Will The Catholic Church Survive...
© Prakash John Mascarenhas. 24th November 2002.
Some Notes
Baldassare Cossa & Pope Gregory XII
On page 106, the book states that John XXIII was the last of the Avignonese popes. Latter, on page 406, the book identifies him as the Pisan claimant. In fact, Baldassare Cossa or John XXIII was a pirate who had reformed and had become a cleric, then an ecclesiastic. When the first Pisan claimant Alexander V died, he was succeeded by Baldassare Cossa who took the name of John XXIII. Cossa had no known links with France or Avignon. In fact, he is the claimant who had the most support as against the Roman and Avignonese claimants, and it was he who summoned and convoked the Council of Constance, which latter deposed him.
The book says, page 405, that Constance deposed Pope Gregory XII, the last of the Roman line. In fact, it did not. Of the three claimants of the time, Gregory XII, John XXIII and Benedict (XIII?) or Peter of Luna, the contemporary claimants of the Roman, Pisan and Avignonese lines respectively, only Gregory XII submitted to the Conciliarist movement seeking to end the Great Western Schism by resigning his claim. The other two promised but failed to resign and so were deposed. The Pisan line ended with Cossa's submission after his capture by the Conciliarists, however, Peter of Luna fled to Peniscola in Catalonia and his line, it is said, continues till our day. (The Catholic Enclyclopedia, 1910, says that it continued till then.)
Aryan or Arian?
The book seems to confuse Arianism and Aryanism. (See Catholic Encyclopedia article on Arianism.)
Arius was an Egyptian priest who commenced the Arian heresy that rent and threatened the entire Church at two different times: the first, immediately after he commenced this heresy, when St. Athanasius fought most valiantly against it, the second time, when the Germanic tribes, who had been won over to Arianism, over-ran the Roman Empire and broke it into separate states.
By his name, Arius was most probably of Persian descent, as Mani, the founder of the Manichaean heresy, was. The Persians and Indians being cognate people, the name Arius would be understood in India as Arya, meaning noble. (The name Mani, or jewel, is also quite frequent in India, as it was in pre-Islamic Iran. India had recently the Field Marshal Manekshaw).
On the other hand, the appellations Aryan and Aryanism are of comparatively recent development, being developed from the Hindu idea of racial superiority, and having the same root word as the name Arius — Arya, or noble. German neo-pagans adopted it from the Hindus and developed it so that it finally became Nazism. There is no doctrinal connection, as far as I know between the Arian heresy and the much latter Aryanism.
Woman's Vote
The book takes the position that women will not be permitted to participate in the election process and will be strictly excluded. However, the actual election included women.
The authors should have explained this, atleast by supplement. However, this is not a major issue, for I do not see that there is any good doctrinal reason for excluding women from the procedure, it being, as it was, an extra-ordinary election by the laity. There are prohibitions against women taking a public part in the public liturgies of the Church, but not, however, in the private liturgy or life of the Church. Moreover, as I have shown, the objection raised by some, that this restriction must be observed even for these latter, does not hold, as the New Testament, in the Acts of the Apostles itself show that the daughters of St. Phillip the Evangelist publicly prophesised, and this without censuring them for it.
Pope Innocent II vs. the Antipope Anacletus II
The law of the Church at the time forbade dealing with the succession to the papacy during the lifetime of the reigning pope, yet, Peirleoni continually negotiated to secure the election, post-mortuum, for himself. Moreover, he not only indulged in simony, but he also violated Church law by contriving an election by the Cardinal-priests and Cardinal-deacons, while, in observation of the current law, Innocent was elected by the Cardinal-Bishops solely. It was these defects, not his Jewish ancestry, so much, that caused him to be rejected by St. Bernard and those who adhered to Innocent II. The Innocent vs. Anacletus schism had a rerun a few decades later with the Pope Alexander III being opposed by the antipope Victor IV-II, a stooge of the Emperor Barbarossa.
Catholic Membership
In response to Objection #10 (page 354) and the answer provided to it by the authors, I say: Like David Bawden, I was born (31st August 1966) after the Great Apostacy, and in the New Church. However, while I too entertain serious doubts about the validity of my baptism, I merely wish to state that, as far as Church teaching is concerned, a person who is validly baptised as a child, even if in a heretical or schismatic sect, he is not constituted a member of that sect but of the Catholic Church. And that he continues to be a member until he comes to reason and joins some sect or the other in its rites and liturgies, incurring excommunication from the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius IX: The Pope Who Was A Freemason?
The treatment of Pope Pius IX by this book has been one of the most disturbing things. However, on 15th October 2002, while returning home from work, I found and purchased from the flea-market, Fr. Herbert Thurston's book, No Popery! which treated of the same subject. (See here). This book has an imprimatur and was published in 1930, and I have found an original copy, which I got for the bargain price of Rs. 10. (Approximately, nineteen cents.) I found the same book listed on the internet, apparently reprints, for twentythree dollars! (See here.) Thurston refutes in detail all the allegations made against Pope Pius IX (John-Mary Mastai-Ferreti) of having become a Freemason as a youth, or at anytime else. I will try and convert the particular section into electronic format. Given, therefore, Thurstons' version, I find the version presented by Benns and Bawden in their book unacceptable.
Archbishop Lefebvre's Trinitarian Heresy
The 'Trinitarian Heresy' attributed to Lefebvre (pgs. 188 & 268): "The humanity of our Lord Jesus was penetrated by the divinity of the Word of God... divinity itself descending into humanity," still confuses me, especially since I cannot see its connection with the error proscribed by Pope Vigilius: "If anyone says or holds that the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin, and that after this, God, the Word, and the Soul, since it has pre-existed, were united to it, let him be anathema". I am not aware that the Church has ever condemned any such heresy under such a name, Trinitarian. However, from the words attributed to Lefebvre, it would seem that this might be something like the Monophysite heresy, or a mitigated form, though I am no theologian. This is a subject that will need to be settled from the teaching of the Church.
Pope St. Pius X and Innovation
I have contended that there are legitimate innovations and illegitimate innovations, and it is never permissible to take the position that there can be absolutely no innovations whatsoever in the Church. (See my position here.) For this reason, and also for my condemnation of the Guerardist mis-innovation called the Papa Formaliter, Papa Materialiter formula, I have lost the friendship of a person who belongs to the Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel, based in Italy. Now, I find the strong words of Pope St. Pius X, when Bishop of Mantua, (page 325), and which justify my position.
See T. Benns' clarifications.