XIII. Open Letter to Mr. Michael Davies
At almost 600 pages, the reader will find this work is quite comprehensive in its critique of the Lefebvrist apologist. Such a critique is necessary because we who live in these times are engaged, at least in prefigurement, in the battle of Christ vs. Antichrist, and certainly that of Pope vs. Antipope, Church vs. Counterchurch. Human respect can never get in the way of defending the truth, no matter how unpopular it might be. To purchase a copy of this dossier on Michael Davies in paperback, you may do so directly from Mr. Daly's web site:
Michael Davies - An Evaluation by John S. Daly 2nd ed.; Tradibooks (2015); 588 pp.
If you prefer to order through Amazon.com, you may do so by clicking here. If you would like to download for free an electronic copy of this book — fully searchable through optical character recognition — you may do so at the link below:
Download Here: PDF Format (3.5 MB)
Michael Davies — An Evaluation by John S. Daly New Edition (2015) © John S. Daly
Although this book reserves copyright, Novus Ordo Watch is distributing it with the full and explicit permission of the copyright holder, author John S. Daly. The battle for truth is an essential part of the battle for the salvation of souls, our own as well as those of others. It is therefore imperative for people to see falsehood exposed for what it is, and to realize that Michael Davies, whom many consider a weighty authority on the pressing issues or our time, was in fact a dangerous charlatan, even if he was right on many points. People who object in principle to a critique such as the one by Mr. Daly, on the grounds that "we should not be criticizing fellow-traditionalists", have not understood the nature and the severity of the situation we are dealing with. Motives aside, we must know who is working on the side of Christ and the Truth, and who is working for the other side. In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, St. Paul wrote that God would permit, in the end, the "operation of error" to blind many souls because they did not love the truth:
And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. (2 Thess 2:6-11; underlining added.)
If you have not seen it yet, make sure you read Cardinal Edward Manning's commentary on this passage and the great research he did on the question of the Pope, the Antichrist, and the latter times, in which we must surely now be, simply because that which 60 years ago would have been considered practically impossible, has now come to pass, and things are deteriorating quickly:
The Pope and the Antichrist — Cardinal Manning explains what is to come (1861)
Related: The Papacy and the Passion of the Church
The situation in which we find ourselves today is unprecedented but not unexpected. A long-term vacancy of the Apostolic See, with no clear way out, seems to be a necessary condition enabling the rise of the Antichrist, else "he who withholdeth" — the Pope — would indeed restrain him. So, keep this in mind, whenever you hear some uninformed loudmouth tell you that "God would never permit this!", that what God will or won't permit is told to us in Divine Revelation, including Holy Scripture, and the matter is clear: God will not only permit but even "send", as it were, the "operation of error", with the precise intent that people will "believe lying" so that "all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity".
Davies in his last years
We must remember also that while good will is necessary in this battle, it is not sufficient. The late great Fr. Frederick William Faber warned that one reason why the deception of the Antichrist would be so successful is that many "manifestly good" men would follow him and do his work, in ignorance:
We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side. (Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World [text here]; underlining added.)
Besides, fallen men tend to deceive themselves, quickly ascribing good will to themselves when in fact the truth may be quite different. How often do we not tell ourselves we are only interested in the truth when in fact we are not and prefer our own self-interest before all else! (On this, see the same Fr. Faber's excellent spiritual advice on self-deceit in Spiritual Conferences, 2nd ed. [1860], pp. 153-235.) Jeffrey Knight's talk on Sedevacantism and willful ignorance is also apropos here, a real eye-opener:
Culpable Ignorance and the Great Apostasy
So, remember, ignorance alone will not get you off the hook, because much ignorance today is quite culpable. This doesn't mean that those who are culpably ignorant are guilty of malice or ill will — no, it may simply be a case of culpable negligence. It's time to show some fortitude, which is, after all, one of the four cardinal virtues and also a gift of the Holy Ghost: This is about the eternal destiny of your soul, for heaven's sake! And if you have a spouse and children, it is about their souls as well. It's time to take things seriously! Stop kidding yourself and look the facts in the eye! They do not cease to be facts just because we refuse to look. Likewise, remember that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain: If Sedevacantism is true, it does not become false just because you refuse to look at the evidence; and if Sedevacantism were false, it would not become true just because you are looking into it. Besides, consider that Sedevacantism is entirely safe. By adhering to it, you cannot be led into heresy, nor into schism, if you are faithful to Catholic teaching. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the position were false, where would be the danger? What could you be accused of? The worst that could be said of you is that you were wrong about who the Pope was, or whether there was a Pope. You believed, in good faith, that there was no Pope when in fact there was one — but at least you acted consistently and in accordance with Catholic teaching, to the best of your ability and in peace with your conscience. You could be accused of having made a sincere mistake, nothing more; a mistake regarding the identity of the true Pope, as many others did before in Church history, and quite innocently (assuming, of course, that you have done your best to figure it out). This is the worst that could be said. You could not be accused of adhering to or spreading false doctrine (heresy), nor of refusing to be subject to the man you acknowledged to be the Pope (schism). That you would not submit to a man you were sincerely convinced could not possibly be Pope, cannot be laid to your charge, since a Catholic is required to refuse submission to an impostor. God does not require us to be infallible, but He does require us to adhere to Catholic teaching at all times and in the same sense and meaning it has always had, and He requires us to accept manifest facts as true and to reject contradictions as false. Sedevacantism is the only position that can reconcile the known empirical facts with Catholic teaching. For this you cannot be faulted, even if — per impossibile — it turned out to be false. But back to Michael Davies, the man upon whose research and argumentation so many have relied for their understanding of traditionalist issues, from the Novus Ordo Missae to Sedevacantism to the illicit episcopal consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre. On April 22, 1980, Davies appeared on Firing Line with Bill Buckley, Jr., debating a Novus Ordo priest and the infamous pseudo-traditionalist Malachi Martin. The video of the show is available online, and we are embedding it below as a little perk so you can experience Michael Davies at a time when he had just published the first volume of his Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre:
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERPQaQ1Gn5U[/embedyt]
Michael Davies on Bill Buckley's Firing Line (1980)
What's interesting — and very telling — is that although Michael Davies lived until 2004, he never responded to John Daly's blistering critique, which had first been published fifteen years prior. One would think that if such a powerful refutation of one's own writings was being disseminated, that the individual targeted would do everything in his power to defend himself to retain or regain his credibility, certainly over a period of time as long as 15 years and at the request of several intellectuals (see Daly, Michael Davies, pp. IX-X). Not so with Michael Davies -- even though his critic had even provided a convenient summary of his findings, issued as an open letter consisting of very specific errors he challenged Davies to address (found in the book as Chapter 13, pp. 553-584). No attempt at a rebuttal was ever made by the Lefebvrist apologist. Davies died on September 25, 2004, and so has already received his judgment. We pray that it was a merciful one and that he repented of all his errors and sins before being summoned to appear before the Divine Judge. It is not our desire to focus so much on the person of Davies as on his errors, powerfully refuted in this work by John Daly, because these errors are still alive and well today, not least because the name of Michael Davies has been attached to them. Nevertheless we must call attention to the fact that it is not wrong, according to the Catholic position on personal polemics, to attack, besides the argument itself, also the person making it. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany explained this in his Vatican-endorsed book Liberalism is a Sin (1886):
Catholic Debate and Personal Polemics: Can We Only Attack an Argument and Never a Person?
This monumental dossier on Michael Davies is as explosive as it is detailed, and yet it is also eminently readable. You will find a great many arguments still heard today from people in the "recognize-and-resist" camp competently refuted by the sound reasoning and authentic Catholic sources used in this powerful critique, which most people have never seen or even heard of. This Evaluation of Mr. Davies will prove a very valuable tool in defending the sedevacantist position and debunking one of its foremost critics. We do not think it an exaggeration to say that after these 584 pages, there is nothing left of the credibility of the celebrated Lefebvrist apologist. The facts are in; the truth is out. Exit Michael Davies…When you need to go to confession but can't...
Perfect Contrition: The Key to Heaven, especially for Our Times
You can still be forgiven of your mortal sins if there is no priest available to hear your confession...
For the great majority of Catholics in the world today, it is virtually impossible to go to confession to a validly ordained priest who professes the true Catholic Faith of the ages and does not profess communion with a public heretic or apostate like Francis or Benedict XVI. Throughout Church history, there were many people in sundry places and circumstances that made approaching a priest for confession, for one reason or another, impossible. And it goes without saying that although everyone will die one day, most people will not have a priest close-by to whom they can make their deathbed confession. Does this mean, then, that our chances of making it to Heaven are, for that reason, very slim? By no means! It is a deplorable fact that although all Catholics know to approach the sacrament of Penance to have their mortal sins forgiven, only few seem to know that there is a way to have one's mortal sins forgiven outside the sacrament of Penance, although not entirely apart from it: through Perfect Contrition. In order not to fall prey to any confusion, it will be important to understand exactly what is meant by it and how it "works", that is, how to obtain this great grace.
What is Perfect Contrition?
In the sixteenth century, the Council of Trent issued a decree on the Sacrament of Penance, which includes a chapter dedicated to the subject of contrition. The subsequent Catechism of the Council of Trent also explains contrition and how it relates to the sacrament of Penance. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia likewise contains an informative article summarizing the essentials on contrition. In a nutshell: Perfect Contrition is a supernatural sorrow for, and hatred of, the sins one has committed, accompanied by a firm resolution never to sin again, because by committing them one has offended God, who is infinitely good and deserving of all of one's love. It is evident that if the truth about Perfect Contrition is to bear rich fruit in souls, then this somewhat complex definition needs a detailed explanation that is easily comprehensible by the common man. To this end, the Australian Catholic Truth Society in 1959 issued a very readable booklet on this topic written by an Italian priest. You can read its full text online here:
Contrition: The Golden Key of Paradise. Key to Heaven
On Feb. 26, 2016 our friends at True Restoration released an episode of their "Spiritual Life" series on Restoration Radio about Perfect Contrition, in which the Benedictine monk Fr. Bernard Uttley explains in an easy-to-follow manner the nature, mechanism, effects, and importance of Perfect Contrition. We have since acquired the rights to this audio file, so now you can listen to the entire 105-minute episode free of charge here:
If we examine closely the Act of Contrition we are supposed to pray at least once a day, we see that Holy Mother Church tries very much to instill in our souls the necessary dispositions for obtaining Perfect Contrition:
O my God! I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee; and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all good, and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen. (Act of Contrition)
Perfect Contrition is an immense source of grace in this life and is of special importance at the time of death. All Catholics ought to be familiar with it and join it daily to their Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Whether you have a confessor available or not, make sure you are always perfectly contrite for your sins, and you will never be without sanctifying grace. The gates of Heaven will be open to you, and you will never again be tempted to despair. The primary effect of Perfect Contrition being the recovery of sanctifying grace outside of the sacrament of Confession, this extraordinary means shows the great mercy, generosity, and magnanimity of Almighty God towards His sinful human creatures. After all, it is clear that we cannot always and everywhere have a priest at our disposal, and the availability of God's forgiveness throughout the history of the New Covenant would be seriously curtailed if it depended strictly on the presence of priests wherever there are sinners. Please do not ignore, neglect, or make light of this most important topic. For a great many of us, Perfect Contrition may one day make an eternal difference.
"Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much." (Luke 7:47)
Image sources: Wikimedia Commons (Fondazione Cariplo; cropped) / unknown Licenses: CC BY-SA 3.0 / fair useOur series continues...
An Introduction to Sedevacantism
Part III: Sacraments for Non-Catholics in the 1983 Code of Canon Law
In August of 2016, we began a video series introducing newcomers to Sedevacantism in a way that is easy to follow, provides airtight argumentation, and does not overwhelm. The first part of the series put before the viewer the Second Vatican Council's new doctrine on the Church (ecclesiology), according to which the Church of Jesus Christ no longer is the Catholic Church, as taught by Pope Pius XII and all of his predecessors, but instead now "subsists in" it. The second installment of the series focused on the Vatican II heresy that blasphemously claims that the Holy Ghost uses false religions as means of salvation. Those who have not yet seen these first two parts of the video series or would like to watch them again, may do so at the following links:
Introduction to Sedevacantism, Part I: Vatican II's New Ecclesiology
Introduction to Sedevacantism, Part II: Vatican II's Teaching on False Religions as Means of Salvation
Today we are releasing our third part in the series, which exposes and refutes another error -- one that is also a sacrilege -- that arises from the Second Vatican Council: the permission officially granted to baptized non-Catholics to receive some of the [Novus Ordo] sacraments under certain conditions. This is legislated specifically in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, promulgated with the supposed "apostolic authority" of "Pope" John Paul II. See for yourself:
Canon 844: 3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches. 4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed. (Antipope John Paul II, Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law [1983], Canon 844.3-4)
In 2003, the same John Paul II reaffirmed this impious and sacrilegious law in an encyclical letter:
While it is never legitimate to concelebrate [the New Mass] in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. (Antipope John Paul II, "Encyclical" Ecclesia De Eucharistia, n. 45)
This goes for the Latin church as much as it does for the Eastern Novus Ordo churches, whose Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, published in 1990 by the same John Paul II, legislates the exact same thing (see Canon 671 §§ 3-4). Our third Introduction to Sedevacantism video exposes and refutes this impious error, which many people are not even aware the Vatican II Sect has enshrined in its universal law:
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4K_fCPx814[/embedyt]
To be clear: No, there is no misunderstanding here. In 1993, the Modernist Unholy See had published a lengthy documented entitled Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, which is a veritable manual for implementing the ecumenism and ecclesiology of Vatican II. It was approved, confirmed, and ordered to be published by Antipope John Paul II on March 25, 1993. This impious document also sanctions the administration of some Novus Ordo sacraments to baptized non-Catholics:
129. ...[I]n certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments [Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick] may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities. 130. In case of danger of death, Catholic ministers may administer these sacraments when the conditions given below (n. 131) are present. In other cases, it is strongly recommended that the diocesan Bishop, taking into account any norms which may have been established for this matter by the Episcopal Conference or by the Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches, establish general norms for judging situations of grave and pressing needand for verifying the conditions mentioned below (n. 131). In accord with Canon Law, these general norms are to be established only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the other interested Church or ecclesial Community. Catholic ministers will judge individual cases and administer these sacraments only in accord with these established norms, where they exist. Otherwise they will judge according to the norms of this Directory. 131. The conditions under which a Catholic minister may administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, of penance and of the anointing of the sick to a baptized person who may be found in the circumstances given above (n. 130) are that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed. (Antipope John Paul II via Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism [1993], nn. 129-131; underlining added.)
The matter is clear: As long as they're baptized, non-Catholis can legitimately, according to Novus Ordo law, ask to be given "Holy Communion", "absolution", and "Anointing of the Sick" -- and then just as legitimately receive the same -- without converting to Catholicism, as long as they have a "grave and pressing need", even outside the danger of death (as in, "I have no intention of becoming a Catholic, but I just need Catholic sacraments"), which is verified and/or judged in part by the "competent authority" of the non-Catholic's false religion, as long as the non-Catholic is "unable to have recourse" to a false minister of his own heretical sect! This wicked universal law is yet another instance that proves that the Novus Ordo Sect is not the Roman Catholic Church because the true Church is protected from endorsing such a terrible affront to Almighty God. Further information on this topic, especially with regard to how it relates to the "Communion for adulterers" issue and Amoris Laetitia, can be found here:
Where were the Dubia Supporters when John Paul II allowed "Communion" for PROTESTANTS?
We hope that our Introduction to Sedevacantism series will be helpful to many. Be sure to share it with friends and family, co-workers and fellow-parishioners. Ask them for their opinion of the video — that's always a good conversation starter. For those who are interested in more information about Sedevacantism, we also recommend the following:
The Syllogism of Sedevacantism — Bp. Donald Sanborn
Why Sedevacantism? — Fr. Anthony Cekada
Have the Gates of Hell Prevailed? — Novus Ordo Watch
Topic: Sedevacantism -- Novus Ordo Watch
Topic: Ecumenism & Interreligious Dialogue -- Novus Ordo Watch
OK, so it's a mess but... now what?! -- Novus Ordo Watch
Charitable, informative, challenging
Podcast Discussion: Novus Ordo vs. Sedevacantist
The Catholic vs. podcast is a Novus Ordo podcast produced and hosted by David Mary Andrew Ross. The host, who is a convert to the Vatican II Church from atheism (2009), interviews guests who have a religious position different from his own. The format is informal and conversational, and the idea is to generate light rather than heat. On Sep. 30, 2017, in an episode entitled Catholic vs. Catholic, the host interviewed sedevacantist Stephen Heiner. The show is available for free and can be listened to here:
In roughly 58 minutes, Ross and Heiner challenge each other on a number of different issues, including the teachings of Vatican II, wolves in sheep's clothing, the disaster of Amoris Laetitia, and the visibility of the Church. Stephen Heiner is the founder of True Restoration, a sedevacantist media apostolate. True Restoration produces and publishes radio shows, video interviews, and books relating to topics of interest for traditional Catholics, thus helping to educate people in the Catholic Faith and its unique take on every aspect of our world.
True Restoration is home to the popular Francis Watch radio show. Other current shows include This is Catholicism, From the Pulpit, Catholic Spirituality, Apologetics, Tradition and the Church, Clerical Conversations, The Catholic Home, and others. Although most content on True Restoration requires a paid subscription, the organization has released a large number of free episodes, which can be accessed here. On the Sep. 30 edition of the Catholic vs. podcast, you will find Mr. Heiner making the case for Sedevacantism succinctly, charitably, and convincingly. We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Ross for his sincerity, courage, and good will in hosting a sedevacantist guest for his podcast. Being a convert from atheism, Ross has already given an extraordinary response to God's grace, and we pray and trust "that he, who hath begun a good work in [him], will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil 1:6). For more information about Sedevacantism, objections against it, and responses to such objections, please see our Sedevacantism topical page. Image sources: cvs-podcast.com / True Restoration Licenses: fair use / with permissionRequiescat in Pace
In Memory of the Last True Pope (so far)
Pope Pius XII Mar 2, 1876 - Oct 9, 1958
October 9, 2017, marks the 59th anniversary of the death of the last known true Pope, His Holiness Pius XII, born Eugenio Pacelli, reigned 1939-1958. To honor and remember him, we are sharing the video below of a broadcast clip shown in 1958 at the passing of the Supreme Pontiff.
[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-X2z8YIDPI[/embedyt]
When Pius XII died, the Novus Ordo Religion was as yet unknown to the world, for it would not come into existence until later, beginning with the election during a bizarre conclave of the first Modernist Antipope, John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli). What a blessed time it was, when no one -- no one! -- who called himself a member of the Catholic Church, knew anything yet of "Catholic" ecumenism, a New Mass, interreligious dialogue, the abominable Second Vatican Council, religious liberty, exaggerated notions of "human dignity," liturgical dancing, apostate New Age "eco" nuns, gay priests, opposition to the death penalty, luminous Rosary mysteries, and so forth. Reflect on this for a bit. A mere 59 years ago, these things were wholly unknown and most certainly not connected with the name of "Catholic." What's 59 years compared to the Church's own 2,000-year history? Nine years ago, we published an essay entitled "Sede Vacante 1958-2008: Reflections on a 50-Year Vacancy of the Apostolic See". It is well worth a read and as timely as ever. As we commemorate today the 59th anniversary of the passing of the (so far) last Vicar of Christ, and thus the fulfillment of the prophecy of 2 Thess 2:7 that the Pope would "be taken out of the way" to allow the mystery of iniquity to prevail for a time, just as the enemies of our Lord were allowed to prevail for a short while during His Sacred Passion, let us beg God to send us once again a true Pope so that we who have witnessed the Church humiliated in her Passion may also see the happy day of the her triumphant Resurrection. See Also:
The Papacy and the Passion of the Church
The Pope and the Antichrist: The Great Apostasy Foretold
Image source: alamy.com (Sueddeutsche Zeitung Photo / Alamy Stock Photo) License: rights-managedHistorical Precedent for a "Heretical" Pope?
In Brief: The Facts on Pope John XXII
At a time when countless supposed "traditional Catholics" don't think twice about accusing an unquestionably true Pope of the past of teaching heresy or at least grave doctrinal error, it behooves us to remind everyone that instead of simply believing whatever you see posted on a blog somewhere, the safer course is to simply look the stuff up. It's not like these questions never came up before or that no clear answer was ever put forward. Where to look it up? Look it up where any Catholic priest would have looked it up before Vatican II: in the most recent dogmatic theology manuals approved by the Church. Why most recent? Because the most recent Church-approved manuals will include the most recent doctrinal pronouncements and clarifications from the Magisterium and also take into consideration any of the latest historical research to shed light on questions pertaining to Church history insofar as it relates to doctrinal matters. In this post, we will take a brief look at the famous case of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334), who is accused of teaching that the souls of those who die in the state of sanctifying grace cannot see God in the fullness of the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment. In the future we are going to post a carefully-researched essay on this with detailed documentation. For now, however, we will have to content ourselves simply with a brief overview of the facts of the case since the issue is continually brought up to discredit the sedevacantist position and "legitimize", as it were, Francis' claim to the Papacy. The following succinct summary of the John XXII controversy comes from the treatise On the Last Things (De Novissimis) of vol. 4 of the extensive Jesuit dogmatic theology compilation Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which was originally published in Latin in 1956 and was recently released in English for the first time.
St. Bernard [Doctor of the Church, 1090-1153] often taught that deceased just persons immediately after death will obtain immense happiness, but not the beatific vision until the resurrection [of their bodies]. John XXII, the Supreme Pontiff, followed him almost to the letter, and the Friars Minor followed him, as is generally reported. He held that immediately after death some reward is given to the just, like seeing already the humanity of Christ in heaven, and that the wicked are punished in hell in some way; but before the final judgment that neither the face-to-face vision of God is granted to the blessed nor the punishment of fire to the damned. However, he taught this as a private teacher, not as Pontiff, and he held it theoretically or for the sake of debate, thinking that he could be deceived in these matters and permitting others to think differently until the question should be decided authoritatively. Hence he took care to have the matter studied by the Doctors, and frequently summoning debates in his presence on this point, he was prepared to abandon his opinion if it was shown to be against the faith. Indeed, on the day before his death he ordered a declaration of the true doctrine in the presence of all the Cardinals, etc. He said that previously he thought differently about this matter by pondering it and speaking about it. In this way he prepared the way for his successor, Benedict XII, to proclaim a definition of the true teaching [see Denz. 530-531]. (Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB: On the Last Things, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. [original Latin published by BAC, 1956; English published by Keep the Faith, 2016], n. 30; italics given; underlining added.)
Pope Benedict XII's ex cathedra definition of the true doctrine concerning the fate of the departed was issued on Jan. 29, 1336:
By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare: that according to the common arrangement of God, souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ; also of the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them, in whom nothing was to be purged, when they departed, nor will there be when they shall depart also in the future; or if then there was or there will be anything to be purged in these when after their death they have been purged; and the souls of children departing before the use of free will, reborn and baptized in that same baptism of Christ, when all have been baptized, immediately after their death and that aforesaid purgation in those who were in need of a purgation of this kind, even before the resumption of their bodies and the general judgment after the ascension of our Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, into heaven, have been, are, and will be in heaven, in the kingdom of heaven and in celestial paradise with Christ, united in the company of the holy angels, and after the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ have seen and see the divine essence by intuitive vision, and even face to face, with no mediating creature, serving in the capacity of an object seen, but divine essence immediately revealing itself plainly, clearly, and openly, to them, and seeing thus they enjoy the same divine essence, and also that from such vision and enjoyment their souls, which now have departed, are truly blessed and they have eternal life and rest; and also [the souls] of those who afterwards will depart, will see that same divine essence, and will enjoy it before the general judgment; and that such vision of the divine essence and its enjoyment makes void the acts of faith and hope in them, inasmuch as faith and hope are proper theological virtues; and that after there has begun or will be such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment in these, the same vision and enjoyment without any interruption [intermission] or departure of the aforesaid vision and enjoyment exist continuously and will continue even up to the last judgment and from then even unto eternity. Moreover, we declare that according to the common arrangement of God, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin immediately after their death descend to hell where they are tortured by infernal punishments, and that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ, "so that everyone may receive the proper things of the body according as he has done whether it be good or evil" [ 2 Cor. 5:10]. (Pope Benedict XII, Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus; Denz. 530-531)
Thus we can see that the case of Pope John XXII is in no way comparable to that of "Pope" Francis: Pope John spoke (1) as a private teacher (2) on a matter not yet settled (3) in order to ascertain the truth of the matter so it could be defined, (4) meanwhile permitting others to differ from him. In other words, the Pope did not exercise his Magisterium; he did not commit heresy; and although his view was erroneous, it was permissible for him to hold at the time. The Church historian Fr. Reuben Parsons explicitly states that in holding his theory, Pope John was "in the full exercise of his right" (Studies in Church History, vol. 2, 2nd ed. [Fr. Pustet & Co., 1896], p. 500). Contrast this with the apostasy of "Pope" Francis, who (1) issues magisterial documents (such as Evangelii Gaudium and Amoris Laetitia) and has explicitly stated that he intends to speak magisterially even in interviews; (2) therefore as (putative) Pope; (3) on matters long settled and defined, even directly revealed by God (cf. Ex 20:14); (4) for the sake of changing established church teaching and practice. On Dec. 3, 1334 -- one day before he was to die -- Pope John XXII issued a formal retraction of any errors he may have held, in the bull Ne Super His, which was published by his successor, Pope Benedict XII:
In order that those things often said -- both by Us and by certain others in Our presence -- on the subject of the purified souls separated from the body (whether before the resurrection of the bodies they can see the divine essence with that vision which the apostle calls face to face) -- by citing Sacred Scripture and the original sayings of the saints or other modes of reasoning -- should not impress the ears of the faithful otherwise than as was said or understood by Us or as is being said and understood [by Us], so We now earnestly declare as follows, in the context of the present [writings] Our opinion that We, together with the holy Catholic Church, have and have had regarding this matter. We therefore confess and believe that the purified souls separated from the body are gathered together in heaven, in paradise and the kingdom of the heaven [sic], with Christ in the company of the angels, and that they, according to the common precept, clearly see God and the divine essence face to face, insofar as the state and the condition of the separated soul allows. But if, in any way, other things may have been said, or [said] in another manner, by Us on this subject, We have said them in the disposition of the Catholic faith, and We affirm to have said them thus in discoursing and discussing, and We wish to have said [them] thus. Furthermore, if We, in what pertains to the Catholic faith, Sacred Scripture, or good morals, have said other things in preaching, discoursing, formulating a doctrine, teaching, or in any other way, these, insofar as they are in conformity with the Catholic faith, the Church's way of thinking, Sacred Scripture, and good morals, We approve; other things, however, We wish to consider as though they were not said, and We do not in any way approve them; rather, insofar as these might not have been in accord with what We have mentioned -- the Catholic faith, the Church's way of thinking, Sacred Scripture, or good morals or any of these -- We reject them; and likewise We submit to the judgment of the Church and Our successors all that We have said or written on any subjects wherever and in whatever place and in whatever situation We have or may have had up until now. (Pope John XXII, Bull Ne Super His; Denzinger-Hünermann 990-991; available online in Latin here.)
Let no one, then, appeal to the case of Pope John XXII as historical precedent permitting refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. The traditional Catholic teaching on the Papacy remains as true today as it was when enunciated by Pope Pius IX in 1853: "Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees" (Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7). Those "traditional Catholics" of our day who think they can find precedent in the Church's past for resisting the Magisterium of a "heretical" Pope, forget that all these issues were debated extensively at the time of the First Vatican Council (1869-70) as the Pope and the bishops were preparing a dogmatic constitution on the primacy of the Pope and the extent of the infallibility of his Magisterium. The following anecdote was related by Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati, who had attended the council:
The question was also raised by a Cardinal, "What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?" It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; underlining added.)
Further information on the supposed "heretical" Popes of the past can be found in the following posts:
The Question of a Heretical Pope considered by Vatican I
The "Heretical" Popes, Part 1: Pope Adrian VI
The Case of Pope Honorius I
The Truth about Pope Liberius
Historically, those accusing Popes of magisterial error or heresy have typically been the enemies of the Church and of the Papacy (specifically Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Gallicans, and Modernists), whereas those who have defended the Popes from such charges have enjoyed a great reputation for orthodoxy. Of the latter group we need but name a few: Pope Pius IX, St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Joseph Hergenröther, Cardinal Louis-Nazaire Bégin, Dom Prosper Gueranger, and many others. Bellarmine even wrote a little compendium answering charges against a number of very specific Popes:
Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes Said to Have Erred in Faith by St. Robert Bellarmine
Those who deride the defenders of the integrity of the papal Magisterium as "Ultramontanists" apparently do not realize how foolish their charge is, because Ultramontanism is Catholicism: "For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanism are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it" (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Ultramontanism"). The only reason why accusing Popes of the past of heresy or other magisterial aberrations is very popular these days among those who mean to be traditional Catholics, is, of course, the simple fact that Francis' manifest apostasy combined with an irrational but dogmatic refusal of Sedevacantism leaves such people no other choice but to seek some kind of similar case in history to which they can point and say, "See, this Pope was just as heretical as Francis is, and the faithful resisted him, and no one said he wasn't the Pope." Such dishonorable efforts, however, are guaranteed to fail because they aim at finding in Church history a theological absurdity, an utter impossibility. As we have pointed out many times on this web site before, insisting that Jorge Bergoglio is a valid Roman Pontiff does incalculable damage to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy:
The Stumbling Block of the Papacy: Why Bergoglio doesn't fit
A Dangerous Experiment: Taking Francis' Claim to the Papacy Seriously
Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon
Why do so many people fear Sedevacantism? Analyzing a Mental Block
It is tragic to see how many would sooner jettison the true Catholic teaching on the Papacy than recognize that Jorge Bergoglio isn't a valid occupant of the office. Alas, people have ironically preferred having a Pope to the very meaning of the Papacy itself. For them, it is more important to have the papal office occupied than to preserve the correct understanding of what the papal office is. And so they have traded the Papacy for a Pope, as it were. The just punishment of this Faustian bargain is that they now have neither: They have no true Pope, and they no longer have the correct understanding of the Papacy either. See, then, how dire the consequences are to accepting Francis as a true Pope. Image source: Wikimedia Commons License: public domain69 minutes of Catholicism at full throttle...
TRADCAST 019 Now Available
In this episode we talk about the "Benedict XVI is the Real Pope" Deception and analyze the False Opposition of the Semi-Traditionalists
TRADCAST -- The Traditional Catholic Podcast
CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO LISTEN TO ALL EPISODES
In case you missed our initial announcement on September 26: Our popular TRADCAST podcast program is back with a new, full-length episode! As always, it is loaded with real traditional Catholicism, hard-hitting refutations of various errors, razor-sharp analysis, and a touch of humor. TRADCAST 019 covers a number of different topics, but particular attention is given to an idea that is gaining more and more popularity among Novus Ordos and Semi-Traditionalists as they reach the breaking point over the chaos "Pope" Francis is causing: the idea that Benedict XVI is the real Pope and, in any case, a stalwart defender of orthodoxy and restorer of Tradition. The truth about Joseph Ratzinger, however, is very different. This latest podcast also includes a funny reminder as to why you're not Novus Ordo anymore, and lots more, so be sure to tune in! The total run time of TRADCAST 019 is approximately 1 hr 9 mins. Here's an idea: Why not host a TRADCAST party at your home and invite family, friends, or neighbors over to discuss the show? You can also listen to older shows using our complete episodes list; or listen to a sermon or an apologetics/catechism class with your friends and family as well. This makes for great conversation -- much more important than football or politics! -- and will open people's eyes about Francis and the Novus Ordo Sect! It's one way you can do evangelization the easy way. In any case, don't miss this TRADCAST and spread the word!
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMlO3mjYYSk[/embedyt]
You can listen free of charge by playing the YouTube video above, or you can go to our TRADCAST 019 page, where you will find all the information you need for this show, including links to all the articles, books, blog posts, etc., mentioned in the podcast, and where you will also find ways to download this episode to your computer and sign up to be notified of new episodes by email.
"I said, 'Turn off the TRADCAST!'"
019 TRADCAST (26 SEP 2017)
Segment 1: Chaos in the Novus Ordo Church; the "Benedict XVI is the real Pope" deception; disunity in the Novus Ordo Church vs. Sedevacantism; comments on The Remnant's "Catholic Identity Conference 2017" and analysis of "Catholics Rising" promo video; comments on the dubia and formal correction; a look at recent news headlines; why you're not Novus Ordo anymore, reason no. 6042.
Segment 2: The 1985 Ratzinger Report and the 2017 Cardinal Muller Report: nothing has changed in 30 years; rational proof for the existence of God; comments on Chris Ferrara's "Francis Expands the Fake Magisterium".
Total run time: 1 hr 9 mins
You can listen to the show by clicking the big play button in the embedded player above. Alternatively, you can choose right below from more listening/viewing options: Alternate Show Links (Audio and Video)
Direct Link to mp3 File for Download (Audio)
Direct YouTube Link (Video)
Embedded video – see below
Links to Items mentioned in the Show & Related Information
Novus Ordo Watch, "Resignationism: Now 'Abp.' Georg Ganswein Weighs In" (Mar. 2, 2014)
Novus Ordo Watch, "Benedict XVI: What you need to know about the man who claimed to be the Pope from 2005-2013"
Book: Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987)
Article: Mario Derksen, "When the Shepherd is Struck: The Papacy and Sedevacantist 'Disunity'"; from The Reign of Mary, vol. XLV, no. 155 (summer 2014)
Advertisement: "Catholic Identity Conference 2017", The Remnant
YouTube Video: "Catholics Rising: A Major Event Coming Soon", The Remnant (uploaded Sep. 8, 2017)
Catholic Magisterial pronouncements: Henry Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma (1954 ed.)
Novus Ordo Watch, "Have the Gates of Hell Prevailed? The Papacy and Sedevacantism" (Dec. 27, 2015)
Blog Post: Steven O'Reilly, "Benedict is STILL not Pope", Roma Locuta Est (Sep. 14, 2017)
Blog Post: Maike Hickson, "Catholic Scholar: Official Persecution of Orthodoxy Within the Church Has Begun", One Peter Five (Sep. 15, 2017)
Blog Post: Pete Baklinski, "Theologian predicts how Pope Francis' teaching could be used to allow contraception", Life Site (Sep. 15, 2017)
Novus Ordo Watch, "Francis' 'Apostolic Exhortation' Amoris Laetitia: The Highlights" (Apr. 8, 2016)
Novus Ordo Watch, TRADCAST 013: The Amoris Laetitia Supershow (Apr. 26, 2016)
Book: Gerhard Ludwig Muller, The Cardinal Muller Report (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2017)
Book: Joseph Ratzinger and Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987)
Novus Ordo Watch, "HERESY: Vatican 'Archbishop' Gänswein says 'No Proof' for God's Existence" (Dec. 26, 2016)
Book: Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2017)
Church Document: Pope St. Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism, 1910)
Church Document: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Studiorum Ducem (1923)
Blog Post: Christopher Ferrara, "Francis Expands the Fake Magisterium", The Remnant (Sep. 6, 2017)
Book: St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff: In Five Books (Mediatrix Press, 2016)
Blog Post: Maike Hickson, "Bishop Schneider on Prof. Seifert, Cardinal Caffarra, and the Duty to Resist", One Peter Five (Sep. 17, 2017)
Book: Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council: 1869-1870 (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1962)
Church Document: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii (1930)
TRADCAST & TRADCAST EXPRESS: Complete Episode List
Support TRADCAST/NovusOrdoWatch by making a tax-deductible donation HERE
Follow Novus Ordo Watch on Twitter
Follow TRADCAST on Twitter
Automatic Subscription Options for TRADCAST
TRADCAST by Email (receive automatic notifications of each new episode by email)
The TRADCAST RSS Feed (for use with any podcast service)
TRADCAST on iTunes
TRADCAST on Stitcher
TRADCAST on Google Play
TRADCAST on Soundcloud
A brief response to "Contra Cekadam"...
Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
Fr. Francois Chazal and Fr. Anthony Cekada
Fr. Francois Chazal is a priest who holds the recognize-and-resist position of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre: Recognize as valid the "Popes" since Vatican II while resisting anything they teach or legislate that appears to conflict with Church teaching or practice before Vatican II. At this point, Fr. Chazal is a part of the so-called "Marian Corps" or "Strict Observance" faction of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X, which broke away from the "official" SSPX in response to Bp. Fellay's conciliatory course with regard to the Vatican Modernists. Unlike Sedevacantism, the recognize-and-resist position is extremely popular among traditionalists because it offers a best-of-both-worlds approach to the Vatican II Sect: You get to resist and refuse everything that is Modernist or otherwise objectionable, even to the point of having a de facto parallel church on the side; while at the same time you don't have to deal with any of the pesky problems that arise from Sedevacantism. Plus, you get to retain anything from the Novus Ordo Church that you may need or desire in your personal life (validity of certain sacraments and annulments, certain canonized saints, permissibility to attend the "New Mass", etc.). The only problem with this rather convenient position is that it is not at all reconcilable with Catholic teaching on the Papacy, the Magisterium, and the Church, as we have demonstrated on this web site time and again, including in a direct response to Fr. Chazal a few years ago. This is ironic because it means that people like Fr. Chazal effectively believe that they can uphold and defend traditional Catholic teaching by denying the same -- which makes about as much sense as trying to borrow one's way out of debt. Recently, Fr. Chazal came out with a lengthy monograph entitled Contra Cekadam, which is meant to rebut a number of arguments for Sedevacantism put forth by Fr. Anthony Cekada in his widely-circulated booklet Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (2nd ed., 2006). The first part of Contra Cekadam has been published online in French here. Responding to an inquiry by a third party, Fr. Cekada has provided a succinct rejoinder to Fr. Chazal, which we are happy to publish below. Readers interested in a more in-depth discussion of the topic are encouraged to check our topical page on Sedevacantism here.
Response to Contra Cekadam
by Fr. Anthony Cekada
Thanks for sending along the Chazal document. It is hardly, as Fr. Chazal seems to think, a point-by-point refutation of my argument in Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope. Fr. Chazal's Contra Cekadam doesn't even state the argument of the "Cekadam" in question, still less refute it. Here, for the record, is the argument I made in the booklet:
Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.
If Fr. Chazal agrees with the statements in points 1 (the changes are evil) and 2 (and the Church, by Christ's promise, cannot give evil/error), but he nevertheless still insists the Vatican II popes are true popes possessing authority from Christ, he maintains in effect that the Church of Christ has defected and that Christ's promises are void. As for the rest, Fr. Chazal simply:
recycles opinions on a heretical pope that were eventually abandoned after St. Robert Bellarmine,
attempts to apply criteria pertaining to ecclesiastical crimes when sedevacantists maintain that the public sin of heresy, not the crime, is what prevents a heretical pope from obtaining or retaining the papacy,
refloats the phony Adrian VI quote,
repeats the Paul-vs-Peter canard [see Appendix at end of post here] on fraternal correction for a moral fault, which does not solve the problem of the Church defecting wholesale by promulgating theological errors and evil universal laws,
in his treatment of Scripture as a "refutation" of sedevacantism, ignores St. Paul's own assertion that he could in fact, "preach another Gospel," for which even he himself would become "anathema."
recycles supposed incidents from history to demonstrate that there have been heretic popes before, but which incidents (a) are part of the standard arguments of protestants who reject papal infallibility, and (b) have been repeatedly refuted by Catholic dogmatic theologians.
Fr. Chazal's arguments on each of these points still does not get him out of the theological pickle that points 1 and 2 of my original argument put him in — the Chazalian equation that works out to:
Evil changes + true popes = defected Church.
Good luck getting out of that one, Father Chazal!Semi-Trads trip over the Papacy...
At the dictation of the Holy Ghost, the first Pope, St. Peter, wrote concerning his Lord and Master Jesus Christ:
...it is said in the scripture [Is 28:16]: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set. (1 Peter 2:6-8)
It is fitting that the Pope, being the Vicar of Christ, should have a share in His Lord's attribute of being a stumbling block to those who do not believe. In our day, this truth is being accentuated with particular force, although in a way that most would, presumably, never have expected. In a recent post entitled "A Dangerous Experiment: Taking Francis' Claim to the Papacy Seriously", we took the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Pastor Aeternus, and replaced each occurrence of the phrase "Roman Pontiff" in it with "Pope Francis", to demonstrate what one would have to believe about Francis if he truly were the Pope of the Catholic Church. After all, to accept a man as Pope means to affirm of him whatever the Church affirms of the Papacy. The results of this experiment were grotesque and showed that most people who call themselves "traditional Catholics" and accept Jorge Bergoglio as Pope, do not in fact believe about him what the Church teaches about the Pope. The excuses people come up with to justify their stance are endless, but they all seem to be consistently driven by one single overall motive: to avoid Sedevacantism at all costs. That price, however, is too high; because by taking an anything-but-Sedevacantism approach, they distort and thereby deny the Catholic Faith of which they imagine themselves to be loyal adherents and staunch defenders. Put in figurative but more practical terms, the recognize-and-resist traditionalists are faced with the problem of the square peg (Bergoglio) not fitting into the round hole (Papacy). Since the two won't fit, there are only two ways to make them fit if one insists on recognizing Francis as the Pope of the Catholic Church: either modify the peg (by spinning Bergoglio into a Catholic) or modify the hole (by changing and thus denying Catholic doctrine on the Papacy). In the face of the undeniability of Francis' open apostasy, more and more people who refuse to let go of the idea that the man really is the Pope, are going with the second option. That is, they would rather deny the office of the Papacy than deny that one particular man actually possesses it. Here is a brief excerpt from one of our podcasts making this very point:
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPsXPqqCPT8[/embedyt]
This tragic phenomenon we will evaluate in this post. In particular, we will examine three recent cases of individuals who mean to be traditional Roman Catholics but have, explicitly or implicitly, denied ("stumbled over") the Papacy as a result of their refusal to abandon the idea that Francis is a true Vicar of Christ. In other words, because they have insisted on continued use of the square peg and were determined to make it fit into the round hole, they left themselves no choice but to clumsily and forcefully adjust the shape of the hole. The three individuals who have recently engaged in this impossible task are: Nick Donnelly, Hilary White, and George Neumayr.
Nick Donnelly
We'll begin with Nick Donnelly, a Novus Ordo permanent deacon in Lancaster, England, who owns the web site ProtectThePope.com and is active on Twitter. For years Donnelly ran his Twitter account under the handle @ProtectThePope, yet a few days ago, on July 17, he notified his followers that he was changing his Twitter name from @ProtectThePope to @ProtectTheFaith. Take a look at his tweet announcing the change (click image to enlarge):
(direct link to tweet)
This change from "Pope" to "Faith" is very revealing: Donnelly had to change his handle because it became manifestly undeniable that protecting the Faith could not be accomplished by protecting (defending) Francis. As the last 4+ years have proved, "Pope" Francis is clearly not the bulwark of the Faith, is not the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. But that is precisely what the Pope -- a real Pope -- is, according to Catholic teaching:
By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, been strengthened? (Pope St. Leo IX, Apostolic Letter In Terra Pax; Denz. 351) This chair [of Peter] is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered. Every church must agree with it because of its greater preeminence — that is, those people who are in all respects faithful…. Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees. (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, nn. 1,7) Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors. (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, n. 17) Union with the Roman See of Peter is … always the public criterion of a Catholic…. "You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held". (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 13) 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 Saviour, 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 have been promised it, it makes no terms with error, but remains faithful to the commands which it has received to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Annum Ingressi) So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: 'The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [Mt 16:18], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.'… To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world … referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing…. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Lk 22:32]. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell. (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4)
As we can see here, in the Catholic Church, protecting the Pope is protecting the Faith because the Pope himself is the divinely guaranteed guardian of the Faith. Presumably, this was also Donnelly's own understanding at some point and the reason why he originally set up his handle as @ProtectThePope to begin with. But then Francis came and made a mess, and now Donnelly has stumbled: Instead of leaving his Twitter handle intact and rejecting Francis as Pope -- which would have been compatible with Catholic principles --, he decided to retain Francis and instead change his idea about the Papacy. In other words, instead of tossing out the square peg, he decided the hole needed adjustment. Perhaps it's a good thing that Twitter does not allow account names longer than 15 characters, else Mr. Donnelly might have chosen @ProtectTheFaithFromThePope as his new handle, which would have illustrated the monstrous absurdity of the notion that Francis is a true Pope, even more clearly. We must never forget that Catholic teaching on the Papacy applies to each and every Pope equally. Once he is validly elected and accepts the office, even an unfit man, an oddball, or a great sinner is no less of a Pope and is owed no less submission and obedience by Catholics than a St. Pius X or a St. Gregory the Great:
The Church, as St. Leo the Great teaches, in well-ordered love accepts Peter in the See of Peter, and sees and honors Peter in the person of his successor the Roman pontiff. Peter still maintains the concern of all pastors in guarding their flocks, and his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir. In Peter then, as is aptly remarked by the same holy Doctor, the courage of all is strengthened and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the constancy conferred on Peter through Christ is conferred on the apostles through Peter. (Pope Leo XII, Encyclical Ubi Primum, n. 22) All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 22:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians. (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, n. 16) …the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling? Blessed be the strength of his arm and the multitude of his mercies! (Pope Leo XIII, Allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 349; underlining added.)
Not only is this the dogmatic teaching of the Church, it is also verified in ecclesiastical history, as we can see, for example, in the case of the notoriously sinful and unfit Pope John XII:
Nothing in his life marked him for this office, and everything should have kept him from it. He was rarely seen in church. His days and nights were spent in the company of young men and of disreputable women, in the pleasures of the table and of amusements and of the hunt, or in even more sinful sensual enjoyments. It is related that sometimes, in the midst of dissolute revelry, the prince had been seen to drink to the health of the devil. Raised to the papal office, Octavian changed his name and took the name of John XII. He was the first pope thus to assume a new name. But his new dignity brought about no change in his morals, and merely added the guilt of sacrilege. Divine providence, watching over the Church, miraculously preserved the deposit of faith, of which this young voluptuary was the guardian. This Pope's life was a monstrous scandal, but his bullarium is faultless. We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy. There is not a heretic or a schismatic who has not endeavored to legitimate his own conduct dogmatically: Photius tried to justify his pride, Luther his sensual passions, Calvin his cold cruelty. Neither Sergius III nor John XII nor Benedict IX nor Alexander VI, supreme pontiffs, definers of the faith, certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole Church, uttered, from the height of their apostolic pulpit, a single word that could be an approval of their disorders. At times John XII even became the defender of the threatened social order, of offended canon law, and of the religious life exposed to danger. (Rev. Fernand Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, Vol. 3 [St. Louis, MO: Herder Book Co., 1946], pp. 510-511)
Let no one, therefore, say that Francis is a "bad Pope". He is not. He is a non-Pope. A bad man who is a Catholic can be Pope, but a non-Catholic man cannot. (This is explained further here.)
Hilary White
Next, we turn to another recent Papacy stumbler, the semi-traditionalist blogger and Remnant contributor Hilary White. On July 16, she sent this tweet:
Notice that Miss White is questioning Vatican I, not Vatican II. Talk about stumbling over the Papacy! But then, what should keep her from it, given the "recognize-and-resist" position she espouses? After all, if we can resist one legitimate church council, why not the others as well? This is simply the logical conclusion of the resistance position, where each individual Catholic is ultimately the judge over which magisterial pronouncements to accept and reject, and where each believer determines for himself when the Pope is to be submitted to and when he must be resisted. The end result? Absolute chaos, with no possibility of resolution even in principle, since the Pope has been rejected as the ultimate Catholic authority that can bind consciences and move wills. The Pope is reduced to a figurehead who is "followed" only whenever what he decrees is already in agreement with the personal conviction of each believer. (We elaborate a bit more on this in our response to SSPX-resistance priest Fr. Francois Chazal.) So now White has simply extended her resistance to Vatican I as well. And for what reason? Because it seemed better to her to throw out Vatican I than to give up the idea that Francis is Pope. (Once again, modifying the round hole was preferred to junking the square peg.) We had warned about this back in April in our response to Steve Skojec's preposterous recommendation of a "practical Sedevacantism", the idea that we must say Francis is Pope but act like he's not:
Thus, while "practical sedevacantists" may very well think of themselves as retaining the traditional Catholic faith, the truth is that they have long rejected it — keeping in mind that rejecting even one dogma rejects the Faith entirely, since the Faith exists only as a whole and not in parts or degrees.... Certainly, the "practical sedevacantist" may perhaps pay lipservice to the traditional Catholic teaching while contradicting it in practice, but such a course of action would not only be dishonest and hypocritical, it would also amount to cognitive dissonance, a state in which one's actions deny — or at least do not match — one's thoughts or stated beliefs. Such a state cannot last long for a sane human being. The discrepancy between one's thoughts and one's actions will quickly resolve itself into either changing one's actions to align with the thoughts, or changing one's thoughts to correspond with the actions. Since he refuses to abandon the belief that Francis is a true Pope, no matter the consequences, the "practical sedevacantist" thus forces himself to either submit to Francis and become Novus Ordo, or else deny the traditional Catholic teaching on the Papacy. We are reminded of these words of St. Jerome: "…every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church" (qtd. by Pope Pius IX, Encylical Quartus Supra, n. 13). ("Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon", Novus Ordo Wire, Apr. 25, 2017)
Tragically, White has proven our analysis correct: No longer able to bear the obvious conflict between the teaching of the First Vatican Council on the Papacy and the known facts about Jorge Bergoglio, White is now toying with the idea of abandoning belief in the Papacy altogether. This corroborates the warnings we've issued on this blog and in some of our podcasts, namely, that acceptance of Francis as Pope is dangerous and destructive of the very Faith one means to uphold.
George Neumayr
Lastly, we will examine some ideas recently put forth by George Neumayr, who writes for The American Spectator and just published the highly informative work The Political Pope: How Pope Francis Is Delighting the Liberal Left and Abandoning Conservatives (New York, NY: Center Street, 2017). On July 14, Mr. Neumayr appeared as a guest on the Tom Woods Show (episode no. 952) to discuss his new book, meaning he spoke in detail about the apostasy of "Pope" Francis. Toward the end of the program, Woods asked Neumayr what he would, ideally, like to see happen in the church now with regard to the "Pope". Neumayr's response was explosive and telling: "This might sound glib but the best-case scenario that I could envision would be if the Pope converted to Catholicism" (31:25 min mark)! Yes, wouldn't it be helpful if the Pope were also a Catholic? If the head of the Catholic Church were also a member of the Catholic Church? Wouldn't that make the Catholic teaching on the Papacy -- especially Vatican I -- so much easier and more meaningful? As we saw above, the simple fact of the matter is that Catholic doctrine does not allow for the idea of a non-Catholic Pope. It's impossible, nay absurd. For Neumayr to state something so outrageous shows that he does not know -- or, at any rate, does not adhere to -- Catholic teaching on the Papacy. How could the Pope be the rock on which rests the foundation of the Church and which the gates of hell cannot overthrow, if he himself denies the very Faith his office is divinely guaranteed to protect? Neumayr elaborates on his answer and goes on to describe various other possible scenarios he envisions. Although we cannot transcribe everything here, you can listen to the entire podcast at this link. There is, however, one more comment he makes that we cannot pass over in silence (beginning at the audio's 32:28 min mark):
Catholics are going to have to decide whether they [audio unclear] the Faith over papolatry; whether preserving the integrity of the faith is more important to them than maintaining a sort of phony appearance of unity. The cardinals are going to have to decide whether they're really defenders of the faith or not. And if they do make that decision, then they have only one choice, and that is to declare to the faithful that the current Pope is a bad Pope, and he must be resisted, for the good of the faith.
Now that's a new one: The Novus Ordo cardinals are to get together and declare, not that Francis isn't a Pope, or that they will remove him from office (which they couldn't do if he were a true Pope, but this had been suggested by semi-trads before), but that he is a bad Pope and ought to be resisted!? Precisely where in Catholic doctrine does Mr. Neumayr find such an idea? Is he making it up as he goes along? This shows that people have lost all sense of what the Papacy is, even those people who think themselves defenders of the Faith. And no wonder, for if you continually make yourself believe that a square peg can go through a round hole, it is not surprising if after a while you start thinking of the hole as having corners itself. The Pope is sovereign and supreme. No one can judge him; no one can punish him; no one can even subject him to a trial, and all must submit to him under pain of eternal damnation. We have laid out all this in some detail at the following links:
Response to Mundabor on the Papacy
Pope Leo XIII condemns the "Recognize-and-Resist" Position
There is a lot more in the Neumayr podcast audio that we could take issue with here -- such as his claim that if Francis doesn't answer the dubia, there is no way to know whether he is a formal heretic or not -- but this will suffice to make our point: Once again an attempt is being made to "defend the Faith" by people denying that Faith. We have no reason to doubt Mr. Neumayr's sincerity and good will, but that is irrelevant to the cold hard fact that he cannot defend a Faith that he himself does not hold. It is absolutely astonishing to see to what lengths people will go in order to avoid the conclusion that Francis is not a valid Pope. There really does seem to be a veritable "Sedevacantophobia".
Answering a Common Objection
At this point, someone may argue that there is no danger in accepting Francis as Pope, as long as we reject whatever he teaches that is false. We can simply "take what is good" from him and "reject what is bad", can't we? The short answer is no, we can't. The longer answer is given by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church. In his magnificent treatise On the Roman Pontiff, he refutes precisely this very argument:
The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err. Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err. (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; translated by Ryan Grant as On the Roman Pontiff [Mediatrix Press, 2016], vol. 2, p. 160; underlining added.)
Again we see that the true Catholic teaching on the Papacy is all but forgotten in our day. If submission to the Pope consisted in nothing more than a "take what is good, reject what is bad" approach -- in which each individual believer has to decide for himself what is good and what is bad, of course --, what would be the difference between a Pope and a Protestant minister? Could we not say the same about "Pastor Fred" at Rainbow Bible Fellowship down the street -- take from him what is good and reject what is bad? Is the Papacy essentially the same, then, as the pseudo-offices of heretics? Is the Vicar of Christ and Sovereign Pontiff of the Bride of Christ really just another "Pastor Fred"? Obviously not. But it is precisely to this that the recognize-and-resisters, especially the Society of St. Pius X, have reduced the Papacy in their stubborn refusal to abandon the idea that an apostate like Jorge Bergoglio could be the head of the Catholic Church. Apparently it is just so much easier to rework that round hole than to throw away the square peg and insist on one that will fit.
But can't we just "leave all this to God"?
All these considerations likewise refute the so-called "Opinionists", that is, those who maintain that it is entirely legitimate to accept Francis as Pope, as long as we don't submit to him. But this would only be a tenable position if submission to the Pope were not required by Catholic doctrine -- yet it is, under pain of heresy and under pain of schism. And this makes perfect sense, for it would be absurd to say that the Church could have a faith different from that of her head. Still, some people sincerely wonder: "Can't we just keep the Faith and simply not worry about the Pope issue? Whether Francis is Pope or not, we know what we have to believe and how to practice our religion. So can't we just do that and leave the rest to God?" At first sight, this might seem like a reasonable position to take, and one can sympathize with those of good will who hold it. There is so much turmoil, so much struggle in souls over everything that has happened, and one cannot help but feel a certain compassion for people who seek refuge in such a "let's just be Catholic and leave this to God" approach. However, while those who struggle deserve our sympathy and compassion indeed, this does not make the truth about the matter somehow relative or optional. In a nutshell: The reason why we cannot just "keep the Faith" and ignore the Pope question is that Catholic teaching on papal authority and submission to the Pope is part of the very Faith we need to keep and defend. You cannot simply cut out a portion of the Faith and decide to only "keep the rest". If you toss out the Papacy, you are not keeping the Faith, no matter how many other dogmas you embrace. Of course we understand that it takes people some time to "sort things out", so to speak, and that is entirely legitimate. We do not condemn people who are searching for doing what they need to do: search, investigate, assess. But this does not take away from the fact that there is only one conclusion at which ultimately to arrive. Consider this analogy: A Protestant man is having some doubts about his religion and is starting to research to see if Catholicism is true. This is difficult for him because he does not have a lot of Catholic apologetics material at his disposal, he has to work a lot of hours to support his wife and eight children, and he is a slow reader. Besides, because of how he was raised, he has a difficult time accepting the Catholic veneration of saints and in particular Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Do we sympathize with this man's struggle? Of course we do. Do we recognize his good will, pray for him, try to help him, and wish him well? Naturally. But none of this means that the truth of the Catholic religion is therefore a matter of opinion, that it is not that important, that he can just "accept Christ, try to live a holy life, and leave the rest to God." The mere fact that people struggle to come to understand certain things does not do away with the fact that there is something to be understood. And that something is certain and not optional.
"But you have no Authority!"
The same goes for the objection that sedevacantists have "no authority" to require anyone else to be a sedevacantist. Of course we don't. But then, we do not invoke any pretended authority to begin with. To return to the analogy we just used, Catholics also don't have any authority to require a Protestant to be a Catholic. But it's not a matter of authority: Catholicism is true because it is the religion founded by Jesus Christ, not because Catholics "authoritatively" declare it to be true. And just as this lack of authority on the part of individual Catholics with regard to converting Protestants does not render Catholicism optional, doubtful, or reduce it to an opinion, neither does a sedevacantist's lack of authority make Sedevacantism optional or doubtful, nor does it make Francis' status into an opinion. The lack of authority is not a genuine difficulty because it simply does not require authority to point out that the peg is square, the hole is round, and the two don't fit -- and you're not allowed to change the shape of either. For those who would like to investigate this whole issue about opinion and authority further, we recommend the following:
Is Francis a valid Pope? Why it does matter
Comedy Hour at The Remnant: Response to Hilary White
Opinionism: Is the Pope Question just an Opinion? by Bp. Donald Sanborn
These articles will help you rediscover the true Catholic teaching on the Papacy.
Believe in the Papacy, not in Francis
The Papacy is not the problem -- anti-Catholic usurpers of the papal throne are. And unless we firmly reject their false claims to the Papacy, we will be led into serious error by them, either directly (by embracing their false teaching) or indirectly (by rejecting their false teaching but then, by necessary implication, denying the Catholic doctrine on the Papacy, which requires that we submit to papal teaching). The Catholic teaching on the Pope is true, and it is immensely beautiful and consoling: "To you therefore that believe, he is honour" (1 Pet 2:7). At the same time, it is also quite terrible, becase the rock of St. Peter, which perdures in all of his legitimate successors (see Denz. 1824 and our post on Perpetual Successors), "to them that believe not" becomes, like Christ, "the stone which the builders rejected, ... the head of the corner: a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set" (1 Pet 2:7-8). We must take great care, therefore, that we do not stumble: "And whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder" (Mt 21:44). The people we have criticized in this post, we have criticized in charity. We do not want to see them ground to powder, so to speak. They have stumbled and fallen, and we want to help them get up. We exhort them, therefore: "Do not believe in Francis at the expense of the Papacy! Rather, believe in the Papacy at the expense of Francis!" Doubting or denying Catholic doctrine on the Papacy is a very serious sin, even heresy with regard to those teachings that are dogmatic. To all those who are more willing to doubt the Papacy than the legitimacy of the world's greatest apostate, we say: Why? Why do you let Bergoglio do this to your soul? Why do you let him steal your faith? If Bergoglio causes you thus to sin against the Faith, cut him off! For it is better for you to enter Eternal Life without a Pope than to go to eternal damnation with (a putative) one (cf. Mt 5:29-30). If this makes you uneasy and the prospect of having no Pope frightens you, this is understandable. However, do not let this be an excuse not to heed the admonitions of our Lord: "Fear not, only believe" (Mk 5:36); and, "...be not faithless, but believing" (Jn 20:27). It is okay to be frightened, but it is not okay not to believe: "...he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk 16:16); "Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (2 Jn 9). And thus we believe. We believe in the Papacy and therefore not in "Pope" Francis. Image sources: composite with elements from shutterstock.com and istockphoto.com Licenses: paidSetting the record straight...
These days, recognize-and-resist adherents are in an extremely difficult spot: They can no longer deny the horrendous public apostasy perpetrated by Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope Francis") on a near-daily basis, yet they absolutely refuse to consider even as a possibility the idea that the greatest apostate the world has ever known is not at the same time the Vicar of Christ and head of the infallible and indefectible Roman Catholic Church. Time and again, therefore, they are eager to find historical precedent for their position, and few things seem to please them more than to find, ostensibly, a "heretical Pope" in Church history they can point to in support of their stance. Like the Gallicans of the 19th century, today's recognize-and-resisters think they have found such a case in the seventh-century Pope Honorius I, whom several ecumenical councils (Constantinople III, Nicea II, and Constantinople IV) anathematized as a "heretic" for appearing to endorse the heresy of Monothelitism in a letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. But what are the historical facts, and how can we be sure of them? The issue of Pope Honorius was never more controversial than on the eve of and during the First Vatican Council, which was held from 1869-70 and defined as a dogma, among other things, the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra. It was during this time that all the known facts on Pope Honorius were scrutinized and hotly debated. (Even the question of what would happen if a Pope became a public heretic was raised -- and answered.) Arguments from all sides were exchanged by means of books, pamphlets, articles, and speeches. For example, in 1868 the Jesuit Fr. Paul Bottalla published the book Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History (available for free electronically here), which he wrote in response to Peter Le Page Renouf's pamphlet, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius. Some maintained that Pope Honorius was indeed a Monothelite heretic, and that history proved it; others claimed that the historical documents on which this accusation rested had been interpolated or were outright forgeries. Others still argued that although the documents had to be admitted as authentic, they did not in fact prove Honorius to have been a heretic. In order to bring this controversy, which has once again flared up in our day, to a decisive end, we have undertaken to translate from the original French the research presented on this issue by Fr. Louis-Nazaire Bégin (1840-1925) in his book La Primauté et l'Infaillibilité des Souverains Pontifes ("The Primacy and Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiffs"), published in 1873. The Canadian Fr. Begin held a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was later appointed Archbishop of Quebec by Pope Leo XIII (1898) and created cardinal by Pope St. Pius X (1914). At the time of the Vatican Council, Fr. Begin was teaching dogmatic theology and Church history at a seminary in Quebec. Writing in 1873, Fr. Begin had the benefit of being able to draw from all the research done in preparation for the council, from the acts of the council, and from its teachings. His book, which is based on a series of university lessons he gave, bears the required imprimatur of Cardinal Taschereau, then the Archbishop of Quebec. It is clear, therefore, that it will be a most reliable source -- both in terms of assessing the facts of history and of ensuring doctrinal orthodoxy -- for unraveling the confusing case of Pope Honorius according to the mind of the Church. Fr. Begin's book does not solely deal with the Pope Honorius controversy. As the title indicates, it is a general vindication of papal primacy and infallibility throughout Church history. It has been published only in French and can be read online for free here and purchased in paperback here. An English translation of the entire book is not available; however, we have translated the lecture dealing with the Honorius question and are making it available for you in full at the following link:
The Primacy and Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiffs: The Case of Pope Honorius I by Fr. Louis-Nazaire Bégin
In this text, Fr. Begin proposes to answer "all the objections levied against the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius", and he does not fail to deliver. "It is good for all to be acquainted with this controversy", the author instructs his readers, "which has upset souls so much and which the enemies of the Church have abused so often against the papacy and Catholicism in general." The Canadian priest outlines the task before him as follows:
I shall begin by showing that the documents in question, that is to say the letter of Sergius to Honorius, the two letters of Honorius to Sergius, and the acts of the Sixth Council, are authentic; then I shall show that Honorius, nevertheless, did not fall into heresy, and that the Sixth [Ecumenical] Council [i.e. the Third Council of Constantinople] did not condemn him as a formal heretic, but only as guilty of negligence.
All of this Fr. Begin accomplishes with the necessary seriousness, erudition, sensibility, love of truth, and dedication to Holy Mother Church such an important subject demands. The following select quotes from Fr. Begin's investigation of the Pope Honorius case touch upon some key points of the controversy and will serve as additional incentives to read the entire text:
We come now to a very serious question, one which touches the very heart of our subject. This is the question: Did Pope Honorius fall into the heresy of Monotheletism? I answer, "No!" Here I find myself to have for adversaries a throng of writers hostile to the Catholic Church. On the other hand, I am supported by men who are the most eminent for their knowledge and erudition. ... In his first letter [to Sergius, Pope Honorius] repeats several times that "the Scriptures demonstrate clearly that Jesus Christ is the same Who operates in things divine and in things human;" that "Jesus Christ operates in the two natures, divinely and humanly." Nothing could be clearer or more obvious! The heresy is right away knocked down. It is thus evident that Honorius confesses in Jesus Christ not only two natures, but also two wills and two operations. Thus, this Pontiff professes in his letters the Catholic truth; he rejects only the new words being used to express it, and this for reasons of prudence, in order not to appear to favor Nestorianism or Eutychianism, and also because Sergius astutely portrayed these new expressions as a cause of troubles in the Church and an obstacle to the return of Monosphysites to orthodoxy. ... John, secretary to Honorius, who wrote the letter to Sergius and who must have known better than any other the thoughts of the Pontiff, said on this matter: "When we spoke of a single will in the Lord, we did not have in view His double nature, divine and human, but His humanity only.... We meant that Jesus Christ did not have two contrary wills, that is to say one of the flesh and one of the spirit, as we ourselves have on account of sin, but that, with regard to His humanity, He had but one natural will." Pope John IV gave to Honorius's words absolutely the same sense. It is therefore quite evident that the doctrine of Honorius in his letters to Sergius is irreproachable from the point of view of sound theology, because in addition to the divine will, which no one has denied, he confesses the human will in all its perfection. ...[Honorius'] unique goal, and certainly a very praiseworthy one, was to maintain peace in the Church by preventing the introduction of new words and removing all obstacles to the return of heretics to the true doctrine. ... Thus, amid all the accusations brought against Honorius by the Fathers of the Sixth Council, none of them amounted to formal heresy; all of them were limited to incriminating this pope for having followed the advice of Sergius, who prescribed silence on the doctrine of the two operations in Jesus Christ, by which the error was propagated due to the audacious activity of the Monothelites and the blind obedience of Catholics, by which the heresy was not rejected and condemned in principle with the courage and energy which ought to be found in the supreme pastor; but in none of this do you see the council accuse Honorius of having professed a doctrine contrary to that of the Church. His negligence--this was his entire crime, this is why he was reproached, and this is what brought him condemnation. ...I do not deny the condemnation; on the contrary, I admit it according to what I said moments ago; but I distinguish the word heretic, which is quite imprecise and was still more so at the time of the councils in question. It was designated not only to those who professed the heresy knowingly and obstinately, but also to those who benefited it in any manner whatsoever, be it by their silence and negligence when their responsibilities obliged them to take action, be it by defending persons or the writings of heretics, be it even due to their communication with these heretics, or that they involuntarily admitted their doctrines. ...From this, I conclude that Honorius could have been condemned as a heretic by these three councils, and that he in fact was, not for having taught error, but solely for not having exerted the necessary vigor in his duties as Head of the Church, for not having vigorously used his authority to repress heresy, for having prescribed silence about the manner of expressing a truth, and having thus contributed to the diffusion of error. This is the same conclusion which was reached by almost everyone who dealt with this question during the Vatican Council. Dom Guéranger, Abbot of the Solesmes Benedictines, said on the matter, "The real Sixth Council, the one to which the Roman Pontiff gave the necessary and canonical form, the one which requires the respect of the faithful, condemned Honorius only as an unfaithful guardian of the deposit of the faith, but not as having himself been an adherent of heresy. Justice and truth forbid us from going beyond that."
These select few quotes are by no means meant to replace an attentive and thorough reading of the entire text, which we have gone through the trouble of procuring for you in English translation. Here, again, is the link to the full chapter:
You will not regret spending some time reading the scholarly presentation by this eminent seminary professor and later cardinal-archbishop. Understanding the Pope Honorius controversy correctly is extremely important in our day, not only for the sake of maintaining the purity of Catholic doctrine and clarifying the historical facts, but also and especially so that it cannot be misused by others to promote a public apostate as the Vicar of Christ and head of the Catholic Church. The next time someone tries to tell you that Pope Honorius was a heretic, or that several ecumenical councils have condemned Pope Honorius as one, you will now have the ammunition you need to set the historical record straight. Image sources: Wikimedia Commons Licenses: public domain
Posts Tagged: Sedevacantism
A case of false advertising…
After the passing of John Vennari earlier this year, the new editor of the semi-traditionalist, recognize-and-resist flagship publication Catholic Family News (CFN) is Matt Gaspers. With Gaspers taking over the reins, CFN completely redesigned its web site, and the new version was launched just a few weeks ago.
Perusing the revamped CFN web site, we noticed that its "Online Store" page says the following: "Don't miss a single issue of Catholic Family News, the monthly journal 100% faithful to the Catholic Faith of all time, and to Pope St.
in Novus Ordo Wire Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari, Matthew Gaspers, Michael Matt, Papacy, Sedevacantism, SSPX	150
Francis: "Someone might think, 'This Pope is a Heretic'…" for saying Judas Iscariot might be saved
No kidding!
Francis: "Someone might think, 'This Pope is a Heretic'…" for saying Judas Iscariot might be saved!
We all know that "Pope" Francis says the darndest things when he gives a scripted speech, but he is absolutely priceless when speaking off the cuff because it is then that his anti-Catholic mind is revealed most candidly.
The Italian Novus Ordo television station TV2000 has been running a broadcast program called Padre Nostro ("Our Father"), featuring in-depth conversations about the Lord's Prayer with none other than "His Holiness", Mr. Jorge Bergoglio. These have now been released as a book, Quando Pregate Dite Padre Nostro ("When you Pray, say Our Father"), and the Italian Corriere della Sera has just published an excerpt of it.
in Novus Ordo Wire Blasphemy, Francis, Heresy, Judas, Papacy, Sedevacantism	45
It looks like the pseudo-Catholic establishment in the Vatican is feeling the heat against "Pope" Francis.
After more and more people are beginning to voice doubt about the legitimacy of Jorge Bergoglio's claim to being the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Vatican will host the presentation of a book against what they call "Sedevacantism", on Tuesday evening, Nov. 21.
The book in question is called Sedevacantisti ("Sedevacantists") and was written by Francesco Antonio Grana. It was released on Oct. 11, 2017 and is being published by Tau Editrice.
in Novus Ordo Wire Antonio Socci, Francesco Grana, Francis, Resignationism, Schism, Sedevacantism, Vatican	102
A New Sedevacantist Bishop: Fr. Joseph Selway to be consecrated a Bishop in Spring 2018
Successor to Bp. Donald Sanborn
The November 2017 newsletter of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, contains an announcement for an episcopal consecration. The Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn will consecrate Fr. Joseph Selway a bishop in the spring of next year. The precise date is still to be determined.
The following is the announcement published by Bp. Sanborn:
Father Selway will be consecrated a bishop in the spring. Obviously sooner or later I had to choose someone to succeed me in what I do and say.
in Novus Ordo Wire Donald Sanborn, Joseph Selway, Sedevacantism	33
John Daly destroys Semi-Trad Pioneer
The Errors of Michael Davies:
A Comprehensive Refutation
MICHAEL DAVIES — AN EVALUATION
by John S. Daly
One of the most prominent and influential writers of the traditionalist movement in the Vatican II Church was the English writer Michael Treharne Davies (1936-2004), shown above with then-"Cardinal" Joseph Ratzinger. No individual has written more prolifically than Davies on traditionalist issues, and probably no single layman, with the possible exception of Dietrich von Hildebrand, has enjoyed wider prominence, credibility, and trustworthiness than him. But is this respect Mr. Davies has enjoyed really well-founded?
in Novus Ordo Wire John Daly, Magisterium, Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Papacy, Schism, Sedevacantism, SSPX, Vatican II	24
When you need to go to confession but can't…
Perfect Contrition:
The Key to Heaven, especially for Our Times
You can still be forgiven of your mortal sins if there is no priest available to hear your confession…
For the great majority of Catholics in the world today, it is virtually impossible to go to confession to a validly ordained priest who professes the true Catholic Faith of the ages and does not profess communion with a public heretic or apostate like Francis or Benedict XVI. Throughout Church history, there were many people in sundry places and circumstances that made approaching a priest for confession, for one reason or another, impossible.
in Novus Ordo Wire Bernard Uttley, Confession, New Sacraments, Sedevacantism	31
Intro to Sedevacantism III: Sacraments for Non-Catholics in the 1983 Code of Canon Law
Our series continues…
In August of 2016, we began a video series introducing newcomers to Sedevacantism in a way that is easy to follow, provides airtight argumentation, and does not overwhelm.
The first part of the series put before the viewer the Second Vatican Council's new doctrine on the Church (ecclesiology), according to which the Church of Jesus Christ no longer is the Catholic Church, as taught by Pope Pius XII and all of his predecessors, but instead now "subsists in" it. The second installment of the series focused on the Vatican II heresy that blasphemously claims that the Holy Ghost uses false religions as means of salvation.
in Novus Ordo Wire Ecumenism, John Paul II, Sedevacantism, Vatican II	77
Informative Podcast Discussion: Novus Ordo vs. Sedevacantist
The Catholic vs. podcast is a Novus Ordo podcast produced and hosted by David Mary Andrew Ross. The host, who is a convert to the Vatican II Church from atheism (2009), interviews guests who have a religious position different from his own. The format is informal and conversational, and the idea is to generate light rather than heat.
On Sep. 30, 2017, in an episode entitled Catholic vs. Catholic, the host interviewed sedevacantist Stephen Heiner. The show is available for free and can be listened to here:
In roughly 58 minutes, Ross and Heiner challenge each other on a number of different issues, including the teachings of Vatican II, wolves in sheep's clothing, the disaster of Amoris Laetitia, and the visibility of the Church.
in Novus Ordo Wire David Ross, Magisterium, Papacy, Schism, Sedevacantism, Stephen Heiner, Vatican, Vatican II	29
In Memory of the Last True Pope (so far): Pius XII
Mar 2, 1876 – Oct 9, 1958
When Pius XII died, the Novus Ordo Religion was as yet unknown to the world, for it would not come into existence until later, beginning with the election during a bizarre conclave of the first Modernist Antipope, John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli).
in Novus Ordo Wire Conclave 1958, Pope Pius XII, Sedevacantism	17
Historical Precedent for a "Heretical" Pope?
At a time when countless supposed "traditional Catholics" don't think twice about accusing an unquestionably true Pope of the past of teaching heresy or at least grave doctrinal error, it behooves us to remind everyone that instead of simply believing whatever you see posted on a blog somewhere, the safer course is to simply look the stuff up. It's not like these questions never came up before or that no clear answer was ever put forward.
Where to look it up? Look it up where any Catholic priest would have looked it up before Vatican II: in the most recent dogmatic theology manuals approved by the Church.
in Novus Ordo Wire Heresy, Magisterium, Papacy, Pope Benedict XII, Pope John XXII, Schism, Sedevacantism	9
TRADCAST 019 is here
69 minutes of Catholicism at full throttle…
In this episode we talk about the "Benedict XVI is the Real Pope" Deception and analyze the False Opposition of the Semi-Traditionalists
TRADCAST — The Traditional Catholic Podcast
AND TO LISTEN TO ALL EPISODES
In case you missed our initial announcement on September 26: Our popular TRADCAST podcast program is back with a new, full-length episode! As always, it is loaded with real traditional Catholicism, hard-hitting refutations of various errors, razor-sharp analysis, and a touch of humor.
TRADCAST 019 covers a number of different topics, but particular attention is given to an idea that is gaining more and more popularity among Novus Ordos and Semi-Traditionalists as they reach the breaking point over the chaos "Pope" Francis is causing: the idea that Benedict XVI is the real Pope and, in any case, a stalwart defender of orthodoxy and restorer of Tradition.
in Novus Ordo Wire Amoris Laetitia, Athanasius Schneider, Benedict XVI, Christopher Ferrara, Georg Ganswein, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, Papacy, Resignationism, Sedevacantism, St. Robert Bellarmine, TRADCAST	1
TRADCAST 019 (September 26, 2017)
Segment 1: Chaos in the Novus Ordo Church; the "Benedict XVI is the real Pope" deception; disunity in the Novus Ordo Church vs. Sedevacantism; comments on The Remnant's "Catholic Identity Conference 2017" and analysis of "Catholics Rising" promo video; comments on the dubia and formal correction; a look at recent news headlines; why you're not Novus Ordo anymore, reason no. 6042.
Segment 2: The 1985 Ratzinger Report and the 2017 Cardinal Muller Report: nothing has changed in 30 years; rational proof for the existence of God; comments on Chris Ferrara's "Francis Expands the Fake Magisterium".
in TRADCAST Amoris Laetitia, Athanasius Schneider, Benedict XVI, Christopher Ferrara, Edward Feser, Georg Ganswein, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, Papacy, Resignationism, Sedevacantism, St. Robert Bellarmine, TRADCAST	8
A brief response to "Contra Cekadam"…
Fr. Francois Chazal is a priest who holds the recognize-and-resist position of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre: Recognize as valid the "Popes" since Vatican II while resisting anything they teach or legislate that appears to conflict with Church teaching or practice before Vatican II. At this point, Fr. Chazal is a part of the so-called "Marian Corps" or "Strict Observance" faction of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X, which broke away from the "official" SSPX in response to Bp. Fellay's conciliatory course with regard to the Vatican Modernists.
in Novus Ordo Wire Anthony Cekada, Francois Chazal, Papacy, Sedevacantism, SSPX	21
The Stumbling Block of the Papacy: Why Bergoglio doesn't fit
Semi-Trads trip over the Papacy…
The Stumbling Block of the Papacy:
Why Bergoglio doesn't fit
…it is said in the scripture [Is 28:16]: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set.
in Novus Ordo Wire Francis, George Neumayr, Hilary White, Nick Donnelly, Papacy, Pope John XII, Schism, Sedevacantism, St. Robert Bellarmine, Steve Skojec, Vatican I	39
These days, recognize-and-resist adherents are in an extremely difficult spot: They can no longer deny the horrendous public apostasy perpetrated by Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope Francis") on a near-daily basis, yet they absolutely refuse to consider even as a possibility the idea that the greatest apostate the world has ever known is not at the same time the Vicar of Christ and head of the infallible and indefectible Roman Catholic Church.
Time and again, therefore, they are eager to find historical precedent for their position, and few things seem to please them more than to find, ostensibly, a "heretical Pope" in Church history they can point to in support of their stance.
in Novus Ordo Wire Papacy, Pope Honorius I, Schism, Sedevacantism, Vatican I	25