Tuesday, May 15, 2018

The Theological Departure of Leo XIII from Pius IX and the Catholic Faith

In this article, you will see a clear and undeniable departure from the legitimate disciplinary exercises of the papacy regarding indulgenced prayers approved for use by the universal Church.  First we will look at prayers approved by Pope Pius IX, and then we will look at prayers "approved" by Leo XIII, which include wordings that go just beyond the theology of Pius IX and the dogmas Catholicism.  After contrasting these two sets of prayers, ask yourself, which ones come from the Church?  Can the truth contradict truth?  At the end of this article, you will hopefully understand the reason for the quotations around the word approved with regard to Leo XIII. If not, then "the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith" in you?

John 18:37: "Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice"

Matthew 18:17: "And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican"

Pope Pius IX and "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church"

Despite claims to the contrary, Pope Pius IX never taught that anyone could be saved outside the Catholic religion, let alone by invincible ignorance.  He was not silent, however concerning invincible ignorance, as it was a topic very much abuzz in the Church during his pontificate.  It behooved our Holy Father to teach on the matter, lest specious opinions wrest the faithful from the Faith.

In summary, Pope Pius IX taught the same doctrine as that of the Angelic Doctor and some others concerning invincible ignorance, namely that it exonerates a person from the subjective guilt of what would be a manifest crime if that person had the ability to know certain facts.  But the Catholic understanding of invincible ignorance, (which St. Thomas Aquinas, expounded as that ignorance "which cannot be overcome by study") does not pertain to whether or not God Himself is able to remove the ignorance, but whether man, by his natural abilities alone, is able to do so.

In other words, Catholic theology has proposed a distinction between invincible ignorance and vincible ignorance, and as St. Thomas teaches, when the subject matter is something we are bound to know, vincible ignorance is a sin, whereas invincible ignorance is not- yet invincible ignorance itself, though exculpatory, does not supply for the lack of whatever the person is bound to know.  Hence, for example, a pagan in a nation miles away from any Christians, and who dies in that state, does not receive punishments on account of infidelity to the true religion of Christ, which he is unable by his own natural reason to discover, though he nevertheless receives punishments pertaining to the precepts of the Natural Law which he violated during life.  One of these precepts is that "God is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him", hence if this pagan worshiped a multiplicity of idols, this cannot be due to invincible ignorance, as the law written on his heart tells him that there can be only one God who created everything.  If he did not hear this voice of truth, it is on account of a seared conscience, which he caused of himself by sin.

For specific citations from Church history and teaching to support this understanding of invincible ignorance, and natural law, with specific reference to Pius IX, Bishop George Hay of Scotland, and St. Thomas Aquinas, please read the following articles:

Now on to the prayers approved by Pope Pius IX, for the conversion of those outside the Church, taken from The Manual of Indulgences, 1878:

In the above prayer, we note that infidels are created in the image and likeness of God.  They are not called His children, and God is not called their Father.  The prayer above reiterates a truth that the Roman Catechism pronounced, which modern day heretics seek to twist into something other than what it really says.

Exceprt from the article Is God the Father of All Men?:

Father by Nature?

Some might, then, argue that God is the Father of all men by nature, even if not spiritually, but this does not follow at all.  First of all, God is the Creator and author of our nature, yes, and as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:

"Nam cum Deus hominem creaverit ad imaginem suam, nec illam ceteris animantibus impertiverit, ex hoc singulari munere, quo hominem ornavit, jure omnium hominum, nec fideliummodo, sed etiam infidelium, Pater in divinis scripturis appellatur."

That is to say: "Given that God has created man to His image, and has not bestowed it upon the other living creatures, on account of this unique privilege, with which He has adorned man, a right of all men, not only of the faithful, but also of infidels, in the divine Scriptures He is called Father."

It is indeed true that the faithful and the unbelieving are made in the image and likeness of God, and no amount of unbelief can remove that from them. But do not be deceived by modern corrupt translations, which allege this passage to teach that God is called the Father of unbelievers in Scripture.  We have already seen seen above that such an allegation is absolutely false and indeed contrary to the Scriptures, and also contrary to the dogmatic canon of Trent quoted at the beginning of this article.  It is only by adoption that can we be His sons, since we are not of God's nature.  A look at an English Catechism from 1873 confirms this clear distinction between "Father" and "Creator" as separate titles.  Though we may have lost our sonship and inheritance by the taint of original sin, and though some lose it after Baptism by subsequent unbelief and sin, neither of these causes are sufficient to remove from God the appellation of Father in a general sense, though certainly these causes remove our worthiness to have Him as our Father.

Here is an excerpt from my communication with a Latin translator I hired to help me understand the sense of this text from the Roman Catechism:

I asked "Is "jure omnium hominum" referring to "ex hoc singulari munere, quo hominem ornavit" or "Pater in divinis scripturis appellatur", or is it possible to read it either the one way or the other? Which way is more tenable?"

The reply I received was "Jure omnium hominum is referred to the gift that God gave equally to all men".

That gift is the image of God.

Now in the above prayer, I can only imagine the line "Jesus Christ, the only saviour of the entire human race" would be eagerly seized upon by universalists (those who believe, or want to believe that God will "empty hell", for example if enough people pray "O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy") as evidence that the Catholic Church has long supported the notion that God will not damn anyone.  But this is plainly nonsense, as the clause clearly means that the entire human race has only Jesus Christ to turn to as a Saviour, not that the entire race will in actuality be saved.  And again, the infidels are described as being in the darkness and the shadow of death.  Not a state synonymous with salvation.

In the prayer above, heretics and schismatics are not called children of God, they are not called children of Mary, and Mary is not invoked as their mother.  She is a good mother, and of course would exercise the love of a mother towards them, but they are not yet come to the family of God, or if they have come into it, for example by valid infant baptism, but then fallen from the Faith by using their reasons to practice and profess heresy and schism, they are not yet reunited to the family of God.  The Mother of the Church looks on heretics and schismatics as a loving mother would look at her own children who have disowned her and her family, that is, with a solicitous and ardent desire that they would return to the family and inheritance they have by their own deeds forsaken.

Finally, in this prayer, which Pope Pius IX approved, we see the term "separated brethren", and indeed this term has caused many souls to faint for confusion.  The question on many minds might be "how can this be orthodox (pardon the unintentional pun) when the same term is used by the Satanic Vatican II Church to engender complacency in both those who (if they were Catholic) should evangelize, as well as those to whom they would do so?"

The context of the use of the term is important.  In the prayer above, there is no suggestion that those who are thus separated can remain so without consequence.  Quite the opposite, it is expressed in the prayer that in their present state they do not possess faith and charity, whereby their works might be good and glorifying to God, and that their return is what is required for them to be able to do so.

And again, given their valid baptisms, they were indeed made (at least at infancy) children of the Catholic Church, and spiritual sons and daughters of God and the Most Holy Virgin, but by their profession of and adherence to schism they have separated themselves from said holy family, though they can never erase the indelible character imprinted by Baptism.  The term "separated brethren", thus understood is indeed orthodox, not in the schismatical sense of the word, but in its true definition, that is to say, orthodox, meaning without violation of the Divinely revealed truths of Catholicism.

At the Council of Florence, the Church demonstrated that this is a lawful and true way to understand those who have received valid Baptism, but who then fall away.  Here is a citation from the same Holy Council, in which the Church rejoices at the (unfortunately short lived) return of schismatics:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence: "Let mother Church also rejoice. For she now beholds her sons hitherto in disagreement returned to unity and peace, and she who hitherto wept at their separation now gives thanks to God with inexpressible joy at their truly marvelous harmony. Let all the faithful throughout the world, and those who go by the name of Christian, be glad with mother Catholic Church."

I believe the best example of the theology of Pius IX is in Iam Vos Omnes, in which he calls Protestants and other non-Catholics to conversion.  In the letter, which is available in Latin, he uses diplomatic language, and calls them "Christians separated from Us", which as we have seen is valid under the consideration that baptism made them Christian, and then false professions of faith separated them (hence losing any true Christian Faith they may have had - they are now fallen away, or false Christians, Christians in name only).  In the letter he very explicitly states that the salvation of individuals and nations depends on their returning to the Church, which once accomplished, they can then call God their Father, and have a chance to be saved.  He explicitly states that, even if (etiamsi) they acknowledge (agnoscant; recognize, acknowledge, admit, claim) the same Christ, as (veluti; as if, like, as it were) the Redeemer, nevertheless they by no means profess the true faith of Christ, nor do they follow the communion of the Catholic Church (tamen veram Christi fidem haud profitentur, neque catholicae Ecclesiae communionem sequuntur.).  This is a clear statement that they do not profess the true Faith, nor the true Christ as a result.

Modern heretics have latched onto Pius IX as an excuse to believe in universal salvation, or salvation through invincible ignorance, or that there can be true Christians out of the Church, but the entire context of his letter shows clearly that, while he was diplomatic in his wording, he considered them to be out of the family of God, out of the way of salvation, and followers of a false Christ and a false gospel.

But Pius IX's theology is perfectly in harmony with that revealed by God Himself, even in Scripture:

Deuteronomy 32:5-6: "They have sinned against him, and are not of his children in their filth: they are a wicked and perverse generation. Is this the return thou makest to the Lord, O foolish and senseless people? Is not he thy father, that hath possessed thee, and made thee, and created thee?"

In the first place, those who have sinned grievously are explicitly told they are not of God's children in their filth, and in the second place, they are reminded of the inheritance that could be theirs - that they were created for - by returning to God.

Luke 15:21: "And the son said to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, I am not now worthy to be called thy son."

The son, in the parable of Jesus, recognizes that he had made himself unworthy to be called the son of his father, but it was by his return that the father gave him again the right to be so called.

Now contrast this with the Heretical Prayers of Antipope Leo XIII, where he says "separated brethren, who are still thy children", and "Mussulmans and other infidels who are, like us, thy children".  Big difference.  "Like us"!?  "In the same manner as us"!?  We (true Catholics, that is) are children of Mary spiritually, united in the same fellowship, the one true Faith of Jesus Christ, the true vine.  Infidels cannot be called children of Mary in any corporeal sense, let alone in this spiritual sense!  Like us, indeed!

In the end, it is Pius IX himself who dogmatically reiterated, ex cathedra, the doctrine that "without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters" - exact quote from the Vatican Council, and his exhortations to Protestants were for their return, even as the parable of Jesus about the "prodigal son", and the dictation of the Holy Ghost concerning the "wicked and perverse generation" of Deuteronomy 32.

And then in his very first encyclical, Leo XIII gave us a sign of the changes to come during his counterfeit pontificate:

Heretic Leo XIII, Inscrutabili Dei Consilio, April 21, 1878 (Italian): "No, non è perfezionamento civile lo sfacciato disprezzo d’ogni legittimo potere; non è libertà quella che attraverso modi disonesti e deplorevoli si fa strada con la sfrenata diffusione degli errori, con lo sfogo di ogni rea cupidigia, con l’impunità dei delitti e delle scelleratezze, con l’oppressione dei migliori cittadini. Essendo tali cose false, inique ed assurde, non possono certamente condurre l’umana famiglia a perfetto stato e a prospera fortuna, perché "il peccato immiserisce i popoli" (Pr 14,34): ne consegue che, avendoli corrotti nella mente e nel cuore, con il loro peso li trascinano a rovina, sconvolgono ogni ordine ben costituito, e così, presto o tardi, conducono a gravissimo rischio la condizione e la tranquillità della pubblica cosa."

The same, translated to English: "No, the shameless contempt of every legitimate power is not a civil perfection; it is not freedom that through dishonest and deplorable ways makes its way with the unbridled diffusion of errors, with the outburst of every cupidity, with the impunity of crimes and wickedness, with the oppression of the best citizens. Being such false, unjust and absurd things, they can not certainly lead the human family to a perfect state and to prosperous fortune, because "sin impoverishes the peoples" (Pr 14,34): it follows that, having corrupted them in the mind and in the heart with their weight they drag them to ruin, they upset every well-constituted order, and so, sooner or later, they lead to very serious risk the condition and the tranquility of the public thing."

It started small, and ambiguously, but it grew from there to be explicit and undeniable.  Leo XIII made the ambiguous statement that there is one "human family", and later, by his heretical prayers and teachings, he explicitly places infidels in the family of God, through Mary, and Pius XII even goes so far as to say that she, with regard to the Christ's act of Redemption, filled up what was wanting therein.  That is an absolute blasphemous and heretical interpretation of the words of St. Paul, as Christ's act of Redemption was fully self sufficient and of infinite value.

For further discussion and detail on these points, and others, please read also:
Crisis in the Catholic Church: The Leo XIII Connection
Blessed Virgin Mary: Co-Redeemer?
Antipope Pius XII: "Infidels are our Brothers in Christ"

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, ex cathedra"without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end."

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, 1824: ""Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.""

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Seven Words Spoken by Jesus Christ on the Cross, Third Word: "Woman, behold thy son ... Behold thy mother." [John 19: 26, 27] “…since through the merits of her so great grief, and through her love [according to the opinion of St. Augustine], as she was the natural mother of our head Jesus Christ, so she then became the spiritual mother of us who are His faithful members, in co-operating with Him by her love in causing us to be born, and to be the children of the Church

"God said to the serpent, I will put enmities between thy seed and the woman. This shows that after the fall of man, through sin, notwithstanding all that would be done by the redemption of Jesus Christ, there would be two families and two posterities in the world, the seed of Satan signifying the family of sinners, his children corrupted by him, and the seed of Mary, signifying the holy family, which includes all the just, with their head Jesus Christ. Hence Mary was destined to be the mother both of the head and of the members, namely, the faithful…these members are all spiritual children of Mary, as they have the same spirit of her Son according to nature, Who was Jesus Christ. Therefore, St. John was not called John, but the disciple beloved by the Lord, that we might understand that Mary is the mother of every good Christian who is beloved by Jesus Christ, and in whom Jesus Christ lives by His Spirit."