nowire2.jpg



Robert Spaemann blows a gasket...

robert-spaemann.jpg


Novus Ordo Philosopher Slams Francis: “Chaotic Pontificate” characterized by “Theological Apathy”


After the election of Jorge Bergoglio as “Pope” Francis on March 13, 2013, while various pseudo-traditionalist “experts” were still trying to put an unrealistically positive and hopeful spin on things, it took us a mere 21 days to make the following prediction on Twitter:


Since we do not acknowledge Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy as valid, we began to refer to him merely as “Chaos Frank”. After two years of leading the Vatican II Sect, we are now beginning to see more and more public figures likewise associate the theological train wreck from Buenos Aires with pure mayhem. One of them is Robert Spaemann, a conservative Novus Ordo philosopher in Germany, who finally broke his silence on the Argentinian apostate and lashed out at him in a public interview. In a special edition of the independent ecclesiastical review Herder Korrespondenz, Spaemann excoriated Francis for “theological apathy” and accused him, among other things, of “vacillating” in his course and of seeking a “transient symbolism”.

The following is a translation of the article “Spaemann-Kritik: Papst Franziskus ‘Aufbruch’ oder ‘Ausrutscher’? – ‘Kult der Spontaneität’” by Vatican journalist Giuseppe Nardi of the German Novus Ordo news site Katholisches.info, which has traditionalist leanings.

hk-spezial-franziskus.jpg

(Freiburg) The most senior of German-speaking Catholic philosophers, 87-year-old Robert Spaemann had remained silent on the “Francis phenomenon” for a long time. Asked about it directly in the latest edition of Herder Korrespondenz Spezial, however, his modest restraint came to an end. Herder published a dual interview with Robert Spaemann and Hans Joas, which presents conflicting views on the way the current Pope exercises his ministry. The role of ecstatically cheering the Argentinian head of the Church, obligatory in some places since March 2013, fell to Joas.

A Chaotic Pontificate and Theological Apathy

Robert Spaemann gives Pope Francis extremely bad grades. [Spaemann is] a weighty voice who, after two years of silence and observation, no longer makes any secret of his disappointment, nay, his perturbation. The great German philosopher accuses Pope Francis not only of a “chaotic” manner of exercising his office, but — and this is much more serious — of theological apathy. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung in its journalistic lingo recently dubbed Pope Francis the “Faux Pas Pope” and spoke of a “security risk” for the Catholic Church. [This is] an assessment Spaemann seems to share.

Transient Symbolism — Vacillating Course

The Pope wallows in a “cult of spontaneity”, according to Spaemann. The Argentine Pope seeks a transient symbolism while at the same time — and this is a truly damning assessment against a Pope — “not caring much” about theology.

Spaemann, the great thinker, looks in a truly indignant way at the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whom a majority of cardinals elected to the Chair of Peter for reasons that are still hard to fathom.

The German philosopher uses prophetic words of Holy Scripture to express his aloofness: There will “come teachers who say things that sound appealing, and the people will follow these teachers.” [These are] words of disapproval for an undefinable, vacillating and therefore alarming course taken by the current head of the Church.

Spaemann objects that Francis, whom the media have characterized as “open-minded” since his election, is in reality quite an authoritarian Pope: Francis is “one of the most authoritarian [Popes] we’ve had in a long time”, [Spaemann says]. “If Benedict had said this, there would have been an uproar. But with Francis the focus is once again on papal authority. And not a single newspaper gets upset.”

“One Can’t Quite Escape the Feeling of Chaos”

francis-thumb3.jpg

“Just what the Holy Father intends to do now”, no one really knows [according to Spaemann]. Even Hans Joas had to agree with Spaemann on this. In other words: Even Francis’ enthusiastic supporters do not in fact know just where the “Bergoglio Train” is actually heading. “One can’t quite escape the feeling of chaos”, Spaemann said of Francis. 

This also goes for the family synod, to part two of which Francis has invited people to Rome this coming October. The entire synod is “irritating” [says Spaemann], because the Pope has already taken sides.

It is by no means certain that Francis’ way will be perceived as a “new beginning” in the future [says Spaemann], and not perhaps as a “faux pas” instead.

Will the Spaemann interview make its way all the way to the Pope? At any rate, the thinker Spaemann accuses the Argentine Pope of only reading rarely. Too rarely.

[translated from http://www.katholisches.info/2015/04/16/spaemann-kritik-papst-franziskus-aufbruch-oder-ausrutscher-kult-der-spontaneitaet]

We have been chronicling the ecclesiastical and theological chaos produced by “Pope Francis” from the very beginning. You can access the full laundry list here — but be forewarned: all clicking is at your own risk.

See Also:


A Birthday Contribution

Benedict XVI Turns 88:
A Reality Check on Joseph Ratzinger

benedict-birthday-cake.jpg


April 16 of this year marks the 88th birthday of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, more commonly known by his pseudonym “Pope [Emeritus] Benedict XVI.” As self-proclaimed “traditional Catholics” who adhere to the Novus Ordo Sect are keeling over themselves in ecstasy over their “traditional Pope”, we thought it opportune to offer a little reality check on the man Joseph Ratzinger, lest the notorious Modernist be mistaken for a Roman Catholic.

The following is a list of a few select links from our main page exposing the Modernism of Benedict XVI, “What You Need to Know about Joseph Ratzinger”. Lots more to be found there.


Well then, happy birthday.

Image Source: ratzingerfanclub.com

See Also:



A Response to Critics...

“Heretical Popes” & Vatican I:
A Follow-Up

pius9.jpg

The First Vatican Council was called by the longest-reigning Pope in history:
Pius IX (1846-1878)


Our
post of April 7 discussing the question of “heretical” Popes in light of testimony given by Archbishop John Purcell (1800-1883) that the Fathers of the First Vatican Council said such a thing was impossible, has generated plenty of interest and discussion among sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists.

It was to be expected that this latest piece of evidence for Sedevacantism wasn’t going to sit well with our critics, and so it comes as no surprise that some have tried to accuse us of “taking things out of context” and of “cherry-picking quotes”. Specifically, the argument has been advanced that the larger context of Abp. Purcell’s intervention supposedly shows that the question being answered was not that of a Pope who is a heretic, but a Pope who attempts to define heresy ex cathedra (i.e. by making an infallible dogmatic pronouncement).

But is this really what the larger context shows? Thankfully, the book which contains Abp. Purcell’s report is available online for free, from the following sources, so everyone can verify the context for himself (the chapter that contains the text under discussion is found on pp. 227-243):


Before we get into the details regarding the context, let us look again at the excerpt we provided in our original post, which speaks for itself. This time, we are rendering certain key phrases in red bold print to make sure our critics don’t miss what the text clearly says:


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.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(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)


This isn’t difficult to understand. As the words in red bold print clearly reveal, the question that was asked, considered, and responded to was what would happen if the Pope were to depart from the Faith himself, if he were to become a heretic — not if he were to attempt to define as dogma something that is heretical. The two questions are somewhat related, of course, but it is nonsense and calumnious to accuse us of somehow “twisting” the text — the text is as plain as it could be. What would happen if the Pope should start professing heresy? He would cease to be Pope, that’s what, just as any other Catholic who begins to profess heresy would cease being a member of the Church! And as we likewise explained in our last post on this — and this is something our critics have so far ignored — the reason for this is that the Church cannot be divided in her Faith; she has but one Faith, as she has but one Lord and one baptism (see Eph 4:4). It is impossible to profess a different religion and still be a member — much less head — of the Catholic Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith...” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 22).

All of this couldn’t be more clear. Besides, in the quote by Abp. Purcell, as reproduced above, the keywords are not “define” or “declare”, but rather, “becomes [a heretic]”, “say”, and “deny”. We are clearly talking about a Pope becoming a heretic, a Pope who professes or fails to profess a particular teaching; we are not talking about a Pope who attempts to define heresy infallibly. True, the text also says that the Church “would not be … obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach” a heresy, but of course this is true as well, because he is then no longer Pope, as the rest of the quote painstakingly points out. Obviously the hypothetical scenario of a Pope who is a heretic brings with it the scenario of such a Pope teaching his heresy. That’s why the text speaks about a Pope both being a heretic and teaching heresy — and in that very order.

This should really settle the issue, but some people prefer illusion to reality if the reality is sufficiently inconvenient.

john-baptist-purcell.jpg

First appointed by Pope Gregory XVI, Abp. John Baptist Purcell headed the (arch)diocese of Cincinnati for over 50 years


So what about the larger context? It has been argued that what Abp. Purcell said before this passage “proves” that the text we quoted refers not to a Pope being a heretic but to a Pope trying to define heresy infallibly. Really? Let’s see. Here is what Abp. Purcell says immediately prior to what we quoted in our original post 
(for even more context, everyone can download a copy of the book in electronic format, as linked above, and read the entire chapter):


Then I said, you tell us that there were some forty Popes in the early ages, who taught what is now regarded as an erroneous doctrine by some. Cardinal Bellomang [sic — he must have meant Bellarmine] gives us the names of them and tells us what was taught. He tells us what was the nature of their teachings to a great extent. Now, says I, there are a great cloud of witnesses over our heads — these forty Popes. I called them one by one, and I said, Honorius, why do you teach that there is but one will of Christ, when there is a divine will of Christ as God, and a human will of Christ as man. Now, why should you say there is but one will? This definition has caused a great deal of trouble. It created schisms and differences of opinions, etc., in the Church. He never should have done so. This was his fault. He should have instructed that the two wills of Christ were not incompatible. 

Then I said to the council, in passing over this subject, here is another of these papers over our heads, as I imagine it was over Nicholas I. He taught that the baptism in the name of Jesus was all-sufficient, without the name of the Father and Holy Ghost. That he should not have taught. He was mistaken in that, and the Church says so now, and that he never should have taught the like. Here is John XXII., who teaches from the pulpit, and wishes others to teach, that those who died in the peace of God with the peace of God on their lips are [sic — the word “not” seems to be missing] in beatific condition until the day of judgment. Here, again, three great Bishops of the sixth, seventh, and eighth general councils called Honorius heretical. Were we to consider those teachings ex cathedra on those occasions, and pronounce an anathema? I will not delay you by adverting to other instances of the kind, but I was most happy to hear the entire council, as one man, concerning those of whom I spake, answer me, “Those Popes never addressed such doctrines to the universal Church. They only spoke to individuals. They did not speak as pastors of His universal Church, therefore they did not speak ex cathedra.” I cannot tell you what a load that removed from my mind, when I heard that expression that those teachings were not ex cathedra, and therefore not binding on our action, and that our action would not be retroactive as binding on the teachings of those Bishops. 

I told the Cardinals in the council that there was another and a weightier objection which I wished to have removed before I gave my assent to that dogma, and that was, how we are to understand the claims of Boniface VIII., who said, “Two swords are given me by God — the spiritual and the temporal!” I sought in the Dominican library of the Minerva in Rome to refresh my memory, and to see on what grounds they claim the right of controlling temporary affairs; of deposing Henry VIII. or Elizabeth, or any other temporal prince, and absolving their vassals from their oath of allegiance, if their sovereigns did not respect the act of excommunication by the Church. I could not find any text of authority for that in the Bible. Hence I wanted the council to say whether they asserted a right of that kind or assumed it as a right, and the entire council with one voice cried out: “Those Popes had no authority, no commission from God to pretend to any such power.” Well, I told them, Thank God, I have spoken and had it decided by this council, instead of assuming the resposibility of those by-gone times. The day has gone by when such things were possible, and were believed of force, and we have done a great deal by having these two important matters settled. 

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?”… [here the quote in our original post begins]

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], pp. 239-241; paragraph breaks added to facilitate reading.)


Abp. Purcell says a lot here, and a lot that needs to be qualified, but that is beside the point now. The question under discussion in this post is whether these paragraphs just quoted in any way change the meaning of what the archbishop said about what is to be done if the Pope were to become a heretic. But if anything, this text is further evidence that the Pope-heretic scenario speaks of a Pope being a heretic and not as him defining heresy, because Abp. Purcell basically already touched upon the latter scenario in his comments about Pope Honorius: “Here, again, three great Bishops of the sixth, seventh, and eighth general councils called Honorius heretical. Were we to consider those teachings ex cathedra on those occasions, and pronounce an anathema?”

There it is — the scenario of a heresy being defined by a Pope, in light of papal infallibility. Purcell treated Honorius’ letter to Sergius as an ex cathedra definition and tested the response of the assembled Council Fathers: “This definition has caused a great deal of trouble.” And how did they respond? “Those Popes never addressed such doctrines to the universal Church. They only spoke to individuals. They did not speak as pastors of His universal Church, therefore they did not speak ex cathedra.”

So, the entire matter our critics are trying to squeeze into Purcell’s Pope-heretic passage from our original post, was already addressed and resolved in the pages leading up to that passage. It therefore would have made no sense for the archbishop to bring the issue up again in another passage. Instead, a similar but essentially different question was brought up: What if the Pope were to, not define a heresy, but simply become a heretic, that is, depart from the Faith? Could he, for example, still issue infallible declarations, under the criteria being considered by the Council Fathers? Would they have to listen to a heretic, in other words? This is where the answer was given as follows: “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.”

So where is the problem? Two different issues were brought up and answered separately. There really is no difficulty at all, except that our critics are desperate to create one because they don’t like that the Council Fathers essentially sanctioned one of the main principles of Sedevacantism: a heretic cannot be Pope because he is not a member of the Church. Sorry, but the “context” argument just isn’t going to work as a refutation.

Of course, it is true that the larger frame of reference for the council was the exercise of the papal magisterium, the Pope’s teaching office, because with regard to the papacy that is what the council primarily concerned itself with. But this context doesn’t somehow neutralize or relativize what was said about what would happen if a Pope were to become a heretic. The inquiring cardinal was concerned about whether he would have to submit to a heretic claiming the papal office, specifically as concerns his teaching authority if the council defines that a Pope can issue dogmatic definitions that are infallible and irreformable. How was this going to work if the Pope himself professes heresy? Would the Church then have to consider as infallible the dogmatic pronouncements of a heretic? Would this not open the floodgates to the possibility of a heresy being defined as dogma? This is the context, and the answer speaks for itself.

On the other hand, if our critics were right in what they maintain about the statements of Abp. Purcell referring to a dogmatic definition of heresy, and not to a Pope being a heretic, then this is how his report would have read:

[How Abp. Purcell’s text would read if our critics were right:]

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he dogmatically defines a heresy?” 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 defines heresy 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.

If the Pope, for instance, were to define that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to define that the rest of the creed is false, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he defines any heresy denied by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.


Note how different this is from what the text actually says.

Consider also that the dogma of papal infallibility makes the very notion of a heretical ex cathedra statement impossible. The whole point of the Vatican Council’s dogma of papal infallibility is that a Pope cannot err in his dogmatic definitions; he would drop dead before he could promulgate a heretical dogma — that’s the protection of the Holy Ghost. But as our critics would apparently have it, papal infallibility supposedly means that that a true reigning Pope is able to make a heretical ex cathedra pronouncement — but then in the act ceases to be Pope. Is this not a novelty? Where has the Church ever taught such a thing? 

In fact, such an idea would seriously weaken the dogma, because in practice it would then be reduced to meaning that a Pope can define anything he likes; it’s just incumbent upon the cardinals then to spring into action and declare him a heretic and remove him. In that case, the dogma of infallibility would really not protect the Pope at all, because the a priori protection that divinely prevents an error in a dogmatic definition would thus mean nothing more than an a posteriori (after-the-fact) validation by cardinals to ensure that the definition is not heretical. Thus the entire protective purpose of the dogma would be turned on its head, as though infallibility simply meant that if the Pope defines something dogmatically that is heretical, lower-ranking Church authorities will see to it that he gets declared a heretic and removed. All the doctrinal power would then lie with the cardinals, it seems, and not with the Pope.

Another consideration, often glossed over, is that not only does an ex cathedra definition preclude heresy from being defined, but any error whatsoever. It isn’t just a protection against heresy but against anything that is false regarding faith or morals. So if our critics were right, it would not make any sense to ask what would happen if the Pope were to define a heresy; instead, it would need to be asked what would happen if the Pope were to define something that is erroneous, even if the error is not heretical but of some lesser degree of doctrinal falsity.

Before we conclude, a quick note on the objections Abp. Purcell raised regarding some Popes of the past who allegedly taught error: It is beyond the scope of this post to address these in detail, because the objective here is merely to defend our original post against those who claim that we had misrepresented the words of Abp. Purcell and that the Council Fathers really did not address the issue of a Pope who becomes a heretic but of a Pope who defines heresy.

Our ongoing series of blog posts called The “Heretical” Popes examines and refutes the different arguments brought against the “suspect” Popes of the past; it is there that we delve into various accusations in detail. So far, we have published one installment, on Pope Adrian VI. Our next one will be on Pope Honorius I, and we will show that not only did he not profess heresy, he also was not in fact condemned as a heretic. As far as Pope Nicholas goes, a brief summary of the controversy with some insightful finds can be found in The “Error” of Pope Nicholas I. Finally, let us not forget that Abp. Purcell himself qualified that the earlier Popes he was criticizing “taught what is now regarded as an erroneous doctrine by some”, thus conceding that there was no consensus among theologians that the examples he was giving of alleged papal error were in fact papal error for sure. In any case, as the council only concerned itself in its dogmatic definition with infallible ex cathedra statements, and since this is what Abp. Purcell was specifically asking about, the Fathers were happy to point out that none of the cases cited, even if genuine, met all the criteria for an infallible pronouncement; therefore, Purcell’s concerns were unfounded.

Thus far our inquiry into the words of Abp. Purcell about the First Vatican Council, and the responses given by the assembled bishops. Clearly, all the available evidence confirms that our original post was quite correct in presenting what was said as a rejection of the possibility of a heretical Pope. The full context of Abp. Purcell’s report underscores this contention, namely, that were a true Pope to depart from the Faith by becoming a heretic, he would immediately cease to be Pope and could be judged and removed by the Church, having been deposed by God Himself.

Dear critics, please just deal with it.

Image sources: wwnorton.com; wikipedia.org


See Also:


Bumping into the Peripheries...

French Novus Ordo Bishop
celebrates Bumper Car “Mass”!

bumper-car-mass1.jpg

Click to enlarge


The apostate dingbats of the Novus Ordo Sect just never run out of ideas. For Easter Sunday, Mr. 
Jean-Christophe André Robert Lagleize, in his comedy role as the “Catholic Bishop” of Metz, France, celebrated the Modernist Worship Service (“Eucharistic Celebration”) at a public fair, specifically inside the tent of a bumper car ride.

The French paper Le Républicain Lorrain published a story on it on April 6, from which these images are taken. You can read the full article in French here:


The report points out that two children brought up the “offertory gifts” (bread and wine) — in a bumper car, of course.

bumper-car-mass2.jpg

Click to enlarge


The above image shows three Modernist presbyters “concelebrating” with the “bishop”, all of them dressed in the usual Novus Ordo horseblankets, as well as two “deacons” assisting. “Bp.” Lagleize was appointed by “Pope” John Paul II in 2001, and put in his current role by “Pope” Francis in 2013 (
source).

This “Bumper Car Mass” definitely rivals the Austrian outdoor “Western Mass”, where participants smoked and ate hot dogs and burgers during the “Eucharistic Celebration”, which was presided over by “Cardinal” Schonborn’s cathedral rector, Anton Faber, who used the Lutheran version of the Apostles’ Creed (which replaces “the holy Catholic Church” with “the holy Christian Church”). See two videos on that below:



Are you upset? Perplexed? Don’t be. All this makes perfect sense once you rid yourself of the silly idea that this Satanic Modernist institution is the Catholic Church of our Lord. It is not. Instead, it is the “Church of Darkness” described by the Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich, the pseudo-Catholic sect called the “counter-church” or “ape of the Catholic Church” by Bp. Fulton Sheen.

For further details on this false new church, which began with the false election of Angelo Roncalli as “Pope” John XXIII in 1958, and how it was prophesied already in Sacred Scripture, watch for our future post “The Pope and the Antichrist”, which is to appear on this blog in a few days.

Image Source: republicain-lorrain.fr

Related:


news-digest2.jpg

     Published April 10, 2015

Reason No. 3814 why people are abandoning the Novus Ordo Sect…


Historical Fact vs. Neo-Trad Wonderland...

vatican1.jpg


The Question of a Heretical Pope considered by the First Vatican Council


While certain self-styled “traditionalists” and “real Catholics” are currently pushing the attractive and convenient but utterly false and disastrous idea that the Catholic Church had Popes in her history who were heretics but were still valid Popes, we at Novus Ordo Watch like to go by actual Church teaching and verifiable facts.

Besides such blowhards as Michael Voris (at 5:54 here) and Eric Gajewski (here), one of the biggest loudmouths out there who is pushing this bewildering error of “heretical but valid Popes” is the anonymous English blogger Mundabor, whom we recently gave a good spanking for his train wreck of a theological analysis on the Novus Ordo Missae. See for yourself the masthead of the Mundabor blog, which prominently features “Heretical Popes” as a menu option, which is a link that takes you to a list of essays that supposedly demonstrate that there have been heretical but valid Popes at some point or other in Church history:

mundabor-heretical-popes.jpg

Click image to enlarge


Of course, the reason why Mundabor is so chipper about alleged “heretical Popes” in Church history is that the head honcho which his religion is currently afflicted with, Mr. Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”), is as blatant of a heretic as one will probably ever see claiming the Chair of St. Peter. Not being able to deny the obvious, and yet also being stubbornly unwilling to concede that Francis’ “papacy” is a fraud, that is, that Mr. Bergoglio is an impostor and not at all a valid Pope, Mundabor tries to seek refuge in historical precedent — real or imagined — for the idea of a heretic validly holding the papal office. Whether there actually is historical precedent for such an absurdity, is entirely secondary to Mundabor. What matters to him primarily is that a case can be made for it, however sloppily and inaccurately, and this is what the English blogger now advertises on his “Heretical Popes” page.

Unfortunately for Mundabor, Voris, Gajewski and others who believe that a Pope can be a heretic and still remain the head of the Catholic Church, this question actually came up at the First Vatican Council, which defined the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870. In a conference given after his return from the council, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati related the following (pay close attention, all you who think Sedevacantists are just a bunch of presumptuous nutbags):


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.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(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; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)


This answer given jibes 100% with the sedevacantist position. If it surprises you, maybe it’s time to stop reading the resistance propaganda cranked out by The Remnant, Rorate Caeli, Catholic Family News, The Angelus, and similar publications. Real history turns out to be refreshingly sedevacantist!

Too often people will nonchalantly disseminate quotes they have not verified, simply copying and pasting what they find on the internet or in some SSPX propaganda tract. (Prime offender: Eric Gajewski, as detailed in TRADCAST 003, who “quoted” from a non-existing letter to a non-existing bishop.) At other times, research is scrapped entirely and replaced by self-made analogies that have nothing to do with Catholic teaching or theology (Mundabor and Louie Verrecchio recently demonstrated their impressive skills in this regard). Our advice: If you want to be discussing theology on the internet in a serious fashion, make sure you don’t consider yourself above actually going to a library to look things up or purchasing a book or two — overcoming any fear that whatever evidence you will find may actually require you to change your position.

The anecdote from Vatican I recounted by Abp. Purcell is but the latest discovery adding to a mountain of evidence for Sedevacantism. We are indebted to the research of our friend Steven Speray of the Catholicism in a Nutshell blog for this marvelous find. We shall outline the salient points from the archbishop’s report, lest they be glossed over, and add some clarifying remarks, below.

According to the response given to an inquiring cardinal at the First Vatican Council, as related by Abp. Purcell:

  • No Pope has ever been a heretic
  • If a Pope were to become a manifest heretic, he would immediately cease to be Pope because he would immediately cease to be a member of the Church
  • He would be deposed not by the Church, which has no authority over the Pope, but by God Himself, who has made membership in the Church dependent upon profession of the true Faith, on which the Church’s unity depends (see Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 22)
  • The Church’s bishops could declare the former Pope to have deposed himself — something that would enable them to remove the non-Pope
  • The very idea of a heretical Pope who nevertheless remains Pope is “injurious” to the papacy and thus to Catholic dogma


Got that, Mundabor? Got that, Mr. Gajewski? Got that, Society of St. Pius X? Sorry if it doesn’t fit into your current ideas, but the truth just doesn’t care what people think about it.

Now, since we know that there are a lot of skeptics out there, we’re providing an image of the page from which this excerpt of Abp. Purcell’s address is taken (click image to enlarge) — let no one say we just made it up or didn’t check our sources:

mcgovern-leo13-p241.jpg

McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII (1903), p. 241
(click to enlarge)


[
UPDATE: The book in question is available online for free, at this link and also here.]

Let us underscore once more that, as this testimony confirms, the Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded after extensive research, investigation, and debate that no Pope had ever been a heretic — not Liberius, not Honorius I, not Stephen VII, not Nicholas I, not John XII, not John XXII, nor any other name that is typically brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy”. This is the Tradition of the Church, and anyone who calls himself a “traditionalist” or “traditional Catholic” may actually want to consider following it.

But then, what did the Fathers of Vatican I know about the papacy or Catholic history, right? You can be assured of one thing: Mundabor will not bend. His first premise in all argumentation is that Sedevacantism is false, and everything else must conform to this dogma of all dogmas, no matter how untrue or unreasonable the outcome. Alas, this is a very common symptom these days: argumentation that is driven by a pre-conceived and desired conclusion. This is not the way to arrive at truth; in fact, in turns the search for truth on its head by being nothing more than a clever way to justify what one wishes the truth were. We at Novus Ordo Watch know what we’re talking about: All of us were Novus Ordo at one point and are converts to the sedevacantist position. All of us. It is not easy to admit one has been wrong, or deceived, but it is necessary.

One highly important consideration that is usually forgotten by those who happily push the idea that a Pope can be a heretic and still be Pope is that such a scenario would spell the end of the unity of the Church, one of the essential marks of her divine constitution, because it would mean that someone can be a member of the Church — in fact, her head — while professing a different religion than that of the Catholic Church. In other words, the Church would not be one in Faith. But this is a heresy: “One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:4); “When the Divine founder decreed that the Church should be one in faith, in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors as the principle and centre, as it were, of this unity” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 15).

We have an ongoing series of blog posts called The “Heretical” Popes, which examines and refutes various arguments that are typically brought up to substantiate the claim that some Popes in the Church’s history were heretics, that is, denied defined dogma. It is simply not true, and after Vatican I, the only people who still made such a claim — as far as we’ve seen — were condemned:

So, once again real research has backed up the sedevacantist position. Follow the false, non-sedevacantist “Traditionalists” and their propaganda outlets at your own risk.

Image sources: keeo.com; mundabor.wordpress.com (modified)


Related:


Novus Ordo Watch for your Ears...

TRADCAST:
Episode 004 Now Available


The Traditional Catholic Podcast

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION
AND TO LISTEN TO ALL EPISODES NOW

Released on April 1, TRADCAST 004 gives a brief overview of the Catholic dogma No Salvation Outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus). Unlike what is usually done when discussing this topic, the intent in this TRADCAST is not to provide prooftexts for various theses, but rather to demonstrate in summary fashion how Catholic dogmatic theology hangs together with Catholic moral theology, producing the necessary conclusion that being inside the Catholic Church is not identical to being a member of the Church. In this TRADCAST the emphasis is not on proving any particular premise from a doctrinal prooftext, or on giving lengthy detailed explanations (we may do this in a future podcast), but on presenting the whole picture and on explaining why Catholic teaching does not allow one to conflate being inside the Church with being a member of the Church, which is a very common error.

You can listen to the podcast by clicking the YouTube video above, or you can go to our TRADCAST 004 page, where you will find all the information you need for this show, including links to articles, books, 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.

If you like TRADCAST and wish to support it financially, you may do so here.

See Also:


Recorded Liturgy Broadcasts


Holy Week / Easter 2015:
Traditional Catholic Webcasts

RisenChrist.jpg

Resurrexit Sicut Dixit: He is Risen as He said!


Prior Archived Video Recordings Available:
If you are asked to enter a Password, the Password is jude75


Church / Clergy / Liturgy Information:

  • Parish: Shrine of St. Jude (newly-renovated church to be reopened and blessed on Holy Saturday, April 4)
  • Location: Stafford, Texas (United States, Central Daylight Saving Time [UTC-5])
  • Celebrants: Fr. Louis Campbell (ordained 1961), Fr. Thomas Dignan (ordained 1959)
  • Rite: Roman Catholic
  • Rubrics used: in accordance with the decree Maxima Redemptionis issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on Nov. 16, 1955, by authority of Pope Pius XII
  • Note: Live Webcasts of Sunday Mass at St. Jude’s are available at the above link every Sunday at 10:00 am Central Time


Karol Wojtyla died 10 years ago today

karol-wojtyla.jpg


Reviewing the “Pontificate” of “Saint” John Paul II — Why Karol Wojtyla Cannot be a Catholic Saint
(CLICK)


jp2-wall.jpg


CLICK HERE FOR FULL PAGE LOADED WITH LINKS


John Paul II and the Mark of the Hindu Idol Shiva


The “Canonization” of John Paul II:
A Catholic Perspective


DOWNLOAD PDF BY CLICKING HERE
(55 pages; 676 KB)

jp2-kisses-koran.jpg

Karol the Koran Kisser: John Paul II kisses the blasphemous Quran on May 14, 1999


Related:



New Radio Show — Listen Free

ESCAPE FROM THE NOVUS ORDO:
III: Intentional Irreverence – The New Mass (1)

exit-sign.jpg

Isn’t it time you too headed for the exit?

michael-oswalt.jpg


Restoration Radio’s new show “Escape from the Novus Ordo” returns with Fr. Michael Oswalt, a former Novus Ordo “priest” of the diocese of Rockford, Illinois, who converted to traditional Catholicism (sedevacantism) and was ordained a true priest in 2011. He has penned an open letter to his former diocese of Rockford, Illinois, in which he explains why he left the Novus Ordo religion. The letter is available in English and Spanish:


Born in 1972, no one is a better fit than Fr. Oswalt to help you see the errors of the Vatican II Church (aka Novus Ordo Sect) and advise you on how to exit this false establishment and become a real Catholic, that is, someone who is Catholic in the same way everyone was Catholic until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 (just before the Second Vatican Council). Fr. Oswalt currently serves as the pastor of St. Benedict Catholic Church in Huntsville, Alabama. 

Novus Ordo Watch is pleased to be the sponsor for Escape from the Novus Ordo throughout this year, which means you will be able to listen to all episodes of this program in 2015 free of charge, without having to have a subscription to Restoration Radio.

Listen on Demand at any time, FREE:

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
In page that appears, scroll down to where it says “Podcast Player”
and click to play or download to your computer.


Show Description:

If you attend the New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI), are you worshiping God or man? How is the “Mass” you are attending forming your beliefs? Our actions bespoke what we believe. How is it that the changes that Martin Luther made to the Traditional Mass were the same changes made after Vatican II to create the New Mass?

Have you finally awakened to the reality that the Novus Ordo Sect is not the Catholic Church? How do you now, armed with the knowledge of Roman Catholicism, escape the impostor religion? This month on Escape from the Novus Ordo, Father Michael Oswalt reflects on his experiences with the Novus Ordo Missae in the Vatican II Church.

Join Fr. Michael Oswalt and host Jason Guardiano as they discuss the Traditional Latin Mass versus the Modern “Mass” of a Novus Ordo parish.

novus-ordo-horror.jpg

This mockery of our Redemption would have never been possible without the Second Vatican Council and the new religion that it produced


As Novus Ordo Watch is sponsoring the entire first season of
Escape from the Novus Ordo, we are no longer sponsoring the ongoing Francis Watch broadcasts.


Other select Radio Broadcasts and Related Links:


Looking for More? We only keep the 10 most recent blog posts on this page. For more, check the monthly Wire Archive...


...as well as the News Archive, which we maintained before our Wire Blog:

2013: 01/1302/13
2012: 01-03/1204/1205/1206/1207/1208/1209/1210/1211/1212/12
2011: 02/1105/1108/1110/11
2010: 01/1002/1005/1006/1007/1008/1010/1012/10
2009: 01/0902/0903/0904/0905/0907/0911/09   
2008: 01/0802/0803/0804/0805/0806/0809/0810/0812/08

2007: 01/0706/0707/0708/0709/0710/0711/0712/07
2006: 01/0602/0603/0604/0605/0606/0607/0608/0609/0610/0611/0612/06
2005: 01/0502/0503/0504/0505/0506/0507/0508/0509/0510/0511/0512/05
2004: 01/0402/0403/0404/0405/0406/0407/0408/0409/0410/0411/0412/04
2003: 01-03/0304-05/0306/0307/0308/0309/0310/0311/0312/03

2002: 10-12/02

Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said content.

Fair Use Notice:

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Google Analytics Alternative