Rome, March 16, 2015: In the war against Freemasonry and Modernism, Catholics who in the present hour come to the grace to realize that they are in the midst of battle are necessarily greatly disadvantaged in the material things necessary for the fight.
This is especially true since Freemasonry has been working since 1717 A. D. to overthrow the Church, and thus has laid a deep foundation and organized a great number of institutions and persons against the Church for a long time, and not only outside of the Church but within Her. And not only these, but also a plethora of errors which have, by now, seeped into many a book, mind, and institution of formation.
For this reason, in the fight against the Kasper Agenda, which is actively and formally being promoted by Pope Francis with the maximum artistic effect to conceal this very thing, it is of the utmost importance that Catholics join in collaborative efforts to fight back.
Consider for a moment, that Pope Francis is using the entire structure of the Church, Her hierarchical constitution, by which She rules all the Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, all the institutes of Religious life, all the parishes and chapels.
Thus, inasmuch as he promotes Kasper’s agenda of false mercy, especially now through the Synod on the Family and the Year of Mercy, every artifice and method of coercion can be brought upon millions of souls by the simple dictate of “Team Bergoglio” players and members.
For this reason unless Catholics band together in a world-wide network, we can easily be overcome, despite all our good wishes, desires, resolutions, or works, written or active.
As an anthroplogist (I hold a B. A. from the University of Florida, Gainesville), I note how silly the world has become, even in matters of the greatest importance. For example, if there arises a case of a man who walks to work, it is sufficient that it come to be known in 1 news report, and suddenly there is a crowd-funding campaign and $200,000 is donated to the man to buy a car to go to work in. (I imagine that he does not need a Lamborghini, but what car costs so much?). On the other hand, let there be 100 reports on the wickedness and danger of the Kasper agenda, and other than talk about it, Catholics do nothing.
For the “Year of True Conversion” (Y4Tc) initiative, there is the need of a network of several thousand of bloggers, websites, Catholic organizations on every continent, to promote the true reception of God’s Mercy. One blogger cannot organize that, EVERYONE must participate in making it known, on their blog, their website, their twitter page (pin it to the top), their facebook page, their pages on Tumblr or Pininterest or any other social media. Clergy too need to preach about it and NOT be shy about its true intention.
In the fight against the Kapser Agenda, there is the association Veri Catholici, which now comprises some 400 members.
Other than these, there are no organization devoted to such specific purposes, but they need not be. All organizations and institutions can oppose the Kasper Agenda in their own way, but they must oppose it, if they are to act as Catholics. To be quiet now, is to tacitly succumb. If you don’t declare your side publicly now, it will be too late to recruit an army when the battle starts.
Indeed, the fundamental problem today in the Church arises from the cowardice of too many clergy to speak out and take initiatives to oppose the errors. Part of the problem is that all the courageous men have been weeded out of seminary and expelled long ago, and what is left is mostly the excessively prudent, the habitually timid and those so self-interested in not being persecuted or criticized, that they are more like dumb watch dogs, than those ambassadors of the Most High who realize that the best way to return to His Court, is covered with the wounds and trophies of battle.
Catholics also have to resolve to work together. This is especially true of those organizations which have built up their own networks for a specific purpose and would normally not involve themselves in other interests. The Catholic Faith is attacked in Her very essence and structure by the Kasper agenda. It will not be rare to find a Cardinal or Bishop or Priest, for example, who will speak well against some aspect of the agenda, but be too scared to speak against the whole. If such a behavior predominates, the Church will fall and disappear in most nations.
On this matter, I will speak with the utmost sincerity and clarity: Where the Kasper agenda is opposed in its entirety, the Catholic Faith and Church will endure, where it is opposed only partly, it will fall.
This is because, the entire structure of the Church will be used against the opponents of the Kasper agenda; and if you only oppose it in something, all the other aspects of it will be used to drag you away with it into perdition.
Thus, Catholics need most of all to recruit Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Religious and writers and leaders to openly oppose the entire agenda and to do so with courage and boldness.
No 1 organization can do this, because 1 organization will be easily and quickly attacked, blacklisted and marked out for disapproval. No, EVERYONE needs to participate in fighting back.
This is especially true of the older organizations, which will, according to the tendencies of fallen human nature, be apt to hold back participating in this fight, because they are piqued by the thought of collaborating with new comers-on-the-block, or because they prefer to grow their own organizations rather than risk disapproval or obstacles to their own smaller interests.
Thus, to oppose the Kasper agenda requires among those who fight it, a true Conversion and true Catholic charity, which works together with all fellow Catholics, for the good of the Church, unto the supreme self-sacrifice.
And let’s not be shy or ignorant about what Christ wills for us: the conversion or expulsion of the Modernists from the Church. The proponents of the Kasper agenda, either need to repent of it totally, or get out of the Church; and if they do not do 1 or the other, the Catholic Bishops need to excommunicate them and separate from them.
Y4Tc = A CALL TO TURN THE YEAR OF FAKE MERCY ON ITS HEAD
Rome, March 14, 2015: Yesterday, Pope Francis announced a special year of “mercy” to “celebrate” and commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council, which took place on Dec. 8, 1965. Which “Year of Mercy”, will be celebrated from Dec. 8, 2015, to Nov. 20, 2016.
Francis announced the Holy Year saying: “Dear Brothers and Sisters, I have often reflected upon how the Church can make its mission as a witness of mercy more apparent. It is a journey that begins with spiritual conversion. For this reason I have decided to proclaim an Extraordinary Jubilee which focuses on God’s mercy. It will be a Holy Year of Mercy. We wish to experience this inspired by the Word of the Lord: “Be merciful, just as your father is merciful” (cfr. Luke 6:36). This Holy Year will begin on the next Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception and will conclude on 20 November 2016, Sunday of Our Lord Jesus Christ King of the universe and the living face of the Father’s mercy.”
“I entrust the organisation of this Jubilee to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelisation, so that it may bring it to life as a new leg of the Church’s journey on its mission to bring the Gospel of mercy to every person. I am certain that this Jubilee will give the whole Church the joy of rediscovering the mercy of God and making it grow. All of us are called to be merciful and offer consolation to every man and woman of our time. We entrust it henceforth to the Mother of Mercy, that she may cast her gaze upon us and watch over our journey.”
Let’s be honest, Pope Francis has no idea what God’s Mercy is about
It is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to laud, with a sacred act, that which attacked in every way the blessings which the Church had received by Her own fidelity to the Holy Spirit’s gift of piety to Her through the course of 1933 years…
It is a sacrilege of the very notion for which the Jubilee years were established, to turn a year which should be marked by the quest of the forgiveness of one’s own sins through penance and prayer and alms-giving, into a political event equivalent to patting one’s self on the back for having destroyed everything holy in the Church.
Mercy, as any Christian knows, has nothing to do with ignoring or excusing sin, as Pope Francis has made absolutely clear he’s about. Its about confessing one’s sin, in the humble recognition that God, not man nor the Pope, defines what is right and wrong, and man must accept or be thrust down into the everlasting fires of Hell!
True Mercy consists in this, that God deigns to forgive man his sins when and only when man agrees to recognize them as such, repent of them completely and perfectly, and amend his life by conforming it to the rules and laws and obligations which God has set, as He has revealed them in Scripture and Tradition.
Let’s be more honest, the “Fruits” of Vatican II are all rotten and putrefying
For those who have not lobotomized themselves with loyalty to a political ideology, which requires only the consistent parroting of the same ideology: one has only to look at the statistics which measure Catholic life, to know that Vatican II’s effect has been entirely rotten.
There is no need to prove the point, other bloggers have collected impressive amounts of evidence, as can be seen in this post, by Joao, “Catholic Church statistics (Vatican II is a disaster!)”, published on January 14, 2014.
One could also measure the theological meltdown by a simple comparison between the contents of homilies, newspapers, magazines and other publications, which are run by the hierarchy today, and those run by the same hierarchy yesterday.
Simply do a google search, or go to a “Catholic” bookstore.
I won’t mention the 10,000’s of boys who have been sexually abused by 1,000’s of homosexual predators among the Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Religious who support Vatican II’s reforms — though we shouldn’t pretend that this moral disaster is only confined to that group.
Thus, there is no reason to celebrate the anniversary of Vatican II. Rather, on the contrary, we should lament it!
A Year for True Conversion (Y4Tc)
On which account, I believe it would redound to the honor and glory of the Divine Majesty of the Most Holy Trinity, that Catholics everywhere, recognizing that it is a special grace of the Holy Spirit to have been preserved in mind and soul from the massive delusion which has swept the Church since Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, and considering it the gravest act of truth and love to call one’s fellow brothers and one’s fathers to repentance, before the wrath of God falls upon them, or the Faith of the Church be entirely extinguished in them…
To call for a YEAR FOR TRUE CONVERSION (with the official Acronym: Y4Tc).
To participate meritoriously in this authentic year of grace, a Catholic will pledge himself in thought, word and deed to calling for the repentance of all those addicted to the Second Vatican Council as the new Gospel of the Church.
By reminding them,
that it is God, not men, Who is the Author of Creation and of Man, and of all natural institutions which are consequent to these.
that is is God, not men, Who is the Author of the Catholic Faith and Founder of the Catholic Religion, such that no man, not even the pope or bishops united with him, has any power to alter or change that which God has established;
that is is God, not men, Who is the Author of all authentic spiritual renewal of each and every individual and of the entire Church, and that no man, not even the pope with all the bishops united with him, can set up another path for spiritual renewal, than that which He has always worked.
Hence, during the “Year of Mercy” decreed by Pope Francis, from December 8, 2015 to November 20, 2015, Catholics adhering to the YEAR OF TRUE CONVERSION will pray and work for the conversion of all who are addicted to the Second Vatican Council by reminding them that the Deposit of Faith is Scripture AND Tradition, as interpreted and taught by the Perennial UNCHANGING Magisterium of the Church, and that it is
a MORTAL SIN of IDOLATRY to regard any other authority as the basis of the Catholic Faith.
a MORTAL SIN OF SACRILEGE to despise or contemn any ecclesiastical tradition, whether written or not, which the Church has received from Christ, from the Apostles or Prophets, from the Fathers or Doctors of the Church, from the Saints, or from the pre-Vatican II Magisterium or Popes.
a MORTAL SIN OF IMPIETY to propose new and novel forms or meanings for any Catholic liturgy, ritual, word, practice, devotion, for the purpose of mixing the spirit of the world, of the flesh, or of the devil, into Catholic life and belief.
The purpose of this Year of True Conversion will be to obtain the explicit and verbal recognition of these truths and the abandonment of that sacrilegious impiety known as the Aggiornamento, which has sought to adapt faith to life, in such wise, as to make of life the rule of faith.
I leave it to the artistic creativity of Catholics everywhere to create whatever signs or logos to show their adhesion to this year of grace.
Thus, let this year, be a year of intense spiritual warfare against the impiety of Modernism and of the Modernists. In this way, we can work the greatest and most necessary act of fraternal charity possible, for the greatest number of souls, today, and unto the end of time! — And such is, a true work of Mercy, a true work in collaboration with the Holy Spirit!
I encourage and ask one and all to place and consecrate this Year of True Conversion to the Holy Spirit, under the patronage of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, that He and She might work through all for the true reconciliation of God and men and the only authentic renewal possible for the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshote by From Rome blog, cropped)
Rome, March 13, 2015: Two years ago, this afternoon, the College of Cardinals elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff.
A Failure in Law
I will omit, here, a long repetition of that which I have blogged about for 3 1/2 months, namely, that there are very grave and probative reasons and facts regarding the validity of that election, and this for 3 reasons:
Cardinal Bergoglio was elected on the 5th ballot in the afternoon, in violation of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, which allows only 4 ballots per day. The facts were the subject of Antontio Socci’s bestselling book, Non è Francesco, and the crucial arguments were discussed here. The facts have never been denied, the reasonings in law for the validity, require a rewriting of 2 sections of the papal law; the reasonings against the validity require no change in the law. That makes the argument against the validity more probable both in law and in testimony.
Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy was promoted by a violation of UGD 81, which forbids any and all agreements among Cardinal electors as to whom they are going to vote for, such as any campaigning or promises of votes which is consequent upon canvassing for votes. The facts were presented by various sources, but summarized and brought to clear relief by Dr. Austen Ivereigh, in his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, specifically in chapter 9 of the same, where he names the conspirators, “Team Bergoglio”. The blog you are reading, From Rome, has made it the point to cover this story from the beginning; you can read all about it in our Chronology of Reports on “Team Bergoglio”. The consequences of the violation are the invalidation of the election, and this in virtue of the Code of Canon law. See the discussion here. Note that today Vatican Radio reports that Pope has himself confirmed that he was elected by a 2/3 majority (here), which puts validity in gravest doubt.
Cardinal Bergoglio before his nomination to Cardinal, and after, was notorious for giving communion to those in public sin and for instructing others to do the same. The allegations are confirmed by Sandro Magister. The consequence is that in virtue of the Papal Law, Cum ex apostolatus officio, of Pope Paul IV, he could not validly be elected Roman Pontiff. This argument is explained in the petition to the College of Cardinals. The validity in law of the Papal Law of Paul IV, has been discussed here and here.
A Failure in Prudence
But, moreso, the election of Cardinal Bergoglio by the College was a supreme failure of human prudence. Because, it is not prudent to elect quickly and without reflection someone who merely claims to be in favor of solving problems. One must look to his life and deeds, and that requires reflection. It is obvious to everyone in the Church, that if you spoke with Jorge Mario Bergoglio for 15 minutes, you could easily detect that he is not suitable for the office — that is, if you have any supernatural prudence at all, a prudence founded on an immaculate faith and resolute virtue.
I pity the man whom the Church’s Cardinals and Bishops regard as the Pope: it was a horrible sin against fraternal charity to promote to the office of Pope, a man whose entire career, from all accounts, has been obsessed with having and holding on to power. If any of the Cardinals had any question, in conclave, they could have certainly spoken to Cardinal Sandri, who was well acquainted with Cardinal Bergoglio’s failings.
I really do not see how the College of Cardinals was so possessed to elect such a man. But I feared that they had lost all sense, when during the general congregations for the Conclave, on March 7, the Cardinal Dean read out a message of condolence for the death of the dictator of Venezuela.*
It seems, from the continued silence of the College to so many scandals which have occurred on account of their choice, that that sense, after March 13, 2013, has not yet returned.
________________________
* Disturbing, too, was the fact that the first twitter user to recognize the newly elected Cardinal by face, that afternoon, was a male-prostitute.
Rome, March 11, 2015: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has announced in January that it will hear a case regarding a dispute in which the question of the “right” of individuals to obtain marriage licenses, regardless of their gender, arises.
The US media and indeed many commentators have been presenting the news in an exceedingly erroneous manner: they are saying that the decision is already certain or that the Court will use its judgement wisely, but none dare to touch upon the truth of the matter, namely that,
The Court hath no power over Marriage
It is a truth of nature and of Divine Law, that no court has authority over the institution of Marriage. This truth is taught implicitly by Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical, Libertas, n. 10, when he writes (bold-facing added):
10. From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law. Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: “I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law.”(5) If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.
Thus, because marriage, which is an institution of nature, takes precedence to the state in both time and causation. Hence, just as no state can exist unless there first be marriage, since every state is a society of men, and there cannot be a state without marriage.
Again, because God made made unto His image and likeness and He made them male and female, He also established that with the union of 1 man and 1 woman, their bond of fidelity remain unbroken throughout life. This truth is evidenced in the rational nature of man as much as in the physical nature of man. For, the proper development of the individual requires that he have 1 father and 1 mother, that his father be a male and that his mother be a woman; and that the two of them give him undivided and stable commitments in being his father and his mother, in unity, harmony and love.
And just as the violation of any of these characteristics of a marriage breaks down the family, so, just as the family is the fundamental building block of human society, the violation of any of these breaks down the state or impedes it all together.
Thus no court of men has any power over marriage, since “to have power over” means to have the authority over an institution. Since man does not have authority over institutions which have not arisen from human authority, courts of men must look to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, the Creator, to know beforehand the unpassible limits and constraints which He has placed upon marriage.
Hence, a court which attacks marriage, attacks the state. And,
A Court which attacks the State is at war with the people
Hence it is a high crime and act of treason, for any human court to rule against the nature or duties of the institution of marriage. Such a court cannot define anything, but can only rule validly in law when it accepts AND recognizes the institution of marriage for what it is, as arising from the very nature of man as God his creator has established him in body and soul.
A court which attacks marriage, in attacking the state, is at war with the people. The citizens of any such state have thus the natural right and divine duty to arrest such judges and imprison them. Their crime is a capital one and citizens can lawfully by natural right put such justices to trial for a capital crime, even if there are no existing laws for such such a penalty, because such a penalty for such a crime is derived immediately from the Natural Law which requires no human positive law to be enacted.
Thus, when such a court attempts such a crime, the bond of allegiance of the people is without a doubt severed toward such a court, and its decisions can and ought to be rejected. Any human government or state which attempts to impose such a judgement upon the people, itself enters into a state of war with its citizens. Henceforth, they can lawfully omit all allegiance to such a state, whether as regards the payment of taxes, the levy of troops, the enforcement or obedience of laws, but only if and to the extent that they seek to establish anew a more just order and a state or government or laws which are more harmonious with the natural law and divine right.
These words might sound extreme, but they are no lest extreme than the crime committed by such a court in such an affair of men.
A CALL FOR VIOLENCE TO PROMOTE THE GREATER REVOLUTION
Pope Francis at Ognissanti, March 7, 2015 (click image for original from Catholic Herald article on this event).
Rome, March 9, 2015: Students of theology at Rome, who are catholic, have long experience in “reading” what their professors are saying. This is because the current climate of Modernism, and the persecution of Catholic seminarians which is attendant upon keeping it in power, makes a woeful variety of the forms of dishonestly flourish under its pallid “sun” of error.
Modernism, as Catholics know and recognize, is the error which says there is nothing religious but what comes from the sentiments of the human heart. It is a species of atheism, of the kind apt to be found in those who pretend to be religious. It is a very apt and useful error for the ecclesiastical parasite, the priest-careerist or the hierarchical climber, because it absolves from all conscience and morality and thus enables any compromise necessary to ascend to ever greater depths of moral depravity and power.
In classes at the Pontifical faculties at Rome, the Modernist is easily recognized by his inability to speak sincerely and straightforwardly, his use of metaphors, indirect symbols, passing remarks, to key to his audience the “secret” meaning of his lecture, and allow it to be understood correctly. Few modernists omit this method, because it is so useful and successful; it leaves them in a strong position from where they can with difficulty be accused of being heretics, and one in which those who espouse heresy, can understand what they should be understanding in a certain sort of coded language or discourse.
The talk at Ognissanti is a perfect example of this method, but since this method is rarely recognized for what it is, let us unpack it for those Catholics who have the blessing never to have been “initiated” into it by attending a Pontifical university or seminary class.
First, the very occasion of the talk provides the context. The Modernists who pushed to dump the original schema for Vatican II and who controlled the entire implementation of the texts of the Council into which they wrote nearly all their own errors, find no greater occasion to rejoice but the anniversaries of their revolution. The 50th anniversary of the first mass in the vernacular, as was celebrated on Saturday March 7th, is just such an occasion.
It would be enough for the Pope to celebrate the occasion, even though he scrupulously avoided using the actual ritual Pope Paul VI used on that day, 50 years ago: no, no! such a liturgy, that of 1965, is much too much like the Traditional Latin Mass, of the “preconciliar era”. To have used that liturgy, would have been to confirm what Pope Benedict XVI often spoke about, the necessity to reconcile the 2 liturgies. But since “reconciliation” presupposes equality, and since Modernists deny the legitimate spiritual equality of the Old Rite — they actually deny the totality of the legitimate spiritual quality of that rite — there could be no question about using the liturgy of 1965. That would send the “wrong” message, in their minds, to their followers.
Thus, the significance of the day of March 7 and the use of the Novus Ordo for the 50th anniversary.
Significant too, is the Cardinal of whom this church is assigned among the Sacred College: Cardinal Walter Kasper, chief theologian of “Team Bergoglio” and papally authorized proponent of the Kasper thesis, which holds that it is mercy to abandon 2000 years of Christian teaching which bars public and impenitent sinners from reception of the sacraments.
All of these 3 circumstances already say all which the Modernists need to say. Their con-catenation means that unless their agenda is explicitly denounced in the Homily for the celebration, that agenda is in fact explicitly affirmed by the silence.
Let us now examine the text of the talk to see what else can be gleaned.
As the Modernists would be very inclined to fear that Traditionalists would be apt to criticize this talk — there were even rumors in Rome that the Vatican was obsessed that traditional Catholics would stage a demonstration against the Anniversary — we have to look closely to see what is intended to be seen only by initiated Modernists.
Quotations are from our unofficial English translation of the homily…see previous Blog post for citations.
+ + +
Holy Mass at the Roman Parish of Ognissanti, on the Via Appia Nuova
Homily of Pope Francis
3rd Sunday in Lent
Saturday, March 7, 2015
On the occasion of the feast of the Jewish Passover, Jesus went to Jerusalem. Arriving at the Temple, he does not find people who seek God, but people who are conducting their own business: merchants of animals for the offering of sacrifice, money-changers, who exchange the “impure” money, bearing the image of the Emperor, with the money approved by the religious authority to pay the annual temple tax. What do we find when we take ourselves there, when we go to our temples? I give you this example: The unworthy commerce, source of ill-gotten gain, provokes the energetic reaction of Jesus. He overturns their tables and throws their money to the ground, he drives the merchants away, saying to them: « Don’t make the House of my Father a market! » (John 2:16).
Note, from the start, that the Pope founds his entire homily on the comparison between the Jewish liturgy and the Christian liturgy. This is the standard Modernist reading of the liturgical aggiornamento: Just as the Jewish liturgy was ignorant and superficial, the Christian inspired and interior; so the old Mass was obsessed with appearances and rules, the reformed Liturgy is open and free and unvexing.
Note that the Pope uses the current Italian version of the Gospels, which erroneously translates the Greek, οἶκον ἐμπορίου, as “market”, when in fact is means “house of business”, that is, “covered market place”. (The actual mercantile practices in the Gospel text took place, not in the Temple, but in the Courtyard of the Gentiles, the most exterior part of the outer area, in which even Gentiles who were believers could enter. No part of the Mosaic Law forbade trade in this area. Contrariwise, the Mosaic Law, of which Jesus as God is the author, precepted the offering of sacrifices to God: the support of the Temple by the annual tax, too, was a customary obligation of the entire Jewish People, to which Jesus never objected.)
In fact, the use of the Jewish – Christian parallelism to fault the old liturgy and praise the new, is a form of antisemitism which we would expect from a Lutheran faithful to Luther’s bigotry against both the Jewish People and the traditional Mass, the kind of theological bigotry propounded in liberal Germany theological institutes, such as those from which Cardinal Kasper may draw his racially tinged concepts of African Bishops, as Edward Pentin exposed during the recent Extra-Ordinary Synod on the Family. But let’s not allow our expectations or history to get in the way of the evidence.
Referring to the words of Jesus in John 2:16, the Pope continues:
This expression does not only refer to the traffic which was being practiced in the courtyards of the Temple. Rather, it regards the type of religiosity. The gesture of Jesus is a gesture of “cleaning”, of purification, and the mentality which He expresses can be found in the texts of the Prophets, according to which God does not take pleasure in an exterior cult wrought through material sacrifice and based upon personal interest (cf. Isaiah 1:11-17; Jeremiah 7:2-11). This gesture is a call back to authentic worship, to the correspondence between liturgy and life; a call which is valid for every epoch and even for us today. That correspondence between liturgy and life. The liturgy is not something strange, over there, far off, and one during which I think of many things, or pray the Rosary. No, no. There is a correspondence, between the liturgical celebration and what I then carry on in my life; and on this (path) one must go further ahead, one must journey onward.
Here the pope abandons the common reading of this passage in the Fathers, which attributes Jesus’ ire not to the mercantile operations per se, but to the corruption which had crept into it, such as not exchanging coins at the fair value, or selling animals for sacrifice at inflated prices; all of which defrauded the honest Jew who came to worship God, especially the poorer ones. (Remember that Jesus’ family was so poor that, at His birth, Joseph could only afford 2 turtle doves for sacrifice not the customary lamb).
To use this text while avoiding the condemnation of the sin of the exploitation of the poor, is a very notable exception for the man who is Pope Francis: seeing that he has railed against this for his entire Pontificate. This omission, therefore, should be seen as significant: namely that the true message of his homily is aimed at something else. We can see what that is, in the text paragraph of his talk:
The conciliar Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, defines the liturgy as « the first and indispensable source from which the faithful can draw the true Christian spirit » (n. 14). Which means to reaffirm the essential link which unites the life of the disciple of Jesus with liturgical worship. This is, above all, not a doctrine to comprehend, or a rite to fulfill; it is naturally also this but in another manner, it is essentially diverse: it is a source of life and of light for our journey of faith.
That is, he is going to speak about the liturgical renewal, not about Jesus cleansing the Temple, per se. The Pope continues:
Moreover, the Church calls us to have and to promote an authentic liturgical life, so that there may be a harmony between what the liturgy celebrates and what we ourselves life in our own existence. It treats of how to express in life what we have received by means of the Faith and what which have celebrated (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10).
The Church does nothing of the kind, actually. Vatican II did not impose any obligation on anyone in the Church, since it established no canons or anathemas not even promulgated a new liturgy. The Novus Ordo came into being only in 1969, and its authors were the Consilium established by Pope Paul VI, not by the Council Fathers. Nor did it even attempt to be faithful to the document, which the Pope just cited. The Pope could have mentioned this, but he did not: and his silence is significant. He is affirming that his intentions are to continue in that line of misrepresenting the Council as Pope Paul VI did.
The Pope continues:
The disciple of Jesus does not go to church only to observe a precept, to feel okay with a God who should not “trouble” him much. “But I, Lord, go every Sunday, I fulfill …, don’t mix yourself up with my life, don’t bother me”. This is the mentality of so many Catholics, so many. The disciple of Jesus goes to church to encounter the Lord and to find in his grace, working in the Sacraments, the strength to think and act according to the Gospel. On which account, we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that we can enter the house of the Lord and “cover ourselves over”, with prayers and devotional practices, comportments contrary to the requirements of justice, of honesty or of charity towards our neighbor. We cannot substitute with “religious gifts” what is owed to our neighbor, putting off a true conversion. The cult, the liturgical celebration, are the privileged place to heed the voice of the Lord, which guides us along the road of righteousness and Christian perfection.
Notice the dichotomy between the “disciples of Jesus” and “too many Catholics”. If you think the Pope is literally saying that “many Catholics” are not “disciples of Jesus”, you are correct!The truth is, however, that when one speaks properly, “Catholics” are the only disciples of Jesus that there are! for they are the only ones who take Him as seriously as He Himself insisted to be taken. So what is the Pope getting at? We must understand, that while it appears that he is using words in their proper sense, he is not; thus we must consider that he is not, if we are to understand him aright.
Secondly, if one considers the many scandalous deeds and actions of Pope Francis, as Pope and before in Argentina, we can rightly say that we find his words astounding: because he is condemning “many Catholics” for doing what he himself is notorious for doing, yet omitting that he is also at fault for that.What kind of “authentic Christian life” is that?
We must understand, therefore, that in this homily, the Holy Father has no intention of presenting a call to authentic Christian life, rather, his goal is to attack it. For his actions speak louder than his words and give them context, even if that is politically incorrect to say. If his intentions were otherwise, he would publicly repent of his bad example and many scandalous words and deeds during the last 2 years as Pope. He did not. That is significant.
Therefore, the true reading must be, that the authentic Christian life which seeks interior conversion for the sanctification of the exterior life, is to be rejected, and in its place one should implement what the aggiornamento gave us, the appearances of a renewal, which have visibly altered the liturgies of the Church, but have entirely abandoned the interior man, especially the interior of many priests and bishops, to interior corruption, to hypocrisy, superficiality etc., the very same things the Pope appears to be condemning.
The Pope continues:
This regards the fulfillment of a journey of conversion and penitence, to take from our life the scars of sin, as Jesus did, by cleansing the Temple of petty interests. And Lent is the favorable time for all of this, it is the time for interior renewal, for the forgiveness of sin, the time in which we have been called to rediscover the Sacrament of Penance and of Reconciliation, which causes us to pass from darkness to the light of grace and friendship with Jesus. There is no need to forget the great strength which this Sacrament has for the Christian life: it makes us grow in union with God, it makes us reacquire the lost joy and to experience the consolation of feeling ourselves personally welcomed by the merciful embrace of God.
The error of Luther was to seek God in the confirmation of his own personal “will” to be saved, founded in a fiducial faith. This error gave rise to the sentimentalism of Protestantism, which puts the experience of faith in the place of dogmatic faith; to which error there followed unbridled free thought in matters of religion, since “faith” no longer required intellectual assent to defined propositions or to revealed truths. What remained from Protestantism was consumed by Modernism, where sentiment alone remains. Thus Modernists go to church to get a feeling, a consolation, just as the pope is proposing for “disciples of Jesus”. Thus, we have our true key to read the Papal homily: The “disciples” are Modernists, the Jews are the Traditionalists, the pre-conciliar Catholics, who refuse the Aggiornamento.
The pope continues this line of thought, in his concluding remarks, where he calls for the continued revolution in the Church.
Dear brothers and sisters, this Church was constructed thanks to the apostolic zeal of St. Luigi Orione. It is precisely here, that, fifty years ago, blessed Paul VI inaugurated, in a certain sense, the liturgical reform with the celebration of the Mass in the language spoken by the people. I auger that this circumstance may revive in you all the love of the house of God, In her, may you find great spiritual help. Here you are able to experience, every time you wish to, the regenerative power of personal prayer and of community prayer. Listening to the Word of God, proclaimed in the liturgical assembly, it sustains you in the path of our Christian life. You meet together here between these walls, not as strangers, but as brothers, capable of giving one another a hand freely, because you have been built up in love through Christ, the foundation of hope and the fundament of pledge for every believer.
Him, Jesus Christ, the Corner Stone, do we embrace in this Holy Mass, renewing the resolution to commit ourselves for our own interior purification and for the interior cleansing of the spiritual edifice of the Church, of which each of us is a living part in force of our Baptism. Amen.
To a simple Catholic it might seem that the Pope is saying something quite different than what we have expounded, but take it from a student of 3 pontifical faculties, that is just what it is intended and crafted to appear to mean to a simple Catholic.
Thus, in summation, we can say, that the homily as presented is calling for greater violence against the “Jews”, that is the traditionalists — Jesus cleansing the Temple, is after all a prime example for the justification for violence* — and in favor of the Aggiornamento of the Church ever more deeply, and thus in favor of the Kasper Thesis, the heretical thesis of divorcing the Sacraments from the observance of the moral law, the thesis promoted by Cardinal Kasper, who is the Cardinal patron of the very church in which this homily was given.
____________________
* Remember, it is a mortal sin of sacrilege to use scripture for an evil purpose or to interpret it in a sense contrary to the common opinion of the Fathers of the Church. The true example given by Our Lord in the Temple, is that as God’s Divine Son He has the right to cleanse His own Church from corruption, and this He surely will do, even before the great day of His Final Return. And that it is a grave offense to the Divine Majesty of His Father, that the uses of the places dedicated to the worship of God, as He commanded it, be stained with moral corruption. In other words, the example of Our Lord in the temple gives us the exact opposite indications as that which the Pope promotes, because it is diametrically opposed to the impiety of Modernism, to the hypocrisy of the pink mafia, and to the objectives of Free Masons and the Progressive Movement, and the adaptation of liturgy to life, such as the Aggiornamento has been applied.
Pope Francis at Ognissanti, March 7, 2015 (click image for original from Catholic Herald article on this event).
Rome, March 9, 2015: On Saturday, Pope Francis celebrated the 50th anniversary of the first use of a vernacular form of the Roman Rite, when he visited the titular church of Cardinal Walter Kasper, at Rome, the Parish of All Saints (Ognisannti).
For the record, here is our unofficial English translation of the original Italian text, which can be found at News.Va.
+ + +
Holy Mass at the Roman Parish of Ognissanti, on the Via Appia Nuova
Homily of Pope Francis
3rd Sunday in Lent
Saturday, March 7, 2015
On the occasion of the feast of the Jewish Passover, Jesus went to Jerusalem. Arriving at the Temple, he does not find people who seek God, but people who are conducting their own business: merchants of animals for the offering of sacrifice, money-changers, who exchange the “impure” money, bearing the image of the Emperor, with the money approved by the religious authority to pay the annual temple tax. What do we find when we take ourselves there, when we go to our temples? I give you this example: The unworthy commerce, source of ill-gotten gain, provokes the energetic reaction of Jesus. He overturns their tables and throws their money to the ground, he drives the merchants away, saying to them: « Don’t make the House of my Father a market! » (John 2:16).
This expression does not only refer to the traffic which was being practiced in the courtyards of the Temple. Rather, it regards the type of religiosity. The gesture of Jesus is a gesture of “cleaning”, of purification, and the mentality which He expresses can be found in the texts of the Prophets, according to which God does not take pleasure in an exterior cult wrought through material sacrifice and based upon personal interest (cf. Isaiah 1:11-17; Jeremiah 7:2-11). This gesture is a call back to authentic worship, to the correspondence between liturgy and life; a call which is valid for every epoch and even for us today. That correspondence between liturgy and life. The liturgy is not something strange, over there, far off, and one during which I think of many things, or pray the Rosary. No, no. There is a correspondence, between the liturgical celebration and what I then carry on in my life; and on this (path) one must go further ahead, one must journey onward.
The conciliar Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, defines the liturgy as « the first and indispensable source from which the faithful can draw the true Christian spirit » (n. 14). Which means to reaffirm the essential link which unites the life of the disciple of Jesus with liturgical worship. This is, above all, not a doctrine to comprehend, or a rite to fulfill; it is naturally also this but in another manner, it is essentially diverse: it is a source of life and of light for our journey of faith.
Moreover, the Church calls us to have and to promote an authentic liturgical life, so that there may be a harmony between what the liturgy celebrates and what we ourselves life in our own existence. It treats of how to express in life what we have received by means of the Faith and what which have celebrated (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10).
The disciple of Jesus does not go to church only to observe a precept, to feel okay with a God who should not “trouble” him much. “But I, Lord, go every Sunday, I fulfill …, don’t mix yourself up with my life, don’t bother me”. This is the mentality of so many Catholics, so many. The disciple of Jesus goes to church to encounter the Lord and to find in his grace, working in the Sacraments, the strength to think and act according to the Gospel. On which account, we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that we can enter the house of the Lord and “cover ourselves over”, with prayers and devotional practices, comportments contrary to the requirements of justice, of honesty or of charity towards our neighbor. We cannot substitute with “religious gifts” what is owed to our neighbor, putting off a true conversion. The cult, the liturgical celebration, are the privileged place to heed the voice of the Lord, which guides us along the road of righteousness and Christian perfection.
This regards the fulfillment of a journey of conversion and penitence, to take from our life the scars of sin, as Jesus did, by cleansing the Temple of petty interests. And Lent is the favorable time for all of this, it is the time for interior renewal, for the forgiveness of sin, the time in which we have been called to rediscover the Sacrament of Penance and of Reconciliation, which causes us to pass from darkness to the light of grace and friendship with Jesus. There is no need to forget the great strength which this Sacrament has for the Christian life: it makes us grow in union with God, it makes us reacquire the lost joy and to experience the consolation of feeling ourselves personally welcomed by the merciful embrace of God.
Dear brothers and sisters, this Church was constructed thanks to the apostolic zeal of St. Luigi Orione. It is precisely here, that, fifty years ago, blessed Paul VI inaugurated, in a certain sense, the liturgical reform with the celebration of the Mass in the language spoken by the people. I auger that this circumstance may revive in you all the love of the house of God, In her, may you find great spiritual help. Here you are able to experience, every time you wish to, the regenerative power of personal prayer and of community prayer. Listening to the Word of God, proclaimed in the liturgical assembly, it sustains you in the path of our Christian life. You meet together here between these walls, not as strangers, but as brothers, capable of giving one another a hand freely, because you have been built up in love through Christ, the foundation of hope and the fundament of pledge for every believer.
Him, Jesus Christ, the Corner Stone, do we embrace in this Holy Mass, renewing the resolution to commit ourselves for our own interior purification and for the interior cleansing of the spiritual edifice of the Church, of which each of us is a living part in force of our Baptism. Amen.
March 8, 2015: The From Rome blog is not accustomed to quote comments from other websites, but every now and then one runs upon a comment which summarizes in the succinct and colorful language with which laymen are often blessed to have the talent for, the true nature and spirit of current events. Here is just one comment from a layman, James, made on the article, Uneasy Truce: Vatican Spokesman will not sue Canadian Blogger for Public Criticism, by Kathy Schiffer at National Catholic Register, on March 6th:
Posted by James on Friday, Mar 6, 2015 2:40 PM (EDT):
The totally gratuitous scandal ignited by Father Rosica’s real and threatened actions against Mr. Domet is plain stupid. It is hard to believe that there is any facet of common sense that would allow a priest to embark on such a course of action. Nevertheless, given the current climate where the heterodox are given full reign to attack and undermine doctrine, why not bite at the heels of a concerned, faithful and orthodox layman. The utterly cruel nonsense Mr. Domet met with at the Vatican when he appealed to their intervention is of even greater concern. Lies, theft and malarkey go unabated and uncorrected. They pose behind any chunk of pious sentimentality to boost their orthodox credentials (soccer balls on altars comes to mind). Left-wing clerics, from the “tippy-top” to the local pastor are exposing themselves to be beneath contempt over the last two years. They have lost all credence among Catholics who are not amongst the low-info. Indeed … “why all the reticence?” Cowardliness, that’s why. All of them need to learn how to teach doctrine and how to accompany the flock on the spiritual journey…but I guess it’s just easier to distort the Magisterium rather than lead the flock to the journey’s intended end. Someone needs to hold the mirror up. Someone needs to fire these clowns. Someone needs instruction on how to make a genuine examination of conscience, or if not that, how to write a letter of resignation.
When Christ stood before Pilate, no one stood with Him: will you stand at His side?
Rome, March 6, 2015: The agenda of Communism* to disarm Christendom more and more has reached fever pitch this week with pronouncements by the Vatican Observer at the United Nations, the Pope, and several media outlets in the United States against the death penalty.
Patheos a left-wing, source for news and opinion for Catholics in the English speaking world, is running a story today about this, entitled, “Catholic Media Unite in Opposition to the Death Penalty“. That article in part reads:
‘Capital Punishment Must End.’ That’s the bold headline in the National Catholic Register this morning. The Register, in a groundbreaking collaboration with three other Catholic journals, published a strong statement opposing capital punishment.
The editorial boards of the Register, the National Catholic Reporter, Our Sunday Visitor and America joined in opposition to the death penalty, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in Glossip v. Gross, a case out of Oklahoma that challenges the most widely used lethal injection protocol as being cruel and unusual punishment.
The title of their article is more than misleading, it is implicitly heretical.°
For this simple reason, that it is de fide, that is a truth of Divine Revelation itself, that the State has the authority to punish wicked doers with capital punishment.
This is the teaching of Our Lord during His very Passion, when to Pontius Pilate, the Roman Procurator of Judea, insisting that He not be silent but answer his questions, He replied to him, declaring:
You would have no power over Me if it were not given you from above (John 19:11).
This truth was taught by St. Paul in other words, when he said,
1LET every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. 2Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. 3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. 7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.
Therefore, the Catholic Faith has ever held that the state has the authority from God to punish criminals with capital punishment, since the metaphor “power of the sword” in St. Paul’s day referred to the punishment of beheading which was inflicted upon citizens of the empire for grave crimes.
The State, thus, has the moral right and the duty to impose this punishment in appropriate cases, the propriety of which arises not from the subjective dispositions of the individual, but from the objective transgression of the moral law committed by the evil doer.
This truth of the faith is intimately associated with another truth, namely that the Moral Law — which says what is right and wrong, which has God as its author and which is legible in the works of His creation — is superior in dignity to the individual human person, inasmuch as every human person is a creature of God Who is the Author of the moral law. For every law shares in the dignity of the one who issues it.
For these reasons it is not only an error, but a heresy against the Faith of Christ, to say that capital punishment is evil, un-useful or inappropriate, either in itself, or in its application. It is always useful and necessary to the state, because there will always be in this world, individuals who gravely offend the particular or common good in such wise as to merit the supreme temporal punishment, the loss of their own life. That is a fact of original sin.
The Roman Catechism, which summarized the Faith of the Catholic Church at the time of the Council of Trent had this to say on capital punishment:
That Pope John Paul II said that there exists other means to remediate the criminal does not mean that capital punishment is evil in itself or to be entirely abolished. He spoke about the remediation of the individual, not the duty of the state or the right of the state nor of the greater common good. And if he meant anything contrary to the teaching of Christ, it is obvious, that he erred and is not to be followed in that, since Vatican I required that Popes teach nothing contrary to Christ and His Apostles, and exhorted Catholics not to follow them if they do so.
________________
* Marx held that the way to social justice was through class revolution, and that capital punishment was the tool of the rulers to suppress the masses: this error promoted through liberation theology has spread from Europe to most of Latin America.
° Inasmuch as it says that such pronouncements are Catholic.
+ + + + + + +
The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present
With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about
God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
Q. The Catholic world is gladdened to hear today that Fr. Rosica has decided not to take legal action against you, for your public criticism of his positions at your now famous blog, Vox Cantoris. As one of those who would like to know more about this sad episode, I am honored that you have consented to be interviewed by the From Rome blog.
Let us begin, therefore, with the facts of the case. When and how did you receive the threat of legal action, what Fr. Rosica now calls, the cease and desist letter?
Mr. Domet: Well, it clearly did not seem to me as a “cease and desist letter” which could have been written by him without the aid of one of Toronto’s most expensive law firms (though he does state the work was “pro bono; the fees to my Solicitor are certainly not, I’ve already paid her a retainer, as is just). The letter was quite clear on its demands and what was more astounding was the continued threat of a lawsuit even had I complied with their demands which I was not prepared to do. I was at lunch on Tuesday, February 17, the day before Ash Wednesday with a colleague and it came across my smartphone. Suffice to say, after reading it, lunch was over. The letter is available on line at my blog, people can read it and draw their own conclusions.
Q. What was your and your wife’s reaction at receiving such a communication from a man of God? and this at the beginning of Lent?
Mr. Domet: I was astounded and shocked, and my wife was extremely hurt and upset; and frankly, afraid as I was of what this meant for us and our home and my son; this has been very hard on her, especially coming from a priest. We know so many and work with so many priests organizing and assisting, consulting and training for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and chanting the Mass. She herself has a beautiful voice and assists me every week in the traditional rite. I also sing weekly in the Ordinary Form so my work with priests is well known and my love and respect for these good priests with whom I work is without doubt. The affects upon us have been physical, too, with more than a few chiropractic adjustments for neck and shoulder pain and stress. As for Lent, well; since we married nearly two years ago, life’s been pretty soft. Our Lent began with a very heavy cross much more so than the usual we might try to put upon ourselves. We have both been sustained by prayers from so many people around the world and we have many times offered up this trial to God our Father united with the Cross of Christ. We are happy that we can now regroup over the next few days and rest and then get on with a more structured Lenten focus.
Q. Who is Jesus Christ and what does the Catholic Faith mean to you? And how did this magnify your dismay at what had happened?
Mr. Domet: He is my LORD and saviour and King of all; if I try to do anything without him I fail – I’ve proven that more than once and “I can do all things in Him who strengthens me” was what I remembered in this matter. Nothing is more important than the Catholic Faith as given to us by Our Blessed Lord; He and It are the rock on which life makes sense and truth is anchored.
As for my dismay, what else can we expect? Look around at the world and at the Church. The Church for many reasons is weak so faith is weak; when faith is weak, Catholics are weak and the world is inflamed with evil and terror. I am dismayed that there are so few Catholics, whether priest, prelate or laity, prepared to stand up for Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. In Canada, we have over 40% baptized as Catholics, in the United States of America maybe 30% ; if every one of us went to the Sacraments and Mass on Sunday and lived our faith we would change our nations overnight! If that is the situation here, how much more for Europe where the percentages are even higher? My dismay is your dismay—the failings of Catholics to be Catholic and stand up for Our Lord.
Q. What did you do first, seek advice or contact the Law Firm in question?
Mr. Domet: I sought advice from a very small group of close advisors. I did not contact the law firm directly – I needed to secure the right Solicitor and found her, a Catholic with some other background knowledge which I cannot reveal but which aided our strategy. Our first contact back to the law firm apparently engaged “pro bono” by Father Rosica was by mail with the response to their first letter and contact was only made by my Solicitor.
Q. What was the advice given, or response from the Firm, as the case may be….?
Mr. Domet: As I indicated this on my own blog, Vox Cantoris; we responded to the deadline in the first letter to prevent an injunction on their part, though not meeting their demands, of course. We stated our position and suggested other options for discussion within the Church which were rejected.
Other items were then put on the table, making demands on me that were impossible to accept. It became apparent to me that we needed to communicate with clarity what we were not prepared to do, and what we were prepared to do, which was to defend ourselves and engage a crowd-funding campaign to sustain it.
Q. Out of respect for your contact in the Secretariat of State, I won’t ask you to divulge his name. And, assuming the advice he gave you was not his own, but that which he was counseled to give, can you tell us what advice did he give you? And did you ask him to explain why he gave such unexpected advice?
Mr. Domet: As I stated on my blog, I first “took it to the Church” as we are commanded to do in Holy Scripture. Frankly, it was easier to go to my contact in Rome than my own Chancery in Toronto. I can only assume that the information coming back to me was his personal advice and nobody else’s and I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, I was asked to state my “intention” and I did not respond to it and was then asked the next morning again and that maybe it would be better to “seek humility” and “apologise.” I did not and was advised not to respond to either. The fact is, intervention could have happened on the first or second day.
Q. Personally, I have seen time and time again, members of the clergy use spiritual counsels to convince the laity to assume a posture of excessive respect toward the clergy which seems to be would only enable further abusive behavior by members of the clergy, the same or otherwise. Was this any part of your own reaction to the advice given you through your contact in the Secretariate of State? And how does that reflect on the state of affairs in the Vatican, under Pope Francis, in your opinion?
Mr. Domet: I don’t think that I am qualified to give an opinion on the Secretariat of State and its operation under Pope Francis. However, let me state this; I’ve heard a lot of clergy do exactly as you stated and I myself have seen it directly, I have experienced it directly. It is the height of clericalism and it is detestable.
It is particularly detestable to attempt to do it to informed laity, which is in direct contravention of our rights and duties under Canon 212 §3 and the precepts of Vatican II, which they preach when it suits them.
Look, our parents and grandparents were victims of a clericalism that destroyed the liturgy and the faith for millions of souls. The same clericalism abused and sodomised and destroyed lives. This same clericalist attitude demanded that we “pay, pray and obey” while they “preyed!” Some of them say that we who wish to live by the Law and desire proper liturgy are Pharisaical and pelagian and desire clericalism. Nonsense! It is they that are the Pharisees, they are the clericalists –I’ve seen it; I’ve lived it and I’ve had direct experience with all of it and in some ways that I would rather not discuss at this time.
Q. What should catholics, and especially catholic bloggers who are faithful to the teaching of Christ, do, when confronted with such a letter?
Mr. Domet: Pray. Ask for spiritual warriors to pray especially Carmelite Nuns (thank you to them!!!). Assemble a small team of advisors and a practicing Catholic lawyer including a Canon Lawyer; but something tells me this won’t be happening again anytime soon.
Q.And how do you think your case gives good example of what should be done in the future, regarding attempts by an ever increasing number of clergy and religious to urge and push the Church to abandon Christ’s teaching about faith and penance, marriage, chastity, and the traditional Eucharistic Discipline?
Mr. Domet: The example is quite clear; the Catholic blogosphere lit up with what happened; we need to see the power in that and take up the cause for the faith the family and the Holy Eucharist which seems to me to be at the heart of the matter.
How can those of us now unite to form an army of devoted and believing Catholics that blog to prevent an attempt to overturn doctrine at the Synod?
What vehicle can we use to coordinate our work, not control it, but to coordinate and disseminate and educate and catechise beyond just our few hundred readers?
Well, that’s what it was, I dare say now it is in the thousands! This situation since Ash Wednesday also shows the Church the power of blogs and how we will not be silent anymore in the face of heterodoxy. I can still remember as a child how my late mother particularly lamented what was done in the 1960’s. They had no way to stop it, no tools to fight back, we do and there is no excuse anymore not to use it to the advantage of the Church with “clarity and charity” as my own Archbishop will often state.
Q. Do you believe the proposals of Cardinal Kasper are, as Cardinals Muller and Sarah describe them, heretical, inasmuch as they propose to divorce Catholic Faith from Traditional discipline regarding the Sacraments?
Mr. Domet: Yes, 100% without reservation. Let me say this too. I married my lovely Frankie nearly two years ago; we courted for nearly two before that. I was married previously in the Church but was granted a “Decree of Nullity” many years ago. Let these prelates stop with the distortion of the facts. The annulment process, at least I can speak of here in Toronto, is rigorous and thorough as it must be, but it was not “painful.” It took time because I was lazy with my documents. My recollection is the cost was a suggested donation of $900 Canadian for which I received a tax receipt — so we can get off that carousel that it is not possible to obtain one.
One cannot divorce the Catholic Faith from Traditional discipline regarding the Sacraments and still remain Catholic.
Q. What do you think Catholic Cardinals and Bishops should be doing now to avert a disaster in October at the Synod for the Family?
Mr. Domet: Our own Cardinal Archbishop Thomas Collins has addressed the matter publicly and upholds the doctrine. He has asked for input from the faithful and I have certainly provided my own. What the Catholic faithful need to see are more examples of prelates such as Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Sarah, Archbishop Cordileone, the Polish bishops and many of those in Africa. Why are they not all speaking out? What are they afraid of? I’ve had enough of bishops in Belgium and the United States and here in Canada musing about blessing and accepting of alternative lifestyles. Yes, they have said this; I don’t need to name them here. I’ve heard enough of this “mercy” it is a false mercy – there is nothing merciful about someone being left in a place that will jeopardise their eternal salvation.
Q. If the Pope and those who prefer loyalty to him to loyalty to Christ Jesus, should push or declare any deviation from the Faith or traditional discipline of the Sacraments in the October Synod, will you stand with the Pope or with Jesus Christ?
Mr. Domet: I stand with Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour. Let us not, as Catholics, give an exaggerated status to any pope along the lines of what our protestant friends think – an infallibility without respect for the Gospel, which he does not possess. The First Vatican Council defined it very clearly.
Q. How high do you think the stakes are in this battle?
Mr. Domet: As high as they can be; schism, heresy and the loss of souls and as our beloved Benedict XVI said, “the very future of the world is at stake”; God will not be mocked.
When He is reviled by High Priests & theologians, His Disciples remain silent?
Rome, March 5, 2015: In a telling editorial, Edward Pentin, a noted journalist who covers the Vatican, describes the woeful situation in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis:
One of the most frustrating aspects of covering the Church today is the unwillingness of trusted and reliable sources to go on the record. Strangely, this seems most common when it comes to defending doctrine, and the Church generally, in the face of attack.
Whether it’s Church teaching coming under fire at the Synod on the Family, Vatican officials with vitally important and helpful information to share, or German bishops outnumbered by their dissenting brother bishops, few appear willing to go public and speak up for Christ and the truth…
Pentin goes on to speculate as to the causes, but omits the most probable one of all. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was notorious, in his tenure as Archbishop of Buenos Aries, for violently castigating those with whom he disagreed, going so far as to use crude and vulgar insults as he shouted at them, in person, or on the phone.
But, let us not pretend otherwise, it is not the Church alone which is being attacked by the vile proposals of “Team Bergoglio” theologians like Cardinal Kasper or Cardinal Marx, it is Jesus Christ Himself who is being denied in His teachings regarding the necessity of both faith and penance for salvation, as a prerequisite for receiving His love in the Eucharist.
Indeed, it is quite logical, that those who would crucify the Lord anew by a sacrilegious communion, and who in fact are currently crucifying Him by such unworthy communions — for all who oppose Christ’s teachings are in mortal sin and receive sacrilegiously — be refused from receiving Him, Who died the bloody death on the Cross to deliver them from the Prince of Darkness and Lies, and transfer them into the Kingdom of Light, Truth and Purity.
That so many Cardinals, Bishops, priests, deacons and religious, men and women, are silent in the face of these attacks on the Person of Our Lord, recalls the treachery and cowardice of the 11 Apostles who abandoned Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane in 33 A. D..
Ten of them had this excuse, that Our Lord had not yet risen from the dead, and they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.
But none of those who are silent today, have this excuse.
Clergy and religious who are silent because they fear a phone call from a mad-superior who wants to punish all who will not go along with open apostasy from Christ their Lord, are not worthy of Jesus Christ. Such without a doubt shall burn for all eternity in the pit of Hell with Judas Iscariot at their side.
But for those who claim some devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and have some likeness to the virgins St. John, St. Mary Magdalene and St. Martha, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO STAND BY THE CROSS AND SPEAK OUT, for Our Lord has no voice to reach the ears of sinners, but through YOU!
In this vale of tears, after God, there is no greater consolation but to contemplate and praise His Most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary! Here is Hildegard von Bingen’s hymn to Our Lady: Ave Generosa! Hail, O Generous Woman!
Let us beseech this Virgin of Virgins, to save the Church from the impiety of Cardinal Kasper’s proposals and the malign conspiracy behind them which is spreading over the Church as a mortiferous cancer.
Today is the 76th Anniversary of the Election of Pope Pius XII
Pope Pius XII venerates the Cross
Editorial — Rome, March 2, 2015: In the English language, we are blessed with the capacity of using the honorific capitalization to vary the signification of words. Thus we can say that the church of which we are members is at the corner of Maple and Main street. Or we can say, that the Church of which we are members was founded by Christ Jesus. The first signifies a mere building, the second the Mystical Body of Christ. The same goes with the word, “faith”, though many Catholics in the English language are beginning to forget this. When we speak of the “Catholic faith” we say something different than when we speak of the “Catholic Faith”. The latter refers properly to the teachings of our holy religion, and as a metonymy — that is, the poetic usage by which a whole thing is named by a part, as in the prayer: “Lord, I am not worthy that Thou should come under my roof”, the word “roof” refers to the whole house: the body being the house of the soul, metaphorically — so when we say, “the Catholic Faith”, the expression can can also indicate the Catholic Religion itself, not just its doctrines.
But when we say, “the Catholic faith”, we ought to refer properly to the supernatural virtue of faith, as a Catholic should have it — there is no other way to have it — namely, to believe all which God has publicly revealed, and this in the same sense and understanding as it has always been understood by the Catholic Faith.
Thus, when we say, “Without humility, there is no Catholic faith”, we are speaking about the interior disposition of individuals, not of a distinction of Churches.
God gives grace to the humble, but to the proud He hardens His Heart
Though God can do all things, and though God can convert even the most hardened of sinners, as His Mercy can alone accomplish in such exceptional circumstances, everyone easily recognizes that it is very foolish to put one’s hope in such, as if such could be presumed.
Take for example the case of driving in a snow storm with a gas tank near empty. As one goes down the highway, one sees a sign for a gas station in the little town one is passing, and there is an exit to get off the road. The station is open, other cars are filling up. Yet, one knows that there is a gas station at home, and that though the needle on the gas gauge is getting near empty, there is a theoretical possibility of arriving home without stopping to fill up, since in all previous times one has nearly arrived home, by a few miles.
Now a reasonable person would consider the danger of being stranded even a few miles from home in a snow storm, and conclude that the prudent thing to do was to stop for gas at this little town now. Such prudence would be humble and an expression of humility, because one would recognize that one’s personal inclination to be optimistic about outcomes CANNOT and DOES NOT change the objective realities of the distance to reach home or the rate of consumption of gasoline by one’s car.
For this reason, it is unrealistic to presume that God will give grace to a proud man. For a proud man will not draw close to God, will not recognize his need for God’s mercy and providence and protection. Hence, he will not pray with sincerity to ask for help. A proud man does this because he is not attentive to the reality that HIS SOUL cannot arrive at the destination of Heaven without God’s grace and that HIS HEART needs sufficient grace right now to make it to the next stop on his path in life. Nor does he recognize that HE CANNOT produce grace of himself and must seek it from God.
Humility is the essential disposition of Catholic faith
Pope Pius XII greets a little girl.
The entire Catholic Faith, that is Catholic Religion, is founded upon humility, because IT ALONE accepts all which God has revealed. IT ALONE puts into practice all which God has commanded and requested and prefers. IT ALONE has never swerved from the right path of truth in doctrine and practice in regard to all matters of religion. IT ALONE rejects entirely the pride of the world, the pride of the flesh and the pride of the devil. The pride of the world which believes it can live without God; the pride of the flesh which believes man can achieve everything by himself, the pride of the Devil who believes he has every right to comport himself as God and dictate to the earth.
It is for the sake of humility, and preserving this spirit, that the Catholic Faith has ever taught, in all Her rites, that the priest is to face God during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that man is to kneel or prostrate himself at communion, that the Eucharist is to be received on the tongue; that the Priest alone is the minister of the Sacraments.
The proud man denies this; the ally of the proud seeks to turn the Catholic away from this, by whatever art or strategem.
Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli kneeling before God, with the cappa magna.
Vatican II’s “magisterium”?
If we speak, not in metaphors, not with words used improperly or in a broad sense, then we speak properly and in a strict sense. When we do this, we use words as they should and speak in a scientific manner.
In this sense, therefore, “magisterium” means the office of teaching; and “teaching” means the exposition of authoritative truth with the obligation of its acceptance.
Thus, speaking properly, no one says that a poet, when reciting poetry, teaches. Nor that a friend at the bar, reciting local gossip teaches. Likewise, when speaking of different ways in which one might encourage, instruct, do, write, etc., without any judgement of which is better or obligatory, such as in all pastoral discussions, no one should say that there is any teaching being handed down.
Thus, if a mechanic should say that an engine could be repaired in any of a number of ways, listing each way and placing no judgement upon them as to their utility, he has not taught anything in the strict sense of “teaching”. He has merely listed possibilities. In this sense a phone directory does not teach, because it only lists phone numbers.
For this reason, “teaching” in the strict sense DOES NOT APPLY to the Second Vatican Council. For unlike all previous councils it promulgated no Creed, decreed no Canons, and Anathematized no errors or heresies. Thus, willing to not impose anything with the obligation of holding it for all times and places, its documents did not rise to the level of “magisterial teaching” in the proper sense.
The Sophistic Use of Vatican II
A sophistry is a form of argumentation which tricks the listener or reader into accepting a conclusion which is not logically validated by the terms or propositions of the argument.
For example: A dog has a bark; this tree has a bark: this tree is a dog.
Aristotle wrote an entire treatise on all the possible forms of erroneous argumentation in his work entitled The Elenchae.
Let’s consider, therefore, the most common sophistic argument used in regard to Vatican II:
Proposition 1: Vatican II is an ecumenical council. Proposition 2: Ecumenical councils are extraordinary expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church. Conclusion 1: Therefore, Vatican II’s teaching is infallible. Conclusion 2: Therefore, all Catholics who reject any part of its teaching are heretics.
In this illation, there are 2 propositions, both of which are true. But there are 2 conclusions which are false.
It is true that Vatican II is an ecumenical council. That is a historical fact, which the documents and historical record confirm.
It is true that Ecumenical councils are extraordinary expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church. No one denies that.
But for the first conclusion to be true, there would be required something more. Since to illate or conclude that Vatican II’s teaching is infallible, one needs to demonstrate 2 things, (1) that every act of the authentic magisterium of the Church is infallible and (2) that Vatican II exercised the authentic magisterium.
However, according to Cardinal Journet, in his book, The Church of the Incarnate Word, the authentic magisterium of the Church is not always infallible. Because, in theological terms, used properly, “authentic” does not mean infallible, it means that a thing originates from the author which it should have. And thus the phrase, “authentic magisterium of the Church” means nothing, properly, but that the teaching comes from those whom Our Lord Jesus Christ gave the authority to teach. Thus, one cannot say that the teaching of the United Nations is an act of the authentic magisterium of the Church, since Our Lord did not give the United Nations the authority to teach.
However, just because the Holy Father and Bishops in communion with him have the sole capacity to authentically exercise the magisterium of the Church does not mean that they must or do in fact exercise it. Just as a man with the capacity to speak or write or think, does not in every act speak or write or think. Nor is he obliged to.
Now since teaching requires that one hand down a truth with the obligation to accept it as true, inasmuch as Vatican II did this it did formally teach, and its teaching is authentic. But if it did not oblige catholic to accept it in such wise that non-acceptance was branded by the Council with the note of heresy, that is, in such wise that the counter teaching was condemned as erroneous or heretical, then a Catholic cannot sin by the sin of heresy or schism in rejecting it.
Yet this is manner in which Vatican II taught. And thus the above illation is false in its 1st conclusion, and thus false in its second conclusion.
But to understand this, let us, in fine, examine the historical record.
With what obligation did Pope Paul VI promulgate Vatican II
The act of promulgation of all of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council was taken by Pope Paul VI, on December 8, 1965, in the Apostolic Brief, In Spiritu Sancto, the English, Italian, Spanish & Portuguese translations of which can be found at the Vatican website. The only canonically valid text, however, is the Latin, which is missing from the Vatican Website.
Here is the key phrase, which indicates the level of obligation by which all Catholics must accept Vatican II’s teaching:
Mandamus autem ac praecipimus, ut, quae synodaliter in Concilio statuta sunt, sancte et religiose ab omnibus Christi fidelibus serventur ad Dei gloriam, ad Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae decus et ad hominum universorum tranquillitatem et pacem.
Here is our unofficial English translation:
Moreover, we command and precept, that, what have been laid down synodally in Council, are to be kept by all of Christ’s faithful in a holy and religious manner for the glory of God, for the ornament of Holy Mother Church and for the peace and tranquility of each and every man.
Significant, here, is that NOTHING is said regarding the obligation of accepting under any threat of punishment. Therefore, Paul VI established no punishment for not accepting it. Therefore, the only deviation that could be committed would be a moral one or a spiritual one. But all this, as Cardinal Journet observes in his book, The Church of the Incarnate Word, is the same as regards a fallible curial document, which, if one were to find any error in it, one would be obliged in conscience to reject it on that point and to inform the Holy Father of the error.
Thus, so long as one does recognize that Vatican II is an ecumenical council, that its fathers had the authority to teach, that they did not impose anything by establishing a disciplinary canon or anathematizing an error or heresy, and that Pope Paul VI in his promulgation of it wished it to be accepted with the same religious respect as as Curial document, as much as regards its non-definite character, one accepts it in a catholic manner, religiously and holily. But that does not mean, that upon discovering some error, one must accept it as a whole as something worthy of religious or holy respect, since “to accept something as a whole” means to consider the thing as a moral whole, in which everything is affirmed as true, even if false.
Humility recognizes Vatican II for what it was, Pride as something else
Humility, the virtue which inclines us to regard things as they are and NOT as we want them to be, requires, thus, that we recognize Vatican II for what it was, not something more or less.
In the sophism or false argument presented above, we see a common argument used to convince that Vatican II was something more than it intended itself to be. If we were to accept that, we would be proud. We would by our own private judgement be raising Vatican II to a level which it did not claim for itself.
Contrariwise, if we were to reject Vatican II as not being of the Church or being wholly in error, we would be proud. For we would by our own private judgement be lowering Vatican II to a level which it does not deserve.
Humility thus preserves the Catholic faith of the individual regarding questions which concern Vatican II. And it is only through such humility that the Catholic Faith can purdure in the soul of a believer.
The season of lent is something so regular in its advent that it is easy to lose the proper sense of what we should be doing differently, and why this season is so important for our lives as Catholics.
Indeed, so scheduled and habitual are the events of modern life, that it is easy to let the season of Lent go by without ever making those changes necessary in our daily schedule, without which it is impossible to gather and taste the spiritual fruits of the season.
To put us on the right track for Lent, it is thus necessary to understand what Lent is all about, and what we should be doing during Lent. Lent is not only about exterior works, though. Nevertheless, through these we can come to understand better the interior works. So lets start with the former.
Lent is a Season for Good Works
First, let’s enumerates many good works that can be done during Lent, which though salutary each in a different manner, do not comprise the essential act that we should be engaged in, frequently, during this season.
Thus, first, there is the lenten resolution, which…
For those who don’t read Italian, that’s an explosive title: (Cardinal Marx) gives challenge: “We are not a local branch of Rome and it will not be a Synod that will tell us what to do.”
The comments of Cardinal Marx are significant, because he was a “Team Bergoglio” player from the beginning, as can be seen from this photo from the time of the 2013 conclave.
Cardinal Marx’s comments follow and dovetail the comments of a “Team Bergoglio” member, Cardinal Danneels, on the same subject.
Here is our unofficial translation of the central paragraph of that report:
The prince of the Church has clarified that even if in teaching one remains in communion with the Church, in merely pastoral questions, “the Synod cannot prescribe in detail what we must do in Germany”. As the German paper, il Tagespost, writes, the Episcopal Conference of Germany has left the gate and does not seem to have any intention of paying any heed to the decisions of the pope which might follow. “We cannot wait until a Synod tells us how we ought to conduct ourselves on Matrimony and pastoral practice for the family”. Marx has also announced that in the next weeks there will be published a document in advance of the meeting in October, in regard to which Germany “has a certain point of view”. It is necessasry, according to the judgement of the President of the Episcopal Conference, that one find “new approaches” capable of “helping and guaranteeing that the doors remain open”.
You can read the entire article from the German Paper, the Tagespost, in an unofficial English translation here.
Rome, February 25, 2015: Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, on October 11, 2013, during a speech given at Villanova University, in the United States, confessed that he was lobbied to support Cardinal Bergoglio. Start watching from 18:20…
The Cardinal very smoothly avoids saying that he heeded the advice given, and that he spoke to favor Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy, but his words and admissions betray him.
The events recounted by the Cardinal took place, according to him, while he was in Rome at the beginning of the General Congregations for the 2013 Conclave. The lobbying effort was significantly exposed by Dr. Austen Ivereigh in November, in his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio preaches at the Feast of San Cayetano, of Our Lady of Lujan, and of San Pantaleón, Argentina: Una producción del periodista Eduardo Delbono para el programa de TV ´Buenos Aires al Día¨.
First, a homily for the feast, which is all about Jesus being among the people, and St. Cajetan who gave bread and work to the people. The homily is in Spanish. The video gives a good view of how Catholicism is practiced in Argentina. Then follows his homilies at the other two feasts.
A collage of images of Pope Paul IV, c/o Corrispondenza Romana
Rome, February 24, 2015: On Wednesday of this week, Rorate Caeli published an interesting article on the possibility of heresy in the Pope, entitled, “Paul IV and the Heretics of His Time – by Roberto de Mattei“, translated by Francesca Romana. The article discussed the importance of the Papal Bull, issued by the same Pope, which bears the Latin title, « Cum ex apostolatus officio », which means, “On account of our Apostolic duty/office”. The original of Dr. de Mattei’s article was published the same day in Italian by Corrispondenza Romana.
In To what extent is Pope Paul IV’s « Cum ex apostolatus officio » still in effect?, The From Rome blog examined the intention of Pope Paul IV in promulgating this law, and whether the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law abrogated it, wherein we argued that it was not abrogated, since it was a law of positive right, exempted by canon 6 of that Code from abrogation (see revisions of conclusion therein).
Now let us consider..
Whether the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 did anything?
The argument which arises as to the perpetually validity of the Papal Law, « Cum ex apostolatus officio » arises secondarily upon the occasion of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 (which we cite it from Intratext), and that due to canon 6 of that code, which reads:
Can. 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:
1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2° other laws, whether universal or particular, which are contrary to the provisions of this Code, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in respect of particular laws;
3° all penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, unless they are resumed in this Code itself;
4° any other universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code.
§ 2 To the extent that the canons of this Code reproduce the former law, they are to be assessed in the light also of canonical tradition.
Here, we must considered, in accord with canon 6, § 1, 2°, whether Paul IV’s papal bull, Cum ex apostolatus officio, is contrary to the provisions of the code of 1983; and whether, in accord with 4° of the same, whether its matters were integrally reordered by it.
There are several ways this could be done, and a complete examination would be prolix for a blog post. So let us consider whether the new Code of 1983 conflicts with Cum ex apostolatus officio, in that section of the latter which regards the invalidity of a nomination to the office of Cardinal, since this was the basis of the recent petition to the College of cardinals.
The College of Cardinals in the Code of Canon Law of 1983
Let’s take a look at the section of the 1983 code on the College of Cardinals (Canons 349-359: source Intratext):
CHAPTER III : THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH
Can. 349 The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special College, whose prerogative it is to elect the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the norms of a special law. The Cardinals are also available to the Roman Pontiff, either acting collegially, when they are summoned together to deal with questions of major importance, or acting individually, that is, in the offices which they hold in assisting the Roman Pontiff especially in the daily care of the universal Church.
Can. 350 § 1 The College of Cardinals is divided into three orders: the episcopal order, to which belong those Cardinals to whom the Roman Pontiff assigns the title of a suburbicarian Church, and eastern-rite Patriarchs who are made members of the College of Cardinals; the presbyteral order, and the diaconal order.
§ 2 Cardinal priests and Cardinal deacons are each assigned a title or a deaconry in Rome by the Roman Pontiff.
§ 3 Eastern Patriarchs within the College of Cardinals have their patriarchal see as a title.
§ 4 The Cardinal Dean has the title of the diocese of Ostia, together with that of any other Church to which he already has a title.
§ 5 By a choice made in Consistory and approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Cardinal priests may transfer to another title; Cardinal deacons may transfer to another deaconry and, if they have been a full ten years in the diaconal order, to the presbyteral order: priority of order and of promotion is to be observed.
§ 6 A Cardinal who by choice transfers from the diaconal to the presbyteral order, takes precedence over all Cardinal priests who were promoted to the Cardinalate after him.
Can. 351 § 1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.
§ 2 Cardinals are created by decree of the Roman Pontiff, which in fact is published in the presence of the College of Cardinals. From the moment of publication, they are bound by the obligations and they enjoy the rights defined in the law.
§ 3 A person promoted to the dignity of Cardinal, whose creation the Roman Pontiff announces, but whose name he reserves in petto, is not at that time bound by the obligations nor does he enjoy the rights of a Cardinal. When his name is published by the Roman Pontiff, however, he is bound by these obligations and enjoys these rights, but his right of precedence dates from the day of the reservation in petto.
Can. 352 § 1 The Dean presides over the College of Cardinals. When he is unable to do so, the sub-Dean takes his place. The Dean, or the subDean, has no power of governance over the other Cardinals, but is considered as first among equals.
§ 2 When the office of Dean is vacant, those Cardinals who have a suburbicarian title, and only those, under the presidency of the sub-Dean if he is present, or of the oldest member, elect one of their number to act as Dean of the College. They are to submit his name to the Roman Pontiff, to whom it belongs to approve the person elected.
§ 3 In the same way as set out in §2, the sub-Dean is elected, with the Dean presiding. It belongs to the Roman Pontiff to approve also the election of the sub-Dean.
§ 4 If the Dean and sub-Dean do not already have a domicile in Rome, they acquire it there.
Can. 353 § 1 Cardinals assist the Supreme Pastor of the Church in collegial fashion particularly in Consistories, in which they are gathered by order of the Roman Pontiff and under his presidency. Consistories are either ordinary or extraordinary.
§ 2 In an ordinary Consistory all Cardinals, or at least those who are in Rome, are summoned for consultation on certain grave matters of more frequent occurrence, or for the performance of especially solemn acts.
§ 3 All Cardinals are summoned to an extraordinary Consistory, which takes place when the special needs of the Church and more serious matters suggest it.
§ 4 Only an ordinary Consistory in which certain solemnities are celebrated, can be public, that is when, in addition to the Cardinals, Prelates, representatives of civil states and other invited persons are admitted.
Can. 354 Cardinals who head the departments and other permanent sections of the Roman Curia and of Vatican City, who have completed their seventy-fifth year, are requested to offer their resignation from office to the Roman Pontiff, who will consider all the circumstances and make provision accordingly.
Can. 355 § 1 It belongs to the Cardinal Dean to ordain the elected Roman Pontiff a Bishop, if he is not already ordained. If the Dean is prevented from doing so, the same right belongs to the sub-Dean or, if he is prevented, to the senior Cardinal of the episcopal order.
§ 2 The senior Cardinal Deacon announces the name of the newly elected Supreme Pontiff to the people. Acting in place of the Roman Pontiff, he also confers the pallium on metropolitan Bishops or gives the pallium to their proxies.
Can. 356 Cardinals have the obligation of cooperating closely with the Roman Pontiff. For this reason, Cardinals who have any office in the Curia and are not diocesan Bishops, are obliged to reside in Rome. Cardinals who are in charge of a diocese as diocesan Bishops, are to go to Rome whenever summoned by the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 357 §1 When a Cardinal has taken possession of a suburbicarian Church or of a titular Church in Rome, he is to further the good of the diocese or church by counsel and patronage. However, he has no power of governance over it, and he should not for any reason interfere in matters concerning the administration of its goods, or its discipline, or the service of the church.
§ 2 Cardinals living outside Rome and outside their own diocese, are exempt in what concerns their person from the power of governance of the Bishop of the diocese in which they are residing.
Can. 358 A Cardinal may be deputed by the Roman Pontiff to represent him in some solemn celebration or assembly of persons as a ‘Legatus a latere’, that is, as his alter ego; or he may, as a special emissary, be entrusted with a particular pastoral task. A Cardinal thus nominated is entitled to deal only with those affairs which have been entrusted to him by the Roman Pontiff himself.
Can. 359 When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals has only that power in the Church which is granted to it by special law.
As one can see, there is nothing in the Code regarding the qualifications of office which contradict Pope Paul IV’s bull. The only canon dealing with their eligibility for office is 351 §1, which specifies that they are to be outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters. This is the same spirit underlying the prescriptions of Cum ex apostolatus officio.
Furthermore, there nothing in the Code which expressly addresses the invalidity of a nomination to the office of cardinal.
Thus, nothing in Paul IV’s decree, in this respect, is invalidated in virtue of Canon 6 of the present Code.
A collage of images of Pope Paul IV, c/o Corrispondenza Romana
Rome, February 20, 2015: On Wednesday of this week, Rorate Caeli published an interesting article on the possibility of heresy in the Pope, entitled, “Paul IV and the Heretics of His Time – by Roberto de Mattei“, translated by Francesca Romana. The article discussed the importance of the Papal Bull, issued by the same Pope, which bears the Latin title, « Cum ex apostolatus officio », which means, “On account of our Apostolic duty/office”. The original of Dr. de Mattei’s article was published the same day in Italian by Corrispondenza Romana.
Readers of the From Rome blog will remember to have encountered this document, when we reported about the existence of a petition to the College of Cardinals, back in December, calling to the investigation into 3 canonical charges made against Jorge Mario Bergoglio, urging them to take action on the basis of this same Papal Bull.
In Dr. Roberto de Mattei’s article, according to the English translation just cited, there is this statement, which the From Rome blog considers worthy of examination (Italics in original):
This Bull re-proposes the Medieval canonical principle almost to the letter, according to which the Pope cannot be contradicted nor judged by anyone, “ nisi deprehandatur a fide devius” unless he deviates from the faith (Ivo di Chartres, Decretales, V, chap. 23, coll. 329-330). There is debate on whether Paul IV’s Bull is a dogmatic decision or a disciplinary act; whether it is still in vigor or if it has been implicitly abrogated by the Code of 1917; whether it applies to the Pope who incurs heresy ante o post electionem, and so on. We shall not address these issues. The Cum ex apostolato officio is still an authoritative pontifical document, that confirms the possibility of a heretical Pope, even if it gives no indication on the concrete procedure through which he might lose the pontificate.
While Dr. de Mattei avoids the questions of the present validity of this Papal law, on account of the controversy which he says surrounds its legal status, the From Rome blog considers this of such importance, that it cannot be overlooked.
Therefore, let us examine the basis of the validity of this Papal law, and ask, whether it is still valid today, as so many Catholics believe.
The Intention of Pope Paul IV in this Papal Law
First, let us begin, by examining the expressed intent of the Papal law. We follow the Latin text of the Papal Bull which can be found at Daily Catholic:
Cum ex apostolatus officio Nobis, meritis licet imparibus, divinitus credito, cura Dominici gregis Nobis immineat generalis, et exinde teneamur pro fideli illius custodia, et salubri directione, more vigilis Pastoris, assidue vigilare, et attentius providere, ut qui hac aetate, peccatis exigentibus, propriae prudentiae innitentes scientius, et perniciosius solito contra orthodoxae fidei disciplinam insurgunt, et superstitiosis, ac fictitiis adinventionibus sacrarum Scripturarum intelligentiam pervertentes, Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem et inconsutilem Domini tunicam scindere moliuntur, ab ovili Christi repellantur, nec magisterium erroris continuent, qui discipuli veritatis esse contemnunt.
1. Nos considerantes rem huiusmodi adeo gravem, et periculosam esse, ut Romanus Pontifex, qui Dei, et Domini Nostri Iesu Christ vices gerit in terris, et super gentes, et regna plenitudinem obtinet potestatis, omnesque iudicat, a nemine in hoc saeculo iudicandus, possit, si deprehendatur a fide devius, redargui, et quod ubi maius intenditur periculum, ibi est plenius, et diligentius consulendum, ne pseudoprophetae, aut alii etiam saecularem iurisdictionem habentes, simplicium animas miserabiliter illaqueent, innumerabilesque populos eorum in spiritualibus, aut temporalibus curae, et regimini commissos, secum in perditionem, et damnationis interitum trahant, nec aliquando contingat Nos abominationem desolationis, quae dicta est a Daniele Propheta, in loco sancto videre, cupientes, quantum cum Deo possumus, pro nostro munere Pastorali vulpes vineam Domini demoliri satagentes capere, et lupos ab ovilibus arcere, ne canes muti videamur nequeuntes latrare, et perdamur cum malis agricolis, ac mercenario comparemur.
Latin translations are usually very poor, but the English text at Daily Catholics is very good, and thus we quote the same opening paragraphs of the Law (bold facing is our own):
By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.
1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.
From this introduction, the Pope makes clear that his intention regards the divine duties of his office as Pope, and the very nature and constitution of the Church; also the rights and duties he has as a father to Christendom to protect his household. He also points out that the dangers are not temporary ones, but those of which Our Lord spoke of, which will arise at the end of time, when the Antichrist would reveal himself.
The nature of the penalties are founded upon Divine Law
There follows in the papal law, Cum ex apostolatus officio, further confirmation that the intention of the lawgiver was to impose a law which was valid until the end of time, because the nature of the penalties regard those classes which by divine law, that is by the teaching of Christ, regard those who by their sins and crimes have excluded themselves from communion with the Church. Here, let us quote the English translation only, to avoid prolixity:
2 Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, We now enact as follows:In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their “litterae extravagantes” i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations – all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it. Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:
(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.
(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.
(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things.
These sanctions, moreover, shall be incurred by all members of these categories, of whatever status, grace, order, condition and pre-eminence they may be, even if they be endowed with the Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal, Primatial or some other greater Ecclesiastical dignity, or with the honour of the Cardinalate and of the Universal Apostolic See by the office of Legate, whether temporary or permanent, or if they be endowed with even worldly authority or excellence, as Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor.
All this We will and decree.
The key paragraph is the subsection ii, which includes all future violators, and not only heretics or schismatics, but those who provoke either heresy or schism.
All this argues clearly that the intention of the legislator is that this papal law will remain valid until the end of time, and is founded upon the divine and natural law, and hence draws its validity, not so much from a positive act of the Roman Pontiff, but from the very nature of his duties.
What the Code of Canon Law of 1917 abrogated…
The argument which arises as to the perpetually validity of the Papal Law, « Cum ex apostolatus officio » arose principally upon the occasion of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (which we cite it from jgray.org), and that due to canon 6 of that code, which reads in Latin:
Can 6. Codex vigentem huc usque disciplinam plerumque retinet, licet opportunas immutationes afferat. Itaque:
1º Leges quaelibet, sive universales sive particulares, praescriptis huius Codicis oppositae, abrogantur nisi de particularibus legibus aliud expresse caveatur;
2º Canones qui ius vetus ex integro referunt, ex veteris iuris auctoritate, atque ideo ex receptis apud probatos auctores interpretationibus, sunt aestimandi;
3º Canones qui ex parte tantum cum veteri iure congruunt, qua congruunt, ex iure antiquo aestimandi sunt; qua discrepant, sunt ex sua ipsorum sententia diiudicandi;
4º In dubio num aliquod canonum praescriptum cum veteri iure discrepet, a veteri iure non est recedendum;
5º Quod ad poenas attinet, quarum in Codice nulla fit mentio, spirituales sint vel temporales, medicinales vel, ut vocant, vindicativae, latae vel ferendae sententiae, eae tanquam abrogatae habeantur;
6º Si qua ex ceteris disciplinaribus legibus, quae usque adhuc viguerunt, nec explicite nec implicite in Codice contineatur, ea vim omnem amisisse dicenda est, nisi in probatis liturgicis libris reperiatur, aut lex sit iuris divini sive positivi sive naturalis.
And which, in English, according to our own unofficial translation reads:
Canon 6. The Code for the most part retains the discipline here-to-fore enforce, though it introduces opportune changes. And thus:
1° Any laws you like, whether universal or particular, opposed to the prescriptions of this Code, are abrogated unless concerning particular laws something else is expressly exempted;
2° The canons which cite an old law in its entirety, by the authority of the old law, are, for that reason, also to be judged out of the interpretations received among approved authors.
3° The canons which are congruent with the old law only in part, are to be judged according to the ancient law; when they are discrepant, they are to be dijudicated according to their own sense.
4° In doubt whether any prescribed canon is discrepant with the old law, one is not to recede from the old law;
5° What pertains to the punishments, of which no mention is made in the Code, whether they be spiritual or temporal, medicinal and/or, as they say, vindictive, latae or ferendae sententiae, they are to be held as abrogated;
6° If any of all the other disciplinary laws, which were in force up to now, be not contained either explicitly or implicitly in the Code, it is to be said to have lost all force, unless it be found in approved liturgical books, or a law be of divine, positive or natural right.
Here, the key passage is by far n. 6, which exempts from abrogation the laws of divine, positive and natural right. Divine laws are those promulgated by God, natural laws are those which God has included in the natural order of things, and positive laws are those promulgated by the competent authority, which in the Catholic Church is the pope.
That the papal law of Pope Paul IV remained in force after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, is thus morally certain, since the Code of 1917 expressly, thus, excludes Papal legislation from abrogation.
This is confirmed by numerous cases of fact, such as the Papal Bulls regarding religious orders and their privileges. If these, which are all laws of positive right, were abrogated or abolished by the promulgation of the 1917 Code, then there would have been a world-wide outcry from all religious orders. This did not happen, ergo, the 1917 Code did not abolish Papal laws previously enacted. The Papal law, Cum ex apostolatus officio, though not a Divine Law, when considered as a whole, since it was promulgated by the Pope, not by God, yet it is a law of positive right, since it comes into being by a Papal act. Therefore, it too has not been abrogated.
Moreover, to hold otherwise, namely, that any subsequent Papal law or Code could include in the Church heretics and schismatics such that they had the right to hold office or be elected Pope, is thus as nonsensical as it is contrary to Divine Law.*
But whether this papal law was abrogated by subsequent legislation is another question.
___________________________________
* After the publication of this article, it was brought to my attention, that the Code of Canon Law of 1917, in canon 188, p.47of the Kennedy & Sons annotated edition of 1918, explicitly cites Cum ex apostolatus officio in footnote 2: which signifies that the author of that footnote, the eminent canonist Cardinal Gasparri, who supervised the revision of the Code, was of the opinion that the code of 1917 was in harmony with — and did not intend to obrogate or abolish — the terms of that Papal law.
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Rome, March 5, 2015: In a telling 
