Monothelitism, prevailed for over forty years in the Byzantine Empire. At that time the most vigorous defender of the faith was the monk, Maximus, known as the Confessor, who took part in a Synod convoked at the Lateran (649) by Pope Martin (649-655), to condemn Monothelitism. Both the Pope and Maximus were forced into exile. Maximus’s tongue and right hand were cut off as he refused to subscribe to the Monothelite doctrines. Sophronius, Maximus and Martin are today venerated by the Church as saints for their indomitable resistance to the Monothelite heresy.
Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
December 30, 2015
The case of Pope Honorius is one of the most controversial in the history of the Church. As the Church historian, Emile Amann, rightly notes in the large entry he dedicates to the Question d’Onorius in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (vol. VII, coll. 96-132), the problem needs to be treated in an unbiased manner and with the serene impartiality which history owes to past events (col.96).
At the center of the pontificate of Pope Honorius who reigned from 625-638, was the question of Monothelitism, the last of the great Christological heresies. In order to please the Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius, desirous of guaranteeing religious peace inside his kingdom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, sought to find a compromise between Catholic orthodoxy, according to which in Jesus Christ there are two natures in one person, and the Monophysite heresy, which attributed to Christ one person only and one nature only. The result of the compromise was a new heresy, Monothelitism, according to which, the double nature of Christ was moved in His action of one operation only and one will only. This is semi-Monophysitism, but truth is integral or it is not, and a moderate heresy, is always heresy. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, was among those who intervened with the greatest vigor in denouncing the new doctrine which rendered the humanity of Christ futile and led to Monophysitism , condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (451).
Sergius wrote to Pope Honorius to ask “in future that no-one be permitted to affirm the two operations in Christ Our God” and to receive his support against Sophronius. Honorius unfortunately assented to the request. In a letter to Sergius he affirmed that “the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ was one only (unam voluntatem fatemur), for “the fact that our human nature was assumed by the Divinity” and he invited Sophronius to be silent. The correspondence between Sergius and Honorius is conserved in the acts of VI Ecumenical Council (Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio, vol. XI, cols. 529-554) and was republished in Latin, Greek and French by Arthur Loth La cause d’Honorius. Documents originaux avec traduction, notes et conclusion, Victor Palmé, Paris 1870 and in Greek and German by Georg Kreuzer, Die Honoriusfrage im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit, Anton Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1975).
AMDG
I'm uncomfortable with the de Mattei article. He is an excellent historian and writer, devout and insightful. But if the "in between the lines" message is that because there have been heretical popes in a certain sense before, we shouldn't lose our heads over Francis' heresies and heretical tendencies.
ReplyDeleteThings seem much worse with Francis, especially because of the era of more defined and developed theology we live in, also the accessibility of information, mass communication and a slew of Vatican advisors there at the pope's disposal. Isn't there a special "theologian" of the papal household?
Truly, in my opinion, the all pervasive heresy at work is modernism because there are lots of elements that are coming up erroneous in his speeches and writings. Also, it is the even more rotten and fermented modernism that has been festering and infecting things for more than 100 years now, especially at and since Vatican II.
Well, it refutes one of the basic credal tenets of the sedevacantist heresy, does it not?
DeleteNo. It is Catholic Truth that the Chair of Saint Peter can be empty for a time, but despite Matteo's mediocre efforts, it will never be Catholic truth that a public heretic and public blasphemer be Pope. What Matteo preaches is the redundancy of Christ's promise. Under Matteo's error, Bergoglio could officiate at a satanic open-air all channel live 'mass' at Wembly and he would be a valid pope.
DeleteLol, its Doctor Mattei, who has spent his life studying Church History, not Matteo.
DeleteIt takes more than repeating these things repeatedly to make them true.
"LOL." Roman Catholic priests, their vocations finding ordination under Archbishop Lefebvre (thanks to Pius XII), and who continued that Vocation despite the SSPX'S vacillations. The Archbishop himself wrote that Wojtyla was an 'antichrist'; and died excommunicated from the horror that is Matteo's Novus Ordo. So...Novus Ordo layman versus the Remnant of Apostolic Succession who have not only studied but lived the Truth of holding to sacramental Catholicity for five decades in the post-VII occupation...http://www.traditionalmass.org/
DeleteI dont really find it funny or cute; I doubt any of us do.
PS. If Mattei and those who preach as he does have an answer to the idea of Bergoglio performing a satanic service at wembly whilst being acknowleged as Christ in Proxy, it would be cause for fruitful discussion, I would hope. Because Mattei's thesis does admidt Christ in Proxy as an antichrist - a most Protestant doctrine.
DeleteNone of these ill-advised animadversions and histrionics help your claim.
DeleteWhat do you mean? Is the Catholic warning against Protestantism 'histrionic'. Empty insults are a convenience..a temtptation. Whoever you are, please, parrot a Pope, a Saint, Catholic Scripture, or shut-up.
DeleteBergog Inc hate parrots. You decide.
DeleteOh, yeah, I forgot, it is a Novus Ordo mortal sin to ask an ignoramus anti-Catholic to 'shut-up'. Therefore, if you are determined to play for team satan ... declare yourself or shut-up.
DeletePS. By the way, in the most courteous, 'viva Regina' of pc spirit, of course 'shut up' means know what you're talking about if your are claiming to know what you're talking about as a job/hobby before thousands of folks.
DeleteThis part is really troublesome:
ReplyDeletePope Honorius’ letters are devoid of these characteristics ['the necessary defining character: quod ad formam seu modum attinet']. They are undoubtedly Magisterial acts, but in the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium there may be errors and even, in exceptional cases, heretical formulations
Why is he so sure "They are undoubtedly Magisterial acts"? Just because the Ordinary Magisterium isn't always infallible, that doesn't mean it can teach falsehoods or lead the faithful into error. The Church is indefectible.
Michael Davies appears to hold the same error that De Mattei holds, viz. that the Ordinary Magisterium—and thus, by extension, the Church—can lead people into err; this is against the indefectibility of the Church.
cf. this, as well as John Daly's excellent description on infallibility and the Ordinary & Extraordinary Magisteria in Michael Davies: An Evaluation (2015) pp. 216-231.
Are you a monothelete then?
DeleteWhat does that have to do with whether Pope Honorius's letter was an act of the Ordinary Magisterium or not?
DeleteOf course it was, a public affirmation of a heretical position.
DeleteSt. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, wrote that Pope Honorius I was not a Monothelite heretic:
DeleteThen they say, however, that a little below he [Pope Honorius I] clearly preaches only one will in these words: “Wherefore, we profess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I respond: In that place, Honorius spoke only on the human nature, and wished to say that in the man, Christ, there were not two wills opposing each other, one of the flesh and the other of the spirit; but only one, namely the spirit. For the flesh in Christ desired absolutely nothing against reason. Moreover, this is the mind of Honorius, and that is plain from the reason that he gave. Thus he says: “Wherefore, we affirm one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because certainly our nature was assumed by the divinity, there is no fault, certainly that which had created sin, not that which was damaged after sin.” This reasoning is null, if it is advanced to prove in Christ, God and man there is only one will: it is very efficacious, if thence it must be proved, that in Christ the man where there not contrary wills of the flesh and spirit. That contrariety is born from sin, but Christ has a human nature without sin.
(from Ryan Grant's translation, Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Fatih ch. 4)
We Catholics wouldn't be worrying so much about any of this if we hadn't let ourselves be painted into a corner by the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility. That's why real traditionalists reject not only the errors of Vatican II, but those of Vatican I as well. Personally, I think we were better of when the popes had the Papal States to keep them busy. Once they saw their temporal power ebbing away, they tried to compensate by expanding their spiritual power. Paul VI could never have tampered with the Mass had it not been for Vatican I.
ReplyDeleteI'm bemused by those who paint everything with the broad brush of 'modernism', the heresy that seems to defy definition--'I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it.' Many so-called 'modernists' were unfairly silenced in those 19th and early 20th century witch hunts. Does anybody today seriously believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (as the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pius X insisted)?
The syllabus of errors was not oblique about modernism. It is clear and anyone could understand it. Likewise the warnings of Pius X, and Leo XIII, up to Pius XII. Modernism, like Communism, is a tool of revolution. Unlike Communism, Modernism usually manages to conquer a soul without the soul batting an eye. The Art of War says this sort of successful conquering is the art of the masters of war.
DeleteThe Syllabus of Errors was a list of very specific ideas that Pius X did not like. Personally, I’m inclined to agree with him on most of them (though I have reservations about some—eg, 63 and 77-78). But that’s my point—it’s a laundry list of notions that can’t be summed up in a few sentences, the way Monotheletism (or Arianism or Pelgianism) can.
DeletePius tried to do that, in the very unconvincing Pascendi Dominici Gregis, but in nearly 15,000 words (Latin word count) he still was unable to succinctly describe what he was so hot and bothered about. His explanation was that those naughty modernists ‘employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast.’ And ultimately, according to P10, ‘Modernism’ is the ‘synthesis of all heresies’. He then wanders off into some rather embarrassing demand for censorship.
Look, maybe Pius X was a saint. But just like sinners, saints sometimes say dumb things.
We've lost too many good people through a narrow-minded Ultramontanism: Döllinger, Tyrrell, et al.
If we are Catholic we must do more than feel inclined to agree or disagree. Encyclicals fall into the the category of infallibitiy as does any public teaching from the Holy See.
DeleteThat's clearly untrue. Vatican I states otherwise.
Delete"The First Vatican council dealt with the faith, condemned rationalism, and defined papal infallibility in order to fend off Gallicanism (the erroneous opinion that the Pope is infallible only when he teaches in union with the totality if bishops, in other words only the College affords infallibility). European Freemasons were promulgating misinformation about Papal infallibility - that being that the Pope is always infallible and even always impeccable - to exaggerate and confuse the issue..."We with this Council of Bishops (in order that the Gallicans had no recourse to deny the definition even by their own standards) teach that the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra (from the 'chair' - that is speaking as the Vicar of Christ). The Pope speaking 'ex cathedra' does not have to be 'solemn'. Encylicals can be ex cathedra. Pius XII in Humani Generis condemned rejecting encycliacls as being no 'ex cathedra'. Pius XII reiterated that the encyclical comes under the charism of 'he who hears you, hears Me.' Pius confimed that encyclicals treating of controversial matter and making a pronouncement on them make a dogmatic definition ending the matter..."Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine." (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis
DeleteAlso: Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton - Doctrinal Authority on Encyclicals.
Viterbo, it seems odd that you can reject Vatican II but not Vatican I. They've both got problems, and it was the 'traditionalists' who were margianalised at Vatican I, and let's just say that Pius IX wasn't at his best at the (as yet unfinished) First Vatican Council--which was every bit as 'rigged' as the recent synod in Rome.
DeleteYes, only 2 bishops had the chutzpah to stick it out to the end and vote non placet to the definition of papal infallibility, but it disturbed plenty of others (who left so they wouldn't have to vote).
There will never be Christian unity as long as we go on pretending that the 2 Vatican councils were on a par with Nicaea, Chalcedon and the other truly oecumenical councils. As Catholics we need to admit when we''ve got it wrong.
Don't misunderstand me: I very much believe in the infallibility of the pope--as long as he's very careful about what he says. And the less he says, the more infallible he is.
We don't need to be theologians. Read the Penny Catechism, and we understand that Christ's truth was, at Vatican II, departed from, as it was by the 'council' of Luther and friends.
DeleteThe Church pondered on the meaning of the removal of the 'restrainter' or the one 'who holds back', in 2 Thessalonians. Catholic Fathers and later theologians saw this 'restrainer' as the present and valid successor of St Peter. 'Removed' by faithlessness, the mystery of iniquity has its own folk-given free-will.
http://mhtseminary.libsyn.com/sermon-bishop-mckenna-funeral-sermon-by-bp-sanborn
DeleteThere are a few folks still living who received the Holy sacraments under the aegis of Pius XII. The honest of those will tell you that 'Catholic' under the 'aegis' of the New Order, is antichrist.
DeleteChrist's Bride is infallible...meaning her shepherds are of Christ and do not preach lies.
"[This council] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. Pope Eugene IV: Council of Florence, Decree Cantate Domino."
On 16 February 1559, Pope Paul IV issued the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand “deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy,” his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be “null, legally invalid and void.”
"Saint Peter's Successors will at no time deviate from the Faith...Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather, he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. For he who does not believe is already judged." Pope Innocent III, In Consecratione
"In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate...it is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of its blood...strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, IT MAKES NO TERMS WITH ERROR." Pope Leo XIII (A Review of His Pontificate).
"Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy” Pope Pius XI Quas Primas
St. Alphonsus Liguori: “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.”
"If public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the 'Catholic Church?' How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity?" Dogmatic Theology II: Christ's Church, 153."
Indeed, encyclicals are not necessarily infallible, thanks for proving that even more by posting Msgr. Fenton.
DeleteSheesh.
One thing is for sure. The 'cradle Catholic' is a dead phrase, thanks to VII heresiarchs and the mindless modernists pew punters, but, worse, the recognise and resist. Natal-Novus-Ordite is as far as faithless 'cultural'ego-boosting Antichrists can claim, now. It's well beyond back scratching rubbish. Call a spade a spade. Is the Blood of Christ confected by a protestant 'rite'?
DeletePS. The question is rhetorical. Sans Catholicity, no gratuity.
DeleteAnd BTW, Holy Mother Church demands that one who is looked to, without reproach, as a shepherd, must be obeyed and honoured as Christ's Proxy. So for those have no clue of Christ or Faith, Bride, Sacraments, no sweat...any creep in a cassock is 'shddp/wolf...'
DeleteOtherwis ask, seek, knock. Understand that historically the Church has never been so abused by self-appointed protestants. Look to poor maligned Pius XII, who converted the Rabbi of Rome during the Churchill State of Israel push, and who resisted the cruelty of Hilter and the evil of communism.
But meanwhile, montini (aka-paul 6) was collaborating with communists, who were welcomed by his father in faith, after the death of Pius XII, Roncalli.
Unprecedented satanism pretending Christ. Wake up,
Try and stick to the topic on the post, you know, keep your posts to the point.
DeleteI'd like to reply to a point,please?
DeleteFact:Pius XII promoted the future Paul VI to Archbishop of Milan.
Fact:Pius XI was elected Pope while serving as Archbishop of Milan.
If Pius XII was "so conservative" why would he promote a known leftist like Montini (the future Paul VI)to the same post Pius XI was serving before elected Pope? Please remember,I am just asking a question.This is not sarcasm or a hidden agenda.Thank you for your time.
Fact. Pius XII battled against Communism; had a standing excommunication against such evil (revoked by Roncalli who signed a truce with Stalin just as Wojtyla signed a truce with the schismatic 'east'), yet 'excommunicated' the SSPX; but let's remember Pope Pius XII converted the 'Cheif Rabbi of Rome' and his whole family, to Catholicsm....what for? If VII is Catholic?
DeleteWould that 'erudite' Novus Ordo voices felt such fodder was worthy of Catholic conversation
DeleteIf only we had a time machine.
ReplyDeleteHonorius was not a heretic in any true sense of the word. He was not a Monothelite. He never affirmed one operation of Christ, nor that He had only one will, except insofar as His human will was perfectly conformed to His divine will. His crime was that he allowed the heresy to fester in the East for the sake of political expediency and peace. For this he was condemned as one of the heretics, because he helped their cause by his cowardice.
ReplyDeleteFrancis, on the other hand, is a REAL heretic. He professes heresies, and completely believes them. To use the case of Honorius to defend one's continued adherence allegiance to Bergoglio is a situation of reaching for straws.
You didn't actually read the article.
DeleteAnd all things accused against Honorius were post-mortum based on private missives. Where is the public apostasy? The manifest wolf roaming? Thank God Saint Bellarmine had a Catholic intellect, even if his 'readers' do not.
DeleteToo bad ecumenical councils trump Jesuits.
DeleteVatican I confirmed there has never been a Pope who was a public heretic, as in one who contradicted defined Dogma and Doctrine in his teachings. Given that VI was the last Catholic Council, it is too bad for those want to have a manifest heretic and Pope in the same cassock.
Deletehttp://www.fathercekada.com/2016/01/01/why-do-traditionalists-fear-sedevacantism/
You'll have to do better than copy and paste a link to "Father" Cekeda's writings.
DeleteWhat do you mean by 'do better'. Fr Cekada is meticulous in citing and noting Church authority before he puts ink to paper, unlike 99.99% of self-professed 'catholics', who want their protestant 'pope' to boss around, and want their Protestant 'other Christ' to dress up as belial.
DeleteI guess it would be easy to make this a conversation about a Roman Catholic Priest. But rather it is about Catholic Truth.
DeleteBTW. Have you read the 1983 'profession of faith' of the Novus Ordo? If you think you have the Novus Ordo 'right' to second guess your heresiarch, think again.
Citing Ultramontanist propaganda would be a better way of putting it. Many popes were heretics and condemned as such.
DeleteWhen did Catholic theologiansn who Sainted become fodder for falsehood? Have you read the 1983 Profession of Novus Ordo Faith? Because it speaks an 'infallibility' to be obeyed far beyond Vatican I.
DeleteIt's just evidence you chose to reject because it doesn't support your hackneyed, hoarded and confused perspective.
DeleteKeep telling yourself that on Sunday (or maybe you go in for the JPII 'vigil mass'), when the presider offers the name of a heresiarch as His 'servant', and welcomes unconsecrated hands as His 'priests'. Also, the great tome that is the Novus Ordo Daily Missal boasts to be able to include most of the worthwhile bits of the protestant bible in a new three year marathon, but emits a rather important scripture. Do you know which one?
DeleteDo you always respond to the debunking of your claims by responding repeatedly with irrelevant material?
DeleteSt Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church, disagrees. I'll go with Bellarmine.
ReplyDeleteTancred, I don't know why you're saying I didn't read the article. Wasn't de Mattei suggesting that Honorius was a Monothelite? And, therefore, that a heretical pope is possible? And, therefore, that we must accept the barking-at-the-moon heretic Bergoglio as also a true pope?
ReplyDeleteThe problem, however, for de Mattei and the rest of you guys who make this argument is that, while Bergoglio is quite obviously a Modernist, Honorius was, on the contrary, quite obviously NOT a Monothelite; for in none of his writings did he profess the tenets of that heresy, but rather exhibited a completely orthodox understanding of the issue. He was, however, guilty of permitting the heretics to run rampant by his duplicitous policy of suppressing truthful expressions along with heretical ones for the sake of peace and, so he claimed, for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings. These were the reasons for his being condemned by various councils, which, by the way, would have no competence in actually judging him to have been a formal heretic with anything approaching infallibility.
How can you say that Honorius was not a Monothelite? It was precisely in his writings to Sergius that he failed to defend the orthodox faith, gave succour to the heretics, and by implication affirmed one operation in Christ.
DeleteHe was not only condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council, but this condemnation was sanctioned by two of his successors. Are you saying that Pope St Agatho and Pope St Leo II were in error when they condemned Honorius as a heretic? As well as all their successors who confirmed that condemnation?
It appears to me that sedevacantists are nothing more than hyper-ultramontanists who are prepared to deny the reality of history in order to make it conform with their false interpretation of Pastor Aeternus. The logical conclusion that leads from Vatican I is that if the Pope is only infallible under certain limited conditions, then at other times he is not infallible and thus is capable of believing and teaching error.
Far from the OP being an attack by de Mattei on sedes (everything really is not all about you handful of enthusiastic ultramontanists), it is laying the groundwork for the condemnation of an heretical Pope. If enough Cardinals are to be persuaded to act against this Pope, it is necessary to educate them about the fact that there are precedents for heretical Popes existing in the first place.
Read this brief article from the American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1882:
Deletehttp://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm
Honorius was not a Monothelite.
Furthermore, Pope St. Leo II condemned Honorius for duplicity, not heresy. As for Pope St. Agatho, he never breathed a word against Honorius. I don't know where you're getting the idea that he condemned him.
Unfortunately, an Ecumenical Council, signed by Pope Leo II, specifically mentions the letter as the basis of the condemnation.
DeleteIndeed. The Condemnation of Honorius appeared in the Roman Breviary in the lessons appointed for the feast of Leo II. The charge was most certainly Monothelitism. From the early years of the sixteenth century the name of Honorius magically disappears from the list.
DeleteChrist's Human Will Is in communion with The Divine Will of God.
Delete"I Have Come to do My Father's Will."
Page 117, of the pope's book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
Delete“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity. - Jorge Mario Bergoglio
A Catholic conscience must be in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Gee I thought he was talking about our bishop of Rome
ReplyDeleteMe too, what a mistake! Thought it was him...
DeletePersonally I am not saying he isn't the Pope.With that said,I don't see how any of them (Popes) since 1951 can be the Pope.
ReplyDeleteI say 1951 because Pius XII violated Session 7 Canon 13 Council of Trent.It got worse after that every few year's
Please explain.
DeletePius XII has an impeccabile doctrinal record. He never promulgated universal error. He fought falsehood, communism, liberalism, as the wolves gathered about his death bed.
DeleteWithin a few years of his passing the Mod-squad had engratiated themselves for the first time publicly to satan's freemasons who praised Roncalli's first Encyclical..
Truth is Pius XII'S Mystici corporis Christi back to Trent, Saint Thomas and the Early Fathers bowed to Christ the King. Their one voice heard through the Pius' to Pius XII.....condemning heresy, apostasy, schism (Novus Ordo), all protestant novelties and antichrist 'authorities'
Non-topical. Thanks though.
DeleteViterbo,I respectfully disagree yet understand what you're saying.I disagree yet it's very possible you could be correct.My opinion is he violated Session 7 multiple times starting in 1951.Like any well oiled functioning organization,one rule was broken (easter vigil 1951) and it slowly cracked & crumbled little by little culminating in Dec.1969 novus ordo missae.Time will tell who holds the correct view.Happy New Year may our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ bless and guide you and your loved ones.
DeleteAnonymous, Thank you for explaining. Yes, Pius XII was a great innovator. Strange that the sedes think he was a good thing.
DeleteThere are Sedes who reject Pius X.
DeleteWhat? Catholics know a pope from a pan; not by private rev, but by manifest Catholic doctrine, dogma and worship. History is open (unless one hides in the nettles of revolution). Nothing is hidden in these times, except satan from satan.
DeleteI know of Roman Catholics who reject Pius X sainthood,not him as a Pope.
ReplyDeleteFrom their perspective,it's that Pius X was bad,it's how Pius XII went about the Canonization process coupled with the Easter Vigil innovation 3 years earlier.I am not saying who is wrong or right nor do I wish to argue.Simply explaining what certain Catholics have told me in the past.
I meant to say.."It's not that Pius X was bad,it's how Pius XII went about the canonization process." Sorry typo
DeleteHe changed the liturgy.
DeleteTalk about montantists. Bugnini et al, exploiting the last years of the last Pope we have, trialed the Holy Week changes. Roncalli and Sons, however, instituted, universally, protestant and rabbinically warrented liturgical evils.
DeleteViterbo Pius XII was Pope from 1951-1958.
DeleteUnder Pius XII some of the oldest traditions in the church were destroyed.Holy Week,Easter Vigil,after midnight fast changed to 3 hours,dialogue mass,lay lector's reading the epistle,allowed Austrians and Chinese to use vernacular during mass (except during the consecration which Latin was used).
I am not being rude but these are facts.Our Chapel avoids every change post 1950.Its nothing personal please don't take these facts as insults.
No Pius XII was Pope from 1939, till his death in 1958. He combated communism, socialism, modernism and novelty left right and centre. He converted the rabbi of Rome and his whole family to Catholicism and warned against the error of the innovators. He put the likes of Ratzinger and even Roncalli on the suspected of heresy list. As soon as Roncalli shuffled on his ill-gotten slippers he abolished the condemnations and excommunications of communism put in place by Pius XII. Further, Roncalli's successor, Montini, was a traitor against Pius XII and all Catholics suffering in Communist Russia.
DeleteAn evil critter called Bugnini boasted over the death-bed of Pius XII of having passed by the Pius his new liturgical experiments. If you can get a copy, read 'Work of Human Hands', by Rev. Anthony Cekada.
PS. None of this is hidden. We don't live in such times.
DeleteThat's nice. Pius XII changed Holy Week.
Delete@viterbo: Fr. Cekada even acknowledges Pope Pius XII is no Pope St. Pius X.
DeleteNo. Blimey. Folks really can say anything they like. The priests who kept Apostolic Succession because of the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre yet conformed to Catholic teaching by abstaining from heresiarchs and their Novus Ordo religion, acknowledge the Pius's and every true Catholic Pope till the death of Pius XII. Easy. If there is a area left grey it is Roncalli (though most have no doubt as to his public heresy - especially in his welcoming of communism, new ecumenism, and calling the Second Vatican Council (remember Roncalli was the first to innovate with the canon (oldest part) of the Mass) but Montini onwards are out and out 'Nopes', warlocks and traitors, to be treated as such. The evil fruits are enough to drown Africa in.
Delete"In order to be Catholic, one must accept every article of the Faith. A non-Catholic cannot be head of the Catholic Church...There you go. It’s that easy. The consequences are not easy, but the argument is." From the Thinkinghousewifeblog.
Stop living in denial Pius XII made these changes mandatory,Vitrtbo.Its nothing personal friend I promise.
Delete"The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man." Pope Benedict XVI
ReplyDeletePage 117, of the pope's book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
ReplyDelete“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity."- Jorge Mario Bergoglio