Bombshell Announcement…
Rejecting Francis:
Rev. Paul Kramer Becomes Sedevacantist
image: shutterstock.com
Update 12/3/13: Rev. Kramer: “Benedict is still Pope!” (click here)
Thank Almighty God for His goodness!
On November 28, 2013, the Feast of St. Catherine Laboure, the Rev. Paul Leonard Kramer announced on his Facebook page that he rejects Francis’ claim to the papacy due to manifest heresy found in his newly-published “Apostolic Exhortation” Evangelii Gaudium. The Rev. Kramer is not unknown among traditionalists in the Vatican II Church. He is editor of the immensely popular book The Devil’s Final Battle and has written for publications such as The Fatima Crusader and appeared at various conferences.
“Fr.” Kramer — a priest ordained in the doubtful rite of Paul VI — posted, among other things, the following on Facebook:
In case the above text-image won’t display on some devices, we are here reproducing it as text-only version. “Fr.” Kramer said:
“Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description.
While, of course, Kramer (pictured to the left) still believes the Vatican II Church to be the true Church and Francis’ five predecessors of unhappy memory to have been true and valid Popes, nevertheless this is a gigantic step in the right direction. We commend the Rev. Kramer for taking this (emotionally difficult) step of finally recognizing the undeniable: Jorge Bergoglio cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church! Let’s finally be done with all the excuse-making and willful blindness; these matters are serious!
For your reference, here is the entire paragraph 247 (as well as the following two paragraphs) of Francis’ 51,000-word mammoth exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:
247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.
248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.
249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples.
According to Bergoglio, these three paragraphs describe what supposedly is the Catholic Church’s view of her relations with Judaism. This text is filled with heresy and error, failing to distinguish today’s religion of “Judaism” with the Judaism of the Old Covenant, which ceased with the establishment of the Catholic Church on Pentecost Sunday. It is in the coming of the Messiah and the founding of the True Church that God has remained faithful to His promises, so Francis’ misuse of Sacred Scripture (already perpetrated by John Paul II) to bolster his position is nothing short of sickening.
Today’s Jews are not “the people of the covenant”; their religion, established by Annas and Caiaphas in 33 AD, is a “foreign religion”, it is not the faith of the Catholic Church in any way, nor that of Abraham (cf. Jn 8; Gal 3); and, worshipping a god that is not the Most Holy Trinity, they must turn and convert to the worship of the True God. And it speaks volumes that Francis mentions that “certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism,” yet utterly fails to point out that, likewise, certain Jewish beliefs are unacceptable to Christians! Bergoglio’s modus operandi is always the same: Bash Catholics; adulate or exonerate everyone else.
We have tackled the topic of Francis’ judaizing heresy in greater depth in the following important post:
Here is a list of links to documents referenced by “Fr.” Kramer in his Facebook post:
- Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence — see Denzinger no. 712
- Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Ex Quo (March 1, 1756)
- St. Robert Bellarmine, On The Roman Pontiff, Book 2, Ch. 30
- St. Francis of Assisi’s Prophecy of a Destroyer Antipope
A few months ago we had predicted that there would at some point be those who will agree that Francis is an Antipope but yet believe the last true Pope wasn’t Pius XII but Benedict XVI (Ratzinger). It looks like “Fr.” Kramer is the first one to take this position, at least for now. This is very damaging to the truth inasmuch as it still concedes to the false Vatican II Religion its claim to being the true Catholic Church. Still, we are gladdened that Rev. Kramer has come to accept the obvious facts about Francis and hope and pray that the rest will eventually fall into place.
With this bombshell development, the Rev. Nicholas Gruner (left) — with whom the Rev. Kramer has been associated — and his collaborators at the Fatima Center can now be expected to jump into high gear to attack sedevacantism and sedevacantists. The reason is simple: Gruner’s apostolate can only successfully operate on the premise that Francis is in fact the Pope, as the main goal of their enterprise is the Pope’s consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. If Francis is not the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Fatima Center can pretty much close its doors. This is why in the past we have jokingly referred to the collection of anti-sedevacantist writings by the usual suspects as “Father Gruner Needs a Pope”.
We will brace ourselves, therefore, for a new onslaught of anti-sedevacantist articles (which, we wish to point out, are a lot easier to produce when you’re getting paid to write this stuff because then you have a lot more time at your disposal).
We pray that John Vennari will be the next one to “finally get it” and stop his persistent refusal to face the facts.
;
I just started reading the 1917 code of canon law. It explicitly states that all official acts of the Holy See will be published in the Act Apostolicae Sedis acquire their authority 3 months after being published, hence Suprema Haec Sacra has zero authority. Or are you denying the 1917 code of canon law?
Please quote the exact sentence or canon.
Title I
Principles Of Ecclesiastical Titles.
Canon 9. The laws issued by the Holy See are promulgated by being published in the official magazine of the Holy See the Acta Apostilacae Sedis unless a special mode of promulgation should be prescribed in special cases, (no mention of this is made in Suprema Haec Sacra). The laws do not begin to bind in conscience until three months from the date of the number of the magazine containing the law have elapsed, unless the nature of the law is such that is immediate enforcement is evident or the law itself should provide a longer or shorter period of vacation.
Let me be brief:
(1) This pertains to ecclesiastical LAWS, not doctrinal decisions.
(2) It is always advisable, in general, to read not just canon law but also a commentary. I recommend in particular the multi-volume series by Fr. H. A. Ayrinhac. Some of this you may be able to find on Google Books on Archive.org for free. It will be a disaster if you go straight to the canons without having any idea about principles of Church law. Just saying.
(3) Regarding the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in particular, here is a quote from the book “The Catholic Church in Action” (1958; p. 90): “The Roman Congregations do not publish all their decisions. An enormous number of these have no interest whatever except to those who solicit them. But if they contribute to the interpretation of some point of canon law or are of interest in jurisprudence, they are published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, created by the Apostolic Constitution Promulgardi of Pius X in 1908.” The Letter Suprema Haec Sacra was sent to Abp. Cushing specifically in response to his request. For one reason or another, the Vatican did not authorize the release and translation of the letter for the public until 1952 (or 53, I can’t remember now), when it was published in the American Ecclesiastical Review.
What should be of much greater concern to you, however, is that the content of Suprema Haec Sacra was approved by the Roman Pontiff himself, the same Pontiff who in 1951 in a pontifical address to midwives said: “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.” ( http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm )
It ought not to surprise you because it simply is Catholic teaching.
Where does it say this only pertains to ecclesiastical laws? What exactly makes a letter from curial bishops a magisterial act? All official magisterial acts and declarations were published in this magazine especially doctrinal ones. So why wasn`t its publication authorised for such a long time? If it was intended purely for Cushing then how is it a binding decision for all the faithful? Are American magazines an authoritative source for matters of faith now? Are official universally binding pronouncements made in national newspapers? The letter claims to have the approval of Pope Pius XII, but it doesn`t have its signature, and popes can at least be guilty of error in private letter as Pope Innocent III certainly was. Pope John XXII at least taught error if not heresy. The letter from Pope Honorius, (thankfully), wasn`t followed by the contemporary saints either. If it had the approval of Pope Pius XII then it is very strange that its publication was delayed and never made in the official magazine of the holy see, especially when it was supposed to be binding on the conscience of all the faithful and when canon 9 could lead many to believe they could disregard it. Cardinal Segura of Spain also supported Father Feeney and it is believed he was influential in convincing Pope Pius XII to support Feeney in Humani Generis.
Moreover Cushing was Modernist heretic, I hope we all agree on that, and that he was later an important player in the heretic apostate Second Vatican Council. At least Pope Pius XII erred in appointing him archbishop but regardless, he and the other Modernist infiltrators constantly used disinformation to attack Feeney so the mere claim that Pope Pius XII approved a private letter does not give it authority. It was not an act of the holy see but a private letter from bishops published in an American magazine.
The letter misquotes Mystici Coporis Christi and strongly implies that Catholics can be certain of their salvation. A misinterpretation and mistranslation of an encyclical can also not be the basis of a binding magisterial decision as encyclicals are generally not very binding.
It would be best if we could stick to one topic at a time. Where does it say it pertains only to ecclesiastical laws? In the very canon itself that you yourself quoted: “The **laws** issued by the Holy See are promulgated by being published in the official magazine of the Holy See the Acta Apostilacae Sedis unless a special mode of promulgation should be prescribed in special cases” (Canon 9).
BTW, Fr. Ayrinhac comments on this canon thus: “Doctrinal decrees concerning faith or morals, those which contain a declaration of the divine law or of any law about which there is no real uncertainty, of their nature go into effect without delay” (“General Legislation in the new Code of Canon Law” [1922], p. 114). Just saying.
I don’t know what the reasoning was for delaying the publication of the letter. They obviously judged it more prudent, given the controversy with Fr. Feeney at the time. But if you really want to find out — I mean, if you actually want a real answer and not just ask rhetorical questions for the sake of being polemical — then, if I were you, I would contact the Novus Ordo diocese to see if someone there knows the answer, or at the very least I would try to go to a Novus Ordo seminary library somewhere (those libraries have all the old good Catholic books!) and try to find out. I’m sure the answer is there somewhere. In any case, the document was eventually included in “Denzinger”, which is where it belongs.
Yes, Cushing ended up being a Modernist later, but as far as we know, at the time (1949), he was the legitimate Archbishop of Boston.
You know, I would give this discussion between us more time and attention if I thought something good could come of it, but I fear not. Your mind is made up, and I don’t think for a minute that even if I could present to you an explicit declaration of Pope Pius XII himself requiring you to adhere to “Suprema Haec Sacra”, that you would change your mind then. So please understand that I’m not very interested in discussing this much further.
However, there’s one thing I would like to do for sure, and that is remind you what Suprema Haec Sacra says regarding the Pope’s approval:
“…the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given….” ( https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM )
It is for this reason that the content of the letter is binding. Now, I am sure you already have all your “justifications” laid out in your mind for why this isn’t true, or Pius XII was duped, etc. Please, spare me your hypotheses. Are we to believe that the Holy Father was not aware of this between 1949 and his death in 1958, and yet it was even included in the Denzinger collection?
Mgr. Joseph Fenton’s commentary on this letter is also of great value:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/14Sep/sep2ftt.htm
Thank you for your charity and patience.
Denzinger also contains letters from Pope Innocent III which taught error that would be declared heresy at the Council of Florence and now it contains a letter which suggests Catholics can be sure of their salvation and which misquotes a papal encyclical. Even at the time Cushing was Modernist. He actually was very supportive of Feeney and Saint Benedict Centre for making countless converts, and then denied knowing them when Harvard complaint Feeney was convincing Catholics to attend orthodox colleges and when the Kennedys got upset over him. Cushing sister was married to a Jew which influenced his ecumenical attitude.
I don`t think it is fair of you to claim that my mind is made up. If you showed binding magisterial teaching I would obviously accept it, but letters between bishops made for political reasons are obviously not trustworthy. In his address to the midwives Pope Pius XII gutted the ancient Catholic teachings on matrimony by fully approving NFP. Love doesn`t save. That is purely Pelagian. How does that go together with Augustinian predestination? It is divine providence which causes some to die baptised and others unbaptized.
So bishops saying the pope approved a document makes it binding and an official act of the holy see? This seems similar to the letter of Francis to the Argentinian bishops. What a pope, (supposedly), says to members of the congregation regarding a letter is not exactly binding. Pope Gregory II said in a letter to Boniface that impotence of the wife was grounds for either divorce, annulment or polygamy. As he is a pope I am going to assume he was merely erroneous regarding the grounds for annulment.
So I am not saying Pope Pius XII was duped. I am saying that a claim from the bishops that he approved of their letter doesn`t mean he did, and that the suspicious circumstances surrounding it make it… well.. suspicious. Stranger however is that it misquotes an encyclical of Pope Pius XII and that high ranking cardinals could continue to support Feeney. The fact that he never explicitly took sides but seemingly vindicated Feeney in his encyclical is odd. I certainly don`t hope you think the Spanish cardinal was disobedient. He was orthodox where Cushing was not. Lastly if Pope Pius XII sided with Cushing, Harvard and the Kennedys against Feeney and Cardinal Segura, what does this say of Pope Pius XII?
Even if Pope Pius XII was aware, then he approved the publishing of an erroneous letter for political reasons. In Radio speeches he taught democracy as the highest form of government backstabbing many devout Catholic monarchists. Since when are letters from bishops even with papal approval acts of the magisterium?
Pope Innocent III didn’t teach error. Where are you getting this? I was really going to respond to your other comments, but you just condemned Pope Pius XII’s address to midwives, so I can tell that we are so far apart theologically that there is no reasonable prospect of this being a fruitful conversation. I will, therefore, not continue this discussion. (And please remember, too, that this is a combox attached to a particular blog post – it is not a discussion forum.) If you would like to discuss your theses on a sedevacantist forum somewhere, go right ahead, but this is not the place for it.
Pope Innocent III taught that the rituals of the old covenant bestowed grace, you can read Denzinger on that. He also taught the Gregory of Nazianzus Limbo Infants where infants suffered under lacking the beatific vision where Pope Pius X taught the Aquinas version where they didn`t know what they were missing, yet Pope Gregory The Great had agreed with Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome that they suffered the least horrible fire.
How is it wrong that I condemned the address to the midwives of Pope Pius XII? Do you fully approve of NFP? I am saddened that you now don`t want to address my points is I have often struggled with that novelty of Pope Pius XII. If he can develop church teaching, why couldn`t John XXIII?
St. Augustine, On The Good of Marriage: “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children, such as sensual kisses and touches] no longer follows reason but lust.” (Section 11, A.D. 401)
The Church have always taught that “the generative [sexual] act is a sin unless it is excused” (St. Bonaventure, Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences) and that is why those who deny that “the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused…” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica) commit a sin against the Natural Law which can never be excused.
“The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.” (Pope St. Gregory the Great, “Pastoral Care,” Part 3, Chapter 27, in “Ancient Christian Writers,” No. 11, pp. 188-189)
Regarding Pope Innocent III… I couldn’t find anything of the sort in Denzinger — however, I was able to find St. Robert Bellarmine on the subject: “The Thirty-Fourth [Pope accused of teaching error] is Innocent III, who in the chapter, Per venerabilem, concerning who might be legitimate sons, teaches the old law was not yet plainly abrogated: ‘Clearly, since Deuteronomy means the second law, it is proved from the force of the word, that what is there discerned, ought to be observed in the new Testament.’ But this decree of Innocent is opposed to a decree of St. Paul in Acts XV. I respond: Innocent, in that place, did not wish to say that Deuteronomy ought to be preserved even today by the letter, but insofar as what was said there was a figure of the New Testament. Therefore, Innocent thought Deuteronomy was called second law, because it contained figuratively pertinent matters to the new law.” (De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter 14)
So that settles that. But it concerns me greatly that you seem to think that to accuse a Pope of teaching error on faith or morals is no big deal. I would like to ask you, please learn Catholic theology from approved pre-Vatican II Catholic theological manuals… that’s how the Church educated her priests and so it is the best way to understand theology. It is not enough to just know individual quotes or prooftexts — you must understand fundamental principles first, and perhaps more so in moral theology than in any other theological discipline. And no, I do not approve of NFP — I do not even allow the term.
And no, I won’t answer the rest of your post, either. If you want to discuss that, you can do it on a sedevacantist forum, such as the Te Deum forum or the forum at Trad Circle. This is not a discussion forum and I do not have time to moderate a combox all day. Any time I spend replying to you here is time away from writing blog posts or producing podcasts against the Novus Ordo Sect. Please understand. If I started to respond to objections all day, this would soon become a jungle of posts by all sorts of people and I would be doing nothing else.
You make many good points. It is true that the teachings of Aquinas are not merely opinions but he is not infallible either. Pope Saint Hormisdas said that Augustine`s teachings on grace are the teachings of the church yet Molinists do not really follow him at all. Thomas of Aquinas did not follow Augustine`s teachings on all points either. There were church fathers who denied baptism of desire like Cyril of Jerusalem and Saint Fulgentius. Augustine went back and forth on the issue. Baptism of desire is a general teaching of the church but not a dogma.
It may not be a dogma (although St. Alphonsus thought it was), but it is certainly infallible on account of being taught by the ordinary universal Magisterium and being incorporated in the Church’s universal disciplinary law (Canon 737).
Ordinary teachings are not by definition infallible. The ordinary teaching of the magisterium before the twelfth century was that infants suffer fire. Limited atonement, (in a semi-Jansenist not a Calvinist sense), was also long an ordinary teaching. Feeneyism plus baptism of blood was an ordinary teaching in the early church when Catechumens were denied Christian burial by Pope Leo. These are semi-open questions because the ordinary teaching is not infallible for a reason: in the early church many saints thought differently. Infallible teachings are always defined by the church when they have been held since the days of the apostles.
Well, I may have made a mistake here, although not for the reason you assert. Here is the Catholic teaching, from Vatican I:
“All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.”
The key portion is “to be believed as divinely revealed”. Although baptism of blood and desire are clearly taught universally through the ordinary Magisterium, I do not know if they are universally taught *as divinely revealed*. Quite possibly not. So, in that case, the teaching would not qualify as infallible on that score.
At the same time, the Code of Canon Law does enjoy infallibility insofar as it legislates universal discipline. This means it could not possibly contain anything that is heretical, dangerous, or harmful. That would not make it a dogma, I suppose, but it would provide infallible certitude that the teaching is not contrary to Faith or morals, nor harmful or dangerous in any way.
As far as what constitutes universality for the ordinary Magisterium, please see the important explanation given by Cardinal Franzelin in response to the errors promoted by the so-called ‘Old Catholics’:
http://novusordowatch.org/2015/08/true-vincentian-canon/
Blessed Good Friday to you.
Thank you for the charitable response. and the correction Happy Easter.
True but the code of canon law can technically contain error that is open to dispute or revision, especially where it goes against previous church discipline. Pope Pius XII taught encyclicals are binding on theologians for example, not on the faithful. Those things which are worthy of censure are only really harmful in theologians. Catholics must simply hold the divinely revealed faith.
I don`t believe baptism of desire to be harmful let alone heretical the way the Dimonds do. It does seem as though it is harmed missionary zeal. Also it should be noted that the code of canon law from 1917 uses the pre Suprema Haec Sacra understanding of baptism of desire as only applying to catechumens. The idea of implicit desire fro someone who doesn`t even know Christ cannot be found in Thomas of Aquinas, Saint Alphonsus and so on.
The Code of Canon Law cannot contain anything at odds with the Faith, and if baptism of desire were a denial of Church dogma, then it would be a heresy and gravely detrimental to Christianity.
If papal teaching is binding on theologians, it is even more so binding on the faithful, because the faithful would have an even lesser motive to dissent. The Pope is the teacher of *all* Christians.
The Code of Canon Law legislates discipline for the Church. That catechumens are to be given ecclesiastical baptism but not non-catechumens has nothing to do with denying baptism of desire for non-catechumens but catechumens have given an official, objective outward sign of desiring to become members of the Church.
I don’t understand why so many people think they have a better understanding of these issues than the Church herself.
And with this nonsense, Mike, you’re banned from here.
I agree that following Thomas of Aquinas is very important although I think following Augustine is even more important. He was a church father from the patristic church and a doctor of grace. Also baptism of blood does seem to have a much stronger basis in church tradition than baptism of desire. Many church fathers who denied baptism of desire taught baptism of blood. This is why popes allowed martyred catechumens to be listed amongst the martyrs while normal catechumens were denied hrisrian burial. Bsptism of blood is also a sacrament and blood contains water. Both water and blood came out of the side of Christ not desire.
Dear John,
I appreciate your participation here in the combox and especially your charitable tone. I would like to clarify, though, that this combox is not a discussion forum for issues unrelated to the post, and that discussion that calls into question established magisterial teaching will not be permitted.
Catechumens who die through no fault of their own are to receive ecclesiastical burial, according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Our obligation is to adhere to everything the Church teaches, and baptism of blood and desire is a part of that. It does not matter what we may think about this or that Doctor of the Church, or what we find convincing, or what our interpretation about a Scripture passage is. That’s what the Church is for: to guarantee the true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles.
God bless you, and happy Easter.
Without conceding what you’re saying about what most early Church Fathers allegedly believed (because I haven’t done the research myself), you do not simply have the right to refuse to adhere to what every approved Catholic catechism the world over teaches, and what the Pope himself explicitly teaches (see, for example, Pius XII, Address to Midwives: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm )
Melanie Calvat had as much of an obligation to submit to the hierarchy of the Church as we do.
Pope Leo XIII: “…it 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 – http://novusordowatch.org/leo13-epistola-tua/ )
We cannot turn the NOW combox into a discussion forum because then I could forget about producing content for the site and just moderate forum posts all day. The resources for that aren’t there. Secondly, the combox is supposed to be used for discussing the content of the post to which the combox is appended. Thirdly, there are sedevacantist forums out there where these issues can be discussed. NOW is just not the place for it.
People who want to know what is magisterial teaching can simply pick up an approved Catholic catechism or theological manual, and there they will find it.
Let me share once more the teaching of Pope Leo XIII: “…it 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 – http://novusordowatch.org/leo13-epistola-tua/ )
Quite simply, I am ultimately responsible before God for all content that appears on this web site. Free discussion is possible on some issues but not when it comes to the doctrinal teaching of the Church. Censorship *is* a Catholic principle. Doctrinal error must be refuted, and I don’t have time to constantly refute things.
Whether catechisms are infallible or not has nothing to do with the issue. As far as “what the Church has always taught” goes, please see Cardinal Manning’s explanation of the maxim of St. Vincent: http://novusordowatch.org/2015/08/true-vincentian-canon/
Again, these issues *can* be discussed online, just not in the NOW combox.
You are not responsible for what you permit others to say. Censorship isn`t a duty for laymen. Unless you are actually Sedevacantist clergy. One does not refute supposed doctrinal errors by silencing people. This is what church militant does with those who criticise Bergoglio. The church has always permitted dissent in good faith from the devout and holy.
Maintaining a web site is similar to editing a periodical or newspaper. At the end of the day, I *am* responsible for what is “printed” here. And I cannot permit serious errors to be left unrefuted, hence I must get involved every so often. Silencing error or controversy is legitimate per se, even if no refutation is made.
Dissent is permitted only in matters in which religious assent is not required. All Catholics must assent to the doctrines of baptism of blood and desire (there might be an exception for experts who have extremely weighty reasons, but we have no such theological experts today).
End of story.
True but in my person opinion, laymen should exercise humility in censoring, especially when discussions take place in a spirit of truth seeking. When people are seeking the truth on your site you should not silence it out of fear of permitting heresy. Also in my opinion Feeneyism should not be treated so harshly as many Catholic adhere to it out of a loyalty to tradition.
On a side note, an SSPX priest suggested it might not be right to legally punish women who have their unborn children killed. I was so shocked when the Polish bishops helped sink a pro-life bill by saying they were against women who kill their children being punished. Apparently the SSPX priest agreed.
If Cardinal Segura could follow Feeneyism and receive the support of Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis then why can Catholics not agree with this defender of the faith?
No, you are presenting a skewed picture here. According to your reasoning, the Church is not reliable in presenting the truth at any given moment; rather, one must learn to read and write, understand Latin and Greek, research the Church Fathers, debate and discuss, and then arrive at a conclusion about what to accept and what to reject.
The letter of Pope Leo XIII is surely not infallible, but it *is* authoritative.
The church is to teach what has always been taught. It is true one shouldn`t have to know the ancient texts but one certainly shouldn`t have to disregard them. Many Catholics growing up now learn things from the Novus Ordo and don`t bother to go back to the pure faith.
The Catholic Church necessarily always teaches the true doctrine she has also taught in the past.
Which is why Suprema Haec Sacra cannot be dogma. Cardinal Segura agreed and convinced Pope Pius XII to vindicate Father Feeney.
Suprema Haec Sacra is an exercise of the authentic Magisterium and binding on our consciences. It is not the last word on the subject but it is an important milestone in magisterial teaching.
Then why did Cardinal Segura reject it and have Pope Pius XII implicitly overrule it in Humani Generis?
You’re making a claim you’re not backing up. Please back it up. Secondly, the teaching of “Suprema Haec Sacra” was explicitly approved by Pope Pius XII in an audience, as the text says.
The text claims Pope Pius XII approved it. Doesn`t mean that he actually did. It was Cushing who claimed it was to be made public, doesn`t mean it really was. It was a letter from a cardinal to an archbishop.
Cardinal Segura, a defender of the faith and primate of Spain supported Leonard Feeney and was outraged by how Cushing treated him and wrote to the pope about it. This is well known. Cardinal Segura said that Pope Pius XII had answered him and had told him that he would address Feeneyism in Humani Generis. There he condemned those who reduced Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to a meaningless formula not Feeney.
http://catholicism.org/father-malachi-martin-interview-with-brother-francis.html
Now this is just silly. The Holy Office works on a doctrinal statement regarding No Salvation Outside the Church, meets in plenary assembly, and then the Pope refuses to approve it, so the Secretary sends it to the Archbishop of Boston anyway and lies about the Pope’s approval? The Pope, remember, was the head of the Holy Office at the time.
And despite this lie, no one in the Holy Office or the Vatican seems to notice or care, and the document gets included in the next edition of Denzinger and in all sorts of theological works (such as the BAC “Sacrae Theologiae Summa”, Fenton’s “The Catholic Church and Salvation” and at least indirectly in Van Noort’s Dogmatic Theology)?
Ah, so the Cardinal Segura story comes from Malachi Martin. That would explain a lot. Have you considered that instead of the Pope and/or the Holy Office lying, maybe it’s Malachi Martin who is lying? Anyone familiar with the controversy knows that Fr. Feeney wasn’t rebuked for preaching no salvation outside the Church but for preaching a false version of it.
How is it silly? It was a letter from a cardinal at the Holy Office. Not an official document of the Holly Office. It strangely enough was never published in the Acta Apostolica Sedes. Who says they ever discussed it with the pope during the plenary assembly? The letter merely claims this. An unofficial letter.
All we know that happened is that a cardinal of the Holy Office, Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, wrote a letter to Archbishop Cushing supporting him and Wright and that he claimed to have discussed the matter with Pope Pius XII.
Why couldn`t the secretary have lied? It a well established fact that Cushing and Wright both lied and Wright was likely involved with drafting the letter.
Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani had ordained the Modernist bishop Wright as a priest. It was Wright who had been very important in helping to start the Modernist conspiracy against Father Feeney. Wright like Cushing was a terrible Modernist.
A lot of Modernistic stuff happened under Pope Pius XII he was sick and dying. He made Angelo Roncalli a cardinal in spite of the file the Holy Office had on him. You regard Roncalli as a heretic, not Catholic and unable to be elected pope. You clearly disagree with the judgement of Pope Pius XII there.
Pope Pius XII for whatever reason turned a blind eye to the Modernist conspiracy here in the Netherlands. He in fact made Alfrink archbishop of Utrecht and primate of the church.
I am not claiming the pope lied, I am claiming that the Modernists Cushing and Wright lied and that Marchetti Selvaggiani who had ordained one of these Modernists lended his signature to it. Even at the time Cushing was persecuting Feeney because he convinced Catholics to leave anti-Catholic Harvard. He was proud and supportive of his sisters being married to a Jew. Wright would come to oppose the Vietnam War.
That Segura supported Feeney is well known. For preaching the Augustinian version held by nearly all in the early church, not the twentieth century version.
To clarify: No, I do not say that Angelo Roncalli was a public heretic before his election, and you will find this in several places on this web site (whether in an article or merely in combox posts, I do not remember). Public heresy is not the only obstacle that would prevent someone from being validly elected Pope.
You have completely ignored the scenario I mentioned. You act as though the Suprema Haec Sacra were a merely private letter that had been sent from one ecclesiastical buddy to another. This is not so. It was an official letter of the Holy Office and signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, AS the Secretary of the Holy Office. It was furthermore signed by Fr. (later Cardinal) Alfredo Ottaviani, the assessor.
The letter ended up being published in the American Ecclesiastical Review and translated there into English as well, and it was incorporated, quite rightly, into Denzinger. Mgr. Fenton, who was the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review at the time, was a personal friend of Cardinal Ottaviani’s and worked closely with the Holy Office. The scenario you envision is absurd. And as I said — something you ignored entirely — the Suprema Haec Sacra was also accepted as a magisterial document by various theologians in their theological work. I do not know why it was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and you do not know either. It didn’t seem to bother any of the theologians. You think you can explain all of the above on the grounds that “Pius XII was a sick man” (in 1949?) but this is presumably not an answer you would accept for why it wasn’t published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Now please, let’s end this. Look at the title of this post at the very top of the page. This thread has nothing to do with the post anymore to which it is appended. If you want to discuss this issue somewhere else, on some sedevacantist forum, that’s fine, but not here. Not to mention that the time I have to spend responding in the combox is time I can’t use to cover the chaos in the Novus Ordo.
Please honor this request. Thank you, and may God bless you.
The letter was not an official document of the Holy Office. The cardinals might have signed it but that is besides the point. It being published American Ecclesiastical review was Cushing`s work. Cushing was a Modernist who Pope Pius XII surprisingly didn`t even create a cardinal.
Many theologians were already Modernists. Modernism was taking over the church at that time. Many of those same authorities prepared Vatican II.
My answer is that God did not allow Modernism to receive magisterial sanction. All of this was manipulative scheming and plotting. Theologians and cardinals cannot change church teachings.
Sorry I hadn`t read your quest before writing most of this. I just hope you can stop being fooled by twentieth century innovations.
It is not beside the point — that is what it makes it a Holy Office letter: when the secretary of the Holy Office in his official capacity writes it and signs it. In the Catholic Church, it is not necessary to know “whose work” it was to have a letter published. It is a magisterial document and was treated as such by the Holy Office and by the theologians. There is really no evidence at all that it was Modernist “manipulative scheming and plotting” other than your say-so, perhaps based on testimony given by the notorious and duplicitous Malachi Martin.
There is a photo on the internet of Pius XII making the Luciferian Freemason “Cornuto” hand sign. That alone is enough for me to believe he was NOT a pope. He also taught heresy ex cathedra. I am sure the Lord is going to tell these antipopes, oh I forgive you, because you were a accommandationist and not a liberal. Ridiculous!
You accept that pathetic explanation? What a fool!