Father Garban: Finally, for whatever remains of questions or misunderstandings with respect to an event such as Assisi, notably in the order of prudence, one last remark, more fundamentally, must be made. It touches on the mysterious function which Christ conferred upon his vicar. The Holy Father, as the Lord himself, is prophet. This prophetic function in which the Pope participates, consists less in predicting the future like the prophets of the Old Testament than to foresee in the etymological sense of the term and thus to prepare. Proper to prophecy is to remain partially obscure to those who hear it, but also to he whom it is given to explain it.The Papal Office does NOT include an automatic "prophethood". Being a prophet is not part of the Pope's job description. This is a lie put forth by the Antichurch, that the Pope is also Prophet, revealing "new revelation".
R. Sungenis: Yes, the pope is a prophet, and the pope may have to explain himself. But other popes were prophets, too, but they said something completely different than what John Paul is saying. So the "prophet" argument cuts both ways, and doesn't prove anything for Fr. Garban. Moreover, the previous popes put their objections regarding pan-religious prayer meetings in formal and official documents. Assisi is merely an event without any formal teaching. In addition, I get the impression from Fr. Garban that just because the pope is a "prophet" then he can do no wrong or make no mistakes. But there were good, bad and mediocre prophets in the Old and New Testament. There were prophets who, although they proclaimed the word of God, sinned and ha to repent on occasion. Moses himself was a prophet, even the "friend" of God, and most meek among men (Num 12:1; Ex 33:11), yet in direct act of disobedience against God, he struck the rock twice instead of once. For that one sin he was denied entrance into the land of Canaan, the very thing for which he had been training for forty years. Peter himself was a prophet and preached well at Pentecost, saving 3000 souls. But his actions were found to be contradictory because, as St. Paul pointed out to him, he wasn't always living up to the gospel that he preached at Pentecost (Gal 2:11-14). So it is possible for a "prophet" to stumble; to do something that is against the gospel rather than for the Gospel. END
But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.This is besides Pastor Æternas itself, which also says the same thing:
Pope Pius IX — The Council of the Vatican, 1869-1870, Pastor Æternas: "The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by his revelation, but rather, that with his assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles."
"Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him...." Condemned. — Denzinger 1105. See Denzinger 1350 concerning the nature of a Papal Censure binding the faithful.This is a very interesting statement, and so I will request the reader's indulgence as I work about analyzing it.
"When you have evidently established that a Pope is a heretic, YOU ARE BOUND to denounce him...."This statement is so clear and so unequivocal that there is no further need for commentary.
What we should immediately begin to ask is why on earth these fallible, although good-hearted, men, think they are the ones who possess the authority to bind others to their conclusions? This is something very important to consider and think about.Now, I will admit and agree that, rather than the nonsensical claims made in his "Challenge", this argument is more formidable.
Sedevacantists will say that they are not making any binding judgment with their conclusion but merely just observing facts.
However, when they begin openly promoting their theories and teaching others to believe likewise for sake of the truth, obviously what they are doing is making a judgment that they feel is necessary for salvation.
They are binding others to this by spreading their theories and instructing others to believe them as well.
In doing so, these fallible clergy men and laity are in fact acting as their own Magisterium. Who gave them such authority to declare such things?
A question that perhaps we can ask them is where in history do we have the laity seeing apparent errors in the hierarchy, and then concluding that the hierarchy has lost their authority over them and thus they must now build their own churches centered around their own approved clergy men, and then begin to teach others to do likewise?He could "perhaps" ask, but we might also ask: Pray, what were you doing when you spent your "8 to 9" months as a "Sedevacantist"? Were you only busy looking for proofs to debunk Sedevacantism?
Who has God-given, binding authority to declare a recognized Pope to be an antipope, and a recognized hierarchy to be an anti-hierarchy? Is it the laity? Do they in fact possess this authority?For Answers: The Church has always given the laity this authority. The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. When clerics become a threat to this, the laity have a right of safeguard against them. Pope Paul IV (John Peter Carafa) himself gave this authority in his Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. Pope St. Pius V (Michael Ghisleri) gave this authority in his Quo Primum. Pope Alexander VII (Fabius Chighi) gave us this authority, as demonstrated above. Pope Pius IX (John Mary Mastai-Ferreti) gave this authority in his Syllabus of Errors. Pope St. Pius X (Joseph Sarto) gave this authority in his condemnations of the Modernists. And so on and on. Any doubts?
The authority belongs to a future Pope or council (as is proven with the historical case of the infamous Pope Honorius I, and the Great Western Schism in which three men simultaneously claims to be pope).The judgment of the Modernist heresiarch will certainly be done by a future Council. Yet, our salvation demands that we be safeguarded from the heretics NOW, when we are under active threat, not when such a Council meets, after the threat has been largely overcome!
"...until that happens (if it ever does)...."Indeed, Moreaux himself inadvertently admits that what to him is the possibility that it will never happen.
...We have faith in God that He will be true to His promises — the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church; the faithful will not be led astray by false authoritative teachings.Given the certitude of Catholic fact that this body of which he speaks is a sect in terminal and irreformable schism, it is impossible that God guarantees to bring it back, or to secure its willing dupes from the damnation that they so willfully pursue.
It is a Sedevacantist myth that the modern hierarchy commands us to accept doctrines that harm the faith.And:
However, Catholics have not been bound to accept any doctrines or practices. Quite the opposite, Catholics are free to resist the novelties precisely because they are not set forth as binding doctrine.I reply: It is evident to anyone who is cognizant with the evidence that Sedevacantist publicly refer to in basing themselves, that Ferrara-Woods are lying, and deliberately and consciously lying.
And we can also appeal to the Vatican on our concerns regarding the direction they are taking. In the book The Great Facade, by Chris Ferrara and Dr. Thomas Woods, the authors note this crucial point perfectly."...the Church has never actually taught any doctrinal error at the level of the Magisterium, as opposed to having adopted ill-defined ecclesiastical policies to which neither a religious (i.e., the assent of prudence) nor an assent of faith can be required, policies not being proper objects of Catholic faith... papal policies and practical decisions, such as the decision to embark on an "ecumenical venture" with Protestants, do not enjoy the divine protection from error that attends a Pope's doctrinal teaching" The Great Facade, pgs. 89-90."...the novelties of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Popes have never actually been imposed as Catholic doctrine....
"In many cases these novelties defy precise definition and cannot be reduced to distinct propositions to which Catholics are bound to give assent" The Great Facade, pg. 189."The things from which traditionalists have prescinded are novel practices, notions, attitudes, and ecclesial policies of the post-Conciliar epoch, none of which has actually been imposed upon Catholics as a requirement of their faith" The Great Facade, pg. 229.
To the Editor:It is interesting that the Dimonds have altered the webpage (Peter Dimond Contra Brian Harrison: Sedevacantism Refuted?) on which this letter appeared, to remove this letter. And it is just as interesting that Mario Derksen reproduces the very same argument, in an expanded form, as the heart of his argument against the pretended papacy of Wojtyla, in his article, On The Status of "John-Paul II".
Since I am alluded to in your interview with Mr. Guimaraes, I felt that it was my duty to respond. There is much to be said in response, but since I only have 300 words, I must move directly to the argument which ends the debate on John Paul II.
In promulgating the 1983 Code of Canon Law in Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, Jan. 25, 1983, John Paul II invokes "the supreme authority with which he is invested" and "the authority of the Blessed apostles Peter and Paul." He also "promulgates," "commands," "declares" and "orders" that this Code be received as the law of the Church. He even remarks that this Code is "an expression of pontifical authority and therefore is invested with a primatial character." Therefore, if John Paul II is the Pope, the 1983 Code of Canon Law represents Church discipline solemnly promulgated by the supreme authority in the Church.
Canon 844.4 of the 1983 Code states that Catholics may give Holy Communion, among other sacraments, to non-Catholics. Such an idea has been condemned by at least seven Popes. Thus, no Catholic can deny that this is a dangerous and harmful law!
But the discipline which the Church issues can never be dangerous or harmful. On Aug. 28, 1794, in Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI solemnly condemned the idea that the Church could ever issue a dangerous or harmful discipline (Denzinger 1578). Furthermore, Auctorem fidei was referred to as "dogmatic" by Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora, and "solemn" by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi; see Denzinger 2092. Therefore, either the Church has defected or John Paul II is not the Pope. Since the Church cannot defect, we know infallibly that John Paul II is not the Pope.
Sincerely,
Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B., Fillmore, N.Y.
"Further history shows us that, Pope Honorius I (625-638) encouraged the Monothelite heresy. Pope Liberious (sic!) Signed a statement of Faith that could be given a heretical meaning. Pope Sixtus issued an Edition of the Septuagint, which was withdrawn after his death due to many errors. Pope Alexander VI bribed his way to the Papacy by the rankest simony, yet he has always been considered a legitimate Pope."Wayne Nichols is another apologist for Lefebvrism. In his "Tract" against Sedevacantism, he twists the facts to suit his theory, yet, nevertheless, his version is closer to the truth than Taouk's:
The case of Pope Honorius I (625-638) is often cited by those who believe that a pope who falls into heresy can be condemned.Against these despicable slanders, I offer this extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, article "Infallibility":
Honorius wrote letters to the combatants in the Monothelite heresy, stating that there was but one will in Christ.
For this, he was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Constantinople.
Be it noted:
- His words bear an orthodox sense. They were written to contradict the false doctrine "that there are two conflicting wills in Christ."
- The Council was condemning the negligence of Honorius, not any positive heresy. This is manifest from the words of Pope St. Leo II that Honorius had failed to stem the tide of heresy.
- The judgment passed on Honorius was not passed during his pontificate, but long after. To be exact, St.Leo II reigned ten pontificates, or 43 years, later. Thus it would be unwise (to speak by understatement) to expect swift, official condemnations of current or recent popes.
The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II.This is what a pre-Vatican II author, the Rev. Fr. George D. Smith says on the subject of Pope Honorius, in his Jesus Christ, God & Man, Catholic Truth Society:
But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence.
In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter's misrepresentation of his opponents' position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills.
Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius's letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal.
The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings.
It was for his failure to make a definite and unequivocal pronouncement on the subject of two wills and operations in Christ that Pope Honorius I was condemned.On another note, here is an interesting passage that also bears relevance to us:
The third Council of Constantinople (680-681) condemned him as "following the false doctrine of heretics" and for "confirming the impious dogmas of Sergius" of Constantinople, who was the leader of the Monotheletes.
But, as is well know, an Ecumenical Council has validity only in asmuch as it is confirmed by the Pope, the head of the Council, and therefore the condemnation of Honorius is to be understood in the sense in which it was approved by Pope Leo II, who wrote as follows:"We anathematize the inventors of this error . . . and also Honorius who did not shed luster upon this apostolic (Roman) Church by the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but allowed this immaculate Church to be stained by a false betrayal."Hence Honorius was anathematized for a practical rather than a dogmatic error, because he failed to condemn a heresy when he should have done so.
"The other consequence of the same principle is that the bishops in council assembled are not commissioned, as are our modern parliaments, to control and limit the power of the sovereign, or head of the State, although circumstances may arise in which it would be, their right and duty firmly to expostulate with the pope on certain of his acts or measures. The severe strictures of the Sixth General Council on Pope Honorius I may be cited as a case in point." —Catholic Encyclopedia, article on General Councils.If one does a intra-site seach for "Honorius I" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen, one will be surprised to find that Pope Honorius I, excepting the Monothelite controversy was a great and pious pope, who did much for the Church, so that, even when we factor in what is, at the end of the day, only a failing, and not a positive crime, we have a score that is comparatively impressive in the roster of popes down the ages!
"Through tacit resignation, accepted by the Law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric... has publicly defected from the Catholic Faith." Emphases added.Therefore, as far as Canon 188 § 4 goes, the clear and literal sense of the Canon's text DOES NOT mandate that any (to paraphrase our heresiarch Sungenis) "authoritative body of the Church apply it to an impugnee prior to his purported election to the Papacy, so that only thereafter could a Catholic impugn such a pretender's claim to be Pope".
"or who have been convicted of having done any of these things"wordings which have been repeated five times, in some form or the other, in the text.
"shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived... " (Emphases added)And again:
"6. (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power." (Emphases added)Papa Carafa, then goes on to address the challenges posed by Sungenis and which he has inspired in Joseph Moreaux, speaking thus of us Recusants who had mistakenly subject themselves to the heretic-imposters, and have subsequently discovered the fact and repudiated these schismatics and apostates, or upon whom these heresiarchs and their apologists wish to impose their Satan-inspired fraud:
"...even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs..."And again:
"...nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties."Moreover, Papa Carafa, being aware of the spies who come in to mislead souls into the path of damnations, who turn and twist all the provisions of the Holy Popes for the safeguardment of souls, prescribed directly for such liars and perverters as Sungenis:
"5. [By this Our Constitution,] moreover, [which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, decree and define:] as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favor, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, confessed or convicted:Nor is this all, for Papa Carafa ends with:
(i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication;
(ii) they shall be rendered infamous;
(iii) they shall be excluded on pain of invalidity from any public or private office, deliberation, Synod, general or provincial Council and any conclave of Cardinals or other congregation of the faithful, and from any election or function of witness, so that they cannot take part in any of these by vote, in person, by writings, representative or by any agent;
(iv) they shall be incapable of making a will;
(v) they shall not accede to the succession of heredity;
(vi) no one shall be forced to respond to them concerning any business;
(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgments shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;
(viii) if they shall have been Advocates, their pleading shall nowise be received;
(ix) if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight;
(xi) laymen, moreover, in the same way — even if they be qualified, as already described, or endowed with the aforesaid dignities or anysoever Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and temporal goods possessed by them;
(xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office. "
"10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul."
"Vatian II teaches that religious liberty is a CIVIL human right, not a MORAL human right. I haven't seen John Paul II contradict that teaching, at least not in any official statement. And even if he did, such an error would not mean that he loses his office, since Honorius and many other popes have already shown us that papal error does not mean the pope loses his office."Religious Liberty whether as a "Civil" human right or as a "moral" human right, to use the fatuous distinction that Sungenis imposes on the question, is still wrong and contrary to Catholic doctrine, and directly contradicts both the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium on the subject.
Pope Pius IX — Syllabus of Condemned Errors (1864):Again, we have Pope Pius XII also speak:
- Condemned Proposition # 77: In our age it is no longer advisable that the Catholic religion be the only State religion, excluding all other cults. (Allocution Nemo Vestrum, July 26, 1855.)
- Condemned Proposition # 78: Therefore it is praiseworthy that in some Catholic regions the law has allowed people immigrating there to exercise publicly their own cult. (Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852.)
- Condemned Proposition # 79: It is false to assert that civil freedom of cult and the full right granted to all to express openly and publicly any opinions and views leads to an easier corruption of morality and of the minds of people and helps to propagate the pest of indifferentism. (Allocution Nunquam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856.)
Pope Pius XII — Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston: No one who knows that the Church has been divinely established by Christ and, nevertheless, refuses to be a subject of the Church or refuses to obey the Roman Pontiff, the vicar of Christ on earth, will be saved.
Seeking peace at the expense of the truth is, as Ezechiel says, like covering deteriorated walls with whitewash to give the appearance of tranquility. It is only a matter of time before God�s wrath puts an end to it all!And here is the quote from Ezechiel:
For the very reason that they led my people astray, saying, "Peace!" when there was no peace, and that, as one built a wall, they would cover it with whitewash, say then to the whitewashers: I will bring down a flooding rain; hailstones shall fall, and a stormwind shall break out. And when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked: Where is the whitewash you spread on? Therefore thus says the Lord God: In my fury I will let loose stormwinds; because of my anger there shall be a flooding rain, and hailstones shall fall with destructive wrath. I will tear down the wall that you have whitewashed and level it to the ground, laying bare its foundations. When it falls, you shall be crushed beneath it; thus you shall know that I am the Lord. When I have spent my fury on the wall and its whitewashers, I tell you there shall be no wall, nor shall there be whitewashers those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw for it visions of peace when there was no peace, says the Lord God — Ezechiel xiii. 10-16.Finally, here is what the Church imposes as the "reward" for Sungenis' crimes:
RETURN TO PART I | RETURN TO PART II
|
PUBLISHED on the Internet: May 30, 2005.
|
|
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
P U R P O S EWritten with the purpose of educating people in matters concerning the Catholic Resistance to the Modernist Apostasy, and based on the principles elucidated by the Church, that the truth is never afraid, and that the Church is never afraid of the Truth, and on the principles elucidated by Frs. Rumble & Carty and by Fulton Sheen in his essay, "The Art of Controversy". — Benedicamus Deus, Lúcio. |
Fair Use NoticeThis web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Lúcio Mascarenhas |