Like Amerio said in Iota Unum: If they called it a new religion, the apostasy would be open. Instead, they retain the names/forms (eg., priest, saint, pope, council, sacrament, etc.), but empty these things of their former substances, and replace them with something else. Like taking a can of Coca-Cola, pouring it out and refilling it with gasoline, and passing it off as Coke. Same can, same label, same appearance, but what’s in it isn’t Coke..
I agree that 'they' are very careful NOT to proclaim a 'new religion'; but there have been a number of occasions when 'they' have allowed analogous(ish) phrases to slip out so-to-speak - where the mask has slipped. For example Cdl Benelli's 'conciliar church' usage to archbishop Lefebvre in the 1970's, plus several instances of calls to 'build a different (or synodal) church' in Bergoglio's pronouncements and synod documents; the latter usually hastilly followed by explanations that 'they' are NOT seeking to build a new church but rather to 'develop/update etc' and other such ambiguous verbage. 'They' are clearly very sensitive to 'new religion' charges. I personally find Archbishop Vigano to be among the most persuasive proponants of the charge that a new religion is EXACTLY what 'they' are and have been about these past 60 years and more.
Question: I notice you begin with Paul VI instead of John XXIII. Should I interpret that as exonerating him from founding the new religion, even though he was the one who convened and presided over the false council tasked with “updating” the Church?
Personally, I have not seen sufficient grounds for considering John XXIII a non-pope, rather than a bad pope with evil intentions; and I am not convinced that evil intentions are sufficient to conclude that he is not the pope.
Is this, then, the dividing line between classical sedevacantism and sedeprivationism: SP’s would say the evil intention renders the papacy invalid, and therefore most reject John XXIII, whereas classical sedes argue either from violation of disciplinary infallibility (Paul VI) and/or public heresy (Francis), thereby preserving the legitimacy of John XXIII? Or does tgat demarcation not distinguish quite so neatly (or not at all)?
I don't think so. These days, what I'm saying isn't very common. Nonetheless Bishop Guérard des Lauriers didn't apply his thesis to J23, and Fr Noel Barbara also defended the legitimacy of J23. GDL actually dated his thesis to 1965.
Personally I'm not defending him, I'm simply declining to say he wasn't the pope.
I also think P6 was a heretic and/or schismatic for the reasons discussed in this piece.
Thanks for this explanation. I’d be curious to know whether there’s a higher percentage of SP’s who reject John XXIII, as my understanding is that their central thesis is that there was a defect of (proper) consent; that he accepted not to govern the Church according to traditional norms, but to set in motion an all-encompassing transformation of both Church and papacy, and that his acceptance of the papacy was therefore defective . If that much is true, as it certainly seems to be, ought not SP’s logically be inclined to reject the legitimacy of John XXIII?
J23 was the one responsible for nixing the schemas that he commissioned so the Modernists (which he allowed to be present) so new ones could be drafted. In addition, he all but hand selected Montini to take over for him.
In anecdotal support of that, I clearly remember the near universal rapturous response of mainstream media to the new J23 call to 'reject doom and gloom' and 'embrace openness and optimism' in church and world affairs - to reject his predecessors' dire warnings about burgeoning modernist heresy IOW.
There is also the question of the licity of the 1958 conclave itself. My understanding is that a pursuasive case can be made for it's having been compromised.
As St Peter was the rock on which Christ founded His Church it would appear to be the case that the new apostate, comcilliar church was founded on the sand of the suspected freemason Angelo Roncalli. If silence in the face of error can be considered endorsement of error and befriending the enemies of the Church at the expense of proclaiming the Truth can be considered an a abandonment of truth then John XXIII must hold the title of patron saint of the Great Demolision whether Pope or antipope.
Yes, I do agree with a non-committal stance re John XXIII true or false pope while the question is not resolved to one's personal satisfaction.
But is it really necessary at all to know whether a particular occupant of the chair be true or false? Or, is the papacy absolutely necessary for the survival of the Church I our day after 2 millennia of constant, authoritative teaching that leaves very little to be understood or proclaimed as to what a Catholic must do to save his soul. Probably the only question to be resolved infalllibly is that of Mary Co-redemtrix but we still have enough knowledge regardless whether that question be resolved or not. A good question to ponder is: Is the papacy a necessary requirement for a functioning Church in our times or is holding fast to tradition sufficient for it's sure looking like we're not getting a pope any time soon? Is it important to discern the exact point of rupture with tradition and who held supreme office at the time or is it merely enough to know that a break has occurred? If we don't know the exact point of rupture could we inadvertently be accepting a certain amount of heterodoxy with tradition?
Yes. The Papacy is necessary for the Church. The Office is essential for interpretating and implementing the Magisterium, and the Pope is necessary as a visible locus of unity and truth.
We are in this mess precisely because there is no Pope.
I do not disagree with the points made in this article, partly because I've seen some of it in action, partly because I'm just not well versed in the legalese and technicalities that are involved. It does appear to me that the "new" religion is very much intertwined with the traditional that it becomes near impossible to discern between the two. So what are those to do who are recognize there's a problem (even if they can't make it concrete and visible) and are concerned about being led astray?
I do hope that I avoided legalese... you're right that it is intertwined, however. That is why the answer lies in what Lefebvre said:
It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.
This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.
The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.
That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.
That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.
Can you explain (or if you have elsewhere just point me to the article) what you mean by "a new catechism, a new priesthood, "? Are you saying the "big green book" Catechism is the "new religions" (meaning the Baltimore and Trent versions are still Catholic) or is there another meaning I'm not catching? Not meaning to be a bother, just trying to understand better.
Well, they are Lefebvre's words, not mine. He said that in 1974, before the CCC. But his point was that the doctrine contained represented a significant departure from the traditional faith.
When Archbishop Lefebvre said this, there has already been numerous new catechisms that contradicted the Catholic Faith in circulation, particularlybin France. The Vatican's response was either silence or approval. Further, JPII's so-called "Catechism of the Catholic Church" contains many problematic things, the least of which is the treatment of "Catholic Social Teaching", wherein Christ is only mentioned in passing.
Further, Lumen Gentium effectively redefined the priesthood to be more of a social worker. This is reflected in the new rite of ordination.
Thank you, Sean, for mentioning the logical conclusion that connects V2 to legitimacy of the papal claimants, in that since V2 teaches error 1) it cannot be a general council, and thus 2) those who promulgate it or implement it cannot be Pope.
There is little qualitative difference between declaring one’s complete commitment to Vatican II and declaring one’s complete commitment to Freemasonry, since the principles and ends of each are identical (even if couched in different terminology).
There is, however, this accidental difference:
That in the latter case, one would be recognized by the vast majority of Catholics as apostate, whereas in the former case, it is the vast majority of Catholics themselves who have become apostate.
Thank you for this. To explain I am currently pondering RCIA but my reluctance too stems from a non-acceptance of Rome, I see too many similarities with the error of Canterbury that I left. I would call the cult of man idolatry plain and simple btw. When it comes to rupture, I hold that it is possible for the Vatican to effectively to reject its own commission from Christ just like an individual can be saved but voluntarily turn their back on their salvation (thus it is invalidated by the choice of that individual while the saving Grace of our Lord remains spotless, the error is in the backsliders choice) and that is what I hold Rome is doing - rather than being the Church of Christ and Apostolic Succession it is choosing through the medium of Vatican II to be the Church of Human Fraternity, the abomination of one world religion. What you call rupture I therefore call rejection of its commission. Synodality is an expression of its conscious desire to renounce the authority Christ gave it.
But this brings me back to the RCIA, I have no desire to commune with the Church of Human Fraternity but the nearest SSPX Church is some way away, hence my dilemma, it isn’t practical to say I’d be able to worship there regularly, this article has given me more food for thought.
Like Amerio said in Iota Unum: If they called it a new religion, the apostasy would be open. Instead, they retain the names/forms (eg., priest, saint, pope, council, sacrament, etc.), but empty these things of their former substances, and replace them with something else. Like taking a can of Coca-Cola, pouring it out and refilling it with gasoline, and passing it off as Coke. Same can, same label, same appearance, but what’s in it isn’t Coke..
Indeed.
I have made this argument for a while. It was that fact that made me realize that the Conciliar church cannot be the Catholic Church.
I agree that 'they' are very careful NOT to proclaim a 'new religion'; but there have been a number of occasions when 'they' have allowed analogous(ish) phrases to slip out so-to-speak - where the mask has slipped. For example Cdl Benelli's 'conciliar church' usage to archbishop Lefebvre in the 1970's, plus several instances of calls to 'build a different (or synodal) church' in Bergoglio's pronouncements and synod documents; the latter usually hastilly followed by explanations that 'they' are NOT seeking to build a new church but rather to 'develop/update etc' and other such ambiguous verbage. 'They' are clearly very sensitive to 'new religion' charges. I personally find Archbishop Vigano to be among the most persuasive proponants of the charge that a new religion is EXACTLY what 'they' are and have been about these past 60 years and more.
Question: I notice you begin with Paul VI instead of John XXIII. Should I interpret that as exonerating him from founding the new religion, even though he was the one who convened and presided over the false council tasked with “updating” the Church?
Personally, I have not seen sufficient grounds for considering John XXIII a non-pope, rather than a bad pope with evil intentions; and I am not convinced that evil intentions are sufficient to conclude that he is not the pope.
Is this, then, the dividing line between classical sedevacantism and sedeprivationism: SP’s would say the evil intention renders the papacy invalid, and therefore most reject John XXIII, whereas classical sedes argue either from violation of disciplinary infallibility (Paul VI) and/or public heresy (Francis), thereby preserving the legitimacy of John XXIII? Or does tgat demarcation not distinguish quite so neatly (or not at all)?
I don't think so. These days, what I'm saying isn't very common. Nonetheless Bishop Guérard des Lauriers didn't apply his thesis to J23, and Fr Noel Barbara also defended the legitimacy of J23. GDL actually dated his thesis to 1965.
Personally I'm not defending him, I'm simply declining to say he wasn't the pope.
I also think P6 was a heretic and/or schismatic for the reasons discussed in this piece.
Thanks for this explanation. I’d be curious to know whether there’s a higher percentage of SP’s who reject John XXIII, as my understanding is that their central thesis is that there was a defect of (proper) consent; that he accepted not to govern the Church according to traditional norms, but to set in motion an all-encompassing transformation of both Church and papacy, and that his acceptance of the papacy was therefore defective . If that much is true, as it certainly seems to be, ought not SP’s logically be inclined to reject the legitimacy of John XXIII?
J23 was the one responsible for nixing the schemas that he commissioned so the Modernists (which he allowed to be present) so new ones could be drafted. In addition, he all but hand selected Montini to take over for him.
In anecdotal support of that, I clearly remember the near universal rapturous response of mainstream media to the new J23 call to 'reject doom and gloom' and 'embrace openness and optimism' in church and world affairs - to reject his predecessors' dire warnings about burgeoning modernist heresy IOW.
There is also the question of the licity of the 1958 conclave itself. My understanding is that a pursuasive case can be made for it's having been compromised.
As St Peter was the rock on which Christ founded His Church it would appear to be the case that the new apostate, comcilliar church was founded on the sand of the suspected freemason Angelo Roncalli. If silence in the face of error can be considered endorsement of error and befriending the enemies of the Church at the expense of proclaiming the Truth can be considered an a abandonment of truth then John XXIII must hold the title of patron saint of the Great Demolision whether Pope or antipope.
You have a strong point. I'm certainly not exonerating him, or even defending his claim—simply saying that I'm not convinced he wasn't the pope.
Yes, I do agree with a non-committal stance re John XXIII true or false pope while the question is not resolved to one's personal satisfaction.
But is it really necessary at all to know whether a particular occupant of the chair be true or false? Or, is the papacy absolutely necessary for the survival of the Church I our day after 2 millennia of constant, authoritative teaching that leaves very little to be understood or proclaimed as to what a Catholic must do to save his soul. Probably the only question to be resolved infalllibly is that of Mary Co-redemtrix but we still have enough knowledge regardless whether that question be resolved or not. A good question to ponder is: Is the papacy a necessary requirement for a functioning Church in our times or is holding fast to tradition sufficient for it's sure looking like we're not getting a pope any time soon? Is it important to discern the exact point of rupture with tradition and who held supreme office at the time or is it merely enough to know that a break has occurred? If we don't know the exact point of rupture could we inadvertently be accepting a certain amount of heterodoxy with tradition?
Yes. The Papacy is necessary for the Church. The Office is essential for interpretating and implementing the Magisterium, and the Pope is necessary as a visible locus of unity and truth.
We are in this mess precisely because there is no Pope.
I do not disagree with the points made in this article, partly because I've seen some of it in action, partly because I'm just not well versed in the legalese and technicalities that are involved. It does appear to me that the "new" religion is very much intertwined with the traditional that it becomes near impossible to discern between the two. So what are those to do who are recognize there's a problem (even if they can't make it concrete and visible) and are concerned about being led astray?
I do hope that I avoided legalese... you're right that it is intertwined, however. That is why the answer lies in what Lefebvre said:
It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.
This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.
The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.
That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.
That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.
Can you explain (or if you have elsewhere just point me to the article) what you mean by "a new catechism, a new priesthood, "? Are you saying the "big green book" Catechism is the "new religions" (meaning the Baltimore and Trent versions are still Catholic) or is there another meaning I'm not catching? Not meaning to be a bother, just trying to understand better.
Well, they are Lefebvre's words, not mine. He said that in 1974, before the CCC. But his point was that the doctrine contained represented a significant departure from the traditional faith.
When Archbishop Lefebvre said this, there has already been numerous new catechisms that contradicted the Catholic Faith in circulation, particularlybin France. The Vatican's response was either silence or approval. Further, JPII's so-called "Catechism of the Catholic Church" contains many problematic things, the least of which is the treatment of "Catholic Social Teaching", wherein Christ is only mentioned in passing.
Further, Lumen Gentium effectively redefined the priesthood to be more of a social worker. This is reflected in the new rite of ordination.
Correct, some of the worst "catechisms" were floating around at that time.
Thank you, Sean, for mentioning the logical conclusion that connects V2 to legitimacy of the papal claimants, in that since V2 teaches error 1) it cannot be a general council, and thus 2) those who promulgate it or implement it cannot be Pope.
Thank you!
WM Review sets a very high standard for Catholic writing. Consistently excellent. Well done and thank you.
"Prevosterous" is an excellent coinage. Hilarious. Hagen Leo!
There is little qualitative difference between declaring one’s complete commitment to Vatican II and declaring one’s complete commitment to Freemasonry, since the principles and ends of each are identical (even if couched in different terminology).
There is, however, this accidental difference:
That in the latter case, one would be recognized by the vast majority of Catholics as apostate, whereas in the former case, it is the vast majority of Catholics themselves who have become apostate.
Thank you for this. To explain I am currently pondering RCIA but my reluctance too stems from a non-acceptance of Rome, I see too many similarities with the error of Canterbury that I left. I would call the cult of man idolatry plain and simple btw. When it comes to rupture, I hold that it is possible for the Vatican to effectively to reject its own commission from Christ just like an individual can be saved but voluntarily turn their back on their salvation (thus it is invalidated by the choice of that individual while the saving Grace of our Lord remains spotless, the error is in the backsliders choice) and that is what I hold Rome is doing - rather than being the Church of Christ and Apostolic Succession it is choosing through the medium of Vatican II to be the Church of Human Fraternity, the abomination of one world religion. What you call rupture I therefore call rejection of its commission. Synodality is an expression of its conscious desire to renounce the authority Christ gave it.
But this brings me back to the RCIA, I have no desire to commune with the Church of Human Fraternity but the nearest SSPX Church is some way away, hence my dilemma, it isn’t practical to say I’d be able to worship there regularly, this article has given me more food for thought.