Novelty meets pseudo-theology…

The “God of Surprises” and his Oracle: Francis and the Development of Doctrine

Francis has a surprise for you!

On Oct. 11 of this year, Francis gave a landmark speech at the Vatican on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church. The date also coincided with the 55th anniversary of the opening of the infernal Second Vatican Council. Francis’ speech addressed three main subjects:

  • the Conciliar (i.e. Novus Ordo) Catechism
  • the development of doctrine
  • the death penalty

On Oct. 13, we published an article regarding the problems with the Conciliar Catechism and, for the time being, skipped the two other main topics. In this blog post, we will take a critical look at Francis’ claims regarding the development of doctrine, and we will tackle the issue of the death penalty in a separate post that will be published here in just a few days.

The full text of Francis’ speech can be found at the Vatican web site:

Entering into the subject of the development of doctrine, Francis ties it to the popular Vatican II half-truth that the deposit of Faith is one thing and its verbal expression is quite another. Here is what he says:

The Catechism is … an important instrument.  It presents the faithful with the perennial teaching of the Church so that they can grow in their understanding of the faith.  But it especially seeks to draw our contemporaries – with their new and varied problems – to the Church, as she seeks to present the faith as the meaningful answer to human existence at this moment of history.  It is not enough to find a new language in which to articulate our perennial faith; it is also urgent, in the light of the new challenges and prospects facing humanity, that the Church be able to express the “new things” of Christ’s Gospel, that, albeit present in the word of God, have not yet come to light.  This is the treasury of “things old and new” of which Jesus spoke when he invited his disciples to teach the newness that he had brought, without forsaking the old (cf. Mt 13:52).

(italics given)

The method that has been used since John XXIII to justify the emergence of the New Religion is always the same: Gratuitously assert that a new language had to be found to present the old truths in a new fashion so that modern man would be “able to understand”, so that the Church would be “relevant” to the complexity of modern consciousness. One of the big promoters of this very idea was a certain Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, who in our day is unjustly hailed as a great traditionalist (see his book Introduction to Christianity [New York: Herder and Herder, 1970], pp. 15-16).

But not only does this run afoul of Catholic magisterial pronouncements before Vatican II, as we will see in a moment, it is also refuted by the empirical data: Before the council, the number of converts was high, and the Catholic Church enjoyed a veritable boom in vocations; her authority was widely respected even by non-Catholics, and most members of the Church assisted at Mass on Sundays and holydays. By contrast, ever since the appearance of the Novus Ordo Sect and its aggiornamento (“updating”) of the church for modern man, the exact opposite has taken place: There has been a collapse of faith and practice of staggering proportions, and the social influence of the “Catholic Church” today is practically nil. Ironically, the desperate attempt to be relevant is what made the Conciliar Church irrelevant.

The empirical evidence regarding what has for decades been marketed as the “New Springtime” has been documented by Kenneth Jones in his 2003 book Index of Leading Catholic Indicators. A powerful illustration of the stark post-Vatican II reality is found in Western Europe, especially in Germany, where the Novus Ordo Sect is virtually indistinguishable now from the Lutheran Sect and will die out completely in the next few decades.

Naturally, Francis endorses the idea of “finding a new language” in which to express the Faith to modern man. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the “new language” of Vatican II has led only to the obscuring of truth, not to its greater intelligibility. Anyone can verify this for himself: Pick up a copy of the 16th-century Roman Catechism and contrast it with the 1992 Novus Ordo Catechism, and ask yourself which of the two communicates truth more clearly and is easier to understand. Likewise, it is no accident that although the “Holy Mass” is now offered in the vernacular and has been dumbed down to the point of it having become the liturgical equivalent of a happy meal, most people who attend it are absolutely clueless about the Catholic doctrine on what the Holy Mass is and does.

In any case, the “let’s use new language to express old truths to modern man” rallying cry of the Modernists was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1950:

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, nn. 14-17; underlining added.)

A clear proponent of this error condemned by Pius XII is the Modernist “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Muller, who has replaced the dogma of Transubstantiation with his own concept of “Transcommunication”. Comparing the clear language in the Council of Trent’s teaching on the Real Presence to Muller’s insufferable gobbledygook about reality-symbols sharing in the reality-content of the human and bodily self-giving of Jesus, shows that the real motive is to render Catholic truth uncertain, obscure, and unintelligible — and in this the Novus Ordo authorities have been extremely successful.

But Francis does not, of course, merely advocate for a “new language” of old truths. No, he wants “the Church [to] be able to express the ‘new things’ of Christ’s Gospel, that, albeit present in the word of God, have not yet come to light.” Ah, yes, the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, also once claimed to bring to light some “new things” that no one had hitherto discovered, and Francis’ “god of surprises” does not seem to be far behind.

Time and again the Vatican II Sect hijacks Matthew 13:52 to give credence to its new religion: “He said unto them: Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.” But what does this mean?

“This was a proverbial expression with the Jews, to signify every thing useful or necessary for the provision of a family”, writes the 19th century Scripture scholar Fr. George Leo Haydock. “Thus also a pastor of souls throws light upon the mysteries of the New Testament, by the figures of the Old, and explains the workings of grace, by the operations of nature” (source). Likewise, in Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on St. Matthew we read:

This is a proverb, signifying every kind of food, substance, or goods necessary or useful for sustaining a family. Some of these things are best when new, others when old. Hence the proverb, “New honey, old wine”; i.e., honey is best when fresh, but the oldest wine is the best. Hence too the verse in Pindar’s ninth Olympic Hymn, “Praise old wine, but the flowers of new Hymns.” The meaning is — As the father of a family provides for his household things new and old, i.e., everything necessary and useful, so ought a Gospel teacher to bring forth, at suitable times, according to the capacity of his hearers, various discourses, knowledge of every kind; and especially to take care to teach them the new and unknown mysteries of the Gospel, by means of old examples, such as parables and similitudes, which his hearers can take in. Moreover, some of the ancients, as SS. Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, and Bede apply old and new to the Old and New Testaments. For that is the best preaching when the New Testament is confirmed and illustrated from the Old, and proved to be in all points typically agreeable to it. For the Old Testament was the type of the New; the New Testament is the antitype of the Old.

(The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. Matthew’s Gospel – Chaps. X to XXI, trans. by Thomas W. Mossman, 4th ed. [Edinburgh: John Grant, 1908], p. 154; italics given.)

Thus it is clear that the “new things” Christ made reference to in this parable are not new teachings that suddenly “come to light” 2,000 years after the promulgation of the Gospel, that, even though they were supposedly contained in the Deposit of Faith, no one had hitherto noticed or discovered until Vatican II came around. No, the “new things” are the timeless truths of the Gospel, of the New Covenant, which, contrary to its Mosaic predecessor, is faultless and perfect (see Heb 8:6-10).

As the First Vatican Council taught in its Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus: “For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth” (Denz. 1836).

But one sure sign of not faithfully setting forth and guarding sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the Deposit of Faith, is to teach something that is in principle contrary to what had been taught magisterially for centuries. Hence a true Pope could do no such thing. Yet this is precisely what Francis is doing with the death penalty, as we will demonstrate in our upcoming post; and it is also what the Vatican II Sect has done with regard to, for example, the doctrine on the Church (ecclesiology), on which rests its entire program of ecumenism, which opened the floodgates for the apostasy we have witnessed since.

Francis ends his address by resorting to an old Modernist tactic: ridicule the traditional Catholic position so as to render it odious to your audience, then offer your “brilliant” Modernist position as the supposedly “real” Catholic teaching. “His Holiness” says:

Tradition is a living reality and only a partial vision regards the “deposit of faith” as something static.  The word of God cannot be moth-balled like some old blanket in an attempt to keep insects at bay!  No.  The word of God is a dynamic and living reality that develops and grows because it is aimed at a fulfilment that none can halt.  This law of progress, in the happy formulation of Saint Vincent of Lérins, “consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age” (Commonitorium, 23.9: PL 50), is a distinguishing mark of revealed truth as it is handed down by the Church, and in no way represents a change in doctrine.

Doctrine cannot be preserved without allowing it to develop, nor can it be tied to an interpretation that is rigid and immutable without demeaning the working of the Holy Spirit.  “God, who in many and various ways spoke of old to our fathers” (Heb 1:1), “uninterruptedly converses with the bride of his beloved Son” (Dei Verbum, 8).  We are called to make this voice our own by “reverently hearing the word of God” (ibid., 1), so that our life as a Church may progress with the same enthusiasm as in the beginning, towards those new horizons to which the Lord wishes to guide us.

Notice how all of these things are merely asserted — no genuine proof is given. This is typical of the proponents of the New Theology, which is the predmoninant theological school that characterizes the Vatican II Sect.

Precisely what is a “living reality”? And if Tradition is such a living reality, what does (and doesn’t) this mean? Do we get to change Church teaching at will and simply declare that the latest update to it was always part of the Deposit of Faith?

Francis quotes St. Vincent of Lerins twice in his speech, from his Commonitorium, in which the fifth-century theologian speaks approvingly of progress in religious knowledge; yet Francis unhappily forgets to quote the following qualification St. Vincent places on it: “Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself; whereas alteration implies that it is transformed into something else” (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium against Heresies, trans. by C. A. Heurtley [Tradibooks, 2008], Ch. XXIII, p. 110).

Francis’ denigrating “moth-balled” comment illustrates how condescending the Modernists are towards real Catholicism, which always guards carefully the Deposit of Faith, which is “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), the “pearl of great price” (Mt 13:46), without which salvation is impossible (see Heb 11:6).

Apparently St. Paul the Apostle didn’t realize he was giving a “moth-balling” command to St. Timothy when he told him to “keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called” (1 Tim 6:10). No mention here of a “dynamic and living reality”. In fact, the New Testament constantly warns against novelties, new doctrines, false apostles, and those who refuse to persevere in the teaching of Christ and instead pervert it:

And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many…. Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. (Mt 24:4-5,23-25)

But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off the occasion from them that desire occasion, that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Cor 11:12-15)

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:6-9)

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Pet 2:1)

Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. (2 Jn 9)

The Old Testament, too, has a verse for Francis: “Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the old paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls. And they said: we will not walk” (Jer 6:16).

As far as “moth-balling” the Deposit of Faith to keep it from being tampered with by innovators, the First Vatican Council was rather clear about the Church’s task, and it too quoted St. Vincent of Lerins:

For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding. “Therefore . . . let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding” [St. Vincent of Lerins].

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus; Denz. 1800)

Now it is certainly true that there is a legitimate doctrinal development in the Catholic Church, but it is not the kind that would allow for an overturning of the intrinsic moral permissibility of capital punishment, which Francis advocates in his speech and uses as an illustration of his notion of doctrinal development.

The Catholic position regarding the development of doctrine and dogma is laid out and explained in the following quotes from various approved traditional Catholic sources.

We begin with Fr. Francis Connell, who wrote for the American Ecclesiastical Review. Notice how he points out that a genuine development of doctrine does not contradict what was believed previously:

[T]he doctrinal growth which has taken place in the Church since its establishment is certainly not to be reckoned a change in the accepted sense. This growth consists in a more profound, a more scientific, a more explicit grasp of the deposit of divine truth committed by the Son of God to His Church. In this way the Church, both docens [i.e. the teaching hierarchy] and discens [i.e. the believing faithful], arrived at the more complete cognition of such doctrines as the two wills of Christ, the Immaculate Conception, the presence of the whole Christ in every part of each species, etc. And beyond doubt this growth in appreciation and understanding of divine revelation will continue until the end of time. But this manner of subjective progress is very different from the modernistic concept of the evolution of doctrine, according to which contradictory tenets have been propounded by the Church at different periods of history. This type of change the Catholic Church rejects; but the possibility of the growth of the faithful in the understanding of the faith the Church fully accepts.

In what, then, does the unchangeableness of Catholic doctrine consist? In the first place it means that nothing has been added or ever can be added to the deposit of public divine revelation since the death of the last apostle. Such has ever been the teaching of the Church, based on the conviction that the truths proclaimed by Christ (including what was revealed to the apostles by the Holy Spirit) were intended as the completion of the Message of God to the human race.

(Fr. Francis J. Connell, “Does Catholic Doctrine Change?”, American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 117 [Nov. 1947], pp. 326-327; underlining added.)

A change in doctrine that would end up meaning the opposite of what was once declared and believed, would not be a genuine development but a corruption.

Next, Fr. Edwin Kaiser gives a very readable treatment on the matter of development of dogma in his book Sacred Doctrine: An Introduction to Theology. On several occasions he makes reference to the work Introductio ad Historiam Dogmatum by the theologian Fr. Reginald Schultes (Paris, 1922).

In proposing dogma, the Church declares [a] doctrine to be revealed and commands it to be accepted as true under pain of damnation. The Church does not receive new revelations nor declare what is not revealed, but binds the human conscience to accept as true what has been revealed by God.

The development of dogma rests in the very nature of the truth committed to the Church and in her office as Teacher of Mankind. Since there is no new revelation, no truth objectively added by human science or philosophy, the development must consist in the “successive and infallible proposing and explaining of revealed truths” [Schultes].

From the very beginning, the Church did not hesitate to adopt new formulas most suited to condemn the denial of revealed truth and to express clearly and unequivocally the revealed doctrine. The Sacred Scripture surely contained the truth that Christ is both God and man. But the full doctrinal implication in formulas expressing the Church’s complete explanation of that teaching took centuries of development. Often the Church would reject every formula except one, which was the acid test of the true and orthodox faith, e.g., the term consubstantial at Nicaea (homoousios), and Mother of God at Ephesus (theotokos).

If dogma is to progress or develop, it can only be through some succession or change. However, dogma is immutable revealed truth. Moreover, it was given by a revelation which ended with the death of the last apostle. It follows that an immutable truth given centuries ago without any objective addition can develop or progress only in its exposition. Revelation ended with the death of St. John; but the proposing of revealed truths continues to the end of the world. The truth of revelation is eternally immutable; but the explanation, the exposition or declaration of revealed truths is necessarily continuous and progressive.

Despite the claim of some sects that they cling to the exact words of the Bible, no teacher of truth merely repeats a message committed to him. He needs must explain and unfold it, must defend it against false interpretations, he must “define” it. In proposing a doctrine, the Church does not, therefore, merely repeat it in the terms in which it was received, but she explains its meaning in different terms and concepts. Likewise when she defines a doctrine she also establishes and determines its legitimate explanation. In this sense to propose is to explain, to define is to fix the correct exposition of truth.

The definition of the Immaculate Conception is an explanation of the holiness of Mary. The definition of transubstantiation is an explanation of the words of the Institution of the Eucharist found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Insofar as the Church teaches that we must believe all that is contained in the Written and Unwritten Word of God, she teaches the entire revealed truth. However, in her office as Teacher, she explains the revealed truth more explicitly, condemns errors as they arise, and defines from time to time the more clearly “explained” doctrine. The Church proposes to all the faithful in an explicit manner what was before only implicit…. The revealed truth about the Divinity of the Logos [Word] and the Incarnation becomes more explicit in the first councils of the Church as they define that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father, is one divine Person with two natures, really distinct but not separate, having two wills, and so on.

(Edwin G. Kaiser, Sacred Doctrine: An Introduction to Theology [Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1958], pp. 278-280)

Dogma, then, is the full flower of doctrinal development: “History of dogma consists in the gradual unfolding and more explicit teaching of the revealed truth by the Church. There are facts and events which we trace in time and space, studying beginning, progress, and completion in the final decision of the Church” (Kaiser, Sacred Doctrine, p. 283).

The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology gives a very succinct summary of development of dogma:

According to Catholic doctrine, a dogma cannot undergo intrinsic and substantial changes; there is an evolution [development], however, on the part of the faithful as to understanding and expressing a dogma (extrinsic and subjective evolution). This legitimate progress appears in the history of the dogmatic formulas defined by the Church, as gradually the meaning of the truths, contained in the sources of divine revelation, came to be more profoundly and clearly understood.

(Pietro Parente et al., Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology [1951], s.v. “dogma”, p. 81)

We will end by quoting once more Fr. Connell, who hits the nail on the head:

There is no substantial change in the Church’s doctrine, because truth needs no change. The Church does indeed take into consideration the particular circumstances of the times when she enunciates her moral doctrines, but she does so without any modifications of the principles she has always maintained.

(Fr. Francis J. Connell, “Does Catholic Doctrine Change?”, American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 117 [Nov. 1947], p. 331)

Pitted against this Catholic teaching on the nature and development of doctrine, we find the novelties proclaimed by the Vatican II Sect. Let’s be clear that it is not just since Francis that we have been faced with never-ending “newness” and “surprises” but really since the abominable Second Vatican Council itself.

What’s somewhat astounding is that Paul VI, the “Pope” of the council, was not even ashamed to promote his novel ideas precisely as newness: “The important words of the council are newness and updating [aggiornamento] … the word newness has been given to us as an order, as a program” (Paul VI quoted in Osservatore Romano, July 3, 1974; qtd. in Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century [Kansas City, MO: Sarto House, 1996], p. 112).

Paul VI’s successor, “St.” John Paul II, confirmed in his first encyclical letter that newness was indeed the legacy of Vatican II:

Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council….

(Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, n. 3)

As far as just what this newness consists in, an example can be found in a book that John Paul II had published a mere two years prior, then as “Cardinal” Karol Wojtyla, in which he happily proclaimed “that the Church succeeded, during the second Vatican Council, in re-defining her own nature” (Sign of Contradiction [New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1979], p. 17; see scan of page here).

In the summer of 1988, when the quarrels between the Vatican and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre reached its climax in the “unauthorized” episcopal conscecrations, the same John Paul II called on theologians to engage in “deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church” (Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, n. 5b; underlining added). The original Latin phrase of the underlined portion is “cum fortasse novae sint” and is more correctly rendered “because they are perhaps new”, but given the surrounding context and in light of all the other evidence, it is clear that “Pope” Wojtyla was conceding the novelty of the council.

In fact, we can see this plainly in a speech John Paul II gave in 2000, addressing a conference studying the implementation of Vatican II:

…the genuine intention of the Council Fathers must not be lost:  indeed, it must be recovered by overcoming biased and partial interpretations which have prevented the newness of the Council’s Magisterium from being expressed as well as possible.

(Antipope John Paul II, Address to the Conference Studying the Implementation of the Second Vatican Council, Feb. 27, 2000; italics removed; underlining added.)

It is clear, then, that Francis’ “god of surprises” is simply the latest manifestation of the Conciliar “newness” that has been shoved down everybody’s throat ad nauseam since the 1960s. Precisely how this “newness” looks and what its fruits are, is amply documented throughout this web site. Far from the promised glorious “New Springtime”, we have experienced an utter devastation of the vineyard of the Lord, an apostasy of colossal proportions; and there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: “An enemy hath done this” (Mt 13:28).

In response to this fundamental error of the Vatican II Sect, all true Catholics must break the bad news to Francis and his gang: Their celebrated “god of surprises” — armed with all those “new things” that “have not yet come to light” — will have to stay in his box.

Image sources: / own creation with elements from internet
Licenses: paid / fair use

Share this content now:

13 Responses to “The “God of Surprises” and his Oracle: Francis and the Development of Doctrine”

  1. BurningEagle


    If there is anything which might be added to this article, it might be from St. Pius X’s Oath against Modernism:
    “I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.” …”I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.”

    • anna mack

      Thank you for that deeply erudite contribution. Obviously, thanks to your great wisdom, we will all now recant our ridiculous sedevacantist opinions and head off to the nearest Bergoglian supper so that we can shake hands with the *real* Catholics. Phew! So glad you came by.

      • Is it I, Lord?

        Anna, our friend isnt attacking us. Our friend is attacking Our Lord and His Holy Catholic Church. The time when evil is called good and good is called evil. We can only pray for our friends like these.

        • Siobhan

          Is it I,
          Re: the promised treatment by the Bishop on the topic we discussed–I can’t find it ! I do remember that the Bishop spoke on this within the context of another talk, hence cannot be researched via topicality. I thought I downloaded to my pc, but evidently not. Here’s some stuff that might be of interest & I’m purposely not being specific bc the whole subject usually ignites furor, get my drift? Hope you like these: In case you’re curious, friend, I definitely hold to the validity. Peace be to you.

          And of interest perhaps–

      • BurningEagle

        This guy’s keen grasp of Thomistic philosophy and theology, his encyclopedic recall of canon law, his precise references to decrees of popes and councils, his Martinucci-like ease with liturgical practices, and his ability to discern moral cases like Merkelbach, is so brilliant that it escapes numbskulls like us. Just be thankful that he has graced us with that small pearl of wisdom.
        I will now immediately depart for the nearest insane asylum, having been convinced of my delirium, and seek help from a Freudian psychoanalyst.

  2. Dum Spiro Spero

    Summa: “Question 14. God’s knowledge
    Article 15. Whether the knowledge of God is variable?
    Objection 1. It seems that the knowledge of God is variable. For knowledge is related to what is knowable. But whatever imports relation to the creature is applied to God from time, and varies according to the variation of creatures. Therefore the knowledge of God is variable according to the variation of creatures.

    On the contrary, It is said, that in God “there is no change nor shadow of alteration” (James 1:17).

    I answer that, Since the knowledge of God is His substance, as is clear from the foregoing (Article 4), just as His substance is altogether immutable, as shown above (I:9:1), so His knowledge likewise must be altogether invariable.

    Reply to Objection 1. “Lord”, “Creator” and the like, import relations to creatures in so far as they are in themselves. But the knowledge of God imports relation to creatures in so far as they are in God; because everything is actually understood according as it is in the one who understands. Now created things are in God in an invariable manner;…”

    Very similar happens with the doctrine of the Church. It can not change because it concerns immutable things.

  3. jay

    The Vatican II sect uses a lot of words to try to prove their point. It reminds me of the pro abortion lobby explaining why abortion isn’t murder. It will be interesting to see both camps explaining their point of view to God.

    • Sonia

      A white cow. The VII demon of surprises brings another home run. An actual dead cow on a cross in a Novus Ordo church. “..‘innumerable’ (Novus Ordo) churches…remain empty in Flanders on Sundays because…the Flemish are no longer interested in ‘insufferably tedious “Masses”.’

      PS. Flemish Novus Ordites…the only thing that twigs is boredom? R&R – pipe – smoke it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.