Modernism - the Devils temptation, Modernism Synthesis of all Heresies

Modernism - the Devils temptation, Modernism Synthesis of all Heresies

Matthew 15: 14 Let them alone: *they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. 19 For from the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. Matthew 12: 30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. 31 *Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. It is clear from the below that anyone calling himself Pope and supposedly elected etc., IF THEY TEACH ERROR are not in possession of the Office of Pope and are an Impostor. NOTE: that both the Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius IX - ON CURRENT ERRORS and the SYLLABUS OF ERRORS - Issued by Pope Pius IX were issued on the same date: December 8, 1864, to be read and obeyed together. The Last 6 Antipopes John XXIII through Francis and the Vatican II False Council – are all convicted by this as imposters and Antipopes and holding no valid office of Pope nor of teacher of the faith. Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius IX ON CURRENT ERRORS (Quanta Cura) December 8, 1864 To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops having favor and Communion of the Holy See Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction 1. With how great care and pastoral vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, fulfilling the duty and office committed to them by the Lord Christ Himself in the person of most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, of feeding the lambs and the sheep, have never ceased sedulously to nourish the Lord’s whole flock with words of faith and with salutary doctrine, and to guard it from poisoned pastures, is thoroughly known to all, and especially to you, Venerable Brethren. And truly the same Our Predecessors, asserters of justice, being especially anxious for the salvation of souls, had nothing ever more at heart than by their most wise Letters and Constitutions to unveil and condemn all those heresies and errors which, being adverse to our Divine Faith, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, to purity of morals and to the eternal salvation of men, have frequently excited violent tempests. and have miserably afflicted both Church and State. For which cause the same Our Predecessors have, with Apostolic fortitude, constantly resisted the nefarious enterprises of wicked men, who, like raging waves of the sea foaming out their own confusion, and promising liberty whereas they are the slaves of corruption, have striven by their deceptive Opinions and most pernicious writings to raze the foundations of the Catholic religion and of civil society, to remove from among men all virtue and justice, to deprave persons, and especially inexperienced youth, to lead it into the snares of error, and at length to tear it from the bosom of the Catholic Church. Grievous Errors Flourish 2. But now, as is well known to you, Venerable Brethren, already scarcely had We been elevated to this Chair of Peter (by the hidden counsel of Divine Providence, certainly by no merit of Our own), when, seeing with the greatest grief of Our soul a truly awful storm excited by so many evil opinions, and (seeing also) the most grievous calamities never sufficiently to be deplored which overspread the Christian people from so many errors, according to the duty of Our Apostolic Ministry, and following the illustrious example of Our Predecessors, We raised Our voice, and in many published Encyclical Letters and Allocutions delivered in Consistory, and other Apostolic Letters, We condemned the chief errors of this most unhappy age, and We excited your admirable episcopal vigilance, and We again and again admonished and exhorted all sons of the Catholic Church, to Us most dear, that they should altogether abhor and flee from the contagion of so dire a pestilence. And especially in Our first Encyclical Letter written to you on November 9, 1846, and in two Allocutions delivered by Us in Consistory, the one on December 9, 1854, and the other on June 9, 1862, We condemned the monstrous portents of opinion which prevail especially in this age, bringing with them the greatest loss of souls and detriment of civil society itself; which are grievously opposed also, not only to the Catholic Church and her salutary doctrine and venerable rights, but also to the eternal natural law engraven by God in all men’s hearts, and to right reason; and from which almost all other errors have their origin. We Must Maintain Vigilance 3. But, although We have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to Us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that We again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world—not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.1 Liberty of Conscience and Worship a Grave Error For you well know, Venerable Brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of naturalism, as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity,2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition;3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”4 Unjust Civil Law Replaces Church Teaching 4. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of Divine Revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? For this reason, men of the kind pursue with bitter hatred the Religious Orders, although these have deserved extremely well of Christendom, civilization and literature, and cry out that the same have no legitimate reason for being permitted to exist; and thus (these evil men) applaud the calumnies of heretics. For, as Pius VI, Our Predecessor, taught most wisely, “the abolition of regulars is injurious to that state in which the Evangelical counsels are openly professed; it is injurious to a method of life praised in the Church as agreeable to Apostolic doctrine; it is injurious to the illustrious founders, themselves, whom we venerate on our altars, who did not establish these societies but by God’s inspiration.”5 And (these wretches) also impiously declare that permission should be refused to citizens and to the Church, “whereby they may openly give alms for the sake of Christian charity”; and that the law should be abrogated “whereby on certain fixed days servile works are prohibited because of God’s worship,” and on the most deceptive pretext that the said permission and law are opposed to the principles of the best public economy. Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal errors of Communism and Socialism, they assert that “domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education.” By which impious opinions and machinations these most deceitful men chiefly aim at this result, viz., that the salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church may be entirely banished from the instruction and education of youth, and that the tender and flexible minds of young men may be infected and depraved by every most pernicious error and vice. For all who have endeavored to throw into confusion things both sacred and secular, and to subvert the right order of society, and to abolish all rights, human and divine, have always (as We above hinted) devoted all their nefarious schemes, devices and efforts to deceiving and depraving incautious youth and have placed all their hope in its corruption. For which reason they never cease by every wicked method to assail the clergy, both secular and regular, from whom (as the surest monuments of history conspicuously attest) so many great advantages have abundantly flowed to Christianity, civilization and literature, and to proclaim that “the clergy, as being hostile to the true and beneficial advance of science and civilization, should be removed from the whole charge and duty of instructing and educating youth.” Church Authority Subverted by Civil Authorities 5. Others meanwhile, reviving the wicked and so often condemned inventions of innovators, dare with signal impudence to subject to the will of the civil authority the supreme authority of the Church and of this Apostolic See given to her by Christ Himself, and to deny all those rights of the same Church and See which concern matters of the external order. For they are not ashamed of affirming “that the Church’s laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power’s sanction and approbation, or at least its consent; that the Apostolic Constitutions,6 whereby secret societies are condemned (whether an oath of secrecy be or be not required in such societies), and whereby their frequenters and favorers are smitten with anathema—have no force in those regions of the world wherein associations of the kind are tolerated by the civil government; that the excommunication pronounced by the Council of Trent and by Roman Pontiffs against those who assail and usurp the Church’s rights and possessions rests on a confusion between the spiritual and temporal orders, and (is directed) to the pursuit of a purely secular good; that the Church can decree nothing which binds the conscience of the faithful in regard to their use of temporal things; that the Church has no right of restraining by temporal punishments those who violate her laws; that it is conformable to the principles of sacred theology and public law to assert and claim for the civil government a right of property in those goods which are possessed by the Church, by the Religious Orders and by other pious establishments.” Nor do they blush openly and publicly to profess the maxim and principle of heretics from which arise so many perverse opinions and errors. For they repeat that the “ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from, and independent of, the civil power, and that such distinction and independence cannot be preserved without the civil power’s essential rights being assailed and usurped by the Church.” Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession, assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ Our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. Formal Condemnation of These Errors 6. Amid, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, We, well remembering Our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for Our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is entrusted to Us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up Our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by Our Apostolic Authority, We reprobate, proscribe and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this Letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned. Many Openly Deny Christ Worldwide 7. And besides these things, you know very well, Venerable Brethren, that in these times the haters of truth and justice and most bitter enemies of our religion, deceiving the people and maliciously lying, disseminate sundry and other impious doctrines by means of pestilential books, pamphlets and newspapers dispersed over the whole world. Nor are you ignorant also that in this our age some men are found who, moved and excited by the spirit of Satan, have reached to that degree of impiety as not to shrink from denying our Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ, and from impugning His Divinity with wicked pertinacity. Here, however, We cannot but extol you, Venerable Brethren, with great and deserved praise, for not having failed to raise with all zeal your episcopal voice against impiety so great. Kingdoms Rest on the Foundation of Faith 8. Therefore, in this Our Letter We again most lovingly address you, who, having been called unto a part of Our solicitude, are to Us, among Our grievous distresses, the greatest solace, joy and consolation because of the admirable religion and piety wherein you excel and because of that marvelous love, fidelity and dutifulness whereby, bound as you are to Us and to this Apostolic See in most harmonious affection, you strive strenuously and sedulously to fulfill your most weighty episcopal ministry. For from your signal pastoral zeal We expect that, taking up the sword of the spirit which is the word of God, and strengthened by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, you will, with redoubled care, each day more anxiously provide that the faithful entrusted to your charge “abstain from noxious verbiage, which Jesus Christ does not cultivate because it is not His Father’s plantation.” 7 Never cease also to inculcate on the said faithful that all true felicity flows abundantly upon man from our august religion and its doctrine and practice; and that “happy is that people whose God is the Lord.” (Ps. 143:15). Teach that “kingdoms rest on the foundation of the Catholic Faith;”8 and that “nothing is so deadly, so hastening to a fall, so exposed to all danger (as that which exists) if, believing this alone to be sufficient for us, that we receive free will at our birth, we seek nothing further from the Lord; that is, if forgetting our Creator we abjure His power that we may display our freedom.”9 And again, do not fail to teach “that the royal power was given not only for the governance of the world, but most of all for the protection of the Church”;10 and that there is nothing which can be of greater advantage and glory to Princes and Kings than if, as another most wise and courageous Predecessor of Ours, St. Felix, instructed the Emperor Zeno, they “permit the Catholic Church to practice her laws, and allow no one to oppose her liberty. For it is certain that this mode of conduct is beneficial to their interests, viz., that where there is question concerning the causes of God, they study, according to His appointment, to subject the royal will to Christ’s priests, not to raise it above theirs.”11 Pray to the Sacred Heart for World Peace 9. But if always, Venerable Brethren, now most of all amid such great calamities both of the Church and of civil society, amid so great a conspiracy against Catholic interests and this Apostolic See, and so great a mass of errors, it is altogether necessary to approach with confidence the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace in timely aid. Wherefore, We have thought it well to excite the piety of all the faithful in order that, together with Us and you, they may unceasingly pray and beseech the most merciful Father of light and pity with most fervent and humble prayers, and in the fullness of faith flee always to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed us to God in His Blood, and earnestly and constantly supplicate His most sweet Heart, the Victim of most burning love toward us, that He would draw all things to Himself by the bonds of His love, and that all men, inflamed by His most holy love, may walk worthily according to His Heart, pleasing God in all things, bearing fruit in every good work. But since without doubt men’s prayers are more pleasing to God if they reach Him from minds free from all stain, therefore We have determined to open to Christ’s faithful, with Apostolic liberality, the Church’s heavenly treasures committed to Our charge, in order that the said faithful, being more earnestly enkindled to true piety, and cleansed through the Sacrament of Penance from the defilement of their sins, may with greater confidence pour forth their prayers to God and obtain His mercy and grace. Proclamation of a Jubilee 10. By these Letters, therefore, in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We concede to all and singular the faithful of the Catholic world, a Plenary Indulgence in the form of Jubilee, during the space of one month only for the whole coming year 1865, and not beyond; to be fixed by you, Venerable Brethren, and other legitimate Ordinaries of places, in the very same manner and form in which we granted it at the beginning of Our supreme Pontificate by Our Apostolic Letters in the form of a Brief dated November 20, 1846, and addressed to all your episcopal Order, beginning, “Arcano Divinae Providentiae consilio,” and with all the same faculties which were given by Us in those Letters. We will, however, that all things be observed which were prescribed in the aforesaid Letters, and those things be excepted which We there so declared. And We grant this, notwithstanding anything whatever to the contrary, even things which are worthy of individual mention and derogation. In order, however, that all doubt and difficulty be removed, We have commanded a copy of said Letters be sent you. Appeal for God’s Mercy through the Virgin Mary 11. “Let us implore,” Venerable Brethren, “God’s mercy from our inmost heart and with our whole mind; because He has Himself added, ‘I will not remove my mercy from them.’ Let us ask and we shall receive; and if there be delay and slowness in our receiving because we have gravely offended, let us knock, because to him that knocketh it shall be opened, if only the door be knocked by our prayers, groans and tears, in which we must persist and persevere, and if the prayer be unanimous . . . let each man pray to God, not for himself alone, but for all his brethren, as the Lord hath taught us to pray.”12 But in order that God may the more readily assent to the prayers and desires of Ourselves, of you and of all the faithful, let us with all confidence employ as our advocate with Him the Immaculate and most holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, who has slain all heresies throughout the world, and who, the most loving Mother of us all, “is all sweet . . . and full of mercy . . . shows herself to all as easily entreated; shows herself to all as most merciful; pities the necessities of all with a most large affection”;13 and standing as a Queen at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety, can obtain from Him whatever she will. Let us also seek the suifrages of the Most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of Paul, his fellow Apostle, and of all the Saints in Heaven, who having now become God’s friends, have arrived at the heavenly Kingdom, and being crowned, bear their palms, and being secure of their own immortality, are anxious for our salvation. The Apostolic Blessing 12. Lastly, imploring from Our great heart for you from God the abundance of all heavenly gifts, We most lovingly impart the Apostolic Benediction from Our inmost heart, a pledge of Our signal love towards you, to yourselves, Venerable Brethren, and to all the clerics and lay faithful committed to your care. Given at Rome, from St. Peter’s, the 8th day of December, in the year 1864, the tenth from the Dogmatic Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Mother of God, in the nineteenth year of Our Pontificate. Pius IX, Pope NOTES 1. Gregory XVI, Encyclical Letter “Mirari Vos,” 15 August 1832. 2. Ibid. 3. St. Augustine, epistle 105 (166). 4. St. Leo, epistle 14 (133), sect. 2, edit. Ball. 5. Epistle to Cardinal De la Rochefoucault, 10 March 1791. 6. Clement XII, In Eminenti; Benedict XIV, Providas Romanorum; Pius VII, Ecciesiam; Leo XII, Quo Graviora. 7. St. Ignatius M. to the Philadelphians, 3. 8. St. Celestine, epistle 22 to Synod. Ephes. in Const., p. 1200. 9. St. Innocent. 1, epistle 29 ad Episc. conc. Carthag. in Coust., p. 891. 10. St. Leo, epistle 156 (125). 11. Pius VII, Encyclical Letter, Diu Satis, 15 May 1800. 12. St. Cyprian, epist. 11. 13. St. Bernard, Serm. de duodecim praerogativis B. M. V. ex verbis Apocalyp, Issued by Pope Pius IX SYLLABUS OF ERRORS December 8, 1864 Syllabus of the principal errors of our time, which are censured in the consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other Apostolical Letters of our Most Hoiy Lord, Pope Pius IX I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM 1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. —Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862. 2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied.— Ibid. 3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. —Ibid. 4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate Strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.—Ibid., and Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846, etc. 5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.—Ibid. 6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason, and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man.—Ibid. 7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth. —Ibid. II. MODERATE RATIONALISM 8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences.—Allocution Sin gulari Quadam, Dec. 9, 1854. 9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy; and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object.—Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, Gravissimas Inter, Dec. 11, 1862, and Tuas Libenter, Dec. 21, 1863. 10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority.—Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862. 11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself.—Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863. 12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science.—Ibid. 13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.—Ibid. 14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation.—Ibid. N.B. To the rationalistic system belong in great part the errors of Anthony GUnther, condemned in the letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne, Eximiam Tuam, June 15, 1857, and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, Dolore Haud Mediocri, April 30, III. INDIFFERENTISM AND FALSE TOLERANCE 15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.— Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862; Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851. 16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.— Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846. 1860. 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.— Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863, etc. 18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical Noscitis, Dec. 8, 1849. IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution Quibus Quantisque, April 20, 1849; Encyclical Noscitis et Nobiscum, Dec. 8, 1849; Allocution Singulari Quadam, Dec. 9, 1854; Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863. V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS 19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free; nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights.—Allocution Singulari Quadam, Dec. 9, 1854, etc. 20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. — Allocution Meminit Unusquisque, Sept. 30, 1861. 21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. — Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851. 22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.—Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Tuas Libenter, Dec. 21, 1863. 23. Roman Pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.—Damnatio Mu/tip/ices Inter, June 10, 1851. 24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.—Apostolic Letter Ad Aposto/icae, Aug. 22, 1851. 25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority, granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit.—Ibid. 26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property.—Allocution Nunquam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical Incredibi/i, Sept. 7, 1863. 27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs.—Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862. 28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even Letters Apostolic without the permission of government.—Allocution Nun quam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856. 29. Favors granted by the Roman Pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government.—Ibid. 30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law.—Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851. 31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See.—Allocution Nunquam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852. 32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government.—Letter to the Bishop of Monreale, Singularis Nobisque, Sept. 29, 1864. 33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions.—Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Tuas Libenter, Dec. 21, 1863. 34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages.—Apostolic Letter AdApostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851. 35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city.—Ibid. 36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority can assume this principle as the basis of its acts.—Ibid. 37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman Pontiff and altogether separated, can be established.— Allocution Multis Gravibusque, Dec. 17, 1860. 38. The Roman Pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.—Apostolic Letter Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851. VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH 39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.— Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862. 40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the wellbeing and interests of society.—Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution Quibus Quantisque, April 20, 1849. 41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of exsequatur, but also that of appeal, called appellatio ab abusu.— Apostolic Letter Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851 42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.—Ibid. 43. The secular power has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest.—Allocution Multis Gravibusque, Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution In Consistoriali, Nov. 1, 1850. 44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine Sacraments and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.—Allocutions In Consistoriali, Nov. 1, 1850, and Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862. 45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers.— Allocutions Quibus Luctuosissimis, Sept. 5, 1851, and In Consistoriali, Nov. 1, 1850. 46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority.—Allocution Nunquam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856. 47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.—Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, Cum Non Sine, July 14, 1864. 48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.—Ibid. 49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman Pontiff.—Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862. 50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See.—Allocution Nun quam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856. 51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops.—Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852; Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851. 52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission .—Allocution Nun quam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856. 53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power.— Allocutions Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852; Probe Memineritis, Jan. 22, 1855; Cum Saepe, July 26, 1855. 54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions ofjurisdiction.—Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851. 55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.—Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852. VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS 56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.—Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862. 57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority.—Ibid. 58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.—Ibid.; Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863. 59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right.—Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862. 60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces.—Ibid. 61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right.—Allocution Iamdudum Cernimus, March 18, 1861. 62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed.—Allocution Novos et Ante, Sept. 28, 1860. 63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.—Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution Quibusque Vestrum, Oct. 4, 1847; Noscitis et Nobiscum, Dec. 8, 1849; Letter Apostolic Cum Catholica. 64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country.—Allocution Quibus Quantisque, April 20, 1849. VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE 65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament cannot be at all tolerated.—Apostolic Letter Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851. 66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the Sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone.—Ibid. 67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority.—Ibid.; Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852. 68. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed.— Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851. 69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State.—Apostolic Letter AdApostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851. 70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power.—Ibid. 71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.—Ibid. 72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void.—Ibid. 73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a Sacrament, or that there is no contract if the Sacrament be excluded.—Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852, Multis Gravibusque, Dec. 17, 1860. 74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals.—Encyclical Qui Pluri bus, Nov. 9, 1846; Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851, Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852. N.B.—To the preceding questions may be referred two other errors regarding the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of marriage over that of virginity. These have been stigmatized: the first in the Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846; the second. in the Letter Apostolic Multiplices inter. June 10. 1851. IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF 75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided among themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power.—Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851. 76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church.—Allocutions Quibus quantisque, April 20, 1849, Si Semper Antea, May 20, 1850. N.B.—Besides these errors, explicitly censured, very many others are implicitly condemned by the doctrine propounded and established, which all Catholics are bound most firmly to hold touching the temporal sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff. This doctrine is clearly stated in the Allocutions Quibus Quantisque, April 20, 1849, and Si SemperAntea, May 20, 1850; Letter Apostolic Cum Catholica Ecciesia, March 26, 1860; Allocutions, Noves etAntea, Sept. 28, 1860; Iamdudum Cernimus, March 18, 1861; Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862. X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution Nemo Vestrum, July 26, 1855. 78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852. 79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution Nun quam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856. 80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, Liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution Iamdudum Cernimus, March 18, 1861. Pius IX, Pope ......................... _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Jn:14:6: 6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. (DRV) John 10:1 Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. Haydock Commentary In this parable the fold is the Church: the good shepherd, and also the door is Christ: the thieves and robbers are false guides; the hirelings, such ministers as seek their own profit and gain, and a good living, as they call it; the wolves, heretics; the sheep not yet brought into the fold, the Gentiles not then converted. Wi. Posted Oct 10, 2013, 12:39 am Ignored by: 0

Stephanos II Reputation: 35 (Likers: 0 / Critics: 0) Posts: 263     0     0   In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. http://onlinecatholicbooks.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-apostasy-of-false-council-of.htm Both Modern Evolution and Modernist Evolution has been concocted for only one reason, to oppose Christ and His Church and provide a basis for the Antichrist. What must be understood about evolution, both ancient and modern is, in its pagan religious and Gnostic and secular modes it is the same in the essentials – first the Universe is all there is. The ancient (Old Latin) meaning in ancient Rome of Universe was from Uni – one and Versus – turn. Look at the sky above, from one horizon to another it is one turn, or in other words, one arc across the sky. This mindless elemental universe is then thought to give rise to all phenomena spontaneously. A noumenal, unseen immaterial aspect, is posited to conveniently provide a place for all things which don’t add up in strict materialism. The gods and goddesses of paganism all have their place as functionaries of this material Pantheism – strictly speaking the Pantheist god is the universe. Know this, all evolution is in direct and complete opposition to the Catholic Faith. Theistic evolution is only Pantheist evolutionary immanentism with a myth of a god, it may as well be Zeus or whatever, pasted on as an ornament. Ratzinger is a sly Apostate fox in this. The True God is the Holy Trinity and is NOT a myth. He created everything that has been created. Amen. The United States was founded on Heroic Materialism, which also Napoleon embraced. Napoleon also embraced the lie of the Higher Criticism, denying the Immortal supernatural existence of the Son of God Jesus Christ. Communist Russia was founded on Dialectical Materialism, a slightly differently shaded version of the same thing as Heroic Materialism. Both are ancient Babylonian in essence. Heroic Materialism believes that physical existence is all there is and only those better animals (really no different than Nietzsche’s Superman which the Nazis adopted as their own) come to the fore as the ones to govern it. Dialectical Materialism believes in cascading forces and immanent being within the Universe that reintegrates to cause the progression of the Universe. What nobody addresses is that why doesn’t a physical universe, without a higher personal being who is greater than that universe, just collapse on itself out of lack of purpose? God has His purposes and that is a profound truth in itself that evolution will never be able to answer or approach or even have any part in. Amen. From below: The Question  “Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity? 133 historicity of his own nature. This is a normal convergence if it is true that faith, incarnate in the human subject, adjusts itself to man’s structures and evolutions. We observe this, moreover, in the Council. To the extent that the Council elaborated its Christological vision of a universe in movement, it experienced the need, a need albeit inadequately satisfied, for an anthropology.” The Answer There is a simple answer, this is Teilhard de Chardin’s Diabolically insane idea of a universe and an impersonal pseudo-Christ as a Pantheist Unity. That is only the impersonal finite logos/logoi; of the pagans identifiable with their pagan gods and goddesses enmeshed in a mindless insensate Universe. St. John the Apostle clarifies in the beginning of His Gospel that the True Logos (Word of God) is the living Person, the Immortal Son of God Jesus Christ through whom all that has been created was created. The universe which God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit created is itself comprised of the elemental physical being with no mind of its own. Evolution is simply the Heresy that seeks to sever God from His creation. The Truth which has nothing to do with the evolutionary lies. Dabar in Biblical Hebrew and Logos in Septuagint Greek is the same exact meaning, the Word of God united eternally from everlasting to everlasting to the Father in His innermost being. Jesus Christ is the Immortal Word of God. He is the Son of God united to God the Father in the Unity of the Holy Spirit. From Dom Grea: the Holy Spirit is the eternal song of love between the Father and the Son from before all time and creation to eternity everlasting. That doesn’t supplant doctrinal statements about the relationship within the Holy Trinity, but is an orthodox addition to it. It is a statement of correct contemplative theology. Gospel of St. John Chapter One  The divinity and incarnation of Christ. John bears witness of him. He begins to call his disciples. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.; 2 The same was in the beginning with God.; 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.; 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.; 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. …. The Devil ran the whole Vatican II pseudo-council with the Satan worshipping complicity of the “council fathers.” - “You are of your father the Devil” – Jesus Christ said to the Jews. John 8:44. See this -  In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Atila Sinke Guimarães, Volume I From the Collection: Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani? SPECIAL FOREWORD by Dr. Malachi Martin This first volume of the Collection: Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani? establishes the author Atila Sinke Guimarães as one of the best informed latter-day students of that epochal event, the Second Vatican Council. Up to this moment, the most encyclopedic and detailedly informed examination of the Council was provided by Professor Amerio in his Iota Unum. Guimarães’ Collection bids fair to replace Iota Unum as the best all-purpose source-book about the Council; and it is not hazardous or rash to predict that this work of Guimarães will be a standard reference work on the subject—and well into the 21st century. The title of this first volume, in The Murky Waters of Vatican II, tells exactly what the contents are. All of us who lived through the years of Vatican 11 (1962-1965) and have had to deal with the consequences can recognize immediately the pinpoint accuracy of this first volume: The ambiguity, cultivated and, as it were, perfected in the composition of the sixteen main documents of the Council, is now seen as the most skillful means devised to undo the essential Roman- ness and Catholicism of the Roman Catholic Church, and to deliver that entire one-billion member institutional organization into the ready and eager hands of those for whom the existence of the traditional papacy and hierarchical organization has long been anathema. One reads in this volume with a certain sickening feeling of the unified way in which the Church’s own theologians and prelates conspired willingly to bring about the present trend to the de-Romanization and de-Catholicizing of the once monolithic institution. September 25, 1997 “…existence of the traditional papacy and hierarchical organization has long been anathema.” Is a vastly important statement. We are never called to render ANY obedience nor even have ANY communion nor any interaction with Apostate Antipopes nor any Apostate ecclesiastical “authority.” Such Apostate Antipopes and such so called “authorities” have no authority at all and are ipso fact excommunicate and anathema by their own statements and actions. ________________________________________________________________________ From the below – Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity? 131 Second, from the standpoint of the aim toward which the Church should tend: “The very word evolution, obstinately under suspicion until then, was introduced three or four times, in spite of the negative reactions, into the text at critical points of Gaudium et Spes as a reinforcement to the word ‘history’…. I am pleased to quote Paul VI, then still Cardinal Montini [Chenu speaking], who makes an excellent comment: ‘The order toward which Christianity tends is not a static one; it is an order in permanent evolution toward a better form; it is an equilibrium in movement.’ “15 Third, regarding the essence of evolution, which is supposedly the “Spirit of God”: “Already chapter II [of Gaudium et Spes], on describing the promotion of the common good in the human community, affirmed the presence of the Spirit in the ‘evolution’ of the world: ‘The Spirit of God, who, with wondrous providence, directs the course of time and renews the face of the earth, assists at this development’ (GS 26).”16 Now take the last part – Third, regarding the essence of evolution, which is supposedly the “Spirit of God”: “Already chapter II [of Gaudium et Spes], on describing the promotion of the common good in the human community, affirmed the presence of the Spirit in the ‘evolution’ of the world: ‘The Spirit of God, who, with wondrous providence, directs the course of time and renews the face of the earth, assists at this development’ (GS 26).”16 To identify the Holy Spirit with evolution is pagan (all the pagan gods evolved), it is monist (which holds that there is no creator God only a universe that takes the place of God), it is Gnostic – one of biggest heresies of Gnosticism was that man evolved to where he could create God and then it is man that is in charge of God and controls Him – this is Theurgy – the most despicable form of black magic that there is. Now we understand fully the damned Apostate Karol Wojtyla aka PJII or [Anti]Pope John Paul II when he declared that all of the false gods of the Assisi abomination in 2002 were part of the blowing of the Holy Spirit. That is blaspheming the Holy Spirit for which there is no forgiveness – not ever – Our Lord Jesus Christ said so. Amen. Amen. He said, transcibed word for word: “That is what the scripture says, the Spirit is a blowing. May the Holy Spirit today blow – speak to the hearts of all of us here present as the wind symbolizes. Lets listen all of us to the words of the Spirit.” After that go back and see the entire 2 hours and 23 minutes before he says that. If you believe that what is shown has anything to do with the Christian faith or true Catholic religion or the Holy Spirit, then you are not a Christian nor a Catholic. It is sheer Satanic Apostasy. See: FOR THE TAPE ON ASSISI SEE: go to Assisi - Abomination of Desolation then go to part 6 at Part 6 at 19:18-19:54 of 28:25 of part 6 and at 2:23:00-2:23:36 of 2:31:48 of the whole tape which is where John Paul II the Apostate blasphemes the Holy Spirit. His statement transcribed is: “That is what the scripture says, the Spirit is a blowing. May the Holy Spirit today blow – speak to the hearts of all of us here present as the wind symbolizes. Lets listen all of us to the words of the Spirit.” After that go back and see the entire 2 hours and 23 minutes before he says that. If you believe that what is shown has anything to do with the Christian faith or true Catholic religion or the Holy Spirit, then you are not a Christian nor a Catholic. It is sheer Satanic Apostasy. “words of the Spirit” Wojtyla said refereing to all the blaspheming of the pagans. Wojtyla is damned. All of this is termed Charismatic and Pentecostal in V2 language, but it is DAMNED Apostasy. Never forgiven. If, unwittingly, anyone got near this, simply run don’t walk to get away from it and stay away from it. That applies to all of V2. ________________________________________________________________________ Chapter VII, Is There A Doctrine Underlying The Ambiguity  … pp. 130 - 136 130 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II 2. Subjacent to Ambiguity, the Doctrine of Universal Evolution § 10 ;;; A first impression comes to the mind of an analyst who wants to determine the doctrinal background underlying the systematic ambiguity of the Council: he notices that the Catholic Church, hitherto immutable in its doctrine and fixed in its structures, is presented as a ‘Church in transition.’ Theologian Hans Kung writes: “Just as John XXIII became a transition pope. . . and Council Vatican II was a transition council, so also is the Catholic Church today a transition Church: it is in transition from a past still not completely elapsed to a future that is just beginning to appear.”11 § 11 ;;; Given his often radical stands, it would not be surprising if it were only Hans Kung who made such a statement. Nevertheless, authors as important as Fr. Chenu, inspirer of the conciliar Fathers’ Message to the World in the beginning of the Council,’12 also admit, like Kung, the same principle of transition applied to the Church and her doctrine. They even go further as they further define this transitional phase and link it to evolutionist principles. From several standpoints, Fr. Chenu celebrates the introduction ofthe idea and the word evolution into conciliar texts.[my comment - note the next statement, that it had never been allowed – the reason is that it is HERETICAL] First, from the standpoint of the formulation of the Faith: “Relative used to be a dangerous word. . . up until the Council. ‘Official’ theology deemed the formulas expressing the faith to be immutable realities and would not even allow the word evolution, which the Council introduces, into its vocabulary.”13 Continuing from the point of view of dogmatic formulation, Fr. Chenu says: “That she [the Church] may be at the same time one and varied; that she may be one and multiform. For humanity itself is in a multiform evolution. . . . The dogmatic forms, which used to be considered absolute, are relative; relative to time, places, circumstances, evolution. The same realities have different fonnulas.”14 11. H. Kung, Veracidade, p. 112. 12. Jean Puyo interroge le Père Congar, p. 128; R. Laurentin, Bilan de la premiere session, pp. 123f.; H. Fesquet, op. cit., p. 49. 13. Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Chenu, p. 47. 14. Marie-Dominique Chenu, Interview with the Author, Paris, February 20, 1983. Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity? 131 Second, from the standpoint of the aim toward which the Church should tend: “The very word evolution, obstinately under suspicion until then, was introduced three or four times, in spite of the negative reactions, into the text at critical points of Gaudium et Spes as a reinforcement to the word ‘history’…. I am pleased to quote Paul VI, then still Cardinal Montini, who makes an excellent comment: ‘The order toward which Christianity tends is not a static one; it is an order in permanent evolution toward a better form; it is an equilibrium in movement.’ “15 Third, regarding the essence of evolution, which is supposedly the “Spirit of God”: “Already chapter II [of Gaudium et Spes], on describing the promotion of the common good in the human community, affirmed the presence of the Spirit in the ‘evolution’ of the world: ‘The Spirit of God, who, with wondrous providence, directs the course of time and renews the face of the earth, assists at this development’ (GS 26).”16 Fr. Chenu then begins to develop the inner core of the conciliar doctrine by contending that it evolves according to the “signs of the times” that are revealed in history: “If one should qualify the Council by a main trait, I would propose to call it ‘prophetic’ in the full force and technical meaning of the word both in theological language and in the sociological vocabulary. A prophet is one who knows how to discern in current events that which places them in the continuity and ruptures of a history on the move. The prophet does not analyze structures and notions in their static condition, but in their dynamism. Thus, according to the famous formula, the future is already present. …The aggiornamento of which John XXIII spoke is not an updating after which one again returns to the road with definitive formulas; it is a continuous application of one’s intelligence to understand the ‘signs of the times’ that emerge from the new values as Gospel in a world on the move. . . . Evidently, the constitution Gaudium et Spes is where this prophetism is more palpable. …And it inspires many other declarations or decrees. This is why, 15. Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Chenu, pp. 185f. 16. M. D. Chenu, “Les signes des temps—Reflexions théologiques,” in V.A., L’Eglise dans le monde de ce temps—Constitution pastorale “Gaudium et spes,” eds. Y. Congar—M. Peuchmaurd (Paris: Cerf, 1967), vol. II, p. 212. 132 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II gauging well the word and [applying it] in this sense, one can say that Vatican II is obsolete. “To the extent that its basic element is prophetic, it requires its own obsolescence. If it is projected—in the proper sense— toward the future, the texts take on a new density inasmuch as the future is present. Needless to say, it is difficult to define fidelity to the first inspiration, but it [fidelity] is the profound law. So if I limit myself to a commentary, a discourse, I will be actually unfaithful. This is why it is normal for those responsible at all levels in their day-to-day decisions not always to be in agreement, as though there were a set of norms to be applied or a dogmatic formula to be taught. One must undoubtedly lament deviations and ramblings, but they do not compromise the principal character of the Council’s innovations.”17 If one were to admit Fr. Chenu’s explanation and draw only the major consequences from it, one sees that it would legitimize the abandonment of the dogmatic formulas of the past. Attachment to them would be “infidelity”; the lack of oneness in Church teaching would be considered normal, and a corollary would be to deny authority—especially that of the Pope—the competence to teach always the same thing everywhere. Historicity applied to the dogmas of Faith and to authority in the Church makes them relative to such an extent that one could ask whether the concept of historicity differs from Luther’s principle of free interpretation. Since free interpretation relativizes the teaching of Catholic exegetic tradition and historicity extends relativism to the field of exegesis in dogmatics and ecclesiastical authority, one would say that historicity differs from free interpretation only in that it surpasses the latter in its developments, even though both begin from the same principles. § 15 ;;; In his explanation of the new, historic and evolutionary view of the universe, Fr. Chenu provides elements of an anthropology according to which man should be considered as essentially linked to the evolutionary process. These doctrines, he claims, are the foundations of Vatican II. Fr. Chenu says: “It is not by chance that the Christian is becoming more attentive to the peculiar character of the economy of salvation at a moment when man is becoming vitally aware of the 17. Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Chenu, pp. l9lf. Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity? 133 historicity of his own nature. This is a normal convergence if it is true that faith, incarnate in the human subject, adjusts itself to man’s structures and evolutions. We observe this, moreover, in the Council. To the extent that the Council elaborated its Christological vision of a universe in movement, it experienced the need, a need albeit inadequately satisfied, for an anthropology. Now, in this ‘Christian’ anthropology, as it is being set forth more or less explicitly in theological statements, three attributes, three co-essential attributes of man are emerging: First, that man is by nature social; second, that he is so linked to the universe that the very matter of the cosmos is engaged in his destiny; and third, that man exists in history. Let us understand this threefold value. . . written into man’s nature and in some way, too, issuing from it, as distinct from abstract analysis or anything resembling either a timeless idea or an immutable definition. Thus it is that even in its vocabulary, the Council speaks rather of the human condition than of human nature as such, by contrast with Vatican I. Without setting aside an essentialist philosophy, one can readily have recourse to existential analyses.”18 One sees that Fr. Chenu only broaches on some central ideas of the so-called Christian anthropology, its evolutionary character, its warm reception by the Council and its relations with existentialism. But such ideas appear sufficient to confirm the impression that an evolutionary doctrine is subjacent to, and latent in, conciliar ambiguity. This Item limits itself to verifying the emergence of evolutionary doctrine as one of the principal characteristics of Vatican II. An analysis of this doctrine will be made further on.’19 Fr. Yves Congar, who worked on ten of the 16 schemata of Vatican 11, 20* also rejoices over the introduction of the concepts of evo 18. M. D. Chenu, “The History of Salvation and the Historicity of Man in the Renewal of Theology,” in V.A., Theology of Renewal, vol. I, pp. 163f. 19. Vol. III, Animus Injuriandi-Il, Chap. VI; Vol. VI, Inveniet Fidem?, Chap. IV. 2; Vol. VII, Destructio Dei, Chap. II; Vol. IX, Creatio, Chaps. II, III; Vol. X, Peccatum—Redemptio, Chap. V. 20.* Alain Woodrow, “A Rome: Trente theologiens du monde entier pour accomplir le Concile,” in Informations Catholiques Internationales, 5/15/1969, p. 9. 134 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II lution and historicity in the Council, historicity that he links with the idea of eschatology. “One of the great novelties of Vatican II, as far as documents of the ‘magisterium’ are concerned, was the introduction of the eschatological point of view 21 and, therefore, also of historicity. That was lacking, and this grave lack had to do with the predominance of the juridical aspect. Vatican II sees the Spirit of God present in the evolution of the human community, directing the course of time and renewing the face of the earth (GS 26).”22 § 18 ;;; Consistent with his admiration for the harbingers of the nouvelle théoiogie,23 Cardinal Wojtyla in his book, Alle fonti del Rinnovamento, comments on the Constitution Gaudium et Spes. He endorses the same principles defended by Congar and Chenu, taking evolution as a doctrinal substratum of conciliar ecciesiology: “The Church, with the consciousness of the history of salvation that is her In a book-interview, Congar himself confirms: “I was pretty much involved with the preparation of most of the great conciliar texts: Lumen Gentium, above all chapter II; Gaudium et Spes; Dei Verbum, the texts on Revelation; Ecumenism; Religious Liberty; the Declaration on relations with non-Christians; the Missions. I also worked very much with the Commission of the clergy that elaborated the text ####orum Ordinis” (Jean Puyo interroge le Père Congar, p. 149). 21. About the progressivist notion of eschatology, see Vol. III, Animus Injuriandi—JI, Chap. V.2. 22. Y. Congar, Le Concile de Vatican II, p. 170. 23. According to Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, a friend of Msgr. Wojtyla, in a study circle held at the Polish College during the Council, he declared: “Prominent theologians like Henri de Lubac, J. Daniélou, Y. Congar, Hans Kung, R. Lombardi, K. Rahner and others, played an extraordinary role in these preparatory works [of the Council]” (Mon ami Karol Wojtyla, Paris: Centurion, 1980, p. 189). Rocco Buttiglione is no less explicit in this regard: “By stating that the work of Creation is included in that of Redemption and stressing the close connection between them, Wojtyla takes a stand in favor of the nouvelle théologie against positions that distinguish a pure order of nature, in which man fulfills himself as a purely natural being, from an order of grace . . . This was the position of ‘Roman theology’ and was labeled as ‘rightist.’. . . From this standpoint, Wojtyla is certainly an innovator and aligns himself with the progressivist wing of the Council” (Il pensiero di Karol Wojtvla, pp. 226f.). Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity?; 135 own, goes out to meet that multiform evolution and the consciousness of today’s man, which is linked to it. . . . The paschal mystery of Jesus Christ is as open to eschatology (in fact, it awakens ‘the desire for the future world’)as it is to the evolution of the world, which the Council understands above all as a commitment to make the life of humanity and of men ‘more humane.’ Vatican II stressed the ethical meaning of evolution. .. . According to the doctrine of Vatican II, the Church participates in the evolution of the world not only because the ideal of an ever more humane world is in accordance with the Gospel, but also because the history of salvation, in which the ultimate reality is prepared, necessarily passes by the realization of this world. Furthermore, this reality, almost embryonically and in a mysterious way, is already present in the world through the Church. So it is worthwhile, above all, to pay attention to the way in which the Church, according to the doctrine of the Council, participates in evolution and progress toward an ever more humane world and, therefore, the way that she, in her conscience, continuously overtakes this evolution by orienting herself to the ultimate reality that will also be the ‘plenitude of the kingdom of God.’ “In many passages, but perhaps primarily in chapters III and IV of the Constitution Gaudium et Spes (first part),Vatican II speaks to us about the active participation of the ‘kingdom’ in the evolution of the world.... “The Church, as is evident, participates in the evolution of the world also by means of her own evolution. Vatican II expresses a mature consciousness of this truth and makes it one of the fundamental principles of the renewal program. Here the historic consciousness of the Church is manifested in a particularly clear fashion. One may say that the whole conciliar conception of ‘aggiornamento’ (renovatio acomodata) expresses, above all, this consciousness By emphasizing the participation of the Church in the evolution of the ‘world,’ even by means of her own evolution; and, moreover, by proclaiming its necessity, Vatican II takes a stand in regard to the past and, simultaneously, to the future. “This is a particular expression of the historic consciousness of the Church, for the habitual category of history is only the past; the history of salvation, on the contrary, continuously 136 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II reports to a dimension at the same time eschatological, essential, and dynamic, and has, in itself, a unique reason to face the future. It is only in the totality of these dimensions that the Church preserves a full consciousness of her own identity; in it she also finds the basis of the whole program of renewal and aggiornamento. Only on this fundamental condition can the Church participate in the evolution of the world through her own ‘evolution.’ One may say that this is the most profound substratum of the ‘historic consciousness’ of the Church.”24 * * * § 19 ;;; Several characteristics appear in the texts cited in this Item 2 that point to the evolutionist conception as the foundation of conciliar doctrine. In brief, this concept of evolution is supposed to influence the teaching of Vatican II by: • Justifying the relativization of dogmatic formulations. • Making the Church tend toward an order continuously in movement. • Reflecting the actual “spirit of God.” • Making the Church and Catholic doctrine adapt continuously to the “signs of the times.” • Providing the basis for the Christological vision of a universe in movement and the “Christian” anthropology explained by Vatican II. • Being present in the very essence of human nature. • Being the foundation of conciliar eschatology. • Being the prism for understanding the new ecclesiology born out of the Council. It is hard not to see, therefore, that the doctrinal substratum of conciliar ambiguity appears to be a new vision of the universe, of man, of the Church and of God Himself. We will opportunely analyze them in this Collection. Here we will limit ourselves to noting that there is a subjacent doctrine supporting ambiguity in the conciliar documents, and that this doctrine is evolution. 24. Karol Wojtyla, Allefonti del rinnovamento—Studio sull’ attuazione del Concilio Vaticano Secondo (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1981), pp. 151-157. ......................... _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Jn:14:6: 6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. (DRV) John 10:1 Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. Haydock Commentary In this parable the fold is the Church: the good shepherd, and also the door is Christ: the thieves and robbers are false guides; the hirelings, such ministers as seek their own profit and gain, and a good living, as they call it; the wolves, heretics; the sheep not yet brought into the fold, the Gentiles not then converted. Wi. Posted Oct 10, 2013, 12:41 am Ignored by: 0

Stephanos II Reputation: 35 (Likers: 0 / Critics: 0) Posts: 263     0     0   1950 Catholic Dictionary Impriniatur SAMUEL CARDINAL STRITCH Archbishop of Chicago Chicago, August 5, 1950 For articles contributed to the dictionary credit must be given to: Rev. Barnabas Mary Ahern, C.P., S.T.L., S.S.L. Rev. George F. Aschenbrenner, M.A., S.T.L. Sr. M. Claudia Carlin, I.H.M., M.A.L.S. Rev. John J. Fahey, M.A., S.T.D. Rev. Arthur C. Haubold, M.A. Rev. Thomas Kaveney, M.A. Rev. BernardJ. Le Frois, S.V.D., S.T.L., S.S.L Rev. Conrad Louis, 0.S.B., S.T.L. Rev. Brendan McGrath, O.S.B., M.A., S.T.D. Rev. Richard Rosemeyer, M.A., S.T.L. Sr. Estelle Scully, S.P., B.A. Rev. Leon Wagner, M.A., S.T.L. Apostasy. The total rejection of the Christian faith by a baptized person. Hence, a Catholic who becomes an atheist or a rationalist would be an apostate. By becoming an apostate a Catholic is ipso facto excommunicated, and is to be refused Christian burial if he dies without showing signs of repentance. Apostasy (a total rejection of the faith) differs from heresy, which is a denial of one or another truth of faith. Saint Paul (2 Thess. 2:3) warns that the second coming of Christ will be preceded by a great apostasy. Christ seems to have referred to this same apostasy in Matt. 24:11-12 and Luke 18:8. Apostate. One guilty of apostasy (which see). Modernism. In general, an exaggerated love of what is modern or novel. As a theological term, modernism designates the heresy, or rather the collection of errors, which rose in the Church at the beginning of the 20th century under the influence of men like Loisy (France), Tyrrel (England), and Buonaiuti (Italy). Under Pope Pius X, two famous documents were issued against modernism: (1) a decree of the Holy Office, Lamentabili, of July 3, 1907, and (2) the encyclical Pascendi, of September 8, 1907. The former is a list of 65 condemned propositions of the modernists; the latter is an analysis of the theories of the modernists in contrast with the philosophy and doctrine of true Christianity. Among the errors of the modernists’ teaching were the following: (1) It is impossible to prove the existence of a God distinct from the world. (2) “Revelation” is only a natural product of the subconscious, and dogma is only an expression of the subconscious, subject to continual evolution. (3) The Bible is not a divinely inspired book, and it ought to be studied the same way as any human book, which is likely to contain errors. (4) There is no need to reconcile science and faith. One may deny as a scientist what he believes as a Christian. (5) The divinity of Christ was not taught by the Gospels, but is the product of an evolution in Christian thinking over the centuries. (6) The idea of a redemptive value in the death of Christ originated with Saint Paul. (7) Christ instituted neither the Church nor the primacy of Peter. The present organization of the Church is purely the result of historical contingencies, and could be completely changed. Modernism is an amalgam of verbal Catholicism and naturalistic rationalism. The modernists did not wish to abandon any of the traditional statements of Catholic teaching. But these statements were to be given a new rationalistic meaning. Pius X foresaw that modernism would lead to an abolition of all religion and gradually to atheism. __________________________________________________________________ The Catholic Encyclopedia Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. Apostasy Apostasy a fide, or perfidiæ Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. __________________________________________________________________ ipso facto, the last 6 Antipopes, John XXIII - Franics are Apostates and excommunicate and not Catholic and not Popes - they have professed those other beliefs totally knowingly and willfully -- unlike someone who has the valid defense of not knowing what they were doing, like all who have rejected the V2 Apostasy after they were mislead by it because the episcopal and parish and monastic and ecclesial etc leaders said it was approved. Those episcopal and parish and monastic and ecclesial etc leaders lied to the faithful and are culpable. Christ's straying sheep who were mislead are easily forgiven by Him if they only come to Him and ask. But don't go near V2 anymore. When in doubt or confused by someone, make NO confession in anything you know in your heart is not of Christ. From the above: Modernism. ... Pius X foresaw that modernism would lead to an abolition of all religion and gradually to atheism. Apostasy. Hence, a Catholic who becomes an atheist or a rationalist would be an apostate. By becoming an apostate a Catholic is ipso facto excommunicated,.... Apostasy Apostasy a fide, or perfidiæ Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. Modernism --> Atheism --> atheism incurs automatic excommunication and that includes Popes before, during or after election. An unbeliever, a non-Christian, an excommunicate from Catholicism: cannot be Pope. See St. Robert Bellarmine and the rest of the Church Doctors. Gospel of St. John Chapter 14:30...For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing. Apostasy to Satan precludes all communion with the Lord Jesus Christ and His faithful, which is His Body of faithful. _________________________________________________________________ This book below is the only one to be approved by the Holy Office as a teaching on the Antichrist, per se, in the last 150 years. There are others on various aspects of Eschatology that do mention the Antichrist. HISTORY OF ANTICHRIST OR AN EXPOSITION OF CERTAIN AND PROBABLE EVENTS WHICH CONCERN THE “MAN OF SIN,” HIS REIGN, HIS TIME, AND END, ACCORDING TO HOLY SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION by Rev. P. Huchedé Professor of Theology at the Grand Seminary of Laval, France Translated from the French by J.D.B. [1884] And none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand. (Dan. 12:10) Chapter 2- The Action ... ARTICLE II-CONTEST AND RELIGIOUS SWAY OF ANTICHRIST ... 2. His Apostles see: http://theantichristhuchede.blogspot.com/2006/05/rev-paschal-huchede-view-of-antichrist_8509.html In the work of our redemption, the three divine persons of the adorable Trinity manifested themselves. The Son adores the Father; the Holy Ghost gives glory to the Son. And we see that in the mystery of iniquity Antichrist adores Satan and the false prophet glorifies Anti­christ. Hence we have every reason to show that this false prophet will be an individual person and not a collective term to designate the uni­versality of preachers engaged in the service of Antichrist. We can even assert that he will not be a king, nor a general of an army, but a clever apostate, fallen from the episcopal dignity. From being an apostle of the Gospel he will become the first preacher of the false messiah. These conjectures are not devoid of much plausibility. ...(Acosta, Book 2, Ch. 16). _____________ "...but a clever apostate, fallen from the episcopal dignity. From being an apostle of the Gospel he will become the first preacher of the false messiah." Episcopal dignity refers to the Papacy. __________________________________________________________________  ......................... _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Jn:14:6: 6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. (DRV) John 10:1 Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. Haydock Commentary In this parable the fold is the Church: the good shepherd, and also the door is Christ: the thieves and robbers are false guides; the hirelings, such ministers as seek their own profit and gain, and a good living, as they call it; the wolves, heretics; the sheep not yet brought into the fold, the Gentiles not then converted. Wi. Posted Oct 10, 2013, 3:48 am Ignored by: 0