Monday, July 19, 2010

How does a manifest heretic destroy faith and create schism?

Please read also:

The first and most recent popes and invincible ignorance

When proposing that a pope loses office for teaching heresy in an encyclical, and that by that fact becomes the head of a false sect, since he can no longer be the head of the Catholic Church, I have received the following question: "So people become schismatic just because they didn't read an encyclical?"

As has been discussed in various other articles, most notably "A pope cannot be a heretic; a heretic cannot be pope", if a pope were to show himself to be manifestly heretical in a public and knowable capacity, then he would cease to be the pope.

Also, the ONLY excuse that a person may have that would excuse him from the guilt of schism is invincible ignorance of the heresies of his religious superior, as has been explained in detail in the article "The first and most recent popes and invincible ignorance".

Furthermore, since we are not at liberty to presume invincible ignorance on behalf of those  subject to the heretical superior, we must hold such people to be schismatic and thus outside the Church, unless they have shown signs of rejecting their schism.  This is consistent with the constant Catholic teaching, as evidenced in the article "On the absence of salvation among heretics and schismatics and those in communion with them".

But a common question that arises is this: "If the pope didn't try to speak ex cathedra, then he didn't lose office if he taught heresy, did he?"  But the answer is yes, he did lose office if his heresy was publicly knowable.  Even a heretical teaching in an encyclical is enough to make him a manifest heretic and not the pope.  You will see why this is the only position that makes sense if you think of the logical consequences of trying to argue otherwise.

First let's consider to whom most encyclicals are addressed:

Pope Pius IX, Apostolicae Nostrae Caritatis, 1854: "To the Venerable Brothers, the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries Who Share Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See."

Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum, 1849: "To Our Venerable Brothers, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Entire Catholic World."

Antipope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 1891: "To Our Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries of Places having Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See."

Antipope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, 1914: "To Our Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and Other Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See."

Antipope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943: "To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See."

So we see that encyclicals (or so-called encyclicals) are often addressed to the hierarchy (or the pretended hierarchy) of the Catholic Church.  What does this mean?  It means that even if the pope (or antipope) is not purposing to speak ex cathedra, he is nevertheless giving instructions to his subordinates on HOW AND WHAT THEY MUST TEACH THEIR FLOCK.

ALL of the bishops, then, receiving these letters are faced with decisions each and every time they read a new encyclical.  Do they accept what is written therein at face value, and disseminate it down the chain of command to their clergy and then to their flock?  Or if they find something that is questionable or unclear and seek further clarification on the matter?  If there is something heretical (or even close to heretical) contained in such a letter, certainly the bishops and clergy are bound to press the matter and get an answer.  But this was hardly done at the apostate Second Vatican Council, let alone during the reigns of the pre-Vatican II antipopes.

How do we know that the pre-Vatican II antipopes were truly heading a false religion and no longer the Catholic Church?  Simple.  All we need to do is consider what the passively accepted teachings are that they were handing down for dissemination among their flock.  Let's take some brief quotes from the above mentioned letters:

Antipope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 1891, #25: "But, if Christian precepts prevail, the respective classes will not only be united in the bonds of friendship, but also in those of brotherly love. For they will understand and feel that all men are children of the same common Father, who is God; that all have alike the same last end, which is God Himself, who alone can make either men or angels absolutely and perfectly happy; that each and all are redeemed and made sons of God, by Jesus Christ, "the first-born among many brethren"; that the blessings of nature and the gifts of grace belong to the whole human race in common, and that from none except the unworthy is withheld the inheritance of the kingdom of Heaven. "If sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and co-heirs with Christ."[22]."

So once the bishops received and accepted this letter, they all fell into the heresy that "God is the Father of all" and that logically therefore "all are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, all have a right to the inheritance of Heaven."   There is no way around it, unless the bishops were to say "Wait a minute!  This is wrong!"  And they would have had a solid basis for doing so, as can be seen by reading the article "Is God the Father of all men?".

And of course, the fruits of that acceptance of heresy among the formerly Catholic hierarchy just got worse as time went on.  For example:

Antipope Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910: "But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting. "

The problem here is twofold, namely that he says God is Father to all, which is heresy, and that he states that there is ONE human family, when in reality, there is the family of God and the family of satan, under whose dominion all men are born.

And they were not done yet!

Antipope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, 1914: “For the whole of mankind was freed from the slavery of sin by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ as their ransom, and there is no one who is excluded from the benefit of this Redemption.”

Antipope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, #96, 1943: "And first of all let us imitate the breadth of His love. For the Church, the Bride of Christ, is one; and yet so vast is the love of the divine Spouse that it embraces in His Bride the whole human race without exception. Our Savior shed His Blood precisely in order that He might reconcile men to God through the Cross, and might constrain them to unite in one body, however widely they may differ in nationality and race. True love of the Church, therefore, requires not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another as members and sharing in their suffering but likewise that we should recognize in other men, although they are not yet joined to us in the body of the Church, our brothers in Christ according to the flesh, called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation."

All the while the bishops and clergy are just going along with it.  I say again, anybody who thinks that the apostasy has not happened yet, or only began with Vatican II, has not done their research.

Did Christ prophesy the Great Apostasy, the spiritual tribulation that would come upon the world in the last days?

St. Matthew 24:21-24: "For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. 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."

Those who cling to the belief that a pope can be a heretic as long as it is not in his infallible capacity, then, are necessarily denying the promise of Christ, who said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, and they are denying the authoritative interpretation that pope Vigilius gave to these words of Christ when he said:

Pope Vigilius Second Council of Constantinople, ex cathedra: “…we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Pope Eugene IV and Baptism; he knew what he was doing

Addendum: please see I have to stop fighting baptism of desire and admit that I am more confused about the Crisis now than I was when I thought I had a tidy answer

In the Council of Florence, there are two very interesting decrees that one ought to be aware of.  They are dogmatic definitions and decrees, which definitively prove that the absolute necessity of receiving the sacrament in water is in fact a dogma that must be believed by divine and Catholic Faith.

But those who like to quote St. Thomas as a support for the heresy of baptism of desire (which was not a heresy in his day - please read the article "Heresy was always false, but not necessarily always heresy"), should take note that Pope Eugene IV and the Council Fathers at Florence were well aware of his teachings on the matter, and still worded their decrees the way they did.  Here are the decrees compared with the teachings of St. Thomas, which both come from the same part of his Summa Theologica, namely Tertia Pars, Question 68.

The decree, which prohibits any lawful belief in baptism of desire:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, (Exultate Deo), 1439, ex cathedra: "Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit."

The wording is very clear and precise, indeed Pope Eugene knew that as pope he needed to use perfect precision in his words, as they are "for an everlasting record".  He puts forth a literal and no exceptions allowed understanding of Christ's words in St. John's Gospel, chapter 3, verse 5.

Contrast this with St. Thomas' teachings from nearly two centuries earlier:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Tertia Pars, Q. 68, Art. 2 (Whether a man can be saved without Baptism): "On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. 84) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification."

But his very words make clear that St. Thomas was not expounding on what he believed to be an article of Faith, but was rather SPECULATING.  This is undeniable from the words "it SEEMS that", hence, it was merely his opinion.

Still, some may be inclined to argue that Pope Eugene's decree takes St. Thomas' opinion into account, and even though it appears contradictory, that there actually is no contradiction.  But this argument fails for the simple fact that while St. Thomas was fallible, Pope Eugene IV spoke in virtue of his supreme authority, and therefore was infallible in his words.  That is to say that his words were absolutely true, and there is not even a shadow of untruth to them.  Read them again and see that there is no way around them.

Pope Eugene IV and the Council Fathers were not unaware of St. Thomas' teachings, and in fact quoted him almost word for word in he following decree:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11 (Cantate Domino), ex cathedra: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa,  Tertia Pars, Q. 68, Art.  3 (Whether Baptism should be deferred): "I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism."

Now, if Pope Eugene IV meant to make a declaration that agreed with any other part of St. Thomas' theology, he would have done so, just as he did by quoting the Holy Doctor almost word for word above.  But instead, he worded his decree from Session 8 in such a way as to leave no possible room for any entrance into the kingdom of God, save for receiving the sacrament of Baptism, administered in true and natural water, using the form of the Church.

In short, he knew of St. Thomas' opinion, but dogmatically shut the door on it forever (in fact, the door was already shut on it at the Council of Vienne in 1311-1312, just a few decades after St. Thomas passed away)

This is a lesson to us all once again that "The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching." - Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica Constitutio, #6, June 26, 1749

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Audio refutation of the Dimonds on Leo XIII (and Pius XII)

Video playlist discussing the Dimonds' attempt at defending Antipope Leo XIII and how they created a strawman fallacy and fell into (another) heresy in the process.

This article has been sent to MHFM for their consideration.