Skip to comments.EWTN: A Network Gone Bad- OVERVIEW page 10-15
Posted on 04/07/2011 9:45:42 PM PDT by verdugo
In this discussion I will not employ such terms as "traditionalist," "conservative" or "neo Catholic" to distinguish different "strains" of Catholicism in the post conciliar Church. As useful as such terms may have been in the past, the ecclesial crisis has advanced to the point where one must speak frankly of who is, and who is not, adhering to the Roman Catholic religion in its integrity. This is also necessary because the proponents of New Church have not hesitated to render judgments on the Catholicity of those who have held fast to Tradition during this crisis, denouncing these faithful Catholics simply because they will not embrace the unheard of novelties of the past forty years.
For the good of the Church, this absurd situation must be corrected. As Holy Scripture warns us: "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." For too long EWTN and other "mainstream" aiders and abettors of the post conciliar revolution have been allowed to adorn themselves with the cloak of respectability, while they impugn faithful Catholics who defend Tradition and refuse to follow them down the path of compromise. The cloak must come off so that the truth about these people can be revealed not for their disgrace, but for their own good and, above all else, for the good of the Church.
For as I will demonstrate here, whether or not they understand subjectively that they are Modernists, this is what EWTN and the other post conciliar purveyors of novelty are, objectively speaking. It is, therefore, they, not traditional Roman Catholics, who are theologically suspect. It is they, as the evidence to be presented here will prove, who are advancing novelties that are objectively contrary to the Faith, sacrilegious, scandalous and even offensive to good morals. It is their "new" version of Catholicism, not the perennial practice of the Faith, that ought to be condemned. It is the proponents of New Church, not the adherents of the Catholic Church of all time, who should be examined for their views.
Let me emphasize at the outset that this entire discussion presumes, for the sake of charity, that those responsible for EWTN's Modernist content do not subjectively intend to depart from the Faith. They may even think in their distorted view of the situation a view which leads them to condemn faithful Roman Catholics as I extreme traditionalists" that they are actually defending the Faith. Some may even possess that state of mind Our Lord warned His disciples would be that of the Pharisees: "yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God." (John 16:2) But if they are acting in good faith or out of blindness at present, they will have no excuse for continuing in their course of conduct once they consider (or if they refuse to consider) with an open mind the evidence presented here in this book; and they will no longer be entitled to the presumption that they do not understand that they are promoting Modernism.
In any case, justice, the good of the Church and the good of souls demand that Catholics who are only endeavoring to practice the Faith without alteration not allow themselves to be framed by the accusation, so often leveled by EWTN and other New Church organs, that they are "extreme traditionalists," "disobedient" and even "schismatic." It is time for the accusers, not the accused, to stand trial. For as the evidence will show, it is the accusers, not the accused, who are implicated in the collapse of faith and discipline in the Church since Vatican II.
This book is divided into three parts. In Part I, I lay the groundwork for an understanding of the current crisis in the Church, which the late John Paul II described as "a silent apostasy." I show that this crisis is essentially a resurgence of the Modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X early in the twentieth century a heresy that seeks to alter the very meaning of Catholic doctrine and dogma according to a process of "evolution," to overturn the Church's dogmatic faith and liturgical tradition, to attack the very identity of the Church, and indeed to destroy the very concept of objective truth itself. Others have referred to this process as a "creeping apostasy," which by slow degrees induces Catholics to accept corruptions of the true Faith under the pretense of authentic Catholic teaching "updated" for the times. This, we will see, is the dominant tendency of EWTN's content. In Part II, I discuss in considerable detail EWTN's role in contributing to this Modernist crisis since Mother Angelica's coerced departure. The evidence will show:
First, that EWTN promotes, defends and advances the "New Mass" and all the other "officially" approved reforms" of the liturgy which have broken with Tradition in precisely the ways demanded by the Protestant rebels of the sixteenth century, and practically destroyed Catholic worship and Eucharistic faith over the past forty years, as even high ranking Cardinals have admitted;
Second, that EWTN has, under the guise of a "new understanding" of Catholic dogma since Vatican II, helped to undermine Catholic adherence to (a) the infallibly defined dogma that outside the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved; (b) the closely related constant teaching of the Roman Pontiffs that the only means of achieving Christian unity is the return of the Protestant and schismatic dissidents to the Catholic Church; and (c) the abolition of the Old Covenant in favor of the New Covenant in Christ Jesus, and the consequent objective necessity of Jewish conversion for the salvation of the Jews; Third, that EWTN has promoted and encouraged a Judaizing tendency in the Church not unlike that which confronted the original Jewish Apostles in the first century;
Fourth, that EWTN has excused, defended and promoted sacrilege in Catholic holy places in the name of "interreligious dialogue";
Fifth, that EWTN is contributing to a tendency to replace Roman Catholicism with a common denominator natural religion that deemphasizes adherence to revealed truth as necessary for salvation;
Sixth, that EWTN has advocated a senseless and unCatholic quasi idolatry of the Pope's person that does a grave disservice to the Pope, his office and the Faith;
Seventh, that EWTN is leading the destruction of the traditional Rosary;
Eighth, that EWTN promotes a cult of sexual Gnosticism and "Natural Family Planning" (NFP);
Ninth, that EWTN has generally corrupted the Faith by trying to combine it with rock music and show business in a vain effort to make Catholicism "cool" (EWTN's own word) and appealing to the base instincts of a mass audience;
Tenth, that EWTN attacks and attempts to ostracize from the Church the defenders of Roman Catholic Tradition, and especially those, such as Father Nicholas Gruner, who defend the traditional Catholic understanding of the Message of Fatima and its prophetic relation to the crisis in the Church.
In short, I will show that post Mother Angelica EWTN has become a "moderate" (and therefore more dangerous) Modernist enterprise that presents a corruption of authentic Roman Catholicism passed off as solid orthodoxy, and that as such EWTN is now a serious and highly insidious threat to the integrity of the Faith and a major obstacle to the restoration of the Catholic Church.
In Part III, I will sum up the case against EWTN and New Church in general, in the context of the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI as his successor. And, to conclude, I will suggest ways in which we members of the lay faithful can, with the Message of Fatima in view, work according to our stations in life for an end to the ecclesial crisis over which New Church (including EWTN) presides.
thank you Lorica, please be part of the tar and feather crew next time he posts an incorrect, biased, wrongheaded article
that attacks our Beloved Church.
In St John Bosco’s famous tossing ships dream I can clearly see Verdugo and the company he keeps.
I’m not the tar and feathering type. Catholic tradition is beautiful and good, and there are good traditionalists just as there are good—and bad—Catholics of all kinds. It’s not helpful to make too broad generalizations.
I do like things upfront though, so we all know where we stand; and if someone is a sedevacantist, it ought to be acknowledged. Saying he’s not, and then denying the validity of our popes is a problem.
....tar and feather him with his statements!
I know what he meant.
Sorry, hit post before I was finished.
I know what he meant. I took his words figuratively, as they were intended.
>>Vatican II did not inhibit, replace or otherwise challenged the Tridentine mass. In fact. it explicitly upheld the Latin Mass.<<
So how exactly did the Novus Ordo become the norm? Pope John XXIII was ecstatic. Paul VI promulgated it as the norm, replacing all other forms. No one has thrown it out, yet.
>>This is where I think there is heroism among the SSPX crowd, yet evil among the Sedevacantists: They have done precisely what St. Vincent commended to them, without lapsing into the apostasy and heresy of SSPV.<<
Having dealt with both groups, I find SSPV more admirable for theirs is a principled stand, whereas SSPX is RINO-like in willing to compromise principles to gain power. Just look at Williamson; he’s a snake in the grass.
The people calling me all kinds of names for posting the constant teaching of the Church, have fallen into the same mistake as the sedevacantes, a conundrum (When Catholics who follow antiquity/tradition, do not even need step into debate on those two simplistic, false, conclusions.):
Sedevacantesism (he is not a pope because he teaches error) or Papalolotry (he can't teach error because he is the pope).
It appears that certain people now imagine themselves be reader of minds?
None of the persons calling me a sedevacantes even have a clue what a sedevacantes is. Abp. Lefebvre expelled 9 priests from the SSPX because they were sedevacantes. Those 9 were the beginning of the largest sedevacantes group in the world. I go to an SSPX chapel.
My FR profile says very clearly that I am not a sedevacantes. If I was a sedevacantes, do any of you think that I would lie about it? Do you think that I'm scared of ANYONE, or embarrassed to say the truth? Give me a break.
If the EWTN supporters don't have anything to offer in the arena of ideas to counter what the author or I posted on the thread, do yourselves a favor, and go study the faith. Character assassinations, I've seen, it's the modus operandi of the commies/liberals/progressivists/leftist I've been fighting for 30 years. It's not a Catholic technique of debate.
Catholics possess truth, the truth is easy to defend. If people have a hard time defending their position, it is likely that they do not possess the truth, or are just deficient in their knowledge of the faith.
"Those that have eyes to see let them see".
- Read the eigth commandment http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm
And where exactly did I “deny the validity of our popes”?
The Roman Catholic Church Condemned Pope Honorius I as a Heretic and Excommunicated Him some 40+ years after he had died. He was excommunicated, and his remains were removed from consecrated ground of the Catholic cemetery, and cast to the four winds. He was excommunicated for seeming to side with, or at least not fighting a heresy of his time:
Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.
Honorius actively maintained the heresy in official papal letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople in reply to a formal consultation and to several other individuals. He did this at a crucial time, when Sergius was backing off before the objections of St. Sophronius. Thus began a tragedy that would afflict the whole Church. The Monothelites were able to argue that all the teachers of the orthodox faith had confessed their doctrine, including Sergius of Constantinople and Honorius of Rome.
III Constantinople condemned Honorius in his official papal capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some apologists still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.
To give a brief summary from the Councils acts, which are quoted more fully later where it is clear that Honorius is being spoken of:
We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius] we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.
In order to approve the decrees of the Council, Pope St. Leo II (681-3) wrote to the Emperor that he anathematised Honorius because he endeavoured by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church, not because of mere negligence (as some also lie).
Nec non et Honorium [anathematizamus], qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolicæ traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est. (Mansi, Tom. XI. p. 731)
The Council of Trullo (692) repeated the condemnation.
Two succeeding ecumenical councils ratified the sentence, Council II Nicea (787) and IV Constantinople (869-70). Popes approved both.
From the eighth to the eleventh century all new popes had to swear in their Papal Oath before assuming the office that they accepted that III Constantinople had authoritatively anathematised Honorius. This is found in the Liber Pontificalis and in the Liber Diurnus.
The lessons in the Roman Breviary for the office of St. Leo II listed until the sixteenth century Honorius among those excommunicated by III Constantinople.
First we shall give the testimony of historians regarding the condemnation of Honorius and then we shall give extracts from the acts of the councils in which the condemnation was given, linking also to the full texts.
Testimony of historians
First we cite the Roman Catholic historian and bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Joseph von Hefele (1809-1893). His work on the ecumenical councils is very highly regarded by Catholic theologians.
The standard work of Hefeles, however, is the Conciliengeschichte in seven volumes, reaching to the fifteenth century and embracing the history of dogma, canon law, liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and political history, so far as necessary. Von Funk rightly says that as one of the most detailed and thorough works on church history, it has attained a prominent place in the learned literature of our time. (Johannes Baptist Sägmüller, Karl Joseph von Hefele, Catholic Encyclopedia 1910)
He wrote of the condemnations of Honorius as follows.
It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic! That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:
At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign...to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.
Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.
Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus!
Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.
After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them.
In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.
In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome...the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself...We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present...besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.
It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc. The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius. (A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).
Next we shall cite the testimony given in The Seven Ecumenical Councils by Henry R. Percival, which is likewise very informative on the matter. He wrote, most Roman controversialists of recent years have admitted both the fact of Pope Honoriuss condemnation, and the Monothelite (and therefore heretical) character of his epistles.
I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.
2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.
3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.
4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that the originator of all evil ... found a fit tool for his will in ... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.
5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome they had punished with exclusion and anathema because he followed the monothelites.
6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it has slain with anathema Honorius.
7. The imperial decree speaks of the unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed and mentions among them Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself. The Emperor goes on to anathematize Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.
8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.
Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.
9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).
10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.
11. Honoriuss name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasiuss life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)
12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the [eighth] to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.
13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.
With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899))
Unsurprisingly, some Catholic theologians deceived on this matter and some apologists still do, refusing to admit that the pope was condemned and excommunicated as a heretic by the council.
[They] have been driven to desperate efforts. Some pronounce the acts of the Council, which exist in Greek and Latin, downright forgeries (Baronius); others, admitting the acts, declare the letters of Honorius forgeries, so that he was unjustly condemned by the Council (Bellarmin)both without a shadow of proof; still others, being forced at last to acknowledge the genuineness of the letters and acts, distort the former into an orthodox sense by a non-natural exegesis, and thus unwillingly fasten upon cumenical Councils and Popes the charge of either dogmatic ignorance and stupidity, or malignant representation. So Perrone, in his Dogmatics, and Pennachi, in his Liber de Honorii I. Rom. Pont. causa , 1870, which is effectually disposed of by Hefele in an Appendix to the German edition of his tract. (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom)
Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils. All newly elected popes had to profess his condemnation before they could assume their office until the eleventh century and all Latin priests recited it in their breviary until the sixteenth. It is incredible that ecumenical councils under the care of papal legates and approved by popes would anathematize and excommunicate a pope without the utmost care and that Rome would have all her popes and priests confess it for a thousand years were it not justified. There is no room for doubt here. His heretical letters were burnt by order of the council and only a scrap survived; it is ridiculous that some should try to construct a case to acquit Honorious on the basis of the scrap and in the face of so much historical testimony.
Extracts from the councils
Ecumenical Council of III Constantinople
Session XIII: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. (online text)
Session XVI: Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches! O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith! Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate! To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul the heretic, anathema! To Peter the heretic, anathema! To Macarius the heretic, anathema! To Stephen the heretic, anathema! To Polychronius the heretic, anathema! To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema! To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema! May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council! (online text)
Session XVIII: The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation. (online text)
The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor: Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler of Rome, as he followed them in these things. (online text)
Letter of the Council to Pope St. Agatho: And by his help we have overthrown the error of impiety, having as it were laid siege to the nefarious doctrine of the heretics. And then tearing to pieces the foundations of their execrable heresy, and attacking them with spiritual and paternal arms, and confounding their tongues that they might not speak consistently with each other, we overturned the tower built up by these followers of this most impious heresy; and we slew them with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God, that we may express ourselves after the manner of David, in accordance with the sentence already given concerning them in your letter, and their names are these: Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter. (online text)
The Imperial Edict Publicly Posted: As he [emperor Constantine] recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy; further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy. In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved. Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle; if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities. (online text)
Council of Trullo
Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet that which was written for the security of future generations. This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God. (online text)
Ecumenical Council of IV Constantinople
Exposition of Faith: Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod [Constantinople III], which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason. (online text)
Ecumenical Council II Nicea
The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress: And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius, the frenzy of Macedonius, the senseless understanding of Appolinarius, the man-worship of Nestorius, the irreverent mingling of the natures devised by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the many-headed hydra which is their companion. We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will. Finally, taught by the Spirit, from whom we have drawn pure water, we have with one accord and one soul, altogether wiped out with the sponge of the divine dogmas the newly devised heresy, well-worthy to be classed with those just mentioned, which springing up after them, uttered such empty nonsense about the sacred icons. And the contrivers of this vain, but revolutionary babbling we have cast forth far from the Churchs precincts. (online text)
The heretic, Pope Honorius I
>> So how exactly did the Novus Ordo become the norm? Pope John XXIII was ecstatic. Paul VI promulgated it as the norm, replacing all other forms. No one has thrown it out, yet. <<
My entire point was that the modern liturgical abuses, let lone the licit Novus Ordo mass had anything to do with Vatican II, so it’s not an issue of the doctrines of Vatican II contradicting previous doctrines. As for me, I eagerly look forward to the “reform of the reform,”
>>Having dealt with both groups, I find SSPV more admirable for theirs is a principled stand, whereas SSPX is RINO-like in willing to compromise principles to gain power. <<
There’s nothing principled or courageous is participating in no dialog, only slander. SSPV isn’t analogous to Tea-Party Republicans; they’re analogous to Montana separatists. SSPX is analogous to the Constitution Party.
>>Just look at Williamson; hes a snake in the grass. <<
Why? because he’s an anti-semite, or because he accepted discipline and apologized? Because the SSPC has a fanatical obsession with the Jews.
>> And where exactly did I deny the validity of our popes? <<
If you’re not denying the validity of our popes, why do waste our time with so many endless screens filled with establishing the historical precedent of anathematizing a pope?
But just for the record: Pope Honorius I was anathamatized for assenting to a heresy while under duress.
Now, why do you think the popes had to assent to the anathema of Honorius? Because he had adopted a false theological belief, (i.e., a heresy)? What lessen would they find in reiterating the anathematization?
No, they condemned Honorius because he had cowardly signed off on a heretical position, presuming him to have known better! If he had NOT known better, why bother with assenting to his condemnation? Were the monothelites so menacing to the 11th century church? Of course not, what was then menacing, and what is now menacing, was the fear that a pope would permit and even participate in the promulgation of a heresy THAT HE REASONABLY KNEW TO BE FALSE, out of duress.
Do you have a source link?
I’m not going to read all that.
I asked for a simple yes or no answer from you multiple times, as to whether or not you considered Pope Benedict to be a valid pope. NOT whether or not you considered him to be validly elected. Dancing around with semantics won’t get the job done, will it?
If you’re not going to SAY whether YOU consider Pope Benedict to be a valid pope, after multiple requests...I can only infer that you’re not willing to do so.
We will agree to disagree. My PERSONAL interactions with both groups left me with different opinions than yours.
re: If youre not going to SAY whether YOU consider Pope Benedict to be a valid pope, after multiple requests...I can only infer that youre not willing to do so.
You didn’t answer my question below, about your false accusation. and I did answer you already, too many answers, a waste of my time. I’ve explained a bunch of times and in different words that I’m not a sedevacantes, that B16 is the valid pope, that none other was elected. If you really knew what a sedevacantes is, no further explanation would be necessary from me, than what I wrote in my profile.
verdugo asked: And where exactly did I deny the validity of our popes?
That's your conundrum because you are the other side of the coin of sedevacanteism, you have fallen into the same mistake as the sedevacantes, a conundrum (I am a Catholic that follows antiquity/tradition, I do not even need step into debate on those two simplistic, false, conclusions.)
Sedevacantesism (he is not a pope because he teaches error) or Papalolotry (he can't teach error because he is the pope).
The point of posting Pope Honorius is that he was a validly elected pope who as history records, was a good pope in all matters but this "heresy affair", for which he was excommunicated. The point is that it could easily happen again. It is historical legal precedence. The post-Vatican II popes have taught much worse errors than Pope Honorius I, none infallible, but then neither did Honorius or any pope.
POST VATICAN II ERRORS - ECUMENISM MOVEMENT- ALWAYS CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH:
Excerps from "Mortalium Animos", Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, On Religious Unity, January 6, 1928.
2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism andatheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one". And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a mostgrave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those schemes which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you". For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. 10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.
No, you didn't.
Pope Honorius is the exact historical cause for the recognition of the third condition of infallibility: The Pope must promulgate the doctrine publicly and out of his own free will. Thus, the anathema of Honorius accuses him of "not attempt[ing] to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitt[ing] its purity to be polluted."
You must either accept that Vatican II was not doctrinal, and therefore cannot be heresy, or was doctrinal, and is therefore correct. As for me, I don't accept the sort of assertions by NTHockey that Vatican II wasn't doctrinal. Vatican II made doctrinal statements agreed to a consensus of all bishops, including Lefebvre; Lefebvre only turned against Vatican II upon seeing its implementation, not based on the assertion that anything stated was heretical. Honorius' heretical statements were not made in free will, and was countered by overwhelming opposition; you're asserting that EVERY BISHOP IN THE ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH, LeFEBVRE INCLUDED is a heretic, since every bishop assented to Vatican II.. That's a far cry from Honorius' situation.
NTHockey denies the intent to establish doctrine. To me, that's irrelevant. The popes and the unanimity of bishops made doctrinal statements. That meets the condition of Vatican I's definition of infallible. While much of Vatican II wasn't doctrinal, and the purpose of assembling Vatican II wasn't doctrinal, but it contained matters that were doctrinal.
However, there's a slight out through which I had previously declined to call NTHockey a sedevacantist: One could argue that the bishops may have failed to correct doctrinally false matters not because they personally held such heretical opinions, but they failed to recognize the need for such opposition. As such, although every bishop would be heretic, they would not be united in which heresy they promulgated. But that's a historical stretch.
Sorry, NT: SSPV are openly, proudly, sedevacantist. I can't presume why you perfer them to the SSPX, but I certainly can't presume you don't share their sedevacantism unless you come up with an argument which would be novel to me, and which dissociates yourself from them.
Catholics are convinced by quoting doctrine from authorities:
Cardinal Ratzinger's (today Pope Benedict XVI)address to the Chilean bishops in 1988:
"There are many accounts of it [the Second Vatican Council] which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."
re: Doesnt Vatican II teach some things that are the opposite of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church?
In all the discussions and debates I've engaged in with traditionalist, who I respect for their knowledge on the subject, they have shown me how everything that appears to be the opposite of what was consistently taught, actually can be interpreted according to tradition. It's an odd thing about Vatican II, it appears that the ambiguities are there as a snare for anyone that wishes to interpret Vatican II against 1900+ of consistent teaching, but they are not there for those who follow what the Cchurch has always taught:
Why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur in Vatican II. ?
"Considering all that I have said thus far, especially concerning the ulterior motives of the liberal prelates and their virtual hijacking of Vatican II, I think Scripture has an answer as to why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur. In short, there is an interesting working principle in Scripture. As a punishment for your sin, God will allow you to pursue, and be condemned by, what you sinfully desire. This is what I believe happened at Vatican II. The progressivist bishops and theologians sought for a way to push their heterodox ideas into the Church, so God allowed them to do so, as a witness and judgment against them. He would allow the Council to have its "ambiguities" so that those who would interpret them contrary to nineteen centuries of established Catholic dogma, would lead themselves into sin, and ultimately into God's judgment. Unfortunately, as is always the case, the sheep suffer for what the shepherds do wrong, and as a result, we have all been wandering in the spiritual desert of liberal theology for the past 40 years." (Article from Catholic Family News, Feb 2003, by Robert Sungenis)(1)
(1) In fact, the bad shepherds may be a chastisement for the sins of the sheep. Saint John Eudes, basing his words on Sacred Scripture, says that when God wants to punish his people, he sends them bad priests. See The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations, by Saint John Eudes, Chapter 2, "Qualities of a Holy Priest". (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947).
Because of the ambiguities and double speak in the Vatican II, and many of the documents that came from the post Vatican II bishops, using Vatican II to justify all kinds of changes, departures from antiquity/tradition, I would not advise just anyone to seek answers about the Faith from Vatican II and would be leary of any theologian that exclusively refers to it.
See my post #65 and let’s leave it at that. I have fought this battle so many times that it is not worth it anymore. Nobody gets convinced or swayed and a lot of time and energy is wasted. If it makes you feel better to label me a sedevacantist or heretic or nut, fine. It makes no difference to me.
>> The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, <<
There’s quite a massive difference between defining no dogma, and containing no dogma. What Benedict is saying is that Vatican II neither contradicts nor adds to any dogma. There are certainly , however, doctrinal statements, which were approved by the consensus of bishops; Lumen Gentium has little to do with pastoral issues, for instance, and everything to do with doctrine.
What Benedict is doing in fact is precisely what you ought to be commending him for, yet instead insist he’s a heretic because of: he’s establishing that to the bishops that the ancient doctrine must be adhered to, and that any appearances of contradicting ancient doctrine are mere illusions based on poorly chosen or ambuguious wordings.
That’s MY position, not yours.
You’re the one insisting that it’s heresy, remember? You’re the one calling even Benedict a heretic.
Exactly, and since it does not add, and becuase it is loaded with ambiguities and double speak, I do not need to use it for anything. I can quote prior councils popes, and encyclicals which say everything clearly:
HOW DID THE PROGRESSIVISTS HIJACK VATICAN II?
SCHOLASTICISM, the apex of 1900+ years of perfecting theological and philosophical language, WAS ABANDONED AT VATICAN II for patched up, incoherent, more appropriate to a Babel and its confusion of languages:
The progressivists at Vatican II succeeded in deliberately abandoning the rigor of precise language. The only ecumenical council to do so in the history of Catholicism. They abandoned Scholasticism, which is nothing but the apex of a long process of perfecting theological and philosophical language, a process unleashed by the polemics between the Fathers and Catholic doctors, and the heresies and errors that sprung up during the first twelve centuries of the Christian era. Indeed, in the battles waged in favor of orthodoxy, nothing was more indispensable than a systematization of, the elaboration of a highly precise technical language placed at their service. This prevented the infiltration of ambiguous expressions that could favor the promoters of error. So great was the effort made to clearly express theological and philosophical concepts that finding precise terms and formulas that left no shadow of doubt about a controversial doctrinal point was like discovering a treasure.
Explaining the origin, nature and excellence of Scholastic doctrine, Pope Sixtus V 1588 stated:
"By the divine generosity of Him who alone imparts the spirit of wisdom and, along the ages and according to necessity, ceases not to enrich His Church with new benefits and endow her with new defenses, our forefathers, men of profound science, invented Scholastic theology. , assiduous zeal, great works and vigils, cultivated this science, enriched it and gave it as a legacy to future generations, organized in perfect order, amply and admirably developed. Undoubtedly the knowledge and habit of such a wholesome science, which emanates from the most fecund sources of the Sacred Scriptures, the holy Fathers and the Councils, has been an invaluable help to the Church at all times, whether to facilitate a wholesome comprehension and true interpretation of the Scriptures, to read and explain the Fathers with greater assurance and usefulness, or to unmask and refute the several errors and heresies; but these latter days, which have brought us the critical times predicted by the Apostle, in which blasphemous, proud and seductive men make progress in evil, erring themselves and leading others into error, the science of which we speak is more than ever necessary to confirm the dogmas of the Catholic faith and refute heresies." (Sixtus V. Bull Triumphantis, 1588, in Leo XIII, Encyclical Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879 (Petropolis: Vozes, 1960), n. 28.)
Thus, Scholastic Theology and Philosophy gradually built over the centuries an invulnerable wall protecting Revelation and the Magisterium from the insidious attacks of adversaries. That is why they deserved such high praise from Sixtus V, who saw in them "this tight and perfect cohesion between cause and effect, this symmetry and order resembling those of an army in battle array, these luminous definitions and distinctions, this solidity of argumentation and subtlety in controversy by means of which light is separated from darkness, truth distinguished from error and the lies of heresy, deprived of the prestige and fictions enveloping them, are unveiled and laid bare. (Ibid n. 23)
Nevertheless, the language adopted by Vatican II discarded that tight and perfect cohesion between cause and effect, those luminous definitions and distinctions, that solidity in argumentation typical of Scholastic language. They discarded that Scholastic perfection in favor of texts that were "patched up","worked over", "incoherent", "promiscuous , "more appropriate to a "Babel" and its "confusion of languages (these various expressions are used by renowned theologians).
That which the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of old feared, was thus achieved: the entrance of ambiguity into the expression of theological thinking.
re: Youre the one insisting that its heresy, remember? Youre the one calling even Benedict a heretic.
Please copy and paste in italics my exact words, when you accuse me of saying something. If not, it is called detraction.
>>>>re: Youre the one insisting that its heresy, remember? Youre the one calling even Benedict a heretic. <<<<
>>Please copy and paste in italics my exact words, when you accuse me of saying something. If not, it is called detraction. <<
>>>>”... all 5 Vatican II popes are not even Catholic. Pope St. Pius X would have excommunicated all five before they even became bishops.”<<<<
Play all the stupid games you want. It’s called deceit.
I stand by what I wrote above. However, you state that I called B16 or JPII heretics, which I didn't. If I called them heretics, I would have to prove it, and that's very difficult for me to prove, same as to prove that Vat II contains heresies. Besides, I have no authority to enforce the charge.
Your calling “playing stupid” and deceitful is detraction. This is a complicated matter as both JPII and B16 are progressivists. The progressivist never says outright anything heretical that is not duplicitous, that can't be interpreted some "orthodox" way. I've learned over the years not to go that route. I'll let the proper authorities, the popes of the future judge them. You, just like the sedevacantes ( who make the same arguments against me, from the other side) make things simple in your minds, because this is a difficult matter, that you can't comprehend. I on the other hand do not presume to understand.
However, I will say again that “Pope St. Pius X would have excommunicated all five before they even became bishops”.
O right. I’m sure you meant Pius X would have had them excommunicated for having overdue library books. I think you’ve exposed yourself for what you are quite plainly for any future reference. I have no further reason to deal with you.
That ain't Catholic.
That's the way you do it.
Cast aspersions on the guy in Rome.
Crap all over the Eastern Catholics.
The KKK will feel right at home.
We've got to sell some ancient crock-ry
Romantic notions, hey-ey-ey-ey
We'll rehab Williamson now
And call Mel Gibson today-ay-ay-ay.
I want my, I want my, I want my, Popeless Church;
I want my, I want my, I want my, Popeless Church;
Doctrine by Lefevre, and no Eastern Church;
I want my, I want my, I want my, Popeless Church...