“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”;[Luke 10:16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
HUMANI GENERIS p. 20, Pope Pius XII, 12 August 1950.
This appears to me to be good logic .
So where does that leave the SSPX?
Confused.
That would be schism if you claim he is definitely pope. It is not s schism to have doubts about him and therefore not obey. You are also free to disobey evil commands, since no popes can change the moral law.
Forgive me if I’m incorrect, but isn’t there just “THE” Magisterium? Isn’t saying “his” Magisterium kinda like saying “his” Truth?
No, you’re not incorrect. So if he proclaims a magisterium in opposition to THE Magisterium, we have a problem sin front of us in the form of an antipope.
“his” magisterium” would be lowercase to distinguish between the Magisterium. Sort of of the Conciliar church vs the Catholic Church.
So…if a pope settles the issue on the valid form for episcopal consecration (like Pius XII did) , and a future council and a future pope were to create a new Rite, with a new different form (say…the Conciliar rite), what do you have? At the least you have a schismatic act.
The entire post-conciliar era is replete with rejection of pre-Conciliar teachings which settled issues. That puts nearly the entire post-conciliar hierarchy at odds with Pius XII ‘s statement.
The funny thing is, if he’s right, Vatican II is obviously wrong and not Catholic. If he’s wrong…then Vatican II is STILL wrong, because it bases its authority on previous papal authority (which it obviously rejects).
Pius XII didn’t “settle the issue” on episcopal consecration form, any more than earlier popes “settled” it, and it went back and forth several times.
FYI, I allow Sedes to comment here, but I won’t let it bury the blog. I made this post knowing full well that the quote cuts both ways, and I admitted as such to one of my close Sede friends.
I don’t consider myself a sedevacantist, but we’ve got a serious problem.
Even the idea that Pius XII didn’t “settle” the issue is questionable because he JUST SAID that when a pope speaks on an issue that is up for debate, there is no debate.
I really have no clue what is going on. I can’t in good conscience consider the Conciliar church “Catholic”, but what exactly does that mean? I mean we know for sure that Bergoglio is not now, never was, and never will be pope. But he was only possible because of Paul VI, JPII, and BXVI.
It’s not pretty, whatever it is…
This raises some serious issues.
1) Pope Pius XII, in Sacramentum Ordinis, settled the question on the valid form for episcopal consecration. The NO form is sparse and open to interpretation (unlike the valid form). At the very least, the writers of the new rite were committing a schismatic act in drawing up a new rite.
2) Mystici Corporis explains that a bishop’s jurisdiction comes from the pope. Vatican II says it comes from the bishop’s “ordination”. Apparently, the document rejects the legitimate authority of the pre-Conciliar popes. That would be a schismatic act.
3) Quo Primum was interpreted by all the post-Tridentine popes to be binding in perpetuity. In fact, under what Pius XII said (as quoted here by Mark), Pius V settled the issue in the form of Mass in perpetuity. Vatican II and the NO rejected the legitimate authority of Pius V (and the interpretation of all the popes since Pius V). That would make the NO schismatic in nature.
Pope Gregory XVI, in Mirari Vos, tells us that in order to “reform” or “restore” the Church, a new, non-Catholic, non-Divine, purely human institution would need to be created, one devoid of supernatural protection from error. Paul VI gave us a “new Mass for a new church”. JPII was a “new pope for a new church” and Pope Benedict said in his letter to German priests, that he and his associates, at Vatican II, created a new church (and admitted it was a failure).
Aaron, do you have a link for this letter to German priests wherein BXVI admits VII is a new Church and failure? I searched, but came up empty. Thanks.
The quote from Benedict of a new church having been tried and failed, he is not referring to Vatican II, but rather the reformation. It’s a common misperception he was referring to Vatican II, but it is now quite obvious, he was not.
Thanks Mark…..also hard to believe he said that about the reformation. 🤭
From the Harvey Millican piece:
“You see it already in the words of Uncle Arthur Roache as he tells us we are Protestant for not gleefully embracing the wonders of V2. Ask yourself this simple question. If what I believe was right and correct and CATHOLIC in 1959 but now makes me Protestant because the Catholics of today now embrace Protestant liturgy and theology, then who exactly is the Protestant? They are admitting, albeit in a shoddily veiled way, that they have concocted a new religion.”
Yes, a new religion that did not begin with Jorge. BiP is barking up the wrong tree, imo. He’s as much a heretic and apostate as Jorge, JPII and the rest. He IS a man of the council.
As to Ann Barnhardt; she’s been an American voice, if not the voice for BiP. But something isn’t right there. Did you read her post from yesterday? Using ***’s to say what she said doesn’t make what she said less offensive. There was absolutely no reason to speak so plainly of such a vile act. None. That piece was not of the Holy Ghost nor from a pious soul and I am certain, beyond doubt, our Lady is not happy about it.
Something is very wrong with Miss Barnhardt. Either she’s not who she appears to be, or she’s under great spiritual attack and therefore should stop advising Catholics, or as she accuses others, is influenced by $$$ (there’s evidence she is not poor and living in a van…..that schtick has got to go).
I write this as an outsider looking in and not out of any hatred for her, she’s the instrument God used to bring me to the truth of traditional Catholicism. For that, I will always be grateful and pray for her. And Ann, I offered Mass and prayed for you at the Holy Sacrifice today……take a sabbatical.
Using bad words does not sever one from the Church, nor does Ann proclaim her words ate unspired by the Holy Spirit.
Here us something you need to drill into your head and I say this to you and people like you charitably –
Most Catholics/Christians are pussies.
They are cowards who put “nicey-nice-ness” before truth and think of themselves as being very chaste and pious and oh-so-sanctimoniously holy.
It is these Catholics and “Christians” who have sat back and allowed the world to turn to shit.
^ Notice I have used that word, and I’m not hiding it between asterixes.
As our language goes on its meaning perfectly encapsulates the filth and degeneracy of our age without me spending paragraphs of detail.
Strong language has a place when necessary. Our Lord, also used name-calling when appropriate.
Ann is in the business of tackling those topics where fairy-people refyse to tread and thus ignore and thus pretend isn’t happening and refuse to talk about it and have thus allowed it to grow.
It is a job that needs to try and handle things mpst vulgar, in an age where vulgarity is part of the cimmon vocabulary, alongside the frustration of getting people to look at things they DELIBERATELY don’t want to acknowledge and therefore allow fo corrupt as they attend their polite tea-parties.
Strong language and vulgar words lie in the same realm as violence. They are best avoided, not the be carelessly and frivilously used, and a last resort, but perfectly permissable for JUST REASONS WHEN NECESSITY DEMANDS. A foul word can either escalate or deescalate a situation just as a man may draw a gun or reveal he is packing one in his holster. It is up to prudence to decide.
Being gentle all the way doesn’t mean you are best buds with the holy spirit. There are all kinds of saints. Some were gentle, some were very mean. The most gentle tended to be those women who were cloistered and therefore taking additional pains to separate themselves from the world for contemplative reasons. Not the sort who had to deal with the vulgar and violent scum out there who’d easily pick on the nice. So, no, Holy Mother Mary would never use such language because she was fully aware of what she was. It was not her position to address that lot and she knew her place and maintained herself to a degree far beyond what we imagine. Much the same reason for why we maintain a Latin Mass in a dead language, free from the stains of the common tongues. But you don’t cease to use the common tongue to admonish, correct and convert others any more than you can pretend that violence is never acceptable under any circumstance. Some may have to accept martyrdom and even make of themselves lambs for easy slaughter, just as our Lord did. But our God also avenges and conquers and decimates, and so there is always a time and placdle to discern when to act.
Keep that in mind before you judge others for getting their hands in the muck where you don’t want to venture.
I am not so pious or holy to not use vulgarity in polite company and have been known to drop an f bomb when really agitated by current events. Nor have I ever claimed to be holy and pious. That was not the point of my comment.
Ann, on the other hand, has made known her piety on her own blog. Her chastisement of those who “are too lazy to get out of bed to attend daily Mass” like she does. Her cracked and sore knees from kneeling so much. Her good and pious devotion to praying 15 decades a day. Praying 15 decades at the grave of a much loved priest. Chastising “Amish” looking women at TLM for not wearing full make up and smart, fashionable (read pricey) clothing, (probably women with 8 kids who barely have time or money to think only of themselves). Perhaps a real vocation would help Ann understand.
My comment was not against the use of all vulgarity in general, it was against her deliberate use of the *** words to describe sodomy acts. There was and is absolutely no JUST REASON nor any NECESSITY which DEMANDS such crude and vulgar language. And if it was so damn necessary….why the hell use asterisks? See what I did there? Lol
I disagree. She is describing exactly how they behave and think. It is unpleasant, but it has to be said, asterisks or not. The enemy counts on using our politeness against ourselves and to their benefit. For example when they put vulgar books and images in educational material for children in schools, but when parents try to point this out at school board panels, they cannot due to the vulgarity of the material that polite adults refuse to say or see, yet apparentlychildren can.
We live in an age where children are taken to see and participate in drag strip shows and consent to having their dicks chopped off and play dress up and pushes are being made to protect and destigmatize pedophilia. These are not nice things to say, but they are happening and people need to be confronted with that fact. Saying it nicely doesn’t work or onlygoes so far. You can only apply so much make-up to a scandal.
Even our Lord had to more vulgarily emphasize that He literally wanted us to eat and drink His flesh and blood, according to translators of the Greek words that more commonly convey the meaning of gnawing like a dog and ripping. His language scandalized those who heard Him. The longer people continue to misunderstand or ignore something, the more it becomes necessary to be more explicit about the danger one is describing.
Nope. Absolutely no reason to use the asterisk words she used to describe the sodomy act. None. Everyone knows what they do. And even IF someone reading her blog didn’t know, then she just ruined their innocence. Hard face palm to you Johnno….I’m through.
Kono, it is not what they do or do not know. It is confronting them to their faces with the things they know but pretend not to know whilst allowing it to continue via selective ignorance.
Those who support homosexuals do so under the pretense that they are just “in love” and need support “living together” and enjoy “rights” granted via government programs and feel equal and not discriminated against. These people selectively edit out the reality of the carnal acts that sodomites engage in which are harmful by only hyper-focusing on the fluff and pretence of sanitized public appearances and secular constitutional privilege jargon.
Confront any one of these about the reality of homosexual acts and watch them squirm. There is a reason that media prefers to use lesbian sex as a vehicle for conditioning rather than men. The former is an easier sell. The male behaviour is vile. Confront supporters with this and you’ll put them on the defensive, ranging from responses that “not all gay men do those things” (a lie), to “why are you so obsessed about what they do in the privacy of their homes?” (Evasion). These can be followed up with whether or not children should be exposed to these things and the fact that they are the ones who refuse to care and refuse to see the long term suffering that such acts do to these men, etc.
The fact that you are disgusted is natural and entirely the point. You, personally, may not need convincing. But many deluded people do. And Barnhardt knows those people visit her blog. If it is too much for you, then this is perhaps a fight that you need not get too involved in as you are unsuited for it. Don’t despair, there are plenty of other ways and things you can do as there is no shortage of work in the vineyard. Simply pause before you get in the way of another arm of the Church Militant doing its job exposing and assaulting the enemy.
Okay, that’s all folks.